For all those who sent their applications today oct 11 2017 what mistakes did you make?

[Spouswifey]

exactly same mistake for me :-(

Just read the instructions guide. we both are fine. No need to rewrite the name again. Write only any other names used. In my case, I don't have any other name. So leaving it blank is fine

 

[baba123sai1]

Dumb Question: I am sending multiple application in one envelop, how do you separate them? can we staple each application?

 

[graham1710]

Dumb Question: I am sending multiple application in one envelop, how do you separate them? can we staple each application?

If you really want to separate them, then please just use a paperclip. If the officer that looks at your case likes to have them separated, then great. If they don't, then it's very simple/quick/easy to remove a paperclip (compared to a staple, which is annoying).

 

[cempjwi]

Dumb Question: I am sending multiple application in one envelop, how do you separate them? can we staple each application?

You can put each separate application and its documents inside a plain labeled envelope and them all the envelopes inside the mailing envelope.

 

[avigtr]

Haha. Thanks for this. Bells ringing in my head. I thought I should rewrite my name again for this question. Lol. Thanks everyone for clearing this

not sure if i got it right from your message,
I think you should have added your name and mark "Name at birth" for the first row and obviously leave the rest blank or N/A. they specifically wrote
"including Name at birth"...

 

[jsm0085]

Dumb Question: I am sending multiple application in one envelop, how do you separate them? can we staple each application?

Use a paper clip - try not to staple. Each application should have its own document checklist at the front of each application.

 

[Spouswifey]

not sure if i got it right from your message,
I think you should have added your name and mark "Name at birth" for the first row and obviously leave the rest blank or N/A. they specifically wrote
"including Name at birth"...

But if you read the instructions guide, it states

"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"

In my case, my name at birth is the same as the one on my application. So I don't have to rewrite it again. But if I have a different name at birth compared to my current name then I should have written my name at birth.

Don't worry if you did rewrite the same name again, you'd still be fine

 

[Natan]

I disagree with you. To be eligible, under the new rules, the applicant needs to have 1095 days of residency the day prior to the date of applying. The same rule will apply if they have an app date of Dec 10th. The terminology is fine. You'd be if far better help to yourself and others if you move on and focus on spreading accurate information that may be of help to others.

I am not disputing that applicants may send their applications on 11 October under the new rules. I'm asking that people stop insulting and being short tempered with people who, quite properly, read the statement to mean what it prima facia says.

 

[jsm0085]

I am not disputing that applicants may send their applications on 11 October under the new rules. I'm asking that people stop insulting and being short tempered with people who, quite properly, read the statement to mean what it prima facia says.

No, you did initially - and you've just been going on since. Enough. You see it quite differently to others and that's fine. But you are literally adding no value now - other than keeping a defunct unhelpful conversation going.

 

[Natan]

No, you did initially - and you've just been going on since. Enough. You see it quite differently to others and that's fine. But you are literally adding no value now - other than keeping a defunct unhelpful conversation going.

I am not currently disputing... Though I am not convinced that IRCC is going to interpret the requirements the way you and others are so convinced they will.

Reading spyfy's post on what the legislation actually states is helpful, but there is no guarantee that IRCC will interpret it that way. And there is no way any one on this forum can know for certain how IRCC will interpret the rules. What we do know is what is written on the application and in the instruction guide.

What will you tell applicants who applied on 11 October based on your insistence of your rightness, if their applications are returned months from now for not meeting the eligibility requirements as they were on 10 October?

 

[jsm0085]

I am not currently disputing... Though I am not convinced that IRCC is going to interpret the requirements the way you and others are so convinced they will.

Reading spyfy's post on what the legislation actually states is helpful, but there is no guarantee that IRCC will interpret it that way. And there is no way any one on this forum can know for certain how IRCC will interpret the rules. What we do know is what is written on the application and in the instruction guide.

What will you tell applicants who applied on 11 October based on your insistence of your rightness, if their applications are returned months from now for not meeting the eligibility requirements as they were on 10 October?

That as per the law, if they had 1095 eligible residency dates as of October 10th, they were eligible to apply on the 11th.

 

[Spouswifey]

I am not currently disputing... Though I am not convinced that IRCC is going to interpret the requirements the way you and others are so convinced they will.

Reading spyfy's post on what the legislation actually states is helpful, but there is no guarantee that IRCC will interpret it that way. And there is no way any one on this forum can know for certain how IRCC will interpret the rules. What we do know is what is written on the application and in the instruction guide.

What will you tell applicants who applied on 11 October based on your insistence of your rightness, if their applications are returned months from now for not meeting the eligibility requirements as they were on 10 October?

Didn't read the history of your conversation. Does the physical presence calculator tell you that you are eligible to apply for whichever dates you gave? I applied on October 11 and I had 1109 days and the calculator says I'm eligible

 

[jsm0085]

Didn't read the history of your conversation. Does the physical presence calculator tell you that you are eligible to apply for whichever dates you gave? I applied on October 11 and I had 1109 days and the calculator says I'm eligible

Yes, you were eligible. Some people are taking some wording to mean "you must be eligible under the old rules the day before you apply" even though it has never been written, stated or suggested.

All that matters is you have the minimum 1095 eligible days the day prior to your application date.

 

[Spouswifey]

Yes, you were eligible. Some people are taking some wording to mean "you must be eligible under the old rules the day before you apply" even though it has never been written, stated or suggested.

All that matters is you have the minimum 1095 eligible days the day prior to your application date.

You are correct. I don't know how others can misinterpret this.

I'm a software engineer myself and I trust the guy who wrote the algorithm and the guy who coded the algorithm and the very nut guy who did the verification for physical presence calculator.

The very first thing the nut verification guy is to test the 1095 rule and he makes sure the 1095 days rule is solid. Trust the calculator

 

[5hr3wd]

Hey guys,

The stamps on my photos were really bad quality and kind of blurry but i did write my name. Do you think would picky about that?