Does having a Nexus card help speed up the process?

[issteven]

When applying for Nexus card, people have gone through six-month background check. I was wondering if any people with Nexus card have faster processing when applying for citizenship?

 

[itsmyid]

When applying for Nexus card, people have gone through six-month background check. I was wondering if any people with Nexus card have faster processing when applying for citizenship?

Nexus holder, 18 months and counting

 

[dpenabill]

When applying for Nexus card, people have gone through six-month background check. I was wondering if any people with Nexus card have faster processing when applying for citizenship?

Generally there is NO way to accelerate the processing of a citizenship application UNLESS the application is given URGENT PROCESSING.

There are many things which can cause an applicant's personal timeline to be longer . . . longer compared to the mainstream of routinely processed applications submitted around the same time and being processed in the same local office.

If there is some such thing causing an application to take longer, it is possible certain factors can reduce how much longer. That is, it is possible that some of those things which add time just might, just possibly, can be more quickly resolved, depending on some individual factor specific to the individual. And thus help, in effect, to shorten how much additional time the process takes.

That is, for some applicants who might be facing a longer timeline, a factor like this could, possibly, reduce how much longer it takes.

But there is no way to accelerate the baseline processing time. (Again, except qualifying for and being given urgent processing.)

There appears to be a widespread misconception about how much actual time is spent processing applications. I do not really know, but it is likely no more than a total of a FEW HOURS. If that.

Thus, if an applicant with a crystal ball could predict some particular additional fact or circumstance that might help a processing agent do the job faster, sure, HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO TRIM A WHOLE HALF HOUR OFF THE TIMELINE. Not likely. But possible. No way to verify because this is NOT likely to accelerate the date the next step will happen.

There is also a widespread misconception about the impact of background checks on the processing timeline. For the vast majority of applicants supposedly waiting for a background check, the wait is NOT because the RCMP or CSIS is holding things up. It is because the application has not reached the step in which the processing agent or official acting on it formally checks the clearances off as complete . . . that is, the clearance is there but not yet entered as complete . . . a lot like when you first send in the application, it is THERE, but the AOR does not happen for many weeks (and at times this has been several months), and if you call to inquire the help centre agent cannot confirm the application has been received but since you used a courier with delivery confirmation you know it is there.

Moreover, the RCMP and CSIS checks are no big deal for the vast majority of applicants. These are routine . . . well, except for a small percentage (but a small percentage of a quarter million or so adds up to many thousands, many dozens of whom end up here, complaining). For the vast majority of applicants the RCMP and CSIS clearances do not delay processing at all.

The more expansive and relevant background check is the one done by the processing agent who prepares the application for the test and PI Interview, and conducts the interview. This involves a thorough comparison and cross-checking of information in the application and against other sources of information (such as specific information about the client accessed in other PIBs). I do not know how long this usually takes . . . BUT not all that long . . . A HALF HOUR maybe . . . TWO HOURS?

For the vast majority of applicants, however many parts of an hour or hours (if it takes multiple hours) that takes, it is most likely done in just three instances of actually acting on the application: (1) preparation before the test & interview; (2) attendant the interview at the test/interview event; and (3) completing observations and conclusions for the Citizenship Officer to review. My impression is that no more than PARTS of an hour are allocated for each of these, even if in total the processing agent is allocated a couple or three hours for all these combined. So, again, even if the applicant can present something, or has circumstances providing information which can help the processing agent complete these tasks more quickly, AT BEST ALL THAT ACCOMPLISHES IS FASTER BY PARTS OF AN HOUR.

UNLESS . . . YEAH, THE BIG UNLESS . . .

UNLESS there is a reason for IRCC to take some additional action, to make some additional inquiry, or to make a referral for someone else to do something. And this is where individual applicants suffer longer timelines. And yes, this happens to a fairly large number of applicants. We can all see the spreadsheets. Big batches of applicants going through the process in a relatively similar timeline; for applications made around the same time and processed in the same local office the variations are more likely due to batch scheduling events than processing times . . .

. . . and then there are those taking longer. More than a few.

So it is in this latter vein that perhaps, just perhaps, something like having NEXUS might tip the scales so that the processing agent can complete the task without taking an additional action, without making an additional inquiry or referral. So that the application stays in the baseline routinely processed group of applications in effect flowing through the assembly-line steps without delay.

That said, something like NEXUS also has other implications, like the rather obvious extensive ties to ANOTHER country, namely the U.S., which depending on the particular details in the applicant's case could be one of those factors which actually triggers the processing agent to take an additional action, or make an additional inquiry or referral, actually slowing down the process. Not for all NEXUS holders. Depends. Probably a wide range of factors which will determine its effect. For example, I'd guess a NEXUS holder with a very small buffer over the minimum will, at the least, have the application, travel dates in particular, subjected to at least a little more scrutiny. (A substantial buffer over the minimum should readily offset this.)

Which brings any discussion about what could influence the timeline around to the unpredictable nature of many if not most factors. Even the size of the buffer is a factor which cannot be said to have a readily forecast influence. After all, no buffer at all still meets the qualifications as long as there is no question the applicant was present at least 1095 days within the eligibility period.

Steady employment for an easily recognized Canadian employer, working at a readily identified location in Canada, that is perhaps one of the strongest positive factors an applicant can have when applying. Here too, it will NOT accelerate the timeline BUT it could help a lot to avoid many things which could slow the timeline. This is probably the easiest factor to recognize as having a more definitive positive effect. But for most of us, our work history decisions have been dictated by circumstances and choices related to matters either imposed on us or having a higher priority than trying to orchestrate how it looks when we apply for citizenship.

Most other factors have far more nebulous if not variable influences and are NOT worth an attempt to orchestrate them. Which leads back to NEXUS. Which, again, could have a positive influence for some applicants, but invite questions for others.

ULTIMATELY THE BEST APPROACH TOWARD MINIMIZING POSSIBLE DELAYS IN THE TIMELINE (again, nothing will accelerate the timeline over how long it takes for the application to proceed through the baseline processing steps, EXCEPT urgent processing) is to carefully consider WHEN is the best time to apply (some applicants should wait longer than others), FOLLOW the INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY, and be excessively CAREFUL to BE COMPLETE and ACCURATE. Qualified applicants who do this have very good odds of sailing through the process as quickly as applications submitted at the time can. And, frankly, if there is some reason why the application will not sail through so smoothly, it is NOT likely the applicant can do much about it . . . least not without rearranging his or her life disproportionately to any prospective benefit, with no promise it will help much.

 

[alternatestar]

Generally there is NO way to accelerate the processing of a citizenship application UNLESS the application is given URGENT PROCESSING.

There are many things which can cause an applicant's personal timeline to be longer . . . longer compared to the mainstream of routinely processed applications submitted around the same time and being processed in the same local office.

If there is some such thing causing an application to take longer, it is possible certain factors can reduce how much longer. That is, it is possible that some of those things which add time just might, just possibly, can be more quickly resolved, depending on some individual factor specific to the individual. And thus help, in effect, to shorten how much additional time the process takes.

That is, for some applicants who might be facing a longer timeline, a factor like this could, possibly, reduce how much longer it takes.

But there is no way to accelerate the baseline processing time. (Again, except qualifying for and being given urgent processing.)

There appears to be a widespread misconception about how much actual time is spent processing applications. I do not really know, but it is likely no more than a total of a FEW HOURS. If that.

Thus, if an applicant with a crystal ball could predict some particular additional fact or circumstance that might help a processing agent do the job faster, sure, HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO TRIM A WHOLE HALF HOUR OFF THE TIMELINE. Not likely. But possible. No way to verify because this is NOT likely to accelerate the date the next step will happen.

There is also a widespread misconception about the impact of background checks on the processing timeline. For the vast majority of applicants supposedly waiting for a background check, the wait is NOT because the RCMP or CSIS is holding things up. It is because the application has not reached the step in which the processing agent or official acting on it formally checks the clearances off as complete . . . that is, the clearance is there but not yet entered as complete . . . a lot like when you first send in the application, it is THERE, but the AOR does not happen for many weeks (and at times this has been several months), and if you call to inquire the help centre agent cannot confirm the application has been received but since you used a courier with delivery confirmation you know it is there.

Moreover, the RCMP and CSIS checks are no big deal for the vast majority of applicants. These are routine . . . well, except for a small percentage (but a small percentage of a quarter million or so adds up to many thousands, many dozens of whom end up here, complaining). For the vast majority of applicants the RCMP and CSIS clearances do not delay processing at all.

The more expansive and relevant background check is the one done by the processing agent who prepares the application for the test and PI Interview, and conducts the interview. This involves a thorough comparison and cross-checking of information in the application and against other sources of information (such as specific information about the client accessed in other PIBs). I do not know how long this usually takes . . . BUT not all that long . . . A HALF HOUR maybe . . . TWO HOURS?

For the vast majority of applicants, however many parts of an hour or hours (if it takes multiple hours) that takes, it is most likely done in just three instances of actually acting on the application: (1) preparation before the test & interview; (2) attendant the interview at the test/interview event; and (3) completing observations and conclusions for the Citizenship Officer to review. My impression is that no more than PARTS of an hour are allocated for each of these, even if in total the processing agent is allocated a couple or three hours for all these combined. So, again, even if the applicant can present something, or has circumstances providing information which can help the processing agent complete these tasks more quickly, AT BEST ALL THAT ACCOMPLISHES IS FASTER BY PARTS OF AN HOUR.

UNLESS . . . YEAH, THE BIG UNLESS . . .

UNLESS there is a reason for IRCC to take some additional action, to make some additional inquiry, or to make a referral for someone else to do something. And this is where individual applicants suffer longer timelines. And yes, this happens to a fairly large number of applicants. We can all see the spreadsheets. Big batches of applicants going through the process in a relatively similar timeline; for applications made around the same time and processed in the same local office the variations are more likely due to batch scheduling events than processing times . . .

. . . and then there are those taking longer. More than a few.

So it is in this latter vein that perhaps, just perhaps, something like having NEXUS might tip the scales so that the processing agent can complete the task without taking an additional action, without making an additional inquiry or referral. So that the application stays in the baseline routinely processed group of applications in effect flowing through the assembly-line steps without delay.

That said, something like NEXUS also has other implications, like the rather obvious extensive ties to ANOTHER country, namely the U.S., which depending on the particular details in the applicant's case could be one of those factors which actually triggers the processing agent to take an additional action, or make an additional inquiry or referral, actually slowing down the process. Not for all NEXUS holders. Depends. Probably a wide range of factors which will determine its effect. For example, I'd guess a NEXUS holder with a very small buffer over the minimum will, at the least, have the application, travel dates in particular, subjected to at least a little more scrutiny. (A substantial buffer over the minimum should readily offset this.)

Which brings any discussion about what could influence the timeline around to the unpredictable nature of many if not most factors. Even the size of the buffer is a factor which cannot be said to have a readily forecast influence. After all, no buffer at all still meets the qualifications as long as there is no question the applicant was present at least 1095 days within the eligibility period.

Steady employment for an easily recognized Canadian employer, working at a readily identified location in Canada, that is perhaps one of the strongest positive factors an applicant can have when applying. Here too, it will NOT accelerate the timeline BUT it could help a lot to avoid many things which could slow the timeline. This is probably the easiest factor to recognize as having a more definitive positive effect. But for most of us, our work history decisions have been dictated by circumstances and choices related to matters either imposed on us or having a higher priority than trying to orchestrate how it looks when we apply for citizenship.

Most other factors have far more nebulous if not variable influences and are NOT worth an attempt to orchestrate them. Which leads back to NEXUS. Which, again, could have a positive influence for some applicants, but invite questions for others.

ULTIMATELY THE BEST APPROACH TOWARD MINIMIZING POSSIBLE DELAYS IN THE TIMELINE (again, nothing will accelerate the timeline over how long it takes for the application to proceed through the baseline processing steps, EXCEPT urgent processing) is to carefully consider WHEN is the best time to apply (some applicants should wait longer than others), FOLLOW the INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY, and be excessively CAREFUL to BE COMPLETE and ACCURATE. Qualified applicants who do this have very good odds of sailing through the process as quickly as applications submitted at the time can. And, frankly, if there is some reason why the application will not sail through so smoothly, it is NOT likely the applicant can do much about it . . . least not without rearranging his or her life disproportionately to any prospective benefit, with no promise it will help much.

On what part of the process do they actually check for the veracity of the things we wrote on the application form like our previous addresses, jobs, school etc?

 

[issteven]

Nexus holder, 18 months and counting

man, that sucks!

 

[harirajmohan]

Nexus holder, 18 months and counting

Thats too long.... Did you at least complete the test? Did they ask any RQ/documents?

 

[dpenabill]

On what part of the process do they actually check for the veracity of the things we wrote on the application form like our previous addresses, jobs, school etc?

I am not sure what you think is involved in "actually check[ing] for the veracity of . . . " address, work, or other activity history.

For the vast majority of applicants, the verification process is largely internal, comparing and cross-checking the information in the application, comparing and cross-checking it with other information IRCC has, including in GCMS and PIBs . . . and remember, there is a GCMS background check done during every step of the process, and thus the address and work history information may be examined and cross-checked REPEATEDLY . . . including during all of the following steps:

-- opening application and screening completeness in CPC-Sydney
-- some sort of triage screening in CPC-Sydney in preparing the referral to a local office
-- processing agent or official in local office opening the file and preparing application for PI Interview and, if applicable, knowledge test
-- local office official conducting the PI Interview and test
-- local office official preparing file for Citizenship Officer to review
-- Citizenship Officer review and decision
-- oath ceremony (which still includes some checks: GCMS check for prohibitions, and identity verified and client verification of no prohibitions)​

For the vast majority of applicants this is perfunctory. If the agent or official conducting the particular step sees no reason to look more closely, NO PROBLEM.

For many applicants the last four steps above can actually take place in very short order . . . mine was barely TWO days . . . Interview on Monday morning and the oath Wednesday morning. (Except mine happened when the file was prepared for, reviewed by and acted on by a Citizenship Judge rather than a Citizenship Officer.)

But if something is inconsistent or looks askew or is incongruous, that can trigger more scrutiny, more inquiries, and for some applicants this will lead to actual investigatory procedures . . . researching open source information . . . making telephone calls . . . and if the level of concern warrants it, even a referral to CBSA or the RCMP to conduct further inquiries or even formal investigations.

Thus, the above steps happen to all applications. There may be additional steps for some applicants. Additional steps would ordinarily make the application "non-routine," but not all "non-routine" applications are created or treated equally. Sometimes a non-routine step has minimal import, very little impact on the timeline. Other times, other non-routine steps, can be a big deal, add a lot of additional steps to the process, and end up adding a lot of time, even more than an additional year, to the processing timeline.

Beyond that this is a rather complicated subject and involves means and methods which are confidential, not public information . . . so much of what we know derives from older sources (when there was more transparency), information directly and indirectly extrapolated from Federal Court decisions in which case details are discussed, the PDIs of course, the now replaced (by PDIs) operational manuals (CP 5 "Residence" was particularly informative), some shared ATI responses (which are now older sources as well; not to be confused with ATIP responses for individual applicants), and from what can be gleaned from forum reporting.

For most applicants, the main scrutiny of address and work history is likely done when the local office agent prepares the file for the PI Interview and to some extent in the interview . . . if concerns or questions are perceived, that will trigger further inquiries. But again, the core tool employed by IRCC remains the same: critical comparison and cross-checking of known information. And this can be and likely is revisited, to some extent, during most of the steps taken when the GCMS background screening is done . . . again noting that there is a GCMS background screening is supposed to be done EVERY TIME an agent or official takes ANY ACTION on the application.

 

[alternatestar]

I am not sure what you think is involved in "actually check[ing] for the veracity of . . . " address, work, or other activity history.

For the vast majority of applicants, the verification process is largely internal, comparing and cross-checking the information in the application, comparing and cross-checking it with other information IRCC has, including in GCMS and PIBs . . . and remember, there is a GCMS background check done during every step of the process, and thus the address and work history information may be examined and cross-checked REPEATEDLY . . . including during all of the following steps:

-- opening application and screening completeness in CPC-Sydney
-- some sort of triage screening in CPC-Sydney in preparing the referral to a local office
-- processing agent or official in local office opening the file and preparing application for PI Interview and, if applicable, knowledge test
-- local office official conducting the PI Interview and test
-- local office official preparing file for Citizenship Officer to review
-- Citizenship Officer review and decision
-- oath ceremony (which still includes some checks: GCMS check for prohibitions, and identity verified and client verification of no prohibitions)​

For the vast majority of applicants this is perfunctory. If the agent or official conducting the particular step sees no reason to look more closely, NO PROBLEM.

For many applicants the last four steps above can actually take place in very short order . . . mine was barely TWO days . . . Interview on Monday morning and the oath Wednesday morning. (Except mine happened when the file was prepared for, reviewed by and acted on by a Citizenship Judge rather than a Citizenship Officer.)

But if something is inconsistent or looks askew or is incongruous, that can trigger more scrutiny, more inquiries, and for some applicants this will lead to actual investigatory procedures . . . researching open source information . . . making telephone calls . . . and if the level of concern warrants it, even a referral to CBSA or the RCMP to conduct further inquiries or even formal investigations.

Thus, the above steps happen to all applications. There may be additional steps for some applicants. Additional steps would ordinarily make the application "non-routine," but not all "non-routine" applications are created or treated equally. Sometimes a non-routine step has minimal import, very little impact on the timeline. Other times, other non-routine steps, can be a big deal, add a lot of additional steps to the process, and end up adding a lot of time, even more than an additional year, to the processing timeline.

Beyond that this is a rather complicated subject and involves means and methods which are confidential, not public information . . . so much of what we know derives from older sources (when there was more transparency), information directly and indirectly extrapolated from Federal Court decisions in which case details are discussed, the PDIs of course, the now replaced (by PDIs) operational manuals (CP 5 "Residence" was particularly informative), some shared ATI responses (which are now older sources as well; not to be confused with ATIP responses for individual applicants), and from what can be gleaned from forum reporting.

For most applicants, the main scrutiny of address and work history is likely done when the local office agent prepares the file for the PI Interview and to some extent in the interview . . . if concerns or questions are perceived, that will trigger further inquiries. But again, the core tool employed by IRCC remains the same: critical comparison and cross-checking of known information. And this can be and likely is revisited, to some extent, during most of the steps taken when the GCMS background screening is done . . . again noting that there is a GCMS background screening is supposed to be done EVERY TIME an agent or official takes ANY ACTION on the application.

So in short, they don’t call your current/previous job, landlady or school unless they think you’re not telling the truth.

 

[dpenabill]

As well as we can discern, there being a lot about what goes behind the curtains we do NOT know . . .

So in short, they don’t call your current/previous job, landlady or school unless they think you’re not telling the truth.

Yeah, usually . . . or they are randomly spot checking this or that (typical program integrity measures for a bureaucratic process having to do with a weighty matter; and they do not get much more weighty than granting citizenship).

But short of that they can also run spot-checking on particular details, such as a particular address, a particular employer, and so on . . . checking open sources (like the Internet, LinkedIn, other open online media, business or industry directories, and so on) or doing a screen for GCMS flags (it appears there may be GCMS records for certain telephone numbers, postal codes, employers, consultants, other details, such as where those have popped up as suspicious in other cases). Screening/research of this sort can be very non-intrusive and using not-all-that-sophisticated electronic tools done almost as quickly as a simple google search (which of course is also one of the open sources they might sometimes utilize). Spot-checking . . .
. . . UNLESS, again, as you note, they see something leading them to be more suspicious, in which event how far afield they make inquiries depends on how much suspicion there is, and on what they find as they access information and cross-check it.

BUT for the vast majority of applicants this is probably minimal . . . and adds no more than a few minutes to the task-time.

My sense, just a bit more than a guess, is that for information like address and work history, such checking is attendant preparation for the PI Interview . . . and/or following the Interview if the processing agent still has questions. Subject to follow up by the Citizenship Officer IF concerns are flagged.

I do not know how or why they came across it, but there was a case a few years ago in which CIC (before the change to IRCC) somehow obtained a brochure for a business or industry conference in Switzerland and in the brochure the PR was listed as a participant there in the employ of a particular company . . . the PR had reported being in Canada at the time of the conference, and did not report being employed by that company at all, and reported being unemployed at that particular time. Did NOT go well. NOT at all well. No surprise.

 

[itsmyid]

So in short, they don’t call your current/previous job, landlady or school unless they think you’re not telling the truth.

Lol, look at the ID you are talking to, there will never be anything “ in short” coming from there