INLAND APPLICATIONS 2014

[GustavesF]

It's not arbitrary. the processing queue seems to be based on when the name was entered in the database. hence why we see april getting processed even though ppl from january are waiting. going by spreadsheet, people who confirmed that they could enter e-cas first are also the one who are getting processed first.

application receive time comes into effect when the CIC declared processing time shows up on the site and then applicants call CIC. then CIC flags those applications for agents to see and process.

It might seem related, but it's likely coincidence. Some people never get into eCas. Some people never get AOR.

The 2015's are getting eCas access almost instantly (some within 3 months), and AOR's in as little as 2 months. Does that mean that they're going to be processed before me? I certainly hope not.

 

[MaryLou6]

there is not much movement regarding 2014, on FB it seems like cic is processing lots of 2013 and some February applications.

A new question has come up during landing interviews. "Have you ever left Canada?". The call Centre agents are apparently saying it's because people can commit a crime outside of Canada. It's another frustrating thing adding to the pile. I wonder if a positive answer to that question can basically ruin your whole application..

 

[GustavesF]

there is not much movement regarding 2014, on FB it seems like cic is processing lots of 2013 and some February applications.

A new question has come up during landing interviews. "Have you ever left Canada?". The call Centre agents are apparently saying it's because people can commit a crime outside of Canada. It's another frustrating thing adding to the pile. I wonder if a positive answer to that question can basically ruin your whole application..

Seriously? They're asking if you have ever left Canada?

In case you've committed a crime? That sounds a bit bogus.
What if you visited say... France prior to your application's submission, do you need to get a police clearance from France?
As far as criminal activity goes it makes no difference. They only require you to get police clearances for places you've lived in for more than several months, so why would it have anything to do with people committing a crime outside of Canada?

Clearly this question is due to CIC being a bunch of clowns.

I doubt outland applicants have to get police clearances for every single country they've ever visited and possibly committed a crime in, so why is this even an issue?

 

[screech339]

Seriously? They're asking if you have ever left Canada?

In case you've committed a crime? That sounds a bit bogus.
What if you visited say... France prior to your application's submission, do you need to get a police clearance from France?
As far as criminal activity goes it makes no difference. They only require you to get police clearances for places you've lived in for more than several months, so why would it have anything to do with people committing a crime outside of Canada?

Clearly this question is due to CIC being a bunch of clowns.

I doubt outland applicants have to get police clearances for every single country they've ever visited and possibly committed a crime in, so why is this even an issue?

I'm not defending CIC asking this question of "have you left Canada" but look at it another way. The usual question is "have you been convicted since you entered canada". Read "CONVICTED". One could in theory left the country and committed a crime and the crime is investigated and ongoing while you returned to Canada. You didn't lie to CIC when you say no to that "convicted" question. You were not convicted.

Another way is that by asking about leaving Canada, you were suppose to be residing in canada the whole time. Canada doesn't track people leaving Canada, only entering canada. So if you did leave Canada during the process, they can check records of when you actually came back and if the timing of your return seemed off, (recent return to Canada in time for landing interview), they can investigate to see if you left Canada too long to violate "residing in Canada" requirement.

I think CIC is trying to cover all the bases of possible fraud or violation of "residing in canada" requirement.

It is no difference from those that applied for citizenship under the old rules. They can leave Canada and return only for test and oath.

 

[MaryLou6]

Seriously? They're asking if you have ever left Canada?

In case you've committed a crime? That sounds a bit bogus.
What if you visited say... France prior to your application's submission, do you need to get a police clearance from France?
As far as criminal activity goes it makes no difference. They only require you to get police clearances for places you've lived in for more than several months, so why would it have anything to do with people committing a crime outside of Canada?

Clearly this question is due to CIC being a bunch of clowns.

I doubt outland applicants have to get police clearances for every single country they've ever visited and possibly committed a crime in, so why is this even an issue?

My thought exactly!!!

The couple who were asked that wrote this on FB "As for if she had left Canada, we didn't ask specifically but the agent said it would have been bad if we had" . The applicant had a multiple entry visa and they said that's why the lady was asking.

???

 

[Ponga]

Seriously? They're asking if you have ever left Canada?

They only require you to get police clearances for places you've lived in for more than several months, so why would it have anything to do with people committing a crime outside of Canada?

I've never really understood the logic behind this. Why is it set at 6 months or longer, when a person can in fact commit a crime even when they're `passing through' someplace?!

This just adds credence to my earlier question (in another thread):
Why do applicant's even need to provide police checks at all? CIC and/or CBSA has access to everything already (ICES, FOSS, CPIC, NCIC, Interpol, etc.), so...why don't they just add [yet] another fee to the application process and do the check(s) themselves?

 

[screech339]

I've never really understood the logic behind this. Why is it set at 6 months or longer, when a person can in fact commit a crime even when they're `passing through' someplace?!

This just adds credence to my earlier question (in another thread):
Why do applicant's even need to provide police checks at all? CIC and/or CBSA has access to everything already (ICES, FOSS, CPIC, NCIC, Interpol, etc.), so...why don't they just add [yet] another fee to the application process and do the check(s) themselves?

They dont want to do the legwork. Remember they are union. They want to work the least for max pay.

 

[GustavesF]

I'm not defending CIC asking this question of "have you left Canada" but look at it another way. The usual question is "have you been convicted since you entered canada". Read "CONVICTED". One could in theory left the country and committed a crime and the crime is investigated and ongoing while you returned to Canada. You didn't lie to CIC when you say no to that "convicted" question. You were not convicted.

Another way is that by asking about leaving Canada, you were suppose to be residing in canada the whole time. Canada doesn't track people leaving Canada, only entering canada. So if you did leave Canada during the process, they can check records of when you actually came back and if the timing of your return seemed off, (recent return to Canada in time for landing interview), they can investigate to see if you left Canada too long to violate "residing in Canada" requirement.

I think CIC is trying to cover all the bases of possible fraud or violation of "residing in canada" requirement.

It is no difference from those that applied for citizenship under the old rules. They can leave Canada and return only for test and oath.

One could, in theory, have taken a 1-week vacation to Guam before entering Canada, committed a few crimes, and started Canadian immigration, and their intrepid detective at the landing interview would be none the wiser.

They could simply ask if you've been arrested for any reason, in any country. Or if you've been out of the country longer than 60 days. How could they *not* be able to find that out?

You know what, forget police clearances, the landing interview detective has it all covered. They'll sniff out all the frauds.
Heck, even if you're not a fraud, but it's physically possible, in theory, that you had the opportunity to be, then you'll be caught too.

If they're not going to outlaw leaving Canada or start voiding applications the minute someone re-enters Canada, then they need to stop playing amateur detective.

 

[GustavesF]

I've never really understood the logic behind this. Why is it set at 6 months or longer, when a person can in fact commit a crime even when they're `passing through' someplace?!

This just adds credence to my earlier question (in another thread):
Why do applicant's even need to provide police checks at all? CIC and/or CBSA has access to everything already (ICES, FOSS, CPIC, NCIC, Interpol, etc.), so...why don't they just add [yet] another fee to the application process and do the check(s) themselves?

+ to this.

It's absolutely ridiculous that a 1st world nation can't just check to see if the person is a criminal, rather than trusting pieces of paper being mailed back and forth over the period of a month or so.

The same goes for absolutely everything else in this archaic process.

I'd pay extra for them to do the police check.
I'd pay extra to have a person with a brain doing my application.
I'd pay extra to have gotten my AOR within a week of arrival.

Time to fire the union and outsource this.

 

[screech339]

One could, in theory, have taken a 1-week vacation to Guam before entering Canada, committed a few crimes, and started Canadian immigration, and their intrepid detective at the landing interview would be none the wiser.

They could simply ask if you've been arrested for any reason, in any country. Or if you've been out of the country longer than 60 days. How could they *not* be able to find that out?

You know what, forget police clearances, the landing interview detective has it all covered. They'll sniff out all the frauds.
Heck, even if you're not a fraud, but it's physically possible, in theory, that you had the opportunity to be, then you'll be caught too.

If they're not going to outlaw leaving Canada or start voiding applications the minute someone re-enters Canada, then they need to stop playing amateur detective.

All I am saying is that there has to be a reason to start asking "have you been out of Canada" question. They cant just make up a question on a fly for no reason. So I think it may have to do with either criminality issues or maintaining your residency in Canada purposes.

 

[screech339]

+ to this.

It's absolutely ridiculous that a 1st world nation can't just check to see if the person is a criminal, rather than trusting pieces of paper being mailed back and forth over the period of a month or so.

The same goes for absolutely everything else in this archaic process.

I'd pay extra for them to do the police check.
I'd pay extra to have a person with a brain doing my application.
I'd pay extra to have gotten my AOR within a week of arrival.

Time to fire the union and outsource this.

Then everyone would be paying to max to get a leg up over everyone else. The problem will still remain.

Trust me, everyone will pay the max to get their application quickly. I know I would.

If there was an option to pay extra to have process done in 12 months compare to regular fee for 2 years process, everyone will be paying for the 12 months option. Once that happens, the 12 month option would be totally swamped with applications (basically shifting all the regular applications to fast process). Then the 12 month option will be dragged out to 2 years due to all the applications in the 12 month option. So throwing more money wont solve the problem. The problem lies with the overwelming number of applications submitted.

It is no difference from the new citizenship process. The new rule process will be a lot faster due to a huge drop of citizenship applications being submitted under the new rule. This will be temporary until 1 year or 2 has passed when applicants had to wait additional 1 or 2 year wait to apply. The processing time will then go up but not as long as old rule due to removing a subjective basic residency qualification and judges to determine the answer.

 

[GustavesF]

Then everyone would be paying to max to get a leg up over everyone else. The problem will still remain.

Trust me, everyone will pay the max to get their application quickly. I know I would.

If there was an option to pay extra to have process done in 12 months compare to regular fee for 2 years process, everyone will be paying for the 12 months option. Once that happens, the 12 month option would be totally swamped with applications (basically shifting all the regular applications to fast process). Then the 12 month option will be dragged out to 2 years due to all the applications in the 12 month option. So throwing more money wont solve the problem. The problem lies with the overwelming number of applications submitted.

It is no difference from the new citizenship process. The new rule process will be a lot faster due to a huge drop of citizenship applications being submitted under the new rule. This will be temporary until 1 year or 2 has passed when applicants had to wait additional 1 or 2 year wait to apply. The processing time will then go up but not as long as old rule due to removing a subjective basic residency qualification and judges to determine the answer.

I want better response times for AOR. There's absolutely no reason why, if *we* fund it, they can't hire a few clerks to let us know our application arrived and at least file them into some kind of tracking system.
If 2 million people *specifically pay* the cost to have their envelope picked up by a clerk, leafed through to make sure docs were the right date, and typed into a tracking system, then I don't see how that could contribute to backlog.

If I want CIC to take the extra money I pay, and push some of that money over to a police check service, then take the rest of that money to have another clerk to make sure communications between that service and themselves isn't just lost in a pile, then I don't see why that can't be accomplished, or how that could possibly create extra backlog.
It is barbaric that the amount of time it takes to verify that a package has arrived is measured in months.

I didn't say I wanted to pay for faster processing time in general. I just want better accountability for menial tasks they can accomplish with simple mail clerks.

But since we've disturbed that sleeping bear, why can't they just *fix* processing times? We know that our applications aren't handled by seasoned experts, they're being handled by 3 month interns with 4 days of training. Double the fee, hire twice as many interns. Better yet, double the fee, fire the union, hire 3x as many fresh graduates, suffer through the 4 days of training, and fix the backlog.

Are we seriously regulating immigration via processing times? Does that even make sense?

All I am saying is that there has to be a reason to start asking "have you been out of Canada" question. They cant just make up a question on a fly for no reason. So I think it may have to do with either criminality issues or maintaining your residency in Canada purposes.

What it sounds like is a groundless, needless, ignorant, threat, that no one at CIC cares to explain.
If you are allowed to leave Canada for brief visits, as long as you make it back in, then don't threaten to ruin someone's life at the end of the whole process after they've waited nicely twiddling their thumbs in Canada for 2 years.

 

[screech339]

What it sounds like is a groundless, needless, ignorant, threat, that no one at CIC cares to explain.
If you are allowed to leave Canada for brief visits, as long as you make it back in, then don't threaten to ruin someone's life at the end of the whole process after they've waited nicely twiddling their thumbs in Canada for 2 years.

Has it occurred to you that a visa exempted applicant could, in theory, leave Canada to go back to home country and wait out the inland application. Return in time for inland interview (being denied re-entry is very small for visa exempt applicants, even more so with OWP in hand) and may actually get away with it. CIC won't know you just came back in time unless they saw that you re-entered recently. So a recent re-entry in time for interview could trigger an closer examination to confirm whether the applicant only visited for a couple of weeks (SAFE) or stayed a month or longer (FAILED the "stay in Canada" rule).

The "Have you left Canada" question does allow them to enforce the "stay in Canada" rule.

 

[MaryLou6]

One could, in theory, have taken a 1-week vacation to Guam before entering Canada, committed a few crimes, and started Canadian immigration, and their intrepid detective at the landing interview would be none the wiser.

They could simply ask if you've been arrested for any reason, in any country. Or if you've been out of the country longer than 60 days. How could they *not* be able to find that out?

You know what, forget police clearances, the landing interview detective has it all covered. They'll sniff out all the frauds.
Heck, even if you're not a fraud, but it's physically possible, in theory, that you had the opportunity to be, then you'll be caught too.

If they're not going to outlaw leaving Canada or start voiding applications the minute someone re-enters Canada, then they need to stop playing amateur detective.

+1
Also, they do not ask as for police certificates from every country we visited on vacation (as long as we stayed shorter than 6 months). So what is the difference now to go to Mexico for example, for a week and come back to Canada. Crime can be committed within seconds so this timeframe is useless.

 

[GustavesF]

Has it occurred to you that a visa exempted applicant could, in theory, leave Canada to go back to home country and wait out the inland application. Return in time for inland interview (being denied re-entry is very small for visa exempt applicants, even more so with OWP in hand) and may actually get away with it. CIC won't know you just came back in time unless they saw that you re-entered recently. So a recent re-entry in time for interview could trigger an closer examination to confirm whether the applicant only visited for a couple of weeks (SAFE) or stayed a month or longer (FAILED the "stay in Canada" rule).

The "Have you left Canada" question does allow them to enforce the "stay in Canada" rule.

I understood your "concern".
I don't understand why an investigation, if actually required (according to your assumption), was not done prior to the landing interview.
If the person entered Canada at all after starting their app, then it's intensely obvious that they also left Canada.
So at that point, if you believe it's truly necessary, an investigation can be launched to determine if the applicant took part in any espionage.

If they're honestly concerned about this, then perhaps they should use the resources at their disposal instead of needlessly complicating the final step in this process.

Further, a recent re-entry means nothing. I could have simply gone shopping cross-boarder a week prior to my interview. It's not illegal to do so, nor is it a breech of inland policy.
I could have even worked cross-border, entering Canada 5 times a week. Also not illegal or a breech of inland policy.
Or, I could have lived abroad for a full year following the beginning of the process, and made it back just in time to wait another year before the landing interview.

The "have you left Canada" question is just there because CIC is too lazy to actually investigate anything, and this allows them to check the "applicant wasn't residing out of Canada" box without doing anything at all to make sure they aren't committing fraud. Unfortunately their laziness backfires because they've decided to ask a question far too broad to have any value.

It's like a police officer at a road-check asking you if you've ever consumed alcohol in your life, because if you have then you're arrested for DUI.