New information in GCMS report. Thoughts?
Printed From: Canada Immigration and Visa Discussion Forum
Category: Canada Immigration Topics
Forum Name: Canadian Citizenship
Forum Description: Commentaries outlining important issues in acquiring Canadian citizenship through naturalization
URL: https://secure.immigration.ca/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14503
Printed Date: 09 May 2024 at 2:34am
Topic: New information in GCMS report. Thoughts?
Posted By: canuck25
Subject: New information in GCMS report. Thoughts?
Date Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 1:17pm
|
Hey folks, I just received my latest GCSM report. There are a number of new entries that were not in the file back in February and I'd appreciate your help in understanding these. One thing for sure - I am glad to see some movement on my file. In the NOTES section from July of this year, CIC St. Clair added the following: Triaged under initial OB 407. RQ and supporting docs reviewed - exceptions do not appear applicable. File returned to queue for complete review analysis" EM. Under PROFILES - FILES I noticed a change in line item LOCATION. Previously it said res assessment>1,094 August 2012. Now it says RQ Aug 2012. In the ACTIVITIES section, one pertaining to the CEREMONY now lists Siebel Administration under Responsible Office. Previously this was left blank. The same is true for the DECISION activity as well. Unfortunately, there have not been any updates on other process items so I continue to wait as the file goes back to the queue...
|
Replies:
Posted By: akella
Date Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 1:43pm
It appears that they re-triaged your file to see if any of the exceptions to original May 2012 RQ triage checklist apply (like clarification of meaning / changing of indicators - that happened in Nov 2012 and possibly later as well). From the looks of it, no exceptions in your case - you are still staying on RQ track.
They returned your file to the RQ pile. Possibly a different pile than where it was before (>1094 Aug 2012 appears to be a shelf they've been also using for pre-test RQs from CPC-S with over 1094 days claimed, from the looks of it you were also applying with 1094+ days and they put you there when an RQ at test was issued; so they may have moved you to another pile of Aug 2012 RQs they intend to review in full). Might not mean anything if they changed the way they segregate files and renamed shelves between 2012 and now.
Siebel is a major software platform, so you can ignore this one. Looks like a default value for a field not filled or assigned to an automatic trigger. |
canuck25 wrote:Posted By: Fedup2013
Date Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 1:54pm
|
Hi Akella, I am impressed with your ability to to read the GCSM Reports and giving full explanation of what it means. Where did you learn that? As you can see my timeline below, do you recommend that I obtain a GCSM report to check the status of my application? What is the advantages vs. disadvantages of obtaining GCSM report, does it flag or effect my application's process? Thank you in advance for your kind assistance. Simon ------------- Landed Immigrant: Oct 2009 Sent Application: Mar 2013 In-process: Jun 2013 Received Letter: Jul 2013 File transferred to Mississauga Office: 15 Aug 2013 Written Test: 18 Jan 2014 Oath : 23 Jan 2014 |
Posted By: canuck25
Date Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 2:17pm
|
@FedUP 2013 - I would not request a GCMS yet since it likely won't show anything of any consequence. Your application has only been in process 4-5 months. If you don't hear anything by February then you may want to request one. Doing so does not impede the process in any way, it's just it likely won't show any meaningful info at this stage.
|
Posted By: farrous13
Date Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 2:51pm
What do you mean by this akella? So sometimes applicants are transitioned back to a normal processing time? |
Posted By: Fedup2013
Date Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 3:07pm
|
Thank you canuck25 for your kind reply. Question: is there any document / guide that available on internet or CIC website that help explaining the GCMS report. How do you know how to translate these reports? I am not saying that I don't trust your given information, but is there anything to support that? Thank you again. Simon ------------- Landed Immigrant: Oct 2009 Sent Application: Mar 2013 In-process: Jun 2013 Received Letter: Jul 2013 File transferred to Mississauga Office: 15 Aug 2013 Written Test: 18 Jan 2014 Oath : 23 Jan 2014 |
Posted By: greeny
Date Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 10:00pm
i'm really glad there is smth happening with your case, and I think your case will be within the 24months period, so by about fall next year you'll be a citizen for sure! are your security checks "fresh"  or must be redone?------------- landed: May, 2003 applied: Dec04,2009 test/RQ: Feb15,2011 st.clair 2nd RQ: Aug 2014 Total waiting time to oath: 60,5 months :)= 5 years and 14 days oath- Dec , 2014 |
Posted By: canuck25
Date Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 10:02pm
|
Greeny, I certainly hope you are wrong. :) My case will pass the quoted "35 months from the application date" timeframe in 6 months (May 2014). I certainly hope next Fall I will have been a citizen for at least 5 months. Is there a new timeframe they are now giving people (25 months from the date RQ response received)???????
|
Posted By: greeny
Date Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 10:29pm
look at my signature for a second  do you still believe in this CIC joke
that what I'm talking , saying  "for sure"
no, just my observations, actually , your timeframe is the same with my friend , Rqed last X-mass, I proposing him to get his blue passport somewhere about May, the same as you are expecting, yeah, but this is the earliest point and the last is somewhere in fall ------------- landed: May, 2003 applied: Dec04,2009 test/RQ: Feb15,2011 st.clair 2nd RQ: Aug 2014 Total waiting time to oath: 60,5 months :)= 5 years and 14 days oath- Dec , 2014 |
Posted By: canuck25
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 11:53am
|
Greeny, Love your optimism:) I think I responded to you in an earlier thread a few weeks ago but am curious - have you ordered your GCMS report and consulted a lawyer??? 47 months is ridiculous. |
Posted By: greeny
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 12:24pm
I ordered ATIP in september, no sense in paying lawyers, I 'm sure they can do nothing here. my opinion is it's silly to go against a government system. and I'm not in a hurry, especially now when I applied for PR renewal - for nearest 5 years I'm free of thoughts how it is going with my citizenship case ------------- landed: May, 2003 applied: Dec04,2009 test/RQ: Feb15,2011 st.clair 2nd RQ: Aug 2014 Total waiting time to oath: 60,5 months :)= 5 years and 14 days oath- Dec , 2014 |
Posted By: greeny
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 12:29pm
my observation for 2009-2010 applicants - 52 months since applied and 36 months since RQ is received - will be a real timeframe so I'm close to that only 5 months leftI'm not sure for %100, but think that application shelf life period is 6 years - 72 months, none of us will wait longer than that if it is not an exceptional case.finally , everyone will be THERE
------------- landed: May, 2003 applied: Dec04,2009 test/RQ: Feb15,2011 st.clair 2nd RQ: Aug 2014 Total waiting time to oath: 60,5 months :)= 5 years and 14 days oath- Dec , 2014 |
Posted By: farrous13
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 1:35pm
Anyone?
|
Posted By: greeny
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 3:57pm
what do you mean by saying that? it can't be normal timeframes if it turned to be - non-routine case ------------- landed: May, 2003 applied: Dec04,2009 test/RQ: Feb15,2011 st.clair 2nd RQ: Aug 2014 Total waiting time to oath: 60,5 months :)= 5 years and 14 days oath- Dec , 2014 |
Posted By: farrous13
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 4:23pm
|
Here is what akella mentioned: It appears that they re-triaged your file to see if any of the exceptions to original May 2012 RQ triage checklist apply (like clarification of meaning / changing of indicators - that happened in Nov 2012 and possibly later as well). From the looks of it, no exceptions in your case - you are still staying on RQ track. He said "you are still staying on RQ track". Don't know if it's the English. But to answer your question, this is what I am referring to. So my question in simple English: can someone get back on a regular processing time after being issued an RQ? Because the above sentence implies it.
|
Posted By: ski
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 4:46pm
|
They reverified if your case is eligible for routine processing because RQ rules changed. It is in their best interest to have as few RQ as possible because any RQ is just extra work without any benefit. Then they found that even with changed RQ rules your file still needs an RQ. One should not expect that something like this happens on a regular basis.
|
Posted By: dpenabill
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 5:44pm
My sense is that akella was referring specifically to language in the CGMS quoted by canuck25, "Triaged under initial OB 407. RQ and supporting docs reviewed - exceptions do not appear applicable. File returned to queue for complete review analysis" EM." In particular:
And I concur in this observation. And, actually, this exact same language (or something very close to this language) was previously the subject of a similar query by another participant here, and I gave a response very similar to the one which akella gave above (albeit I was not nearly so succinct -- no surprise). Reminder: prior to some "interpretations" implemented last fall, RQs were previously issued under the "initial OB 407." In many instances the application of the triage criteria, under the original OB 407, was very broad. It appears that many of the RQ'd cases issued during that phase have been revisited to see if RQ was still required under the not-so-broad interpretations of the triage criteria. For example, applicants reporting being a homemaker were being issued RQ because of A5 and being unemployed; A5 was interpreted to not require RQ for homemakers as such. So, if CIC revisited the reasons for issuing the RQ, found that it was issued due to interpreting time as a homemaker as unemployed, then the application could be removed from a RQ track. Thus, the long version of what akella said is that apparently CIC revisited the reasons for which canuck25 was issued RQ, ascertained that the issuance of RQ was appropriate under the triage criteria as interpreted (see topics where internal CIC memos are discussed, in particular those referring to the implementation of the "interpretations"), and thus the application remains in a RQ track.
Yes, sort of. Note, however, the published "routine case" timelines, however, only apply to what CIC defines as a routine case, and once there has been any additional requests or processing, it is no longer a "routine case." In this sense, "regular" processing time should not be confused with the published timeline for "routine cases." (Note: personally I give little to no weight to the CIC published timelines for routine and non-routine cases; the information is mostly uninformative. We have far more information about how quickly some cases proceed and about how long it can be when it does not go well. And mostly cases fall somewhere in-between and CIC is not offering much real information regarding even a ballpark figure as to how long that is likely to be.) So, if in revisiting the reasons for the issuance of RQ (which will only happen for someone who received RQ between May and October 2012, for canuck25 it was in June 2012, that is, prior to the adoption of the "interpretations"), CIC then ascertains that one of the "exceptions" applies (per example above, applicant was a homemaker and issued RQ because a homemaker is not "employed"), that application will (apparently) be removed from RQ track processing. That would mean, more or less, the regular or ordinary processing track from that point forward. That, however, really does not dictate that there is any particular timeline. Even for routine cases, the published timeline is just a report about the past, not in any way a statement as to how long it will take to process any case currently in process. What really matters to most applicants given RQ is whether or not CIC is satisfied regarding residency and will refer the case to the Citizenship Judge for a file review. This is what will make a big difference for most RQ'd applicants. The timeline for those given a file review referral is likely to be many months, if not years, less than the timeline for those who are in what I usually refer to as long-haul RQ, which is essentially the track in which CIC conducts a thorough residency assessment and preparation of the file for a hearing with the CJ (not all these will go to an actual hearing, and thus in a sense will get a file review later, but that is often much, much later). Either way, the case would fall into the "non-routine" timelines published by CIC, but again that means virtually nothing. Either way, the referral to the CJ requires preparation using the File Preparation Template, which is more extensive and requires more time to complete than the referral for a routine case. But if CIC's initial assessment of the response to RQ is that it is satisfied, sufficient to place the file into a file review track, that will usually mean a much shorter timeline than those which are in queue for the more thorough, complete review that is attendant preparation of the file for a hearing (even if ultimately it is decided no hearing is necessary). This brings up a phrase in the GCMS language: "File returned to queue for complete review analysis." The situation for canuck25 is a post-test RQ (RQ at the time of test is effectively the same as RQ issued after the test; not a pre-test RQ). We have only a very few participants here who were issued post-test RQ after the implementation of OB 407 (going back again to May 2012). My recall (not clearly however) is that the other participant here reporting similar language was a pre-test RQ. I am very hesitant to infer much from this language, even though it appears to indicate the queue involving waiting for a specific case officer to be assigned to do what I have been referring to as the more thorough, long-haul RQ analysis. I am hesitant in part because I have the sense that there are classifications of this sort which are a kind of default, and do not necessarily reflect whether or not a decision in that regard has actually been made. But of course I do not know just how this works with any degree of certainty. I do not know, for example, whether the appearance of this phrase in the GCMS report really means the applicant is on the long-haul track or whether no one at CIC has yet made the decision. Given the length of time in canuck25's case, I'd suspect it is going to be the long-haul version, but that is just a bit better than a guess far short of being confident. This is what most RQ'd applicants would like to know. What are the odds of getting a file review, versus having to wait many months if not years longer? Hard to say. Few signs coming out of CIC or the reports to illuminate this much. There were internal memos which clearly indicated this bifurcation in processing would still take place, but no clue as to the extent to which it will be. We have seen a few pre-test RQs proceed to the test and to the oath, and obviously they fall into the category of those returned to a file review track. But those numbers are very small. ------------- 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 |
Posted By: ski
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 7:47pm
|
dpenabill, is the concept of filibuster, or at least Internet flood, familiar to you? :) You answer absolutely every question asked, and you write several pages of text in each your answer (of which 95% is always a reiteration of what you wrote elsewhere). If there were any other moderator here, you would have been banned for flooding years ago... If you learn to try to express yourself in 1 sentence, the world would benefit greatly!
|
Posted By: canuck25
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 10:38pm
|
greeny, you mentioned you ordered your ATIP in September. Did you receive it? What was in it? If you still haven't gotten it I would be concerned about your request reaching the CIC. I asked for mine 3 weeks ago and it arrived this week.
|
Posted By: greeny
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 10:41pm
people are so lazy to look through the threads, asking one and the same question, probably, that's the answer  ------------- landed: May, 2003 applied: Dec04,2009 test/RQ: Feb15,2011 st.clair 2nd RQ: Aug 2014 Total waiting time to oath: 60,5 months :)= 5 years and 14 days oath- Dec , 2014 |
Posted By: greeny
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 10:46pm
yes, I ordered it in august and got it in september, nothing new was there, the same information as it was in January. and I called CIC after that, and the agent said to me in a very angry manner that I got ATIP and he could seethat on the file, and: "why are you calling after you got your ATIP just a week ago, you must think that we are hiding something, to say you the truth ATIP will show you more than we can see on your file" and he did a request to my local CIC in 3 days my ECAS updated for the 1st time since I got my test invitation, saying they sent me a letter and if I didn't send some docs to do it urgently. Next day I got that letter, saying that my file is in inventory of St. Clair office and once they know what's the next step they will let me know, for that moment they advised to renew my PR and so I did. ------------- landed: May, 2003 applied: Dec04,2009 test/RQ: Feb15,2011 st.clair 2nd RQ: Aug 2014 Total waiting time to oath: 60,5 months :)= 5 years and 14 days oath- Dec , 2014 |
Posted By: ski
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 11:09pm
Now we only need to teach the moderator of this forum the Internet ethiquette, part of which is that he does not flood and hijack every topic but simply makes a 1-sentence response ending with a link, "for further details, see this post", if needed.
Otherwise half of the forum will eventually have finger muscle cramps and possibly eye disorders from having to scroll through 7 pages of dpenabill after every other post :-) |
Posted By: greeny
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 11:10pm
------------- landed: May, 2003 applied: Dec04,2009 test/RQ: Feb15,2011 st.clair 2nd RQ: Aug 2014 Total waiting time to oath: 60,5 months :)= 5 years and 14 days oath- Dec , 2014 |
Posted By: canuck25
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 12:32am
| While dpenabill and I have disagreed in some previous threads, I must say that ad hominem attacks are rather childish. Sure his/her posts are quite often verbose, but (s)he actually reiterates and shares details and thinking that many, including myself, have found helpful, often providing a measured and logical glimpse of CIC processes that tend to be viewed rather emotionally and not at all in a balanced fashion by other members. I'd much rather see lengthy posts that elaborate on similar themes than not see them. |
Posted By: bjones
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 12:43am
Very well said! As I have said before, dpenabill's posts have been more than helpful to understand the details in the citizenship application process. I make it a point to read and understand each and every one of dpenabill's posts, and I am sure many of us do the same here.
|
Posted By: ski
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 3:57am
I have nothing against dpenabill as a person, and many of his posts offer interesting analysis, however I also do find that some of his actions on this forum are wrong and destructive, and it's these actions that I comment. Thank you for not confusing between the two :)
|
Posted By: dpenabill
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 9:17am
|
Note: my posts are almost always from the point of view of just one more participant here, having little or nothing to do with my role as a moderator, which is mostly spam cop and, thankfully, only an occasional bit of policing content (abusive posts, blatant copyright concerns, or such, which again thankfully have been very few). This post is an exception. I am posting this as a moderator. Reminder: The subject of this topic is "New information in GCMS report. Thoughts? While I appreciate expressions of support, this is not the place to discuss this. There is a forum for posting comments and suggestions, and within that a forum for specifically making complaints about other participant's posts. See https://secure.immigration.ca/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1358&PN=1&title=abusive-posts - sticky topic and site administration's first post therein for instruction. ski, in particular, if you want to post complaints about the way I post or any other participant posts, please do so in the proper forum. The instructions say to identify the name of the participant in the topic title. There is already a topic there referencing complaints against me (dpenabill, https://secure.immigration.ca/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9966&PID=173023&title=complaints-against-dpenabill#173023 - which is linked here , or you may start a new topic in that forum as per the site administration instructions. I think you may also lodge a complaint directly with the site administrator, which will at least result in an email to all moderators. I am not the only moderator here. Moreover, I actually have no interaction with the administration of this site beyond being forwarded emails reporting spam or abusive posts. This post and the above off-topic posts will be hidden, moved, or deleted when I get around to it. I do not recall what functions participants have with regard to posts (other than the capacity to edit them, which I do not have), but if anyone wants to preserve their off-topic post above, in the meantime you probably want to copy it and, perhaps, repost it in the appropriate forum. Your cooperation is appreciated. By the way: I am not likely to respond to the complaints you have posted in multiple topics recently ski. I will read and consider all complaints, but will only respond if I perceive there is something to be gained by a response. Perhaps another moderator will address the issues raised. And, if in the appropriate forum, other participants may offer a response, be that an observation or comment, a suggestion or whatever, or further complaint. In any event, again, this post and others off-topic above will be hidden, moved, or deleted, not today but when I get around to it (unless another moderator does so first). ------------- 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 |
Posted By: dpenabill
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 9:47pm
|
Note: see https://secure.immigration.ca/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9966&PID=173023&title=complaints-against-dpenabill#173023 - this page for moved posts. As I said, I will hide, move, or delete the other posts above, those that are off-topic (including mine), when I get around to it. ------------- 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 |
Posted By: canvis2006
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 11:09am
You may wish to go to other forums if you don't like other people's posts, or you may simply ignore posts. You should not criticize other members, on a free, volunteer forum where people are spending time/effort to help others without any personal gains. Dpenabill has been very helpful to members on this forum, and I appreciate his detailed analysis. Go and try get that from a lawyer and see how much they charge you for it. Moderators are just here for removing spam posts/threads, other than that there is nothing special. We don't own the forum, or "operate" it. We're also volunteers. If you have any issues you can go ahead and speak to the owner of the forum, Mr. Colin Singer. |