I am looping in
@dpenabill to this thread. Hoping to get their advice on this situation. I feel like applicants whose background still stays in progress even after fingerprints received by IRCC, might be stuck at security screening.
I cannot offer advice. I am NO expert.
Moreover, I do not spend much time grappling with what amounts to micro-monitoring details, which so far as I've seen, for qualified applicants tend to be largely uninformative and otherwise prone to false leads if not outright red herrings. A real lot of the time when it looks like the application is waiting on the completion of the security clearance, it's not really waiting on that, that's already done but the processing agent has not logged it into the GCMS.
Upfront, overall: While it is difficult to take even a wild guess about the actual numbers, a big majority if not the vast majority of qualified applicants do not need to worry about what is delaying progress. Watch of course. Especially for notices or requests. Respond accordingly, appropriately. And otherwise it is about waiting. Some have to wait longer than others, and sure, the variability in timelines, especially when comparing comparable applicants, is confusing, perplexing, and invites some to be anxious.
So, I get it, I understand that many applicants are anxious and want to know as much as possible about the progress of their application, and in recent years IRCC has increased the amount of information about certain stages of processing that is readily accessible to applicants. For most applicants, most of the time, these details do not illuminate much other than they do show that IRCC is actually processing the application (even if, sometimes, all that seems to show is how slowly that is going), which frankly should be expected without having to get confirmation.
For the qualified majority, however, the details do not offer much (if any) information that will be useful in making decisions. The majority of applicants are still in the same position: waiting, watching and waiting.
Of course that still leaves a rather large number of applicants whose application could have some issues, situations in which it would be prudent for the applicant to be more interactive and proactive. For some, yeah, there can be a real, substantial security related concern which has resulted in a referral for further inquiries or investigation, and depending on what that is about, the impact can be minimal (such as when that is about clarifying the applicant's identity) or result in a lengthy delay. Similarly in regards to physical presence.
Remember, most of the delay is about time the file is in queue waiting for the next-responsible official to take action, and then sitting in a queue back in the local office waiting for the responsible processing agent to take the next step.
Meanwhile, much of the information which would be informative, illuminating, is confidential. Anything related to inquiries or investigations is strictly confidential. So, no amount of probing IRCC will reveal this kind of information.
"Do you know what exactly happens, why it gets delayed? What extra is done?"
We have some general ideas about what might be done, based on what is seen in published decisions regarding actual cases. But of course both WHAT is done, and WHY, will vary widely depending on the particular individual case. Are there indications of possible criminal charges in another country? Are there questions about the veracity of the applicant's physical presence calculation? Any reason to question the applicant's work or address history? Has the applicant spent an extensive period of time abroad after applying? Does the applicant appear to have continuing residency ties outside stronger than those in Canada?
The scope of additional inquiry can range from a processing agent simply conducting some further cross-checks, researching open sources like social media (LinkedIn has popped up as a source of conflicting information about PRs triggering problems) or making telephone calls, which should cause minimal delays, or at the more involved end, there can be referrals for full-blown investigations, to CBSA's NSSD, to overseas visa offices, or other law enforcement, depending on what the concern is about; there can indeed be lengthy delays if this happens.
All of which, again, is done behind the confidentiality curtain.
The good news is that the fully qualified applicant who has provided truthful information and who has not engaged in any actions that could constitute a prohibition, should have little or no reason to worry. This or that can slow the timeline, and be frustrating, but for those who are confident (objectively so) there is no cause for IRCC to have a problem, odds are very good things will move along and be OK, because there is no problem.