My previous post was explicitly about whether a police clearance needs to be submitted
WITH the application. As noted, IRCC may request a clearance LATER from any applicant.
For most applicants who honestly respond "no" in Item 10.b
the chance of being asked, later, to submit a police clearance is probably SMALL, perhaps VERY SMALL. Even if the applicant spent a considerable amount of time in this or that single country.
Thus, this discussion is relevant for only a rather SMALL NUMBER of prospective applicants (which nonetheless may be a considerable number).
As I previously observed, the vast majority of applicants do NOT need to consider let alone be concerned about this. The vast majority
SHOULD SIMPLY SKIP THIS POST and NOT worry. For the vast majority, a truthful "no" response in Item 10.b means NO PCC needed.
CHANCE THERE WILL BE A LATER REQUEST FOR POLICE CLEARANCE; PART I:
Again, this is a LONGER discussion about relatively uncommon scenarios . . . and this has little or NO relevance for the vast majority of applicants.
Most will want to SKIP this.
This is largely a continuation of some RISK MANAGEMENT observations I have been addressing relative to this particular issue given the way in which the question is often asked.
SUMMARY of following observations: For those who apprehend a risk they might be asked to later provide a police certificate, the prudent approach is simply to go ahead and obtain the police certificate and hold on to it . . . submit it if requested or otherwise bring to the Interview just in case.
WHAT IS THE RISK: It is readily apparent there are what might be called "close cases," and some prospective applicants likely have good cause to question if they need to obtain and submit a police clearance even if, at least technically, they can respond "no" to item 10.b in the application. What follows is about circumstances in which this rather small percentage of prospective applicants might apprehend, given their "close case" situation, there is a chance they might later be asked for a police certificate. Again, this is, thus, about
RISK MANAGEMENT for a certain,
rather small number of prospective applicants.
This warrants making a distinction which some may think is a matter of semantics, but it is a substantive and illustrative distinction:
DISTINCTION: The question posed by the OP is "
Do I have to get police certificate?" Many who ask this question are really asking: "
Do I need to include a police certificate WITH my application?"
The latter question is easy to answer. That answer is dictated by how the applicant answers item 10.b in the application. If "yes," then (with some exceptions) YES, the applicant needs to obtain and submit a police certificate WITH the application. If "no," then the applicant does NOT NEED to submit a police certificate WITH the application.
BUT that does NOT necessarily mean the applicant will not need to obtain and later submit a police certificate in order to have his or her application decided.
Reminder: IRCC may request a police certificate later in the process even if a clearance was not required with the application.
Further Reminder for emphasis: The "yes" or "no" response to Item 10.b is what dictates whether or not a police clearance needs to be included
WITH the application. This is about what is necessary to make an application "complete."
Thus, for example, if the applicant checks "no" in response to item 10.b and does NOT include a police clearance, this will pass the completeness check
EVEN IF in actual fact the applicant was in a single country for more than 183 days in a row. Obviously the "no" check in this situation is a misrepresentation, but of course that could be a mistake not an intentional misrepresentation. This happens. It appears that when it does happen the applicant will get AOR, and the application will be duly referred to a local office for processing, but eventually (typically at or following the Interview and test) the applicant will likely need to submit a police clearance (not always but probably).
Thus, to recap, an inaccurate "no" response to item 10.b results in AOR but the applicant will likely, eventually, be later asked to submit a clearance.
OTHERWISE . . . Later requests for a police certificate appear to be infrequent.
We know that IRCC does, sometimes, make later requests for police certificates, and we know that IRCC has the authority to make any "reasonable" request from applicants, which certainly includes authority to request a police certificate clearance for any country in which IRCC perceives the applicant spent a period of time during the relevant four years or since.
I go into detail about this because there is a tendency among some to approach these matters as if the 183 days in a row criteria is definitively imposed as a fixed rule or law. It is NOT. It is an administrative policy describing what IRCC requires to be included with an application in order to make it a complete application. Indeed, until relatively recently IRCC was requiring a police clearance be submitted WITH the APPLICATION if during the relevant four years the total of all days spent in a single country added up to 183 days or more, even if no single period of time in that country was even three months.
In any event, while it is NOT common, there are some readily apprehended scenarios in which applicants who legitimately checked "no" in response to Item 10.b, and did not include a police certificate, were in this or that other country enough there is a CHANCE, a more or less significant chance, IRCC might later request a police certificate.
CHANCE THERE WILL BE A LATER REQUEST FOR POLICE CLEARANCE; PART II:
There is no way of quantifying the odds, the chance, that despite legitimately checking "no" for Item 10.b an applicant will later be required to submit a police certificate.
However, there are a couple general and fairly obvious scenarios in which it is easy to foresee a significantly elevated risk of being asked for a police certificate:
-- IRCC identifies or perceives there may be some reason to question if the applicant has criminal charges or convictions in a particular country
-- IRCC apprehends or perceives the applicant to have been living or staying in a country for more than six consecutive months even if the applicant did not always stay in that country continuously during that time
The first of these is self-explanatory. What might trigger this, however, is not so easily described. Perhaps the most likely country of concern, in this regard, is the U.S., for applicants who have spent a considerable amount of time in the U.S. but not necessarily six continuous months . . . for example, a GCMS background screening (done repeatedly in processing application) is likely to flag any U.S FBI/NCIC criminal arrests, charges, or convictions. A hit of this sort one could readily describe as among "
the usual suspects" for triggering a later request for the U.S. FBI clearance.
Regarding the second, it is worth noting, for example, the scenario described in Example 1 in the application help. It refers to the situation in which the applicant "
lived" in a particular country (in the example this is "France") for a year . . . and is not predicated on exclusively staying present in that country continuously for the whole year. A person living in France might easily visit neighbouring European countries periodically throughout the year, such that he or she did not continuously remain in France for 183 days or more.
Where an applicant was staying in a particular country spanning more than six months, but not continuously present in that country for six months or more, the applicant can truthfully respond "no" for Item 10.b. That noted, how the applicant decides to actually respond to item 10.b, in this situation, is very much a personal decision. If the applicant can conveniently obtain a police certificate and submit it with the application, it may be prudent to check "yes," based on a general sense of being "in" the country, and this would be particularly appropriate if indeed the applicant had maintained a continuous place of abode in that country (whether or not it was a primary residence or a secondary, temporary residence). And submit the police clearance. OR ALTERNATIVELY, still check "no" but in the meantime obtain a police clearance to have if and when a request is made for it . . . both being mostly about RISK MANAGEMENT and taking precautionary steps to avoid or minimize the risk of non-routine processing and delays.
Again, this is relevant for only a rather small number (but probably a considerable number nonetheless) of prospective applicants. For more than most, for the vast majority of applicants, no need to consider let alone be concerned.
