GCMS NOTES WELL EXPLAINED HAS NEVER BEFORE UNTIL NOW
- Thread starter Eagle333
- Start date
I am sorry I am not able to answer, but I am curious to know if your eligibility went to in progress on Tracker.if you don't mind sharing.
Eligibility went to in progress on May 24. Background shown as completed on June 27.
Thanks comarxx. But I am a bit concerned about what the notes (received yesterday) reveal. I am not sure of what to make about the lack of IRCC records of my previous marriage. Of course, if they did a name search with the misspelled name, I am not surprised they found nothing.
And I don't know what to make of the "unclear why" comment about the Dubai PCC, or my wife's late registered birth (not at all uncommon in the Phils, with many never registered).
Finally, what meaning should I attach to "Review required". Does that mean the whole thing is in jeopardy for some ill-defined reason? The notes give no insight into just what needs to be reviewed.
My previous marriage was mentioned only once in all the notes I requested. I do not know what “unclear why” notes mean or rather where was this noted in PCC? Review required means it was suggested they need to go deeper about your wife’s eligibility since her BG check is already completed.
Don’t worry as long as everything checks out with your story together with proofs/documents you submitted everything will fall into places.
Thanks again. By the way, do you happen to know what the initialism "NRT" means? It appears in the notes a number of times.
I believe this means no reported trace - not certain about the exact coding though. It at any rate means no negative info or blank info reported in the police records check, meaning IE no criminal record.
I haven't read through in great detail what each line of gcms said - the review required is not, however, a big reason to worry, I believe quite standard - the person who did that first summary is very junior and most files with eg previous marriages let alone previous sponsorships will get some review required (by more senior).
I'll take a look tmrw in more detail
The name being off might be the source of the UCI issue, or - quite possibly - just that it was before the UCI/current system was introduced.
Now right off should say - I don't know whether any of these minor things are worth 'correcting' (or to what extent is possible). But you could do so if you want, short, factual, and just politely ask if any of these are issues. Likely none are important although date of separation being presumably more recent might have a minor impact?
Writing may add something to their understanding. Or it might encourage them to just deal with the file, approve and have done with it. Possibly it might add to their paperwork (but probably not). And of course base case - no impact at all.
None of those sound like big errors and the more senior officer that reviews will likely see them right away (and shake their head).
Simplest explanation best: probably the person who did the first review does not understand that Dubai is one of the Emirates.
Recommendation:
Review required
[/QUOTE]
I checked ours and it was also review required. To be honest I can't tell whether this was specific to the police certificates we provided or overall, or what exactly. But check: the para in which this was incorporated was basically at time of receipt (AOR sense i.e. at time of/end of data entry, initial review).
The para starts this way: REVIEW TYPE: Program Assistant . So basically this is at same level or slighlty above the data entry clerk (I think it is the data entry clerk but educated guess). And my instinct is that they are only flagging obvious issues, possibly with some matrix, and/or docs that need someone else to review. That's it. I don't believe it's a concern - at all.
Obvious caveat is that it does not attest to lack of any issues to be concerned about, but this is not one ot be concerned about. IMO.
Thank you so much @armoured for your insightful comments. Both helpful and reassuring.
I did not see anywhere "REVIEW TYPE". The notes I have quoted are on page 13 of 18 pages. Immediately preceding what I quoted (from the top of p13), there appears, at the bottom of P. 12, the following:
NOTES
NOTES: 1
Created date: 2023/05/23
Updated date: 2023/05/23
Restricted: N
Label: General
Office: Manila
Text: =====Pre-Assessment Review=====
FCA x 1
Then comes p. 13 from which i have quoted, starting with the heading:
SPR:
• SPR Elig - Passed
There follows more info about me, including my "declared sponsorship" of JJ for which no record was found.
Below that we see:
PA heading, followed by what I quoted, above.
Next heading:
Details of relationship, followed by when and how we met, my trips to the Phils, some details about wedding. Then there are headings for "Visits", "Supporting Docs" (under which our marriage certificate and a letter from me are noted, letters from family, chat screenshots, photos, etc.
All of that is followed by:
Other info:
• Meds - 2024/03/10
• RPRF: Complete
• Biometrics - Received - NRT
• GCMS Info: Has 3 refused TRV applications followed by the 3 application numbers
Recommendation:
Review required
So, while I did not see a "REVIEW TYPE" notation, the "Pre-Assessment Review" notation makes me think maybe it was a review by someone junior.
It did not occur to me at all - and you might well be spot on - in saying that the reviewer was not aware that Dubai is part of the UAE, hence the query about why we supplied a Dubai PCC.
Good thoughts, too, about 'correcting'. I suppose I could send a webform and point out a few things. But then, that could possibly result in delay. Hard to know. As you say, a more senior person might figure things out quite quickly. We have received no correspondence asking for more docs or clarification on anything. I suppose they do that sometimes (?).
I should point out that the the "Pre-Assessment Review" notation appears to be dated May 23, 2023. On tracker, we are advised that my wife's Eligibility Check moved to "In Progress" on May 24 - the next day.
I did not see anywhere "REVIEW TYPE". The notes I have quoted are on page 13 of 18 pages. Immediately preceding what I quoted (from the top of p13), there appears, at the bottom of P. 12, the following:
NOTES
NOTES: 1
Created date: 2023/05/23
Updated date: 2023/05/23
Restricted: N
Label: General
Office: Manila
Text: =====Pre-Assessment Review=====
FCA x 1
Then comes p. 13 from which i have quoted, starting with the heading:
SPR:
• SPR Elig - Passed
There follows more info about me, including my "declared sponsorship" of JJ for which no record was found.
Below that we see:
PA heading, followed by what I quoted, above.
Next heading:
Details of relationship, followed by when and how we met, my trips to the Phils, some details about wedding. Then there are headings for "Visits", "Supporting Docs" (under which our marriage certificate and a letter from me are noted, letters from family, chat screenshots, photos, etc.
All of that is followed by:
Other info:
• Meds - 2024/03/10
• RPRF: Complete
• Biometrics - Received - NRT
• GCMS Info: Has 3 refused TRV applications followed by the 3 application numbers
Recommendation:
Review required
So, while I did not see a "REVIEW TYPE" notation, the "Pre-Assessment Review" notation makes me think maybe it was a review by someone junior.
It did not occur to me at all - and you might well be spot on - in saying that the reviewer was not aware that Dubai is part of the UAE, hence the query about why we supplied a Dubai PCC.
Good thoughts, too, about 'correcting'. I suppose I could send a webform and point out a few things. But then, that could possibly result in delay. Hard to know. As you say, a more senior person might figure things out quite quickly. We have received no correspondence asking for more docs or clarification on anything. I suppose they do that sometimes (?).
I should point out that the the "Pre-Assessment Review" notation appears to be dated May 23, 2023. On tracker, we are advised that my wife's Eligibility Check moved to "In Progress" on May 24 - the next day.
The exact steps of review that this came at could well be different, and may also depend on when I'd ordered the gcms notes - but still looks like a relatively junior review of your app.
Really on correcting or not, it's a guess only - yours is as good as mine. My inclination would be that if you stuck to only the ones that seemed significant to you (excluding typos and minor, etc) it would not likely delay things - but then I'm not even sure which ones I'd consider significant. (Possibly the identity of previous spouse, but probably not; more probably the date of separation from that spouse IF it overlaps with current relationship, but then even that is not necessarily a big deal and probably easily spotted by a more seasoned officer).
Arguing on the other side is that your timeline shows background completed in late June, which to me implies they don't see (anymore at least) big discrepancies or you'd possibly have seen a request for more information.
You may, quite simply, just be in waiting period. I'd not be shy about inquiring through your MP's office, both because 'why not?' and because I tend to think that they do (not always but sometimes) have some impact on IRCC program managers, esp around the inflection points of new ministers being appointed and announcements of new programs like spouse reunification one a month or so ago. Can't hurt anyway.
Dubai/UAE: I really do think that's it. Sounds comical to the experienced but if it's a junior person or assistant, esp one not well-travelled, would not be that weird an error. (I know a fair number of people whov'e been to Dubai who seem under the impression it is a country or at least unaware of the distinction)
As a lawyer you'd likely appreciate this anecdote, me dealing with a pompous lawyer (eastern europe let's say) who came back on our draft proposed long legal agreement (financial) with a zillion comments/requested changes, which approach was .... not standard, as quite a lot was standard boilerplate and not really up for comment. Again, this is a lawyer, not a commercial person who might well have lots of technical questions or unfamiliarity with non-local legal agreements.
First comment/requested amendment was to change the governing law of the agreement to law of "the United Kingdom" (from England and Wales). Pompous lawyer looked rather foolish when the response pointed out that there is no such thing, because the UK has several different legal systems (Scottish, NIreland, etc) and there is, literally, no such thing. Which even the stupidest lawyers in commercial law should, ahem, be aware of, and if not certain, stay away from commenting. The vast majority of the other comments had a lot less credibility because of that error and I think that lawyer was basically sidelined by his own people thereafter.
I think I just might follow up with MP, as you suggest.
I enjoyed pompous lawyer anecdote. Me, I try to rein in my pomposity, lest it backfire as per your anecdote
Something else I just noticed in the notes. Page 13 that I detailed, sets out my visits to the Phils to be with my wife. Under the heading "Visits", it notes that I was planning to return to the Phils in November 2022 for 3 months. That suggests that notation was made very early in the process. But, once again, it reflects error. We submitted our application on Nov. 27/22 and I wrote a "Letter of Explanation" dated Nov. 27/22 setting out a bit of added detail, including the fact that I was already in the Phils, having arrived on Nov. 15. I said I would stay at least 3 months. It turned out to be 4 months. But the notes suggest that the author missed the fact that I was already there.
Now this does provide one clue that may or may not be significant: that you are or were out of country when applying. Which is perfectly fine, for a citizen, except that citizens residing abroad have to go through the intent-to-return stuff. To me it sounds like that wasn't actually an issue but sometimes these things get a bit hung up while someone (usually less experienced) tries to determine which applies or where you are, etc.
In that circumstance, I would be tempted - again a guess - to inquire through MP and also ask to ensure that IRCC knows you are in Canada and not being treated as citizen-abroad-sponsorship and please-reunify-us-if-you-thought-we-were-together-we-aren't.
Now note: more likely this is not the case IF not flagged in your gcms notes. But it gives you an excuse to inquire (not the 'whazzap wid muh file?' inquiries that I am sure they secretly hate) with a hook that just may make someone open your file nad decide to hell with it, let's just do the PPR and clear the desk of this troublesome thick file.
Or just wait.