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).
