9) c) during your eligibility period did you live outside Canada?

[elbob]

Hello everyone,

This part is not very clear and I appreciate the help from the veterans here please.

I lived for around 400 days in Switzerland in the beginning of my eligibility period for study and work.

I have more than 300 days more than the minimum number needed, and confimed that by using the Presence Calculator, so what do I answer regarding this question:

9) c) during your eligibility period did you live outside Canada?

It's tricky since if I answer yes, the document that I need to fill out CIT 0177E-2 does not seem like the right one. Also when I click on help, it talks about counting this period as part of my time here if this and that.
At the same time don't want to answer no, because it sounds wrong.

So what exactly do I do here?

Thanks,
elbob

 

[burakcayir]

Hello everyone,

This part is not very clear and I appreciate the help from the veterans here please.

I lived for around 400 days in Switzerland in the beginning of my eligibility period for study and work.

I have more than 300 days more than the minimum number needed, and confimed that by using the Presence Calculator, so what do I answer regarding this question:

9) c) during your eligibility period did you live outside Canada?

It's tricky since if I answer yes, the document that I need to fill out CIT 0177E-2 does not seem like the right one. Also when I click on help, it talks about counting this period as part of my time here if this and that.
At the same time don't want to answer no, because it sounds wrong.

So what exactly do I do here?

Thanks,
elbob

My wife selected Yes and added an explanation letter about why she did not fill CITT 0177 form. She already got her AOR. But other people in this forum also selected No and added explanation letter and they also got their AOR.
So the important thing is the explanation letter. I would still select Yes as it sounds correct information.

 

[elbob]

My wife selected Yes and added an explanation letter about why she did not fill CITT 0177 form. She already got her AOR. But other people in this forum also selected No and added explanation letter and they also got their AOR.
So the important thing is the explanation letter. I would still select Yes as it sounds correct information.

Sounds very reasonable. Thank you

 

[vasvas]

I selected No and did not include any explanation letter ( also got AOR). The help section on the form for 9c talks about specific cases when you can claim exemption. Its just a poorly worded question for one specific case- are you claiming that any day spent outside Canada should count because you meet certain conditions.

 

[mumbai1985]

I said no and did not attach any explanation letter. I got aor.

 

[mumbai1985]

but did u live outside Canada during your eligibility period?

yes.

 

[dpenabill]

I said no and did not attach any explanation letter. I got aor.

but did u live outside Canada during your eligibility period?

yes.

This illuminates nothing.

Reminder: AOR merely means the application has been received (AOR means, after all, "Acknowledgement of Receipt") and has cleared a completeness screening. It signals NOTHING about the merits of the application.



Explanation for why AOR for an application containing a misstatement of fact in response to 9.c offers NO illumination:

For an applicant who checks "no" for item 9.c, that will of course pass the completeness screening. Even if that is a misrepresentation (a willful misstatement of fact), it will pass the completeness screening. Thus, AOR signals nothing about whether making such a misstatement of fact in response to 9.c is OK.

Thus, for the applicant who checked "no" for item 9.c when to the contrary, in fact, the applicant did indeed live abroad during his or her period of eligibility, the obvious and remaining question is how will IRCC handle this when it assesses the application and applicant.

In particular, will IRCC --
-- consider this to be a misrepresentation (since the response is a statement contrary to the facts)
-- an oversight/mistake (of little or no import)
-- a misunderstanding of the question (again, of little or no import), or
-- will IRCC recognize the question itself is misstated or misleading, and treat the response as essentially Not Applicable (thus of NO import)

We are mostly confident it will be the latter, as it should be the latter, since it is clear the question itself is misstated or misleading, and for the vast majority of applicants (for any applicants who are not requesting credit for time living abroad pursuant to the Crown service provisions) the item is indeed Not Applicable.

Obviously, those who diligently strive to answer all questions truthfully will be inclined to check "yes" in response to item 9.c if they in fact did live outside Canada during their eligibility period. For these applicants, for those truthfully checking "yes" but who are not seeking the Crown service credit, a quandary arises because they are then instructed to complete and submit CIT 0177, which has no relevance to them at all.

Their options include (in addition to checking "yes") --
-- doing nothing more (no explanation, no CIT 0177)
-- handwriting NA or "Not Applicable" close to the "yes" checked on the application
-- submitting a CIT 0177 with NA prominently written on it
-- attaching a supplemental page to the application with an explanation that CIT 0177 is not relevant (or "not applicable")

All of these SHOULD be OK.

These should be OK, including the first, that is checking "yes" and not including a CIT 0177 form, BUT there may be some risk this is an approach which might NOT pass the completeness screening. This is the approach for which an AOR would offer some actual information (or, for which a returned application referencing failure to include CIT 0177 would tell the tale). This is because the script followed in conducting the completeness screening might instruct the processing agent to verify that a CIT 0177 is included, or an explanation for why not, if there is a "yes" check for item 9.c. I doubt this is what the completeness screening script instructs, but of course we do not know for sure.

It is far more likely that 9.c does NOT factor at all in the completeness screening. That AOR signals nothing about how IRCC is handling responses to this item.

Nonetheless, it would be helpful to learn if any applicant who checked "yes" and did nothing more has received AOR.

Whereas, AOR for an applicant who checked "no" tells us nothing.

 

[mumbai1985]

Thanks dpenabill. I did call cic to enquire about this and I recorded the answer. He said to mark No.

 

[dpenabill]

Clarification/update:

This clarification or update is explicitly for PROSPECTIVE applicants, those who have NOT yet sent in an application and who are figuring out how to best respond to Item 9.c and are PRs
-- who lived outside Canada during the preceding five years, and
-- have NO claim to Crown Servant credit for any of that time

Best practice: Most reports and indications suggest that the best practice for applicants who lived outside Canada during the preceding five years, and who have NO claim to Crown Servant credit for any of that time, is to check "yes" and to submit the CIT 0177 form clearly showing that Crown Servant credit is NOT APPLICABLE.

As my previous post observes, other approaches appear to have worked and will likely work. What has worked and will likely work is not good enough for many. Most applicants want to get things as right as possible.

Reason why "no" options are NOT best practice: For any applicant who did in fact live outside Canada during the preceding five years, the reason "no" is not the best approach should be obvious, it is an inaccurate answer, it is a factually NOT true answer. (Even if IRCC intends for applicants to check "no" if there is no Crown Servant credit, that is NOT what 9.c asks; as I have noted, "no" will most likely work, but most applicants are, as they should be, averse to giving untruthful answers.)

Reason why "yes" and including CIT 0177 (clearly showing it is NOT applicable) is best practice: The "yes" response is the truthful, accurate response to the precise question asked. When "yes" is checked, the instructions state that CIT 0177 needs to be submitted. Following the instructions is almost always the best approach. Even if it means submitting an irrelevant form with "NA" entered throughout it. Additionally, subsequent to my explanations in the post above, we learned of isolated reports that "yes" even with a supplemental explanation that CIT 0177 is not applicable has resulted in the application being returned. My sense is that is unusual BUT for prospective applicants this is a risk easily avoided by simply including the CIT 0177 clearly marked as NOT applicable.


Reason for updating this thread which has been inactive for two months

Reason for update is not that anything has changed in the last six or so weeks. Indeed, Item 9.c in the application form is the same today as it was on October 11, 2017, in the first version of CIT 0002 implementing the 3/5 presence rule change. And for the last month or so there has been little or no further reporting about how IRCC approaches this item.

But there were numerous threads in the forum regarding this item, including several in which there were some relevant clarifications and anecdotal reports which tend to illuminate a more or less best-practices approach for those applicants who lived outside Canada during the eligibility period (five years preceding date of application) but have no claim to Crown Servant credit. In the meantime, I have been made aware that this (and probably similar threads) are still being read. This makes sense. This thread is titled in a way which will likely invite reading by someone doing a search for information or advice about item 9.c, which continues to be confusing and is thus likely to continue inviting queries about how to handle this item. (The title of the thread is a model title precisely illuminating the subject discussed.)


Note for applicants who have already signed and sent off their applications, NO WORRY.

It is not likely that how this item was answered will have much impact, if any, on how the application is processed. As noted, the various approaches outlined above, which cover just about all the feasible ways applicants might think is how this item should be answered, will likely work, will likely be OK.

There is, perhaps, the one EXCEPTION. As noted, there have been some isolated reports of applications returned if Item 9.c is checked "yes" but it is not otherwise clear that Crown Servant credit is NOT APPLICABLE. BUT even for applicants who checked "yes" and did not sufficiently show that Crown Servant credit is not applicable, the worst case scenario is the application is returned, in which event the applicant merely needs to add a CIT 0177 form clearly showing that it is NOT APPLICABLE and include that when re-sending the application. Overall reporting, however, suggests this is NOT common.

Once the applicant has received AOR, and all the other information in the application is accurate and complete, how the applicant responded to item 9.c should have no impact, none, let alone a negative impact.

In particular, it appears the odds are good that how the applicant responded to Item 9.c will not, not usually, fail the completeness check, and the application will proceed to be processed. Other information in the application (assuming it is accurate), including the Presence Calculator, Address History, and Work History, will amply show the full scope of relevant information. So, regardless how the applicant responded to 9.c, it should have NO NEGATIVE IMPACT, or at least very little negative impact. Enough information has been disclosed to amply show an untruthful "no" response to item 9.c was in no way intended to deceive or mislead IRCC. (Nonetheless, for those who have not yet sent the application, as oft noted, the better answer is invariably the truthful answer.)

 

[Jaya1985]

Hi ,

i am planning to apply Citizenship , My 4 Years starting from Today ( 2017 , 2016,2015,2014) I was outside Canada during 2014 for < 183 days . I got PR on Jul 2013 . I was working there in Indian company . Do I need to fill out CIT1077E Form ? This Form asks Military and Armed Force work details .

 

[dpenabill]

Hi ,

i am planning to apply Citizenship , My 4 Years starting from Today ( 2017 , 2016,2015,2014) I was outside Canada during 2014 for < 183 days . I got PR on Jul 2013 . I was working there in Indian company . Do I need to fill out CIT1077E Form ? This Form asks Military and Armed Force work details .

Assuming some typos in your query (such as reference to "My 4 Years" should be to "5 Years"), you should be able to answer this question for yourself if you read the posts above.

Reminder: no one at a forum like this can (legitimately) specifically advise how an individual should complete an item in the application form. That is a decision the individual needs to make based on the individual's best understanding of what is asked and best understanding of how to answer that based on the facts and circumstances in his or her case.

Forum participants can offer general information about how to respond to an item (such as I do in posts above), which an individual can then use to help him or her better understand what is asked and how to answer it in his or her situation.

There are two general situations in which an applicant "needs" to submit the CIT 0177 form (assuming reference to "CIT1077E" is a typo):
-- the PR-applicant lived abroad during the FIVE years prior to applying and is entitled to Crown Servant credit, or
-- the applicant is instructed to submit the CIT 0177 form; note that the current application form instructs all applicants who check "yes" in response to item 9.c to submit the CIT 0177

The first is relatively easy for any prospective applicant who was not employed by the Canadian federal government nor a Canadian province, and was not living with a Canadian employed by the Crown. No need to submit CIT 0177.

The second is a little more tricky for applicants who LIVED abroad during the eligibility period (the FIVE years prior to date of making the application), but who are not entitled to any Crown Servant credits. A truthful answer to item 9.c is "yes," but that response triggers the instruction to submit CIT 0177 even though CIT 0177 is NOT relevant. As I explain in detail above, my sense is that the best practice is to check "yes" and fill out the CIT 0177 with "NA" prominently written on it, or "NA" entered in most of the fields, and submit it. Full explanation for this approach is described in my previous posts.

Note: there are other opinions about how to respond to item 9.c. It is even possible that IRCC expects applicants to check "no" in response to item 9.c unless they are claiming Crown Servant credit. My observations about how to respond are focused on giving a factually truthful answer to Item 9.c and then following the instructions even though the instructions say to submit an irrelevant, not applicable form.


Some clarifications:

For item 9.c the question is NOT based on number of days outside Canada or in any particular country. Fact that time in the other country was less than 183 days is not relevant. What matters is whether the applicant "LIVED" in another country.

The applicant should be able to say "no" in response to item 9.c without any issue at all if the individual maintained his or her Canadian place of residence while abroad working; that is, if the individual did not establish a "residence" in the other country and was only there temporarily. (How this individual completes the address history in the application is a separate question, and this is an example of the extent to which the individual applicant has to use his or her own best judgment in how to answer the questions.) If, in contrast, the only address the applicant had is an address abroad, that means he or she was living abroad.

The eligibility period is FIVE years. Not four years.

There is another item in the application for which the relevant period of time is FOUR years. That is item 10.b. And that is the item for which spending 183 days or more in a country is relevant. For item 10.b the question is NOT whether you spent 183 or more days in the other country in one year, such as 2014, but whether the total number of days spent in that country adds up to 183 or more days. For example, if you were in that country for 150 days in 2014 while working there, and you visited that country 20 days in 2015 and another 20 days in 2017, the total is more than 183 days and that means you should check "yes" in response to item 10.b (and follow instructions to include a police clearance or explain why not).

 

[attitudefever]

My wife selected Yes and added an explanation letter about why she did not fill CITT 0177 form. She already got her AOR. But other people in this forum also selected No and added explanation letter and they also got their AOR.
So the important thing is the explanation letter. I would still select Yes as it sounds correct information.

Did she included the Police Clearance Certificate from back home as well ?

 

[burakcayir]

Did she included the Police Clearance Certificate from back home as well ?

No, because it was not 183 days in last 4 years, although it was in last 5 years.

 

[attitudefever]

No, because it was not 183 days in last 4 years, although it was in last 5 years.

oh ok, thank you for replying.