1- Q 6
2- Q9 C . If you select YES then you have to submit a crown service form (IT IS A CONDITION)
3- Q 11 (regarding " Physical location) is it YOUR physical location or your COMPANY location
Guys everyone is guessing in here. So you need to make sure from inside the IRCC, although I have a friend who works there, he always says "noone is certain"
These items pose issues, at the least cause confusion, but are far from the only problematic items in the form, as the plethora of questions and confusion in many new topics here amply illustrates.
CAUTION: rollout pitfalls; pretty form not-so-pretty muddle; BUT there are reasons to RELAX
As I had cautioned, well before October 11, the roll out of the new citizenship application rules and process probably would be (and it is) fraught with issues. But for the details, the new application form is pretty, a format which office manager types should appreciate, since in
form it appears to be user-friendly while at the same time processing-friendly. As usual, however, the devil lurks ominously in the details. And no more than a glance is necessary to see problems lurking in some of the details.
As oft noted, Item 9. c) is one of the most obvious examples. Obviously scores and scores of PRs will apply less than five years after landing, many less than four years. And for those who came to Canada before landing, many of those will also still apply in less than five years from when they came to Canada to stay for any appreciable period of time. And many other applicants, among those who have been PRs for more than five years, will have indeed lived outside Canada for a period of time during the relevant time period.
Relevant time period: Make that the "eligibility period."
This terminology is one of the better changes IRCC has made attendant the roll out of C-6. It facilitates a more clear distinction from other significant periods of time, like the relevant time period for prohibitions (four years). That said, the current IRCC approach regarding the eligibility period entails a range of new complications and pitfalls, some illustrated by item 9.c) which could probably be easily fixed by a small revision, while others might not be so easily repaired.
In any event, my sense is that most applicants will have some period of time they lived outside Canada within the previous five years, within the
eligibility period. It was one thing to make a deliberate election to simplify the "
eligibility period" and make it the same (relatively) for all applications, the five years prior to the date the application is made. There are pros and cons for that approach. But this will make many, many applications more complicated and messy than what seems necessary, in particular requiring applicants to detail travel history, address history, and work history during time periods prior to even the first time they came to Canada.
At this juncture many have already sent their applications off. And it appears many more will do so today or tomorrow.
Not the prudent way to navigate this but what is in the hopper is in the hopper, or to mix metaphors, the cake is in the oven and it is time to wait to see if it rises properly.
But there are reasons to RELAX, to not worry so much.
This is true for those who have (imprudently in my view) rushed sending off an application, and for those preparing an application who are struggling with the many vague, ambiguous, or otherwise problematic questions and instructions.
IRCC is almost certainly going to exercise a good deal of flexibility in how it handles the first batch of applications using the new form and presence calculator.
As badly as the roll out has gone, as poorly composed the form is, and despite that steepest part of the learning curve those
total-stranger-bureaucrats will be struggling with when they are processing the first batch of new-rules-new-form applications,
IRCC is going to work, and probably work very hard, to make all this work, and thus IRCC will almost certainly be understanding and perhaps very liberal in how it assesses responses to the more confusing and problematic items.
Sure, many if not most of those who rushed to apply right away can anticipate the processing of their applications to be delayed some, compared to applications made after
the-dust-settles, so to say. Particularly given the fact this processing will be done by the same bureaucracy which so poorly composed much of the form and initially published a form which could not be used (until after there was a deluge of questions and complaints getting through to an overloaded call centre which this same bureaucracy apparently failed to adequately get prepared), that is, that very same bureaucracy is the one which will be struggling to climb the steepest part of the learning curve (learning new rules, following new instructions, including vague and ambiguous instructions, applying new guidelines) in processing the first batch of applications under the new rules. (As I recall there were ample cautions about this posted in the forum.)
But for the vast majority of applicants who rushed, that should be the worst of it, a little or a moderate delay in processing. No big deal. No long-term delays. Not much risk of a negative outcome. That is, most need not apprehend their application being returned or denied. So yeah, they probably could have become a citizen sooner by waiting a bit, but no big deal, no serious loss.
Indeed, the Liberal government wants good optics, and is probably poised to throw additional resources at this for at least awhile, so that any negative impact is minimal.
Those reasons, reasons to RELAX:
Item 6 is a prime example. IRCC is
NOT going to get sidetracked let alone hung-up if a person who has only ever used one name lists that name or enters NA or "none" or even leaves it blank (unless of course IRCC has or comes across information suggesting the individual has used another name). Any of these approaches is almost certain to be OK (again, so long as there is no conflicting information known to IRCC).
Similarly for item 9.c. It is not the least bit likely that IRCC is going to interpret a "no" response as misrepresentation when in other parts of the application the applicant discloses time living abroad during the
eligibility period, including in particular in the address history, and in reported time outside Canada in the presence calculator. But, the literal meaning of the instruction calls for a "yes" response from many, if not most applicants who nonetheless have no reason to file the
Crown-service-form. In particular, IRCC is almost certainly going to be OK with any of the following responses to item 9.c :
-- checking "no"
-- checking "yes" and
-- -- including the
Crown-service-form with NA written across it, or
-- -- including a supplemental page referring to this item with a brief explanation, or
-- -- adding neither, just "yes" checked
Item 11 has multiple issues. These include how to populate the columns for listing physical location and name of contact. I expect to see some changes for this item, in particular, at least some clarification in the help information or the instructions. (Likewise for item 9.c )
In the meantime, it is highly likely that IRCC will make a concerted effort to work the applications as-is, to work through the confusion, and my expectation is that IRCC will be approaching these particular items with a fair if not extensive degree of liberal understanding.
Some of the issues with the new form are more problematic, not so easily accommodated by an effort at IRCC to liberally understand the range of responses applicants will submit (until there is a revised form or clarification in instructions).
Item 16, for example. This item also has numerous problems, not the least of which is that it strongly implies any "yes" response to the list of "situations that prevent you from becoming a Canadian citizen" means the PR is not eligible. That is
NOT accurate. There are various scenarios in which one of the situations, as listed, may apply but is not a prohibition (obvious example is an old Removal Order which was favourably resolved; other obvious example is a conviction abroad for an offence which would be a summary offence if committed in Canada). And thus the alternative check-items are vague and ambiguous. And, for more than a few applicants, the instructions in the help information say to "provide details on application form" even though there is no place in the application form to provide details.
Overall:
Applicants who submit an application which is complete and on its face demonstrates their qualification for citizenship, and who make a concerted effort to understand what was requested, as best they can, and who provide as best they can, according to their best assessment of how to respond based on the facts in their situation, a complete, accurate, and honest response,
it is most likely all will go well, NO PROBLEM, perhaps some inherent, inevitable delays due to the
roll-out-blues, but no serious problems. IRCC is going to accept and deal with various approaches to answering numerous parts of this form, at least until
the dust settles and there is at least more clarification about what IRCC expects.
