Police certificate for c-6
- Thread starter rdecartus
- Start date
FBI is taking 3 months to issue certificate....excluding mailing times.
Mine might come by Nov 1st. So, I don't think i will get mine before they start taking applications as I assume they will implement before Nov.
If you need from FBI, apply ASAP. They are slow.
Mine might come by Nov 1st. So, I don't think i will get mine before they start taking applications as I assume they will implement before Nov.
If you need from FBI, apply ASAP. They are slow.
Mine is not from the U.S., and I still hoping that 4 years for police certificate are NOT based on full calendar years.FBI is taking 3 months to issue certificate....excluding mailing times.
Mine might come by Nov 1st. So, I don't think i will get mine before they start taking applications as I assume they will implement before Nov.
If you need from FBI, apply ASAP. They are slow.
Short answer: the relevant four years are those preceding the date the application is signed. For application signed November 1, 2017, the relevant four years, then, are from November 1, 2013 to October 30, 2017.Could you please clarify what does "4 years immediately before the date of your application" mean, in terms of police certificate. Does it mean that I need to calculate 365 x 4 days back, and these 4 years would be the relevant period, or these 4 years are calendar years?
Here is my case: I arrived as PR on 1 February 2014, and planning to apply for citizenship when C-6 is implemented, lets say 01 November 2017. If I calculate "immediate" 4 years before my application, it would be year 4 - from November 2017- to November 2016, year 3 - Nov 2016 - Nov 2015, year 2 -Nov-2015 - Nov 2014, year 1 - Nov. 2014- Nov 2013 - No need to provide police certificate, because I leaved in my home country November, December 2013 and January 2014 - 3 months. At the same time, I spent the whole 2013 in my home country, and if we take four CALENDAR years before the application, i.e. 2013-2017, the police certificate is obviously required.
This could change at any time. But there is no reason to anticipate it will change.
Explanation: In particular, the current instructions refer to the four years preceding the date of application. For an application made November 1, 2017, the applicant should check "yes," to the item asking about presence in another country, if the applicant was present in a particular other country for 183 or more days between November 1, 2013 and October 30, 2017.
This should be the same after the Bill C-6 3/5 rules take effect. The reason it should remain the same is that this item is about potential prohibitions for criminal convictions or charges in other countries within the four years preceding the application (or while the application is in process, anytime up to the date the applicant takes the oath). There are no changes to these prohibitions due to Bill C-6 and there are no proposed changes in pending legislation.
But the cutoff at six months is administrative. The government could change this any time, with or without warning. It could change this concurrent with making other changes due to Bill C-6, or apart from any other changes. The government could decrease the number of days, for example, to 90 total days in the relevant four years, or limit the requirement to those who were in the other country at least 60 or 90 days consecutively and a total of 183 or 100 or 250 days . . . whatever IRCC administratively decides should trigger an affirmative requirement to support the application with documentation showing no convictions or charges in a country where the applicant has spent some time in the preceding four years.
Reminder: always use the current forms at the IRCC website. An applicant should always check the current forms the day the application is being sent off to make sure the applicant is submitting the correct, current form.
Some procedural observations:
Date the applicant became a PR is not relevant, so this is not just since the applicant became a PR. The prohibition period of time is specifically four years. This is statutory (in contrast to the police certificate requirement, which is merely administrative).
The applicant's obligation is, first, to declare whether or not (check yes or no) the applicant spent a total of 183 or more days in a country during the preceding four years.
If the applicant checks "yes" then the applicant must either --
-- provide a police certificate from such country, or
-- provide an explanation (in the box provided) why a police certificate cannot be submitted with the application
If the applicant checks "yes" but does not include a police certificate and does not provide an explanation for that, the application will be returned to the applicant as incomplete.
There is no indication that the completeness check will compare the travel declarations in the presence calculation, so if the applicant checks "no" despite having been in some other country 183 or more days within the preceding four years, the application should pass the completeness check. Obviously, however, the discrepancy will almost certainly be noticed during local office processing, at the time of the interview at the least.
Some forum participants have reported that in this circumstance, where they checked "no" even though they should have checked "yes," they were later required to obtain and submit police certificates. Those individuals mistakenly checked "no," due to misunderstanding the instructions. Obviously, checking "no" when, on the contrary, the applicant had been in another country 183 days or more, could be deemed to be a material misrepresentation with potentially severe consequences (the least of which would be the summary denial of the application).
I do not know whether the completeness check will evaluate the explanation if the applicant checks yes, does not include a police certificate, and states an explanation. My guess is not, that virtually any explanation will get the application pass the completeness check. Here too, again, however, the explanation will almost certainly be evaluated during local office processing.
Thank you so much for the explanation.Short answer: the relevant four years are those preceding the date the application is signed. For application signed November 1, 2017, the relevant four years, then, are from November 1, 2013 to October 30, 2017.
This could change at any time. But there is no reason to anticipate it will change.
Explanation: In particular, the current instructions refer to the four years preceding the date of application. For an application made November 1, 2017, the applicant should check "yes," to the item asking about presence in another country, if the applicant was present in a particular other country for 183 or more days between November 1, 2013 and October 30, 2017.
This should be the same after the Bill C-6 3/5 rules take effect. The reason it should remain the same is that this item is about potential prohibitions for criminal convictions or charges in other countries within the four years preceding the application (or while the application is in process, anytime up to the date the applicant takes the oath). There are no changes to these prohibitions due to Bill C-6 and there are no proposed changes in pending legislation.
But the cutoff at six months is administrative. The government could change this any time, with or without warning. It could change this concurrent with making other changes due to Bill C-6, or apart from any other changes. The government could decrease the number of days, for example, to 90 total days in the relevant four years, or limit the requirement to those who were in the other country at least 60 or 90 days consecutively and a total of 183 or 100 or 250 days . . . whatever IRCC administratively decides should trigger an affirmative requirement to support the application with documentation showing no convictions or charges in a country where the applicant has spent some time in the preceding four years.
Reminder: always use the current forms at the IRCC website. An applicant should always check the current forms the day the application is being sent off to make sure the applicant is submitting the correct, current form.
Some procedural observations:
Date the applicant became a PR is not relevant, so this is not just since the applicant became a PR. The prohibition period of time is specifically four years. This is statutory (in contrast to the police certificate requirement, which is merely administrative).
The applicant's obligation is, first, to declare whether or not (check yes or no) the applicant spent a total of 183 or more days in a country during the preceding four years.
If the applicant checks "yes" then the applicant must either --
-- provide a police certificate from such country, or
-- provide an explanation (in the box provided) why a police certificate cannot be submitted with the application
If the applicant checks "yes" but does not include a police certificate and does not provide an explanation for that, the application will be returned to the applicant as incomplete.
There is no indication that the completeness check will compare the travel declarations in the presence calculation, so if the applicant checks "no" despite having been in some other country 183 or more days within the preceding four years, the application should pass the completeness check. Obviously, however, the discrepancy will almost certainly be noticed during local office processing, at the time of the interview at the least.
Some forum participants have reported that in this circumstance, where they checked "no" even though they should have checked "yes," they were later required to obtain and submit police certificates. Those individuals mistakenly checked "no," due to misunderstanding the instructions. Obviously, checking "no" when, on the contrary, the applicant had been in another country 183 days or more, could be deemed to be a material misrepresentation with potentially severe consequences (the least of which would be the summary denial of the application).
I do not know whether the completeness check will evaluate the explanation if the applicant checks yes, does not include a police certificate, and states an explanation. My guess is not, that virtually any explanation will get the application pass the completeness check. Here too, again, however, the explanation will almost certainly be evaluated during local office processing.
Short answer: the relevant four years are those preceding the date the application is signed. For application signed November 1, 2017, the relevant four years, then, are from November 1, 2013 to October 30, 2017.
This could change at any time. But there is no reason to anticipate it will change.
Explanation: In particular, the current instructions refer to the four years preceding the date of application. For an application made November 1, 2017, the applicant should check "yes," to the item asking about presence in another country, if the applicant was present in a particular other country for 183 or more days between November 1, 2013 and October 30, 2017.
This should be the same after the Bill C-6 3/5 rules take effect. The reason it should remain the same is that this item is about potential prohibitions for criminal convictions or charges in other countries within the four years preceding the application (or while the application is in process, anytime up to the date the applicant takes the oath). There are no changes to these prohibitions due to Bill C-6 and there are no proposed changes in pending legislation.
But the cutoff at six months is administrative. The government could change this any time, with or without warning. It could change this concurrent with making other changes due to Bill C-6, or apart from any other changes. The government could decrease the number of days, for example, to 90 total days in the relevant four years, or limit the requirement to those who were in the other country at least 60 or 90 days consecutively and a total of 183 or 100 or 250 days . . . whatever IRCC administratively decides should trigger an affirmative requirement to support the application with documentation showing no convictions or charges in a country where the applicant has spent some time in the preceding four years.
Reminder: always use the current forms at the IRCC website. An applicant should always check the current forms the day the application is being sent off to make sure the applicant is submitting the correct, current form.
Some procedural observations:
Date the applicant became a PR is not relevant, so this is not just since the applicant became a PR. The prohibition period of time is specifically four years. This is statutory (in contrast to the police certificate requirement, which is merely administrative).
The applicant's obligation is, first, to declare whether or not (check yes or no) the applicant spent a total of 183 or more days in a country during the preceding four years.
If the applicant checks "yes" then the applicant must either --
-- provide a police certificate from such country, or
-- provide an explanation (in the box provided) why a police certificate cannot be submitted with the application
If the applicant checks "yes" but does not include a police certificate and does not provide an explanation for that, the application will be returned to the applicant as incomplete.
There is no indication that the completeness check will compare the travel declarations in the presence calculation, so if the applicant checks "no" despite having been in some other country 183 or more days within the preceding four years, the application should pass the completeness check. Obviously, however, the discrepancy will almost certainly be noticed during local office processing, at the time of the interview at the least.
Some forum participants have reported that in this circumstance, where they checked "no" even though they should have checked "yes," they were later required to obtain and submit police certificates. Those individuals mistakenly checked "no," due to misunderstanding the instructions. Obviously, checking "no" when, on the contrary, the applicant had been in another country 183 days or more, could be deemed to be a material misrepresentation with potentially severe consequences (the least of which would be the summary denial of the application).
I do not know whether the completeness check will evaluate the explanation if the applicant checks yes, does not include a police certificate, and states an explanation. My guess is not, that virtually any explanation will get the application pass the completeness check. Here too, again, however, the explanation will almost certainly be evaluated during local office processing.
depnabill, or anybody
For "Short answer: the relevant four years are those preceding the date the application is signed. For application signed November 1, 2017, the relevant four years, then, are from November 1, 2013 to October 30, 2017."
What was the relevant xxx years requirement before C-24? Still four years, or was it three?
Prior to Bill C-24 there was no direct prohibition for convictions or charges in countries other than Canada, so no police certificate was required for applications made before Bill C-24 (without revisiting what parts of Bill C-24 took effect when, I do not recall precisely when the prohibition for foreign charges took effect, vaguely recalling it may have been among those provisions which took effect in May of 2015, rather than those which took effect in 2014, but for sure they were in effect as of June 11, 2015).depnabill, or anybody
For "Short answer: the relevant four years are those preceding the date the application is signed. For application signed November 1, 2017, the relevant four years, then, are from November 1, 2013 to October 30, 2017."
What was the relevant xxx years requirement before C-24? Still four years, or was it three?
There were, back then, prohibitions related to potential criminal activity abroad, including activity or involvement in terrorism or organized crime that would constitute grounds for a PR's inadmissibility. But since there was no direct prohibition for offenses abroad that would be indictable offenses if committed in Canada, until Bill C-24, there was no police certificate requirements.
Many appear to be confused by changes to the relevant requisite presence and residency requirements, but the police certificate requirement is clearly related to the four-year time period governing prohibitions for criminal offenses, applicable to offenses in Canada and, since Bill C-24, to offense outside Canada.
Part of the confusion may be rooted in that, as I recall without revisiting prior versions of the statutes prescribing the prohibitions, prior to Bill C-24 the prohibition for offenses in Canada was three years, concurrent with the then applicable three year residency requirement. But applicants were not and still are not required to provide a Canadian police certificate.
Last edited: