Thanks
@dpenabill
As I think about the interview, I am now beginning to be convinced that the delay has nothing to do with the facts of my application which have been 100% accurate. The interview started off on the wrong note. The body language and the sarcasm were hard to miss. I don't want to quote the actual conversation, in case it violates any privacy laws. My response to his one last remark, probably sealed my fate. Suffice to say it got argumentative. The next thing I knew was he printed a sheet of paper, put his initials and gave me 30 days to respond. Anyway, one doesn't have any control on these matters so no point in ranting about it here.
One last question - any thoughts on why does IRCC prohibit citizenship applicants from contacting the CBSA about their travel history. Wouldn't that be the simplest way to resolve this? After all, if they have doubts, don't they reach out to the CBSA for this check?
I cannot guess let alone say why things for you went
off-the-rails, so to say. There is no doubt something triggered concerns. Not sure there was anything you could have done differently.
Given the nature of the interview, which I do not recall being aware of before (such as two years ago when we exchanged messages about the request for supplemental evidence), looks like the processing agent interviewing you had concerns, was probably distrustful, and your application was then referred for at least some non-routine inquiries, and that happened right at the beginning of Covid, so your application was diverted into one of the longer delaying versions of non-routine processing which got a whole lot worse due to Covid. Probably impossible to figure out why.
The fact the interviewer had concerns does not mean the interviewer's concerns were well-founded. That does not mean IRCC had overt reason to suspect the accuracy of your information. Remember, for purposes of evaluating credibility, processing agents and officers are often evaluating the applicant's body language, demeanor, the way the applicant talks, and so on, as much as the substance of what a person says. Credibility assessment is tricky. Critical and tricky.
I have often said that second only to meeting the actual requirements and properly completing the application, the applicant's credibility (mostly meaning IRCC's perception of the applicant's credibility) is the next biggest factor in how things go. And applicant's only have partial control of what influences IRCC's perception of their credibility.
CBSA Travel History:
IRCC does NOT "prohibit" PRs "from contacting the CBSA about their travel history," whether or not the PR plans to apply for citizenship, is preparing a citizenship application, or already has applied.
IRCC has, in the past,
discouraged PRs from contacting CBSA to obtain their travel history. 2017 and 2019 versions of CIT 0002 (the adult citizenship application), for example, in Question 14 asked the applicant to give consent for CBSA to disclose travel history details to IRCC, and stated "
*Please do not contact the CBSA to request your history of travel" . . . a
request, not an instruction let alone a requirement or mandate. This has been dropped from the current version of CIT 0002; not certain but I think there has been some changes in law facilitating easier access, by IRCC, to a PR's CBSA travel history that does not require, like it did in the past, overt documentation of particular cause if it did not have the client's explicit consent; remember, the Privacy Act regulates access to personal government records even within a particular agency let alone personal information held by a different agency.
Meanwhile, IRCC cannot prohibit PRs from obtaining their personal information, their travel history, from CBSA; individual access to this information is also governed by the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act, and PRs have a statutory entitlement to obtain these records.
Not much point wandering into the weeds about all the likely reasons why IRCC discouraged accessing personal travel history with CBSA. But perhaps it is worth noting that of course IRCC prefers applicants give information they personally know, not parroting information obtained from other sources, even government sources. Remember, the applicant is the best source of travel history, the one and only source, the one and only person in the whole world, who was for sure there on each and every occasion the PR left Canada and returned to Canada.
When there are questions of fact to be determined, decision-makers much prefer the best evidence. (And their skepticism if not outright suspicions are triggered if they perceive any reason to doubt how reliable the best evidence is.)
Of course they do not blindly accept and rely on the applicant's information. Even for the most routinely processed application, at the least they compare information about address and employment history, and to the extent they can they are assessing how reliable a reporter the source of the best evidence is.
In any event, if the applicant is parroting the travel history information obtained from CBSA, rather than in effect testifying from personal knowledge, personal records, that is akin to what in a judicial setting is hearsay, which in a judicial setting is, generally, not even admissible, and even if admissible (there are lots of hearsay exceptions) it does not have nearly the weight what a witness testifies to based on personal knowledge.
Bottom-line: applicants can, and many do, use various sources to check the information they are giving IRCC about their travel dates, including obtaining copies of their CBSA travel history. But as IRCC has long advised, the better and preferred approach is to keep a personal travel journal so the PR can accurately and completely report travel history in a citizenship application, or a PR card application, or if otherwise subject to an examination about their compliance with the Residency Obligation, emphasizing this allows the PR to report their travel history based on personal knowledge rather than relying on what amounts to hearsay evidence.
Some General Observations:
Things did not go well in the interview. It concluded with being issued a request for supplemental evidence. When I and others, nearly two years ago, said this meant your application was now "
non-routine" but saw little reason to be concerned about how severely it would affect things (assuming you appropriately provided what was requested), what we did not know, then, is that you already had a strong indication, based on the nature and character of the interaction with the interviewer, there was at the least some elevated concern about you or the information in your application.
This is kind of what I talk about when saying applicants generally know, or should know, there is reason to anticipate a problem in processing their application. There was more information, more illuminating insight, into how things were going to go for you there, then, in the interview, than you could have gotten in two or five ATIP requests for GCMS records, dozens of help centre calls and webform inquiries, more than what your MP could have gotten from IRCC about your case. When it does not go well with the interviewer, that does not necessarily mean things will
go-off-the-rails but it is a rather salient clue there is a real risk that is where things are headed.
In your case not too far
off-the-rails, since as you say, your information was accurate and complete.
In your case it appears to no longer be
off-the-rails, as it appears whatever triggered the referral for non-routine processing (quite likely involving some sort of non-routine investigatory inquiries) probably has, finally, been resolved, inferring and hoping that the physical presence complete notation signals this.
Relationship With Formal Background Clearances from the RCMP or CSIS:
Probably little or NONE. For sure, what GCMS was showing for you in reference to the formal clearances did not and would not offer the slightest clue about what non-routine background screening your application was otherwise undergoing.
And as previously noted, it is not likely that the formal clearances, even if "expired" and in need of updating, will cause much if any delay in how long your application takes going forward. Still not sure, but best guess is you have cleared the main hurdle, whatever non-routine side trip your application took (still inferring a referral to CBSA/NSSD for background inquiries to verify physical presence is the more likely suspect).
Finally . . . a key takeaway from your story is it illustrates that even if there are signs the application processing has gone
off-the-rails, for applicants like you who are confident they gave accurate and complete information, and they meet the qualifying requirements, the worse-case scenario is having to wait longer than others . . . eventually IRCC will get it done . . . not to satisfaction, not within a reasonable amount of time, obviously, and sure in some cases it can go further
off-track, which is why there is a process for obtaining judicial review.
In any event, my sense, still, is you are near the end of the process. Fingers-crossed.
