[. . . continued from previous post]
As I was saying, given the overriding principle to respond truthfully to the question as asked, even if an untruthful [No] response to item 10.b (based on not counting pre-landing days in another country) will not be a problem, unless and until the form itself is revised the
PRUDENT approach is to answer the question
truthfully, as asked . . .
This leads to the following post:
I have been calling/reading/gathering information regarding this Police Certificate thing as I'm in the same boat as well. I landed in Canada in 2014..According to the new law (1095 days), I am now eligible to apply for citizenship. The police certificate is required for 4 years back prior to applying, so this takes us to 2013.. the year where I was still waiting in the country where I applied for immigration. I called today CIC to find out whether this year (the year waiting for immigration outside Canada) is considered as part of the 183 days which requires one to get a PCC..the agent told me NO. They take into consideration the absence of 183+ days AFTER becoming a permanent resident in Canada. I asked why isn't this clearly mentioned on the form to avoid confusion??? He said it's still a new form and they are receiving a lot of complaints regarding this matter. I invite everyone here who still has a doubt whether he/she should apply for PCC to cover the 183 days spent outside Canada waiting to arrive as a PR to call CIC to confirm what I was told.
How to respond
TRUTHFULLY to the question posed in item 10.b in the current application form, to check [No] or [Yes], does
NOT depend on whether IRCC wants, expects, or requires a police certificate.
This post, by Didi17, seems to suggest that it is OK for some applicants to check [No] even though the truthful answer to the question is [Yes].
Somewhat similar views have been asserted by others. The following is one example (partial quote):
I checked with IRCC agent, supervisor, and finally their customer support manager during a 102-min long call with examples such as defining eligibility period, relevant 3 years (when no ties before), and 183 days Police Certificate requirements.
No crystal ball divination is necessary to recognize the dynamics underlying that account about what was learned from the IRCC call centre. The irony is that
NN74's take away was the exchange constituted a confirmation no police certificate is needed if the days in the other country preceded the date of landing, when it is quite apparent the initial call centre agent, and that agent's supervisor, would not confirm that, and the customer support manager reportedly, ultimately, acknowledged that in the scenarios posed (by
NN74) a police certificate would not be required . . . nonetheless leaving open the question about whether it is OK to give a false answer for item 10.b
That's the crux of it. Whether the applicant should give a false answer to item 10.b no matter how certain the applicant is that IRCC does not need a police certificate in his or her circumstances.
The important question is whether to answer [No] to item 10.b even if the applicant was in fact in another country 183 or more days within the preceding four years.
No speculation necessary to apprehend this is imprudent, ill-advised,
even if three help centre agents confirm that IRCC does not intend to ask for police certificates from applicants who have not been in another country for 183 or more days since landing and becoming a Canadian PR.
This is NOT to assert that a [No] response based on not counting days in a country before landing and becoming a PR will necessarily cause any problem, let alone result in a prosecution for misrepresentation. IRCC may indeed accept such responses in such circumstances. (Caution: AOR does NOT signal anything at all about the appropriate way to answer item 10.b; indeed, a [No] response will, in itself, clear the completeness check even if it is blatantly contrary to the true facts.)
Rather, it is to assert that it is imprudent, ill-advised, to respond in a way that is overtly contrary to the true facts.
Just to check [No] based on not counting days prior to landing, without any qualifying or clarifying explanation, leaves it up to a total stranger bureaucrat to interpret whether that was an appropriate response (not counting days prior to landing) or a deceitful response.
In any event,
the question posed in item 10.b continues to explicitly ask about the previous four (4) years, no exceptions, and this will continue to be the case unless and until IRCC actually revises the application form, so that item 10.b is restated in a way which prescribes the relevant time period to be "the past four years," OR "since becoming a PR, whichever is more recent."
Some Particular Observations:
I called today CIC to find out . . .
I invite everyone here who still has a doubt whether he/she should apply for PCC to cover the 183 days spent outside Canada waiting to arrive as a PR to call CIC to confirm what I was told.
To be clear,
there is no way to telephone CIC these days. CIC ceased to exist nearly two years ago.
As for telephoning the IRCC telephone help centre, as always the reliability of the response obtained can depend a great deal on the question asked. Some details matter, and some details matter a lot.
I called today CIC to find out whether this year (the year waiting for immigration outside Canada) is considered as part of the 183 days which requires one to get a PCC..the agent told me NO. They take into consideration the absence of 183+ days AFTER becoming a permanent resident in Canada.
Frankly, the question reported here undermines reliance on the conclusion reported. Again, some details matter and some matter a lot.
To be clear, the current application, in item 10.b, asks:
In the past four (4) years, were you in another country (other than Canada) for a total of 183 days or more? [No] [Yes]
Answering that question truthfully does NOT depend on whether or not the applicant is obligated to submit a police certificate. The truthful answer remains the same whether IRCC actually wants a police certificate from the applicant or not.
While there may be varying interpretations as to what "take into consideration" means, the vagueness of that response tends to put an exclamation mark on the agent's comments about how many complaints about this item they have received. And suggesting that more than a few of those making the complaint are arguing for an interpretation excusing them from submitting a police certificate more than genuinely asking what it is that IRCC is asking and what IRCC expects.
As I have previously posted:
. . . there is NO DOUBT, really none at all, if an applicant was in another country a total of 183 or more days within the preceding FOUR years, regardless the various scenarios related to how many of those days preceded when the person became a PR, the proper response to item 10.b is to check "yes." No doubt about that at all. If an applicant believes he should not, or even does not need to submit a police certificate, despite checking "yes" (such as because all days in that country preceded coming to and landing as a PR in Canada), that applicant can submit an explanation why rather than a police certificate and see how it goes.
That much is clear.
Will IRCC change the application to prescribe the relevant time period as the past four years, OR since becoming a PR, whichever is more recent?
Beyond emphasizing that the most appropriate response to item 10.b is to answer the question posed truthfully, I very much DOUBT that IRCC will revise item 10.b to prescribe the relevant time period as
the past four years, OR since becoming a PR, whichever is more recent.
There is no need to speculate about this. We will see once IRCC issues a revised application form, which is already well overdue.
Nonetheless, without revisiting the more in-depth discussion about this, my take on this derives from the fact that the request for a police certificate is specifically based on showing proof of no prohibitions arising from any foreign convictions
during the four years preceding the application. Date the applicant became a PR is not really a factor.
This is not to guarantee IRCC will not revise the form this way. I am merely saying that is unlikely. Moreover, this is not to say that IRCC will always require a police certificate from every applicant who checks [Yes] to the question as currently stated. My guess is that IRCC will be somewhat liberal in terms of accepting reasons for not submitting a police certificate.
In particular, some applicants may choose to not delay applying while waiting to obtain a police certificate; they can check [Yes] and in the explanation space state that they understand they do not need to submit a police certificate (such as because the time in the other country was before they became a PR).
And then see how it goes. Probably a good idea to proceed to obtain a police certificate in the meantime, so that if IRCC still requires a police certificate they can submit it promptly, with minimum delay. This approach should pass the completeness check without a problem, although the applicant might also want to hand write "NA" next to the item in the checklist.
