OVERALL . . . for
@ybjianada and
@Qrios1 . . . there is no for-sure or even close to sure answer as to whether or not IRCC will make a request (or for
@Qrios1 a further or additional request) for a PCC in order to complete processing your citizenship applications.
For
@ybjianada in particular, it probably depends on how IRCC approaches Singapore PCCs generally. If typically IRCC expects applicants to go through the process of obtaining and submitting a Singapore PCC, odds are probably high a PCC will be requested. Note, trying to request the "letter" in the citizenship application was probably ineffective, unless the responsible processing agent in the local office acts on it, but that would not be likely unless and until the local office processing reached the stage where the PCC is requested anyway.
In the past the anecdotal reporting suggested IRCC often did not follow through with PCC requests even if the applicant's "
explanation" for not including one was insufficient. But the anecdotal reporting more recently tends to indicate IRCC is increasingly requiring applicants to provide PCCs.
Regarding OP's Scenario:
Note:
@wksj accurately responded to the OP's query. And
@walter_white was mostly, but not entirely, spot on.
The OP got AOR rather than the application being returned because the OP met the requirements for submitting a complete application, by stating an explanation for why a PCC was not included. However, during the first stage screening it was obviously recognized that the OP's explanation for not including a PCC was not a valid reason (see
@wksj's post), so the request for a PCC. And now it is likely the OP's application is stalled, waiting for the PCC before it is referred to the next step in processing.
This is not a common report. Far more often the request for a PCC comes much later in the process, typically after the application is in the local office, probably most often at the test/interview event (before covid-related procedures) or following the test.
This is most likely related to the nature of the initial screening of applications upon opening them at CPC-Sydney. That process is mostly going down a checklist to verify the questions are answered, including no gaps where relevant, and required documents included. It is mostly a completeness screening. It is mostly to determine whether there is sufficient information and documents to proceed with processing the application.
This has not, historically, involved screening the content of the application for accuracy. With some exceptions, like the proof of meeting the language requirement has long been screened to see that it is substantively sufficient, and the application is returned if the language proof is not a type that is acceptable proof. And for some time IRCC has been returning some applications from PRs who listed pre-PR time for periods during which their GCMS records did not confirm their TR status, their applications returned as incomplete on the basis the applications did not show the applicant to meet the physical presence requirement.
But, for example, for the applicant who checked "no" in response to item 10.b., that met the completeness criteria EVEN IF an analysis of the applicant's travel history would show the applicant should have checked "yes" and included a PCC (or explained why not). This would be, so to say, "
caught" later on, and in many cases (but NOT all) result in a later request for a PCC . . . typically at or following the test. (Impact of erroneous "no" response is a separate credibility issue.)
Without tracking down all the instances in which it appears the completeness screening phase has increasingly incorporated some degree of checking the accuracy or validity of the content, prior to the OP's report it was unusual to see a PCC request soon following AOR.
In any event, the OP's "
explanation" is one that can be easily identified as insufficient, as just the address or work history, in addition to the travel history, likely all pointed to the OP being in the other country after landing and within the relevant four years. And this being a common misunderstanding, about who has to submit a PCC with the application, there is a good chance this particular scenario has been added to the completeness screening checklist.
Leading to . . . .
I cannot guess whether IRCC will request a PCC from Singapore or how the particular circumstances for obtaining one from Singapore will affect the procedure if IRCC does make that request. Situation is particular enough to individuals there have been few anecdotal reports, let alone reliable ones, illuminating much about this.
While the anecdotal reporting related to this is too sporadic to make firm inferences, it appears to me that IRCC has been making the later request for a PCC more often than it did in the past.
Some clarification is needed however.
In particular, I am not sure what "
requirement" you are asking about, just as I do not know for sure what ""
requirement"
@CaBeaver is referring to here:
It appears to me that both of you are confusing what is required to make a complete application for citizenship with what IRCC can request later in processing an application that has passed the completeness screening. The only specific requirement regarding PCCs for a citizenship application is that to make a complete application applicants must disclose whether they were in another country for 183 days or more in a row during the four years preceding the application, and if they were (thus they check "yes" in response to question 10.b. (looking at CIT 0002 10-2020 version), the applicant is required to list the country, identify whether a PCC is submitted, and if a PCC is not being submitted to explain why not.
Thus,
@ybjianada, if you checked yes for 10.b. and listed Singapore, checked "no" in regards to submitting a PCC, and included an explanation for this in the chart, you met the requirements for making a complete application.
There is thus NO requirement for you to submit a PCC . . .
UNLESS IRCC specifically requests one. As I discuss above, the OP's report is unusual and signals the likelihood that IRCC has incorporated screening for this particular circumstance, resulting in a request for a PCC sooner rather than later. But because the OP stated an explanation, even though invalid that was enough to make it a complete application.
Once The Application Is In Process . . . the *
REQUIREMENT* at stake is whether there are any criminal charges or convictions in the other country that would constitute a prohibition, and what IRCC might request as proof. The *REQUIREMENT* is to have no charges or convictions for an indictable offence within the four years preceding the application. Whether or not IRCC will require the applicant to provide further proof of no prohibitions during processing, such as a PCC, is a local office processing decision.
Actually no request for a PCC might not be good news. IRCC can alternatively make an overseas referral to investigate the applicant's background in the other country, and if that happens, to verify the applicant has no prohibitions arising from charges in that country, that can actually delay processing longer, and potentially a lot longer, than going through the process of obtaining a PCC.
