Caution: anyone involved in criminal charges, including withdrawn or otherwise discharged criminal offences if serious (like murder), would be wise to hire a lawyer, at the least for personal advice, before proceeding to make an application for citizenship.
This discussion is NO substitute for getting qualified legal counsel.
Your overall point is well-taken. And, in particular, in regards to the assertion by
@Ryan4 that even if an applicant has been charged with murder, if there is a total discharge/dismissal of the charges there is no need to refer to it or include a LOE. Far better to in some way reference this and the fact it has been fully resolved (withdrawn, dismissed, discharged), in a LOE or otherwise. Will address this more below.
For clarity . . .
Question 16.3 in the citizenship application does specifically ask "
Are you now charged" . . .
Clearly, contrary to the assertion that the citizenship application "
only asks if you were CONVICTED," it is NOT correct that the application
ONLY asks about criminal charges for which there is a conviction.
I now understand that
@Ryan4 meant to
exclusively refer to a fully resolved charge in the past tense when stating
there is (typo corrected) "
no question asking if you were charged." I do not agree that was at all clear, especially given the juxtaposition with the statement that the application
ONLY asks if the applicant was convicted.
In particular, if a month or six months before making a citizenship application, an applicant was (past tense) charged with an indictable offence (including hybrid offences which might be prosecuted summarily rather than by indictment), it is absolutely NOT true the application ONLY asks if the applicant was convicted (since, after all, pending charges for sure must be disclosed).
Apart from disagreeing with the characterization by
@Ryan4 of my clarification for
@jeahpalumar05 (who queried about the "
same situation" as the OP, recognizing it is never actually the
same situation, there always being some differences no matter how similar), what is important for those dealing with criminal charges to understand is
the imperative to disclose pending charges as well as convictions.
So long as a criminal charge is fully discharged (whether withdrawn, dismissed, or otherwise conclusively discharged), there is no charge pending. It would be correct, in regards to this, to answer [No] in response to question 16.3. in the citizenship application.
But make no mistake, if there was a charge made, that is almost certain to pop up in background screening attendant the application for citizenship. This would very likely trigger non-routine processing to verify there are no prohibitions.
As I stated (in the post you take offense about, the entirety of what was addressed to the OP's query, the rest of that post being in response to the query by
@jeahpalumar05):
But let's be clear, whether to include a LOE is not a question of fact. It is a judgment call, a personal decision. It may be entirely unnecessary. It may actually not make much difference. As long as the applicant has truthfully answered the questions in the application, without deceit, without being misleading, that meets the applicant's obligations to provide honest, accurate, and complete information. Whether a particular applicant should additionally include some additional information or explanation is their personal choice, typically depending on whether they think the additional information or explanation will clarify something that might cause problems or otherwise help IRCC more efficiently process the application.
For most applicants, "
problems" include non-routine processing that leads to significant delays in finalizing the application and taking the oath. Of course problems that can affect the outcome (cause the application to be denied) are more important, but for many applicants (probably most), it is important to proceed in a way that will minimize the risks of non-routine processing, minimize the risk of delays in getting to take the oath.
Here's the thing about providing information in a citizenship application:
-- if it will hurt, cause problems, odds are very high the applicant is obligated to disclose that information
-- if it should not be a problem, odds are very high that disclosing it will not cause a problem
In the context of matters arising in relation to criminal charges, what this means is that disclosing information (or an explanation) about a criminal case that does not amount to a prohibition will NOT cause any more of a problem than the case would otherwise cause.
If there is a final disposition in the criminal matter that does not constitute a prohibition, it will not affect the individual's eligibility. If, however, the criminal matter does constitute a prohibition, IRCC is almost certain to learn of it (whether the applicant discloses it or not) and process the application accordingly.
If there has been an arrest (let alone formal charges actually presented in court), the fact the individual has been charged will almost certainly be known to IRCC, and again this will be whether or not the applicant is forthcoming in disclosing it. IRCC typically requests fingerprints in these scenarios and depending on what RCMP records show, also requests certified copies of the court record showing the final disposition of the charges. There is NO harm disclosing the charges to IRCC upfront with an explanation that the charges have been withdrawn (or dismissed or otherwise fully discharged as if never charged). Upfront disclosure in the application may reduce or perhaps even avoid non-routine processing to verify there is no prohibition.
As cautioned above, and it is an easy call to make especially for someone who has been charged with murder (even if totally withdrawn), best to get paid for advice from a lawyer before proceeding with making the citizenship application.
