Hey All; here is an excerpt from an audit in Kingston in 2010 I think of their operations (possiblt this may have been posted before but it makes for a good read and insight of what we see happening with the process)
3.3.1 Application ProcessingThe audit of internal controls included an examination of immigrant and non-immigrant processing. We expected to find that application decisions were adequately documented, that processes and procedures complied with applicable legislation and policies, that sufficient controls were in place to ensure that admissibility requirements were met, and that designated and delegated authorities for decisions were appropriate and complied with departmental policy.
We found that controls over application processing generally met our expectations.
We documented and reviewed the application processes in place at the mission and found that the mission appears to comply with Departmental standards. In interviews with staff, it was apparent that staff were knowledgeable about processing requirements. We reviewed all decisions for cases finalized in the review period and found that all decisions were made by authorized individuals.
We also reviewed samples of cases finalized. Requirements were generally met but there was some room for improvement in terms of documenting the processing steps. Some steps were not documented consistently in case notes. For example:
•communications with the client were not always noted (e.g., acknowledgement of receipt);
•information was missing on application forms and documents;
•CAIPS notes did not consistently identify the basis of the decision or indicate closure of all concerns raised.
Documenting communications with the client serves to demonstrate what actions have been taken to process a case. Examples of such actions are: 1) requesting missing information or 2) informing the applicant of the status of their application. The first allows the case to continue to be processed, while the second acts as a preventative control to reduce the number of case enquiries, which in turn reduces the amount of that time staff have to devote to processing cases. The mission’s failure to document communications with the client may be a symptom resulting from staff vacancies and turnover at the mission. Multiple staff perform multiple functions in the processing of cases, and at each stage, employees must properly record any potential issues of concern so that when the file reaches the officer, the officer is in a position to identify the appropriate action to move the case onto the next stage. We found some officers’ notes regarding decisions were not always complete or, in some instances, were absent. However, we have noted this issue in other missions abroad as well. The impact in Kingston is that, in some instances the complete process has not been documented and may result in decisions not being fully supported in the case notes.
In performing additional work to process a case, such as responding to enquiries, the mission may be lengthening the time it takes to process a case, because staff are performing duties that do not actually advance the application forward in the application process. The “Overseas Processing Manual” states that “Officers should ensure that case notes not only document any decisions taken during case evaluation, but also clearly reflect the process the officer followed in reaching those decisions.” Case notes serve as the record of how a case has been processed and they are used by staff outside the mission to report on cases and respond to queries. Decisions must therefore be fully documented.
Recommendation 3
Mission management should review its front-end application screening procedures to ensure that they allow for more efficient case processing.
Management Response
Mission management team has raised the different issues with the people concerned.
Changes have taken place in the ISU. A mail room has been created. All incoming mail and faxes will be processed through this room, and mail will be stamped the day it is received. TRV applications are now received by the receptionist, who confirms the reception and stamps the application. In the past, the applications were received by the cashier who processed the fees the same day they were received. In that scenario, the POS+ receipt was deemed to be the equivalent of the reception stamp and mail received was not stamped.
In March 2010, we proceeded to conduct a QA activity with the goal of verifying whether the use of AORs was occurring as per policy. The review was done on 50 family class (FC) files received between May and December 2009 and it found that all files were compliant.
