No need to be frustrated. Best forecast of when you will be scheduled to take the oath ranges from SOON to sometime LATER THIS YEAR. Difficult-to-impossible to make any credible guess more precise than that.
Even entirely routine applications will vary widely in their timeline. Even applicants applying around the same time, in similar circumstances, processed in the same local office, can easily see a timeline ranging from six to ten months longer for one compared to the other.
IRCC is a bueaucracy, a big bureaucracy, and bureaucracies are what bureaucracies do.
Think taking the 401 westbound from Younge to Dixon Road 4:30 p.m. on a Friday afternoon during construction season. Plan to do some waiting.
MOREOVER, your application is NOT ROUTINE.
For the majority of applicants required to submit Finger Prints that typically, usually, does NOT knock the application much off the typical routine track (in which, again, more than a few applicants will see a timeline THREE times as long as the fastest, and most will have a timeline around TWICE as long as the fastest). But a Finger Print request is NOT routine (common but not routine), and for those subject to a FP requirement there is a corresponding risk of some additional non-routine processing, perhaps delay.
That is, the majority of those required to submit FPs need not worry about much of a delay, let alone any inordinate delays, but of course it can cause at least a bit of a delay and for some applicants FP requests may be related to collateral queries which can indeed result in significant delays.
Re No Trips Abroad versus the Frequent Traveler:
Meanwhile, unfortunately, an application based on NO travel abroad, can sometimes arouse more concern than the frequent traveler's application.
In particular, I have no idea if there are any concerns, any elevated scrutiny about your physical presence calculation, PROBABLY NOT.
BUT contrary to what some think, NO trips Abroad can invite questions. Depending, of course, on the individual, ranging from the individual's immigration history itself to the individual's specific circumstances.
For example: there is little reason to second-guess a refugee-PR's claim to have never traveled outside Canada. But if an American citizen living in Toronto has family in Buffalo, NY, and claims she never left Canada once in more than three years, IRCC is likely to entertain some doubts and do some digging. In-between those extremes the variables are many, their permutations practically incalculable, but the bottom-line is that an applicant's declared travel history is, of course, evaluated in context with all the other information IRCC has about the applicant. And no travel abroad, at all, can invite questions, even suspicions, depending on the individual's personal case.
In contrast, very much contrary to what many think, the frequent traveler now benefits from easily verified dates of entry into Canada. Thus, for example, in the case of someone who has traveled regularly into the U.S. who accurately reports a dozen or two dozen trips a year, who otherwise has a solid employment history in Canada, IRCC can readily verify most or all of those entries, each of which documents actually coming into and thus being in Canada, and when this is corroborated by a solid employment history that will easily dissolve any questions or concerns about that person's presence in Canada.
Compare:
-- Applicant who reports presence in Canada from October 5, 2014 to October 12, 2017, and no trips abroad during this time, total approximately 1103 days APP (Actually-Physically-Present)
-- Applicant who reports residing and working full time in Canada since June 3, 2014 and who reports forty trips outside Canada between June 3, 2014 and November 27, 2017, reporting (roughly, approximately) a total of around 135 days abroad (three dozen short trips to the U.S. and an annual substantial holiday abroad) and 1130 days present in Canada
All other factors being relatively equal, the latter, the traveler, probably has the stronger case. Perhaps significantly stronger depending on how much sense it makes that the Non-traveler is someone who would not travel abroad at all for three plus years.
Consider, for example, the fact that the first, the non-traveler, is relying on IRCC making the inference that she was in Canada every day between October 5, 2014 and October 12, 2017, with NO direct government records to document any particular day she was in Canada.
In contrast, the traveler has FORTY easily verified dates on which he entered Canada in-between June 2013 and November 2017, and with full time employment in Canada there is clear evidence of a pattern corroborating presence in Canada between those readily verified (in CBSA records) dates of entry and reported dates of exit. In this instance IRCC is not only likely to rely on the inference of presence between reported date of entry and next reported date of exit, the pattern almost mandates that IRCC make this inference (in the absence of conflicting information, not to rely on this inference would be unreasonable).
Mostly, however,
it DEPENDS, and CONTEXT LOOMS LARGE. IRCC processing agents are trained and experienced in evaluating bits and pieces of information against the whole picture of other information. They mostly get it.
But they do NOT have a crystal ball. They have to rely on the evidence and reasonable inferences derived from the evidence. The irony, for the non-traveler versus frequent traveler, is that the latter tends to have more readily verifiable data-points, more evidence, less need for IRCC to rely on broad inferences.
THAT SAID, I do not mean to put too much emphasis on the prospects of IRCC having concerns about the applicant's reported travel history. For the vast majority of qualified applicants,
there are few or NO concerns, and IRCC readily gives the applicant the benefit of the inference of presence between reported date of entry and next date of exit. NO PROBLEM. No cause for worry or frustration. BUT
THE TIMELINE WILL NONETHELESS VARY AND VARY CONSIDERABLY. Very similar applicants can sail through the process in five months, while for most it will be six to eight months, and for many it could be more like ten months to a year (general timeline subject to change depending on how well IRCC is actually handling the surge in applications). And the latter, those for whom it takes ten or more months, may have every bit as strong a case as the those who sailed through in barely five months. As I said, and it is obvious, IRCC is a bureaucracy and a bureaucracy is what a bureaucracy does. That is just how it works.
