My application was marked as a non-routine application after passing Background check and test. The IRCC website talks about potential reasons for why they consider an application as non-routine. The officer note is non disclosable according to the MP office who was following up on my application. I requested the GCMS and didn't receive them yet. However, I think the note will be hidden for me also. I have few question and I wish I get help with
1- is there a legal path to find out why my application was marked as non-routine.
2- Does the CBSA gcms notes show notes from the IRCC since the share the GCMS notes
3- if the answer to question 2 is yes, is there a possibility that I can see the hidden note from IRCC by requesting the CBSA notes since some hidden items are show in cbsa notes
Referring to a citizenship application as "
non-routine" is not in reference to the application's status, but is merely descriptive, merely a reference to the fact that the application is undergoing some additional procedure or subject to additional inquiries, that are not part of routine processing.
So, just the fact that the application is "
non-routine" illuminates very, very little. Some non-routine procedures, like a finger print request, will have very little impact on the overall processing time line, no impact on the outcome.
What matters is what non-routine procedure is involved. If there has been information that triggers a referral to CSIS to investigate the applicant in regards to potential security prohibitions, that could result in very lengthy processing delay depending on the nature of matter being investigated, including the location in the world of relevant matters.
In contrast, if the processing agent or citizenship officer just wants some further verification of information in regards to establishing the applicant's actual physical presence, that might involve minimal cross-checks easily and quickly done, causing little further delay. That said, other concerns about verifying physical presence might lead to RQ-related processing or a referral to CBSA's NSSD for a more extensive investigation.
Investigatory matters, what triggers them, what are the manner and means, what is the scope, and who conducts it, are all confidential, information that is NOT shared with clients. So, as you apprehend, IRCC will not divulge, to you, what further inquiries, if any, are being made (not deliberately anyway . . . there are plenty of examples where they have slipped and revealed more than intended).
That said . . . there really should be little mystery. YOU, you personally, know your own case better than anyone at IRCC. You know what the requirements are, including what might constitute a prohibition, so if there is any significant problem in your case, you should be able to figure out what that most likely is about, and have a good idea if it is something serious or not. Really.
For example, if you applied with 1103 days physical presence, rather than waiting to apply with a good margin over the minimum, no advanced degrees in rocket science or access to GCMS records necessary to foresee the risk of additional inquiries to verify physical presence. No crystal ball is needed to recognize that applicants who are settled and clearly well established in Canada have less risk of additional (non-routine) verifications than those with significant ongoing ties outside Canada. And so on.
If you applied with a good margin, made only minimal, minor mistakes, and are highly confident you are not subject to a prohibition, odds are you can relax, NOT WORRY, whatever else IRCC wants to look at is not likely to be a problem or delay things long. In the meantime, timelines vary widely.
GCMS Records:
Particular agents and officers in CBSA and IRCC have varied levels of access to the GCMS records for a particular client. The GCMS records themselves include all the currently maintained immigration records for the individual client. Thus, for example, for most PRs their GCMS records will still include a lot of records related to their application for a PR visa and any other status they had in Canada prior to that.
There can be a big difference in what a client is given in response to requests for copies of their personal information depending on the request itself. What is obtained in response to a basic ATIP request, which will typically be a selection of records for a particular file, like those for an application for citizenship, is quite limited. To get more detail a PR needs to make a customized ATIP request, which is not easy to compose.
And, there will still be a lot of the PR's GCMS records which will not be divulged to the client, no matter how crafty they have been in composing the request. This is, again, about the scope of what is confidential, not shared with clients.
Thus, for example, even if the applicant can figure out that IRCC is engaging in some level of RQ-related inquiry (such as getting RQ-related requests for additional information for example), the applicant will not get information that reveals why IRCC is engaging in a RQ-related inquiry.
While it may be possible to get significantly more information making a carefully composed customized ATIP request, between the difficulty doing this and the limitations on access (especially confidential investigatory information), and the still fairly low odds of learning something useful or not already within what the applicant already knows, this is not something many try. Lots of work with poor returns.
