Thank you, Mr. Ali.
Just to clarify, we're really talking about returns of applications, not just refusals of applications. These are the regulation 10 completeness checks that have very severe impacts on people. These checks are fairly ruthless. The most trivial apparent deficiencies result in applications being returned, which means that they were never legally filed.
Allowing applicants even a very short-fuse opportunity to correct minor deficiencies or sometimes perceived deficiencies—maybe the document is in there or it's not there for a specific reason—would avoid a lot of grief for applicants and also avoid a lot of spinoff applications and other steps that applicants need to take if an application is returned.
Looking for examples, the one I noted in my intro is a very real-life example. I have experienced in my practice, as have many of my colleagues, where people have permanently lost rights to include children or they no longer qualify for a program because an application has been returned many months after filing. That, in turn, creates a cascade of other applications to try to address the issues.
It's really about targeting resources—not necessarily even about applying more resources—to limit those completeness check returns. Doing them more quickly would actually reduce work in the long run for IRCC.