Anyone can be asked to provide a more current police certificate even if they send in one which is sufficiently current at the time they apply.
There are essentially two issues:
-- will the police certificate submitted with the application satisfy the completeness screening, so that the application is not returned as incomplete?
-- will the police certificate submitted with the application be sufficient when the application is processed in the local office?
Time in the other country after the certificate was issued, including time in that other country while the application is pending, can influence whether IRCC requests the applicant to provide a more recent police certificate. What is the risk of this happening? The circumstances in which this is likely to even be considered are unusual enough we are not likely to see any more than very sporadic reporting, if even that, other than over the course of many years eventually some reporting should illuminate this at least a little.
In any event, while the IRCC website does not provide any specific information about how current a certificate needs to be for citizenship applicants, it appears almost certain that as long as the certificate was issued within six months of the date the application is made, that will pass completeness screening. It is also quite likely that even if the certificate was not issued within the previous six months, it will pass completeness screening if it was issued AFTER the LAST time the applicant was in that country.
My GUESS, my sense, is that even coming close to this criteria will suffice as long as there is nothing which suggests the possibility of criminal charges in that other country. Any hint inviting a concern about possible criminal charges in the other country, in contrast, could easily increase (by quite a lot) the risk IRCC will request the applicant submit another police certificate later in the process.
Leading to . . .
This has indeed been discussed in depth and at some length, several times, going back YEARS.
What new rule?
The applicable rule is based on a provision of law adopted in June 2014, which came into force in May 2015, resulting in CIC (before it became IRCC) adding the police certificate requirement to the application for certain applicants (those who had spent 183 or more days in a country during the preceding four years) to the application form in the revision which was implemented in June 2015. There has NOT been any change in the related rules since then.
And, to be clear, there is no "rule" that citizenship applicants must submit a police certificate from another country. The law requires citizenship applicants to have no prohibitions, including no prohibitions related to criminal charges in other countries (this is the prohibition added to the Citizenship Act in legislation receiving Royal Assent in June 2014). And the law puts the burden of proof on the applicant to show that the applicant is qualified, including not being subject to any prohibitions.
Based on this, since June 2015 CIC and then IRCC included the item in the application which requires applicants to affirmatively declare whether or not they were "in" another country a total of 183 days or more during the four years, and if "yes" they were, to EITHER submit a police certificate or explain why not.
Why does this distinction matter?
When this issue about whether partial days in a country needed to be counted was first raised and discussed more than two years ago, there were some who approached the 183 days calculation as if it the calculation itself had substantive importance, as if reaching the threshold is a strict, technical question having definitive consequences. That approach tends to put way, way too much significance on precisely calculating the total number of days as if a precise calculation really makes a difference.
For purposes of meeting the actual physical presence requirement, for example, a precise calculation of days for someone cutting-it-close is indeed very important. It makes a difference. The 1095 day requirement (previously 1460 days) is indeed a definitive threshold. One day short, the application fails.
The 183 days or more calculation, for who needs to check "yes" in the current form item 10.b and submit a police certificate, IS NOT like that, it does not definitively determine an applicant's eligibility for citizenship. It is merely an arbitrary, administratively set threshold for identifying which applicants IRCC (as did CIC previously) requires to submit WITH the application, additional proof of no prohibition based on foreign convictions.
Ultimately, the applicant's obligation is to give an HONEST response to item 10.b and, in this context, in a general sense it is hard to defend, as being honest, not counting days a person was actually in the other country based on excluding some days from the calculation because they were partial days.
But what is the actual impact of calculating it one way versus the other?
Ordinarily, IRCC does not go drilling into the application details beyond the scope of the actual requirements for a grant of citizenship UNLESS those details suggest the applicant's reporting of information has been evasive, deceptive, or otherwise inaccurate to a degree which compromises the applicant's credibility.
Thus, IRCC is NOT likely to conduct a precise calculation of day trips or partial days in the U.S. to determine if, when added to the days of absence in the U.S., the applicant was in the U.S. a total of 183 days despite the applicant checking "no" in response to item 10.b in the application.
It is virtually certain this would not happen during the completeness check. We know, for example, that applicants who have checked "no" to this item previously (item numbered differently in previous application forms) but whose reported absences (in the presence calculation) showed they were in another country 183+ days, still cleared the completeness check. These applicants were given a request to submit a police certificate later in the process (anecdotal reports mostly indicate this happens either at or following the interview).
But there is a risk of being asked to submit a police certificate later in the process even if the applicant was in the other country less than 183 days total, even if less than that by a sizable margin.
Leading to . . .
Ironically, unfortunately perhaps, the applicant who has spent a lot of time in the U.S., or for that matter another country, falling short of 183 days by some but not a lot, is probably at a significantly higher risk of being asked to submit a police certificate later in the process anyway.
The applicant who, for example, adds up all the days in another country and they total 179 days, and thus should clearly check "no" for item 10.b, can nonetheless recognize he or she probably has an elevated risk of being asked to submit a police certificate later in the process, which would delay the timeline for taking the oath.
In any event, again the main thing an applicant wants to consider when deciding whether to check "yes" or "no" in response to item 10.b (current application form), is giving an HONEST response, a response which will not give a total stranger bureaucrat the impression the applicant is being at all cute or evasive, let alone deceptive.
This is not an item which is at all likely to trigger a formal accusation of misrepresentation unless a "no" check is blatantly not true, and even then it is not likely there would be a formal accusation of misrepresentation unless this was in combination with other blatantly false facts in the application. (The obvious trigger for a misrepresentation accusation would be an undisclosed criminal charge in the other country.)
A "no" check will almost certainly get the application past a completeness check, even if it is not accurate (except, perhaps, where blatantly, obviously, the "no" response is not true).
Thus, the main thing is that the applicant does not want to give the impression he or she is playing games, is being evasive, and for sure not being deceptive.
(to be continued . . . )
