18 months of wait! Anyone like me?

[Beats_ek]

I submitted my application jan 2018 got invited for the test june 2018 but I was travelling so it got postponed to oct 2018 . I passed the test oct 2018 and was asked to provide additional documents which was received at IRCC jan 2019. Since then there is no update. My MP has requested update but the response is very general: your application is in the queue for review/assessment with your local officer.

My application is very straight forward. Ive done my university education here and have worked . Only traveled few times for less than 2-3 weeks..... any idea folks?

 

[Kambiz2002]

There are many people before you either without test or with test who are still waiting. Like you, I got a request for more docs but the request was in July 2018 and was received in Aug 2019. You have mentioned the request was made in Oct 2018. They usually have a 30 day response time. You said that your response was received in Jan 2019. Did you ask for an extension? Regardless, your timeline is perfectly normal considering that you were requested to give extra docs. I suggest that you post further conversation to @dpenabill discussion under the residency questionnaire.

 

[Beats_ek]

There are many people before you either without test or with test who are still waiting. Like you, I got a request for more docs but the request was in July 2018 and was received in Aug 2019. You have mentioned the request was made in Oct 2018. They usually have a 30 day response time. You said that your response was received in Jan 2019. Did you ask for an extension? Regardless, your timeline is perfectly normal considering that you were requested to give extra docs. I suggest that you post further conversation to @dpenabill discussion under the residency questionnaire.

They asked me for additions docs on the test date. Yes i informed them about the delay of sending the documents. Then in our case whats the approx timeframe? 2 years??

 

[Kambiz2002]

They asked me for additions docs on the test date. Yes i informed them about the delay of sending the documents. Then in our case whats the approx timeframe? 2 years??

problem is no one knows. If you read dpenabill threads, you will notice that it really depends on your luck and some factors that no one can guess. There are many ambiguities on why and how it takes so long. I will hit the 2 years in 4 months (right now 20 months and still waiting with no updates). The agents freely say: "as your application is non-routine, you are at the mercy of the officer".

 

[sarafandee]

problem is no one knows. If you read dpenabill threads, you will notice that it really depends on your luck and some factors that no one can guess. There are many ambiguities on why and how it takes so long. I will hit the 2 years in 4 months (right now 20 months and still waiting with no updates). The agents freely say: "as your application is non-routine, you are at the mercy of the officer".

I am hitting 21 months in 2 days, and still without a test invite.

 

[dpenabill]

UPFRONT: Not all applicants are created equal. The vast majority of QUALIFIED applicants, nonetheless, are similar enough to proceed through the process in what is commonly referred to as the ROUTINE application process. Not all.

Yes, more than a few who are not qualified nonetheless apply . . . some come here scratching their heads about what could have gone wrong, like a few who recently reported in this forum that there were errors in their presence calculation and it turns out they were a little bit short, when being short simply, absolutely, means the person was NOT qualified.

But otherwise, yes, for more than a few QUALIFIED applicants it is not readily verified that they are qualified, and thus for a wide variety of reasons they are NON-ROUTINE. The reasons can vary widely as to why IRCC does not readily verify an applicant is qualified, and the reason in any individual case can relate to any of the eligibility requirements.

The fact that it is impossible to guess what the "reason" is, in the abstract, does NOT mean the applicant himself or herself does not know the likely reason. Indeed, in contrast, with perhaps some RARE exceptions, the applicant himself or herself will have a very good idea why there is an issue, why there is some concern. Protests to the contrary are generally unpersuasive.

While it is very difficult to predict timelines, for ROUTINELY processed applications let alone those subject to NON-ROUTINE processing, there tends to be a big difference for those who are subject to certain types of NON-ROUTINE processing, with Presence-Case applications, and criminality or security related Prohibition-Case applicants, looming large and tending to result in much longer processing time lines. The latter really is a separate group, potentially facing very long processing time-lines.

IN ANY EVENT . . . . . . . . . .

I submitted my application jan 2018 got invited for the test june 2018 but I was travelling so it got postponed to oct 2018 . I passed the test oct 2018 and was asked to provide additional documents which was received at IRCC jan 2019. Since then there is no update. My MP has requested update but the response is very general: your application is in the queue for review/assessment with your local officer.

My application is very straight forward. Ive done my university education here and have worked . Only traveled few times for less than 2-3 weeks..... any idea folks?

The temptation is to ask: which is is it? Do you have a very straight forward application? Or was your process subject to a postponement for more than three months and then involve a request for more documents? Cannot be both.

Generally a straight-forward application equates with ROUTINE processing. Any postponement of processing means it is NOT ROUTINE, not anymore anyway. Any request for additional documents means the application is NOT ROUTINE.

That said, some postponements and some requests for additional documents do not mean the application is all that far outside the ROUTINE, and many such applications are more or less *routinely* processed in the broader sense of routine.

Note: the narrow sense of "routine" as used by IRCC is any action or procedure in addition to the formal routine processing path, so even a fingerprint request technically means the application is "non-routine" in the narrow, IRCC sense. That just means that IRCC's NON-promise of a routine processing timeline is officially not applicable. No-s*** Sherlock, one might say. Indeed, when the timeline is longer than the reported "processing time" one can conclude the application is not "routine" in IRCC's narrow sense and thus, again, IRCC's NON-promise of a routine processing timeline is officially not applicable. In which case one MUST say "No-s*** Sherlock. With emphasis.

For you, WHY? What's up? What's happening? Or, in other words: WHAT is it about YOUR application that is NOT straight forward . . . since, clearly, it is NOT a straight-forward application.

The answer to this is not suggested in what you have reported. Something's up. Something triggered the request for more documents. This is NOT about luck. While no one here can guess what the relevant factors are in your individual case, YOU KNOW your history, your circumstances, the process to date, the reason for needing to postpone the test, what documents were requested, why an extension was needed in responding to the documents requested, and what information was included in both your application, answers to questions at the PI, and in the documents submitted later. No advanced studies in government administration needed to SELF-ASSESS all that you know about yourself in comparison to all the eligibility requirements for citizenship, to personally have some sense of . . . well . . . WHY? What's up? What's happening? Or, in other words: WHAT is it about YOUR application that is NOT straight forward . . .?


As I noted in my upfront observations, concerns or issues leading to Presence-Case applications, as well as criminality or security related Prohibition-Case applicants, are a category of their own tending to result in very long time lines. Some of these cases present OUTCOME RISK FACTORS (things that might result in the application being denied) in addition to lengthy processing time lines.

Frankly, you really should have a decent idea if there is a concern or issue which puts your application in the category of either a Presence-Case or Prohibition-Case.

If there is no concern or issue which puts your application in the category of either a Presence-Case or Prohibition-Case, it is possible your application has stalled some for more or less bureaucratic reasons but otherwise it should be on track to result in the Oath being scheduled within a relatively reasonable time (with the caveat that what is a "relatively reasonable time" tends to be a lot longer than many applicants think is reasonable).

 

[dpenabill]

Continued from previous post . . .

problem is no one knows. . . . you will notice that it really depends on your luck and some factors that no one can guess. There are many ambiguities on why and how it takes so long.

No one knows how long it will take for a given application to proceed to the next step or how long overall it will take to reach the Oath ceremony. But it should still be a "relatively reasonable" time line (with the usual caveat) . . . UNLESS there is some significant NON-ROUTINE element involved (something more significant than a typical fingerprint request for example). For the vast majority of QUALIFIED applicants the timeline can be expected to be at least as long as the shortest timelines being reported in the spread sheets, but potentially as long as the longer timelines being reported, ranging from a few to several months longer than the "routine" processing time reported by IRCC.

If it goes beyond that, into what really is NON-ROUTINE processing territory, forecasting the timeline becomes especially problematic if not practically impossible.

As I have referenced above, there is a huge difference in the impact of certain types of NON-ROUTINE processing compared to how it goes for most other applications.

Whether an application gets bogged down in more problematic non-routine processing IS NOT A MATTER OF LUCK. Moreover, we do know many of the relevant factors. They are not at all mysterious. They are many. Too many to attempt a generic enumeration. Most (but not all) relate to strength-of-presence-case or criminality/security matters. And are relatively easy to assess by the individual applicant considering his or her own situation.

Example; applied with 1104 days presence: yeah, that is cutting-it-close enough that in conjunction with any HINT of potential discrepancy or omission or even incongruity, such as something about the work or school or address history not adding up or not precisely fitting the travel history, that could be enough to trigger a side trip down the Presence-Case path, and depending on how and what the applicant provides in response, potentially leading to an outright Presence-Case. That is, cutting-it-close can significantly compromise the applicant's strength-of-presence-case, with relatively predictable results, at least in terms of forecasting a non-routine processing time line.

That is merely ONE EXAMPLE among many, many, possibilities. Too many possibilities to guess in the abstract. But individual applicants do NOT need to guess in the abstract. They know their case as well as ANYONE in the world, better than anyone in IRCC.

For anyone who genuinely knows of no possible reason why there might be a concern or issue in their case, and the time line has gone longer than . . . hard to say, but roughly I'd say 18 months or so . . . they can

-- choose to wait to see how things go (and if there really is no reason why there should be a concern, while the wait can be longer than desired, it really should not go on too much longer), OR
-- find and hire a lawyer to pursue recourse (which can get complicated) or at least some obtain some further insight into what is happening​

Far more, however, should be able to review their own case and have some understanding of what is up. And based on that decide whether they too WAIT to see what happens next, or find and hire a lawyer to assist them moving forward.

It is possible to make an ATIP application which results in getting some real information. Problem is, that requires a customized ATIP application, and that is NOT easy to compose in a way that will actually generate a useful response. I am not sure, but my sense is that even among lawyers, NOT a lot are well-versed in doing this. It is rarely needed. It will rarely make any difference. It is not an expertise lawyers usually need or that clients would be willing to pay for.

IF, and this is a fairly big IF, if one can find a lawyer who offers more than WAITING to see what IRCC does next, such lawyers are more likely to pursue the path that involves checking off the necessary prerequisites to pursuing Mandamus. Which can be expensive. Which can be an unnecessary expense. Which for the qualified applicant with an application for which there really is NO reason to cause concern, no real eligibility issue, is most often unnecessary and, at best, might accelerate the outcome some but not by much.

And the others have a problem. How to approach that depends on the problem. Far better and a lot less expensive to figure out what the problem is, why it is, BEFORE going to the lawyer, and then going to a lawyer to figure out what to do about the problem. (REALLY . . . and I say this knowing that many will nonetheless protest they do not know . . . but the individual applicant knows the facts better than any lawyer ever will, so it would be utterly stupid to pay a lawyer to figure out the problem, or at least to figure it out from scratch . . . ALWAYS do some homework and get well prepared with the FACTS before going to the lawyer . . . that will help the lawyer do her job and really help lower the cost.)


THERE is indeed a lot we DO NOT KNOW about what goes on in processing NON-routinely processed applications. But we are NOT totally in the dark. We know the eligibility requirements. And each of us knows our own facts, our own case.

And "luck" does NOT have much to do with how things go.

 

[HFAMH]

The delay is either due to residency, criminality or security checks. I have been waiting more than 19 months before I hear back from IRCC.
If you order ATIP notes from IRCC you can get an idea on whether criminality or residency are passed or not.
If you order ATIP notes from CSIS you can get an idea on if the security checks are pending.

Usually, the criminality checks are done quicker than the residency and security checks.
The residency checks are done by the IRCC officers and depending on the volume of work they should complete, could take a longer time, specially if the document request involves a detailed questionnaire. The security checks are far more ambiguous as IRCC has no control on that. No matter if you call or ask your MP or make case specific inquiries, you only get a response that your case is in process with no timeline.

If your case passing a 2 year deadline, you could ask a lawyer to assess your case for the possibility of a FC mandamus.

 

[Kambiz2002]

@dpenabill
Once again thank you for your detailed explanation. What I meant above by luck had nothing to do with the fact that a certain application may or may not be sent for extra scrutiny. Rather, when it is sent an RQ, it is a matter of luck on how long it might take to process that application. One can be sure that the processing will longer. But how much longer, is a matter of luck: how many applications are already in the queue? Whether it is purely the residence calculation or the security or criminality which will make it longer? How back logged are these extra secondary processes? Again luck. So while I appreciate your very detailed response, I believe you took the wrong point in assuming I meant " whether an application should or should not be sent" for secondary processing compared to how long these processes would take. The latter was my objective on using the word luck.

On another point is that while factors like cutting it short, or not being employed during certain periods, and frequent travels would be grounds for IRCC, processing these applications after being very good at it (on the side of IRCC) IN A ACCEPTABLE time period would be a legitimate demand from the side of the people who have applied. I have noticed that you have discussed in great detail on how these applications are putting a pressure of the limited resources of IRCC and they do demand extra time. None the less, it seems that that existed all the time and they continue to be. So, why IRCC wouldnt commit to a certain time period that during which it has to come to a conclusion. I believe IRCC should announce like its 12 months processing time commitment (which could be longer or shorter) a time period for these non-routine applications that other than the factors above are PERFECTLY legitimate applicants who must be given citizenship. I am afraid that although we don't talk about it, there seems to be a factor of bias as well which is extremely difficult to prove but I am personally convinced that it exists: so that some officers would just throw an application in these RQ queues for people of certain countries.
I give you an example: I knew the family of a girl who had 6 months of extra days, no travels, always a student and yet it took her 4 years in Montreal to get her citizenship. She is from Iran. No one at the end could figure why this happened. I can give more examples but it is out of the context here. Again, I am not saying that only people of certain countries get RQs, but I am saying that it is apparent that people of certain countries do get a lot more RQs. I wish the statistics would be out.

 

[Fallen_Warrior]

I submitted my application jan 2018 got invited for the test june 2018 but I was travelling so it got postponed to oct 2018 . I passed the test oct 2018 and was asked to provide additional documents which was received at IRCC jan 2019. Since then there is no update. My MP has requested update but the response is very general: your application is in the queue for review/assessment with your local officer.

My application is very straight forward. Ive done my university education here and have worked . Only traveled few times for less than 2-3 weeks..... any idea folks?

16+ months and still no test invite for me.

 

[djangoboy]

16+ months and still no test invite for me.

What test invite are you guys talking about could you please brief us on this?

Ok I guess you guys are talking about citizenship....

 

[Fallen_Warrior]

What test invite are you guys talking about could you please brief us on this?

Citizenship Test and Interview

 

[dpenabill]

What I meant above by luck had nothing to do with the fact that a certain application may or may not be sent for extra scrutiny. Rather, when it is sent an RQ, it is a matter of luck on how long it might take to process that application. One can be sure that the processing will longer. But how much longer, is a matter of luck: how many applications are already in the queue? Whether it is purely the residence calculation or the security or criminality which will make it longer? How back logged are these extra secondary processes? Again luck.

We appear to use the word "luck" with different meanings.

The role of "luck" is oft asserted in reference to much of what happens in processing citizenship applications and PR related matters. While according to its dictionary definition, luck has to do with fortune, fate, or chance, this word is used most often here in reference to chance.

In particular, most references to "luck," in the context used here, are about chance in the sense of random (or at least relatively-random) probabilities, like the chance a flipped coin will land heads or tails, or a certain number will come up on the roulette wheel.

I make a concerted effort to emphasize that what happens in processing citizenship applications is NOT much about probabilities, not about "chance" or "luck" as such, BUT far more about the specific facts and circumstances in the individual case. As I oft emphasize, not all applicants are created equal.

You appear to be using the word "luck" in a way that is more or less about unpredictable factors outside the individual's control influencing how things go. Your examples, after all, refer to fairly concrete circumstances:

-- "how many applications are already in the queue?"
-- "Whether it is purely the residence calculation or the security or criminality which will make it longer?"
-- "How back logged are these extra secondary processes?"​

None of these are random factors. And, for clarity, the second of these in particular is VERY MUCH DEPENDENT on the specific facts and circumstances in the particular individual's case, not random chance.

And it may very well be, for example, that applicants originally from Iran have a higher risk of non-routine processing leading to extra-ordinary lengthy timelines. While being from Iran, rather than say the UK, may be a matter of "luck," to the extent being from Iran (or, my impression, from particular regions or circumstances in Iran, recognizing that some from Iran sail smoothly through the process in very routine timelines) can have an impact on the process (such as triggering a significantly longer CSIS security background check process), that is not a matter of random chance. NOT about "luck."

(Whether the Iranian background role is about bias or about factors particular to verifying background is a separate question; I recognize some bias has some influence in some cases, but overall I tend to doubt that bias is a significant factor in the vast majority of cases.)

Leading to this: "I give you an example: I knew the family of a girl who had 6 months of extra days, no travels, always a student and yet it took her 4 years in Montreal to get her citizenship. She is from Iran. No one at the end could figure why this happened."

NOT LIKELY ANY LUCK involved in this example. Rather, as you suggest, yourself, it may be about concerns related to her background in Iran. Whether there is good reason behind such concerns, or not, is a separate question. But most likely it is NOT about luck. Not a matter or random chance.

I cannot discern whether this girl has an application as part of a family group (in which event circumstances for other family members can have a big impact on how things go), or an individual application . . . and if an individual application, whether RQ was issued to this individual.

But if RQ was issued in the case (distinguishable from the Quality Control Exercise, which is very comparable to RQ, and which is actually supposed to be random, thus actually a matter of chance), there was almost certainly some particular facts or circumstances which triggered the RQ. Whether the individual herself can identify what the questions are, or why, does not illuminate much at all about what questions there were, or why. But if RQ is issued, that almost always means there were some questions, and when the processing takes a particularly long time after responding to the RQ, that almost always means that IRCC had specific concerns based on the actual facts and circumstances.

Which leads to one common mis-perception. Many seem to think that NO travel abroad makes for a strong case. And for some, that makes sense. Refugees in particular. But for many applicants NO travel abroad can trigger questions. In the vein of really? Not once in three or four years did a student return home to visit family? Maybe this applicant should be examined more thoroughly.

To be clear, I know nothing about the particular case you reference. I cannot say there was this or that particular fact or circumstance leading to RQ or whatever else was underlying how long her application took. I can observe, however, that if RQ was involved, that RQ is almost always fact-based, criteria-driven . . . derived from the assessment of individual case factors. This is especially true in the last few years, recognizing that it is apparent RQ is far, far less frequently issued now than it was in the past.

There are many factors which an individual has little or no control over. There are many factors that are relatively unknown (how many applications are already in queue). These are NOT random chance elements.

The main point I try to make about the it's a matter of "luck," is that how things go in the processing of a citizenship application is NOT at all akin to buying a lottery ticket or playing the roulette wheel. It is not a game of chance.