Your timeline is very similar to mine. My test was on may 5th no dm. Also sent to st. Clair
October 11th 2017 - Citizenship Applicants under 3/5 rule
- Thread starter HamiltonApplicant
- Start date
Looking at the records from SC office it looks like a lot of (~50%) applicants from SC starting from May are waiting for DM. I hope nothing serious is waiting for us.
My other guess which others also expressed was about nationality. A lot of people from Mississauga and Scarborough are from middle east and most of them are going through the same... Do not have enough data to support this, but just guessing here to make myself feel better.
Regarding my previous CAUTION about suspended applications:
In terms of the ultimate outcome, that of course DEPENDS on the specific facts and circumstances in the individual's case. Almost all of which the particular individual involved knows or should upon reflection know (recognizing, however, many in this situation claim there is no reason or reasonable explanation they can think of).
If the affected individual is very confident there is NO reason for criminality or security concerns, and no reason to suspect misrepresentation (at any stage of the individual's immigration history), odds are good there really is NO problem . . .or at least not a serious problem . . . and indeed, in this event, the length of the delay should be LESS than what is seen in the typical IAD or Federal Court decision involving a suspended application. HOWEVER this "if" is a big IF. Not sure if it is rooted in self-delusion-denial or a refusal to admit or what, but many of those affected in this or a similar situation tend to NOT recognize or at least claim to NOT know of any reason for it when they actually know or should know.
With exceptions of course. Among actual cases in officially reported decisions, there was a doctor who had done volunteer work for an aid organization in the past, in a conflict area, many years before applying for PR. That organization was a local subdivision of a bigger, international organization. LATER, well after the doctor had provided medical services in the conflict zone with the organization, the bigger organization had affiliations with an entity identified as a terrorist organization or as supporting a terrorist organization, the association having not to do with any direct terrorist activity but with providing financial aid to an organization which on one hand was doing legitimate aid work but also had a branch involved (as designated by the Canadian government, probably following such designation by the U.S. government). Note, again, the parent organization of the organization the doctor worked for did NOT have this connection or association UNTIL SOME TIME AFTER THE DOCTOR NO LONGER WAS WORKING FOR IT. As I recall, his application for citizenship was suspended for MANY YEARS. The allegation he had been a member of a designated terrorist organization sat in limbo, his pending but not actually prosecuted inadmissibility proceeding hanging over his head for years. I do not recall the final outcome; I vaguely recall he partially prevailed but perhaps only to the extent of compelling the matter to proceed. The decision did not reveal whether the doctor knew why his application had been suspended, or specifically why he had an inadmissibility proceeding pending against him, until the adjudication years later (I do not recall if it was an appeal of an actual decision finding him inadmissible or a mandamus action in the citizenship case). Obviously he knew he had worked for that organization. Whether he knew the organization LATER became affiliated with one designated as one aiding or involved in terrorism I do not know. (There is much I do not recall in detail about the case . . . no time to go back into researching it.)
CAVEATS:
Caveat 1. Reminder, I am NOT an expert. I have minimal direct experience beyond my own rather smooth-sailing personal immigration and path to citizenship history. A lot of what I figure out about these things depends on following and comparing information in forums with information gleaned from official sources, including actual cases officially reported in IAD and Federal Court decisions, as well as the applicable statutes. The fact I have minimal direct personal experience looms particularly large in respect to issues like this, since what is seen in the IAD and Federal Court decisions might NOT be representative (and what is seen in forum anecdotal reports is obviously NOT representative). It is possible that numerous, even scores of citizenship applications, are suspended for not-so-long periods while rather routine inquiries or even investigations are referred to other agencies, and there is little reporting of this.
Caveat 2. Additionally, the formal statutory authorization (Section 13.1 in the Citizenship Act) for suspending applications was implemented August 1, 2014, pursuant to Bill C-6. Many applications (including the doctor's case I discuss above) were in effect, as a matter of practice, suspended BEFORE that. Indeed, most of the reported cases actually precede this. And even the most recent Federal Court decision (see http://canlii.ca/t/hsp1r ) regarding a suspended application initially dates to BEFORE the Bill C-6 adoption of Section 13.1 (and the validity of that is the subject of a certified question). Even before Section 13.1 there were cases in which processing the citizenship application was in effect suspended for many, many years; I recall one in which it had been in limbo more than EIGHT YEARS.
All of which is to note that how IRCC is interpreting and applying Section 13.1 is (1) not yet well known, and (2) potentially under-development. In particular, it is possible that IRCC has recently taken an expanded approach to employing Section 13.1 suspensions, or is in the process of doing that, toward employing suspension of processing more broadly than the way cases were previously shelved for very long periods of time. Which in some regards could be bad news, in that might mean many more applicants could find their applications suspended and thus delayed, but somewhat mitigating news in that it also could mean having an application suspended will NOT NECESSARILY entail the super-long delays seen in the past.
That said, the grounds for suspending processing as prescribed by the statute, and outlined in the PDI (linked above by @wvo2017), are all SERIOUS matters, and appear to mostly be matters which it can and often does take a rather long time to get resolved . . . suggesting a substantial delay at best, potentially a rather lengthy delay, and DEPENDING on the reason and related facts, potentially involving very serious consequences. Not to be taken lightly.
In terms of potentially very long delays, yes. After all, it means processing the citizenship application has been suspended. There is no further action being taken on it UNLESS and UNTIL whatever inquiry or investigation being done (and most likely being done by a different agency, CBSA or the RCMP or CSIS) is completed AND a determination made.This is probably the scariest post in the entire thread
In terms of the ultimate outcome, that of course DEPENDS on the specific facts and circumstances in the individual's case. Almost all of which the particular individual involved knows or should upon reflection know (recognizing, however, many in this situation claim there is no reason or reasonable explanation they can think of).
If the affected individual is very confident there is NO reason for criminality or security concerns, and no reason to suspect misrepresentation (at any stage of the individual's immigration history), odds are good there really is NO problem . . .or at least not a serious problem . . . and indeed, in this event, the length of the delay should be LESS than what is seen in the typical IAD or Federal Court decision involving a suspended application. HOWEVER this "if" is a big IF. Not sure if it is rooted in self-delusion-denial or a refusal to admit or what, but many of those affected in this or a similar situation tend to NOT recognize or at least claim to NOT know of any reason for it when they actually know or should know.
With exceptions of course. Among actual cases in officially reported decisions, there was a doctor who had done volunteer work for an aid organization in the past, in a conflict area, many years before applying for PR. That organization was a local subdivision of a bigger, international organization. LATER, well after the doctor had provided medical services in the conflict zone with the organization, the bigger organization had affiliations with an entity identified as a terrorist organization or as supporting a terrorist organization, the association having not to do with any direct terrorist activity but with providing financial aid to an organization which on one hand was doing legitimate aid work but also had a branch involved (as designated by the Canadian government, probably following such designation by the U.S. government). Note, again, the parent organization of the organization the doctor worked for did NOT have this connection or association UNTIL SOME TIME AFTER THE DOCTOR NO LONGER WAS WORKING FOR IT. As I recall, his application for citizenship was suspended for MANY YEARS. The allegation he had been a member of a designated terrorist organization sat in limbo, his pending but not actually prosecuted inadmissibility proceeding hanging over his head for years. I do not recall the final outcome; I vaguely recall he partially prevailed but perhaps only to the extent of compelling the matter to proceed. The decision did not reveal whether the doctor knew why his application had been suspended, or specifically why he had an inadmissibility proceeding pending against him, until the adjudication years later (I do not recall if it was an appeal of an actual decision finding him inadmissible or a mandamus action in the citizenship case). Obviously he knew he had worked for that organization. Whether he knew the organization LATER became affiliated with one designated as one aiding or involved in terrorism I do not know. (There is much I do not recall in detail about the case . . . no time to go back into researching it.)
CAVEATS:
Caveat 1. Reminder, I am NOT an expert. I have minimal direct experience beyond my own rather smooth-sailing personal immigration and path to citizenship history. A lot of what I figure out about these things depends on following and comparing information in forums with information gleaned from official sources, including actual cases officially reported in IAD and Federal Court decisions, as well as the applicable statutes. The fact I have minimal direct personal experience looms particularly large in respect to issues like this, since what is seen in the IAD and Federal Court decisions might NOT be representative (and what is seen in forum anecdotal reports is obviously NOT representative). It is possible that numerous, even scores of citizenship applications, are suspended for not-so-long periods while rather routine inquiries or even investigations are referred to other agencies, and there is little reporting of this.
Caveat 2. Additionally, the formal statutory authorization (Section 13.1 in the Citizenship Act) for suspending applications was implemented August 1, 2014, pursuant to Bill C-6. Many applications (including the doctor's case I discuss above) were in effect, as a matter of practice, suspended BEFORE that. Indeed, most of the reported cases actually precede this. And even the most recent Federal Court decision (see http://canlii.ca/t/hsp1r ) regarding a suspended application initially dates to BEFORE the Bill C-6 adoption of Section 13.1 (and the validity of that is the subject of a certified question). Even before Section 13.1 there were cases in which processing the citizenship application was in effect suspended for many, many years; I recall one in which it had been in limbo more than EIGHT YEARS.
All of which is to note that how IRCC is interpreting and applying Section 13.1 is (1) not yet well known, and (2) potentially under-development. In particular, it is possible that IRCC has recently taken an expanded approach to employing Section 13.1 suspensions, or is in the process of doing that, toward employing suspension of processing more broadly than the way cases were previously shelved for very long periods of time. Which in some regards could be bad news, in that might mean many more applicants could find their applications suspended and thus delayed, but somewhat mitigating news in that it also could mean having an application suspended will NOT NECESSARILY entail the super-long delays seen in the past.
That said, the grounds for suspending processing as prescribed by the statute, and outlined in the PDI (linked above by @wvo2017), are all SERIOUS matters, and appear to mostly be matters which it can and often does take a rather long time to get resolved . . . suggesting a substantial delay at best, potentially a rather lengthy delay, and DEPENDING on the reason and related facts, potentially involving very serious consequences. Not to be taken lightly.
How can an applicant know if his/her case is suspended? Is this something posted on online status checker? What is the difference between the cases that are waiting for security clearances for a long time and those that you mentioned are "on-hold"?
Hi guys,
I have test interview coming in a few weeks. I had a few stamps in non English languages in my passport which I gave it to mosaic for translation. They asked me to make a color copy of all my passport pages to attach to the translation (although only one page of my passport has a few non-english stamps!). How was your experience about non english stamps? Is it necessary you provide a color copy of all pages to the officer?
Thanks
I have test interview coming in a few weeks. I had a few stamps in non English languages in my passport which I gave it to mosaic for translation. They asked me to make a color copy of all my passport pages to attach to the translation (although only one page of my passport has a few non-english stamps!). How was your experience about non english stamps? Is it necessary you provide a color copy of all pages to the officer?
Thanks
Please update the spreadsheet, we got our test invite yesterday:
Application Received: October 26, 2017
AOR: December 9, 2017
In Process: January 3, 2018
Test Invite: Jul 16
Test Date: Aug 10
Location: Scarborough
Application Received: October 26, 2017
AOR: December 9, 2017
In Process: January 3, 2018
Test Invite: Jul 16
Test Date: Aug 10
Location: Scarborough
no, you don't need
I translated all non EN/FR stamps in my passport and attached black and white photo copy of my passport pages and when i did my interview with IRCC agent after passing the exam, she toke my passport with the original translation and make her own photocopy then she gave me back the original one.
Geotherm
Hero Member
- Nov 7, 2014
- 53
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- C-Ottawa
- NOC Code......
- 2113
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 08-09-2014
- Doc's Request.
- 20-02-2015
- AOR Received.
- PER 23-12-2014
- Med's Request
- 21-02-2015
- Med's Done....
- 27-02-2015
- Interview........
- MR Uploaded 06-06-2015 DM 16-06-2015
- Passport Req..
- 12-06-2015
- VISA ISSUED...
- 17-06-2015
- LANDED..........
- 27-062015
