Even though the Vancouver Sun article about PR card application processing times is more than six months old, it is one of the better media reports about issues like this. Thus, reference to this Vancouver Sun article is indeed a good source of information. Thanks for the reminder
vop.
In particular, it is a reminder that the increased presence requirements for Canadian citizenship undoubtedly led to a much larger number of PRs needing to renew their PR cards (definitely in the tens of thousands, perhaps as many as two hundred thousand or even more), and thus contributed significantly to the length of delays in processing.
Unfortunately for those referred to SR, priorities in the allocation of resources were probably to handle the routine applications, leaving SR cases to wallow.
The particular individual who is the primary subject of the article falls into the SR group. At the time of the article, her PR card application had been in process for nearly two years. In addition to being an H&C case, which alone tends to take longer to process, her PR had conditions applicable to investor class PR, and it appears she has traveled abroad while the application was pending. Her time abroad also appears to have been spent in Sri Lanka, which is one of those parts of the world which, it appears, tends to invite more scrutiny leading to longer processing times. All of this illustrates particular factual circumstances which are likely causes for how long the processing has taken for her in particular, and thus illustrates how individual cases vary generally.
Temporary status documents:
Note, I agree with the lawyer's observation (in the Vancouver Sun article) that IRCC should implement issuing temporary status documents for those PRs in this situation. The probable reason why this has not been done is cost and the inertia which infects almost all bureaucracies, and perhaps some reliance (by IRCC) on justifications rooted in thinking the problem is relatively temporary (due to confluence of circumstances leading to backlog in PR card application processing), and regarding SR cases in particular, only affects a relatively small number of PRs, too small to warrant the expense of adding an essentially new process to include a new form of a status document. The lawyer suggests this could be a "letter," but a letter alone is not likely to work for most of the reasons a PR card is ordinarily needed, such as to establish qualification for health care or to travel back to Canada from abroad.
Note: There is a process for issuing PR cards with one-year validity for PRs appealing the denial of a PR TD.
My suggestion would be that IRCC consider expanding that to include PRs referred to SR so long as SR cases are taking a year or longer to process.
From the PR stuck in SR side of this, as I have noted before, many might benefit from going abroad and applying for a PR TD . . . which could accelerate the SR process or at the least trigger a denial which, in turn, would allow the PR to appeal and obtain the one-year PR card. Of course this is only feasible for
some PRs stuck in SR, recognizing that for many it isn't a viable option and for more than a few this is not likely to resolve the issues underlying the SR. Those with H&C cases, in particular, should avoid the risks of leaving Canada at all pending the outcome. For some, travel abroad without guaranteed means of returning to Canada is too risky. These are among other circumstances in which the PR is essentially stuck until the PR card application process is finished.
vop said:
Also, @dpenabill, none of us are taking discussions on this thread about possible timelines/reasons beyond face value. We're just trying to see if anyone's file is moving and maybe its related/maybe its not but its difficult for those of us who are waiting for a long time to figure out what is going on with our files. And its more of an fyi to others to at least see if they need to either order case notes, contact CIC etc.
While you are probably speaking for a number of those who participate in this (and other related) topics, there is nonetheless also a salient thread in the discussion here which tends to address the SR issue as if all SRs are created equal and in that are equally unwarranted and abusive.
Thus, for example, there are observations by
Ramik which are more or less consistent with your perspective, one which recognizes the vagaries of non-routine processing generally and the variables in SR processing in particular. And thus recognizes that reports about timelines offer some rough idea about how long the process is taking for some, while nonetheless otherwise recognizing that there is no fixed timeline for SR processing, no queue as such, and thus for any particular individual stuck in SR processing, the timeline can vary extensively, and for sure there is no guarantee.
In contrast, there is more than an occasional post in this topic characterizing SR as an arbitrary imposition which is not driven by fact-based criteria, but rather is about "either incompetent or lazy" IRCC personnel, and that SR cases are essentially all on a similar track through the system. None of which is accurate. There are some here who state that the processing times posted by IRCC are "fake." That is, while there is a lot of good discussion and genuine observations posted in this topic, there is also plenty of misleading or outright misinformation.
When a relative new-comer to the SR issue comes into the discussion and poses a question like
gauri.gupta08 did,
"Is the 17 month time frame from the date of application received OR from 'we sent you correspondence...'?"
it warrants a reminder no particular time frame applies, let alone a 17 month time frame, let alone one based on any particular date, such as the date the application was received, or the date of other communication in the process; it warrants a reminder that SR cases are very individual.
This topic is the highest profile topic about being referred to SR (and is often linked when SR related queries are posed in other topics). Those who only recently have been notified of a SR referral deserve to know that actually some SR cases are resolved in relatively short order (some reports suggest barely a couple months or so longer than routine processing), while others can take a very long time. Median timelines offer little more than some sense of how long it takes for many.
tonymiz said:
Why would there be inquiries overseas or to CSIS, this is PR card renewal!! We live in this country and they can trigger security check if they want to whenever they want, but this should not stop us from getting a new crad...PR card renewal assessment should be based on RO only. Also in ATIP, the only assessment shown is RO, while security was "not applicable". Are they lying?
Security checks should be handled seperately and should not block PR card! We are not rebewing PR status, we are renewing the card only! I do not get it.
Also, it took less time to be a PR , how come these checks are taking 17 months?? I believe PR applications requirw more extensive security and background checks and yet they take less time!
"Why would there be inquiries overseas or to CSIS, this is PR card renewal!!"
To be eligible for a new PR card, the PR must have valid PR status and not be inadmissible. As I previously noted, SR is not directly about compliance with the PR Residency Obligation,
even if a concern about compliance with the PR RO is
a factor among those factors which triggered the SR.
In particular, a positive Residency Determination is not necessarily sufficient to be issued a new PR card.
You are among others who have, in one way or another, dismissed the idea that who gets SR is a fact-based, criteria driven decision, and you appear to dismiss that the review being done is rooted in resolving fact-based issues related to admissibility.
While we, in the public, including clients of IRCC, including myself, are not privy to much about what goes on in the SR process, it almost certainly is a fact-based, criteria driven process. In particular, however, it warrants recognizing that
suspicion of fraud appears to be the most common focus of SR inquiries and investigations. That does not mean every PR subject to SR is accused of fraud, or even necessarily suspected of engaging in a particular fraud. It means IRCC identified some reasons to suspect the possibility of fraud (or a security concern), and will review the PR's case . . . the issue or concern may be one easily resolved, in which case the SR is not likely to be all that long. Or, as I suggested earlier, it may be a concern regarding which IRCC will make a referral to another government body, which may be CBSA, the RCMP, an overseas Visa Office, CSIS, or even authorities in other governments, and such referrals may be in the nature of a simple inquiry or it may involve a request to conduct an investigation.
Unfortunately the process is not transparent but, rather, is confidential, done
behind-closed-curtains one might key.
This is standard for all investigatory processes, even as to methods for verifying straight-forward factual issues like amount of presence in Canada, but especially so for any methods related to inquiries or investigations involving concerns about fraud or security issues. Thus, for example, eCas reveals little or nothing and even a client ATIP request will fail to generate a response which illuminates much at all if anything about what review is actually taking place.
That noted, there used to be more transparency, and more information provided to the public, so some of what I describe above derives from known
past procedures, when there was more public information about inter-agency or inter-department referrals. And there was a period of time in which I was among a group of people very active in seeking information through the ATI process (which is distinguishable from the ATIP process, which is to obtain records related to a particular person; since becoming a citizen I have been a lot less active in doing more extensive and sometimes aggressive research).
Bottom-line: SR is more likely about suspected fraud or a security concern, about the validity of the PR's status (about potential inadmissibility), than it is about whether the PR met the PR Residency Obligation.
For many in SR, perhaps most, this derives more from the appearance of things rather than actual fraud or a security concern. Which means, for these individuals, it is merely a matter of time until the PR is, in effect,
cleared, and a new PR card is issued.
I fully agree that the current SR processing time is excessive, and that IRCC should either make a diligent effort to reduce the processing time, to well under a year, or implement the issuance of temporary status documents pending the disposition of the SR.
I do not know how many PRs are actually burdened with the lengthy SR process, nor what the particular criteria are triggering SR, so I do not have an opinion about whether or not the scope of the criteria employed is overly broad. I do know, however, that IRCC is mandated to enforce IRPA and thus is charged with the responsibility to pursue the investigation of any PR suspected of fraud or being a security risk.
In the latter regard, a reminder: the scope of potential fraud subject to investigation in SR extends to
the PR's entire immigration history, not just the application for a new PR card. Thus, for example, if IRCC perceives any reason to suspect any misrepresentation in any former transaction with IRCC, CIC, or CBSA, no matter how long ago, IRCC is
required to investigate and determine the PR's admissibility.
