I put "Yes" checkmark for "I was employed", but forgot to explicitly specify "No" for other options such as "I was in school".
Hopefully, it's not a big issue because I was continuously employed by the same company during my whole stay in Canada.
any idea how big of an issue this is?
My
GUESS: Not a big issue. Probably not an issue at all.
Real question, however, is whether it will successfully pass the completeness check or be returned. Unless and until we start seeing reports of AOR or returned applications relative to these scenarios, any guess is a wild guess.
(Application being returned is not, in itself, any big deal; in most cases the applicant merely needs to complete the part that was not complete and re-submit the very same application. Only consequence is the inherent delay and the cost of shipping again. Not a big issue. Merely an illustration of the adage that those who rush risk it taking longer to become a citizen.)
Obviously, it is possible this will not pass the completeness screening. Whether or not it is something for which IRCC will actually return the application we cannot know for sure.
What we do know is that scores of people rushed to apply this past week and given the problems (especially vague, ambiguous, and confusing form items) in the roll out, there are bound to be scores and scores of applications with this or that issue, including a large number of deviations and mistakes in the way the form has been completed. The extent to which IRCC will be flexible in the early phase of new applications is a huge UNKNOWN. I anticipate IRCC will exercise a lot of flexibility, in order to make this work as well as possible. But I cannot guess what the actual scope of that will be let alone predict particular parameters, such as whether the failure to check off a box for individual yes/no check boxes will result in the application being returned.
Must say, cannot claim to be surprised by how many have rushed in an apparent effort to be among the first victims of the new rules and form. All those who have rushed can do now is wait and see how this goes, whether the first batch of applicants suffer a relatively minor delay in processing or end up with longer delays.
At the risk of echoing the sound of a tree falling in a forest far from any ears, there is a lot to be said about taking one's time when doing something so important as applying for citizenship. Doing rough drafts and setting them aside for a day or week could save many applicants months of anxieties later.
An Issue-Scale of Sorts:
Toward (hopefully) helping to put various deviations, errors, mistakes, or omissions into perspective, the following is a general discussion about what constitutes an issue and how that, in general terms, can impact the citizenship application process.
This issue-scale, for example, is my best guess as to the range of problems and their impact, arranged from little to big, that is, from not at all much of an issue to the more serious, or "big" issues, and range of consequences. These are listed in the form:
Issue -- Description -- Consequence
Minor incompleteness -- question is whether it results in application not passing completeness check and being returned -- little to moderate delay
Incomplete application -- does not pass IRCC completeness check -- application returned; some delay but no big deal
Minor deviations -- minor misunderstanding of question so response is not precisely what IRCC is asking for -- minimal impact on assessment of applicant, potentially some but should be minimal delay
Minor errors of fact -- minor factual errors or inconsistencies, including one or two slightly off dates in travel history dates -- minimal impact on assessment of applicant, potentially some delay but should be a minimal delay; however, the more or the more significant the error or inconsistency, the greater the risk of elevated scrutiny (see more about elevated scrutiny below)
Incidental or innocent but significant errors, including omissions -- impact depends on the scope of the error or omission -- some elevated scrutiny likely, but the impact of that in turn will depend on many other factors
Substantial errors, inconsistencies, omissions -- impact depends on the nature and scope of error, inconsistency, or omission, but range of impact is more significant than relative to incidental or innocent instances; impact also depends on how IRCC processing agent perceives this, ranging from seeing the applicant as an honest but unreliable reporter to apprehending reason to suspect the applicant's honesty -- for sure elevated scrutiny, ranging from some non-routine inquiries to full blown RQ or even processing it as a
presence-fraud-case
Perceived fraud -- processing application as a
presence-fraud-case -- extensive and skeptical scrutiny, very long delays (unless fraud is readily established and case moves to a negative outcome quickly), negative outcome will prohibit citizenship eligibility for five years and potentially referred for criminal prosecution
Nature and Impact of Elevated Scrutiny / Risk Indicators; Reasons-to-Question-Presence:
There are many things which can trigger issues, problems, non-routine processing, ranging from things which have a small impact on how it goes to those which knock processing totally off the rails and for which there is a risk of being denied.
IRCC undoubtedly employs a more or less formal list of triage criteria, sometimes known as
risk indicators or
reasons-to-question-presence, to identify applicants who should be more closely scrutinized.
Contrary to what some profess, most indicators suggest that IRCC processing agents and Citizenship Officers are competent examiners who mostly get it, including the variable situations and nuances of immigrants' lives, including the vagaries of language usage and the impact of completing complex forms in a language other than one's first language. Moreover, IRCC is not engaged in
GOTCHA games. Which is to say that IRCC does not ordinarily let small things derail an application.
IRCC is mostly focused on three things:
-- verifying the applicant's information and qualifications
-- identifying reasons to question the applicant's information or qualifications
-- identifying fraud, that is deliberate misrepresentation
Routinely processed applications tend to get rather little scrutiny beyond the overt verification procedures: screening the application to be sure it is complete, consistent, and meets the requirements; screening the applicant and the applicant's documents (test, interview, and documents check); and completing GCMS, RCMP, and CSIS background clearances. In this process, applicant's presence is calculated on the basis of counting all days from date of entry to next day of exit as days present (in effect, inferring the applicant was present in between date of entry and next reported date of exit); occasionally some additional screening is done, such as review of CBSA travel history (this may be done for all applicants), verification of CRA information, FP requests, or such.
For the vast majority of qualified applicants, the question is whether their application will --
-- be deemed complete and put in-process (not returned as incomple)
-- be processed as a routine application (then timely proceeding to the oath), or
-- be subject to elevated scrutiny leading to non-routine processing, which could be, in turn
-- -- relatively minor resulting in a short or moderate delay, minimal inconvenience, minimal risk of encountering further problems, or
-- -- include RQ processing, which tends to lead to long delays (but not always), involves a profound intrusion into the applicant's private affairs and ranges from inconvenient to difficult, and depending on the response to RQ can lead to a negative outcome
Which leads this back to the three things IRCC is focused on, and for legitimate, qualified applicants, the two that are relevant:
-- verifying the applicant's information and qualifications, or
-- identifying reasons to question the applicant's information or qualifications
The second of these is what, to my view, constitutes an issue. I outlined a scale of issues above. Any issue which triggers additional scrutiny can go to the next level if, in conducting that scrutiny, IRCC identifies something which increases the level of concern, which constitutes more reason to question the applicant, either qualitatively or quantitatively.
IRCC is not going to get bogged down chasing minor deviations or mistakes. At the other end of the spectrum, however, any indication that an applicant may have traveled outside Canada more than reported is potentially a big issue. One or two mistakes, well within a buffer, appearing to have been incidental or accidental, will not be a big concern, but that depends on it appearing to have been incidental or accidental.
Thus, trying to anticipate the impact of any particular deviation or mistake is near impossible. Context looms huge. Other factors and circumstances loom huge. IRCC's perception of the applicant's credibility generally, and honesty in particular, loom really huge. But sure, the bigger or more frequent the mistake, the more it is likely to be an issue.
