Post C6, application returned for question 9C,

[ChippyBoy]

I ticked the "YES" box and I duly submitted Form CIT0177 with my citizenship application, but with giant 'X' marks scrawled across both of its pages, and with the words "Not Applicable" clearly written in blue ink and in my handwriting across the tops of both of its pages.

This, as I was assured by an IRCC call centre representative, was one correct way for me to have accurately and truthfully responded to Q9c.

Contrary to Johnboy's advice in this thread, no professional person applying for citizenship who values her/his unblemished professional and legal reputation for honesty, and for whom a "YES" response is indicated, could possibly tick the "NO" box, as such would be a patently dishonest response to a direct question.

It's really up to IRCC to fix this problem with their new citizenship form. It looks like it's going to be a slow-motion train-wreck for us all, unless a senior figure at IRCC, or Minister Hussen himself, steps in immediately to give leeway direction to the coal-face employees in Sydney, NS, particularly those newbies brought on staff to help deal with the new influx of applications post-C6's implementation.

Without strong leadership at IRCC or at the Ministry level itself at this stage, we're likely witnessing an unfolding disaster here.

 

[mayur.mech]

I ticked the "YES" box and I duly submitted Form CIT0177 with my citizenship application, but with giant 'X' marks scrawled across both of its pages, and with the words "Not Applicable" clearly written in blue ink and in my handwriting across the tops of both of its pages.

This, as I was assured by an IRCC call centre representative, was one correct way for me to have accurately and truthfully responded to Q9c.

Contrary to Johnboy's advice in this thread, no professional person applying for citizenship who values her/his unblemished professional and legal reputation for honesty, and for whom a "YES" response is indicated, could possibly tick the "NO" box, as such would be a patently dishonest response to a direct question.

It's really up to IRCC to fix this problem with their new citizenship form. It looks like it's going to be a slow-motion train-wreck for us all, unless a senior figure at IRCC, or Minister Hussen himself, steps in immediately to give leeway direction to the coal-face employees in Sydney, NS, particularly those newbies brought on staff to help deal with the new influx of applications post-C6's implementation.

Without strong leadership at IRCC or at the Ministry level itself at this stage, we're likely witnessing an unfolding disaster here.

did u already get AOR? when did you apply?

 

[Johnboy]

I agree about the ambiguity, it would have helped if IRCC had performed some sort of user group study to see how confusing the whole application process and form filling is. From the inside, when developing these forms, it is way too easy to assume that the meaning and responses to these questions are obvious.

Each to their own, may your god(s) guide you!

 

[ChippyBoy]

did u already get AOR? when did you apply?

No, I haven't received AOR yet. But I did call IRCC again today just to double-check that my response should be alright, as in passing muster for the awkwardness of responding to their Q9c., and I was again assured by their call centre representative that my method was sound. Even beginning to fill-in Form CIT0177 in any way at all (as per someone's paid lawyer's advice in this thread) isn't warranted, as the very title of the Form itself excludes 99% of applicants from responding on it anyway. I'm among the November applications cohort on here. IRCC is at evident fault here, not us. Large numbers of knock-backs of legitimate applications in regards to this bureaucratic snafu will only bring a massive joint lawsuit down on the responsible bureaucrats' heads. They need to fix this, and fast. Hopefully Minister Hussen is on-the-ball and will pick up the phone to kick someone's butt over this.

 

[vasvas]

I ticked the "YES" box and I duly submitted Form CIT0177 with my citizenship application, but with giant 'X' marks scrawled across both of its pages, and with the words "Not Applicable" clearly written in blue ink and in my handwriting across the tops of both of its pages.

This, as I was assured by an IRCC call centre representative, was one correct way for me to have accurately and truthfully responded to Q9c.

Contrary to Johnboy's advice in this thread, no professional person applying for citizenship who values her/his unblemished professional and legal reputation for honesty, and for whom a "YES" response is indicated, could possibly tick the "NO" box, as such would be a patently dishonest response to a direct question.

It's really up to IRCC to fix this problem with their new citizenship form. It looks like it's going to be a slow-motion train-wreck for us all, unless a senior figure at IRCC, or Minister Hussen himself, steps in immediately to give leeway direction to the coal-face employees in Sydney, NS, particularly those newbies brought on staff to help deal with the new influx of applications post-C6's implementation.

Without strong leadership at IRCC or at the Ministry level itself at this stage, we're likely witnessing an unfolding disaster here.

While I agree with your approach of including a crossed out 0177 form and marking it as "Not Applicable" is ONE of the correct ways, I disagree with the hyperbolic assertion about "any professional who values honesty" crap.
Most of the problems encountered by people and questions on this forum are a result of the refusal to apply common sense and read instructions and help text provided by IRCC. I don't know why people find the most convoluted, worst-case interpretation for the questions. The OP took a simple question about additional names used (Q6), wrote N/A and attached an explanation!
Click on the Help next to 9c and it makes it clear they expect an yes answer for those who wish to claim residency by virtue of being crown servants. It just happens to be a poorly worded question. You would be lying if you lived outside Canada and failed to mention it in the residency calculator, the question about employment/student status and addresses.

 

[thegentleman]

 

[ChippyBoy]

While I agree with your approach of including a crossed out 0177 form and marking it as "Not Applicable" is ONE of the correct ways, I disagree with the hyperbolic assertion about "any professional who values honesty" crap.
Most of the problems encountered by people and questions on this forum are a result of the refusal to apply common sense and read instructions and help text provided by IRCC. I don't know why people find the most convoluted, worst-case interpretation for the questions. The OP took a simple question about additional names used (Q6), wrote N/A and attached an explanation!
Click on the Help next to 9c and it makes it clear they expect an yes answer for those who wish to claim residency by virtue of being crown servants. It just happens to be a poorly worded question. You would be lying if you lived outside Canada and failed to mention it in the residency calculator, the question about employment/student status and addresses.

Respectfully, mon ami, you are quite incorrect about the "crap," as you chose to term it. Your wish to bush-lawyerly and wilfully use IRCC"s help notes, along with common sense and other cherry-picked supporting inputs, in order to 'interpret' a direct Question as anything but what it grammatically and patently is asking is utter nonsense if one doesn't ever wish to have to be on-the-stand and under oath being quizzed by a clever lawyer on the opposing side's legal team (in a case at which one happens to be giving evidence, or a professional opinion in some matter) as to whether the witness's testimony should be discounted because of a lack of trustworthiness and credibility over her/his having deliberately given a factually incorrect answer in her/his response to a direct Question on an official, signed-&-dated, Government Form. Both yourself and the evident numbskulls who drafted and supposedly competently vetted Q9c are completely failing to appreciate the professional ethics aspects of this matter. And as for the common sensically appearing video in the post response that immediately succeeded yours on here, that advice is being tendered by a well-meaning mouth-breather, for whom the term "axe" or "aks" is equivalent to the English word "asks," for Heaven's sake.

 

[vasvas]

Respectfully, mon ami, you are quite incorrect about the "crap," as you chose to term it. Your wish to bush-lawyerly and wilfully use IRCC"s help notes, along with common sense and other cherry-picked supporting inputs, in order to 'interpret' a direct Question as anything but what it grammatically and patently is asking is utter nonsense if one doesn't ever wish to have to be on-the-stand and under oath being quizzed by a clever lawyer on the opposing side's legal team (in a case at which one happens to be giving evidence, or a professional opinion in some matter) as to whether the witness's testimony should be discounted because of a lack of trustworthiness and credibility over her/his having deliberately given a factually incorrect answer in her/his response to a direct Question on an official, signed-&-dated, Government Form. Both yourself and the evident numbskulls who drafted and supposedly competently vetted Q9c are completely failing to appreciate the professional ethics aspects of this matter. And as for the common sensically appearing video in the post response that immediately succeeded yours on here, that advice is being tendered by a well-meaning mouth-breather, for whom the term "axe" or "aks" is equivalent to the English word "asks," for Heaven's sake.

I think we agree that the question on the form was poorly worded and I also agree that your approach is not incorrect. I just called you out on your hyperbole.
Don't know if you are a lawyer or play one on TV but either way you aren't great at it. No legal form considers each question in a contextless vacuum. The instructions on the form (Help) are meant to be guiding posts for the applicant. The content of form CIT0177 are also relevant to deciding if you lied (if you are ever called on a stand to testify).
Intent to mislead a.k.a. lie happens when you have lived abroad, answered No to 9c, failed to mention the stay abroad in the residency calculator and other questions on the form.
Question 9c has two options, Yes or No. Answering Yes leads to a mandatory form that only talks about getting credit for being a crown servant or crown servant's spouse/family. CIT0177 doesn't have an option to mark the entire form or parts of it as"not applicable". People like you, who love overkill, choose to scratch out the form, write with blue and purple ink to mark it not applicable. Its not wrong but it is unnecessary.

 

[Malik04]

Shit. I ticked yes and did not submit CIT0177 and also no explanation letter. No AOR yet

 

[amitdi]

so only if OP had sent CIT 0177 and just written N/A, he would have been good. this is ridiculous, they should have allowed and processed his explanation letter.

 

[amitdi]

Shit. I ticked yes and did not submit CIT0177 and also no explanation letter. No AOR yet

based on the comments i read here, there is a high chance it will be returned. because the officer would not know if you missed filling CIT 0177 or its N/A.

but all the best anyways, you never know.

 

[Conor9900]

based on the comments i read here, there is a high chance it will be returned. because the officer would not know if you missed filling CIT 0177 or its N/A.

but all the best anyways, you never know.

I would think the chances of them returning it are slim. It seems like mayur.mech's case is an outlier and that he or she was just very unlucky that the reviewer made an error: I have't seen anyone else on this forum report that their application was returned for this reason

 

[Marooned2]

I first ticked yes (I had travelled US), and then I visited that extra form, I was like what the hell is this, I'm not filling this form, so changed that answer to No. You cannot say yes there and do not submit that extra doc.

These forms are really sensitive I had friends who got their PR apps returned for so subtle things like printing their name capital but sir name in non-capital letters.

 

[amitdi]

I would think the chances of them returning it are slim. It seems like mayur.mech's case is an outlier and that he or she was just very unlucky that the reviewer made an error: I have't seen anyone else on this forum report that their application was returned for this reason

yes, looking at another thread, i stand corrected. looks like OP mayur mech is an exception.

 

[Malik04]

I got my AOR. I ticked yes and did not submit CIT0177 and also no explanation letter ... this thread got me worried and I feel sorry for the OP