NON-ROUTINE APPLICANTS
- Thread starter Cameron2020
- Start date
What the status of your application? What all activities are completed? Crime is not the only reason. There are other factors too. But they don't share that info.
Good thing is your background is completed. You can apply for GCMS notes and see what is holding your application processing.
How many more days exactly? Just a few or a lot? This can make a difference.
Ultimately hard for us to guess why your application is non routine without knowing your profile. This can happen for any number of reasons.
Ah yes, the "non-routine" claim, allows the IRCC to take their sweet time in actually dealing with an application. In our case almost 2.5 years now and still no final decision on our inland spousal sponsorship plus PR application; absolutely pathetic in my view that it has taken 10 months plus to complete a final background check on one individual which is holding up approval of our application and none of the relevant parties involved are willing to be held accountable for this BS.
This is a thread in the Citizenship forum about non-routine processing of citizenship applications. It is, in particular, a discussion about the non-routine processing of applications on behalf of Canadians (Canadian PRs) not Foreign Nationals. Should be obvious that despite describing respective applications as "non-routine" there are big differences between processing a Canadian (PR) applying for citizenship versus processing a Foreign National's application to obtain status in Canada.
That is, you are off-topic, posting in the wrong forum. Processing, including processing time lines, reasons for non-routine processing, and the nature and scope of background screening for PR applications in the family class, are different from issues affecting the processing of citizenship applications. There are other forums at this website more relevant to that and I believe you have been engaged in discussions about the situation there.
Foremost, for PR applicants, if IRCC or CBSA or CSIS see any reason to make inquiry beyond what the applicant has declared, including information about any potentially accompanying family member (which is often the sticky part of things), or what is indicated in supporting documents (including police certificates), it is NOT a "simple background check."
Secondly, NO, it is not true that when an application is considered non-routine that "presumably means they can take as long as they want" to complete processing. Leading to . . .
If you are actually serious (not just ranting) about pursuing legal recourse, actually the lawsuit to bring would be an application for a Writ of Mandamus, an action asking the court to compel the Minister to do what the law mandates be done. That would not be a suit for "incompetence" as such, but a lawsuit alleging that IRCC has failed to do what the law requires it to do.
To successfully (not frivolously) file a lawsuit there must be grounds, and while it gets a lot more complicated that generally means legal recourse for grievances (based on wrongs, injuries, breaches of contract, or such) must be based on seeking either redress for the wrong (fixing the wrong) or compensation for the injury or loss caused by the wrong. And the particular wrong and resulting injury must be specified.
If IRCC has wrongfully failed to timely process a visa application, the legal redress available is to sue for an order to compel IRCC to timely process the application. That is, to seek a Writ of Mandamus, an order that IRCC fix the wrong done. Such a suit can include a claim for the costs of having to pursue the action in order to get the IRCC to do what it should (as prescribed by law), but it appears the courts tend to be rather stingy in awarding such costs. There is no recognizable cause of action for compensation for a failure to timely process a visa application (not like there is in a suit for negligence causing a physical injury which results in loss of employment, as one example, in which the injured party can recover compensation for financial losses resulting from the injury).
Does not take much to file (launch) a lawsuit against a particular entity, such as a lawsuit more or less against IRCC by filing a legal action against the Minister of IRCC. A lawsuit for "incompetence," however, is bound to be summarily dismissed as frivolous and the only real question is whether costs will be assessed against the party bringing the suit, and if so how much they would have to pay for bringing the suit. Since you would almost certainly be proceeding pro se (self-represented rather than by a lawyer) the court might be lenient and not impose costs or at least not a lot of costs (so long as you have not been a repeat offender, so to say).
I say that such a suit would almost certainly be made pro se because it is very unlikely you could find a lawyer who would file a frivolous suit (there is no cause of action against the IRCC for "incompetence" generally).
That said . . .
For many, too many, IRCC's track record pushes the reasonable-processing-time envelope, and for a significant number (and this has been particularly the case in processing PR visa applications) IRCC crashes well beyond that, and on many occasions the courts have indeed had to step in and compel IRCC to fix the situation. And yeah, that was the result of suits for a Writ of Mandamus. (Although on occasion advocates have managed to push through political solutions as well.)
No, it is not true that IRCC "can take as long as they want." Again, recourse for unreasonable delays lies in seeking a Writ of Mandamus.
Meanwhile, perhaps the most common bog into which applications get stuck is indeed the background criminality or security screening. That involves more than what is done for routine clearances. In these scenarios it is usually CBSA or CSIS that is holding things up, whoever the file has been referred to for conducting an investigation. Not IRCC (although IRCC is sometimes guilty of not sufficiently pushing those agencies for results). Sorting out which among such cases involves an unreasonable delay, let alone documenting which agency is responsible for the delay and getting legal recourse, can be tricky and difficult, recognizing that much if not nearly all that is involved in conducting an investigation is confidential information.
Plenty there to complain about . . . even rant . . . better to do so, nonetheless, in the relevant forum and topic.
Or better yet, do the homework, organize a coherent and persuasive exposition of relevant facts and issues, and engage in productive advocacy, perhaps starting with letters to MPs or contacting the media (in either case, best to really nail down precise facts based on reliable, credible sources; general ranting tends to sound like noise to be readily dismissed). I suppose, given the social climate of these times, it should not surprise me how many rant, as if it really matters, but we see so few here engaged in actually trying to formulate effective advocacy toward improving how things work.
Meanwhile, even though some citizenship applicants (generally a small percentage, but that still adds up to many) get similarly bogged down with background criminality or security screening (some in process for eight or ten years, even seen one recently stalled for over twenty years), most prohibition issues do not stall citizenship application processing anywhere near comparable to how long visa applicants suffer.
One of the more common holdups for citizenship applicants is background screening to verify physical presence.
Leading to on-topic observations and what non-routine processing entails for citizenship applications . . .
Leading To . . . On Topic . . .
If misrepresentation is suspected, for example, that can bog things down considerably.
If the applicant is a PR-refugee they can typically anticipate a higher risk of investigatory delays (not all refugee applicants, but a significant percentage).
If it is just a minor quirk or anomaly, maybe a non-routine inquiry to verify a particular address or employer, that would make the application non-routine but should not result in an extraordinarily long delay.
Does not take much to make an application non-routine. It just means that there is something in addition to the routine procedures that all applications are subject to, and it can range from a very minor thing that has little impact on how long it will take to process the application (most fingerprint requests, for example, do not mean processing the application will be delayed much, but a fingerprint request makes the application non-routine), to referrals to other agencies in the government for the purpose of conducting investigations, which in turn can lead to lengthy delays (again, we see some applicants bogged down for four or six years, some even eight or ten, and again I saw one recently in process for more than two decades before, just last year, a Federal Judge finally said enough).
As noted above, criminality and security screening can involve referrals to CBSA or CSIS beyond the routine background clearances done for all applicants, and this can cause long delays. But for almost everyone that gets bogged down this way, it should be little or no surprise. The applicant knows their own history, and it is not like IRCC or CSIS makes stuff up just to tangle up a particular individual's citizenship application.
Most prohibition issues will not cause extraordinarily long delays.
But of course different people have differing views about what is extraordinary or unreasonable or just plain "too long." For most of the decade and a half, plus some, that I have been enmeshed in this subject, it has not been uncommon to see many solid applications take more than a year, up to a year and a half, and those with substantive issues up to around two plus years.
To illustrate how widely processing times can vary, when I was granted citizenship my application took eight months, from mailing to taking the oath, while for the individual sitting next to me at the oath ceremony it had been six months; at the time, however the published processing time (back then calculated based on how long it took for 80% of routinely processed citizenship applications) was two years, and for a friend of mine, from the UK with no unusual history at all, it took over three years (his went slightly awry following a change in address while the application was in process). Varies and can vary a lot.
As I previously noted, a common cause for longer processing times for citizenship applicants is non-routine processing related to verification of physical presence. For applicants who completely and accurately detailed their travel history and applied with a good margin over the minimum, this should not cause a lengthy delay. Obviously, those who apply cutting-it-close can anticipate it taking longer.
One thing that has plagued some citizenship applicants is their previous use of a consultant who has been caught engaging in fraud, even though there was no fraud or misrepresentation by the applicant. It appears, for example, that CBSA and IRCC have been employing extra scrutiny in screening applicants that have been identified as former clients of such consultants. And extra scrutiny means non-routine processing that takes more time.
The "non-routine" description alone does not mean much at all and its impact varies widely. What really matters is why the particular application is subject to whatever additional procedures are involved, and what those procedures are. If it is merely an inquiry to verify the applicant's identity, or the applicant's employment with a particular employer, or such, that should not cause much delay at all. If, at the other end of the spectrum, it is a referral to CSIS to investigate the applicant in regards to what is perceived as their involvement in suspicious activity in Syria, that could take awhile, perhaps a very long while.
If misrepresentation is suspected, for example, that can bog things down considerably.
If the applicant is a PR-refugee they can typically anticipate a higher risk of investigatory delays (not all refugee applicants, but a significant percentage).
If it is just a minor quirk or anomaly, maybe a non-routine inquiry to verify a particular address or employer, that would make the application non-routine but should not result in an extraordinarily long delay.
Does not take much to make an application non-routine. It just means that there is something in addition to the routine procedures that all applications are subject to, and it can range from a very minor thing that has little impact on how long it will take to process the application (most fingerprint requests, for example, do not mean processing the application will be delayed much, but a fingerprint request makes the application non-routine), to referrals to other agencies in the government for the purpose of conducting investigations, which in turn can lead to lengthy delays (again, we see some applicants bogged down for four or six years, some even eight or ten, and again I saw one recently in process for more than two decades before, just last year, a Federal Judge finally said enough).
As noted above, criminality and security screening can involve referrals to CBSA or CSIS beyond the routine background clearances done for all applicants, and this can cause long delays. But for almost everyone that gets bogged down this way, it should be little or no surprise. The applicant knows their own history, and it is not like IRCC or CSIS makes stuff up just to tangle up a particular individual's citizenship application.
Most prohibition issues will not cause extraordinarily long delays.
But of course different people have differing views about what is extraordinary or unreasonable or just plain "too long." For most of the decade and a half, plus some, that I have been enmeshed in this subject, it has not been uncommon to see many solid applications take more than a year, up to a year and a half, and those with substantive issues up to around two plus years.
To illustrate how widely processing times can vary, when I was granted citizenship my application took eight months, from mailing to taking the oath, while for the individual sitting next to me at the oath ceremony it had been six months; at the time, however the published processing time (back then calculated based on how long it took for 80% of routinely processed citizenship applications) was two years, and for a friend of mine, from the UK with no unusual history at all, it took over three years (his went slightly awry following a change in address while the application was in process). Varies and can vary a lot.
As I previously noted, a common cause for longer processing times for citizenship applicants is non-routine processing related to verification of physical presence. For applicants who completely and accurately detailed their travel history and applied with a good margin over the minimum, this should not cause a lengthy delay. Obviously, those who apply cutting-it-close can anticipate it taking longer.
One thing that has plagued some citizenship applicants is their previous use of a consultant who has been caught engaging in fraud, even though there was no fraud or misrepresentation by the applicant. It appears, for example, that CBSA and IRCC have been employing extra scrutiny in screening applicants that have been identified as former clients of such consultants. And extra scrutiny means non-routine processing that takes more time.