I realize that this particular topic is largely for venting.
But for those interested in understanding the process better and perhaps looking for ways to better navigate the way forward, I offer the following observations.
Some Observations:
Among various actions a PR might pursue toward pushing IRCC to grant or deny the application for a new PR card, one might start by making a customized, detailed ATIP request; the standard ATIP request is not likely to be robust enough to get the information the PR could use, so before doing this the PR needs to do some serious homework and fashion the request to specifically obtain more than just a copy of a GCMS query-based report (which is what is typically sent in response to ATIP requests).
Generally I do not encourage making ATIP requests, since it appears way too many do so unnecessarily, some repeatedly, and I do not favour unnecessarily or frivolously imposing burdens on our hard-working and, to a serious extent, over-extended civil service personnel, who for the most part are undoubtedly dedicated to providing timely and competent service but are hampered by lack of resources, including shortfalls in funding and a limited work-force.
The length of time involved in many Secondary Review cases, however, suggests there is a systemic problem resulting in excessive delays with little or no explanation or accountability for the delay. So of course some proactive efforts to compel IRCC to address the problem, particularly on an individual basis relative to those PRs who are settled and living permanently in Canada, is warranted.
A customized ATIP request may be a start.
Canada is governed by the rule of law, which inherently mandates fair procedure, and avenues of recourse for those denied fair procedure. From ways to petition the government to applications for judicial intervention, the means of recourse are many but, since I am no expert, and this is not a venue appropriate for providing personal advice, it would be imprudent to attempt mapping a strategy for anyone in particular. And, while most of you who are in this situation, with PR card applications seemingly in limbo, probably feel like this is a general imposition applied across the group, the reality is that the vast majority of these cases, yours included, are very individual specific, largely dependent on the individual details in each of your specific cases, that is, personal to each of you.
That is, I doubt there is any one-way-to-fix-all; that is, the way forward for each case is more or less specific to the individual case.
That said, there are some general considerations. Such as, as I mention above, beginning by making a detailed, customized ATIP request.
Individual PRs may also make formal demands for action on their application. But if and when to do this, and more specifically how to do this in the individual case, is very much personal. It is something which typically would be far better to have an experienced lawyer do. But I am not sure there are many, if any, lawyers experienced in compelling IRCC (or CIC before it became IRCC) to process and determine a PR card application.
The rub is that there is no substantive status involved in issuing a PR card. A Federal Court might decline to entertain granting a Writ of Mandamus because a PR does not really need a PR card to enjoy any of the rights of PR, which is to say that notwithstanding the real-life inconvenience those affected by excessive delays suffer, a failure by IRCC to determine and issue a new PR card does not compromise any substantive rights. Remember: the Charter explicitly distinguishes the rights of Citizens to travel internationally from the rights of PRs to travel within Canada.
Nonetheless, IRPA does state that PRs are to be issued status cards. So IRPA imposes that obligation on IRCC unless there is a reasonable basis to question whether the individual actually has PR status.
A reason to investigate a PR for inadmissibility does not affect the validity of the PR's status unless and until there is a formal report or decision made finding the individual is either not a PR or is inadmissible. After all, even if a PR's card application is hung up in SR, if the PR arrives at a PoE seeking entry into Canada, the border officials must allow entry.
To my view, this means IRCC should be required to issue a PR card even if the PR is being investigated for inadmissibility, be that for fraud or for being in breach of the PR RO.
If I was a Canadian lawyer (but I am NOT a Canadian lawyer), I would focus an argument based on the consequential inconvenience imposed versus the minimal significance of issuing and delivering the PR card. An investigation into the PR's admissibility can continue and be done independently. Issuing a new card does not preclude CBSA, IRCC, or the RCMP from continuing to investigate and if cause for determining inadmissibility is determined, to issue a Report and Departure Order. After all, a PR can be reported for a breach of the PR RO even if the PR has a new PR card valid for another four plus years, if of course the PR is in breach of the PR RO.
Alternatively, at the least a provisional PR card valid for one-year could be issued.
But to pursue such recourse will demand a concerted, dedicated effort, a lot of homework, and without a strong grasp of the procedures, policies, rules, regulations, and law, it would be extremely difficult (not just difficult, but extremely difficult). Thus, again, this would typically be something for which a good lawyer (not just any lawyer) is needed.
Which leads to some other reality based considerations:
Given the relatively minimal impact on probably a fairly small number of individuals, for most the cost to get a lawyer to do this, or the effort to do the extensive homework and effort necessary to do this on one's own, is prohibitive. Cost versus benefit analysis tips heavily in the costs are way greater than benefit direction.
And, while undoubtedly the scope of who is swept into SR is broad enough to drag a number of PRs into the protracted SR process whose status should be above challenge, the far larger percentage of PRs affected are:
-- PRs who cut the PR RO close
-- PRs who are abroad while the card application is pending
-- -- or, who are perceived to have continuing employment or residency ties abroad
-- PRs who are otherwise perceived to not be settled permanently in Canada (I have explained why this is a factor elsewhere; whether one thinks it should be or not, it is)
-- PRs who are otherwise suspected of not being in compliance with the PR RO
-- PRs who are suspected of misrepresentation or otherwise suspected of being involved, directly or indirectly, in fraud (including in older transactions with CBSA, CIC, or IRCC)
Some of you may not fall into any of these descriptions. Most probably do relative to one or the other, or even more than one. Some of you may not think any of these apply to you even though one or more probably does.
Note, by the way, it appears IRCC has tagged many suspect addresses, telephone numbers, employers, and especially certain consultants or representatives. Any history with any of these could trigger further inquiries or even a fraud investigation. Thus, for example, if a PR came to Canada ten years ago and, in the process of coming to Canada used a consultant subsequently identified as suspect, or has in any CIC or IRCC process reported an address or employer which has subsequently been identified as suspect, that could be what triggers the elevated scrutiny and extended delays in processing. I do not know the mechanics of how this information is screened, but I believe it has been incorporated into the IRCC GCMS background check
For PRs who are well-settled permanently in Canada and clearly in compliance with the PR RO:
There are some reports which suggest repeatedly pushing IRCC, which may require repeated ATIP requests if case specific inquiries run into a dead end, might have an impact on getting the PR card issued sooner. Formal demands can be made, but these really should be very deliberately composed after doing a lot of homework and carefully structuring the demand (otherwise it goes into the file and is probably ignored).
My sense is that a large number of SR cases involve PRs who barely met the PR RO, and for these PRs there may be no getting around longer waiting times.
Another group of substantial size (and may actually be larger than those who barely met the PR RO, and of course there will also be overlap) are those PRs perceived to be abroad or at least continuing to maintain a residence or employment abroad. For this group, those who also applied barely meeting the PR RO (the overlap with the first group), odds are indeed IRCC will take a long while and scrutinize other sources of information closely before taking action on the application. Otherwise, my sense is that IRCC may put these cases on the shelf until the PR applies for a PR Travel Document from abroad. Thus, those who are still in Canada may indeed help their case by taking action illustrating they are in fact still in Canada, residing in Canada.
For those who are abroad, applying for the PR Travel Document is likely to accelerate a Residency Determination, and once back in Canada the issuance of the PR card. Of course this is dependent on submitting adequate proof of compliance with the PR RO in making the PR TD application.
The reality, however, is that many PRs in this situation avoid making a PR TD application because of the perceived risk it might be denied. This is because a denied PR TD application will result in the loss of PR status unless that denial is appealed, and the appeal is won.
In any event, again there is no one-answer-fits-all. There are, however, ways to proceed which will have a fair chance of helping those PRs who are well-settled permanently in Canada and have been so for at least the last three years, or even a bit less than that (more than two and a half years anyway).
But for many, it is enough of a close call that it is indeed prudent to carefully consider postponing travel plans, and to stay settled in Canada pending the outcome of the application.
But for those interested in understanding the process better and perhaps looking for ways to better navigate the way forward, I offer the following observations.
Some Observations:
Among various actions a PR might pursue toward pushing IRCC to grant or deny the application for a new PR card, one might start by making a customized, detailed ATIP request; the standard ATIP request is not likely to be robust enough to get the information the PR could use, so before doing this the PR needs to do some serious homework and fashion the request to specifically obtain more than just a copy of a GCMS query-based report (which is what is typically sent in response to ATIP requests).
Generally I do not encourage making ATIP requests, since it appears way too many do so unnecessarily, some repeatedly, and I do not favour unnecessarily or frivolously imposing burdens on our hard-working and, to a serious extent, over-extended civil service personnel, who for the most part are undoubtedly dedicated to providing timely and competent service but are hampered by lack of resources, including shortfalls in funding and a limited work-force.
The length of time involved in many Secondary Review cases, however, suggests there is a systemic problem resulting in excessive delays with little or no explanation or accountability for the delay. So of course some proactive efforts to compel IRCC to address the problem, particularly on an individual basis relative to those PRs who are settled and living permanently in Canada, is warranted.
A customized ATIP request may be a start.
Canada is governed by the rule of law, which inherently mandates fair procedure, and avenues of recourse for those denied fair procedure. From ways to petition the government to applications for judicial intervention, the means of recourse are many but, since I am no expert, and this is not a venue appropriate for providing personal advice, it would be imprudent to attempt mapping a strategy for anyone in particular. And, while most of you who are in this situation, with PR card applications seemingly in limbo, probably feel like this is a general imposition applied across the group, the reality is that the vast majority of these cases, yours included, are very individual specific, largely dependent on the individual details in each of your specific cases, that is, personal to each of you.
That is, I doubt there is any one-way-to-fix-all; that is, the way forward for each case is more or less specific to the individual case.
That said, there are some general considerations. Such as, as I mention above, beginning by making a detailed, customized ATIP request.
Individual PRs may also make formal demands for action on their application. But if and when to do this, and more specifically how to do this in the individual case, is very much personal. It is something which typically would be far better to have an experienced lawyer do. But I am not sure there are many, if any, lawyers experienced in compelling IRCC (or CIC before it became IRCC) to process and determine a PR card application.
The rub is that there is no substantive status involved in issuing a PR card. A Federal Court might decline to entertain granting a Writ of Mandamus because a PR does not really need a PR card to enjoy any of the rights of PR, which is to say that notwithstanding the real-life inconvenience those affected by excessive delays suffer, a failure by IRCC to determine and issue a new PR card does not compromise any substantive rights. Remember: the Charter explicitly distinguishes the rights of Citizens to travel internationally from the rights of PRs to travel within Canada.
Nonetheless, IRPA does state that PRs are to be issued status cards. So IRPA imposes that obligation on IRCC unless there is a reasonable basis to question whether the individual actually has PR status.
A reason to investigate a PR for inadmissibility does not affect the validity of the PR's status unless and until there is a formal report or decision made finding the individual is either not a PR or is inadmissible. After all, even if a PR's card application is hung up in SR, if the PR arrives at a PoE seeking entry into Canada, the border officials must allow entry.
To my view, this means IRCC should be required to issue a PR card even if the PR is being investigated for inadmissibility, be that for fraud or for being in breach of the PR RO.
If I was a Canadian lawyer (but I am NOT a Canadian lawyer), I would focus an argument based on the consequential inconvenience imposed versus the minimal significance of issuing and delivering the PR card. An investigation into the PR's admissibility can continue and be done independently. Issuing a new card does not preclude CBSA, IRCC, or the RCMP from continuing to investigate and if cause for determining inadmissibility is determined, to issue a Report and Departure Order. After all, a PR can be reported for a breach of the PR RO even if the PR has a new PR card valid for another four plus years, if of course the PR is in breach of the PR RO.
Alternatively, at the least a provisional PR card valid for one-year could be issued.
But to pursue such recourse will demand a concerted, dedicated effort, a lot of homework, and without a strong grasp of the procedures, policies, rules, regulations, and law, it would be extremely difficult (not just difficult, but extremely difficult). Thus, again, this would typically be something for which a good lawyer (not just any lawyer) is needed.
Which leads to some other reality based considerations:
Given the relatively minimal impact on probably a fairly small number of individuals, for most the cost to get a lawyer to do this, or the effort to do the extensive homework and effort necessary to do this on one's own, is prohibitive. Cost versus benefit analysis tips heavily in the costs are way greater than benefit direction.
And, while undoubtedly the scope of who is swept into SR is broad enough to drag a number of PRs into the protracted SR process whose status should be above challenge, the far larger percentage of PRs affected are:
-- PRs who cut the PR RO close
-- PRs who are abroad while the card application is pending
-- -- or, who are perceived to have continuing employment or residency ties abroad
-- PRs who are otherwise perceived to not be settled permanently in Canada (I have explained why this is a factor elsewhere; whether one thinks it should be or not, it is)
-- PRs who are otherwise suspected of not being in compliance with the PR RO
-- PRs who are suspected of misrepresentation or otherwise suspected of being involved, directly or indirectly, in fraud (including in older transactions with CBSA, CIC, or IRCC)
Some of you may not fall into any of these descriptions. Most probably do relative to one or the other, or even more than one. Some of you may not think any of these apply to you even though one or more probably does.
Note, by the way, it appears IRCC has tagged many suspect addresses, telephone numbers, employers, and especially certain consultants or representatives. Any history with any of these could trigger further inquiries or even a fraud investigation. Thus, for example, if a PR came to Canada ten years ago and, in the process of coming to Canada used a consultant subsequently identified as suspect, or has in any CIC or IRCC process reported an address or employer which has subsequently been identified as suspect, that could be what triggers the elevated scrutiny and extended delays in processing. I do not know the mechanics of how this information is screened, but I believe it has been incorporated into the IRCC GCMS background check
For PRs who are well-settled permanently in Canada and clearly in compliance with the PR RO:
There are some reports which suggest repeatedly pushing IRCC, which may require repeated ATIP requests if case specific inquiries run into a dead end, might have an impact on getting the PR card issued sooner. Formal demands can be made, but these really should be very deliberately composed after doing a lot of homework and carefully structuring the demand (otherwise it goes into the file and is probably ignored).
My sense is that a large number of SR cases involve PRs who barely met the PR RO, and for these PRs there may be no getting around longer waiting times.
Another group of substantial size (and may actually be larger than those who barely met the PR RO, and of course there will also be overlap) are those PRs perceived to be abroad or at least continuing to maintain a residence or employment abroad. For this group, those who also applied barely meeting the PR RO (the overlap with the first group), odds are indeed IRCC will take a long while and scrutinize other sources of information closely before taking action on the application. Otherwise, my sense is that IRCC may put these cases on the shelf until the PR applies for a PR Travel Document from abroad. Thus, those who are still in Canada may indeed help their case by taking action illustrating they are in fact still in Canada, residing in Canada.
For those who are abroad, applying for the PR Travel Document is likely to accelerate a Residency Determination, and once back in Canada the issuance of the PR card. Of course this is dependent on submitting adequate proof of compliance with the PR RO in making the PR TD application.
The reality, however, is that many PRs in this situation avoid making a PR TD application because of the perceived risk it might be denied. This is because a denied PR TD application will result in the loss of PR status unless that denial is appealed, and the appeal is won.
In any event, again there is no one-answer-fits-all. There are, however, ways to proceed which will have a fair chance of helping those PRs who are well-settled permanently in Canada and have been so for at least the last three years, or even a bit less than that (more than two and a half years anyway).
But for many, it is enough of a close call that it is indeed prudent to carefully consider postponing travel plans, and to stay settled in Canada pending the outcome of the application.
I almost have the same timeline as yours. I have been waiting for 15 months, and still got nothing. I have been here for 3 straight years.