vop said:
Its just that almost everyone from 2014-2015 under 800 days was getting referred.
The correlation between
cutting-it-close and what CIC, now IRCC, identifies as a reason to elevate scrutiny (including both applicants issued the equivalent of RQ from the local office as well as those referred for Secondary Review), goes beyond just the numbers. As I previously observed, PRs who do not appear to be settled and living in Canada permanently, who thus do not appear to have immigrated consistent with the purpose of being granting PR status, are more likely to be targeted for further inquiries and investigation.
Note about 2014 and into 2015: it appears that during that time period Minister Alexander (Harper really holding the reins) CIC may have been deliberately engaged in an overly broad sweep of PR card applicants similar to what CIC had done in 2012 (Jason Kenney then Minister) relative to citizenship applicants, pursuant to which very broad criteria were utilized, which was done in part to escalate the interdiction of fraud but also done to compile comparative data for use in refining the criteria employed. In the citizenship context that almost brought citizenship application processing to a standstill, resulting in a timeline of 18 months to two years for even the most routine applications, and a large number of non-routine applications slipped well beyond three years, some even four.
Nonetheless, my sense is there will continue to be a higher correlation between
cutting-it-close and what IRCC identifies as a reason to elevate scrutiny, so that those who
cut-it-close will continue to have a higher risk of a local office residency assessment or a referral to Secondary Review.
vop said:
I dont think getting a PRTD would make much of a difference.
It depends on whether what is primarily in issue is merely an assessment of compliance with the PR Residency Obligation or something more. If the primary issue is compliance with the PR RO, a Residency Determination done by the visa office in processing a PR TD application will resolve that issue. That determination will be revisited in Sydney or the local office, but if that was the primary issue there is a good prospect this would accelerate the issuance of a new PR card.
Similarly under the pre-August urgent processing request process: many who were in SR were denied urgent processing. But some in SR reported that they did indeed soon get a PR card after properly requesting urgent processing. I do not know for sure, but my strong sense is that these were cases in which the primary issue, at least the primary issue outstanding at the time of the request for urgent processing, was a Residency Determination, an assessment of compliance with the PR RO, and these PRs were indeed processed urgently and if there were any other concerns or issues, urgent processing was denied.
The problem, as I have made a concerted effort to highlight, is that many if not most SR cases involve something more or other than an assessment for compliance with the PR RO. So most in SR are, indeed, not particularly likely to accelerate their PR card application by applying for either a PR TD or urgent processing.
vop said:
Yes, many have received their cards out of order too because during this process, before the new urgent process rules went into effect in late August, those who submitted under previous rules could also have been put into the urgent queue and got it processed.
Reminder: Urgent processing has long (always?) been
discretionary, and even now with urgent processing limited to more or less emergency or compelling circumstances, there is no automatically moving up the queue no matter what the emergency is.
Chrome said:
I still think it's all about residency investigation and determination. The reason for the processing delay may be just the backlog the second-review team has.
The GCMS notes show if there are any pending assessments of security, criminality, or misrepresentation. If they are working on these issues I don't see any reason for not updating the system with the results. Anyone stuck in the secondary review queue can check for himself and see if his record is being updated or not.
It is probably correct that the reason for how long SR is taking is indeed likely to be in large part about a backlog and processing these cases is a low priority (compared to processing routine applications for example, and especially compared to processing the issuance of new PR cards for recently landed PRs).
Otherwise, again, there is a huge difference between a "residency investigation" and a routine "Residency Determination" (that is, the assessment of compliance with the PR Residency Obligation). And something more than the latter is ordinarily involved when there is a referral for SR.
GCMS notes will not necessarily show if there are pending security or misrepresentation investigations, and indeed will ordinarily
NOT show these. As noted before, this aspect of processing is
confidential and even the respective fields in GCMS, let alone the entries in those fields, are invisible (redacted) in the reports generated for clients.
A field for routine RCMP clearances may appear including entry indicating whether it is completed or is pending, and if completed that means there should be no concern about criminality based on criminal charges or convictions in Canada, but is no indication of much at all beyond that. Of course, the PR himself or herself knows whether there are any criminal charges or convictions in Canada, so that should be no mystery to the PR, no ATIP request necessary to obtain that information. Since inadmissibility has been expanded to also apply to serious criminality for comparable crimes abroad, whether or not inquiries abroad for the purpose of checking criminal records will be reflected in the report from GCMS issued to clients, I do not know. But here too, if an issue of this sort is lurking in the PR's history, that is something the PR should be well aware of, again with no need to make the ATIP request to learn of it.
Indication of investigation for misrepresentation will only show in GCMS (for purposes of what is divulged or copied to clients) once a formal report alleging inadmissibility is made. The investigation is done by that time. And it would be likely that the PR would have received a formal allegation of such by that time. In the meantime, ATIP responses are
not likely to alert a PR if there is an inquiry or investigation into possible misrepresentation (especially any related to earlier transactions with CIC or IRCC in which IRCC is concerned there might have been misrepresentations made).
Toward Understanding These Observations In Context:
While a lot of what is involved in SR is legally behind closed curtains, there is no reason to suspect that IRCC's approach is capricious or arbitrary, let alone nefarious or malicious. Many, perhaps most participants here understand the context and have a good grasp of the overall process, and
their complaint is rightfully that the timeline is excessive. But a significant part of this topic tends to characterize SR as an abusive burden arbitarily imposed on innocent PRs for little or no reason.
To the extent that qualified PRs are dragged into the SR process, yes that is a problem, but that is a problem that could and should be addressed by either a more timely process to resolve questions, or the implementation of alternatives which would provide PRs with at least temporary status documents pending the resolution of IRCC's concerns.
But it would be a mistake to underestimate the extent to which those referred to SR are likely being scrutinized for some particular
suspicion and it is most likely not merely about whether or not the PR spent at least 730 days in Canada within the previous five years.
And let's be honest: the fact of
suspicion probably is a large part of why addressing the excessive timeline is among the lower priorities for IRCC and the government generally.
There is no overt requirement that a PR must deserve to keep PR status in order to keep PR status. Only a fool fails to recognize, however, that the extent to which it appears that a PR deserves (or does not deserve) to keep PR status can have a big impact on how things go. And PRs who appear to be exploiting Canada's immigration system tend to give the impression they might not deserve to keep PR status.
Re Purpose of lenient PR Residency Obligation:
In this regard, from another topic:
vop said:
I do think the IRPA kept the rules flexible (2 out of 5 years) for the globalized world that we live in and its not just for emergencies as some have suggested. It is to allow people to work elsewhere if they want to but to ensure that they establish here at some point or be based out of here and live here. It is the main reason imo that they didnt revisit the rules even in bill c-24 because they felt it would harm intra company employees, high ranking executives etc.
I do not have the time now, but I have already previously linked (including, as I recall, earlier in this specific topic, and over the years in multiple topics) a number of
official decisions, statements of law by Federal Court justices explicitly stating that the purpose of granting PR status is for permanent settlement in Canada and that the two year
minimum presence requirement is deliberately flexible and generous in order to accommodate a wide range of contingencies and demands which PRs
sometimes experience. The context for these statements of the law (statements by Federal Court justices are part of the official, applicable law) is typically about denying H&C relief, noting that the rule is intended to be flexible enough to accommodate all but the most unusual emergencies and or compelling circumstances (such as a minor who is taken out of Canada by parents, the minor having no say). In addition to the Federal Court decisions, however, there are scores of IAD decisions which cite very similar language, about the purpose of the generous minimum presence requirement and its application.
It is one thing to speculate about the reasons for a law or rule, but in this regard no speculation is warranted because official sources of law have explicitly stated the purpose of the generous and flexible PR RO rules.
Nonetheless, there is
no doubt that two years in Canada, in the previous five,
satisfies the requirements. 730 days in the previous 1825 days is enough.
What PRs who spend extended periods of time abroad need to be aware of is that those who [i[cut-it-close[/i]
AND otherwise do not appear to be fully settled in Canada, or settling in Canada,
can expect elevated scrutiny and delays.
Among the many examples of frustration reported in this forum, it is fairly common to see a PR who has spent less than half his or her time in Canada, who still has work or residential ties abroad, and who applies for a new PR card within a short period of time prior to (or even after) the expiration of his or her current PR card, who also has made plans to travel abroad within the next six or ten months.
For these PRs, and there appears to be many, heads-up: . . . there is a good chance of either non-routine RQ processing in the local office or SR processing in Sydney, either of which will delay the processing of a new PR card application. And for those referred to SR, current delays have well exceeded a year or more.
And to date, IRCC appears to have little sympathy or concern for those who face serious inconveniences due to this. The process is actually more friendly toward those who have already had a
negative Residency Determination and denied a PR TD or been issued a Departure Order, since these PRs can appeal and during the appeal are eligible for temporary one-year PR cards.
vop said:
In the news article that came out over the weekend was for people identified for misrepresenting residency compliance. They had altered their passports, requested additional passports, faked even working for a Canadian company by paying themselves etc.
Actually, if you read both articles you will note that
in addition to the hundreds who have already had proceedings against their Canadian status commenced, there are
hundreds more, PRs and citizens, who were the client of just that one consultant who are now also being investigated
just because they were that consultant's client. If in the course of reviewing or investigating their histories, IRCC or CBSA or the RCMP find evidence of fraud, then those PRs and citizens will also have proceedings commenced against their status in Canada.
What we do not know is to what extent
any association with those already targeted will trigger additional investigations into the immigration history of other PRs or naturalized citizens. For example, based on what can be gleaned from accounts of actual cases reported in IAD and Federal Court decisions, it is apparent that IRCC and CBSA have expanded their databases to identify suspect addresses (probably by postal code rather than precise address), suspect telephone numbers, suspect employers, and so on . . .
For example, once the name of a particular employer is connected to misrepresentation, it appears that employer will have a GCMS record. Thus, elevated scrutiny of a particular PR could involve GCMS checks on particular information reported by the PR. If, say, in his declaration of work history, the PR reports a period of employment with
XYZDE Company, and at some point in the past CIC or IRCC has entered a GCMS record specifically for
XYZDE Company because that company was identified as involved in making or facilitating a misrepresentation to IRCC, if the scope of inquiries made do a GCMS check on
XYZDE Company, and a hit is more or less likely to trigger further inquiries or investigation.
What I know about the latter scenario arises more in the contex of misrepresentation cases in assessing applications other than PR card applications. Typical scenario revealed in an IAD or Federal Court decision might be that an applicant for PR has a letter of employment from
XYZDE Company, a GCMS check reveals that CIC or IRCC has previously identified this company as providing false or misleading documentation on behalf of another CIC or IRCC client, in the past, and so this triggers elevated scrutiny of the applicant which has often involved telephone inquiries to
XYZDE Company itself.
What those accounts (again, these are from official sources about actual cases, as reported in IAD or Federal Court decisions) reveal is a glimpse into the underlying process (which IRCC prefers to keep as confidential as it can), which is that for any given IRCC client, IRCC can conduct, and sometimes will conduct, GCMS queries for any of the detailed information relating to that client . . . from employers identified in work history to, again, postal codes or telephone numbers, and even family members.
The thing is, since many immigrants find work through contacts with other immigrants, or find housing through contacts with other immigrants, so it is easy for a PR to have had an incidental connection to an employer, residential area, or such, which for reasons totally unrelated to the PR could invite collateral inquiries . . . and of course there is always a queue for those to be done, and for those in SR the queue tends to be way long, in part due to the low priority SR'd PRs have.
I am revealing information which, I'd bet a lot, IRCC prefers to not be publicized. And ordinarily I would respect that, within what is fair parameters anyway.
But it is my strong impression that scores and scores of PRs have misconceptions about their status, what puts their status at risk, and what can lead to excessive processing timelines for what should be relatively routine procedures, like renewing a PR card.
And IRCC is doing little to inform PRs adequately of what is really expected, failing to timely process the applications of legitimate PRs, failing to offer any alternative status documents for PRs stuck in SR or other delays in issuing a new PR card.
Many PRs are also unaware of how seriously their status can be compromised or be put at risk due to any connection with an unauthorized representative (
"consultant").
I have
no axe to grind here. I applied for citizenship just a few months more than three years ago and became a citizen in far less time than it is taking many PRs to get a renewed PR card application processed. Many years ago, for selfish reasons (being at elevated risk for RQ), I began following and researching residency related issues, and of course there is a lot of overlap in residency cases for PRs and citizenship applicants, and to research citizenship residency cases I have basically at least skimmed almost every Federal Court decision involving CIC or IRCC or CBSA for many years now (reading recent decisions is part of my weekly routine), and closely reading virtually every residency cased related Federal Court decision published in the last five or six years. I have nearly four decades (I am an old man) of education, training, and professional experience in doing the kind of research I have been doing, for many years now, in regards to PR and citizenship residency issues (but
no formal Canadian training, experience, or credentials).
I strongly believe the system should be fair. I recognize there will always be imperfect processes, imperfect procedures, and way too many particular instances of imperfect decision-making. And I recognize the inherent difficulties of bureaucratic procedure, especially for a huge bureaucracy like IRCC. I have offered what I hope will give some insight into how things work, as well as we in the public can figure these things out. PRs are Canadians and Canadians not only deserve but have a right, a constitutional right, to fair procedures and just decision-making, which includes the right to timely decision-making. What is less certain is to what extent there is a right to more transparency about these procedures and processes. My view tends to think that the right to fair procedure requires more transparency than the government now provides (the Harper government severely moved the needle in this respect, and once a procedure has moved behind the curtain bureaucracies tend to keep them behind the curtain).
Mostly I see way too many reports of surprise and frustration due to an unexpected referral to SR. Those who
cut-it-close should not be surprised, and should be aware of the range of issues and concerns which may be examined in the SR process. They should also, however,
be comforted that it is
not an arbitrary or capricious process, but is indeed a fact-based, criteria driven process, and thus legitimate PRs who play by the rules ultimately
need not fear the outcome, albeit they will suffer the inconveniences along the way . . .
. . . which leads to another reason for drilling so deeply into all this: so that those who engage in activist efforts to motivate IRCC to address the problems can better focus on
reality based problems and realistic solutions. Ranting against the unfairness of SR generally is pointless, futile, and likely counter-productive (after all, suspects in any respect tend to not be given respect, and for practical purposes, subjects of SR are more or less
suspects), and to be frank, also unfounded, not reality based (notwithstanding the
innocents, one might say, dragged into the SR process, for many if not most who are subject to SR there are most likely legitimate reasons why IRCC is mandated to conduct elevated scrutiny and additional investigation).
In contrast, advocacy aimed at persuading MPs or the Minister of IRCC to implement more timely processing or, alternatively, allow SR'd PRs at least the same opportunity to obtain a temporary PR card pending resolution as is now given to those who have been issued Departure Orders, seems a worthwhile cause. Chances of success may not be great, but there is a problem here unjustly affecting legitimate PRs and the government needs to be prodded to deal with problems like this.
