@newbie89 posted in another thread that his GCMS notes clearly mention that the application is 'non-routine'. My notes section is empty. Does that it mean my application is routine (or) yet to decide whether it is routine (or) non-routine. Oh god, this is totally confusing.
At this point, not sure what to blame, whether it is covid (or) my fate.
As noted before, if and when you need to do something, to make some decision, to take some action, IRCC will give you notice. As long as it is clear the application is "
in process" the applicant's role is to watch for notices or requests, and to WAIT. (Well, the applicant is also required to notify IRCC if there are any changes in the information provided in the application; change of address for example, or being charged with a crime.)
If there is a problem there is no more than a remote chance your copy of GCMS records will illuminate much if anything more than you already know or what you will be notified of by IRCC relatively soon.
Revisiting the "routine" versus "non-routine" label:
Context matters. Unfortunately, anecdotal reports often leave out important context. It warrants noting, for example, that the report by
@newbie89 indicates the reference to non-routine is in "
notes," which are likely comments made to the file. So, for whatever reason, in some context that is not at all apparent, assuming the report is accurate (noting too that there is very little contextual information regarding the situation reported by
@newbie89), someone looking at the application referenced by
@newbie89 noted it was "
non-routine." Why that note was made, that is not clear. What it means is that agent entering that comment noted something had been done in processing the application that is in addition to what is done in processing all applications (
@newbie89 also reports the application is "on hold," which is significant but without more context what that is about is not at all clear).
That does NOT mean that the
@newbie89 application has "
non-routine" status. As
@rajkamalmohanram responded to your OP query:
There are no tags on the GCMS notes that would classify an application as routine or non-routine. Routine/Non-routine is not exactly an application status - It is just an understanding that is based on the facts of the case.
I have noted similarly, in slightly different terms, that the terms "
routine" and "
non-routine" are merely descriptive. A citizenship application can be described as "
non-routine" if there is any action taken on the file that is not in the regular (routine) stream of processing citizenship applications, that is, a procedure that does not apply to all applicants. Just a fingerprint request means the application can be described as "non-routine" because not all applicants get a FP request; but a FP request may actually have very little impact on how things go or how long the processing will take.
SUMMARY: the fact that an application can be described as "non-routine" illuminates very little if anything. What really matters is what about the application is "
non-routine." Full blown RQ, problematic, lengthy timeline ahead. FP request, maybe minor bump, maybe a signal of an expanded prohibitions investigation, but usually just a minor bump. Application "
on hold," that is a tough one unless and until more context is known.
NOTE: this discussion is one of the main reasons why I dislike how common and frequent these requests for copies of GCMS records have become. More questions are raised than answered by a huge margin, and (with some exceptions) largely unnecessary questions tending to cause distraction and unnecessarily elevate worries among qualified applicants with little no reason to worry, other than as to how slow the process is these days.
CAVEAT: Of course I cannot give you a guarantee there is no significant problem in your application. No one can. As noted elsewhere, if there is a significant problem odds are you already know, or with a little objective review would know, what issues might be lurking. In the meantime, there are no more than remote odds your copy of GCMS records will reveal the problem, if there is one.
They might be largely useless in your view, but, as you correctly note, that is *your* view. Those of us who order them find some value in them.
Apart from the obvious, that not all "views" are created equal, I and many others find value (a good deal actually) in reading the early 18th century poetry of Alexander Pope
'Tis hard to say, if greater want of skill
Appear in writing or in judging ill;
but I do not pretend it is of use in making decisions when dealing with IRCC. That said, among its many threads of wisdom and insight, Pope's poem "
An Essay on Criticism" does make the point that misguided and more so criticism derived from bad intent does more harm than bad writing itself. Which helps to put some of the derision posted here in perspective. Of course that poem in particular is far more often quoted for the line "
fools rush in . . ."
I do, however, make a concerted effort to identify and distinguish what is my "view" from the information I post. Additionally, to the consternation of some (apparently those with short attention spans and some difficulty scrolling; otherwise why not just pass on by), the reasoning underlying most of my "views" is shared, explained, so those interested can judge the value for themselves (or for those not interested, scroll on by).
I was more or less invited to this particular topic regarding questions about "triage" criteria. No need to unravel what the GCMS notes might reveal about the triage assessment since, foremost, the important information will be redacted given that the current triage criteria are strictly confidential (not even revealed to Federal Court justices if the application ends up contested in the courts), but additionally because if the triage criteria trigger sufficient
reason-to-question-residency the applicant will get a RQ-related request in due course. In contrast, if not, if the triage assessment does not trigger RQ-related processing, it has no effect on processing the application.
Otherwise, what some find interesting, and what some find of value, is separate from what is useful for those trying to best navigate their way through the process of becoming a Canadian citizen. Qualified applicants who properly and completely provide information in their application, who timely and appropriately respond to notices and requests, do not need to obtain a copy of their GCMS records, which (with exceptions, another separate, tending to be lengthy tangent) will rarely, if at all, reveal information the applicant can use to make decisions or take action or even to forecast how much longer the process will take.
