And when calling IRCC (at least for me), they get frustrated with the questions on processing time. I called them last month and the person who answered the phone started complaining that I call too much (I only called them twice this year).
March 2025 - Citizenship Applications
- Thread starter trackerCan-Cit
- Start date
Hi all, contacted the MP office to request them to follow up as I’ve had no movement on my wife’s background for quite a while. Was told they contacted IRCC and my wife’s application is still in progress for security. They also mentioned that the file is marked as non-routine (NR). Anyone know what that means? And should I bother ordering GCMS notes or is it redundant?
m34
Hero Member
- Dec 16, 2018
- 202
- 107
- AOR Received.
- 28-05-2018
- Med's Done....
- 10-06-2018
- Passport Req..
- 15-02-2019
Non-routine is when the application is “complex” and requires more time than usual to complete. I think most of us right now from March 25 can be safely considered having entered the non-routine path. This mainly happens when one’s background check requires screening by a third party. You can always order the notes to confirm what the MP office said.
I think there is no such thing as "file marked non-routine" as the MP's office said - although I can't say whether they learned to say that themselves or IRCC actually said it.
As far as I can tell it is just IRCC's terminology for files that are taking longer - although they can use it to refer to steps that are not applied to every file, so non-routine in that sense - but again, if anyone can show the /specific/ markings or steps that are considered non-routine, I'd be happy to see them.
"Why is the file considered non-routine?" "Because it's taking longer than routine files." "Well, okay, but why is it taking longer than routine files?" "Because it's non-routine."
....
"But what specifically makes it non-routine?"
...
...
...
"See, it's taking longer than usual."
I've read through several sets of gcms notes - there is no such marking or even a place for such a marking, at least that I can see. I've heard some reference to IRCC /counting/ files and providing perhaps some type of summary about the number of non-routine files - and my best guess is that they have a search function "files longer than x months" that they term non-routine.
Of course, I could be wrong about this. If anyone has /specifics/, so share.
Yeah. It’s definitely a retroactive designation, there are two major ways for delay to happen:
1. The applicant messed up something such as the test, has very extensive travel etc., which warrants an in person interview. The bottleneck is scheduling the interview and after that they will proceed as normal.
2. Background check.
The logical conclusion is 1. is indeed “non-routine” in the sense it requires unexpected and significant more human work. While 2. is something that they’d already know at the moment they send the file to a third party, so saying “your file is still within the target…” is bullshit considering current CSIS/CBSA backlogs.
Could be relevant:
I think the vast majority of 'needs a bit more poking' can be resolved fairly quickly - at least if evidence is there. Examples here: minor inconsistencies with dates (that don't challenge the 1095 days, or not significantly), fingerprints, extensive travel, smallish test delays - they tend to get resolved fairly quickly. Exceptions to this: date/prhysical presence issues that actually push the applicant under 1095 days (which really does cause a problem if they don't think you had the days as at application date, they can't pass it.) Discovering a criminal record - can take ages. Etc.
The first group might /technically/ be non-routine, but don't actually delay the file more than a couple-three months - usually, and probalby not past the 13 month processing. The second group - less frequent but can cause major delays - but I think there /should/ be some evidence in GCMS notes, or at least the applicant knows something about the issue (because they heard from IRCC).
After that, it's usually security clearances - as far as I can tell. And there - well, there are five countries CSIS calls major countries of concern (and a few smaller countries that just don't get mentioned as much) - China, Russia, Iran, India, Pakistan. (Include some like Belarus, or countries where eg terrorist ties are a concern).
Now India and Pakistan are perhaps a bit of a special case (very many immigrants who don't have security background issues at all) in that group, perhaps China a bit similar in that respect (although fewer immigrants these days).
But point holds, applicants from those countries (and some others where terrorism/military are a concern, some former refugees/protected persons) - if it's taking longer, there's a good chance it's security-related. (And it's possible in the security-related pile a lot of the time 'processing' is in fact just waiting in a different queue, i.e. at a different agency.)
m34
Hero Member
- Dec 16, 2018
- 202
- 107
- AOR Received.
- 28-05-2018
- Med's Done....
- 10-06-2018
- Passport Req..
- 15-02-2019
I can't agree more. I don't think this is a formal designation at all, but rather a term used by IRCC, MPs, or others to justify delays in certain files.
I mean, if there is a deviation from the standard, whether related to language requirements, physical presence calculations, or test results; how difficult can it really be to resolve? At most, it should require additional checks or an interview with the applicant. These are simply extra procedural steps that, if handled properly through a documented process, should not justify such extensive delays. Unless, of course, this is being used as a sort of “cover” for broader bureaucratic inefficiencies within IRCC.
The other aspect is the background check, which admittedly feels like a much more uncharted territory. But even then, I struggle to understand how security screening can realistically take 24 months to complete. If there is a proper process in place — whether handled internally by IRCC or through third parties — it should still be relatively straightforward. Even when foreign agencies are involved, I find it difficult to believe that screening someone’s name and records should take months or years when most of this information is now available electronically across much of the world.
Exactly, it's not even a justification. It's just a circular categorization.
To be clear, I think *most* of the time these things do get resolved. Fingerprints? Slow but they show up (they're doing by mail in an e-world). My spouse had physical presence 'on the edge' due to a missing exit record from CBSA/lots of travel. We had an interview and that was cleared fairly quickly (combination of passport stamps, straightforward explanation of why so much travel, clear evidence of residing in Canada throughout). Most of the time language records - they get supporting evidence or less frequently an interview used as supporting.
Now within this group there will (of course) be some actual problems, or things that are harder to fix and may require actual study by IRCC - physical presence actually deficient, language proof - occasionally has been forged or (unfortunately from applicant) from a place with a dodgy track record (I"m thinking some of the IELTS farms abroad), etc. My impression is that these are relatively few cases. (Also that IRCC is slow with outright refusals - legal probably gets involved).
I agree. My impression is that the bulk of this time is being in a queue or waiting for something or other (that may not be enough and at any rate takes longer than needed). And possibly there is some combination of citizenship clearances being low priority (compared to job security clearances esp, but perhaps also to immigration) in part because the individuals are already in Canada. This is speculation of course, along with my impression that citizenship presents certain legal issues because hard to ever revoke, and the citizenship sets a high bar that is hard to meet.
This last is complicated, but roughly, citizenship is something to which applicants that meet the requirements have a legal right, but also reasons for refusal in law are strict and numerous (and obligatory in several senses) BUT in many areas almost impossible to meet legal tests for evidence. This is the so-called intelligence to evidence conundrum - they can have 'intelligence' which is far short of tests for legal evidence. This is not to say that most are in this situation - rather that they spin their wheels on a large number of files that need clearance (too many for the resources they have!) while spending too much time on the tricky files. Again, speculation/reading between lines in here. [I suspect only hpe for serious change is a massive rework of the risk claculations in partnership with IRCC.]
Hi I hope your wife got the test invite again. May I ask how long did it take to receive the second invite?
Which is, honestly, backwards because we are the taxpayers.
Yeah, it seems like intelligence agencies simply cannot handle the sheer volume of requests now. They are unwilling to compromise on the quality which is arguably good, but it seems like most of the requests are pointless anyways.
ruka
Hero Member
- Apr 7, 2008
- 694
- 36
- Visa Office......
- Colombo, Sri Lanka
- NOC Code......
- 0213
- App. Filed.......
- 10/02/2010 (old)
- Doc's Request.
- 16/04/2010 (old)
- AOR Received.
- 11/08/2010 (old)
- File Transfer...
- 20/04/2010 (old)
Hi friends,
I have started a common thread for all of us waiting for more than a year to get together and share our timelines and progress.
Please add and update your case in the table in that thread.
I have started a common thread for all of us waiting for more than a year to get together and share our timelines and progress.
Please add and update your case in the table in that thread.
I'm not sure it is backwards from their perspective. It's risk reduction. Active threats that can be reduced by some action get priority.
People outside Canada (eg PR applicants) can be prevented from coming and representing an active threat in Canada (assuming that the individuals in question are considered threats). Priority.
Citizenship applicants: speed of processing of the application has little bearing on the risk they present - they are already here. Low risk people for which clearance work needs to be done? Low priority - wait in queue. (Those who are actually higher risk? I have no idea how they handle - got to be some more complex approach, like active risk,, types of risk, etc)
*Note that low risk people in Canada in this formulation may still sometimes fall under parts of the citizenship act that need clearance and checking. Someone who may not be eligible for citizenship for something in the past (say, war crimes 50 years ago) may not be a risk to public safety - but still has to be looked at.
I have to say here, I'm not really out for an argument about what all this means and whether my simplstic intuition is accurate - I'm just saying that the perception of a security service as to what is backwards or not starts from a very different perspective.
Yes. I think the problem is that their triage of what needs referral to the security agencies sends too many files for deeper looks they do not have resources for. The triage needs to be more restrictive. IMO.
Well, the point is they can just put nonimmigrant applications on hold while prioritizing taxpayers’, since applicants are not a threat while they remain outside Canada, and we are those who subsidize the entire IRCC program.
Thinking about this again, in practice that may mean these time-sensitive applications will never be cleared, and they decided that we (PRs) lose little from waiting. Arguably, this is true for most people, people freak out because of the lack of transparency, although there are virtually no known refusals at this stage.
From the policymakers’ POV, a typical PR would’ve already settled in Canada economically and benefit from immediate citizenship is marginal compared to study/work visas. And granting citizenship is negative value because someone may well move south on TN day after they get the passport (just kidding, doubt they consider this, but some non-immigrant visas are clearly more time sensitive)
Last edited:
