I cannot comment (don't know) about the internal decision-maker structure/hierarchy within IRCC (I have no clue, for example, what it means to be a "Level-2 delegated decision maker (a PM-03)" . . .
Hmm. I don't understand why this information isn't public.
Again, I don't understand how this info is not public . . .
As the observations by
@armoured illustrate, much of what you are referring to here actually is public information. Accessing it, and especially being able to readily access it, just finding it, is the trick. And a big part of the trick is figuring out what to look for and knowing how to navigate government information to find it and put it in context (the latter, putting it in context, is as important as finding it).
And then, of course, there's a ton of homework to do digesting and sorting what's relevant and what's useful. (Thus, for many if not most, an effort which falls into the black hole of willful ignorance epitomized by
TLDR.)
Which is why I so much appreciate your initial link to the SECU information (a report of sorts?) which opened some very interesting windows . . .
. . . that is, opening some interesting windows FWII, so at least for me, someone who is very much interested in digging up what will help us sort out IRCC processing and procedures better, willing to do a lot of homework toward that end, but who still struggles some with Canadian idiom despite moving here nearly a quarter century ago (albeit for years relying on flag poling to avoid overstaying), being a Canadian for more than a decade and a half, a Canadian citizen for more than a decade, and despite first visiting Canada when Louis St. Laurent was Prime Minister (yeah mid-1950s, in my youth), and having first wrestled with the idea of moving to Canada in the early 1970s (more than a half century ago now).
Canadian idioms and terminology; and my ignorance:
Knowing the terminology is key to navigating and understanding information. That is obvious, of course, perhaps so obvious a Canadian judge might say it is "
trite," which I will address further below (acknowledging I have developed a fondness for what is trite in that sense, even if its usage by FC judges is still unsettling).
It took me a good while to realize that just because English is my first and practically only language (notwithstanding a concerted effort to learn others), does not necessarily mean I understand (let alone fully understand) Canadian English. Did not take much time at all, however, to similarly recognize that notwithstanding nearly a half century deeply immersed in jurisprudence largely derived from British common law, I can also struggle to adequately (again let alone fully) understand the terminology, concepts, and basic principles in Canadian law, government, and bureaucracy.
I could write a book about that, albeit a book that few (if any) are likely to read (even if anyone was actually reading books anymore, in this age when whole paragraphs tend to tax the typical attention span).
So let this focus on just one aspect of the SECU information from the . . . I don't know whether to call these a memo? a report? committee notes? . . . the one you initially cited and linked titled "
SECU - Citizenship - September 19, 2024" which (again) is here:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...ttees/secu-september-19-2024/citizenship.html
Under the subtitle "
Supplementary Information" there is information further subtitled beginning with "
If pressed . . . " For example:
"If pressed on the process to find an applicant prohibited for national security or organized criminality"
As much as I research and study this stuff, and notwithstanding what I suppose (more than a mere guess) this is about, I cannot confidently say who is the one "
pressed" or who "
pressed" them, whether this is about MPs responding to questions from the press/media, from constituents, or from IRCC clients, or whether it is about government personnel (IRCC or otherwise) responding to questions, or . . . but it's rather obvious that many of the responses are vague generalities of policy or practice.
For this particular item, for example, "
if pressed" about the process for determining a citizenship applicant is prohibited for national security or organized criminality, it vaguely describes in general terms a "
specific process" which, the SECU information goes on to say "
was last initiated in the mid-1990s," so not quite a hot topic illuminating current processing practices (noting, nonetheless, that the authority for this underlies investigations, which in turn underlies scores of referrals to CSIS resulting in lengthy periods of time in which there is no progress made in processing the citizenship application, which is behind a lot of criticism and more than a little vitriol in this forum).
The level 2 clearance is (probably) when the difficult stuff comes back as "no significant issues." Meaning, constraint is not so much the time for this individual but how long 'other stuff' takes.
Assuming the content in the SECU notes/report/memo is accurate, it is clear that a Level-2 delegated decision maker (a PM-03) is qualified to determine if a citizenship applicant is prohibited for criminality, which would result in the citizenship application being denied. As I previously queried, I wonder what other kinds of applications are also referred to this level of decision maker.
That said, I fully concur in the following observation:
I don't think the PM03 / Level 2 designation is that serious on its own - it just doesn't tell anyone the important bit. Sure, some delay compared to a file that doesn't have this desgnation - but insufficient information to say if just a bit or a lot.
Noting, for example, that any record of charges in criminal databases likely triggers referral to a PM-03 (as an application in which criminality is suspected), which might be easily resolved if the charge was dismissed or was for a summary offence, resulting in some delay but not a lot. In contrast, if there is any suspect of a security related prohibition, that too is likely referred to a PM-03 but in the meantime the case is referred to CSIS or CBSA/NSSD for further investigation and potentially a very, very long delay.
Not So Trite Invocations of Trite Law:
It was perhaps a decade and a half ago when I encountered a reference to what is "
trite" in a Federal Court decision reviewing a denied application for citizenship, referring to something that was clearly so true as to be above question. I was, well, stunned, appalled to the brink of outrage, that a Canadian Federal judge would so casually dismiss a fundamental truth, cast it off as "
trite."
I misunderstood. I misinterpreted the use of the term "
trite" in Canadian law. Despite my background in jurisprudence, my understanding of what it meant to characterize something as trite was probably more in a literary context than in the context of law.
When a professor of English characterizes something as trite, that means, in effect, throw it away.
But when a Federal Court judge in Canada characterizes something as trite, that means it is something so clearly true it is above question. Which is reflected in well over a thousand FC decisions, including scores and scores of decisions (well over a hundred) which state:
"It is trite law that the decision maker may assess and evaluate the evidence before it and that, absent exceptional circumstances, a reviewing court will not interfere with its factual findings."
I do not recall the particular thing called trite that triggered my dismay, but will say in my defense the meaning was not nearly so obvious as it is in what I just quoted. Indeed, it may have been when I next encountered the use of "
trite" in a FC decision it was in a statement like this one, switching on the lamp in my head, dimly at first perhaps but nonetheless illuminating how easy it is to misconstrue something due to misunderstanding how a particular term is used.
For example, I would not misunderstand it today, but a decade and a half ago I might have been confused by a
FC decision stating that "
It is trite [that IRCC's obligation to take action on removal orders as soon as possible]
must be balanced against Canada’s obligation not to deport individuals without properly assessing their risk."
And, to be frank, I still find this manner of stating what is a fundamental principle or basic law, referring to it as trite, a bit unsettling. That is, as noted, notwithstanding the extent to which I have become a Canadian, I still struggle with the idioms and the particular usage of some terms in Canadian law and bureaucratic administration.
Canadian immigration is rife with all sorts of terms used in a particular way posing pitfalls for those failing to exercise caution in how they are interpreted and applied.
