No updates in my Citizenship application

[rigo77]

Hi, it is almost 16 months since I applied for my citizenship.
Application received in June 18, 2024
Citizenship test completed in Sept 11, 2024, Background verification completed and Physical presence completed in Sept 23.. since then no updates..
I have been calling IRCC every 2/3 weeks for updates and nothing.. they say everything is ok and normal and I have to keep waiting.. but it’s 14 months since the last update and almost 18 in total

Any idea or tips? Is this normal? What should I do? I already spoke with the MP but he didn’t help much, at this point I’m very frustrated

 

[m34]

Have you asked for gcms notes? Maybe it’ll give you a hint on what’s the issue.
What documents you used for language skills?

 

[armoured]

Order your gcms notes, from cbsa and from ircc. It's not likely it will tell you much although sections redacted under the security exemptions may indicate that security clearances are the hold-up. If so, there's not a lot that can be done in most cases except wait. It's more common for some nationalities (amongst other reasons).

 

[m34]

Order your gcms notes, from cbsa and from ircc. It's not likely it will tell you much although sections redacted under the security exemptions may indicate that security clearances are the hold-up. If so, there's not a lot that can be done in most cases except wait. It's more common for some nationalities (amongst other reasons).

Would security clearance be the case in your opinion as his/her background seems to be completed??

 

[Seym]

I agree with the comments above regarding asking for GCMS notes.
Usually, it's either the security checks or the physical presence that seem to be the blocker, but both have been marked as complete, so it's an unusual situation.
Can OP think of any issue with, say, their language proof ? For the overwhelming majority of applicants, language is cleared at the same time as physical presence, and unless OP forgot to specify that is was cleared too, there could be something fishy with it that would explain why it wasn't cleared at the same time. Is it a language proof from some "unknown school" from a non-english speaking country that doesn't make it obvious that OP speaks the language, or some private institute in Canada that provides a certificate after a few months or something like this that may raise questions at IRCC level ?

 

[armoured]

Would security clearance be the case in your opinion as his/her background seems to be completed??

As far as I can tell, yes - I don't understand the exact differences between background and prohibitions, but it seems not at all rare that prohibitions get held up even after background is marked cleared. (Note that sometimes at least all three of the secondary, language-physical presence-prohibitions, are still pending, but reality underlying probably is that IRCC officer has looked at the easier L-P and sees no issues but hasn't bothered formally clearing while awaiting 'third party' input for prohibitions).

My rough guess on the split is basically 'background' is general + simple in-Canada criminality clearances (possibly supplemented with info from partners like USA where database checks come quickly). Leaving mostly 'prohibitions' - threats to security of Canada,* pattern of criminal behaviour*, offences/charges outside Canada* (yes, this is criminality, but not in-Canada or easily found via databases), crimes against humanity/war crimes*, terrorism*, other specific prohibitions (some of which need to be confirmed). At some point there's also going to be a risk assessment - eg is there's zero database hits and background is very low risk, that's a quicker clearance.

* I flagged some here that I think are the most likely to be things that can cause hold-ups - because they can/could involve, frequently, information (database mentions, false name hits, public-source info like news mentions, info from other partner agencies - or sometimes non-partner agencies - in other countries) that is incomplete or can't easily be verified.

Served in a foreign military that was in conflict with another country? Someone has to look at that and make a judgment based on incomplete info. Worked for a foreign government (or sometimes agencies or companies in those countries) that's considered an intelligence threat? Allegations of criminal backgrounds/connections (from anywhere, really)? All things that may provide unattested info or intelligence that someone has to look into and make some kind of decision on.

Important to underline here: the vast majority of the time spent 'looking into' these things is likely waiting, for someone to get some additional info, and later to make some judgment that they do have enough info to make a decision.

And yes, it seems intuitive to most that the PR clearances should be enough for most applicants, and for most applicants that's probably true. My belief/understanding is that the language in the citizenship act is quite different, outlining an absolute 'prohibition' for certain things, as opposed to making a more explicit 'risk evaluation' for PR approval - the difference being requiring an affirmative statement that 'no these things do not apply' (not prohibited) compared to a 'risk of issues is acceptable' (and that may be formulated differently, i.e. a no-objection might be enough).

I have also heard and read that all agencies know that it is almost impossible to revoke citizenship after the fact (only a handful of cases), serious political repercussions (as often seen) for any cases where mistakes are made, and a very, very challenging problem of 'intelligence to evidence' and how the law requires they deal with such cases. (Basically, if they truly believe someone is a 'threat to Canada', do they have enough legally acceptable evidence - when most of that evidence will not be from within Canada)

I don't know all of this for certain of course. It's a somewhat-informed series of guesses. And of course some of this is just IRCC procedures that may change/have changed over time.

 

[dpenabill]

.

Hi, it is almost 16 months since I applied for my citizenship.
Application received in June 18, 2024
Citizenship test completed in Sept 11, 2024, Background verification completed and Physical presence completed in Sept 23.. since then no updates..
I have been calling IRCC every 2/3 weeks for updates and nothing.. they say everything is ok and normal and I have to keep waiting.. but it’s 14 months since the last update and almost 18 in total

Any idea or tips? Is this normal? What should I do? I already spoke with the MP but he didn’t help much, at this point I’m very frustrated

What should I do?

No rocket science or expertise in Canadian immigration necessary:

-- follow IRCC instructions and guidance (see website)​

-- -- note, it appears you have not been doing this, given your repeated calls requesting updates despite IRCC guidance explicitly stating that IRCC "agents do not have more information about your application status or processing time than what's available online," instructing applicants in your situation (a complex application requiring non-routine checks) to sign into their citizenship tracker account (which should have as much information about the status of your application as any call centre agent would)​

​

AND​

​

-- wait for IRCC to complete processing your application or until you get further information or requests from IRCC​

​

OR​

​

-- see a lawyer​

-- -- at the least paying for a consultation, paying the lawyer to review your case in particular, in detail; that is, a review based on copies of your application and communications with IRCC, including copies of all previous applications and any additional information you have that is likely to be relevant, including international travel history and including especially any information inconsistent with information in your application​

Mostly Wait . . .

For most in your situation, the main thing to do is wait (ceasing, in the meantime, to make those repeated, futile calls to the call centre which mostly only make it more difficult to get through for those with questions the call centre can answer . . . please).

How long to wait before apprehending there could be a serious issue indicating it might be time to obtain the assistance of a lawyer is difficult to say. Complex case processing times vary widely, both generally, and very much so in regards to the many variables affecting the process for any particular individual. A lot depends on the latter, ranging from differences in overall history (whether the applicant is a refugee, for example; other variations in the applicant's path to becoming a Canadian) to post-application factors (whether the applicant continues to reside in Canada for example, just one example among many), including things like where in the world the applicant has been along the way.

Under current and recent processing times (as reported by IRCC and for complex cases as discerned from anecdotal reporting) . . .

For many who after carefully and as objectively as possible (yeah this is not easy) reviewing their case and personal history, considering known reasons why applications can get tangled in not just complex but highly complex processing (see below), who do not see (again, being as objective as possible) what could be the problem, if it has been much over two years it is probably time to at least consider seeing a lawyer.

For those who, in reviewing their case, see a potential issue but NOT something that should constitute a serious problem (inadmissibility, reason for security or criminality concerns, misrepresentation, for refugees potential cessation), waiting closer to three years, or a little more, would make sense. (Again, this is under currently known processing timelines.)

It should go without saying, if the applicant identifies something in their case that could constitute a serious problem, they should get help from a lawyer sooner not later.


Re GCMS records

Even though GCMS notes might offer some information which could illuminate more about WHY your application is complex, NOT on a "normal" processing track, and despite the extent to which that is among forum favourites, the client's version of GCMS records are not likely to inform you much, if any, about why your application is complex or what additional (non-routine) checks are being done.

You already know most of the potential reasons why your case is complex and it is IRCC that needs "to check more things on your application for security reasons" (according to IRCC regarding any application made in June 2024 which is still in process), since YOU know your case better than anyone else in the whole world. There are exceptions, of course, such as unwarranted inferences or suspicions, unfounded conclusions, but that happens way, way less often than many in this forum pretend.

Since minimal effort and virtually no expense is necessary to obtain GCMS records, there is no harm getting them. Just don't expect much.

Beyond That, If You Are Seeking a Better Understanding of Your Case:

Is this normal?

For an application made in June 2024 the IRCC processing time information states:

We might not be able to give you an estimate because:

• your application is complex
• we need to check more things on your application for security reasons

and further states:

We consider your application complex or non-routine if some parts of your application need extra review or processing on our part.

It may take us longer than the normal processing time to review a non-routine application.

Given the timeline so far, your application is clearly, at the least, complex.

If you want to better understand what that is about, and in particular if you want to assess the risk your application is not just complex (for which just waiting is mostly all you need to do) but highly complex (such as a serious security concern), in which case best to see a lawyer, as I noted you already know most of what there is to know. The challenge, then, is to know what details in YOUR case could be of concern in regards to potential issues, in regards to what could preclude eligibility either in terms of meeting the requirements or in terms of a prohibition . . . and other than a case in which physical presence is in issue, this is mostly about what might constitute a prohibition.

The latter is more complicated than potential security concerns, ranging from any reason that could make a PR inadmissible to misrepresentation in either the citizenship application or any previous immigration related transactions (including Port-of-Entry examinations).

 

[abff08f4813c]

Hi, it is almost 16 months since I applied for my citizenship.
Application received in June 18, 2024
Citizenship test completed in Sept 11, 2024, Background verification completed and Physical presence completed in Sept 23.. since then no updates..
I have been calling IRCC every 2/3 weeks for updates and nothing.. they say everything is ok and normal and I have to keep waiting.. but it’s 14 months since the last update and almost 18 in total

Any idea or tips? Is this normal? What should I do? I already spoke with the MP but he didn’t help much, at this point I’m very frustrated

I, who applied back before May, am now in the same boat as you. Have also hit 16 months. Alas it seems this is more normal now, as when I check the tracker at https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...vices/application/check-processing-times.html it says that I have a month left to go.

Other folks in the same boat (stuck in screening) are pointing out that a 2.5 year overall wait is looking likely, sadly ... https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...citizenship-applications.869454/post-11145725 - if this is what happened to you, and if what they are saying is both accurate and the timeline holds true seven months later (it may not) - well, there's a chance you may see some movement happen in Jan 2027.

 

[armoured]

I, who applied back before May, am now in the same boat as you. Have also hit 16 months. Alas it seems this is more normal now, as when I check the tracker at https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...vices/application/check-processing-times.html it says that I have a month left to go.

Other folks in the same boat (stuck in screening) are pointing out that a 2.5 year overall wait is looking likely, sadly ... https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...citizenship-applications.869454/post-11145725 - if this is what happened to you, and if what they are saying is both accurate and the timeline holds true seven months later (it may not) - well, there's a chance you may see some movement happen in Jan 2027.

I don't think that word-representation corresponds to facts. I've been doing some extended tracking from the 'current processing times' website, over several months, and the idea that files stop getting processed after ~16 months or so does not look to be true.

What it does look like is that there is a somewhat normal distribution 'curve' (a left-skewed normal distribution with a long-ish tail). Or in simple word terms, if we plot the number of files for a given monthly cohort completed over time, it starts at zero, rises quickly to a max level after about four-five months, and then the number of files completed each month falls until hitting a sort-of plateau at about 16 months, from where it keeps declining slowly for about another 14 months (i.e. 2.5 years) - but more on that in a moment.

But in practical terms for someone at the 16 month point: over that 14 month period, a very rough estimate is that about 35-50% (let's call it about half or maybe a bit less than half) of the files remaining in that monthly cohort seem to get approved. It absolutely does NOT mean that everyone in that cohort is doomed to wait the full 2.5 years.

As for what happens at and after about 2.5 years: it does look like there's a sort of 'clean-up operation' carried out at that point, and over the next 3-5 months, another half to 2/3rds of those remaining at that point (reminder: declining balance so this is a reduction from the half of those that were stil pending at 16 mos).

My own interpretation is that at this point (2.5 years) they're in some way told to narrow the files to only those that have actual serious issues (clearly identifiable and with some evidence), and clear the rest. This is only a guess.

*** Caveats: this is based on looking at info I've complied over only about 8-9 months and I wasn't always looking at the same thing. To make statements above, I've relied on some estimates of things like monthly cohort size that I can't be sure of, and - most importantly - assuming that there have been no major changes in processing/application procedures or tempo. (Some errors in estimates inevitable because IRCC rounds all numbers disclosed in the current processing times disclosure to the hundred, so smaller numbers have greater error bars - e.g. 149 shows up as 100 and 151 as 200, making numbers in low ranges look 'jumpy.')

But I think the main intuition that it's a version of a left-skewing normal distribution (starts at zero into a big hump and then a long-ish tail) is basically correct, and I *think* the 'clean-up operation' is plausible - but the most likely to be wrong esp in that I have far fewer months of evidence to support.

And the line / belief that anyone after 16 months is 'stuck' just does not appear to be true. Processing ocntinues, albeit at a slower pace.

Small comfort but lest ye despair.

 

[abff08f4813c]

this is based on looking at info I've complied over only about 8-9 months and I wasn't always looking at the same thing.

Small comfort but lest ye despair.

Thank you for doing this. This is indeed really helpful!

I've been doing some extended tracking from the 'current processing times' website, over several months, and the idea that files stop getting processed after ~16 months or so does not look to be true.

And the line / belief that anyone after 16 months is 'stuck' just does not appear to be true. Processing ocntinues, albeit at a slower pace.

One minor nitpick - I don't believe anyone is actually saying this. No one has alleged that all files order than 16 months are dropped/ignored - it's just folks noticing a trend of longer delays once getting into security screening.

I don't think that word-representation corresponds to facts.

I believe in writing "Other folks in the same boat (stuck in screening) are pointing out that a 2.5 year overall wait is looking likely, sadly" that I did accurately represent my source (which is other posters' anecdotal experiences). You don't have to take my word for it, you can double check yourself since I also linked to my source, who wrote: "Yes, because it seems like screening takes 2.5 yeas now, because Dec 2023 - Feb 2024 report their BG's cleared now."

Or perhaps you just meant that the original source was inaccurate? In fact, there's a view that aligns with both yourself and the other source - these people were just unlucky enough to happen to be in the tail end of the distribution that you are reporting about, hence they're reporting on their personal experience of it taking the full 2.5 years, even though many others saw movement before then (but perhaps didn't mention it here).

Which is good, since your more complete research gives a glimmer of hope for those of us who haven't hit that point yet.

It absolutely does NOT mean that everyone in that cohort is doomed to wait the full 2.5 years.

"You're absolutely right to call that out!" to quote a now world-famous LLM. Too late to edit my post, but I should have clarified that from the beginning, as I didn't have a reason to believe that EVERYONE would take that long.

My own interpretation is that at this point (2.5 years) they're in some way told to narrow the files to only those that have actual serious issues (clearly identifiable and with some evidence), and clear the rest. This is only a guess.

*** Caveats: ... I *think* the 'clean-up operation' is plausible - but the most likely to be wrong esp in that I have far fewer months of evidence to support.

This is the only bit that's discouraging. I really want you to be right here, since if you're wrong then there's a chance it could take even longer than 2.5 years for those of us who are stuck in this wait without having the "actual serious issues (clearly identifiable and with some evidence)" part.

 

[armoured]

This is the only bit that's discouraging. I really want you to be right here, since if you're wrong then there's a chance it could take even longer than 2.5 years for those of us who are stuck in this wait without having the "actual serious issues (clearly identifiable and with some evidence)" part.

On this part, it's simply a lack of available data - I only started tracking the figures from >~1.5 years ago and going back to ~3.5 years, so I don't have the transition data to see if that 'clean-up window' is moving across the monthly cohorts.

At any rate, for those at 2.5 years or more, I think it's time to be speaking to a lawyer about mandamus and similar - IF confident no actual issues and just caught up in the paperwork mess.

 

[armoured]

FYI I just checked the site for 'current processing times', and they've updated the tallies as of Sept 3 - and for some months the estimates jumped around - eg March 2025 went from 'more time needed' to 1 month.

How logically consistent.

Anyway, I'm just looking at the info and updating my own spreadhseet, I'll write here if anything interesting.

Quick update: not much of interest, frankly. Trends mostly continued.
1) As mentioned, unusually, the first 3 months of 2025 were all marked as 'more time needed' a month ago, and reverted to 1 month time estimate now (where they all were in July's update). I have no explanation for this.
2) As discussed above, it /looks like/ there is a mild-sized clean-up operation for files that are approximately 2.5 years old (a somewhat higher rate of clearances beginning at appr 30th month, that continues for about 3-4 months - i.e. for those that are March 2024, pace should be higher from now through December). Or looked at differently, there are currently somewhat higher clearance rates for files submitted between December 2023 and March 2024, and that window of cohorts should progress each month. When I say 'looks like', I have a narrative in my mind that fits this description in numbers and has for about 3 months now - my imputed narrative could be completely wrong but still fit the data, or it could be the numbers give a false impression of regularity, or [some other explanation].
3) It's worth noting that after about 36 months, the size of each monthly cohort seems to fall to below 300. At that point, since IRCC 'rounds' any numbers/changes reported each month to 100, it becomes hard/impossible to extract any info about each monthly cohort. Even the annual 'cohorts' get too small to tell you much.

And of course, any changes to processing or overall trends would mean that anything I infer would simply be incorrect going forward.