I applied for citizenship14 months ago, I have not been invited for citizenship test/exam yet, I emailed them two times and they said I should wait, I emailed my MP and gave them authorization to ask from citizenship, they responded to MP that they have not finished the calculations of the days I was in Canada for citizenship eligibility, and they said it may take two years to be processed. As I have not any record or offence in any place in the world, and I never left canada during my application, and I have not travelled out of canada, I dont know why a simple task which can be done in a week has not finished yet? could you please let me know what should I do? Can I sue immigration office for discrimination and unreasonable delay in my case in federal court or supreem court of Canada? Thank you in advance for your complete response,
citizenship delay for two years
- Thread starter mehdi2015
- Start date
harirajmohan
VIP Member
- Mar 3, 2015
- 1,660
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Sydney, NS
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 29-May-2015
- Doc's Request.
- 30-Dec-2015 ReminderEmail(PCCs, NewPassport via cse 31-Dec-2015)
- Nomination.....
- SK 22-Apr-2015
- AOR Received.
- 11-Aug-2015
- Med's Request
- 23-Dec-2015
- Med's Done....
- 20-Jan-2016
- Passport Req..
- 26-May-2016 (BGC In Progress 25-May-2016)
- VISA ISSUED...
- PP Reached Ottawa:27-May-2016, Received:10-Jun-2016
- LANDED..........
- PR: 09-Jul-2016, PR Card: 17-Aug-2016
You can go the mandamus route with the assistance of a lawyer - however this is only effective if you've hit 3 years in waiting. It's way too early at this point.
No - you cannot sue for discrimination.
Needless to say, discrimination is apparent at IRCC. This is not an accusation, but a personal opinion based on facts. Given I am one of many who are still stuck with this extended security background checks, I looked at all posts of people in here complaining about this, and I privately chatted with them. Guess what, the majority share the same country(s). You can keep bugging your MP for updates, or even hire a lawyer to file a writ of mandamus (expensive solution). No guarantees should be expected that any of those solutions can accelerate your case, although writ of mandamus has a higher chance of them acting or moving your case forward.
Trust me, if I am certain there is a way to sue IRCC for this, and even if I had to pay a fortune, I would do it. I don't want them to pay me back anything in return, I just need an official acknowledgement of this discrimination they are implementing against many of us.
27 months now without a test invite, someone explain this to me?
My lawyer filed an ATIP request one month ago, but they told him to wait for three months instead of standard 30 days for a reply! My writ of mandamus will be filed by then if their response is void like the previous six.
Good luck to everyone still waiting...
I am Feb 2018 applicant.
My security check was concluded and passed 4 months ago after my lawyer sent the first letter to IRCC. It took 1 year and 4 months to go through CSIS checks. However, still, after passing both criminal and security checks, I haven't been called for any test/oath.
I have filed an application of mandamus yesterday in federal court. Now, waiting on IRCC reply. Fingers crossed.
My security check was concluded and passed 4 months ago after my lawyer sent the first letter to IRCC. It took 1 year and 4 months to go through CSIS checks. However, still, after passing both criminal and security checks, I haven't been called for any test/oath.
I have filed an application of mandamus yesterday in federal court. Now, waiting on IRCC reply. Fingers crossed.
hey, any updates on your mandamus application? btw, did it also take you this long to obtain your permanent residency? Did they take forever to conduct "security clearances" during your PR application?
You may want to call it discrimination but more likely you come from a country that doesn’t share information with Canada so it becomes much harder to do a background check.
do you have any records ? or dual nationality ? this is strange knwoing the process now a day is pretty fast.
Could depend on their previous line of work, whether they have been in the military, etc.
They do, other people from my country had no issues. Plus, I was not part of any military.
Were you the one that was a part of the intelligence/security organization in your home country?
A TANGENT:
As @canuck78 suggests, which should be obvious, IRCC can encounter hurdles and delays adequately screening applicants with backgrounds in certain countries or regions, particularly countries or regions for which it is more difficult to obtain and verify information.
Beyond that there is a tendency to throw the "discrimination" accusation around rather carelessly . . . or, one might say, "indiscriminately."
Much "discrimination" is lawful, based on legitimate reasons. Canadians (both citizens and PRs) are often discriminated against due to convictions for past criminal activity. FNs are systematically discriminated against based on whether they are from a visa-exempt country versus a country that is not visa-exempt. Any eligibility requirement inherently discriminates, treating those who meet the requirements differently than those who do not.
As a matter of policy and practice, allegations of prohibited or improper discrimination (that is, treating an individual differently based on the individual's membership in a class that is protected, a rather short list by the way) must be supported by direct and strong evidence. Obviously, IRCC officials are human and we are all susceptible to bias and improper discrimination. So yes, discrimination happens. However, the vast majority of discrimination allegations are at least overstated if not outright unfounded.
One of the more commonly overstated allegations of improper discrimination has to do with nationality. As noted, some discrimination based on nationality is proper, such as the policies and practices which impose higher hurdles for obtaining a TRV for FNs from a country which is not visa-exempt. But it is also common for larger numbers of individuals from certain nations to have certain types of background issues which, for example, can result in those individuals facing hurdles and longer processing timelines. So on the surface, it appears that more Iranians (just one example) might see protracted processing timelines compared to individuals from other countries, but this is not due to decision-making based on their nationality but rather based on circumstances more common among those with that nationality.
While it is not a fool-proof test, one way to identify whether there is improper or prohibited discrimination is to consider whether everyone in that class is treated the same way and that is different than how almost all others are treated. If every applicant from a certain nationality encounters delays that most others do not, that MIGHT (not necessarily, but might) indicate discrimination against those of that nationality. But if more than an isolated few of the nationality are processed consistently with most other applicants, that suggests there is some other reason why the others are encountering delays. In particular, a significant number of those who are Iranian report routine processing and few delays, so the fact that there is appears to be a large number of Iranians who are encountering non-routine processing or other delays is far more likely based on circumstances other than the fact they are Iranians.
And I have referenced Iranians in this regard for a reason: Canada has no direct diplomatic relations with Iran. No visa office in Iran. No personnel on the ground in Iran to do fact-checking or pursue investigatory inquiries. This will not affect many whose nationality is Iranian. But it will have an impact on a disproportionate number compared to applicants who are from other countries.
That is, just because more from a particular nationality are encountering problems than most other applicants, that does NOT indicate discrimination against that nationality. It indicates circumstances common to many with that nationality which circumstances invite concerns or issues particular to those circumstances.
There are good reasons for imposing a high bar for making claims of improper discrimination. The system incorporates multiple levels of decision-making which inherently check the potential influence of improper discrimination, and ultimately ALL formal decisions are subject to review for reasonableness, based on the facts in the particular case and the articulated reasons for the decision. Procedural fairness is hard-wired into the process, and the rules require a record of decision-making, including an explanation for the decisions made, that will facilitate meaningful review of the reasonableness of the decisions made.
Again, sure, any and all bureaucratic proceedings are subject to some improper discrimination. It happens. But there is usually an alternative reason actually justifying the decisions made which many complain were improperly discriminatory . . . and many complaints of improper discrimination are actually instances in which the discrimination was proper (a very common example: decision-makers discriminating against individuals whose credibility is questionable).
As @canuck78 suggests, which should be obvious, IRCC can encounter hurdles and delays adequately screening applicants with backgrounds in certain countries or regions, particularly countries or regions for which it is more difficult to obtain and verify information.
Beyond that there is a tendency to throw the "discrimination" accusation around rather carelessly . . . or, one might say, "indiscriminately."
Much "discrimination" is lawful, based on legitimate reasons. Canadians (both citizens and PRs) are often discriminated against due to convictions for past criminal activity. FNs are systematically discriminated against based on whether they are from a visa-exempt country versus a country that is not visa-exempt. Any eligibility requirement inherently discriminates, treating those who meet the requirements differently than those who do not.
As a matter of policy and practice, allegations of prohibited or improper discrimination (that is, treating an individual differently based on the individual's membership in a class that is protected, a rather short list by the way) must be supported by direct and strong evidence. Obviously, IRCC officials are human and we are all susceptible to bias and improper discrimination. So yes, discrimination happens. However, the vast majority of discrimination allegations are at least overstated if not outright unfounded.
One of the more commonly overstated allegations of improper discrimination has to do with nationality. As noted, some discrimination based on nationality is proper, such as the policies and practices which impose higher hurdles for obtaining a TRV for FNs from a country which is not visa-exempt. But it is also common for larger numbers of individuals from certain nations to have certain types of background issues which, for example, can result in those individuals facing hurdles and longer processing timelines. So on the surface, it appears that more Iranians (just one example) might see protracted processing timelines compared to individuals from other countries, but this is not due to decision-making based on their nationality but rather based on circumstances more common among those with that nationality.
While it is not a fool-proof test, one way to identify whether there is improper or prohibited discrimination is to consider whether everyone in that class is treated the same way and that is different than how almost all others are treated. If every applicant from a certain nationality encounters delays that most others do not, that MIGHT (not necessarily, but might) indicate discrimination against those of that nationality. But if more than an isolated few of the nationality are processed consistently with most other applicants, that suggests there is some other reason why the others are encountering delays. In particular, a significant number of those who are Iranian report routine processing and few delays, so the fact that there is appears to be a large number of Iranians who are encountering non-routine processing or other delays is far more likely based on circumstances other than the fact they are Iranians.
And I have referenced Iranians in this regard for a reason: Canada has no direct diplomatic relations with Iran. No visa office in Iran. No personnel on the ground in Iran to do fact-checking or pursue investigatory inquiries. This will not affect many whose nationality is Iranian. But it will have an impact on a disproportionate number compared to applicants who are from other countries.
That is, just because more from a particular nationality are encountering problems than most other applicants, that does NOT indicate discrimination against that nationality. It indicates circumstances common to many with that nationality which circumstances invite concerns or issues particular to those circumstances.
There are good reasons for imposing a high bar for making claims of improper discrimination. The system incorporates multiple levels of decision-making which inherently check the potential influence of improper discrimination, and ultimately ALL formal decisions are subject to review for reasonableness, based on the facts in the particular case and the articulated reasons for the decision. Procedural fairness is hard-wired into the process, and the rules require a record of decision-making, including an explanation for the decisions made, that will facilitate meaningful review of the reasonableness of the decisions made.
Again, sure, any and all bureaucratic proceedings are subject to some improper discrimination. It happens. But there is usually an alternative reason actually justifying the decisions made which many complain were improperly discriminatory . . . and many complaints of improper discrimination are actually instances in which the discrimination was proper (a very common example: decision-makers discriminating against individuals whose credibility is questionable).