Canadian citizenship granted with no employment during the eligibility period
- Thread starter Live life
- Start date
Canadian Citizenship has nothing to do with unemployment. If a person unemployed for 3years or 10 years this person can still be granted citizenship as long as this person filed income tax through the eligibility period.
Correction: You do NOT need to have filed income tax per se. This is a common misconception. Instead, the citizenship regulations merely require you to have followed any obligations to file according to the income tax act. So if you do not have to file and you didn't file, that is totally fine.
Doesn't change the fact that it always makes sense to file income tax even if you don't have to because you normally get money back. But generally, it is not the income tax filing that is required for citizenship. It is the requirement that if you HAD TO file, that you actually did.
A Precarious employment history doesn’t affect a Canadian citizenship application. But it is always nice to show a good employment record when applying for citizenship. At least you show you have struggled to find a job without success.
Again, not really relevant. You only need to show physical presence, which is why employment is useful. It establishes a paper trail.
Main message in following lengthy post: work history is relevant, importantly relevant. Many prospective applicants considering when is the best time to apply will be wise to carefully consider how their work history can affect the processing of their application. For many, the WHEN-TO-APPLY decision is about a lot more than just counting days physically present.
BUT contrary to some of the observations above, YES, of course NON-employment has an impact on an application for citizenship.
HOW SO is the real question. And the answer to this varies considerably. Moreover, other activity in Canada can and often will corroborate the applicant's presence in Canada and otherwise illuminate why. Students attending classes, for example. Stay-at-home parents (especially those with children attending school in Canada) are not, not really, "not employed," even though they have no "job" as such. More than a few PRs have other easily recognized reasons for not being employed, such as a disability.
What the applicant has been doing the previous FIVE years is examined and considered. And is IMPORTANT. That is, what the applicant has been doing during the relevant FIVE years has a high degree of relevance.
Relevance of Employment:
Suggestions that employment history is not relevant disregard the fact that IRCC specifically asserts it is relevant. In fact there is an entire section of the application form in which the applicant must COMPLETELY and ACCURATELY declare ALL employers and dates (for the full five year eligibility period, not just three years, and not just when in Canada), including location of the employment and employer contact information. AND explain what else the applicant was doing during any period of time the applicant was not employed.
Lest anyone misunderstand, many official decisions specifically state that if IRCC asks for information, that means it is relevant information. There is NO question, none at all, the applicant's work history is relevant. And, indeed, employment is often a subject asked about during the Interview.
THE REAL QUESTION, THEN, IS: HOW DOES EMPLOYMENT OR LACK OF EMPLOYMENT AFFECT A CITIZENSHIP APPLICATION?
Some of the responses above allude to what is probably the main effect work history (or lack thereof) has in the application process: the extent to which employment in Canada tends to corroborate (or doesn't) other evidence of presence (including, especially, the applicant's testimonial evidence, which is submitted by way of the presence calculation). Regarding this, it warrants emphasizing that this is a much bigger deal than many seem to acknowledge. The applicant's work or activity history is a very significant part of the overall picture, and thus is a key element in IRCC's assessment.
To be clear, and fair to those who emphasize the specific physical presence requirement itself, days physically present count and if the count adds up to at least 1095 days during the relevant FIVE year time period, that meets the physical presence requirement.
To also be clear, however, and to understand this in practical terms, IRCC does NOT have a crystal ball nor access to any omniscient source, deity or otherwise. There is NO definitive and binding account of days present in Canada. There is only EVIDENCE of days present, and based on the evidence IRCC assesses whether the applicant's calculation is verified sufficiently to support a determination the physical presence requirement has been met. Work history, or illumination of what else the applicant was doing, is a huge factor in this assessment. So much so, IRCC will not even process an application if there is a significant gap in reported work/activity history, but rather return the application as incomplete.
LEADING TO A REMINDER:
At the risk of beating a dead-horse, reiterating the oft-reiterated, albeit oft times seeming to be a lone voice in this regard, a reminder:
Making a reasoned, prudent decision about WHEN to apply for citizenship demands considering many factors.
Getting past the minimum threshold of days actually, physically present, is just ONE factor. It is a necessary element BUT for many it is a MISTAKE to rely on this factor in making this decision, the WHEN-to-APPLY decision.
Those who approach applying for citizenship focused on just the physical presence requirement are at RISK for problems. Sure, many if not most of those who get past the minimum threshold do indeed otherwise have a very strong case and are quite likely to be OK:
BUT these applicants largely know who they are and have good reason to be confident and are not likely to be asking questions about the process in a forum like this. They are good to go and they know it and they do it.
BUT THE NUMBER OF THOSE WHO WOULD BENEFIT FROM APPROACHING THE CITIZENSHIP APPLICATION WITH DUE CONSIDERATION FOR A WIDE RANGE OF ADDITIONAL FACTORS IS MANY. And, to be frank, many of them end up in a forum like this, often not until AFTER applying, telling tales of woe, complaining about delays and non-routine processing. Anxious. Uncertain. Applying for their GCMS notes, which offer little or nothing that helps. Waiting on hold for a help centre agent to take their call, and similarly getting little or nothing much that will help.
At least the consensus here agrees that it is prudent to WAIT to apply with a MARGIN or BUFFER over the minimum. BUT even in this regard, the tendency is to focus on a buffer that assures meeting the minimum presence requirement rather than enough of a margin to make IRCC decision-makers comfortable concluding, without non-routine processing, there is NO POSSIBILITY the applicant was short.
Leading to . . .
I understand the well-intended practical meaning, including more or less assuming that the other requirements are recognized and taken into account.
BUT apart from the fact it is simply NOT ACCURATE and, rather, is a gross understatement of the requirements to be granted citizenship, it is symptomatic of a common misunderstanding which for many has undermined and made more difficult the procedural path to citizenship since there are in fact SEVERAL requirements. Thus, bogs of non-routine processing queues are crowded with anxious and rather unhappy applicants whose path to citizenship is stalled. They wait and wait, getting little news and no reliable forecast for what or when the next step will happen. Some suffer the inconvenience and sometimes difficult imposition of RQ related processing, which in its more extensive form (the full blown RQ) can be a profoundly intrusive invasion of their privacy.
Not all those whose applications get side-tracked into non-routine processing can avoid that fate by being more conscientious about the WHEN to APPLY decision. BUT many of them could, indeed, save themselves the hassle and delays of non-routine processing, AND even among those who do not avoid non-routine processing, for many the process could still go much more smoothly and quickly IF ONLY THEY TOOK MORE THAN THE COUNTING OF DAYS INTO CONSIDERATION AND WAITED FOR A MORE OPPORTUNE TIME TO APPLY.
Which brings this back around to the RELEVANCE, the IMPORTANCE of the APPLICANT'S WORK OR ACTIVITY HISTORY.
The variables are way too many, and far too interdependent, to enumerate. BUT work history is a huge, huge consideration. Those with a history of steady, regular employment for a readily recognized Canadian employer, and who were clearly working at a physical location in Canada, in employment consistent with who the applicant is and where the applicant lives, have it easy. Declare the information and forget about it.
BUT many of us have far more complicated histories, ranging from noticeable gaps to employment with extensive ties outside Canada, and scores of other variations. THE PRUDENT APPLICANT WILL CAREFULLY CONSIDER IRREGULAR EMPLOYMENT HISTORY FACTORS IN MAKING THAT DECISION ABOUT WHEN TO APPLY.
Suggestions the work history has minor importance, let alone suggestions it is not relevant, are dangerous for more than a few prospective applicants.
As others have commented, there is NO employment requirement to be eligible for a grant of citizenship. Many successful applicants for citizenship have had little or even NO work history in Canada.
BUT contrary to some of the observations above, YES, of course NON-employment has an impact on an application for citizenship.
HOW SO is the real question. And the answer to this varies considerably. Moreover, other activity in Canada can and often will corroborate the applicant's presence in Canada and otherwise illuminate why. Students attending classes, for example. Stay-at-home parents (especially those with children attending school in Canada) are not, not really, "not employed," even though they have no "job" as such. More than a few PRs have other easily recognized reasons for not being employed, such as a disability.
What the applicant has been doing the previous FIVE years is examined and considered. And is IMPORTANT. That is, what the applicant has been doing during the relevant FIVE years has a high degree of relevance.
Relevance of Employment:
Suggestions that employment history is not relevant disregard the fact that IRCC specifically asserts it is relevant. In fact there is an entire section of the application form in which the applicant must COMPLETELY and ACCURATELY declare ALL employers and dates (for the full five year eligibility period, not just three years, and not just when in Canada), including location of the employment and employer contact information. AND explain what else the applicant was doing during any period of time the applicant was not employed.
Lest anyone misunderstand, many official decisions specifically state that if IRCC asks for information, that means it is relevant information. There is NO question, none at all, the applicant's work history is relevant. And, indeed, employment is often a subject asked about during the Interview.
THE REAL QUESTION, THEN, IS: HOW DOES EMPLOYMENT OR LACK OF EMPLOYMENT AFFECT A CITIZENSHIP APPLICATION?
Some of the responses above allude to what is probably the main effect work history (or lack thereof) has in the application process: the extent to which employment in Canada tends to corroborate (or doesn't) other evidence of presence (including, especially, the applicant's testimonial evidence, which is submitted by way of the presence calculation). Regarding this, it warrants emphasizing that this is a much bigger deal than many seem to acknowledge. The applicant's work or activity history is a very significant part of the overall picture, and thus is a key element in IRCC's assessment.
To be clear, and fair to those who emphasize the specific physical presence requirement itself, days physically present count and if the count adds up to at least 1095 days during the relevant FIVE year time period, that meets the physical presence requirement.
To also be clear, however, and to understand this in practical terms, IRCC does NOT have a crystal ball nor access to any omniscient source, deity or otherwise. There is NO definitive and binding account of days present in Canada. There is only EVIDENCE of days present, and based on the evidence IRCC assesses whether the applicant's calculation is verified sufficiently to support a determination the physical presence requirement has been met. Work history, or illumination of what else the applicant was doing, is a huge factor in this assessment. So much so, IRCC will not even process an application if there is a significant gap in reported work/activity history, but rather return the application as incomplete.
LEADING TO A REMINDER:
At the risk of beating a dead-horse, reiterating the oft-reiterated, albeit oft times seeming to be a lone voice in this regard, a reminder:
Making a reasoned, prudent decision about WHEN to apply for citizenship demands considering many factors.
Getting past the minimum threshold of days actually, physically present, is just ONE factor. It is a necessary element BUT for many it is a MISTAKE to rely on this factor in making this decision, the WHEN-to-APPLY decision.
Those who approach applying for citizenship focused on just the physical presence requirement are at RISK for problems. Sure, many if not most of those who get past the minimum threshold do indeed otherwise have a very strong case and are quite likely to be OK:
-- definitely OK in terms of outcome (OK in terms of having a successful application resulting in the grant of citizenship), and
-- quite likely OK in terms of sailing through the process ROUTINELY, with minimal or no stalling or delays along the way.
-- quite likely OK in terms of sailing through the process ROUTINELY, with minimal or no stalling or delays along the way.
BUT these applicants largely know who they are and have good reason to be confident and are not likely to be asking questions about the process in a forum like this. They are good to go and they know it and they do it.
BUT THE NUMBER OF THOSE WHO WOULD BENEFIT FROM APPROACHING THE CITIZENSHIP APPLICATION WITH DUE CONSIDERATION FOR A WIDE RANGE OF ADDITIONAL FACTORS IS MANY. And, to be frank, many of them end up in a forum like this, often not until AFTER applying, telling tales of woe, complaining about delays and non-routine processing. Anxious. Uncertain. Applying for their GCMS notes, which offer little or nothing that helps. Waiting on hold for a help centre agent to take their call, and similarly getting little or nothing much that will help.
At least the consensus here agrees that it is prudent to WAIT to apply with a MARGIN or BUFFER over the minimum. BUT even in this regard, the tendency is to focus on a buffer that assures meeting the minimum presence requirement rather than enough of a margin to make IRCC decision-makers comfortable concluding, without non-routine processing, there is NO POSSIBILITY the applicant was short.
Leading to . . .
Regarding propositions or statements to the effect: "The only requirement is your physical presence in Canada."
I understand the well-intended practical meaning, including more or less assuming that the other requirements are recognized and taken into account.
BUT apart from the fact it is simply NOT ACCURATE and, rather, is a gross understatement of the requirements to be granted citizenship, it is symptomatic of a common misunderstanding which for many has undermined and made more difficult the procedural path to citizenship since there are in fact SEVERAL requirements. Thus, bogs of non-routine processing queues are crowded with anxious and rather unhappy applicants whose path to citizenship is stalled. They wait and wait, getting little news and no reliable forecast for what or when the next step will happen. Some suffer the inconvenience and sometimes difficult imposition of RQ related processing, which in its more extensive form (the full blown RQ) can be a profoundly intrusive invasion of their privacy.
Not all those whose applications get side-tracked into non-routine processing can avoid that fate by being more conscientious about the WHEN to APPLY decision. BUT many of them could, indeed, save themselves the hassle and delays of non-routine processing, AND even among those who do not avoid non-routine processing, for many the process could still go much more smoothly and quickly IF ONLY THEY TOOK MORE THAN THE COUNTING OF DAYS INTO CONSIDERATION AND WAITED FOR A MORE OPPORTUNE TIME TO APPLY.
Which brings this back around to the RELEVANCE, the IMPORTANCE of the APPLICANT'S WORK OR ACTIVITY HISTORY.
The variables are way too many, and far too interdependent, to enumerate. BUT work history is a huge, huge consideration. Those with a history of steady, regular employment for a readily recognized Canadian employer, and who were clearly working at a physical location in Canada, in employment consistent with who the applicant is and where the applicant lives, have it easy. Declare the information and forget about it.
BUT many of us have far more complicated histories, ranging from noticeable gaps to employment with extensive ties outside Canada, and scores of other variations. THE PRUDENT APPLICANT WILL CAREFULLY CONSIDER IRREGULAR EMPLOYMENT HISTORY FACTORS IN MAKING THAT DECISION ABOUT WHEN TO APPLY.
Suggestions the work history has minor importance, let alone suggestions it is not relevant, are dangerous for more than a few prospective applicants.
Last edited:
100% agree with what dpendabill said. Remembering they are asking you to go through the trouble to list where you worked so it fills in a lot of gaps for IRCC, mainly evidence gaps.
Thanks for all advices. I can understand and acknowledge that it may be better to be employed during the eligibility period but in situation where a single parent in Canada cannot be employed due to the responsibility of the child and overseas spouse continues to financially support the living, does unemployment become a show stopper for citizenship application. That's the intention of my question.
No, it is NOT a show-stopper, not at all.
And, as previously noted, being a stay-at-home parent is a well recognized type of employed-like activity . . . just not working for an employer.
Actually the more significant factor in this scenario is the fact the spouse is not living in the Canadian household. And the source of funds for living are from abroad. Not that these are show-stoppers either. They are simply factors which invite some degree of scrutiny more than for applicants who have a life securely settled in Canada in almost all respects.
So perhaps waiting a little longer to apply, building a bigger margin, would be a good idea, along with being extra careful about getting all travel dates exactly right, and making sure to keep the records you have showing a life being lived in Canada.
This situation is actually fairly common.