Was filling out the form for my wife today and stumbled on this question. It's quite a surprised and I am not prepared!
My wife and I travel a lot. I am lucky to be able to work from anywhere, so we have a habit of leaving for the winter. Our favourite destination is Thailand. And it so happens that in total we spent more than 183 days there between 3 separate trips.
How important is it to get clearance in this case? It'd be a royal PITA to deal with Thai government remotely. I am almost positive we can't even get it unless we travel there again and go in person.
How strict are they on this rule?
Thanks.
I largely concur in the observations posted by
@zardoz EXCEPT to say that if it is not possible to obtain a clearance without having to actually travel to Thailand, that should readily suffice as a reason for not providing the certificate.
Item 10.b) in the current application form, CIT 0002 (06-2018) has a box for entering an explanation if the applicant cannot get a police certificate. Any semblance of an explanation will likely pass the completeness check.
But of course the explanation needs to be as honest and accurate as possible (while what is honest and accurate overlap considerably, and in a perfect world they amount to the same thing, in the real world inherently rife with mistakes and inaccuracies despite a diligent effort to be honest, there are often some differences; applicants need to strive to be both, both honest and as accurate as possible). Not much will derail an application more quickly and negatively than misrepresentations.
Even if the application passes the completeness check, and thus is "processed," IRCC can later request a police certificate (even for countries in which the applicant has NOT been present for 183 or more days).
The following are the URLs (should link) for IRCC information about police certificates for immigration related purposes.
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/application/medical-police/police-certificates/about.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/application/medical-police/police-certificates/how/thailand.html
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=035&top=4
The second URL above is specifically about obtaining a police certificate from Thailand, including the address the request for a certificate should be sent to if the person is NOT living or present in Thailand. The only wrinkle I see at a glance is that the request needs to include:
- Copy of the request for a police certificate issued by Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Not sure how a prospective citizenship applicant provides such a request.
(Note: most of the information IRCC provides regarding police certificates is more or less applicable to immigration applications, not citizenship; thus, in some respects the citizenship applicant may need to extrapolate a bit from the online information.)
Regarding inconvenience to an applicant:
At the risk of a tangent tending to stray off topic, there is a broader aspect to this which warrants some commentary:
As I noted above, I largely concur in the observations posted by
@zardoz EXCEPT to say that if it is not possible to obtain a clearance without having to actually travel to Thailand, that should readily suffice as a reason for not providing the certificate. (Nonetheless, the applicant should make a good faith, concerted effort.)
In a sense, then, I do not agree with the proposition that an applicant's "
inconvenience is NOT taken into consideration."
But it must be emphasized that this is indeed in a LIMITED SENSE. This forum is rife with whining about all sorts of inconveniences imposed on PRs, many such complaints being rather exaggerated, more than a few utterly unfounded. Indeed, more than a few still whine incessantly about the government of Canada not keeping personal records for them, like dates they leave or enter Canada (even though the individual PR is the one and ONLY person in the whole world who has been in a position to for-sure capture and maintain this information, since the PR is for-sure the one and ONLY person present each and every time the PR leaves and enters Canada).
Thus, to the extent that the burden of making a complete application, submitting proper documentation, and meeting the burden of proving qualification, is "inconvenient," this is an inconvenience citizenship applicants must bear.
But there is a limit to how much inconvenience the applicant must bear. An essential element of procedural fairness is REASONABLENESS. IRCC cannot impose an unreasonable burden or demand. (Requiring a citizenship applicant to physically travel to another country in order to apply for citizenship is, my sense, something which would clearly NOT be reasonable.)
This is, of course, remarkably vague and dependent on a huge range of variables. And while the imposition of a practically impossible requirement is NOT reasonable, in a general sense, that will not alleviate an applicant's burden if, for example, the applicant could have avoided the situation.
EXAMPLE: applicant with frequent travel history who does not have a complete record of all travel, rendering it practically impossible for the applicant to precisely and accurately detail all dates of exit and entry; this applicant COULD have and SHOULD have kept a record, and thus this applicant can be denied citizenship if the applicant cannot otherwise meet the burden of proving dates of presence in Canada.
For the most part, the statutory provisions, regulations, and IRCC policies and practices, hardwire reasonable accommodation into the procedure. Thus, for example, even if a person is of an age for which knowledge of Canada and proficiency in an official language are requirements, to be granted citizenship, there are specific provisions which will accommodate persons with disabilities. For another example, while applicants are required to present ALL possibly relevant passports, applicants can explain why they do not have this or that passport and still have IRCC process their application.
And likewise relative to police certificates. In particular, the application form provides a box in which an applicant can provide an explanation in lieu of a police certificate.
What is a sufficient explanation is not stated. I have not seen any cases explicitly addressing the reasonableness of police certificate requirements. As I noted above, my sense is that any semblance of an explanation will get the application through the completeness check. Whether that will satisfy IRCC later in the process probably depends on the explanation.
IRCC, and the personnel processing citizenship applications in particular, are fairly well acquainted with police certificates from most countries in the world. So they know what is a reasonable explanation.
Thus, for example, one might ask whether it will suffice to enter "unable to obtain Thailand police certificate without a specific request from IRCC" in the explanation box. My guess (and it is only little more than a guess) is this should pass the completeness check, but probably encounter getting such a request later in the process, probably not until or after the interview. At which stage that would result in a significant delay in the process. One way to approach this might be to state this explanation and apply, and in the meantime make the request to Thailand for the certificate including a copy of the checklist, with the police certificate item highlighted, and hope to obtain the certificate in time to present at the interview. Just an idea. And no more than that, no more than just an idea.
