Grant DF Club

[RESCUE EAGLE]

My status is "E-Grant DF" as well, since October 06,2023
My LPP still in process since July2023.
I did contacted my MP to contact IRCC.
The response was that the IRCC are waiting for the partner response and they can't decide the time line to finalize the file ( that was in the last week).
I got an a ghost update on my tracker at ,January 18,2024. But there are no changes.
( I applied on March15 2023.
Test completed May2023.
Fingerprint requested May25,2023.
Background completed July11 2023. )
And for this asking about refugees, no I'm not , I landed as Normal family PR.

Wish the best for all of us that still waiting, stay tuned and optimistic.

 

[uy-scuti]

My status is "Grant DF" as well, since October 06,2023
My LPP still in process since July2023.
I did contacted my MP to contact IRCC.
The response was that the IRCC are waiting for the partner response and they can't decide the time line to finalize the file ( that was in the last week).
I got an a ghost update on my tracker at ,January 18,2024. But there are no changes.
( I applied on March15 2023.
Test completed May2023.
Fingerprint requested May25,2023.
Background completed July11 2023. )
And for this asking about refugees, no I'm not , I landed as Normal family PR.

Wish the best for all of us that still waiting, stay tuned and optimistic.

So DF does not mean decision finalized as someone mentioned that an IRCC agent told him so over the phone. What is puzzling me and every one else is, if DF indicates they are still waiting for information from a partner, why people who are granted ceremony also have the term "DF"? However, pls let us updated. GL

 

[RESCUE EAGLE]

I see your point and it could be right. But tbh, I think this DF is simply a stage where more checks/investigations are required. Cuz I think all of us have note #1 redacted for that reason.

if your theory is right, then I think note #1 wouldn’t be redacted. Because they have to provide a reason for the redactions such as s.22, s.15 etc.

also, it doesn’t make sense that they would cancel the ceremony unless they’re is a reason. That’s why I think DF was added and they did their check/ investigation and once it cleared; they rescheduled.

In My note#1
Text says in French : "‏attente d'une réponse d'un Partenaire‏"
Which means in English:"waiting for a response from a partner"
Thats all the note, and nothing more .
Office: Montreal Citizenship

 

[uy-scuti]

In My note#1
Text says: that in French "‏attente d'une réponse d'un Partenaire‏"
Which means in English:"waiting for a response from a partner"
Thats all the noteand nothing more .
Office: Montreal Citizenship

In my opinion this note will remain even when you have attended the ceremony and granted citizenship as GMCS is showing the event history of the review process. My point is they might have got the information from the partner, completed the review process then an officer made decision so he updated location to decision made.

 

[Illusionist4008]

In My note#1
Text says in French : "‏attente d'une réponse d'un Partenaire‏"
Which means in English:"waiting for a response from a partner"
Thats all the note, and nothing more .
Office: Montreal Citizenship

I’m E grant DF and I don’t have any redacted notes

 

[uy-scuti]

I’m E grant DF and I don’t have any redacted notes

Many E grant DF and they don’t have any redacted notes.

 

[Illusionist4008]

I see your point and it could be right. But tbh, I think this DF is simply a stage where more checks/investigations are required. Cuz I think all of us have note #1 redacted for that reason.

if your theory is right, then I think note #1 wouldn’t be redacted. Because they have to provide a reason for the redactions such as s.22, s.15 etc.

also, it doesn’t make sense that they would cancel the ceremony unless they’re is a reason. That’s why I think DF was added and they did their check/ investigation and once it cleared; they rescheduled.

I’m E grant DF and I don’t have any redacted notes

 

[Anonyref]

In my opinion this note will remain even when you have attended the ceremony and granted citizenship as GMCS is showing the event history of the review process. My point is they might have got the information from the partner, completed the review process then an officer made decision so he updated location to decision made.

I agree with this. My redacted notes are from September, and E-grant DF begun from Mid november. It does make sense.

 

[adbcca]

Not all officers make note of these details. My assumption is that the partner agency is likely the CBSA, which is part of what they call an immigration check. Such details are typically not included in the GCMS notes. Nevertheless, MPs have the ability to request this information, and I have noticed that some MPs will inform you of the status of your immigration check when they investigate your file. It is one of the three essential checks: security, criminality, and immigration. Recently, there has been a new development within this immigration check (assumption, not a fact)

 

[uy-scuti]

Not all officers make note of these details. My assumption is that the partner agency is likely the CBSA, which is part of what they call an immigration check. Such details are typically not included in the GCMS notes. Nevertheless, MPs have the ability to request this information, and I have noticed that some MPs will inform you of the status of your immigration check when they investigate your file. It is one of the three essential checks: security, criminality, and immigration. Recently, there has been a new development within this immigration check (assumption, not a fact)

MPs don't know more than what you get via GCMS. Under what law they can get more confidential information about you than you?

 

[adbcca]

MPs don't know more than what you get via GCMS. Under what law they can get more confidential information about you than you?

MPs can obtain more information than you if you grant them authorization, as they have the special channel to contact IRCC directly, and IRCC responds to them. If you call the call centre, they might not provide a proper response to your inquiries. What they refer to as an immigration clearance isn't part of the standard GCMS notes. While you may have the right to request it via ATIP, this information isn't typically found in the normal GCMS notes, but MPs can inquire about it

 

[moden88]

MPs can obtain more information than you if you grant them authorization, as they have the special channel to contact IRCC directly, and IRCC responds to them. If you call the call centre, they might not provide a proper response to your inquiries. What they refer to as an immigration clearance isn't part of the standard GCMS notes. While you may have the right to request it via ATIP, this information isn't typically found in the normal GCMS notes, but MPs can inquire about it

I agree with the part that you can request in a GCMS request but i don't agree that they are going to give to you if you request it. I requested that back in october, they sent me the response a week ago with no information related to the immigration clearance

 

[CanMon]

Looks like everyone's file is still stuck in Grant DF location. I think my status also changed from Grant PR status to Grant DF around mid November to early December.

 

[CanMon]

My MP says my file is non routine but when I called IRCC, the agent said he does not see anything that would consider it non routine so told he would notify office that my application is pass processing time. Two different answers

 

[Anonyref]

My MP says my file is non routine but when I called IRCC, the agent said he does not see anything that would consider it non routine so told he would notify office that my application is pass processing time. Two different answers

Is this the new excuse for the MP not to look deeper into it? And may I ask if you are already past 15 months?