March 2025 - Citizenship Applications

[armoured]

Hello all, is there anything one can do to know the real reason behind this delay? I applied in March '25, test updated in June ,physical presence and language updated in July. BG and prohibitions in progress.
Last update was August 13. i have called severally, requested for the GCMS to no avail. other than waiting is there any way one can "remind them" they have a pending job to do?

You should write to the ATIP/privacy ombudsman about gcms delays that go beyond 60 days.

 

[armoured]

I would have suggested contacting your MP, but I feel that approach is now overused. More people are aware that it’s an option, and with the increasing number of applications, it’s becoming a routine step which may be reducing its effectiveness. In the past, it felt more impactful because it was a relatively unique request. MPs were contacted less often, and when they were, their involvement seemed to carry more weight than it does nowadays (at least in my opinion).

Anyway, if it makes you feel a bit better, many of us from March are stuck in background and prohibitions with timelines almost similar to yours.

These 'expected processing timelines' (eg the current 13 months for citizenship) are in large degree constructed this way to limit use of the MP channel to cases that are at least not in the main 80%, the rest are deemed routine.

Complaints about how effective have been going on for decades. But especially for those that are routine.

The biggest gap IMO is how slow security background checks can be - even for cases that really aren't 'unusual', they're just waiting in a pile (I believe) - and that those checks are a complete black box to everyone outside the process.

Yes, of course, they're not going to share much info about security checks and procedures and the real issue. But it seems even IRCC has no idea about any aspect of it - and when a lot just get delayed and clearly in a queue most of that time, it looks like a place where files just get hidden.

I don't have a fix, except to complain to MPs on this and say at least there should be real info about whether a security-check is actually happening or it's just waiting in a pile.

 

[mint-l]

These 'expected processing timelines' (eg the current 13 months for citizenship) are in large degree constructed this way to limit use of the MP channel to cases that are at least not in the main 80%, the rest are deemed routine.

Complaints about how effective have been going on for decades. But especially for those that are routine.

The biggest gap IMO is how slow security background checks can be - even for cases that really aren't 'unusual', they're just waiting in a pile (I believe) - and that those checks are a complete black box to everyone outside the process.

Yes, of course, they're not going to share much info about security checks and procedures and the real issue. But it seems even IRCC has no idea about any aspect of it - and when a lot just get delayed and clearly in a queue most of that time, it looks like a place where files just get hidden.

I don't have a fix, except to complain to MPs on this and say at least there should be real info about whether a security-check is actually happening or it's just waiting in a pile.

I think a lot of people have trust issues with the process because it often feels like a black box. It’s hard to be confident that we’re really in the correct queue, especially when some applicants who applied after us seem to get released earlier. It raises the question, if the order isn’t clear, can we really call it a queue?

The ‘expected processing timelines’ are largely structured to prioritize certain cases and limit use of the MP channel to ones outside the main 80%, which makes sense in principle. But the biggest frustration seems to be the security background checks. Even for routine cases, these checks can be incredibly slow and opaque, and there’s almost no visibility from outside the process.

It would go a long way if applicants at least had confirmation that a security check is actively happening, rather than feeling like their file is just waiting somewhere in a hidden pile.

 

[JohnnyDamien]

But this is no longer just about BG checks. Many of us March applicants have had our BG completed in early June, but LPP has been pending for the past 9-10 months

 

[armoured]

I think a lot of people have trust issues with the process because it often feels like a black box. It’s hard to be confident that we’re really in the correct queue, especially when some applicants who applied after us seem to get released earlier. It raises the question, if the order isn’t clear, can we really call it a queue?

You're right, it is not a queue. I used 'queue' here to refer to when a file is waiting in one particular sub-area, not an overall queue.

My mistake in that I confused the issue by phrasing that way.

(or if one prefers there can be lots of separate queues - like waiting on one-person's desktop inbox - but again, that confuses the idea of queue)

The ‘expected processing timelines’ are largely structured to prioritize certain cases and limit use of the MP channel to ones outside the main 80%, which makes sense in principle. But the biggest frustration seems to be the security background checks. Even for routine cases, these checks can be incredibly slow and opaque, and there’s almost no visibility from outside the process.

It would go a long way if applicants at least had confirmation that a security check is actively happening, rather than feeling like their file is just waiting somewhere in a hidden pile.

Agree entirely. What it ends up feeling like is that security checks are a separate pile.

 

[armoured]

But this is no longer just about BG checks. Many of us March applicants have had our BG completed in early June, but LPP has been pending for the past 9-10 months

I have been using background and prohibition as two parts of the security/criminality/other background checks.

I admit my usage confuses things a bit. I have never believed that any of the explanations about where BG and Prohibitions are split have made any sense, but IRCC seems to think they're different. (I mean since prohibitions includes things like whether someone has committed war crimes or is a terrorist or links to foreign security agencies, how is that not 'background'?)

So anyway: I mean BG and prohibitions together. But mostly whatever is covered in 'security checks'

 

[m34]

These 'expected processing timelines' (eg the current 13 months for citizenship) are in large degree constructed this way to limit use of the MP channel to cases that are at least not in the main 80%, the rest are deemed routine.

Complaints about how effective have been going on for decades. But especially for those that are routine.

The biggest gap IMO is how slow security background checks can be - even for cases that really aren't 'unusual', they're just waiting in a pile (I believe) - and that those checks are a complete black box to everyone outside the process.

Yes, of course, they're not going to share much info about security checks and procedures and the real issue. But it seems even IRCC has no idea about any aspect of it - and when a lot just get delayed and clearly in a queue most of that time, it looks like a place where files just get hidden.

I don't have a fix, except to complain to MPs on this and say at least there should be real info about whether a security-check is actually happening or it's just waiting in a pile.

Based on current figures, approximately 40K applications fall outside the stated average processing time. This represents roughly 14% of the total applications outstanding, which could be considered a reasonable proportion if one accepts 13 months as an appropriate average . That said, the absolute number remains quite high. It is reasonable to assume that a large share of these 40,000 applicants have already contacted their mps, creating a significant administrative burden (and less effect). While I dont have comparable data say from 5 years ago, it is safe to assume that this number would have been substantially lower.

 

[armoured]

Based on current figures, approximately 40K applications fall outside the stated average processing time. This represents roughly 14% of the total applications outstanding, which could be considered a reasonable proportion if one accepts 13 months as an appropriate average . That said, the absolute number remains quite high. It is reasonable to assume that a large share of these 40,000 applicants have already contacted their mps, creating a significant administrative burden (and less effect). While I dont have comparable data say from 5 years ago, it is safe to assume that this number would have been substantially lower.

I have no statistical base of comparison at hand nor time to research, wo won't object to your conjecture - if you wish to believe it, by all means.

But it in no way contradicts what I wrote, that complaints about how many requests to MPs and how effective they are have been ongoing for decades.

The important part to retain: they came up with this 'normal processing time' and specific rules about what MP's can request / get from IRCC during 'normal processing time' to a simple update on where the application is at (info you can get from GCMS notes or a phone call to IRCC). MPs have a specific info line/method to do this.

So /by construction/ during that time period, what you will get is 'not effective'. They're giving you information you can get by yourself. (There may be some exceptions where something is truly out of ordinary and if you're lucky with a competent MP's staff who know the difference and how to get through to IRCC)

As for 14% or 20% - no idea, close enough. IRCC used to make it somewhat clear that their methodology was to take a month as a cohort of sorts, and when 80% of that month's applicants had got PPR for PR apps or oath invite for citizenship apps (I think those were the steps anyway), that was the month that set the normal timeline (eg if Jan 2025 is the most recent month that hit 80% as of Feb 2025, that would be 13 months expected timeline).

They now seem to have fiddled with the method because the previous way was backward looking and they want it to reflect ongoing/expected trends - but no info I'm aware of to see what the adjustment is or how exactly they calculate. The current tracker figures 'extend' the timelines, i.e it says 13 months but adds months expected as you get closer to that 13 month calc. It could be a conditional thing, like life expectancy conditional upon having reached a certain age - but pure speculation on my part.

 

[JohnnyDamien]

Processing time is now 14 months. Great!

 

[mint-l]

Processing time is now 14 months. Great!

Did they publish the new processing times? I only see 3 months left as at Jan 2026