Test Completed But BACKGROUND CHECK in progress.

[OTW5074]

OMG guys !!!! my BGC completed today !!!!!!!!!!!!!

congratulations!!!

 

[ROCK ON]

i think criminality is easier than security screening ..... just make sure they have your fngerprint received ... its easier check than security

Thats the thing. Never received fingerprint request. They always say its still in progress.

 

[dpenabill]

. . . Now, your assertion that few people are stuck in security screening is not backed up by any evidence. First, whilst the screening manual recommends that files are processed simultaneously in order to determine any prohibitions, for citizenship, those specificity referred for security screening will find their file effectively on hold, awaiting results (even if the file says in progress, local offices will confirm that it is on hold). This can easily be determined by ATIP request for security status from csis. If they confirm that security screening is still underway, and if the local office confirm that they won’t proceed until they have the result, (advanced) security/criminality screening is holding up the file.

second, there are very few recent statistics on csis screening referrals. . . .

I admit using terms like "few" is overly vague and here, in a context where a small percentage nonetheless represents many thousands of PRs applying for citizenship, my use of "few" probably muddles things some. Sorry. My clumsy choice of words should not, however, get in the way of recognizing the big difference there is between the vast majority of qualified applicants versus the relatively rather small percentage of those for whom there is a security or criminality "snag" (here too, using "snag" for lack of a better term) that results in stalling the progress of processing a citizenship application due to an outstanding (incomplete) RCMP or CSIS clearance.

I am not sure of your intentions, but it seems like you challenge what I described by countering, for example, "screening referrals can effectively put a file on hold," which is something you restate multiple times, such as also asserting (correctly I should add) "Csis security screening due to IRCC referrals can most certainly hold up applications."

But that is something I also said:

"If there are security concerns about an applicant, for example, sure, that applicant can encounter significant delays and, in cases involving more serious security concerns, the applicant might encounter very lengthy delays."​

And this is something I have referred to in many posts in many discussions here. I often reference security screening delays as being a common culprit when there is an extraordinary delay utterly disproportionate to those suffered by other applicants.

Going back to my clumsy use of the term "few," considering there are hundreds of thousands of citizenship applications in process, the number affected this way is undoubtedly bigger than a "few." But still, most likely, just a small percentage.

It is true, very much so, we have very limited statistical information in this area. It is difficult to even broadly estimate the numbers. And yes, processing procedures are continually changing, but most of the core elements remain consistent. For example, no rocket science necessary to map the trajectory of how applicants with a history in conflict zones have a higher risk of increased security screening, including a CSIS check that can stall the progress of a citizenship application. The precise numbers affected may have changed some over time, but this and most other contexts in which there are security concerns is not a new thing, not something that has changed by much.

You refer to a "minuscule percentage" affected twenty years ago, and in the past CSIS screening holding up applicants as "very rare." I cannot say what the percentage affected was back then, but I can say that for more than a decade, plus years, that scores of complaints about how slow processing was (and yes, on previous occasions it has been slower than it is now) rather regularly, almost continually, were excused by CIC, now IRCC, as waiting on security checks over which CIC/IRCC claimed it had no control. While I am not sure, my guess is that the percentage back then was small, even if, perhaps, significantly more than a "minuscule percentage," and while the number affected may have indeed grown, including in particular recently, it is probable the percentage is still at least relatively small.

The overriding objective of my previous post, in contrast, was to reassure the vast majority of qualified applicants there is no reason to worry about the formal RCMP and CSIS clearances, even if their GCMS records do not show them as "completed" yet, and even if an IRCC representative has brushed off their queries with the excuse the application is waiting on a background clearance. And yeah, again, with EXCEPTIONS. Yeah, again, "screening referrals can effectively put a file on hold."

I further admit that my observations largely gloss over and do not address much how it works for those, the small percentage affected, whose application is stalled due to a security clearance concern. I do not mean to be cavalier or dismissive, to in any way diminish the impact this has on them. Even if it only adds six months to a year to the processing timeline (noting it can go much, much longer), that is a substantial imposition and for many grossly unfair. But that is a big subject, hugely complex, and as I noted, tends to be tied very much to individual specific situations. I will say, and say it with emphasis, the insinuation there is "some conspiracy to offload or delay backlog files for 'security reasons'” is far-fetched conspiracy theory . . . (too many appellations to enumerate).

I will acknowledge, in contrast, in repetition actually, that slow processing complaints are all too often brushed off by IRCC personnel with the waiting-for-security-clearance excuse. Much like seen in conversations similar to this one a decade and more ago. Same refrain, different year. Which leads back to reassuring many here that unless they know (or should know) of some reason why there might be a security or criminality issue for them, it is unlikely their application is being held up for a security or criminality concern, and even if so, if for some reason a security or criminality question has stalled their application, it is very unlikely it will be for long.

That said, I will not pretend to know the cases of other participants in this thread well enough to sort who are among the small percentage affected by a security or criminality concern stalling their application, compared to those among the vast majority for whom the RCMP and CSIS clearances are not causing much if any delay in their case, even though their files show one or the other clearance still outstanding. It is possible, for example, in regards to the OP here, for this thread, there is a criminality concern and that is stalling progress; but absent knowing the OP's case and relevant history in detail, it appears just as likely, if not more likely, that the OP's application is bogged down in the slow processing that scores and scores of applicants are enduring and is not due to a delay in the criminality check itself, again even though the OP's file does not show the RCMP clearance completed.

Regarding the likelihood that most (not all) those affected know who they are and to a large extent why, I anticipated the protest otherwise. Been here, heard those protests, and been elsewhere (including the forum I moderated for years) where I also heard the same protests, going back years more than a decade. Things change, some, yeah, but a lot does not change all that much.

 

[dpenabill]

If you were a real Lawyer, you'd be very bconcerned about this and be asking for screening case referral statistics through atip to make sense of the situation. Is IRCC referring more files than normal for comprehensive screening? Is CSIS holding onto more files for a long time than usual? And how many of those caught in lengthy screening delays had any interview or genuine security concerns?

Let's be clear, I am NOT a Canadian lawyer and make no pretense otherwise. I am in no way a professional or otherwise employed in immigration or citizenship.

To be clear (and, sure, a bit picky) . . . "atip" does not offer a way to get the kind of information your queries reference, since the ATIP procedure is to obtain PERSONAL information maintained by a particular government department or agency, such as individual applicants seeking information about their own case. Many here discuss their ATIP efforts, and some actually obtain information they can use, BUT not all that many get much useful information from these.

But even assuming you meant to reference making Access to Information (ATI) requests, apart from how difficult it is to penetrate the secrecy wall in regards to information about investigatory methods and means, making effective requests depends on careful composition employing the precise terminology used by the government department or agency, and queries addressing imprecise categories of information tend to generate minimal if not null responses. Just one example: applicants with "genuine security concerns" is almost certainly not a categorization of information collected by either CSIS or IRCC.

Moreover, these queries appear to rely on unfounded assumptions. I am not aware, for example, that IRCC makes any referrals to CSIS or the RCMP "for comprehensive screening" other than the routine referrals and requests for updates made for all Section 5(1) applications. If and when there are security or criminality concerns that require further inquiries or investigation, which will thus stall issuing the clearance, that is determined by CSIS or RCMP, respectively.

If IRCC has particularized concerns about an applicant, and is pursuing something like "comprehensive screening" distinct from how all applicants are screened, that will ordinarily involve a referral to CBSA and its NSSD. Which is another huge subject in itself, and which is a non-routine process that is likely to be causing delays for many more applicants than stalled CSIS and RCMP clearances combined. For another topic, another day.

In regards to the latter, it warrants adding here that there are indications of some changes which might indeed signal there are more of these referrals being made. Probably the most common referral to CBSA for background screening is related to verification of the applicant's physical presence in Canada. In the past it seemed IRCC/CIC handled most RQ-related processing itself, and applicants knew they were involved in a "residency case" or "presence case" because they were subject to RQ-related requests. We still see some applicants getting RQ-related requests, but it appears that some applicants may have had CBSA referrals initiated in their cases and likely in regards to verifying the presence requirement, and there is a significant chance this is stalling the progress of some applications (during the Harper/Conservative government years this was all dragged behind the secrecy walls, so it is very difficult to get clear information about things like these kinds of investigations). This does not show up in information applicants can get through the help centre, ATIP, or via MPs. For the most part an applicant will not know this is being done or has been done.

Another example of the CBSA referral holding up applications has been affecting citizenship applications by PR-refugees who used a home country passport or traveled to their home country. Here too the applicant typically will not see notation of this in their citizenship application file. These referrals appear to have been stalling applications for an additional two or three years, and the applicant will not get notice unless CBSA initiates a cessation proceeding.

 

[Inderjeet1539]

Canada's immigration department has assigned tens of thousands of applicants to immigration officers or placeholder codes that are inactive and no longer working within their system — some who've last logged in and processed files up to 16 years ago, and from airports and visa offices around the world.

Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) data on "inactive users" on their Global Case Management System (GCMS) — its worldwide internal system used to process citizenship and immigration applications — show 59,456 open, pending or re-opened applications that were assigned to 779 former employees or dormant computer placeholder codes used to hold applicants in queue as of this February.

The department told CBC once a user is set as inactive, "it means they are no longer using the system and their access is no longer available."

The data also shows when each employee or code last logged into the IRCC system.

IRCC employees are only identifiable publicly via codes, which consist of a mix of letters and numbers (like AB12345, for example).

The oldest login dates back to Oct. 6, 2006, with one application assigned to that Montreal-based code. Nineteen applications are assigned to a code or employee in Edmonton who last logged in on May 9, 2007.

"I'm pretty much appalled that their system would even ... do that," said Andrea Bote, a permanent residency (PR) applicant currently assigned to an inactive code.

"How could something like this just like go unnoticed for so long? ... That's a lot of applications just stuck between the cracks."

It's alarming and it raises questions ... about transparency. - Jamie Liew, Immigration lawyer and professor

Earlier this year, CBC News shared the stories of several people stuck in immigration limbo while assigned to the same IRCC officer — only known to them as DM10032 — who left their applications largely untouched for years. After the story went public, applicants assigned to that officer, who the department confirmed was an active employee, finally saw significant movement on their files within months.

CBC filed an access to information request to IRCC this January asking for all inactive employees and placeholder codes currently assigned to applicants.

In October, the department sent data that showed a list of hundreds of codes — "a mix of former employees who are no longer active and computer placeholders" as of February 2022.

Those codes are based all around the world — from Canadian airports, border ports and processing centres, to embassies and consulates in the U.S., Philippines, India, Haiti, Poland, Brazil and Tunisia, to name a few.

Ottawa had the most number of inactive codes, followed by Edmonton, Vancouver, then Sydney, N.S. (CBC did not include unknown locations in this calculation.)

Code SM10353 was the most egregious with 9,540 applications assigned to it. This former employee or placeholder based in Sydney, N.S., last used the system on March 23, 2021.

It's followed by:

1. TD7976, based in Ottawa, with 5,782 applications assigned, last login in October 2020.
2. TH04332, based in Edmonton, with 3,937 applications assigned, last login in February 2011.
3. CB01126, based in Sydney, N.S., with 3,756 applications assigned, last login in December 2014.
4. CB00580, based in Edmonton, with 3,388 applications assigned, last login in January 2012.
5. RK01404, based in New Delhi, India, with 2,201 applications assigned, last login in March 2021.
6. CA9999, based in Edmonton, with 2,167 applications assigned, last login in August 2015.
7. LB6660, based in Sydney, N.S., with 1,897 applications assigned, last login in December 2016.
8. RA9519, based in Vancouver, with 1,864 applications assigned, last login in February 2016.
9. RL7901, based in Ottawa, with 1,710 applications assigned, last login in November 2015.
10. D9151, based in Edmonton, with 1,702 applications assigned, last login in August 2013.

"The user code is a unique ID. Once assigned, no other user would have the same one," explained an IRCC spokesperson about the data. "If a user was no longer required to use GCMS, the code would become inactive."

 

[baimmeb]

Canada's immigration department has assigned tens of thousands of applicants to immigration officers or placeholder codes that are inactive and no longer working within their system — some who've last logged in and processed files up to 16 years ago, and from airports and visa offices around the world.

Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) data on "inactive users" on their Global Case Management System (GCMS) — its worldwide internal system used to process citizenship and immigration applications — show 59,456 open, pending or re-opened applications that were assigned to 779 former employees or dormant computer placeholder codes used to hold applicants in queue as of this February.

The department told CBC once a user is set as inactive, "it means they are no longer using the system and their access is no longer available."

The data also shows when each employee or code last logged into the IRCC system.

IRCC employees are only identifiable publicly via codes, which consist of a mix of letters and numbers (like AB12345, for example).

The oldest login dates back to Oct. 6, 2006, with one application assigned to that Montreal-based code. Nineteen applications are assigned to a code or employee in Edmonton who last logged in on May 9, 2007.

"I'm pretty much appalled that their system would even ... do that," said Andrea Bote, a permanent residency (PR) applicant currently assigned to an inactive code.

"How could something like this just like go unnoticed for so long? ... That's a lot of applications just stuck between the cracks."


Earlier this year, CBC News shared the stories of several people stuck in immigration limbo while assigned to the same IRCC officer — only known to them as DM10032 — who left their applications largely untouched for years. After the story went public, applicants assigned to that officer, who the department confirmed was an active employee, finally saw significant movement on their files within months.

CBC filed an access to information request to IRCC this January asking for all inactive employees and placeholder codes currently assigned to applicants.

In October, the department sent data that showed a list of hundreds of codes — "a mix of former employees who are no longer active and computer placeholders" as of February 2022.

Those codes are based all around the world — from Canadian airports, border ports and processing centres, to embassies and consulates in the U.S., Philippines, India, Haiti, Poland, Brazil and Tunisia, to name a few.

Ottawa had the most number of inactive codes, followed by Edmonton, Vancouver, then Sydney, N.S. (CBC did not include unknown locations in this calculation.)

Code SM10353 was the most egregious with 9,540 applications assigned to it. This former employee or placeholder based in Sydney, N.S., last used the system on March 23, 2021.

It's followed by:

1. TD7976, based in Ottawa, with 5,782 applications assigned, last login in October 2020.
2. TH04332, based in Edmonton, with 3,937 applications assigned, last login in February 2011.
3. CB01126, based in Sydney, N.S., with 3,756 applications assigned, last login in December 2014.
4. CB00580, based in Edmonton, with 3,388 applications assigned, last login in January 2012.
5. RK01404, based in New Delhi, India, with 2,201 applications assigned, last login in March 2021.
6. CA9999, based in Edmonton, with 2,167 applications assigned, last login in August 2015.
7. LB6660, based in Sydney, N.S., with 1,897 applications assigned, last login in December 2016.
8. RA9519, based in Vancouver, with 1,864 applications assigned, last login in February 2016.
9. RL7901, based in Ottawa, with 1,710 applications assigned, last login in November 2015.
10. D9151, based in Edmonton, with 1,702 applications assigned, last login in August 2013.

"The user code is a unique ID. Once assigned, no other user would have the same one," explained an IRCC spokesperson about the data. "If a user was no longer required to use GCMS, the code would become inactive."

lol in understand this .. i have my own code in GCMS system since i have worked in caandian embassy before.. but they didnt send me any work hahaha

 

[yhome]

Just received notes from C'sis, no records! So why the bg was in progress for 1 whole year and no fp requests? Any thoughts why?

 

[ROCK ON]

Hello forum members. I just logged in to my tracker. The last updated date has changed from October 7, 2022 (tracker software update) to December 16, 2022. Could this be the glitch or ghost update ?

 

[baimmeb]

Hello forum members. I just logged in to my tracker. The last updated date has changed from October 7, 2022 (tracker software update) to December 16, 2022. Could this be the glitch or ghost update ?

i think its ghost update for you since my tracker has been the same since last update in Dec 7
so ... lets expect some exciting news for you on monday !!!

 

[ROCK ON]

i think its ghost update for you since my tracker has been the same since last update in Dec 7
so ... lets expect some exciting new for you on monday !!!

I really hope what you are saying is true.

 

[ROCK ON]

i think its ghost update for you since my tracker has been the same since last update in Dec 7
so ... lets expect some exciting news for you on monday !!!

By the way many many congratulations to you. Happiest for you. All the best for the new chapter of life. Best wishes and kind regards.

 

[VAIOIVAN]

Hello forum members. I just logged in to my tracker. The last updated date has changed from October 7, 2022 (tracker software update) to December 16, 2022. Could this be the glitch or ghost update ?

I got same thing too, really hope is ghost update! lol

 

[yhome]

Hello forum members. I just logged in to my tracker. The last updated date has changed from October 7, 2022 (tracker software update) to December 16, 2022. Could this be the glitch or ghost update ?

This is good news !This is similar to what I had 2 weeks ago then bg was completed.

 

[ecekid]

I just got word from MPs office. Criminality passed. Security in progress. Does anyone know how long security takes? I submitted FP in May 2022.

• Criminality passed
• Security in progress
• Language, residence, prohibition assessments not started
• There are no outstanding documents
• There are no concerns on file

 

[ROCK ON]

This is good news !This is similar to what I had 2 weeks ago then bg was completed.

I really hope that this is an update. Also I heard a lot of people got this kind update. If its a ghost update, is it possible that a lot of getting ghost update altogether ?