For all who Landed as PR (LESS than 5 years ago)

[mithdmaher]

that's what ill do exactly. select yes, and attach a paper of clarifocation for both 9c and 10b questions.

OMG, good thing I'm not the only one. Lol. I was scratching my head since morning because I can't figure it out and was really confusing. It doesn't makes sense at all.

So what I'll do is to tick "Yes" then put a separate sheet explaining why question 9c doesn't apply to me as suggested here (thank you, by the way). As for the PC, I guess it's required then since I lived in the US for more than 183 days during the eligibility period. Is this correct? My eligibility period is from 2012-10-11 to 2017-10-11.

Please advise. Thanks so much!

 

[mithdmaher]

a question please.
Do we leave question number 6 , about names, empty??

 

[dpenabill]

a question please.
Do we leave question number 6 , about names, empty??

There is no consensus regarding this item. My view is "if in doubt, follow the instructions; otherwise, yep, follow the instructions," which in large part is a corollary to the premise that it is best to give a direct answer based on the literal meaning of the question (subject to some exceptions).

Item 6 states "List ALL names that you have used, including name at birth . . . " (emphasis added). The literal meaning of "all names" is clear. My view is that the best way to respond to this item is to indeed list all names ever used, even if there is only one name to list and it is the same as that listed in item 4.

Others have interpreted language in the guide and drop down help to, in effect, interpret "List all names" to mean "List all other names" (at least other than the name already listed in response to item 4).

It may be the case that IRCC prefers that applicants do not repeat, in item 6, the name given in item 4. But obviously it is not wrong to give a full and correct answer to the literal meaning of the question.

My impression is that item 6 is like many other vague, ambiguous, and problematic aspects of the new form (item 9. c is perhaps the most obvious outright problematic item, although there are significant problems with others, such as the utter vagueness of what is expected in the "contact" column in item 11, the lack of an explanation box for item 16, which is also misleading since some things listed may not actually constitute a prohibition, and several other things which are, at the least, confusing). In particular, either item 6 is poorly worded, or the guide instructions and help information are poorly worded. As already noted, it may very well be, for example, that IRCC does not want the applicant to repeat the item 4 name (or a name given in response to item 5 either, for that matter), despite the "List all names" instruction in the form itself.

But for those who have only ever used one name (never used any initials rather than full names for example, never had any nick names or used abbreviated forms of their name), which of course means those who have always used precisely the name given in original documentation of their birth, listing this name in item 6 and checking "Name at birth" in the details column, obviously will NOT cause any problems. At the very worst, it is repeating information already given (in item 4).

The alternative, that proposed by those who interpret the item to mean list all other names, is to put NA.

Another alternative is to write "none," as in no other names have been used.

(By the way, actually neither the help information nor the guide say to exclude or not repeat the name in item 4, and indeed both begin by stating "We need to know all the names you have ever used in your life . . . " and then go on to describe other names that need to be listed.)

 

[Krutika]

a question please.
Do we leave question number 6 , about names, empty??

I had to think about this one as well for about 2 days, until the logic registered .. and hopefully i am thinking in the right direction ..

Basically, if you have never changed your name, and have been using the same one since birth, then select the option of 'Name at birth' and put in your first and last name .. that's all ..so you will have one entry in that table ..
I believe this is the one item that will generally apply to everyone, whether they had a different name at birth or not .. you just have to tell them what you used at birth, even if it never changed .. think if it as a repetition of question 4 b) but with out your middle name ..

The other options of 'Maiden name, Married name, Previously married name, Alias, or Nick name' are simply options that may or may not apply to you ..

 

[jamie hito]

Hello All,

I am starting new thread: for all people who landed as PR less than 5 years ago.

Well, it is very confusing and frustrating. Obviously, CIC misses "Landing date" in their online calculator. If that option was used all misunderstandings would have been avoided as this option would have changed the eligibility period for all people who are in Canada (as PR`s) for less than 5 years. Their eligibility period would start at the date they landed, not before that. How come, for example, I am 4 years in Canada and they ask me if I left Canada in the last 5 years???

So, if they stay with the same online presence calculator WE all need to submit CIT0177E-2 form?That is impossible, but as per question 9c during eligibility period if one has lived outside of Canada, then we need to fill it. Also, when you open the form, the title is Residence outside of Canada as a crown servant or with a crown servant family member? Unbelievable.

So confusing, they immediately need to update their online physical presence calculator. Obviously, CIC missed this.

Any thoughts? Any people in the same situation?

The calculator asked you if you ever been a temp worker, refugee, visitor, or student.

It is implied when you answer no to those questions that you are indeed an immigrant the first time you set foot in the country.

 

[mrfall]

Hey guys
Really I need help I don't understand this point. The calculator said where did you located during 5 years. I landed on may 2014. That mean I have one year and half. For another question about 4 years . What I have to do check yes or no beCuwe I didn't leave Canada after landing. I am confused.

 

[mithdmaher]

Thanks a lot i really appreciate you explanation. chapeau bas.
just you ve mentioned somethig interesting i never had attention ab it, which is the
use of initials or a kind of abbreviatted compact form of our name on non official way.. like on facebook or elese.
do you prefer

There is no consensus regarding this item. My view is "if in doubt, follow the instructions; otherwise, yep, follow the instructions," which in large part is a corollary to the premise that it is best to give a direct answer based on the literal meaning of the question (subject to some exceptions).

Item 6 states "List ALL names that you have used, including name at birth . . . " (emphasis added). The literal meaning of "all names" is clear. My view is that the best way to respond to this item is to indeed list all names ever used, even if there is only one name to list and it is the same as that listed in item 4.

Others have interpreted language in the guide and drop down help to, in effect, interpret "List all names" to mean "List all other names" (at least other than the name already listed in response to item 4).

It may be the case that IRCC prefers that applicants do not repeat, in item 6, the name given in item 4. But obviously it is not wrong to give a full and correct answer to the literal meaning of the question.

My impression is that item 6 is like many other vague, ambiguous, and problematic aspects of the new form (item 9. c is perhaps the most obvious outright problematic item, although there are significant problems with others, such as the utter vagueness of what is expected in the "contact" column in item 11, the lack of an explanation box for item 16, which is also misleading since some things listed may not actually constitute a prohibition, and several other things which are, at the least, confusing). In particular, either item 6 is poorly worded, or the guide instructions and help information are poorly worded. As already noted, it may very well be, for example, that IRCC does not want the applicant to repeat the item 4 name (or a name given in response to item 5 either, for that matter), despite the "List all names" instruction in the form itself.

But for those who have only ever used one name (never used any initials rather than full names for example, never had any nick names or used abbreviated forms of their name), which of course means those who have always used precisely the name given in original documentation of their birth, listing this name in item 6 and checking "Name at birth" in the details column, obviously will NOT cause any problems. At the very worst, it is repeating information already given (in item 4).

The alternative, that proposed by those who interpret the item to mean list all other names, is to put NA.

Another alternative is to write "none," as in no other names have been used.

(By the way, actually neither the help information nor the guide say to exclude or not repeat the name in item 4, and indeed both begin by stating "We need to know all the names you have ever used in your life . . . " and then go on to describe other names that need to be listed.)

 

[Whocares]

There is no consensus regarding this item. My view is "if in doubt, follow the instructions; otherwise, yep, follow the instructions," which in large part is a corollary to the premise that it is best to give a direct answer based on the literal meaning of the question (subject to some exceptions).

Item 6 states "List ALL names that you have used, including name at birth . . . " (emphasis added). The literal meaning of "all names" is clear. My view is that the best way to respond to this item is to indeed list all names ever used, even if there is only one name to list and it is the same as that listed in item 4.

Others have interpreted language in the guide and drop down help to, in effect, interpret "List all names" to mean "List all other names" (at least other than the name already listed in response to item 4).

It may be the case that IRCC prefers that applicants do not repeat, in item 6, the name given in item 4. But obviously it is not wrong to give a full and correct answer to the literal meaning of the question.

My impression is that item 6 is like many other vague, ambiguous, and problematic aspects of the new form (item 9. c is perhaps the most obvious outright problematic item, although there are significant problems with others, such as the utter vagueness of what is expected in the "contact" column in item 11, the lack of an explanation box for item 16, which is also misleading since some things listed may not actually constitute a prohibition, and several other things which are, at the least, confusing). In particular, either item 6 is poorly worded, or the guide instructions and help information are poorly worded. As already noted, it may very well be, for example, that IRCC does not want the applicant to repeat the item 4 name (or a name given in response to item 5 either, for that matter), despite the "List all names" instruction in the form itself.

But for those who have only ever used one name (never used any initials rather than full names for example, never had any nick names or used abbreviated forms of their name), which of course means those who have always used precisely the name given in original documentation of their birth, listing this name in item 6 and checking "Name at birth" in the details column, obviously will NOT cause any problems. At the very worst, it is repeating information already given (in item 4).

The alternative, that proposed by those who interpret the item to mean list all other names, is to put NA.

Another alternative is to write "none," as in no other names have been used.

(By the way, actually neither the help information nor the guide say to exclude or not repeat the name in item 4, and indeed both begin by stating "We need to know all the names you have ever used in your life . . . " and then go on to describe other names that need to be listed.)

It is stated in the help, " If you have ever used any other names other than the one being requested in your grant of citizenship application" , my name was the same since my birth. I need to write nothing.

Please we need your help for the newly created thread Q11

 

[Whocares]

I had to think about this one as well for about 2 days, until the logic registered .. and hopefully i am thinking in the right direction ..

Basically, if you have never changed your name, and have been using the same one since birth, then select the option of 'Name at birth' and put in your first and last name .. that's all ..so you will have one entry in that table ..
I believe this is the one item that will generally apply to everyone, whether they had a different name at birth or not .. you just have to tell them what you used at birth, even if it never changed .. think if it as a repetition of question 4 b) but with out your middle name ..

The other options of 'Maiden name, Married name, Previously married name, Alias, or Nick name' are simply options that may or may not apply to you ..

Some ppl change thier name after birth ( my brother did" if you did not then write nothing. The Help is so clear for Q6

 

[Krutika]

Some ppl change thier name after birth ( my brother did" if you did not then write nothing. The Help is so clear for Q6

Instruction guide says this about question 6) :

"We need to know all the names you have ever used in your life, so we can verify your identity. If you used any other names other than the one being requested in your grant of citizenship application, print them in the chart. Examples: Name at time of birth, name before marriage, previous married names, married names, nick names or any other names you have used. If you have legally changed your name, see Legal Change of Name"

It does not say anything about leaving blank ..

 

[mosaab]

I


The call centre agent said Tick no and explain. I said tick yes and explain. But of course you should listen to the call centre agent. Most importantly, explain it and you will be alright!

I wish that guy didn't tell me tick NO. As u mentioned the most important thing here is to explain more than what your answer will be. For me both answers are right and wrong at the same time.

 

[Whocares]

Instruction guide says this about question 6) :

"We need to know all the names you have ever used in your life, so we can verify your identity. If you used any other names other than the one being requested in your grant of citizenship application, print them in the chart. Examples: Name at time of birth, name before marriage, previous married names, married names, nick names or any other names you have used. If you have legally changed your name, see Legal Change of Name"

It does not say anything about leaving blank ..

N/A. Or none. I wrote na but should be none

 

[Whocares]

I wish that guy didn't tell me tick NO. As u mentioned the most important thing here is to explain more than what your answer will be. For me both answers are right and wrong at the same time.

Mosaab, what question are you referring to.

 

[Whocares]

I wish that guy didn't tell me tick NO. As u mentioned the most important thing here is to explain more than what your answer will be. For me both answers are right and wrong at the same time.

Of course you tick no. Yes isfor crown service.

 

[mosaab]

Mosaab, what question are you referring to.

9c, have your lived out Canada last 5 years!