Question 9c answered wrong on citizenship application!

[dpenabill]

FYI, I answered "NO" and I had more than 40 travels during my eligibility period . One time it was 4 months . Didn't have any issue getting citizenship. In fact the truth is, you NEVER lived outside of canada during eligibility period. So the answer has to be NO. It was vacation. having vacation and living there are two different things.

But the queries in this topic are about applicants who IN TRUTH did IN FACT LIVE OUTSIDE Canada during their eligibility period.

"No" probably still works for 9.c.. Not a truthful answer, for those who IN TRUTH did IN FACT LIVE OUTSIDE Canada during their eligibility period, but it probably works.

 

[netmani]

Well, this question should be read as following

Q9 (c)
"During your eligibility period did you live outside of Canada because either:

• you
• your Canadian citizen or permanent resident spouse or common law partner
• permanent resident parent

was employed outside Canada (not as a locally engaged person) in or with:

• the Canadian Armed Forces
• the federal public administration
• the public service of a province or territory

Complete the Residence Outside of Canada form (CIT 0177) (PDF, 667.46KB) and submit any supporting documents requested in that form with your application."

 

[dpenabill]

Well, this question should be read as following

Q9 (c)
"During your eligibility period did you live outside of Canada because either:

• you
• your Canadian citizen or permanent resident spouse or common law partner
• permanent resident parent

was employed outside Canada (not as a locally engaged person) in or with:

• the Canadian Armed Forces
• the federal public administration
• the public service of a province or territory

Complete the Residence Outside of Canada form (CIT 0177) (PDF, 667.46KB) and submit any supporting documents requested in that form with your application."

Should be read to ask something it does NOT say?

No, RATHER, the item should be phrased or stated this way. The onus for this falls squarely on IRCC.

It is foolish to read instructions or questions to say anything other than what they actually say. In reference to this item, yes, that works, a "no" response appears to work DESPITE the truthful response being "yes" (as to the question as it is stated). BUT . . .

My GUESS is that space-restraints on the form dictated the way item 9.c. is phrased. It APPEARS that IRCC does intend the question to be answered "yes" only if Crown Servant related credit is involved.

BUT as a general rule applicants should always follow the instructions and answer the questions asked, AS ASKED. Exceptions are rare and isolated. Where, as in the case of 9.c., it is readily ascertained there is such an exception, it can be said that it is OK to provide an answer like "no" despite the truthful answering being "yes." NOT the way I would do it. BUT so far all the reporting affirms it works.

BUT the reason for doing so is indeed because it is known to work. Not because an applicant should think it is OK to read instructions or questions to say something different than what they actually say. TO BE CLEAR: WHEN IN DOUBT, FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS. OTHERWISE, YEP, FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS. And that does not mean substituting, for what is actually asked, what the applicant thinks IRCC should be asking. Any other approach tends to go down a rather risky path. (Again, with rare but known exceptions, like 9.c. in the current application form.)


Note: There have been other instances in the past where the literal question or literal answer was NOT what CIC (before it became IRCC) was actually asking for; prior to June 2015 the residency questionnaire asked applicants to enter the date they arrived to RESIDE in Canada if different from the date they landed, but the residency calculator allowed applicants to enter that date ONLY if it was BEFORE the date of landing, so that soft-landing PRs were limited to showing the date of landing as the date they established residence in Canada. In the meantime, the actual way in which residency was assessed specifically depended on the date the applicant in FACT (not just in status) established a residence in Canada, which for many PRs was in fact AFTER the date of landing. For this glitch, however, the online calculator would not allow (it would return an error) entering a date after landing, so for such applicants the fact of soft landing and later establishing in fact residence was only indicated by address history in conjunction with declaration of dates outside Canada in the residency calculation. Note: reason this was significant was that the requirement then was a RESIDENCY requirement, such that days in Canada BEFORE actually establishing an in fact residence did NOT count for applicants relying on meeting residency tests rather than a physical presence test.
In this instance, the question was in the application form AND in the residency calculator, and generally the consensus was to enter the same response, to be consistent, which meant only if the date of establishing residency in fact was before date of landing, since again the online residency calculator generated an error if a later than landing date was entered.

 

[nanni_doc]

Many people like me are landed immigrants, stayed here for 3 years and are now confused by this question. I hope this helps anyone who has the same issue:

https://twitter.com/CitImmCanada/status/1019286044049625088

If the IRCC says you can click "yes" and not submit CIT0177, then that is what I am gonna do.

 

[dpenabill]

Many people like me are landed immigrants, stayed here for 3 years and are now confused by this question. I hope this helps anyone who has the same issue:

https://twitter.com/CitImmCanada/status/1019286044049625088

If the IRCC says you can click "yes" and not submit CIT0177, then that is what I am gonna do.

Unfortunately the tweet is contrary to what several forum participants have reported. The problem reported has been that applications were returned because they were not complete when "yes" was checked in response to 9.c. and no CIT 0177 was submitted. This has been reported EVEN when an explanation was also included.

It is entirely possible, actually quite feasible, that IRCC has recognized the difficulty with 9.c. and has modified the completeness screening so that those who check "yes," but do not include CIT 0177, they are no longer having their applications returned as incomplete. This would make sense.

BUT absent some credible reports from applicants who take this approach and have gotten AOR (acknowledgement of receipt means the application has passed the completeness screening), it is difficult to trust this will ALWAYS work. (And therein is the rub so common to many questions: what works sometimes, or even most of the time, might not always work, and we generally do not want to take the chance we are among those for whom it does not work. We like to know what will for sure work.)

Hopefully some among those who follow the tweet answer (and thus check "yes" to 9.c. and simply not include a CIT 0177) will report back here if they get AOR . . . or, report their application has been returned as incomplete if that happens.

In any event, until there is more extensive confirmation, some may prefer to play it safe and nonetheless submit a CIT 0177 populated with "Not Applicable" in its fields, thereby following the instructions albeit submitting a worthless, irrelevant form (the NA CIT 0177) with the application. (Noting, after all, the tweet essentially says to NOT follow the instructions in the application form, whereas generally it is best to simply and directly follow the instructions.)

 

[oomuchi]

Hi All,

Please read this:
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/c-6-citizenship-applications-frequently-asked-questions.522548/

 

[nanni_doc]

Unfortunately the tweet is contrary to what several forum participants have reported. The problem reported has been that applications were returned because they were not complete when "yes" was checked in response to 9.c. and no CIT 0177 was submitted. This has been reported EVEN when an explanation was also included.

It is entirely possible, actually quite feasible, that IRCC has recognized the difficulty with 9.c. and has modified the completeness screening so that those who check "yes," but do not include CIT 0177, they are no longer having their applications returned as incomplete. This would make sense.

BUT absent some credible reports from applicants who take this approach and have gotten AOR (acknowledgement of receipt means the application has passed the completeness screening), it is difficult to trust this will ALWAYS work. (And therein is the rub so common to many questions: what works sometimes, or even most of the time, might not always work, and we generally do not want to take the chance we are among those for whom it does not work. We like to know what will for sure work.)

Hopefully some among those who follow the tweet answer (and thus check "yes" to 9.c. and simply not include a CIT 0177) will report back here if they get AOR . . . or, report their application has been returned as incomplete if that happens.

In any event, until there is more extensive confirmation, some may prefer to play it safe and nonetheless submit a CIT 0177 populated with "Not Applicable" in its fields, thereby following the instructions albeit submitting a worthless, irrelevant form (the NA CIT 0177) with the application. (Noting, after all, the tweet essentially says to NOT follow the instructions in the application form, whereas generally it is best to simply and directly follow the instructions.)

Well I posted my application today, like I said in my previous post and checked "Yes" and did not fill CIT 0177 or provide an explanation. I will post the result when I have an update

 

[emamabd]

Well I posted my application today, like I said in my previous post and checked "Yes" and did not fill CIT 0177 or provide an explanation. I will post the result when I have an update

Some have had their applications returned back because of this and others not. It depends on the officer who receives the document i guess. In my case checking "Yes" and attaching a 1 pager explanation of why i chose not to fill CIT 0177 worked well.