I applied for Canadian citizenship in Feb 2024. All stages are completed except security clearance. IRCC keeps saying it’s a non routine application and under security review. My MP contacted them and got the same response: " All is good it is still under security". What are my options? Thanks
2.5 Years Stuck in the Security
- Thread starter rami3332
- Start date
ChuckNorris
Star Member
- Oct 8, 2021
- 66
- 27
- Category........
- PNP
- NOC Code......
- 2173
- Job Offer........
- Yes
- Nomination.....
- 03022022
- AOR Received.
- 04-03-2022
- Med's Done....
- 20-04-2022
Dec 2023 - Feb 2024 non routine applications are being cleared now.
So, you might be close. If not, then mandanus is an option.
So, you might be close. If not, then mandanus is an option.
what does it sayHi. How do you know which applications been cleared? Does that information changes every month or biweekly?
My application was submitted in July 2024. BG is cleared. Prohibition, language and physical presence is still “pending” since Nov 2024. That was the last update.
Any idea?
Thanks in advance.
If your BG is already cleared, then you are just stuck with IRCC.
Have you requested GCMS notes recently? If I would be you, I would send them a demand letter via physical mail and submit it via webform too, use chatgpt to draft one for you.
Most of the delayed application for this long are because our files are stuck with CSIS for security screening and background check isn't complete. Language, Prohibition and Physical presence are under IRCC's control.
I did get my GCMS after 5 months but it didn’t say anything. I did request for a new one but I don’t know how long will that take.
Maybe I should try the demand letter.
Have you tried it or someone you know? What was the outcome?
Thanks again.
I have tried the demand letter few times, since my file is stuck at the background check, IRCC can't do much in my case because it's 3rd party doing the check. The GCMS notes take less than or around 30 days if you are requesting them from CBSA, through the ATIP portal: https://atip-aiprp.tbs-sct.gc.ca/en/Home/Privacy . Don't request notes from IRCC as they redact bunch of information and takes longer to process them.
Send a demand letter via webform and after 30 days maybe think about doing the mandamus.I applied in Dec 2023 and AOR Jan 8 2024. I am stuck in prohibitions & BG. No updates since Aug 2024. Nothing at all
It's pretty much telling IRCC "please wrap things up within the next few weeks, else I'll start the mandamus proceedings".
I case you're wondering, a carefully drafted one from a reputable lawyer may move the needle for applications that are not stuck in security, but in the recent years, IRCC has been flooded with demand letters from applicants themselves (as many just try to pursue mandamus by themselves with the help of AI and the resources they find online), so their effectiveness has greatly dropped.
I applied in Dec 2023 and AOR Jan 8 2024. I am stuck in prohibitions & BG. No updates since Aug 2024. Nothing at all
You have been active in the 2023 Citizenship Applications thread where various efforts to push IRCC to advance processing, including those related to pursuing mandamus relief, have been discussed at-length.
Given your timeline, unless you are willing to wait on IRCC (and probably CSIS) to proceed when it will, it has been time to see a lawyer for quite some time already.
As for the suggestion/advice posted by @yukonpnp, they left out that most important step before sending a "demand" letter and "thinking about doing the mandamus;" that is, obtaining input from a reputable, qualified, and experienced immigration lawyer before initiating mandamus related procedures, like sending a demand letter.
Nothing wrong with sending a request or demand (form does not matter) hoping that stirs some action by IRCC. Sometimes applications can be in limbo, in some way stuck in-between queues, and a request or demand might be sufficient to get a processing agent to move the application forward. That, however, is different from a formal demand intended to meet the requisite for pursuing mandamus relief in the Federal Court. For the latter, so far AI will not cut it, probably not close enough to even be in the ballpark. Lots of reasons why . . . but in general, relying on AI for pursuing mandamus relief, even just at the demand stage, would be like relying on AI for engaging in complex heart or brain surgery.
I agree with the view that a demand letter, "a carefully drafted one from a reputable lawyer," might, as you say, "move the needle for applications that are not stuck in security," and with the gist of your post otherwise, that demand letters from applicants themselves tend to lack effectiveness.
I cannot say for sure to what extent there has been any change in how ineffective it is when applicants act as their own lawyer, but so far as the reporting has gone there is every sign that such demand letters from applicants always tended to lack effectiveness. The increase in numbers doing this has mostly meant a likewise increase in the numbers reporting a failure to move the needle this way; it is not likely such letters are less effective now, but mostly that the increased numbers simply make the ineffectiveness of such demands all that more apparent.
That noted, the likely ineffectiveness of such demands was readily apparent before, particularly so for those who understand that anyone acting as their own lawyer has a fool for a client, recognizing that initiating the formal procedures for pursuing a legal action in the Federal Court, particularly a very complex legal action pursuing an extraordinary remedy like mandamus, is acting as a lawyer.
As I noted in response to @saeed289, there are lots of reasons why such demand letters tend to be ineffective, even with the help of AI.
As illustrated by information a lawfirm specializing in immigration has shared in its website (I have referenced this with a link eleswhere, but cannot put my cursor on it at the moment), even a lawyer who is experienced in pursuing immigration related mandamus remedies might consider employing a procedure using two demand letters, one in the manner of a relatively friendly request, followed (if necessary, as it typically is) by a second, more formal demand letter that will meet the necessary requirements for pursuing mandamus. The latter is tricky. And, importantly, it must be based on particular facts and circumstances in the individual case, and those must be mapped into the complex legal requirements to qualify for mandamus. What many seem to have difficulty accepting is that the passage of time (no matter how long, with rare exceptions in extreme situations), does not constitute grounds for mandamus relief. This means composing the demand letter requires more expertise than AI . . . an experienced lawyer might find AI useful in helping to compose such demands, but that is someone with expertise using AI as a tool, one tool among many others.
That is . . . applicant composed demand letters, even those composed with AI assistance, are mostly ineffective because they fail to properly establish grounds for the relief being demanded.
Like the need for surgeons to deal with certain medical matters, lawyers are still needed to pursue complex legal remedies in the Federal Court. This is not because officials are prone to ignore individuals who are not represented by lawyers, but because it takes a lawyer to effectively prosecute such complex legal remedies (and for mandamus, not just any lawyer).
