Background Checks
- Thread starter mweiner
- Start date
Anything, everything, except perhaps not the colour of socks you most often wore in 2015 or what flavor of ice cream you favour today compared to what you preferred in 2014.
On a more serious note, there is no limit on what IRCC may check in an applicant's background other than it be reasonably relevant to immigration history, status in Canada, qualifications for citizenship, and matters which might constitute a prohibition, ranging from misrepresentations made in the process of coming to Canada in the first place to criminal or security related matters (the latter, in particular, can relate to anytime in an individual's history).
Obviously, the primary focus of the background checks for which there is a formal clearance obtained from other government agencies is criminal history and security concerns; these checks are referred to the RCMP and CSIS respectively.
These can (but usually do not) involve referrals for overseas inquiries. I believe (noting however that what is actually done is not public information) the inquiries are usually referred to Canadian authorities who have access to local information, but potentially this can involve referrals to agencies in other governments. Overseas referrals can indeed result in long delays . . . YEARS (noting, again, however, this is not what is usual, and noting too that a few or several months wait after a Decision Made is common and probably NOT because of any non-routine background check delay).
However, citizenship processing agents also conduct various checks which can include researching the applicant's background. There are periodic GCMS record checks which review matters related to immigration status (validity of PR status for example, verification of no inadmissibility reports or removal proceedings), noting however that this includes FOSS and thus is another criminality check (at minimum RCMP and U.S. NCIC/FBI name-record hits will generally pop up in this check).
Beyond that, of course the processing agent may pursue background inquiries to assess the applicant's information as to address history, work history, travel history, or to otherwise verify information, ranging from verification of tax filings to verifying telephone numbers. Some applicants may be subject to Internet open source searching. Canada411 and LinkedIn are commonly referenced. I am not sure how or where CIC (before the transition to IRCC) discovered it, but there was a case in which CIC obtained and relied on a brochure for a Business Conference in Switzerland which listed the applicant as a participant at the conference representing a foreign business, whereas that individual reported being in Canada and unemployed for that particular time (he did not fare well). Employers may be telephoned. Addresses and telephone numbers may be verified. Employers, addresses, or telephone numbers listed by the applicant may be screened in GCMS to see if there are any flags or alerts or notes related to them, particularly as to whether they have popped up in other cases deemed suspicious.
Anything reasonably related to any aspect of the applicant, application, and qualifications for citizenship, is potentially in scope for the background checks.
In contrast, what is practically done, actually done, for any specific individual applicant, is impossible to forecast. My sense is that beyond the GCMS screening, routine cross-checking, and the formal criminal and security clearances, most applicants are evaluated for credibility and verification of information in the documents-check interview and some spot-checks, and that is about it . . . unless something triggers additional background checking.
I do not know your timeline. But I am guessing that your reference to "this long" is perhaps NOT such a long time.
Remember, even a routine timeline, NO PROBLEMS, NO DELAYS, NO UNUSUAL BACKGROUND ISSUES, can take a YEAR OR MORE, and for many who have applied since October 11, 2017, it is quite likely to indeed take up to a year AND MORE. A rough guide, derived from long-term historical information, is that many if not a majority of ROUTINELY PROCESSED applicants will see a timeline TWO to THREE TIMES as long as the fastest timeline (for those who applied around the same time).
My impression is that some of the reported faster timelines have led many to have unrealistic expectations about how long it should take.
As I have repeatedly observed, the vast majority of applicants have no reason to worry, and that remains true even if it takes 8, 10, or 12 months.
Indeed, if there is any reason to worry, the applicant probably knows it and why, and did so the day the application was submitted, and most (not all) protests to the contrary tend to lack credibility or derive from wearing blinders.
imm_leb_01
Hero Member
- Apr 3, 2013
- 400
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- CPP-ottawa
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 28 February 2013
- AOR Received.
- 11 April 2013
- Med's Request
- 25 April 2013
- Med's Done....
- 8 May 2013
- Interview........
- RPRF Request june 18th
- Passport Req..
- 26 February 2014
- VISA ISSUED...
- 5 March 2014
- LANDED..........
- 29 March 2014
Thanks very helpful
My question is let's say my file is waiting security check. Once the security check is done the officer in charge will receive a notification ? or my file be pending until the agent come back to it and realise that all the checks are done and move my file forward ?
A file may be "waiting" for a security check because it is sitting in a queue waiting for it to be referred to the appropriate agency to obtain an update. A call centre agent may say the application is waiting on a security check when the call centre agent does not actually know anything more than the application is in a queue waiting for someone to undertake the next step.
Otherwise, the precise procedures involved in obtaining and receiving security (CSIS) clearances are NOT public information. We do not really know what the procedure is. As others have described it, CSIS clearances are essentially a black box.
Even the internal procedures done in the local office are largely NOT public information, so we do not know much about the internal procedures involving the interviewer, a processing agent (who may or may not be the interviewer for any given application), and the Citizenship Officer who makes the official decision (who may or may not be the interviewer and/or otherwise the processing agent who up to the decision making step has handled any given application). For example, it is apparent that some applicants are in fact interviewed by the Citizenship Officer, so there is just that one individual in the local office reviewing, assessing, interviewing, and deciding their particular case. It is also apparent that in some instances there are two or three separate persons handling the interview, assessment, and official decision-making. Depends.
What we do know is that even for the most routinely processed applications, the timeline from one step to the next step can vary a great deal . . . so the timeline between test/interview, for example, and Decision Made, can vary considerably from one applicant to another EVEN WITHIN a batch of applicants who appeared for and took the test on the same day in the same local office. AND similarly so for the timeline between when the application shows a Decision Made and when the oath is actually scheduled.
There are WAY TOO MANY attempts to READ WAY TOO MUCH into comparing spreadsheet reports about timelines.
Unless and until the overall timeline is approaching a YEAR, there is nothing to do but be PATIENT and WAIT. Similarly, unless and until it has been six or eight months since the test and interview and there is no decision made or other next step taken, there is nothing to do but be PATIENT and WAIT. And these references to time may need adjustment to longer periods of time in the wake of the huge surge in applications submitted in the last six months; it will take some time before we get a clear picture as to how IRCC handles this surge and what the timelines will be for most post-Bill C-6 applications.
To Be Clear: I have oft emphasized that there is NO REASON to WORRY (for qualified applicants who otherwise do not know of any reason why they personally should worry), and continue to emphasize this, BECAUSE it is NOT FAIR to TRIGGER UNNECESSARY ANXIETY. Qualified applicants should be able to relax, NOT WORRY, not carry the weight of unnecessary anxiety, and they should be able to gladly look forward to the day they will appear before a Citizenship Judge and take the oath of a Canadian citizen. This is a process to ENJOY. Don't worry, be happy.
OK, sure, there will be some whose path is longer and not so smooth. Many who rushed are at risk. Those who have cause to worry and know it, yeah, of course, they have cause to worry. No advanced degrees in rocket trajectory or bureaucratology necessary to figure that out.
The vast majority can RELAX and embrace the process recognizing that this is a serious, solemn, and venerable step to take, and appreciate that the government of Canada appropriately approaches this with the gravity this big transition in people's lives deserves.
Background check or security clearance is something that stuck my application in In process for 3 month. and seeing people who applied after you already took their oath makes you frustrated and worried.
You mentioned they check tax filings??? Why would they care about a US tax filing? What difference does that make as far as me being a threat to Canada? Just curious. I've never heard that before.
Not sure who you are referring to as mentioning anything about U.S. tax filings, since I see NO references to U.S. tax filings in any post in this topic.
And I concur that U.S. tax filings are NOT likely checked by IRCC in processing citizenship applications.
I reference U.S. FBI/NCIC name-record checks. That is about checking the U.S. databases for criminal history, to the extent the databases are accessible by Canadian authorities, which tends to be far more so than many realize. A Canadian immigrant's FOSS will typically show a HIT for the Canadian immigration client if the client has a criminal history in the U.S. (Obviously there are gaps, but clients with a name-record criminal history in the U.S. will ordinarily be identified in the GCMS check, which is done repeatedly throughout the application processing and which includes FOSS.)
I also reference the POSSIBILITY that IRCC might verify tax filings. This is about the REQUIREMENT to comply with Canadian (CRA) tax filing obligations for a certain number of tax years. The nature and scope of inquiry regarding this probably varies significantly depending on whether IRCC identifies any reason to question the applicant's declarations about complying with tax filing obligations for each of the FIVE years preceding the tax year in which the application is made. This is Item 12 in the current application form. It warrants noting that the application form itself gives notice that IRCC will use this information "to determine if you meet the income tax filing requirement and physical presence requirement." (Emphasis added.)
In the latter regard, it warrants remembering that if and when IRCC comes across reason to suspect the information provided by an applicant is NOT accurate, the scope of further inquiry triggered can range from merely additional cross-checking to asking the applicant questions in the interview or requesting additional documents from the applicant, but also can involve referrals to other government agencies (if, in particular, there is heightened suspicion about potentially deliberate misinformation) and range from making particular inquiries or, in the more egregious situations, triggering overt investigations. If fraud is suspected, the latter can include referrals for criminal level investigations, by either CBSA or the RCMP, or both, in which case of course the agency conducting the investigation has the usual tools available, including formal requests to other agencies (such as CRA) for what is otherwise protected private information, if and when probable cause is established.
Thus, for example, generally IRCC does NOT have direct access to CRA information about the applicant. However, IRCC can refer an inquiry to the CRA to verify certain information provided by the client. There are, though, privacy regulations that limit the scope of information IRCC can actually obtain in this way. Of course limited sharing of information can nonetheless expose discrepancies or otherwise illuminate potential discrepancies or otherwise constitute cause for investigation. Which again, depending on the nature of what cause there is, can justify sharing what is ordinarily protected private information. Including, where the facts discovered indicate PROBABLE CAUSE to believe a crime has been committed, the same level of access as a formal search warrant in typical criminal investigations would allow.
None of which should invite concern for any qualified applicant who has provided accurate information. The vast majority of qualified applicants have very little to worry about in regards to what IRCC might examine in the course of conducting background checks or information verification.
Thank you for your reply. I apologize for not referencing the previous comment I was referring to. It was a long post and it only had one sentence that mentioned CIC looking at tax filings. It makes no difference to me as I'm sure they will find my information rather boring, but I simply found it interesting and was curious. Thank you for your thorough answer. It is appreciated.