US outland applicants' thread :)

[centralpork]

For common-law it's a bit more common, but definitely not for married people at least under the old system.

Yeah, that sounds right. In my case, we were together for 5 years but living together for just over a year when we applied, so it's understandable that they wanted to follow-up specifically on the cohabitation (I wasn't asked for more evidence of our relationship - just the housing piece). Hopefully it doesn't cause too much of a delay! Is their a biting nails emoji?

 

[jeff198901]

yes, it seems to be part of the new process, so you need to submit it again:

Submit your Schedule A – Background / Declaration (IMM 5669)

View form IMM 5669 (PDF, 399.68 KB)

All applicants over the age of 18 and all principal applicants (including a dependent child under the age of 18) must upload a validated electronic copy of this form within 30 days from the date of the acknowledgement email or letter.

To speed up processing and avoid delays, we strongly recommend that you:

fill out this form electronically while waiting for your acknowledgement of receipt
make sure the form is validated
save a validated copy so it’s ready to upload to your online account as soon as you link your application
Important: When you are completing your personal history, don’t leave any gaps in time. Pay close attention to questions 6 and 9. Gaps in time will cause delays in processing because we will ask you to re-submit a new form. Your application can only be processed accordingly with your response and will be assessed based on the information you provide.

So this part isn't mailed, it's supposed to be uploaded electronically ?

 

[danawhitaker]

So this part isn't mailed, it's supposed to be uploaded electronically ?

If you're using the new forms, yes. This information is in the guide that goes along with the new forms.

 

[jeff198901]

If you're using the new forms, yes. This information is in the guide that goes along with the new forms.

Do you still have to mail in the background check?

 

[danawhitaker]

Do you still have to mail in the background check?

I'm thinking you need to thoroughly read through the guide before completing your application. I'm not trying to be harsh, I apologize if it comes across that way. But some of these are basic questions that you'd get the answer to if you read through the guide. I'm concerned you may be missing other important details about the application process.

 

[jeff198901]

I'm thinking you need to thoroughly read through the guide before completing your application. I'm not trying to be harsh, I apologize if it comes across that way. But some of these are basic questions that you'd get the answer to if you read through the guide. I'm concerned you may be missing other important details about the application process.

Guide 5525 , correct?

 

[CDNPR2014]

Guide 5525 , correct?

yes, here's the link:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/guides/5525ETOC.asp

scroll down and specifically read the part titled "What to expect after you submit your application".

the guide should be read completely before submitting the application as well as used as a reference for any questions during processing.

 

[danawhitaker]

Guide 5525 , correct?

Yes. I'd also utilize the complete guide while filling out the forms:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/guides/5289ETOC.asp

 

[jeff198901]

I'm thinking you need to thoroughly read through the guide before completing your application. I'm not trying to be harsh, I apologize if it comes across that way. But some of these are basic questions that you'd get the answer to if you read through the guide. I'm concerned you may be missing other important details about the application process.

I still do not see what it says to do with the PCC. I know the imm5669 has to be submitted online, but how about the PCC?

 

[danawhitaker]

I still do not see what it says to do with the PCC. I know the imm5669 has to be submitted online, but how about the PCC?

It says they will request them. Ctrl+F in the guide for "Police certificate" to see the appropriate sections. That information is also covered in the new application checklist. While I don't believe it specifies the method of submission, it does say that they do not need to be included with the application and will be requested with the background declaration. Since they do not ask for it up front, I wouldn't include it, and would wait until they ask for it.

I cannot stress enough, both of you should read EVERYTHING. Read it multiple times. My husband and I both fully read each guide and form before we filled them out, and referred to the guides while we filled them out. I've had more conversations about the nuance of wording on forms and guides in the past eight months than I ever care to again.

 

[Aquakitty]

The checklist has all that information.


Does anyone else think this new 5669 requirement is confusing? I mean, they put the document in the same category as the other forms, yet it's supposed to be sent later. I don't really get the purpose of asking for that form later, or the PCC for that matter. The medical makes more sense.

And, to top it off, they are asking for it again from people who sent it in upfront. I see no point to that besides adding more confusion.

Overall the improvements are good on these new forms, but that part is counter-intuitive, imo. Perhaps they were having issues with officers misplacing the documents

 

[danawhitaker]

The checklist has all that information.


Does anyone else think this new 5669 requirement is confusing? I mean, they put the document in the same category as the other forms, yet it's supposed to be sent later. I don't really get the purpose of asking for that form later, or the PCC for that matter. The medical makes more sense.

And, to top it off, they are asking for it again from people who sent it in upfront. I see no point to that besides adding more confusion.

Overall the improvements are good on these new forms, but that part is counter-intuitive, imo. Perhaps they were having issues with officers misplacing the documents

I believe the new version of the form can be validated, so it's easier to enter into their system. Prior to the new kit, they were entering that information manually. But if that's the case, why not allow the applicant to fill it out and send the barcodes with the initial package like you do with the other forms that can be validated?

I personally feel that a lot of the changes are designed to give the applicant the impression there's actually more back and forth/communication with CIC than current applicants feel there is. Once you link the application, unless they ask you for more documents, you don't hear much of anything at all after you have sponsor approval. This way, people will know (theoretically) that their application is being worked on because they will be asked for certain things at certain times. But I think that impression is ultimately going to come with longer processing times for routine cases who would have normally provided everything upfront. I still don't understand how an application that provides every single thing asked for up front is less efficient to process than CIC having to ask for multiple things during the processing. I'll be interested to see how this all plays out. For certain people, being asked for medical later makes sense, but for those of us who could much more easily provide it up front and who will likely be processed well within the one year expiration, that 30 day window would become a hassle.

Maybe they're hoping regular communication with CIC will result in fewer calls to the call center or fewer requests for GCMS notes.

 

[gamechef]

have any october applicants seen their background checks begin yet? i haven't heard anything since i got my SA and ECAS changed to "in process" in late november.

 

[danawhitaker]

have any october applicants seen their background checks begin yet? i haven't heard anything since i got my SA and ECAS changed to "in process" in late november.

One person on the October spreadsheet got DM on 1/6. Their background check wasn't in progress very long.

 

[jeff198901]

One person on the October spreadsheet got DM on 1/6. Their background check wasn't in progress very long.

What is DM? Decision made?