More Re LinkedIn and Some Context; Part I:
Similar to
@Joshua1 above, and
@Thito who is quoted in another post below, periodically forum participants express skepticism about reports that IRCC may research and consider a citizenship applicant's LinkedIn account.
Make no mistake, IRCC can and does engage in collateral research to verify information an applicant provides in the citizenship application. This can include researching sources on the Internet, including in particular LinkedIn.
We do not know how often or for which applicants an IRCC processing agent will conduct an Internet search and compare results with an applicant's work history or other information as declared in the citizenship application. We do know, FOR SURE, no doubt, that IRCC does this at least sometimes and that it can result in applications being denied and, in some cases, a determination of misrepresentation imposing a five year prohibition. (It has also been used in proceedings to revoke citizenship based on misrepresentation/fraud grounds.)
I will cite, in another post below, a sample of official decisions in actual cases which amply illustrates this based on information found in LinkedIn alone. I am hoping this will largely close the door on the skepticism.
While in general it is well understood and agreed that the best approach is to be truthful in submitting information to the government, that in particular forthcoming honesty is the best policy when making a citizenship application, in actual practice many citizenship applicants trim the truth some. I am no purist or puritan. I've been around long enough to recognize that practical realities sometimes demand compromise and it is
all-too-human to
cut-the-corners a bit.
There is the posted speed limit and there is the de facto range above that in which most of us drive at least occasionally.
Moreover, we know that even IRCC policy recognizes, to some extent allows or accommodates, a range of inaccuracy, largely to allow for relatively innocent error but to some extent allowing a degree of flexibility in recognition of our human propensities (with some emphasis on weaknesses). Those who claim they never fudge are, frankly, lying.
Nonetheless, it is important to get your facts straight. Apart from (in addition to) moral imperatives, honesty really is the best PRACTICAL policy. It is what works best most of the time. Getting-away-with-it is common, but that is a common EXCEPTION not the rule. Lots of people get away with shoplifting. That does not mean that is how it always goes. Hint: getting caught shoplifting while a citizenship application is in process can easily derail things.
The point is not about the risks of getting caught engaging in retail-theft. The point is about how important it is be complete and accurate, to orient the information submitted with the truth.
Which brings things back around to what can be found about us on the Internet, and more particularly on sites like LinkedIn.
Some people who would not consider misrepresenting so much as minor details in their citizenship application, may have, however,
padded their credentials some elsewhere. LinkedIn for example. So here is the thing: IRCC can research LinkedIn (and other sources) for information about an applicant. IRCC might in fact do this (which we know because we know IRCC has done this for others). What happens if IRCC researches a source like LinkedIn and finds information which is not consistent or is otherwise incongruous with information the applicant submitted in his or her citizenship application?
Reminds me of crime or police procedural movies and television shows, and the tough prosecutor confronting a witness who has changed his story, "
are you lying now, or were you lying then?"
If and when IRCC comes across conflicting information, at the very least the applicant's credibility is at stake. At the very least. Truth in the application is important but will not necessarily protect the applicant's credibility if the applicant is PERCEIVED to be giving inconsistent information, including information inconsistent with that given elsewhere. Such as in LinkedIn.
The path to citizenship, perhaps especially the last lap, tends to get a lot trickier if the applicant's credibility is compromised.
Hint: The object of the "
are you lying now, or were you lying then?" challenge is to throw everything the witness says out. Remember, the burden of proof is on the applicant. Not easy to prove qualification for citizenship if the information the applicant provides is, in effect, mostly thrown out.