As noted already, there is no clear indication that the delay you encountered in particular,
IN888658S, is related to the expanded scope of the prohibitions provisions which came into force June 11, 2015. There are many reasons (and oft times no apparent reason) why some applicants encounter a delay in the scheduling of the oath.
But of course the delay could be due to whatever screening CIC is implementing to assure that applicants who applied prior to June 11, 2015 do not have a prohibition under the expanded prohibitions.
I was about to post and say there is no point spinning one's wheels much in anticipation. There will be reports in this or other forums in the near future illuminating more about what CIC is doing and requiring from applicants. Or, you will find out soon yourself from CIC and can be among those who report and illuminate how this is unfolding for others.
But then you posted this:
IN888658S said:
It is hard to believe but it is true. The e-cas system was updated just today, and it mentioned that they have sent the notice to appear letter yesterday (Jul 11) for me to appear for the oath ceremony. My revised oath ceremony is on Saturday, Aug 22, 2015.
There is a foot note in my e-CAS that mentions that some oath ceremony events are scheduled on Saturdays and Sundays. I just hope that there are no more surprises - so there is no ask from them for Police clearance certificates for my in-process application prior to Jun 10th.
First:
Congratulations!
Secondly, this suggests that once the new provisions came into force June 11, 2015, there was perhaps a bit of a delay while further background checks were done. These can be done quite quickly to the extent they are using name-record checks. I suspect this is what was done. That is good news.
You will (almost always) still be required to sign an affirmation of no prohibitions just before the oath. Typically those scheduled for the oath go through a line in which they surrender the PR card, are given some written information, and are required to sign the affirmation of no prohibitions. This has been standard for at least a couple years now.
It is almost certain that the form you will have to sign is different than the one I signed last year. It will be helpful if you look at the form closely and can report back its content. This will not be easy, the line tends to move quite quickly, all these things are largely perfunctory, and it can feel awkward to take the time to actually read the form. But, if you can glean the gist of it, a report will be of interest to others.
There may also be some additional information in the communication you will receive regarding your scheduled oath. This will of course include instructions such as what to bring (many times much of this is not so much as glanced at, but still best to follow the instructions -- the PR card is the big item). But it may include more specific information relative to the prohibitions regarding which you will be required to affirm there are none. If so, again a report would be appreciated.
Your being scheduled for the oath suggests that the answer to the question about police certificates requests is negative, at least for many if not most (since you indicated you are among applicants who declared 183+ days absences abroad in the relevant time frame). Beyond that, though, of course it will require multiple reports, from applicants in various circumstances, to get a clearer picture regarding just what CIC will do to enforce the new prohibitions for those applicants who applied before June 11, 2015, and thus did not complete a prohibitions checklist covering the expanded time frame and inclusion of foreign offences.
For clarity:
IN888658S said:
Just so that I understand this clearly, you implied that in-process applicants will receive some kind of form request (before their oath ceremony? during the oath ceremony?) from CIC to sign a form based on this Bill. The content of this form could gave details that would pertain to prohibitions based on the assessment of CIC on case by case basis. You are requesting us to share those experiences here. Please ascertain.
At the time of your interview, you almost certainly (although sometimes things vary in individual cases) had to sign a form affirming that
you have no prohibitions. If you had been scheduled for the oath before June 11, 2015, you would have had to sign the same form again. (For example, I had to sign these forms twice in less than 48 hours, since my oath was scheduled to take place less than 48 hours after my interview took place.)
I do not recall the content of the forms at the time I signed them (that was back in early 2014), beyond the fact that I was affirming there were no prohibitions precluding me from being granted citizenship. I am actually more familiar with this from reading Federal Court decisions (including those that led CIC to require the affirmation immediately prior to the oath as well in interviews).
My best recollection is that the form referenced the prohibitions listed in the application form, and the applicant's signature constituted an affirmation that the applicant's knows and understands the prohibitions, and that there are none.
So the fact that you will be required to sign such a form before the oath is
NOT new.
What is new, what is different, is that the applicable prohibitions now are not limited to those listed in the application (submitted by those who applied prior to June 11). In particular, the time frame is expanded (to four rather than three years), and now foreign offences will constitute a prohibition.
Since the law imposes a positive duty on CIC to verify that the applicant is qualified, including
not prohibited, CIC has to do some due diligence screening to assure all applicants are not subject to a prohibition, even those applicants who applied years ago (before the
SCCA was even tabled, let alone adopted, let alone became effective).
The least this is likely to be is the revision of the form to be signed at the time of the interview and before the oath. There have been reports of new forms for the oath, but these reports have not illuminated much beyond the fact of this happening . . . no reliable detail regarding the content (there were some obviously false reports of pre-June 11 applicants being required to affirm intent to reside in Canada).
So, at the least (it is safe to anticipate), before you take the oath you will be required to sign a form affirming there are no prohibitions precluding you from the grant of citizenship, which in essence, in form, is much like CIC has been doing for about two years (or so, I do not recall for sure when the policy requiring this affirmation at both the interview and immediately before the oath was implemented . . . before 2014 anyway). The form you will be required to sign, however, is likely to be at least somewhat different, likely to include some kind of notice, if not enumeration, of the changes to the prohibitions, including the expanded time frame and applicability to foreign offences.
The real question, though, is what more might CIC require?
And your post suggests that that may be no more than a further background name-record check, which does not usually cause more than a few weeks delay.
Of course it will take a lot more reports, for applicants in a variety of circumstances, before it can be concluded that only a further background check (
"clearance") is being done . . . well, that in conjunction with (I am quite confident) you will have to sign a form affirming you are not the subject of any prohibition including the expanded prohibitions.
IN888658S said:
What is puzzling for me though, is the fingerprints are required for FBI Identity History Summary. So, really CIC can't do that on their own as we didn't provide fingerprints. If they have to go this route then they have to request it from us. If not, I think they would do a National Instant Criminal Background Check, which hopefully would have a shorter turnaround from FBI!
This may not be a question you have now, given that you have been scheduled for the oath, but anyway:
The equivalent of a U.S. NCIC name-record check is indeed done easily, quickly, and often. It is part of the periodic GCMS check done at every action step in the process.
But both the U.S. and the RCMP criminal records data-bases are layered. The routine name-records check identifies arrests and dispositions. There are more robust records which, for example, will identify individuals who have been the subject of criminal investigations, are suspects, and so on, even if there has been no official law enforcement contact let alone arrest or court case. For obvious reasons, CIC (and the RCMP) do not disclose just what is examined and considered when a formal
clearance referral is made, but it is safe to infer it is a name-record check
plus.
I suspect the latter was done for you relative to the change in prohibitions. The referrals for these clearances is routine. It is done at the commencement of the application process for all applicants. After a certain amount of time, CIC will often make a referral for an updated clearance. And, given the expansion in prohibitions, it appears that CIC likely also made such a referral for you. No big deal. Obviously, a short delay and now you are on track again to take the oath.
So, again, congratulations.
We have to stop the paranoia and let CIC do their job.