This isn't wild, citizenship is not a right; it's a privilege. Don’t get me wrong, I’m one of you who has been waiting since January 2024. But that doesn’t change the fact that becoming a citizen is a privilege, not a right, and we should all understand that.
2023 Citizenship Applications
- Thread starter GFLiam
- Start date
The citizenship is indeed a privilege.
That being said, IRCC absolutely must render a decision at some point, not necessarily within a specific timeframe, but it cannot delay the decision making indefinitely.
It's because IRCC has a public duty to act that there are successful mandamus decisions by the Federal Court, and a mandamus case compels IRCC to make a decision, not grant the citizenship. The decision being positive is then a consequence of Citizenship Act which specifies the conditions upon which a PR can be granted citizenship...
While I agree that citizenship is a privilege, not a right, timely processing of applications - especially those paid for as part of a publicly administered service - is a right.
You earned the opportunity to be considered for a grant of citizenship by following the law, paying taxes (a lot btw), contributing to the economy, volunteering, and meeting every requirement. You've earned that privilege.
But beyond that, you also paid for this service. And like with any other paid service, you have the right to expect timely delivery.
Imagine buying any service - let's say, a vacation package, and being told by the travel agent: "Well, a third party is handling things, and there’s no timeline. Maybe you’ll go in 1, 2, or 3 or even 4 years". That would be unacceptable anywhere else and it shouldn't be acceptable here either.
I second this. Citizenship is a privilege, but IRCC is structured specifically to process immigration, refugees and citizenship applications. The fact that they are not carrying out this job properly, it begs to question if the tax payers' money (mind you, taxes come from PRs as well, not just citizens) is used properly.
100% agree. What we’re witnessing is clearly a case of mismanagement. The fact that citizenship isn’t a guaranteed right doesn’t make this acceptable. We’ve all been living here for a long time, and the very least we deserve is a clear timeline, not to be left in a state of oblivion!
You're right girl. It's not a right but when you pay an application fee, you deserve a decision too. What IRCC is doing to people like GFLiam is psychological abuse.
xxxxx
As @Seym noted, applying for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate lawsuit for enforcing IRCC's legal obligation to process a citizenship application.
If, for example, a person is seeking legal recourse for a breach of contract, the appropriate legal action for such a wrong is a suit in contract. If seeking legal recourse for a wrong such as an injury caused by negligence, the appropriate legal action is a suit in tort. The scope of remedies in the respective cases is very different.
If seeking legal recourse for a government agency's failure to do what the law commands, like properly processing applications, the appropriate legal action is a lawsuit seeking a writ of mandamus, an order compelling the agency to do as the law requires.
For other sorts of remedies beyond what the law currently prescribes, go into politics to change the law or, for those with faith, pray as their faith dictates.
As @Ali.arshady observed, Canadian citizenship is not a right (not even for those born in Canada by the way) but rather a privilege. That said, there is a procedural right, a Charter right, to having a citizenship application fairly processed. But, again, the appropriate remedy for a failure to do so is a writ of mandamus.
Meanwhile, most who apply for citizenship are scheduled to take the oath within the processing times that IRCC publishes. Outside those periods in which there have been unusual circumstances interfering with the timely processing of applications, such as the impact of Covid, the vast majority take the oath within a year and a half.
On the other hand, resolving lawsuits in the Canadian courts often takes YEARS, a year and a half being at the more quickly resolved end of the spectrum for contested cases. Some litigation can be done in significantly shorter periods of time, but that is largely in regards to mostly uncontested matters, or is only partial relief . . . note, for example, in regards to citizenship applications, with rare exceptions the courts cannot compel the government to grant citizenship, only to proceed with processing the application. That said, if for example the Minister contests an application for mandamus, it can take a year or so just to get an order compelling IRCC to take the next step in processing, and of course that is only if the rather stringent elements qualifying for a writ of mandamus are met. (It appears that IRCC does not contest most well-founded demands made by reputable lawyers as part of the mandamus process, and lawyers are generally reluctant to prosecute such claims that are not well-founded, so there are not many mandamus actions, for citizenship applications, that are fully litigated in the court.)
Which brings this to the crux of things: not all applicants are created equal, and for sure not all applications equally make the case for a grant of citizenship. In particular, some cases pose questions and concerns which require non-routine processing resulting in substantially longer timelines.
IRCC, like any and all human institutions, sometimes fails to properly meet its mandates, and suffers from some mismanagement. Given the overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of applications are properly processed, however, there is no indication of any systemic mismanagement or failure to carry out its duties (in regards to citizenship applications . . . there has been more indication of flawed processing in regards to IRCC processing some other types of applications).
Even though there is a substantial number of individuals who claim their particular application has not been properly handled, that number is small compared to the hundreds of thousands of citizenship applications regularly processed. So, what "is clearly a case of mismanagement" is clearly about individual applicants, those particular individual applicants, and just like everyone else in an advanced and well-ordered society, they have the right to obtain professional assistance in pursuing appropriate remedies . . . just like an innocent person accused of a crime they did not commit can hire a lawyer and spend many months if not years pursuing vindication in the courts.
It's not rocket science. But it does go in the direction of jurisprudence, and that's not a forum for non-lawyers.
So for those who believe their application is not being properly handled, see a lawyer. (Or rant and whine, or pray, or whistle in the wind; I like to whistle in the wind, but can't whistle much.)
As @Seym noted, applying for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate lawsuit for enforcing IRCC's legal obligation to process a citizenship application.
If, for example, a person is seeking legal recourse for a breach of contract, the appropriate legal action for such a wrong is a suit in contract. If seeking legal recourse for a wrong such as an injury caused by negligence, the appropriate legal action is a suit in tort. The scope of remedies in the respective cases is very different.
If seeking legal recourse for a government agency's failure to do what the law commands, like properly processing applications, the appropriate legal action is a lawsuit seeking a writ of mandamus, an order compelling the agency to do as the law requires.
For other sorts of remedies beyond what the law currently prescribes, go into politics to change the law or, for those with faith, pray as their faith dictates.
As @Ali.arshady observed, Canadian citizenship is not a right (not even for those born in Canada by the way) but rather a privilege. That said, there is a procedural right, a Charter right, to having a citizenship application fairly processed. But, again, the appropriate remedy for a failure to do so is a writ of mandamus.
Meanwhile, most who apply for citizenship are scheduled to take the oath within the processing times that IRCC publishes. Outside those periods in which there have been unusual circumstances interfering with the timely processing of applications, such as the impact of Covid, the vast majority take the oath within a year and a half.
On the other hand, resolving lawsuits in the Canadian courts often takes YEARS, a year and a half being at the more quickly resolved end of the spectrum for contested cases. Some litigation can be done in significantly shorter periods of time, but that is largely in regards to mostly uncontested matters, or is only partial relief . . . note, for example, in regards to citizenship applications, with rare exceptions the courts cannot compel the government to grant citizenship, only to proceed with processing the application. That said, if for example the Minister contests an application for mandamus, it can take a year or so just to get an order compelling IRCC to take the next step in processing, and of course that is only if the rather stringent elements qualifying for a writ of mandamus are met. (It appears that IRCC does not contest most well-founded demands made by reputable lawyers as part of the mandamus process, and lawyers are generally reluctant to prosecute such claims that are not well-founded, so there are not many mandamus actions, for citizenship applications, that are fully litigated in the court.)
Which brings this to the crux of things: not all applicants are created equal, and for sure not all applications equally make the case for a grant of citizenship. In particular, some cases pose questions and concerns which require non-routine processing resulting in substantially longer timelines.
IRCC, like any and all human institutions, sometimes fails to properly meet its mandates, and suffers from some mismanagement. Given the overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of applications are properly processed, however, there is no indication of any systemic mismanagement or failure to carry out its duties (in regards to citizenship applications . . . there has been more indication of flawed processing in regards to IRCC processing some other types of applications).
Even though there is a substantial number of individuals who claim their particular application has not been properly handled, that number is small compared to the hundreds of thousands of citizenship applications regularly processed. So, what "is clearly a case of mismanagement" is clearly about individual applicants, those particular individual applicants, and just like everyone else in an advanced and well-ordered society, they have the right to obtain professional assistance in pursuing appropriate remedies . . . just like an innocent person accused of a crime they did not commit can hire a lawyer and spend many months if not years pursuing vindication in the courts.
It's not rocket science. But it does go in the direction of jurisprudence, and that's not a forum for non-lawyers.
So for those who believe their application is not being properly handled, see a lawyer. (Or rant and whine, or pray, or whistle in the wind; I like to whistle in the wind, but can't whistle much.)
The borderlines podcast (by Canadian immigration lawyers) recent edition (don't recall exactly which one) had some chatter / comments by lawyers that recently they're seeing government contest mandamus more - although this doesn't mean they'll all end up in court.
Background of course is that like many mandamus applications, the hope (for a well-founded claim / well formulated demand letter) is that government would in many cases prefer to simply 'settle' by satisfying the demand. And at least some of the time, certainly in cases where it's been truthfully delayed due to actual processing issues or mistakes or getting stuck in a queue (or any analogy one wishes for 'stuck in a neglected pile'), it may be possible to 'settle' by just, well, getting it done. It's in the government's interest, too, as it avoids more lawyers' time and court queues, etc.
Anyway these lawyers were saying that recently they're not getting this response, but effectively being told "go ahead and take us to court." Unclear whether this is just sheer number of mandamus demand letters, staff not having the time to deal the files, other 'organisational' issues, or a tactic of just buying time by forcing lawyers to go the next step - since getting to court seems to have longer delays at present, too. It may be that they're doing so assuming that a certain number will get their files completed by IRCC in the ordinary course of processing before any court date comes up.
I can't help but wonder - only speculation - if the number of mandamus demands, assisted by/written by/facilitated by AI chatbots and the like, that they're receiving has simply grown out of proportion and they've decided that forcing applicants to file for court dates is the most practical filter available.
I have not consumed that one, or I overlooked the comment.
Not sure, however, what your point is in the context here. Recourse for a case in which IRCC has, in effect, dropped the ball, is a Federal Court action seeking mandamus relief, and the path to pursuing that relief goes through a lawyer's office.
Yes, IRCC does drop the ball in some citizenship cases. (That said, are you sure the reference to there being more contested mandamus cases, as you partially recall, was about citizenship cases? They often discuss other immigration matters in regards to which IRCC gets more bogged down and off track.)
No, even if in more citizenship cases IRCC is contesting, or at least not positively responding to demands, there is little or no indication of a systemic failure to process citizenship applications. On the contrary, even in platforms oriented to giving air to complaints, the need for relief in citizenship cases still very much appears to be about particular individuals. And for aggrieved individuals in citizenship cases, the path to pursuing recourse goes through a lawyer's office, and if there are grounds, a lawsuit seeking mandamus relief.
Moreover, since "more" being contested appears to be about the overall number that does not necessarily mean it is no longer true that IRCC responds positively to most well-founded demands made by reputable lawyers, even if the lawyers perceive the proportion of positive responses is less . . . remember, fully litigated mandamus cases result in published decisions, and the number of those, at last glance, continues to be relatively small if not miniscule (representing a tiny fraction of a percent of citizenship applications).
Again, after all, make no mistake, the best recourse for an applicant who has made webform inquiries and obtained a copy of their GCMS records, and who after careful evaluation of all they know believes that IRCC is failing to properly process their application, is to see a lawyer, a lawyer they pay to review and assess the details in their case. And if warranted, hire the lawyer to pursue mandamus relief, beginning with the requisite preliminary demand.
Not unlike being wrongfully injured by another's tort: lawyer up. Similarly if accused of a crime you did not commit: lawyer-up (although in criminal cases the government does fund some legal services for the accused who cannot afford their own). And, by the way, no matter the merits, be prepared for the process to take a lengthy period of time. Justice is not dispensed in vending machines.
Caveat: this is not to say I advocate investing in a lawyer for every slowly processed citizenship application. Not close. Cannot document it, but my sense is that many of the cases in which IRCC has proceeded to finalize citizenship applications following formal demands (the requisite preliminary demand prior to filing an action seeking mandamus relief) were applications already well on their way to being finalized. There are many reasons processing is slow. Slow processing is not sufficient grounds for mandamus relief. In the past I made an effort, in posts here, to more fully address the particular requirements that need to be met to warrant mandamus relief but the practical reality is that if the process is just slower than it seems to be for others, save the cost of a lawyer, the odds are waiting is the better way to go.
In contrast, for those who genuinely believe (again, after doing the homework, webform queries et al) that IRCC is failing to properly process the application, SEE a LAWYER.
The point is quite simple and pretty much as I stated it, quite simple: lawyers are noticing that in the past, they would get some action or relief at the demand letter stage, i.e. they would not have to go the next stages of formally filing mandamus with the federal court. (For others: this is a standard step, one communicates to the government "pls do this thing or we will go to the courts for a writ of mandamus". Similarly to how one would do in civil contexts, write a formal letter "pls [do this thing which you're required to do by [[contract or whatever]] or I will go to the courts to get redress"])
And now, they are not getting movement/some positive response from govt in cases where they would previously have expected to. Obviously this is a somewhat probabilistic point - they did not expect this to always happen but 'often enough'. Purely from the perspective of practicing lawyers in the field.
I do not recall specifically, I believe that this was 'across the board' for IRCC interactions - it was certainly in an episode where citizenship apps were being discussed.
I did not allege this (I don't think there is, only - so far - a slight slowdown compared to, say, 2024).
The point in this to retain, IMO, is that the timeline between starting a mandamus process and getting to final decision is loooong. So the comments - even if anecdotal, even if partial, from lawyers used to the process - give a sense of the direction. (Although should be taken with a block of salt).
Reading the 'mandamus' practice by published decisions (at the very end of the process) is not even looking in the rear view mirror, but further back. Keeping in mind, it's a partial record, because those that get resolved before that don't show up in the court records.
Again so it's clear: my point is that SOME (most?) who are interested in mandamus are primarily interested in the hope the the demand letter/early filing will get them action 'sooner' than a positive mandamus decision 12, 24, 36 months later. (And there's a monetary difference for them, too)
My speculative comment was precisely about this: I wonder if the proliferation of chatgtp 'advocates' is causing more mandamus/demand letters to be filed, and - unintended consequence - the wait to become longer.
Agreed.
With all due empathy for those who are facing truly longer wait times for whatever reason (eg 2023 and before applications), there are some unrealistic expectations in more recent cohorts.
It's gonna take me a while to complete my three years but reading this thread is making me nervous -- and I haven't even applied yet! I can't imagine the dissatisfaction, resentment, sadness these folks are experiencing @stuckinsec and @GFLiam
What's scary is that it can happen to any of us! It's not just asylum seekers; these guys are approved through Express Entry. According to their previous threads, they don't tick any boxes for potential red flags either. Their application is just thrown in the black hole waiting to get picked up and finalized. It's outrageous! I just hope it doesn't happen to me when I apply, but if it does at least I know there are people who went through this hellish "non-routine" process and come out of the tunnel! I pray for all the folks in this thread. The mental agony must be crazy to wait 2x more than the published processing time and still not having any answers.
What's scary is that it can happen to any of us! It's not just asylum seekers; these guys are approved through Express Entry. According to their previous threads, they don't tick any boxes for potential red flags either. Their application is just thrown in the black hole waiting to get picked up and finalized. It's outrageous! I just hope it doesn't happen to me when I apply, but if it does at least I know there are people who went through this hellish "non-routine" process and come out of the tunnel! I pray for all the folks in this thread. The mental agony must be crazy to wait 2x more than the published processing time and still not having any answers.
An Important Distinction:
It is not clear what you mean by "it" here, in reference to what can happen. There is a big difference between longer processing times for some applicants (that is inevitable and happens to every applicant whose application does not get the benefit from being done as fast as applications get done) and applications that involve substantial non-routine processing related to more complex issues resulting in lengthy delays. More regarding longer processing times below.
AND then there are those applications, a small percentage of applications, that run into more serious problems. Many of these (probably most) are applicant fault cases (ranging from errors in the application to applying too soon), and many of these are due to complications in the individual applicant's history (yeah, refugees tend to have more issues).
And then there is a very, very small percentage of applications in regards to which IRCC drops the ball or otherwise fails to properly manage. As I understand it, @GFLiam claims to be among the latter, someone whose application IRCC is failing to properly process (which if true, to be clear, is particular to the individual application, there being no indication at all of any widespread failure in processing in citizenship applications by IRCC). @GFLiam should consult (paid for consultation) with a lawyer.
It is possible for IRCC to drop the ball in regards to any applicant. The odds of that, however, are remote. Leading to . . .
Possible Meteoroid Hit to the Head NOT Scary:
What is in the realm of the possible, what "can happen," should not be scary, lest you never cross a street or dine in a public place.
Innocent people can be charged with a crime, and it can take years to get clear, but it is not scary that "it can happen to any of us."
More practically . . .
In terms of risks and probabilities, the odds are low there will be any serious problem with a citizenship application for the vast majority (meaning all but a rather small if not tiny minority) of Canadians (Permanent Residents) who apply and . . .
. . . who meet all the qualifications for a grant of citizenship (including no prohibitions)
. . . whose life is well-settled and permanently established in Canada
. . . who properly and completely submit the information requested in the application
. . . who accurately and completely report travel history in the physical presence calculation, applying with a real buffer over the minimum physical presence
. . . who timely and properly respond to all notices and requests from IRCC
That said, there is some risk of non-routine processing resulting in significantly longer processing times for a minority of such applicants, a relatively small minority who have complex factors such as some complications in their immigration history, or associations potentially leading a total stranger bureaucrat to have questions or concerns that require non-routine inquiries or even investigation (ranging from security related concerns in other countries to a hit in law enforcement records even though there are no formal charges; almost all affected by this should personally know of their particular risk).
Many of the risk factors are no-brainers. The longer and more regularly established residency and work history IN Canada, the lower the risk. The fewer mistakes in the application the lower the risk (we all make mistakes; those who believe they made no mistake make the big mistake of believing they made no mistakes). Among others. No rocket science necessary.
For the vast majority of applicants, for all but a very small percentage (which however adds up to a significant number), the risk of the application getting bogged down beyond the standard range in processing times is low and should not be scary.
Leading to . . .
What the published processing time is based on has varied quite a bit recently. IRCC appears to be fumbling in its messaging.
But overall, generally, the processing times IRCC publishes are around how long it takes to process HALF plus at least one (that is most) of the applications submitted. Nearly half will take longer.
The thing about this, given how the process works, is that this published processing time is not much longer than the fastest processing time for citizenship applications (with some isolated exceptions).
So a large, large percentage of applications, potentially nearly half, take longer. There are many reasons. Big one is the varying work loads in local offices. Varying schedules. And since the processing time is almost entirely about how long an application sits in a queue waiting for a total stranger bureaucrat to act on it, every little extra step in the process adds a considerable amount of processing time, which is really wait time.
So, the bureaucrat sees cause to do an extra check on an employer the applicant reports in the application, instead of directly proceeding through the process that application could go into a queue waiting for responses from inquiries and waiting still in queue beyond that for the bureaucrat to act on it. Little checks add time, and they can add up, and then so much time has passed the formal clearances must be updated so the application goes back into another queue waiting on those.
Two times the fastest processing times is probably not unusual and for the majority of applicants that does not indicate any serious problems. Letting that cause one mental agony would be, well, foolish.
Why This Matters:
For some applicants it would be prudent to lawyer-up. For most applicants, most by a big margin, the vast majority, no need to lawyer-up; mostly having some patience will do. Knowing the difference is important.
Yes, IRCC will take longer processing some applications. For some it will be up and around twice as long as the processing time for half (which is close to published processing times). Patience is better for one's mental and spiritual health than unnecessary and, frankly, useless frantic anxiety.
But as said, for some, not many at all but some, it is important to recognize there is a problem. If there is a problem the better approach is to see a lawyer, to get some good professional advice about what is happening, in their own individual case, and what can be done about it, in their own individual case. (Whether they choose to rant and whine is for them to decide, but that's not dealing with the problem. To deal with the problem SEE a LAWYER.)
Last edited:
ever applied for ATIP ? is your application status Open/in progress or is it Pending/On hold
Similar threads
