What to put in the form when "the truth" conflicts with "the official document"?

[thirdcup]

I've been helping a friend fill out PR forms. I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about immigration laws, but I find him in a very interesting dilemma caused by some inaccuracies in his official documents. Specifically:

(a) He was born in City A, but all of his official documents (passport, national ID, notarized birth certificate, etc.) show that his place of birth is City B.
(b) He has a previous name, but he changed it when he was young and none of his official documents can help prove this name.

So, when he fills out the immigration forms, should he list his actual place of birth or his documented place of birth? Should he disclose his previous name or not?

If he discloses everything truthfully, then he will have no evidences or other recourses when the IRCC asks him to explain and prove why the official document doesn't match what he said. Which I think if isn't handle well, could lead to accusations of misrepresentation that's hard to clear. If he put everything as it appears in the official documents, it's actual misrepresentation.

None of us knows what to do.

P.S. All this is partly because he was born in the early days when the country he lives in didn't have a robust system of validating resident registration. So a lot of false information was stored and eventually became his "legal identity". He have been using these all the time and there haven't been any trouble. I don't think such scenarios are uncommmon, so a genuine question - what's the best practice in such cases?

 

[forevermore76]

I've been helping a friend fill out PR forms. I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about immigration laws, but I find him in a very interesting dilemma caused by some inaccuracies in his official documents. Specifically:

(a) He was born in City A, but all of his official documents (passport, national ID, notarized birth certificate, etc.) show that his place of birth is City B.
(b) He has a previous name, but he changed it when he was young and none of his official documents can help prove this name.

So, when he fills out the immigration forms, should he list his actual place of birth or his documented place of birth? Should he disclose his previous name or not?

If he discloses everything truthfully, then he will have no evidences or other recourses when the IRCC asks him to explain and prove why the official document doesn't match what he said. Which I think if isn't handle well, could lead to accusations of misrepresentation that's hard to clear. If he put everything as it appears in the official documents, it's actual misrepresentation.

None of us knows what to do.

P.S. All this is partly because he was born in the early days when the country he lives in didn't have a robust system of validating resident registration. So a lot of false information was stored and eventually became his "legal identity". He have been using these all the time and there haven't been any trouble. I don't think such scenarios are uncommmon, so a genuine question - what's the best practice in such cases?

It's probably best to use what shows in birth certificate and other official documents. Unless the documents are fraudulent, they shouldn't really have anything to worry about as they are not really misrepresenting anything.

 

[armoured]

P.S. All this is partly because he was born in the early days when the country he lives in didn't have a robust system of validating resident registration. So a lot of false information was stored and eventually became his "legal identity". He have been using these all the time and there haven't been any trouble. I don't think such scenarios are uncommmon, so a genuine question - what's the best practice in such cases?

It might help to specify the country as that is relevant here; IRCC is not unaware of the issues in lots of countries.

In my view while not critical:
1) For the name, there is a space for 'other names' used - just disclose that other name there and short letter of explanation that he was known as 'XXX YYY' when young but this was not used anywhere officially.
2) For the place of birth, I see no harm in disclosing the other place (letter of explanation, keep it brief). That said, not particularly relevant in this specific case.

Again, I don't see any risk of disclosing both of these, and (from the sounds of it) possibly more or less expected for the time period for this country.