Confused. Work History in the SIX years or since you became a PR
- Thread starter saran236
- Start date
Lol. I made a mistake.
I was in a rush to finish my application because of a travel and I put more addresses than necessary. I didn't read it correctly.
I became PR in March 2013 (I came to Canada with this status) and I did write 2 lines with addresses from another country before my PR status.
I think my application will return to me.
I was in a rush to finish my application because of a travel and I put more addresses than necessary. I didn't read it correctly.
I became PR in March 2013 (I came to Canada with this status) and I did write 2 lines with addresses from another country before my PR status.
I think my application will return to me.
it will not be returned..my friend did the same thing...just that in interview case officer asked him about previous addresses and what he was doing during that period..
It is advisable (but not necessary) to give more information than insufficient one. If you have doubt at any question provide more information and details. providing less information than they asked for can return your application back or delay your application processing time
The OP's query here has been accurately and adequately answered by capermanet and argrow, and affirmed by decentreader.
But in the meantime the topic was essentially hijacked by posts insistently advocating misleading and in some crucial respects overtly erroneous information.
So I am offering my typical much longer explanation, foremost to corroborate that capermanet and argrow got this right. Secondly, to highlight a warranted caution about patterns of misleading distraction which, as it initially did the OP, tends to create confusion. But in this lurks the greater danger of potentially influencing someone to make a serious error, so that aspect demands attention and correction.
Here, relative to the OP's query itself, the risk of serious error was minimal. For example, if an applicant who landed less than six years ago provides address and work history for a full six years, rather than just since becoming a PR, such as cfbarroso apparently did, NO harm done. More information than that requested or required should not be problematic. Best to follow the instructions and provide what is requested. But this sort of mistake is easy enough to make, it does not undermine the applicant's qualifications, it does not render the application incomplete. No harm, no foul.
Nonetheless, and unfortunately, the misleading posts here also contained overtly erroneous information which potentially could seriously undermine an individual's application . . . if someone was to rely on the misinformation. I do not mean to go chasing every misleading tangent down the rabbit-hole of misinformation and distraction. One example should suffice. I will get to that in Part II of these observations. Suffice it to say, for now, prospective applicants should remember to carefully follow the instructions rather than what is posted in this forum, and thus, in particular, IGNORE posts above which repeatedly emphasize that the applicant only needs to provide Canadian address and work history.
The applicant must declare ALL address and work history, including in-Canada AND out-of-Canada addresses and employment during the relevant time period.
PART I; the relevant time period:
And capermanet provided a clear and accurate response. But in the meantime your query was hijacked by misinformation:
-- the six years before the date the application is made, or
-- since the applicant became a permanent resident
For address history and likewise work history, both the application form and the instruction guide clearly state that the "relevant period" is based on which of these periods of time "is more recent."
Thus, for a PR applying for citizenship who became a PR less than (more recently than) six years ago, he or she needs to enter address and work history since becoming a Permanent Resident.
As capermanet further pointed out, this is consistent with the current qualifications for citizenship, since only time in Canada as a PR counts toward meeting the presence requirements.
To be clear, the following quotes the language used to identify the "relevant period" in the application form itself, referring in item 6.G. to address history, and in item 6.H.(C) to work and education history, with emphasis added:
". . . for the six (6) years before the date of your application or since you became a permanent resident, whichever is more recent"
The instruction guide language is a little less direct but is, nonetheless, still clear and unambiguous. And again, capermanet gets it right on both accounts.
Presence calculation:
For anyone still in doubt, try entering dates in the online presence calculator which are prior to the date you became a PR. Either an error message or caution will pop up (assuming the correct information for date of becoming a PR is entered) because you are entering dates outside the relevant time period.
This is different from how it worked for applications made prior to June 11, 2015. And it is different than how it will work for applications made after the Bill C-6 change to a 3/5 rule takes effect. Under both of these, time in Canada prior to being a PR can be part of the relevant time period.
Note, for example, that prior to Bill C-24 changes, the applicant was asked to declare the date the applicant first came to live in Canada IF this was prior to becoming a PR. The applicant then declared address and work history back to the date the applicant came to Canada to live, again if that was prior to becoming a PR.
After Bill C-6 changes take effect, so that pre-PR time again gets credit, both the application form and the presence calculation will most likely again ask the applicant to declare when he or she first came to live in Canada, and likewise, then, ask for corresponding address and work history.
An overriding observation: in general an applicant will rarely go off course (at least not by much) if the applicant makes a concerted effort to read and understand what the application asks for in context with following the instructions in the guide.
Indeed, one of my most common refrains is: If in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, yep, follow the instructions.
There is rarely any need to second-guess why IRCC is requesting this or that information. Many times there are multiple reasons for requesting this or that information, and ultimately why IRCC wants the information does not matter nearly so much as what it is IRCC is asking.
From a bureaucrat's perspective, the main thing is, first, whether or not the information the applicant provided is responsive, that is, is it an appropriate answer for what is requested. And secondly, is the content of the information provided credible/reliable, which is asking if the content provided is honest, accurate, and complete.
Follow the instructions, be as honest and accurate as possible, and as complete as possible relative to what is requested. If the legitimate, qualified applicant does that, the odds are good there will be no problem, and if there is a problem, having done that will put the applicant in the best position possible for navigating whatever problem there is.
But in the meantime the topic was essentially hijacked by posts insistently advocating misleading and in some crucial respects overtly erroneous information.
So I am offering my typical much longer explanation, foremost to corroborate that capermanet and argrow got this right. Secondly, to highlight a warranted caution about patterns of misleading distraction which, as it initially did the OP, tends to create confusion. But in this lurks the greater danger of potentially influencing someone to make a serious error, so that aspect demands attention and correction.
Here, relative to the OP's query itself, the risk of serious error was minimal. For example, if an applicant who landed less than six years ago provides address and work history for a full six years, rather than just since becoming a PR, such as cfbarroso apparently did, NO harm done. More information than that requested or required should not be problematic. Best to follow the instructions and provide what is requested. But this sort of mistake is easy enough to make, it does not undermine the applicant's qualifications, it does not render the application incomplete. No harm, no foul.
Nonetheless, and unfortunately, the misleading posts here also contained overtly erroneous information which potentially could seriously undermine an individual's application . . . if someone was to rely on the misinformation. I do not mean to go chasing every misleading tangent down the rabbit-hole of misinformation and distraction. One example should suffice. I will get to that in Part II of these observations. Suffice it to say, for now, prospective applicants should remember to carefully follow the instructions rather than what is posted in this forum, and thus, in particular, IGNORE posts above which repeatedly emphasize that the applicant only needs to provide Canadian address and work history.
The applicant must declare ALL address and work history, including in-Canada AND out-of-Canada addresses and employment during the relevant time period.
PART I; the relevant time period:
Under current requirements, It is correct that you do NOT need to report work history or address history for any time PRIOR to the date of landing and becoming a PR.
Not really. Not much anyway. Sure, many such as yourself can be a little hesitant and your question makes sense, you want to get it right. So you seek confirmation.
And capermanet provided a clear and accurate response. But in the meantime your query was hijacked by misinformation:
Another participant similarly provided a straight-forward and ACCURATE response:
These posts were accurate and to the point. Easy because what is requested is clear on the face of the application and in the instructions. Despite the disjunctive in the instructions, the instructions and item in the application are not ambiguous. As capermanet quite clearly stated, merely emphasizing the language used in the form (which is the same used in the instruction guide), the "relevant period" is either:
-- the six years before the date the application is made, or
-- since the applicant became a permanent resident
For address history and likewise work history, both the application form and the instruction guide clearly state that the "relevant period" is based on which of these periods of time "is more recent."
Thus, for a PR applying for citizenship who became a PR less than (more recently than) six years ago, he or she needs to enter address and work history since becoming a Permanent Resident.
As capermanet further pointed out, this is consistent with the current qualifications for citizenship, since only time in Canada as a PR counts toward meeting the presence requirements.
To be clear, the following quotes the language used to identify the "relevant period" in the application form itself, referring in item 6.G. to address history, and in item 6.H.(C) to work and education history, with emphasis added:
". . . for the six (6) years before the date of your application or since you became a permanent resident, whichever is more recent"
The instruction guide language is a little less direct but is, nonetheless, still clear and unambiguous. And again, capermanet gets it right on both accounts.
Presence calculation:
For anyone still in doubt, try entering dates in the online presence calculator which are prior to the date you became a PR. Either an error message or caution will pop up (assuming the correct information for date of becoming a PR is entered) because you are entering dates outside the relevant time period.
This is different from how it worked for applications made prior to June 11, 2015. And it is different than how it will work for applications made after the Bill C-6 change to a 3/5 rule takes effect. Under both of these, time in Canada prior to being a PR can be part of the relevant time period.
Note, for example, that prior to Bill C-24 changes, the applicant was asked to declare the date the applicant first came to live in Canada IF this was prior to becoming a PR. The applicant then declared address and work history back to the date the applicant came to Canada to live, again if that was prior to becoming a PR.
After Bill C-6 changes take effect, so that pre-PR time again gets credit, both the application form and the presence calculation will most likely again ask the applicant to declare when he or she first came to live in Canada, and likewise, then, ask for corresponding address and work history.
An overriding observation: in general an applicant will rarely go off course (at least not by much) if the applicant makes a concerted effort to read and understand what the application asks for in context with following the instructions in the guide.
Indeed, one of my most common refrains is: If in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, yep, follow the instructions.
There is rarely any need to second-guess why IRCC is requesting this or that information. Many times there are multiple reasons for requesting this or that information, and ultimately why IRCC wants the information does not matter nearly so much as what it is IRCC is asking.
From a bureaucrat's perspective, the main thing is, first, whether or not the information the applicant provided is responsive, that is, is it an appropriate answer for what is requested. And secondly, is the content of the information provided credible/reliable, which is asking if the content provided is honest, accurate, and complete.
Follow the instructions, be as honest and accurate as possible, and as complete as possible relative to what is requested. If the legitimate, qualified applicant does that, the odds are good there will be no problem, and if there is a problem, having done that will put the applicant in the best position possible for navigating whatever problem there is.
PART II; the misleading and erroneous distractions:
A person should approach any and all information posted in a forum like this cautiously, employing careful and critical thinking skills. Yes, that includes anything I have posted. (While I make a concerted effort to at least refer to sources, and for more in-depth analysis citing and linking them, and illuminate detailed reasoning, in an effort to give readers enough to weigh the information better on its face without relying on who is posting it, nonetheless it is important to recognize no one here is an expert, and I certainly am no expert.)
But occasionally a forum like this can suffer a surge or invasion of less reliable information, and sometimes outright misinformation. No need to second guess whether the motive is malicious or merely overzealous narcissism or some other pathology. It happens. Some posts are not merely erroneous, but are part of a pattern of misleading distraction and even overt misinformation.
Thus, while no one posting here should be considered an expert or an authority (and I certainly am NOT an expert or an authority), prudence warrants taking into consideration broad context and to some extent the source. I work hard, for example, to avoid mistakes upfront and to correct mistakes when I learn of them. That does not make me a reliable authority, but it is a factor to consider. Indications to the contrary, from any particular source, likewise but in the other direction.
I mention this because the query here unfortunately invited more than a little misleading and tangential information, including some which has been outright misinformation.
As I already referenced and discussed above, some posts above are accurate and to the point, good responses. And more succinct than I dream of being. But those suffered distraction and opposition, expressed rather adamantly if not overtly disruptive. With some potential for influencing a prospective applicant to make a very serious mistake.
As I previously indicated, I do not mean to go into all that has been misleading here. Again, as noted, the posts by capermanet sufficed to answer the query posed, and thus there is no need to go chasing other tangents down the rabbit-hole of misinformation and distraction.
But one salient bit of misinformation demands attention and correction:
"They want to know your history in Canada for last 6 years thats all.."
WRONG. Simply wrong. And misleading.
In many other contexts this could be overlooked, the "in Canada" aspect easily glossed over, simply ignored.
But the source of this also repeatedly stated that the applicant must include "last 6 years Canadian addresses" without any mention or reference to address history outside Canada, or work history outside Canada.
So, first and foremost, it needs to be made clear that the applicant is required to declare all addresses and all work history during the relevant period, and that includes addresses lived in abroad, and that includes any and all employment abroad, during that relevant period.
In this regard, address history itself does not loom so problematically since the applicant must declare all time abroad (during the relevant time period of course) in the presence calculation. Gaps, inconsistencies, and even incongruities will be readily apparent, but more importantly so long as the applicant has truthfully declared absences, time abroad is not concealed.
That's the big threshold, whether the applicant's response conceals material information. This includes by omission. To get caught crossing that threshold will not bode well, not at all. It could be enough, depending on the circumstances, to sabotage the application altogether.
Obviously, if the prospective applicant is abroad for more than a month at a time, that suggests residing abroad, as in having an address abroad, which should be disclosed. But circumstances and purposes vary greatly, so how an individual applicant approaches this information can vary greatly. It is up to the individual to provide accurate and complete information without omitting or concealing any material information, and in the vagaries of real life, what that means, how it applies to this or that particular situation, is for the individual to determine based on his or her own best judgment, judgment about what the facts are, and judgment about what the instructions call for, and judgment about what constitutes his or her best, honest, truthful, and responsive answer.
Thus, foremost, it is important for an applicant to read and understand the instructions and do his or her best to follow the instructions.
Doing that will work best for almost all aspects of making the application.
Again, one of my most common refrains is: If in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, yep, follow the instructions.
But a failure to disclose work history abroad looms more ominiously.
The application form actually provides more specific instruction for this than the instruction guide. The application form specifically informs the applicant to include work and education history inside and outside Canada, in the relevant time period of course.
Historically an applicant's omission of employment abroad, if caught, tends to have a very negative impact. It undermines the applicant's credibility. It is a big risk indicator of undisclosed absences. It has been correlated with residency-fraud schemes.
It appears that the source of this misinformation, that what the applicant needs to provide is Canadian history, may have been extrapolating or second-guessing why this information is requested. That's often a mistake. Always better to read and follow the instructions, as verbatim as practical, as completely as feasible, as best the individual can understand and apply them to his or her own facts and situations.
In any event, for the relevant period the applicant needs to honestly, accurately, and completely disclose all addresses and all work and education, including any address, work, or education program abroad during the relevant time period.
In the meantime, be cautious about what is posted here and foremost do your best to follow the instructions as best you understand them and as best you can apply them to your personal circumstances.
A person should approach any and all information posted in a forum like this cautiously, employing careful and critical thinking skills. Yes, that includes anything I have posted. (While I make a concerted effort to at least refer to sources, and for more in-depth analysis citing and linking them, and illuminate detailed reasoning, in an effort to give readers enough to weigh the information better on its face without relying on who is posting it, nonetheless it is important to recognize no one here is an expert, and I certainly am no expert.)
But occasionally a forum like this can suffer a surge or invasion of less reliable information, and sometimes outright misinformation. No need to second guess whether the motive is malicious or merely overzealous narcissism or some other pathology. It happens. Some posts are not merely erroneous, but are part of a pattern of misleading distraction and even overt misinformation.
Thus, while no one posting here should be considered an expert or an authority (and I certainly am NOT an expert or an authority), prudence warrants taking into consideration broad context and to some extent the source. I work hard, for example, to avoid mistakes upfront and to correct mistakes when I learn of them. That does not make me a reliable authority, but it is a factor to consider. Indications to the contrary, from any particular source, likewise but in the other direction.
I mention this because the query here unfortunately invited more than a little misleading and tangential information, including some which has been outright misinformation.
As I already referenced and discussed above, some posts above are accurate and to the point, good responses. And more succinct than I dream of being. But those suffered distraction and opposition, expressed rather adamantly if not overtly disruptive. With some potential for influencing a prospective applicant to make a very serious mistake.
As I previously indicated, I do not mean to go into all that has been misleading here. Again, as noted, the posts by capermanet sufficed to answer the query posed, and thus there is no need to go chasing other tangents down the rabbit-hole of misinformation and distraction.
But one salient bit of misinformation demands attention and correction:
"They want to know your history in Canada for last 6 years thats all.."
WRONG. Simply wrong. And misleading.
In many other contexts this could be overlooked, the "in Canada" aspect easily glossed over, simply ignored.
But the source of this also repeatedly stated that the applicant must include "last 6 years Canadian addresses" without any mention or reference to address history outside Canada, or work history outside Canada.
So, first and foremost, it needs to be made clear that the applicant is required to declare all addresses and all work history during the relevant period, and that includes addresses lived in abroad, and that includes any and all employment abroad, during that relevant period.
In this regard, address history itself does not loom so problematically since the applicant must declare all time abroad (during the relevant time period of course) in the presence calculation. Gaps, inconsistencies, and even incongruities will be readily apparent, but more importantly so long as the applicant has truthfully declared absences, time abroad is not concealed.
That's the big threshold, whether the applicant's response conceals material information. This includes by omission. To get caught crossing that threshold will not bode well, not at all. It could be enough, depending on the circumstances, to sabotage the application altogether.
Obviously, if the prospective applicant is abroad for more than a month at a time, that suggests residing abroad, as in having an address abroad, which should be disclosed. But circumstances and purposes vary greatly, so how an individual applicant approaches this information can vary greatly. It is up to the individual to provide accurate and complete information without omitting or concealing any material information, and in the vagaries of real life, what that means, how it applies to this or that particular situation, is for the individual to determine based on his or her own best judgment, judgment about what the facts are, and judgment about what the instructions call for, and judgment about what constitutes his or her best, honest, truthful, and responsive answer.
Thus, foremost, it is important for an applicant to read and understand the instructions and do his or her best to follow the instructions.
Doing that will work best for almost all aspects of making the application.
Again, one of my most common refrains is: If in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, yep, follow the instructions.
But a failure to disclose work history abroad looms more ominiously.
The application form actually provides more specific instruction for this than the instruction guide. The application form specifically informs the applicant to include work and education history inside and outside Canada, in the relevant time period of course.
Historically an applicant's omission of employment abroad, if caught, tends to have a very negative impact. It undermines the applicant's credibility. It is a big risk indicator of undisclosed absences. It has been correlated with residency-fraud schemes.
It appears that the source of this misinformation, that what the applicant needs to provide is Canadian history, may have been extrapolating or second-guessing why this information is requested. That's often a mistake. Always better to read and follow the instructions, as verbatim as practical, as completely as feasible, as best the individual can understand and apply them to his or her own facts and situations.
In any event, for the relevant period the applicant needs to honestly, accurately, and completely disclose all addresses and all work and education, including any address, work, or education program abroad during the relevant time period.
In the meantime, be cautious about what is posted here and foremost do your best to follow the instructions as best you understand them and as best you can apply them to your personal circumstances.
LOL. Amazing comments. Your unnecessary, long and irrelevant posts don't mean nothing. Really surprised. This is an open forum and people are dedicating with whatever info they have. No one is absolute genius here and one can be wrong at times like yourself. I don't want to pull up many of your last posts where you misleaded people and provided wrong info without even apologising later. I do remember seriously and I don't want to go into that. Many people don't like your useless stuff and they have clearly opined that by openly saying and disliking your posts. I don't want to pull that up that either.
And if you have even a 0.1% common sense and humanity, I clearly wrote in the end that let this person call CIC or let other people comment here and nobody except you said that I hijacked any thing. See your mentality. This is only you who is hijacking this forum all the times and your posts are a mess and I have repeatedly said and I will keep saying that avoid unnecessary, long and irrelevant stuff. You seem to feel proud of what you are doing but you do not understand for a second that you create such a mess here and waste people'e time. One has to spend atleat 30 minutes or so to pick and find the relevant answer from your posts and by the time one reaches that, one gets fed up. By the way positive criticism and feedback is always allowed and it helps people change their attitudes and rectify their mistakes but you do not hear for a second and take it personally by posting inflammatory comments.
You are no God father of this forum as you think you are the one with your unnecessary, long and useless posts,. Just stay normal and behave like any one else do. If you have even 0.1% brain you will listen and understand what I am saying.
Last edited:
Don't attack someone else because you don't like being told you are wrong. You provided incorrect information, which is pretty much the worst thing a person can do on this forum.
You misunderstood the question let it go now! (misunderstanding could happen to anyone). Don't attack other people with your mistakes!
I already said that any one can make mistake and I also said that let him call CIC or let other people comment. Read his post he said about hjacking..,I am not the one attacking any one..he is the one if you read it correctly...Personal targeting of some one is not right..
I did not attack any one. He is the one who made personal comments about me. Read his hijacking comments. And I already said no one is absolute genius here and I also said he can call CIC or let other people comment here. No one has the right to undermine any one..
You did attack. The poster did not hijack the thread or make any personal comments about you. Pointing out that you were wrong is not an attack, nor is it undermining you.
You were wrong and you were corrected. Learn from your mistake and move on.
Yes you did attack. As others have already pointed out you have repeatedly given wrong information and insisted on it even though many people tried to correct you using various reliable sources. It is not an attack if people correct you (even if they have to do it over and over again because you seem ignorant to being corrected), it is however an attack if you go "ad hominem" as you did with dpenabill. He was right but you felt the need to pointlessly attack him and his writing style.
Also, you should think twice before thinking you can judge the situation better than someone who has 12,000 posts when you have 300.
lol..He passed in appropriate comments first.i have quoted his post..look carefully....i already said he said about hijacking the thread....any body can understand who he/she is referring to...People should respect others first. You should treat others like the way you want to be treated by yourself.
and this person and others have made mistakes too. i already mentioned no one is super genius here. any one can make mistakes but saying that hijacking and stuff like that is not acceptable. Do not underestimate the efforts of others.
Last edited: