Questions about front-end security screening

[Mancini]

Hello everyone..

I hope you are all doing well..

I have questions please regarding the front-end security screening (IRB):

1. How long does it usually take to conclude this step?
2. Does it take longer for certain countries?
3. Having a TRV, should not this mean that the FESS has already been done for that person?
4. Is there anything that the claimant/lawyer can do to try to make things move faster?
5. After FESS is concluded, can the applicant assume that their case will progress and a hearing will be set soon, or not necessarily?

Thank you...

 

[Simba112]

Hello everyone..

I hope you are all doing well..

I have questions please regarding the front-end security screening (IRB):

1. How long does it usually take to conclude this step?
2. Does it take longer for certain countries?
3. Having a TRV, should not this mean that the FESS has already been done for that person?
4. Is there anything that the claimant/lawyer can do to try to make things move faster?
5. After FESS is concluded, can the applicant assume that their case will progress and a hearing will be set soon, or not necessarily?

Thank you...

1. There is no definite timeline for FESS
2. Yes. Depending on Risk Factor and Access to Information
3. No. Aim is to prevent individual who pose risk to Canada to gain admission or use refugee process for admission. Put this way, if you commit serious criminality from country of origin, FESS will disqualify applicant during eligibility interview and be removed from Canada since Claim has not been referred yet.
4. No
5.No. Hearing progress depends on complete submission and lawyer availability. Applicant who uploaded all documents and evidence on portal without a lawyer is most likely to get hearing soon. It is risk to go without a lawyer, but i know people who took that risk and got hearing within 5-6months.

 

[Mancini]

Thank you Simba for replying on all the questions.

Regarding the last point, it is confusing. Having a lawyer should logically mean that the claim is addressed properly and that the lawyer would follow up attentively and carefully. However I heard several horrible stories about how lawyers caused further delays and were not up to the responsibility entrusted to them. It happened with people very close to me. Their lawyer was suffering from illness, he mistook their case with another. A hearing was set for them, but their lawyer would tell them that their case was accepted without hearing. After more than 2 months, they checked with the lawyer, he admitted his mistake. He followed up with IRB. Another hearing was set for them. At the time of the hearing, the member was so upset because of the mistake of the lawyer, because the claim was almost abandoned. The member never allowed the lawyer to say any word at the hearing. He listened only to the claimants and approved their claim.

On the other hand, there are of course so many stories about how lawyers have acted responsibly and truly helped their clients in the most professional way.

I don't know if it is a matter of luck or good choice when appointing the lawyer. Also, I don't know if it is a disadvantage before IRB to have a lawyer.

 

[Simba112]

Thank you Simba for replying on all the questions.

Regarding the last point, it is confusing. Having a lawyer should logically mean that the claim is addressed properly and that the lawyer would follow up attentively and carefully. However I heard several horrible stories about how lawyers caused further delays and were not up to the responsibility entrusted to them. It happened with people very close to me. Their lawyer was suffering from illness, he mistook their case with another. A hearing was set for them, but their lawyer would tell them that their case was accepted without hearing. After more than 2 months, they checked with the lawyer, he admitted his mistake. He followed up with IRB. Another hearing was set for them. At the time of the hearing, the member was so upset because of the mistake of the lawyer, because the claim was almost abandoned. The member never allowed the lawyer to say any word at the hearing. He listened only to the claimants and approved their claim.

On the other hand, there are of course so many stories about how lawyers have acted responsibly and truly helped their clients in the most professional way.

I don't know if it is a matter of luck or good choice when appointing the lawyer. Also, I don't know if it is a disadvantage before IRB to have a lawyer.

If you ask for my opinion, I would definitely advise anyone to retain legal service. One will understand incase he attends hearing without lawyer and got negative decision, and now looking for a lawyer who never involved from day one to overturn negative decision... On the other side, think about current backlog, IRB has capacity to handle only 50,000 claims annually, but now there are 186,000 pending claims, so is possibility of one lawyer to have hearing almost every working day throughout a year if he wants to... that is where delay can come from... lastly, there are not enough members for 186,000 claims at the same time claimant expect hearing early