Email from CIC that PR card renewal needs secondary review

[ramkris]

Secondary review waiting time reach up to 18-20 months. Yesterday I have received my ATIP report and found that from 13 Nov 2015 no one has touch my file.

13 Nov 2015 officer who has checked my documents has written COR - Qatar.

It means he didn't check stamps properly because at time of applying PR renewal I doesn't have any valid Qatar visa and I stayed in Canada almost 3 years.

How brillante CIC officers are instead of spending time to understand the file simply choose easy way through file in secondary review and let peoples suffer for years.

did you visit or stay in Qatar before 3 years they might be checking all information in the last 5 years preceding application

 

[heeradeepak]

did you visit or stay in Qatar before 3 years they might be checking all information in the last 5 years preceding application

Before 3 years yes, but since at time of applying I doesn't have Qatar valid visa and I have a full time job in Canada T4 from last 3 years are attached after that all documents how officer can assume that COR is Qatar. What we can call lack of efficiency or awareness?

 

[ramkris]

Before 3 years yes, but since at time of applying I doesn't have Qatar valid visa and I have a full time job in Canada T4 from last 3 years are attached after that all documents how officer can assume that COR is Qatar. What we can call lack of efficiency or awareness?

They might be checking all countries aftr our first landing

 

[vop]

I agree with u Tony this petition is not a solution i have also written to PM and immigration minister and nothing happened
Only media can do this change by showing how families are suffering from Secondary review and PRTD is disaster for short trips.

Well, u can keep complaining about how things are on this forum or try again either through the media or by trying a petition àgain. Out here on this forum, you will have individuals like yourself and immigration officers are not scouring forums to see who is complaining more or less and have those files processed. Regarding writing to the minister or the Prime Minister, if you do it as a single person, its your wish but unless its an urgent situation, they are inundated with complaints. And last year is not this year. Last year, you had a conservative govt, now, you have a liberal govt. And the current Minister had scolded the department about the unacceptable timelines for PR cards. And that was when 180 days became the current 66 days. He doesnt even have a clue in my opinion about secondary reviews for PR cards.

If you dont want to join, that is your choice and I respect that. But I`d like to try because at this point, have nothing to lose. As far as the minister is concerned, he is seeing the timeline posted as 66 days and not the 1 Year plus experienced by hundreds if not thousands. The point of the petition is to bring that to his attention, and who knows, you may benefit from it because at this point, what do you lose. But in the end, always your choice and I hope it really works out for the both of you.

 

[ivylane]

Can someone tell me what cor is and what
Does that mean in respect of secondary review.

Thanks

 

[elie72]

COR means Country of Residence

 

[ivylane]

Thankyou

 

[decent guy]

I fully agree with the views of VOP !
Nothing to loose. Writing to the minister as a single case has no effect and writing a petition as a group will have some effect.
With the names we have by 30th September dead line, we should go ahead with the petition and the next option should be media.

 

[justinline]

I recently applied for PR Card renewal, I was wondering when I checked the processing time it showed 66 days, does that have any impact on secondary review cases as well?

I remember when I checked processing time last, it was some where close to 120 days, how is that possible........ I don't think CIC went around hiring and doubled its staff or number of people applying for renewal has dropped significantly.

Is there any rhyme and reason how or who goes for secondary review, earlier I was thinking if you are close to 730 days it will end up in secondary review, one of my co worker applied recently with 770 days he already got mail to pickup his card at local office.

 

[tonymiz]

I recently applied for PR Card renewal, I was wondering when I checked the processing time it showed 66 days, does that have any impact on secondary review cases as well?

I remember when I checked processing time last, it was some where close to 120 days, how is that possible........ I don't think CIC went around hiring and doubled its staff or number of people applying for renewal has dropped significantly.

Is there any rhyme and reason how or who goes for secondary review, earlier I was thinking if you are close to 730 days it will end up in secondary review, one of my co worker applied recently with 770 days he already got mail to pickup his card at local office.

Well, It seems to me that it is completely random! Of course if you travelled for more than a tear, they tend to refer to secondary review. Also if you do not have a full time job or tax returns filed, you will also get secondary review.
But I also noticed from this blog that there are less cases in 2016 compared to 2015, unless 2016 applicants did not start complaining yet on this forum
Good lick

 

[ramkris]

I recently applied for PR Card renewal, I was wondering when I checked the processing time it showed 66 days, does that have any impact on secondary review cases as well?

I remember when I checked processing time last, it was some where close to 120 days, how is that possible........ I don't think CIC went around hiring and doubled its staff or number of people applying for renewal has dropped significantly.

Is there any rhyme and reason how or who goes for secondary review, earlier I was thinking if you are close to 730 days it will end up in secondary review, one of my co worker applied recently with 770 days he already got mail to pickup his card at local office.

Ask your friend which countries he travelled after he/she landed in canada. he might went to a country where info exchange is easier or cic blindly trust that country.

 

[dpenabill]

I recently applied for PR Card renewal, I was wondering when I checked the processing time it showed 66 days, does that have any impact on secondary review cases as well?

I remember when I checked processing time last, it was some where close to 120 days, how is that possible........ I don't think CIC went around hiring and doubled its staff or number of people applying for renewal has dropped significantly.

Processing timelines for routine PR card applications have varied wildly over the course of the last many years, from less than two months at times, to in excess of six months at other times. There are few informative statistics available which will shed much light on how or why this happens, although some of the longer timelines were apparently due to periods of elevated scrutiny, times during which it was, it appeared, taking CIC (most of the historical information we have relates to when it was CIC, before the change to IRCC) more time to process each individual PR card applicant, accumulating into much longer timelines for everyone.

Otherwise, shifts in processing timelines may be due to staffing allocation rather than hiring or such.

In general, though, it is apparent that the government focuses more on timelines for routine processing than it does for non-routine processing. And will make adjustments if and when routine timelines slip badly, but tend to do so far less for slipping non-routine timelines. This is a source of constant irritation among those who suffer from the often much, much longer timelines involved in Secondary Review.

Is there any rhyme and reason how or who goes for secondary review, earlier I was thinking if you are close to 730 days it will end up in secondary review, one of my co worker applied recently with 770 days he already got mail to pickup his card at local office.

Well, It seems to me that it is completely random!

Who gets SR is not random, not usually.

Of course there is almost always a reason why an applicant is subject to SR rather than having the PR card application routinely processed, even if some (a small number) who apply for a new PR card might be randomly referred to Secondary Review.

Generally SR, in PR card application processing, is about investigating the PR for fraud or for inadmissibility due to reasons other than a breach of the PR Residency Obligation. This does not mean that IRCC overtly suspects there was fraud involved in every case that a PR's application for a PR card has been referred for SR. It means that IRCC has identified concerns or reasons for investigating the possibility of fraud (or for something like a security concern).

A failure to comply with the PR Residency Obligation is a separate issue. PR card applicants who appear to be in breach of the PR RO at the time of making their application, for example, are more likely to be processed sooner rather than later, subject to a formal Residency Determination rather than referred to SR (possible exception for PRs who are identified as being abroad). For example, some PRs who have failed to meet the PR RO, and are way short, make the mistake of applying for a new PR card soon after returning to Canada. IRCC will typically initiate a formal Residency Determination process, require the PR to complete the equivalent of RQ and appear for an interview, and if it is determined the PR is inadmissible for being in breach of the PR RO, IRCC will then issue a Departure Order and this will terminate that PR's status unless the PR appeals and wins the appeal.

Thus, PRs referred to SR should recognize that it is not so much that IRCC has doubts about the PR's compliance with the PR RO, but that IRCC has reasons to be concerned about fraud or the status of the PR (including inadmissibility for reasons other than a breach of the PR RO). The manner and methods employed, including the criteria used to identify who should be subject to this type of review, are NOT public information. Thus, we are limited to extrapolating what we can from what we know about how IRCC operates generally, what we know about reasons to question the declarations of individual PRs generally, and what we can discern from the various anecdotal reports seen in forums like this.

We can actually discern quite a lot. What we can discern, however, is subject to more than a few caveats and uncertainties, yes. Despite this, however, we can discern enough to identify some rough ideas about who is targeted, why, and when, and how that factors into how it goes. Doing so, however, demands doing quite a lot of homework and making a concerted effort to actually understand what is going on rather than making broad accusatory generalizations about abuse or discrimination or incompetence.

Let us be frank: for the majority of those who are referred to SR, there are indeed real reasons for IRCC to have concerns or suspicions.

Protests to the contrary are generally unfounded and a distraction.

This does not illuminate the individual case. Perhaps many or most of those participating in this forum, for example, are not among that majority for whom there are indeed real reasons to be investigated. But, it is the existence of real reasons to investigate, in the vast majority of SR cases, which profoundly limits the extent to which any pressure to improve the processing efficiency for SR might succeed.

The latter is, frankly, why the petition approach has poor odds of leading to improved SR timelines: for most of those in SR, there are real, legitimate reasons for an extended investigation. And IRCC has limited resources to pursue such investigations. Moreover, these investigations often entail referrals to other government bodies, even foreign governments, which tend to take a long time.

And, if IRCC perceives the PR is abroad, there is the appearance that SR processing is, at least in effect, on hold pending the return of the PR to Canada or pending an application for a PR Travel Document by the PR.

Note: not all SR cases take more than a year.

SR can vary from just a few months longer than the current timeline for routine applications to well over a year or more longer. Since we do not know the criteria employed in conducting the SR review, it is difficult to discern what makes the difference. However, it is easy, and safe, to infer that the longer the SR processing goes, the more likely it is that IRCC has inferred the PR is abroad, or has identified a more or less serious concern.



Some Reminders:

The facts and circumstances in the individual case, including the particular individual's history, matter and they matter a lot.

The facts and circumstances in the individual case, including the particular individual's history, will vary by a lot, a real lot. For example, even if some key facts are similar, even the same, such as the number of days the individual reports he or she was present in Canada, there are many, many other factors which can have a big influence on how IRCC personnel perceive the individual.

Moreover, the impact is dynamic. Particular facts or circumstances can have a big effect on how IRCC personnel perceive the individual, but then in turn, how IRCC personnel perceive the individual will significantly affect how IRCC personnel assess the evidence of this and that fact.

Thus, for example, among three PRs applying for a new PR card who all declare, say, 750 days presence in Canada, one might not be referred for Secondary Review at all, and of the two who are referred for SR, it might go fairly easily and quickly for one while the other encounters long, long delays. It varies. It depends. It varies depending on many, many other factors.


Availability of recourse for excessive delays:

I do not mean to discourage efforts to promote prompt attention to particular cases, nor to discourage efforts to encourage IRCC to be more timely responsive to those bogged down in Secondary Review. But these are two very different efforts, seeking distinctly different objectives, and are thus essentially driven by very different agendas.

Thus, even though it should be obvious that the petition approach has poor odds of making much of a difference, the timelines for some bogged down in SR are indeed so excessively long, there is good cause to support such a petition. And I do not mean to discourage anyone from doing so. In particular, overall it is obvious that the processing timeline, for many of those bogged down in extended SR processing, is excessive and unfair and should be reduced. Efforts to encourage the government, generally, and IRCC in particular, to address this and to implement measures to improve the processing timeline, are obviously warranted.

That said, however, in addition to its poor prognosis overall the petition approach is not likely to accelerate processing for any particular individual's SR. Efforts to get the government to improve processing timelines generally are no solution for those individuals currently bogged down in SR and suffering an inordinate processing timeline.

What matters, for those currently bogged down in excessively long SR processing, is mostly about the particulars of their individual case. And the solution, for them, is essentially individual to them.

Circumstances vary. Even within the groups I refer to below, individual circumstances can vary a great deal. A licensed legal professional is the better resource to at least consult, and particularly so when there are unusual or special circumstances.



Some groups with generally similar issues:


PR card applicants abroad while their application is in SR:

Let us be frank: for those PRs who are abroad while their PR card application is in process and bogged down in SR, the main thing they can do to accelerate the processing timeline is to return to Canada, sooner rather than later, and one way or another make it clear to IRCC they are indeed in Canada. For some this would require making a PR Travel Document application. And for those in this situation, that could be risky. It is, thus, the individual's choice. But staying abroad is likely to result in a longer processing time. Frankly, it is hard to find reason to be sympathetic for this group, except for those individuals who have compelling H&C reasons for staying abroad.

There are reports indicating some exceptions. Perhaps IRCC does not know the PR is abroad. Or, there may be circumstances in which the PR being abroad is not so much a concern for IRCC.

But, in general, PRs with a PR card application in SR, and who are abroad, can anticipate a very long process and perhaps no resolution unless and until they either return to Canada or apply for a PR TD.



PR card applicants who IRCC might perceive to be abroad:

It appears that IRCC might perceive some PR card applicants are abroad when the applicant is actually in Canada. This group is in many ways similar to the group of those who are in fact abroad.

It is difficult to discern whether or not, or to what extent, the nature and duration of this individual's SR processing is influenced by the perception that the PR is abroad. At least some PRs in this group are likely to benefit from pursuing actions which will lead IRCC to recognize the PR is in Canada. Making a case specific inquiry, for example, or a request for urgent processing, might trigger IRCC to address the application and proceed with completing its review.

Traveling abroad (making sure there is objective documentation of the PR's presence in Canada up to the date of departure), and applying for a PR TD from abroad, may trigger IRCC's completion of the SR process. Of course this can be very inconvenient, totally impractical, or otherwise risky.



PR card applicants who are suspected, by IRCC, to be in breach of the PR RO:

There are many reasons why IRCC might suspect the PR card applicant has not complied with the PR RO. The reason why IRCC has concern or suspicion makes a big difference. Some reasons tend to be more problematic than others.

As already noted, ordinarily SR is not merely about examining the PR's compliance with the PR RO, but is about fraud or security or other concerns.

PR card applicants who are suspected, by IRCC, to be in breach of the PR RO, but for whom there are minimal concerns otherwise, no concern about potential fraud or a security issue for example, will be subject to a Residency Determination not SR.

SR almost always means IRCC has issues over and above, or separate from, compliance with the PR RO.

Nonetheless, concerns about compliance with the PR RO can be a big factor in IRCC's perception of reasons for concern or suspicion. Just cutting-it-close, for example, naturally invites reason to more closely examine the PR's presence declarations for potential misrepresentation, that is, for potential residency fraud.


Impact of cutting-it-close:

I am among those who have oft emphasized that cutting-it-close entails obvious risks. This should be obvious. After all, cutting-it-close directly invites elevated scrutiny, the need to more closely examine and verify the facts.

But, as I have also emphasized, there are many other factors which can influence what IRCC perceives and whether IRCC identifies a reason to question the PR's accounting of days in or outside Canada. Which is to say, while cutting-it-close almost certainly increases the risk of SR, it does not necessarily result in SR.

Again, the range of factors which can influence how it goes in processing a particular individual's PR card application is huge, huge, huge. There are way too many factors, and too many ways this or that factor can affect how it goes, to attempt enumerating even a representative sample.

It should be obvious that cutting-it-close in conjunction with other factors tending to raise concerns or suspicions further elevates the risk of a SR investigation.

Some of the more significant factors also should be obvious. The PR's overall history, for example, can loom very large. The PR who has a history suggesting the gaming of the system, for example, obviously has a much higher risk of a prolonged SR process. In particular, cutting-it-close in conjunction with other indications that the PR is not actually settling down to permanently live in Canada, will of course raise a big red flag and invite elevated scrutiny; the purpose of PR, after all, is specifically to allow individuals status to permanently live in Canada. Thus those who appear to have only temporary ties to Canada, who do not appear to be settling in Canada permanently, even though they claim to meet the minimum presence requirement, should anticipate being investigated and that process taking a lot longer.

Another aspect related to cutting-it-close is that cutting-it-close means the PR spent a large amount of time abroad, and depending on where the PR was during that extended period of time, that can invite more extensive background or security screening. Since at the least this can involve a referral to an overseas office, and in some cases involve a request for information from a foreign government, those who are subject to such inquiries are likely to encounter much longer delays than other PRs.

In any event, while cutting-it-close itself raises the risk of SR, cutting-it-close in conjunction with other factors can dramatically increase the risks and extend the time processing takes. Note, for example, the PR who barely met the PR RO and then goes abroad for an extended time, is almost certainly going to end up in SR and not see any progress unless and until that PR returns to Canada or applies for a PR TD.

 

[tonymiz]

Processing timelines for routine PR card applications have varied wildly over the course of the last many years, from less than two months at times, to in excess of six months at other times. There are few informative statistics available which will shed much light on how or why this happens, although some of the longer timelines were apparently due to periods of elevated scrutiny, times during which it was, it appeared, taking CIC (most of the historical information we have relates to when it was CIC, before the change to IRCC) more time to process each individual PR card applicant, accumulating into much longer timelines for everyone.

Otherwise, shifts in processing timelines may be due to staffing allocation rather than hiring or such.

In general, though, it is apparent that the government focuses more on timelines for routine processing than it does for non-routine processing. And will make adjustments if and when routine timelines slip badly, but tend to do so far less for slipping non-routine timelines. This is a source of constant irritation among those who suffer from the often much, much longer timelines involved in Secondary Review.



Who gets SR is not random, not usually.

Of course there is almost always a reason why an applicant is subject to SR rather than having the PR card application routinely processed, even if some (a small number) who apply for a new PR card might be randomly referred to Secondary Review.

Generally SR, in PR card application processing, is about investigating the PR for fraud or for inadmissibility due to reasons other than a breach of the PR Residency Obligation. This does not mean that IRCC overtly suspects there was fraud involved in every case that a PR's application for a PR card has been referred for SR. It means that IRCC has identified concerns or reasons for investigating the possibility of fraud (or for something like a security concern).

A failure to comply with the PR Residency Obligation is a separate issue. PR card applicants who appear to be in breach of the PR RO at the time of making their application, for example, are more likely to be processed sooner rather than later, subject to a formal Residency Determination rather than referred to SR (possible exception for PRs who are identified as being abroad). For example, some PRs who have failed to meet the PR RO, and are way short, make the mistake of applying for a new PR card soon after returning to Canada. IRCC will typically initiate a formal Residency Determination process, require the PR to complete the equivalent of RQ and appear for an interview, and if it is determined the PR is inadmissible for being in breach of the PR RO, IRCC will then issue a Departure Order and this will terminate that PR's status unless the PR appeals and wins the appeal.

Thus, PRs referred to SR should recognize that it is not so much that IRCC has doubts about the PR's compliance with the PR RO, but that IRCC has reasons to be concerned about fraud or the status of the PR (including inadmissibility for reasons other than a breach of the PR RO). The manner and methods employed, including the criteria used to identify who should be subject to this type of review, are NOT public information. Thus, we are limited to extrapolating what we can from what we know about how IRCC operates generally, what we know about reasons to question the declarations of individual PRs generally, and what we can discern from the various anecdotal reports seen in forums like this.

We can actually discern quite a lot. What we can discern, however, is subject to more than a few caveats and uncertainties, yes. Despite this, however, we can discern enough to identify some rough ideas about who is targeted, why, and when, and how that factors into how it goes. Doing so, however, demands doing quite a lot of homework and making a concerted effort to actually understand what is going on rather than making broad accusatory generalizations about abuse or discrimination or incompetence.

Let us be frank: for the majority of those who are referred to SR, there are indeed real reasons for IRCC to have concerns or suspicions.

Protests to the contrary are generally unfounded and a distraction.

This does not illuminate the individual case. Perhaps many or most of those participating in this forum, for example, are not among that majority for whom there are indeed real reasons to be investigated. But, it is the existence of real reasons to investigate, in the vast majority of SR cases, which profoundly limits the extent to which any pressure to improve the processing efficiency for SR might succeed.

The latter is, frankly, why the petition approach has poor odds of leading to improved SR timelines: for most of those in SR, there are real, legitimate reasons for an extended investigation. And IRCC has limited resources to pursue such investigations. Moreover, these investigations often entail referrals to other government bodies, even foreign governments, which tend to take a long time.

And, if IRCC perceives the PR is abroad, there is the appearance that SR processing is, at least in effect, on hold pending the return of the PR to Canada or pending an application for a PR Travel Document by the PR.

Note: not all SR cases take more than a year.

SR can vary from just a few months longer than the current timeline for routine applications to well over a year or more longer. Since we do not know the criteria employed in conducting the SR review, it is difficult to discern what makes the difference. However, it is easy, and safe, to infer that the longer the SR processing goes, the more likely it is that IRCC has inferred the PR is abroad, or has identified a more or less serious concern.



Some Reminders:

The facts and circumstances in the individual case, including the particular individual's history, matter and they matter a lot.

The facts and circumstances in the individual case, including the particular individual's history, will vary by a lot, a real lot. For example, even if some key facts are similar, even the same, such as the number of days the individual reports he or she was present in Canada, there are many, many other factors which can have a big influence on how IRCC personnel perceive the individual.

Moreover, the impact is dynamic. Particular facts or circumstances can have a big effect on how IRCC personnel perceive the individual, but then in turn, how IRCC personnel perceive the individual will significantly affect how IRCC personnel assess the evidence of this and that fact.

Thus, for example, among three PRs applying for a new PR card who all declare, say, 750 days presence in Canada, one might not be referred for Secondary Review at all, and of the two who are referred for SR, it might go fairly easily and quickly for one while the other encounters long, long delays. It varies. It depends. It varies depending on many, many other factors.


Availability of recourse for excessive delays:

I do not mean to discourage efforts to promote prompt attention to particular cases, nor to discourage efforts to encourage IRCC to be more timely responsive to those bogged down in Secondary Review. But these are two very different efforts, seeking distinctly different objectives, and are thus essentially driven by very different agendas.

Thus, even though it should be obvious that the petition approach has poor odds of making much of a difference, the timelines for some bogged down in SR are indeed so excessively long, there is good cause to support such a petition. And I do not mean to discourage anyone from doing so. In particular, overall it is obvious that the processing timeline, for many of those bogged down in extended SR processing, is excessive and unfair and should be reduced. Efforts to encourage the government, generally, and IRCC in particular, to address this and to implement measures to improve the processing timeline, are obviously warranted.

That said, however, in addition to its poor prognosis overall the petition approach is not likely to accelerate processing for any particular individual's SR. Efforts to get the government to improve processing timelines generally are no solution for those individuals currently bogged down in SR and suffering an inordinate processing timeline.

What matters, for those currently bogged down in excessively long SR processing, is mostly about the particulars of their individual case. And the solution, for them, is essentially individual to them.

Circumstances vary. Even within the groups I refer to below, individual circumstances can vary a great deal. A licensed legal professional is the better resource to at least consult, and particularly so when there are unusual or special circumstances.



Some groups with generally similar issues:


PR card applicants abroad while their application is in SR:

Let us be frank: for those PRs who are abroad while their PR card application is in process and bogged down in SR, the main thing they can do to accelerate the processing timeline is to return to Canada, sooner rather than later, and one way or another make it clear to IRCC they are indeed in Canada. For some this would require making a PR Travel Document application. And for those in this situation, that could be risky. It is, thus, the individual's choice. But staying abroad is likely to result in a longer processing time. Frankly, it is hard to find reason to be sympathetic for this group, except for those individuals who have compelling H&C reasons for staying abroad.

There are reports indicating some exceptions. Perhaps IRCC does not know the PR is abroad. Or, there may be circumstances in which the PR being abroad is not so much a concern for IRCC.

But, in general, PRs with a PR card application in SR, and who are abroad, can anticipate a very long process and perhaps no resolution unless and until they either return to Canada or apply for a PR TD.



PR card applicants who IRCC might perceive to be abroad:

It appears that IRCC might perceive some PR card applicants are abroad when the applicant is actually in Canada. This group is in many ways similar to the group of those who are in fact abroad.

It is difficult to discern whether or not, or to what extent, the nature and duration of this individual's SR processing is influenced by the perception that the PR is abroad. At least some PRs in this group are likely to benefit from pursuing actions which will lead IRCC to recognize the PR is in Canada. Making a case specific inquiry, for example, or a request for urgent processing, might trigger IRCC to address the application and proceed with completing its review.

Traveling abroad (making sure there is objective documentation of the PR's presence in Canada up to the date of departure), and applying for a PR TD from abroad, may trigger IRCC's completion of the SR process. Of course this can be very inconvenient, totally impractical, or otherwise risky.



PR card applicants who are suspected, by IRCC, to be in breach of the PR RO:

There are many reasons why IRCC might suspect the PR card applicant has not complied with the PR RO. The reason why IRCC has concern or suspicion makes a big difference. Some reasons tend to be more problematic than others.

As already noted, ordinarily SR is not merely about examining the PR's compliance with the PR RO, but is about fraud or security or other concerns.

PR card applicants who are suspected, by IRCC, to be in breach of the PR RO, but for whom there are minimal concerns otherwise, no concern about potential fraud or a security issue for example, will be subject to a Residency Determination not SR.

SR almost always means IRCC has issues over and above, or separate from, compliance with the PR RO.

Nonetheless, concerns about compliance with the PR RO can be a big factor in IRCC's perception of reasons for concern or suspicion. Just cutting-it-close, for example, naturally invites reason to more closely examine the PR's presence declarations for potential misrepresentation, that is, for potential residency fraud.


Impact of cutting-it-close:

I am among those who have oft emphasized that cutting-it-close entails obvious risks. This should be obvious. After all, cutting-it-close directly invites elevated scrutiny, the need to more closely examine and verify the facts.

But, as I have also emphasized, there are many other factors which can influence what IRCC perceives and whether IRCC identifies a reason to question the PR's accounting of days in or outside Canada. Which is to say, while cutting-it-close almost certainly increases the risk of SR, it does not necessarily result in SR.

Again, the range of factors which can influence how it goes in processing a particular individual's PR card application is huge, huge, huge. There are way too many factors, and too many ways this or that factor can affect how it goes, to attempt enumerating even a representative sample.

It should be obvious that cutting-it-close in conjunction with other factors tending to raise concerns or suspicions further elevates the risk of a SR investigation.

Some of the more significant factors also should be obvious. The PR's overall history, for example, can loom very large. The PR who has a history suggesting the gaming of the system, for example, obviously has a much higher risk of a prolonged SR process. In particular, cutting-it-close in conjunction with other indications that the PR is not actually settling down to permanently live in Canada, will of course raise a big red flag and invite elevated scrutiny; the purpose of PR, after all, is specifically to allow individuals status to permanently live in Canada. Thus those who appear to have only temporary ties to Canada, who do not appear to be settling in Canada permanently, even though they claim to meet the minimum presence requirement, should anticipate being investigated and that process taking a lot longer.

Another aspect related to cutting-it-close is that cutting-it-close means the PR spent a large amount of time abroad, and depending on where the PR was during that extended period of time, that can invite more extensive background or security screening. Since at the least this can involve a referral to an overseas office, and in some cases involve a request for information from a foreign government, those who are subject to such inquiries are likely to encounter much longer delays than other PRs.

In any event, while cutting-it-close itself raises the risk of SR, cutting-it-close in conjunction with other factors can dramatically increase the risks and extend the time processing takes. Note, for example, the PR who barely met the PR RO and then goes abroad for an extended time, is almost certainly going to end up in SR and not see any progress unless and until that PR returns to Canada or applies for a PR TD.

Hi Depanabill,


Well I do not quite agree that there is a clearly defined criteria. We have situations where the husband and wife had exactly the same travels, but one received the PR card and the other was referred to secondary review.

My case for example is a very straight forward case, I stayed in Canada for 3 Straight years except for short trips to US by car which were already captured in the cbsa report ( I ordered it). I also was working full time at the same conpany and enclosed all my tax return which is very easy to validate. Still I have been stuck in secondary review since November 2015!!! And my ATIP notes shows that thr PRD assessment status is "Not Started" and CoR is unknown!! I also checked the time that the officer worked on my application and it was 20 minutes!!! He/she sent the 2 emails within 20 minutes and since then there was no progress
What criteria are they using? The only thing that makes sense is that it is based on what countries I previously visited.. what else could it be?
All the stamps I reported match with cbsa report and since I had a lot of short weekend long visits to US by car (shoen in cbsa report) , this is even an easier proof that I am indeed in Canada.

So it comes down to this ; the officers are either incompetent or lazy.. they use SR to reduce load on their "routine" applications, so the criteria to me seems very subjective!
If they have suspicions, they could have asked for further proof last November, it is very easy to prove, but instead they leave us in this situation!!!
It also usually targets people from china, india, and the middle east.. I hope I am wrong though..

 

[bahaar]

Hi Everyone,

I was following this tread for almost 2 years now! And I need immediate help now. Finally, after 13 months in secondary review, my file moved and someone from CIC emailed me. As happy as I am that finally someone is looking into my application there is a down side. They are requesting ‘Personal immigration entry/exit record or movement certificate issued by the countries where you have travelled. (Specifically UAE and Kuwait)’. I emailed a friend in Kuwait to see if he can get such information from there. But I don’t know how to proceed with other countries. I traveled once to Dubai on 2011 and obtained the visa through the Airline. I need help from whoever gone through this and now how to obtain it from different countries.

Would appreciate your response

 

[RAY2112]

Read the below thread, hopefully you will get an idea.
Good Luck.

http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/personal-immigration-entryexit-record-or-movement-certificate-t276571.0.html


Was your second review because you had lots of travelling?

Hi Everyone,

I was following this tread for almost 2 years now! And I need immediate help now. Finally, after 13 months in secondary review, my file moved and someone from CIC emailed me. As happy as I am that finally someone is looking into my application there is a down side. They are requesting ‘Personal immigration entry/exit record or movement certificate issued by the countries where you have travelled. (Specifically UAE and Kuwait)'. I emailed a friend in Kuwait to see if he can get such information from there. But I don’t know how to proceed with other countries. I traveled once to Dubai on 2011 and obtained the visa through the Airline. I need help from whoever gone through this and now how to obtain it from different countries.

Would appreciate your response