GCMS shows 'Security Screening' and waiting... - let's gather here!

[Parisuzy]

Why does security take for ever? What can we do? Is there sth that previous year applicant did to deal with this, calling the security staff or their center to see if they really process?

 

[caipsnotes]

Why does security take for ever? What can we do? Is there sth that previous year applicant did to deal with this, calling the security staff or their center to see if they really process?

If the application is in enhanced screening it can take a while and not much can be done about it. If you are in land you can request your CBSA/CSIS notes (for free) to see what these agencies have on record for your application. Some info will be redacted though.

 

[Echattea]

Why does security take for ever? What can we do? Is there sth that previous year applicant did to deal with this, calling the security staff or their center to see if they really process?

Everyone says that just waiting, honestly this is exhausting to think that your life depends on an immigration officer I have 29 months waiting plus the time of the nomination .... I have 5 years in Canada I already have my life made here, .. ....

 

[legalfalcon]

Why does security take for ever? What can we do? Is there sth that previous year applicant did to deal with this, calling the security staff or their center to see if they really process?

Everyone says that just waiting, honestly this is exhausting to think that your life depends on an immigration officer I have 29 months waiting plus the time of the nomination .... I have 5 years in Canada I already have my life made here, .. ....

In some cases the security screening can take as long as 2 years. In the most recent parliamentary oversight, CBSA has claimed that the time has been reduced.

If in your case it is taking an inordinate time to process your security screening, you can consider filing a federal case for the " write of mandamus."

Many applicants in the past have successfully done it to get a decision on their application.

See the federal court decision on mandamus for security http://canlii.ca/t/glzvm

To read the details on why delays happen and how the security procedure takes place, see https://bit.ly/3aq6Okd

 

[caipsnotes]

Everyone says that just waiting, honestly this is exhausting to think that your life depends on an immigration officer I have 29 months waiting plus the time of the nomination .... I have 5 years in Canada I already have my life made here, .. ....

One can find more info on writ of mandamus when the aplication is stuck in screening on this forum post at https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/when-to-make-mandamus.553224/

Also this site has more info https://www.bellissimolawgroup.com/urgent-immigration-cases/mandamus/ (posted below) and so does the CBA at https://www.cba.org/cba/cle/pdf/Bellissimo.pdf

A writ of mandamus or simply mandamus, which means “we command” in Latin, is the name of one of the prerogative writs in the common law, and is issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly.

Mandamus is a judicial remedy which is in the form of an order from a superior court to any government, subordinate court, corporation or public authority to do or forbear from doing some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do or refrain from doing, as the case may be, and which is in the nature of public duty and in certain cases of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision.

The applicant pleading for a writ of mandamus to be enforced must demonstrate that s/he has a legal right to compel the respondent to do or refrain from doing the specific act. The duty sought to be enforced must have two qualities:

1. It must be a duty of public nature; and
2. The duty must be imperative and should not be discretionary.

For the court to issue a writ a mandamus, a number of conditions must be satisfied.

1. There must be a public legal duty to act.
2. The duty must be owed to the applicant.
3. There is a clear right to the performance of that duty, in particular:
4. The applicant has satisfied all conditions precedent giving rise to the duty;
5. There was:
   1. a prior demand for performance of the duty; (ii) a reasonable time to comply with the demand unless refused outright; and
   2. a subsequent refusal which can be either expressed or implied, e.g. unreasonable delay.
6. No other adequate remedy is available to the applicant.
7. The order sought will be of some practical value or effect.
8. The Court in the exercise of discretion finds no equitable bar to the relief sought.
9. On a “balance of convenience” an order in the nature of mandamus should issue.

When contemplating whether to commence a mandamus application, counsel should make reference to the processing times listed on the CIC website. Unreasonable delay can only be determined in comparison to average processing times. In submissions, counsel should focus on the normal processing times and how much the processing time in question has exceeded the average, what the applicant has done to ensure that his/her application is complete and well documented, and reasons why the applicant feels that the officer’s explanation for the delay is unsatisfactory.

In this respect, the Courts in most cases have refused to accept departmental backlogs, or staff shortages as reasonable explanations, nor do they tend to look to the system as a whole. Rather, each case is assessed on its own facts. The question often arises as to whether a background or security check constitutes a justifiable explanation for the delay. As with the other prongs of the test, this is a determination which can only be made with reference to the specific facts of the case. Counsel must tailor the arguments to the facts of the case at hand, with particular attention paid to what the applicant has been doing to move his case along, and what the respondent has failed to do to perform their duty.

No Other Adequate Remedy is Available to the Applicant

In the immigration context, this prong of the test is easily satisfied – an officer is the only person in a position to grant the remedy that the applicant is requesting – namely, the issuance of a visa or other immigration document.

The Order Sought will be of Some Practical Value or Effect

Again, this is rarely an issue in a mandamus application in the immigration context. Generally speaking, given that the order will compel the officer to process the application in question within a given time frame, the practical effect of the order is obvious.

In the Exercise of Discretion there is No Equitable Bar to the Relief Sought.

Under this prong of the test, the Court is looking to determine if the applicant has been responsible for the delay and/or has compromised their cause in any other way. The applicant must come to the Court “with clean hands”, in order to satisfy the Court that there is no equitable bar to an order of mandamus. This however does not mean an applicant as in the case at bar with a criminal history cannot seek relief. To the contrary an applicant with a criminal history that has sought relief on the basis of section 24 of the IRPA for example has a right to have that application decided in a reasonable period of time.

Balance of Convenience

Mandamus requires the Applicant to show that the balance of convenience favours the Applicant. This last prong of the test is closely related to the “clean hands” question discussed above. This issue relates to the prejudice that the applicant suffers as a result of the delay. Mandamus remains a very powerful option for applicants.

 

[Echattea]

One can find more info on writ of mandamus when the aplication is stuck in screening on this forum post at https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/when-to-make-mandamus.553224/

Also this site has more info https://www.bellissimolawgroup.com/urgent-immigration-cases/mandamus/ (posted below) and so does the CBA at https://www.cba.org/cba/cle/pdf/Bellissimo.pdf

A writ of mandamus or simply mandamus, which means “we command” in Latin, is the name of one of the prerogative writs in the common law, and is issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly.

Mandamus is a judicial remedy which is in the form of an order from a superior court to any government, subordinate court, corporation or public authority to do or forbear from doing some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do or refrain from doing, as the case may be, and which is in the nature of public duty and in certain cases of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision.

The applicant pleading for a writ of mandamus to be enforced must demonstrate that s/he has a legal right to compel the respondent to do or refrain from doing the specific act. The duty sought to be enforced must have two qualities:

1. It must be a duty of public nature; and
2. The duty must be imperative and should not be discretionary.

For the court to issue a writ a mandamus, a number of conditions must be satisfied.

1. There must be a public legal duty to act.
2. The duty must be owed to the applicant.
3. There is a clear right to the performance of that duty, in particular:
4. The applicant has satisfied all conditions precedent giving rise to the duty;
5. There was:
   1. a prior demand for performance of the duty; (ii) a reasonable time to comply with the demand unless refused outright; and
   2. a subsequent refusal which can be either expressed or implied, e.g. unreasonable delay.
6. No other adequate remedy is available to the applicant.
7. The order sought will be of some practical value or effect.
8. The Court in the exercise of discretion finds no equitable bar to the relief sought.
9. On a “balance of convenience” an order in the nature of mandamus should issue.

When contemplating whether to commence a mandamus application, counsel should make reference to the processing times listed on the CIC website. Unreasonable delay can only be determined in comparison to average processing times. In submissions, counsel should focus on the normal processing times and how much the processing time in question has exceeded the average, what the applicant has done to ensure that his/her application is complete and well documented, and reasons why the applicant feels that the officer’s explanation for the delay is unsatisfactory.

In this respect, the Courts in most cases have refused to accept departmental backlogs, or staff shortages as reasonable explanations, nor do they tend to look to the system as a whole. Rather, each case is assessed on its own facts. The question often arises as to whether a background or security check constitutes a justifiable explanation for the delay. As with the other prongs of the test, this is a determination which can only be made with reference to the specific facts of the case. Counsel must tailor the arguments to the facts of the case at hand, with particular attention paid to what the applicant has been doing to move his case along, and what the respondent has failed to do to perform their duty.

No Other Adequate Remedy is Available to the Applicant

In the immigration context, this prong of the test is easily satisfied – an officer is the only person in a position to grant the remedy that the applicant is requesting – namely, the issuance of a visa or other immigration document.

The Order Sought will be of Some Practical Value or Effect

Again, this is rarely an issue in a mandamus application in the immigration context. Generally speaking, given that the order will compel the officer to process the application in question within a given time frame, the practical effect of the order is obvious.

In the Exercise of Discretion there is No Equitable Bar to the Relief Sought.

Under this prong of the test, the Court is looking to determine if the applicant has been responsible for the delay and/or has compromised their cause in any other way. The applicant must come to the Court “with clean hands”, in order to satisfy the Court that there is no equitable bar to an order of mandamus. This however does not mean an applicant as in the case at bar with a criminal history cannot seek relief. To the contrary an applicant with a criminal history that has sought relief on the basis of section 24 of the IRPA for example has a right to have that application decided in a reasonable period of time.

Balance of Convenience

Mandamus requires the Applicant to show that the balance of convenience favours the Applicant. This last prong of the test is closely related to the “clean hands” question discussed above. This issue relates to the prejudice that the applicant suffers as a result of the delay. Mandamus remains a very powerful option for applicants.

Thanks for the info

 

[faisalmf]

In some cases the security screening can take as long as 2 years. In the most recent parliamentary oversight, CBSA has claimed that the time has been reduced.

If in your case it is taking an inordinate time to process your security screening, you can consider filing a federal case for the " write of mandamus."

Many applicants in the past have successfully done it to get a decision on their application.

See the federal court decision on mandamus for security http://canlii.ca/t/glzvm

To read the details on why delays happen and how the security procedure takes place, see https://bit.ly/3aq6Okd

Can we file a federal case outside canada for right of mandamus? If yes can u plz help in showing a way how it is done?

 

[legalfalcon]

Can we file a federal case outside canada for right of mandamus? If yes can u plz help in showing a way how it is done?

When you say filing a case outside Canada, you can only file a case at any Federal Court within Canada. However, the applicant need not be present in Canada physically. Since you are filing a case against IRCC, you can only sue IRCC within the territory of Canada as the action against IRCC arose in Canada. Also, "mandamus" is a prerogative writ, and only federal courts can exercise it on IRCC. No court outside Canada can adjudicate this issue and neither any court outside Canada has the jurisdiction to command any declaratory order on IRCC or issue a prerogative writ again IRCC.

This is called "territorial jurisdiction." Read the cases I have posted in my post above for more details.

You can PM me and I can help you further. However, be advised that "mandamus" is at the discretion of the Court. There are no bright line rules on when it will grant Mandamus and when it will not. Mandamus is not a matter of right per se. Since it is subjective, each case has to be reviewed before it is filed. Unlike cases where there is a patent error, or omission, then you can ask a remedy as a matter of right, but not a prerogative writ.

Doing a search on mandamus will give you all the generic rules and what it means, also posted above, about it. But at the end it is your lawyer who will be able to judge it and give you the appropriate recommendation. Also, before you file a case of mandamus, IRCC will have to be given a notice as per the Federal Rules of Procedure.

I did work with a few applicants from Turkey and Pakistan two years ago on Mandamus.

The federal court in these cases granted mandamus:

http://canlii.ca/t/1kx54
http://canlii.ca/t/glzvm

However, the same was declined in the following:

http://canlii.ca/t/1m8qw
http://canlii.ca/t/1k2dn

The request for Mandamus is highly factual, subjective and there is no rule of thumb that if 2 or more years have passed, that merits a grant of Mandamus.

 

[faisalmf]

When you say filing a case outside Canada, you can only file a case at any Federal Court within Canada. However, the applicant need not be present in Canada physically. Since you are filing a case against IRCC, you can only sue IRCC within the territory of Canada as the action against IRCC arose in Canada. Also, "mandamus" is a prerogative writ, and only federal courts can exercise it on IRCC. No court outside Canada can adjudicate this issue and neither any court outside Canada has the jurisdiction to command any declaratory order on IRCC or issue a prerogative writ again IRCC.

This is called "territorial jurisdiction." Read the cases I have posted in my post above for more details.

You can PM me and I can help you further. However, be advised that "mandamus" is at the discretion of the Court. There are no bright line rules on when it will grant Mandamus and when it will not. Mandamus is not a matter of right per se. Since it is subjective, each case has to be reviewed before it is filed. Unlike cases where there is a patent error, or omission, then you can ask a remedy as a matter of right, but not a prerogative writ.

Doing a search on mandamus will give you all the generic rules and what it means, also posted above, about it. But at the end it is your lawyer who will be able to judge it and give you the appropriate recommendation. Also, before you file a case of mandamus, IRCC will have to be given a notice as per the Federal Rules of Procedure.

I did work with a few applicants from Turkey and Pakistan two years ago on Mandamus.

The federal court in these cases granted mandamus:

http://canlii.ca/t/1kx54
http://canlii.ca/t/glzvm

However, the same was declined in the following:

http://canlii.ca/t/1m8qw
http://canlii.ca/t/1k2dn

The request for Mandamus is highly factual, subjective and there is no rule of thumb that if 2 or more years have passed, that merits a grant of Mandamus.

Kindly check PM message

 

[Halim92]

My office is Ottawa with AOR 14th May 2019.

I passed Eligibility and Criminality on Nov 2019. I was requested for additional documents on Nov 2019, however, my security has never been initiated. Any clue what is going on or any similar cases ?

 

[Parisuzy]

When you say filing a case outside Canada, you can only file a case at any Federal Court within Canada. However, the applicant need not be present in Canada physically. Since you are filing a case against IRCC, you can only sue IRCC within the territory of Canada as the action against IRCC arose in Canada. Also, "mandamus" is a prerogative writ, and only federal courts can exercise it on IRCC. No court outside Canada can adjudicate this issue and neither any court outside Canada has the jurisdiction to command any declaratory order on IRCC or issue a prerogative writ again IRCC.

This is called "territorial jurisdiction." Read the cases I have posted in my post above for more details.

You can PM me and I can help you further. However, be advised that "mandamus" is at the discretion of the Court. There are no bright line rules on when it will grant Mandamus and when it will not. Mandamus is not a matter of right per se. Since it is subjective, each case has to be reviewed before it is filed. Unlike cases where there is a patent error, or omission, then you can ask a remedy as a matter of right, but not a prerogative writ.

Doing a search on mandamus will give you all the generic rules and what it means, also posted above, about it. But at the end it is your lawyer who will be able to judge it and give you the appropriate recommendation. Also, before you file a case of mandamus, IRCC will have to be given a notice as per the Federal Rules of Procedure.

I did work with a few applicants from Turkey and Pakistan two years ago on Mandamus.

The federal court in these cases granted mandamus:

http://canlii.ca/t/1kx54
http://canlii.ca/t/glzvm

However, the same was declined in the following:

http://canlii.ca/t/1m8qw
http://canlii.ca/t/1k2dn

The request for Mandamus is highly factual, subjective and there is no rule of thumb that if 2 or more years have passed, that merits a grant of Mandamus.

I am very disappointed, I think my secuirity doesnt end. I think I am under intense SS since March. Will GMS notes help? Is the long time for SS for Covid or because of intensity of SS?

How can I know what type of secuirity it is and when it ends? Can you please help me? I feel I am stuck in this process.

Did someone hear sth this week?

 

[legalfalcon]

I am very disappointed, I think my secuirity doesnt end. I think I am under intense SS since March. Will GMS notes help? Is the long time for SS for Covid or because of intensity of SS?

How can I know what type of secuirity it is and when it ends? Can you please help me? I feel I am stuck in this process.

Did someone hear sth this week?

If your security has not concluded 2-3 months post your eligibility being passed, i.e. after an officer made a final determination on your eligibility, then you may be in enhanced security screening.

The GCMS notes redact the security details. You can request CBSA and CSIS notes and they will let you know when the security was initiated and if either of the agencies have concluded the security screening.

To read on security and the procedure, see https://bit.ly/3j4M056

 

[Parisuzy]

Hi guys, the scurity time is killing me. What are they checking? I only visited 3 countries in whole my life excluding my country of birth. Did someone receive any green light for secuirity?

 

[Echattea]

Hi guys, the scurity time is killing me. What are they checking? I only visited 3 countries in whole my life excluding my country of birth. Did someone receive any green light for secuirity?

Hi
The same to me, I don't understand what are they checking......

 

[faisalmf]

My security was started in June 2019 and i am still waiting. Any one else waiting for this long?