Understanding ATIP reports |
Post Reply | Page <1234 49> |
Author | |||
Rqcadet
Average Member Joined: 05 Nov 2012 Location: Mississauga Status: Offline Points: 227 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Dear Akella,
The only closest date is under Document section whcih as mentioned earlier in my post says Certificate- 1, updated date- 2012/12/11 & status- Damaged in production. Does this give you any other clue??/ |
|||
akella
Senior Member Joined: 30 May 2012 Status: Offline Points: 714 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
No clue in the sense of what exactly happened - as whatever Feb 26, 2013 update is referring to - it is not showing up in this standard privacy report. But my previous comment still stands - someone (a live person) actually touched your file, so this should be good. |
|||
canuck25
Moderator Group Forum Moderator Joined: 09 Mar 2012 Status: Offline Points: 831 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Hi folks,
This is actually a much needed thread given how many of us are requesting the notes. I've made two requests - for copies of the physical file, as well as the GCMS notes. I was hoping to understand why I was RQed but neither document contained any relevant information. The copy of the physical file had 2 pages expunged, stating that they were not available due to section 20 or something like this. The GCMS computer notes make no mention or reference to RQ issuance at all, other than noting that my response to the RQ was received by the local office. I called the CIC to ask whether the GCMS report should include a reason for RQ and was told that typically they have no visibility into, and we no access to, this information via GCMS notes requested under ATIP. In addition, I was told that if any of your clearances (my FOSS Clearance Expiry is March 13 2013 and RCMP Clearance Expiry is March 28 2013) expire while the RQ is in process, they will need to be requested again, which will add further delay to the processing of the file. Edited by canuck25 - 28 Mar 2013 at 2:27pm |
|||
akella
Senior Member Joined: 30 May 2012 Status: Offline Points: 714 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Yes, this would've been the useful part (risk indicators - as in mcm's post that has been quoted multiple times - he is the only one who was able to obtain those).
Yes, they don't show the status / dates of CSIS Clearance. Apparently, it can endanger national security.
Yes, they will have, but FOSS they are doing themselves (simple check) and RCMP/CSIS they are sending via batch requests from GCMS (~1 week to come back, unless there are issues). So it should not affect processing. |
|||
canuck25
Moderator Group Forum Moderator Joined: 09 Mar 2012 Status: Offline Points: 831 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
By the way, I just noticed something incredibly strange in my GCMS report. On page 1, in CASES section under "Responsible Officer" the information is as follows (some redacted by me for privacy reasons):
Responsible Officer 1: Created Date: 2004/08/14 15:35:08 Created By: SADMIN Updated Date: 2006/03/08 08:58:22 Updated By: BXXXX Primary: Y User ID: B8096 Last Name: XXXX First Name: XXXX Responsible Office: St. Clair CIC What surprised me was the Created by and Updated dates: in 2004 and 2006, respectively. That was long before I even applied for PR and had even visited Canada. Any idea what these dates refer to?
|
|||
akella
Senior Member Joined: 30 May 2012 Status: Offline Points: 714 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Just follow the tree. These are the dates when this officer's account in the system was created / updated. |
|||
greeen
Average Member Joined: 28 Mar 2013 Status: Offline Points: 159 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Hi dpenabill and others; RECORD HEARING: NOT STARTED SCHEDULE HEARING: NOT STARTED 2ND ATIP: UPDATED DATE: 2012/06/21 RECORD HEARING: NOT REQUIRED SCHEDULE HEARING: NOT REQUIRED Dose this means anything positive? Please your insight. |
|||
dpenabill
Top Member Joined: 29 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 6407 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Others are more familiar with the GCMS records than I am.
Much of the GCMS record is boilerplate. Those more familiar with them can better separate real information from the boilerplate stuff. Because I lack that familiarity I am hesitant to offer what I think, but, for what it is worth (not a lot) I will offer this: I would ordinarily have a positive sense about this, as if perhaps it indicates the file will go to a CJ for a file review soon, but given the length of time that has elapsed already, it is not so clear in the abstract. Think positive I guess, but patience may still be the order of the day. |
|||
Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does, or When in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, follow the instructions.
BTW: Not an expert, not a Can. lawyer, never worked in immigration |
|||
greeen
Average Member Joined: 28 Mar 2013 Status: Offline Points: 159 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
dpenabill thank you. Hi akella: You've received your GCMS also, Do you see any meaning or positive things in this? Please your comments |
|||
greeen
Average Member Joined: 28 Mar 2013 Status: Offline Points: 159 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Today I called the CIC. The nice rep. told me that my file is waiting for a judge review and that I should hear from them before the end of the year. This is the first time they don't give the 48 months thing. I don't know if what the rep gave me is a random answer or there are some basis to give me this timeframe!!!!!!
|
|||
Post Reply | Page <1234 49> |
Tweet |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |