I unfortunately join the "150+ Days of IP Club."

[Ottawan]

Are you saying that those who have not paid any taxes or didn't start a company/business are not entitled to citizenship?
Your sense of entitlement is showing loud and clear. Didn't a MP once said "I am entitled to my entitlements".
So please keep your sense of entitlement to yourself. It does not reflect well on you.

Good luck with IRCC. The 12 month website is strictly a guide based on 80% of the completed application. Not a rule set in stone they must abide to.

With Trudeau's mess with the illegal fake refugees, draining IRCC resources, I wouldn't be surprised if the time line grew to 18 - 24 months. What would be your argument be then if it went up before your " 12 months" are up

Everyone is entitled to a fair and open process without easily avoidable delays.

Hating on those drowning and suffocating to safety reflects very well on you. Now go listen to more lies and tune in to FOX news.

 

[screech339]

Everyone is entitled to a fair and open process without easily avoidable delays.

Hating on those drowning and suffocating to safety reflects very well on you. Now go listen to more lies and tune in to FOX news.

How can they be drowning and suffocating while crossing into Quebec / Manitoba from US. I don't recall any oceans between Canada and US border.

I'm all for supporting bona fide refugees. But there is a difference between directly flying to Canada (despite other safe countries being nearest to refugee's country than Canada, this is cherry picking) to claim asylum/refugee from someone legally entering US first (safe country) and then entering illegally into Canada.

 

[jazibkg]

I'm joining the 150 days club tomorrow. IP since Feb 14, 2018; no correspondence

 

[mumbai1985]

I'm platinum elite as I'm nearing 250.

 

[ohhhhusa]

How can they be drowning and suffocating while crossing into Quebec / Manitoba from US. I don't recall any oceans between Canada and US border.

I'm all for supporting bona fide refugees. But there is a difference between directly flying to Canada (despite other safe countries being nearest to refugee's country than Canada, this is cherry picking) to claim asylum/refugee from someone legally entering US first (safe country) and then entering illegally into Canada.

red river? manitoba

 

[vancouverbc2013]

I'm platinum elite as I'm nearing 250.

Hahaaaaa that’s a good one! well said!!! They like your loyalty and they wana keep you.. lol a good client! Getting very bad service and not complaining

 

[Seen12]

Are you guys counting for IP or from the test date?

 

[screech339]

red river? manitoba

Sure. If they drown or suffocate trying to illegally cross 300m of water when there is over 480 km of land that they can just as easy illegally cross over between Manitoba and US border, (btw: there is a legal port of entry just 400m to the left of the river) they deserve the Darwin award instead.

 

[dpenabill]

Skipping many tangents and some typical trolling . . .

Mandamus Refresher:

Mandamus is an EXTRAORDINARY writ. "Extraordinary," that's a clue. Mandamus is NOT ORDINARILY GRANTED, even if the citizenship application process has taken more than 12 months. Even if the process has taken much, much longer than that.

Even when mandamus is an appropriate remedy, the Federal Court ALMOST NEVER orders that citizenship be granted. Among the MILLION or so grants of citizenship in the last six to eight years, the number of cases in which a Federal Court issued mandamus ordering CIC or IRCC to actually grant citizenship can be counted on a person's fingers . . . perhaps the fingers on just ONE hand. Those really are EXTRAORDINARY cases.

If a Federal Court finds grounds to issue mandamus in a citizenship case, the order is almost always limited to ordering IRCC to proceed with making a decision for the next step in the process. As others have noted, IRCC is likely to proceed to the next step anyway. How much is it worth spending to nudge IRCC forward a week or month or three months faster?

That raises the question: How much faster will it be when a well-founded application for a writ of mandamus is made?

Hint: the key to understanding this question depends on recognizing the difference between it and the following question: How much faster will it be when an application for a writ of mandamus is made?

Huge, huge difference between the WELL-FOUNDED application for the writ and just the fact of making the application.

To be clear, a WELL-FOUNDED application is actually likely to accelerate things significantly. This is because when the application for the writ is well-founded that typically involves a situation in which IRCC is in fact unreasonably holding up proceeding with the citizenship application. This happens. Not nearly so often as forum-whimpering would suggest, not anywhere near that often. But it does happen.

Most times IRCC recognizes and acknowledges that further delay is unreasonable and proceeds to act on the application. That is, it proceeds to the next step and no judicial action, no actual court order necessary . . . in fact, IRCC will typically proceed with the application relatively soon after receiving a credible demand to proceed, which is a formal requirement which must be made BEFORE an application for mandamus can be made to the Federal Court. Even if the credible demand fails to spur IRCC into proceeding, IRCC will, usually, at least proceed when a well-founded writ application is made. Thus, typically either IRCC proceeds and no writ application is necessary, or even if there is a writ application (a well-founded application) IRCC then proceeds and writ proceedings are withdrawn.

To be sure, yes, there are occasions when IRCC (or CIC previously) did not agree that the delay was unreasonable, so the application for the writ has gone to a hearing, the case heard and decided by a Federal Court justice.

In such cases, those relatively few in which the application for a writ of mandamus is actually litigated in the Federal Court, the court decides whether to grant the writ or not. However, again, even if the court decides to grant the writ there is ALMOST NEVER an order to grant citizenship, but rather merely an order that IRCC proceed to the next step in the process.

To be clear, for context, there are NOT a lot of cases in which mandamus is actually issued. For every case in which a Federal Court has actually granted mandamus, there are at least TWO THOUSAND or more cases proceeding through the bureaucratic process to the oath, most routine, hundreds not routine. As I observed, the writ of mandamus is an EXTRAORDINARY writ.



Time In Process NOT a Ground For Mandamus:

The amount of time the citizenship application has been pending is almost NEVER an adequate ground for mandamus. As noted, historically there was a period of time in which applications for the writ appeared to trigger IRCC proceeding to the next step for applicants whose application had been sitting still for more than THREE years, and including some in the TWO to THREE year range.

How and why and when the lapse of time factors into actual grounds for mandamus is a complicated subject. No need to revisit that subject here. The fact that it has been longer than the posted timeline for a routinely processed application does NOT come close, not anywhere near close.

Thus, while there are cases involving rather egregious delays, in which the amount of time that has elapsed can be a practical factor of import in whether there are grounds for a Federal Court to issue mandamus, generally the fact that IRCC is taking longer for one applicant than for another is NOT going to be a basis for obtaining mandamus. The fact that IRCC is taking longer than the routine timeline, even months longer, is NOT going to be a basis for obtaining mandamus.

The reason for the amount of time matters, and it matters a lot. As noted, sometimes IRCC does delay processing an application for an unreasonable or unacceptable reason. That is grounds for mandamus.



REASON FOR DELAY:

Again, the actual reason for the delay matters.

If the reason is slow processing, even excessively slow processing, that alone is not a reason for mandamus.

If the reason is the application has somehow been, so to say, put on a shelf and in effect forgotten (not in queue for a next step), that could factor into cause for mandamus BUT is rarely necessary . . . the web form query will usually suffice, as IRCC will in effect find the application and put it into queue for the next step. If the web form query does not accomplish this, then the formal demand (the prerequisite for pursuing mandamus) will almost certainly spur action.

There are a wide range of potential reasons why a citizenship application is stalled, no action being taken on it. Too many to get bogged down with enumerating them, let alone trying to explain them.

Many reasons for delayed processing, even total suspension of processing, are valid, legitimate reasons. AND NO MANDAMUS is available to push IRCC to proceed any faster on these applications.




RECENT CASE EXAMPLE; MANDAMUS DENIED APPLICATION IN PROCESS THREE PLUS YEARS:

Application made January 2, 2014; application for mandamus filed October 27, 2017 . . .
See http://canlii.ca/t/hsp1r or https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/fr/item/311841/index.do

There was a legitimate reason why IRCC had not proceeded with the application. It took more than THREE YEARS for IRCC to even inform the applicant, and then only after numerous requests for follow-up from the applicant, of the reason (application suspended pending CBSA inquiry into potential cessation of status).

Again, what makes the difference in whether mandamus is available is whether the reason for a long delay is valid or not. Valid reason, no mandamus. No valid reason, mandamus might be available BUT in this case it probably is not at all necessary.

 

[dpenabill]

REGARDING POSSIBLE FUTURE CHANGES IN LAW AND EFFECT:

Pure RED HERRING. It is POSSIBLE the Conservatives will win the next election and AGAIN dramatically change requirements for the grant of citizenship. NOT LIKELY, not at all likely, but possible (it took many years for the Conservatives to table let alone adopt their previous major changes, in Bill C-6, and that was under enormous pressure from all sides to fix big problems in the grant citizenship process, including widespread inconsistency and injustice in how just the residency qualification applied, numerous Federal Court justices begging Parliament to fix the citizenship requirements).

EVEN if big, dramatic changes were adopted, it is HIGHLY unlikely they would apply to applications already filed (again possible, but this sort of legislation has never worked that way). More likely the Conservatives, if elected, will bring back the death penalty and make cannabis illegal again. And these are NOT likely either. But there is a bigger probability the Conservatives will do these before making dramatic changes to grant citizenship which would change the requirements for applications already in process.

Note: Trudeau's government addressed necessary changes in the Citizenship grant requirements much faster than Harper's government had. Remember, Harper promised his changes in summer 2011, and repeatedly over the years, but did not even table the legislation until 2014, and it did not take effect until June 2015 nearly FOUR years after making the promise; Trudeau promised changes in the October 2015 election and tabled the legislation in March 2016, and got it adopted despite strident Conservative opposition in time for it to take effect less than TWO years after making the promise. BUT even with Trudeau's changes, these were largely compelled by how badly the Conservatives had KNOWINGLY mangled things . . . even Harper and his Conservatives acknowledged serious problems and errors in Bill C-6 BUT would not make amendments so the Bill could be passed quickly . . . left it up to the next government to fix the blatant problems and of course when fixing those, obviously the Trudeau government was and did also make some very reasonable changes toward moderating some of the more harsh elements introduced by Harper's Bill C-6.


THAT SAID, THERE IS THE RISK OF VIRTUALLY UNIMAGINABLE CHANGE ON THE HORIZON:

Events south of the border are clearly on a trajectory headed for a reckoning. What sort of reckoning is difficult to forecast. There is a real risk of major changes coming which could affect life in North America on a scale comparable to if not greater than the American Civil War. Not saying something on that scale is going to happen. BUT there is a real potential for the proverbial manure to hit turboprop BIG BIG time. Potentially on a scale unimaginable for the overwhelming vast majority of those who have only lived in North America.

Not the least of the potential consequences: a total realignment of international relations, with Canada stuck in a very hard spot between the U.S. and its future alliances.

What is happening in American politics threatens to have a huge, huge impact on Canada and Canadians. It is a big stunning, and unnerving, how little alarmed most Americans appear to be about what is happening. Their news plays up much of the reality-show drama, but at the same time is glossing over some huge shifts in fundamental elements of the American experience.

This is like watching a train wreck, a huge train carrying tons and tons of toxic and flammable materials, watching it crash in excruciatingly slow motion. Will it slip off the rails without resulting in a disaster? Or will it be catastrophic on a scale which makes the 1917 Halifax explosion seem like a flare of firecrackers in comparison.

Make no mistake: there is a real risk what is happening in the U.S. could have a big, big impact here, and having Canadian citizenship after the fireworks might play a big, big role in how things are for those of us on this side of the border.

 

[screech339]

Dpenabill,

Your post on the use of mandamus is well written.

The red herring post is interesting but using examples that are a bit far fetched (death penalty??) to illustrate a point. Reminds me of the Liberals "PC will put soldiers on the street". I haven't seen that happened during the Harper years. Rather ironic considering that it was a Liberal PM Trudeau Sr that actually put soldiers on the streets.

Now your bit on what's happening in US on what might happen there is going beyond ridiculous, if not, delusional. Man, you sure got a great imagination in your head. Trump may be a dick but he is doing what he was elected to do. People voted him in because previous presidents, both Rep and Dems , were too political correct to deal with the problems that people faced there. They were getting sick and tired of it. Trump is just airing out the laundry that needed to be address leaving nothing untouched. From NAFTA, NATO, illegal immigrants, to political correctness, and many more. Airing the dirty laundry won't bring the shock of possible civil war or a similar disaster like the Halifax explosion. Although, it does make a great story to tell around the campfire.

Yes, we Canadians need to protect our interests, no more than US is doing theirs. But we should not become a doormat just because we don't like what other countries are doing, right or wrong. What we do in Canada should be in Canada's best interest, both long and short term, regardless of what other countries are doing. No need to "go along just to get along"

 

[dpenabill]

I was not suggesting, not by a long shot, that a Conservative government will bring back the death penalty. But it is possible. NOT likely. But possible.

And, comparatively, that is more likely (even though NOT likely) than the Conservatives making radical revisions to the grant citizenship requirements AND imposing those changes on applications already in process. This is possible but totally not at all likely. Even less likely than bringing the death penalty back. (Making some changes and implementing those prospectively is of course feasible; I doubt it will happen but that is feasible . . . BUT virtually NO chance of making changes AND imposing the changes on applications made before the law is adopted.)

As for my caution about potential major changes in the U.S., I am NOT forecasting any particular outcome. BUT the Mueller investigation, current Congress, and the Administration, are respectively on course for a major collision. How that sorts out may or may not set the stage for going forward with the American political system largely intact. It may or may not initiate conflicts which could dramatically change the course of history. There is a real risk of the latter. That's the caution. History tends to flow in a steady direction until some major event abruptly changes the course of things. There is a risk the Americans are on the cusp of triggering such a major event. Of course the majority of Americans are (all too stereo-typically) so arrogant as to just assume their Ship-of-State (the Titanic of nations one might say) could never sink. Today that ship is at risk. It has the means to steer past the worst of what could be coming. In contrast, unfortunately, it has the temerity and myopia to plow straight into disaster. Not a lot of reason rising from the cacophony of partisan politicking there these days. Not much to assure those with an outside and historical perspective that the combatants will resolve their differences without a major disruption in the order of things.

While Trump himself is, perhaps, a chief player in the drama unfolding south of the border, he is just one player among many. (Allowing, however, the key player(s) could be Putin or some American/International oligarchs or a movement of people suffering future shock.)

Again, I am NOT forecasting a cataclysmic event. I am observing the rising risks. Risks readily recognizable because there is a reckoning coming. One that could be, as I previously made the analogy, merely the train going off the rails a bit, but no great disaster. Or, it could go bad, real bad. Or something in between. But the full gamut is now in the field of play. History could be, one might say, in a mood for some twerking.

 

[screech339]

Just like it is possible that the liberal can raise the income tax to 70%. We are already taxed overall at 50%, what's another 20% to pay for their pet projects. It's possible but not likely. Oh right. The carbon tax that Trudeau will impose on everyone. It is also possible that the Liberals will take over the gas industry and bring back state owned gas station. Remember PetroCanada? They have already bought Kinder Morgan. They could also ban free speech as well but that's also not likely either. Oh right, there is that summer grant scandal that forces their ideology on everyone, violating their free speech and free of conscious choice. They have already claims ”rights" in law that don't exist. The examples I have given are no more far fetched but still possible than your Conservatives examples.

 

[nofrills]

Everyone is entitled to a fair and open process without easily avoidable delays.

Hating on those drowning and suffocating to safety reflects very well on you. Now go listen to more lies and tune in to FOX news.

Apparently refugees are to blame for an influx of applications for C-6 and slow government bureaucracy.

EDIT - further to this it turns out IRB process refugee claims, not IRCC - so bigoted trolls can shout until they are blue in the face that refugees are making them wait longer for status, despite being permanent residents, but its incorrect and inaccurate

https://irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/Pages/index.aspx

 

[dpenabill]

examples . . . no more far fetched but still possible than your Conservatives examples.

Yes. Far-fetched to apprehend actually happening. That was the point.

That was the point in response to some irrational fears about needing to get the process done, to take the oath before an election which the Conservatives might win . . . sure, while it is possible that the Conservatives could impose new requirements which change the rules EVEN for those with applications already in process, it is indeed FAR-FETCHED to apprehend that actually happening. Not sure how much more I needed to emphasize that the possibilities I was referencing were to illustrate just HOW UNLIKELY it is there will be any such change to grant citizenship requirements, even if the Conservatives form the next government, to have made it clear that I was comparing, as you say, "far-fetched" possibilities.

So, again, yes. Far-fetched to apprehend actually happening. That was the point. DUH! It is remarkable how just using a reference to a particular political party can totally skew how someone interprets things. BUT I confess, I failed to recognize the audience here is not entirely Canadian. Any Canadian I know would have readily recognized that comparing a probability as less than the likelihood the Conservatives will reinstate the death penalty (Canadians know there will be no reinstatement of the death penalty, not in any foreseeable future, regardless which party has a majority government) illustrates, as you say, a "far-fetched" possibility. Things which are NOT going to happen.

The Conservatives are NOT going repeal the legalization of cannabis either, even though that too is possible, albeit somewhat more possible than reinstating the death penalty, which in turn is somewhat more possible than revisions to the grant citizenship requirements which would change the rules for applications already in process . . . BUT none of these are at all likely, or again using your words, it is "far-fetched" to apprehend any of these happening . . .

. . . and to be clear, quite a lot more far-fetched than reasonable people apprehended, in the summer of 2015, that a buffoon reality TV character appearing to have descended from an orangutan would be elected President of the U.S., which reasonable people did indeed apprehend to be far-fetched, although one might more accurately observe that was indeed a misapprehension, a misapprehension not because of how things turned out, but because it was based on a failure to grasp both the nature of probabilities and the potential influence of a profound future-shock syndrome complicated by a persistent core of racism, aided and abetted by Russian malfeasance. All of which is to say that despite apprehending the election of the current U.S. President to have been far-fetched back then, is NOT to say there is anywhere near a similar probability the far-fetched examples cited here will happen. Comparing how far-fetched one unlikely possibility is to how far-fetched another unlikely possibility is, best leave that to Nate Silver and his merry band of mathematicians.

Or, to put things more simply, perhaps I could have safely said that, have simply stated that despite their possibility, neither will happen. All of which is a reminder, I suppose, that when writing it is prudent to remember how utterly dense or partisan-oriented (or both) some readers are prone to be (which seems to be particularly prevalent among certain elements in our unruly neighbour's domain).