Police Certificates for Citizenship

[Zrejal]

Hello everyone,

I am gathering my documents to apply for citizenship next month and will be required to submit a police certificate from Qatar where I stayed for more than 6 months in the last 4 years. I have a certificate from when my time there but it's old, so I will probably need to apply for a new one. The problem is that it can take months to arrive, and maybe longer with COVID in place, but I will still apply for it nonetheless. My question is: is it possible to submit the old PC with the package next month, explaining in a letter that I also applied for a new PC, then update the file when I get the new certificate?

 

[Zrejal]

I should add that I understand some would advise to wait till I get the new PC, but my question is about the correctness of the process itself this way, rather than the ideal practice.

Thanks to everyone.

 

[rajkamalmohanram]

Hello everyone,

I am gathering my documents to apply for citizenship next month and will be required to submit a police certificate from Qatar where I stayed for more than 6 months in the last 4 years. I have a certificate from when my time there but it's old, so I will probably need to apply for a new one. The problem is that it can take months to arrive, and maybe longer with COVID in place, but I will still apply for it nonetheless. My question is: is it possible to submit the old PC with the package next month, explaining in a letter that I also applied for a new PC, then update the file when I get the new certificate?

I should add that I understand some would advise to wait till I get the new PC, but my question is about the correctness of the process itself this way, rather than the ideal practice.

Thanks to everyone.

1) If you lived (you were working / studying, for instance ) in Qatar right before you became a PR of Canada, you do NOT have to submit your police certificate. In other words, if Qatar was your country of origin, you do NOT have to submit a police certificate.

2) If you obtained a police certificate the last time you were in the country (and you never went back there after that), you can submit the old police certificate.

3) If either of the above doesn't apply to you, then I would recommend waiting for the new police certificate before applying.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/application/application-forms-guides/guide-0002-application-canadian-citizenship-under-subsection-5-1-adults-18-years-older.html

Police certificate(s)

You need to provide a police certificate from each country, other than Canada, if you were there

• in the past 4 years
• for 183 days or more in a row
• since the age of 18

Indicate in the chart the name of each country and provide a police certificate.

You don’t need to provide a police certificate if

• you were in your country of origin immediately prior to becoming a permanent resident and landing in Canada, and
• this time falls within the past 4 years

If you can’t get a police certificate, tell us why in the explanation box.

To be valid, the police certificate must be either issued

• after the last time you were in that country, or
• no more than 6 months before the date you sign your citizenship application

We may request a police certificate at any point during processing, even if you submitted a valid certificate with your application.

 

[Zrejal]

1) If you lived (you were working / studying, for instance ) in Qatar right before you became a PR of Canada, you do NOT have to submit your police certificate. In other words, if Qatar was your country of origin, you do NOT have to submit a police certificate.

2) If you obtained a police certificate the last time you were in the country (and you never went back there after that), you can submit the old police certificate.

3) If either of the above doesn't apply to you, then I would recommend waiting for the new police certificate before applying.

Thank you so much for your reply. I lived in Qatar from 2012 to 2017, became a PR in 2015 but didn’t settle until 2017 when I left Qatar. The PC I have dates to 2016, so a year is missing from coverage.

I dif live in Qatar immediately before becoming a PR and immediately before arriving to settle in Canada. But I am not a Qatari citizen though, I worked there. Does “country of origin” mean “country of nationality”?

Thank you so much.

 

[rajkamalmohanram]

Thank you so much for your reply. I lived in Qatar from 2012 to 2017, became a PR in 2015 but didn’t settle until 2017 when I left Qatar. The PC I have dates to 2016, so a year is missing from coverage.

I dif live in Qatar immediately before becoming a PR and immediately before arriving to settle in Canada. But I am not a Qatari citizen though, I worked there. Does “country of origin” mean “country of nationality”?

Thank you so much.

Country of origin just means the country you lived in before you became a PR (irrespective of whether you were on a work visa or you were a citizen). So, country of origin is not the same as the country of nationality.

In your case, you went back to Qatar after you established Permanent Residence AND you do not have a police certificate that was issued during your last stay in the country - So IMO, I would suggest waiting for new PCC before applying.

However, see if you can find someone on the forum who was/is in your situation and discuss with them too.

Good luck.

 

[Zrejal]

Country of origin just means the country you lived in before you became a PR (irrespective of whether you were on a work visa or you were a citizen). So, country of origin is not the same as the country of nationality.

In your case, you went back to Qatar after you established Permanent Residence AND you do not have a police certificate that was issued during your last stay in the country - So IMO, I would suggest waiting for new PCC before applying.

However, see if you can find someone on the forum who was/is in your situation and discuss with them too.

Good luck.

Thanks a lot, I’ll see if others have similar experiences.

 

[dpenabill]

Another Deep-Dive. Sorry. That means this goes LONG. Two posts. Many, probably most, will want to skip this and the next post.

These in-depth observations are more about Police Certificate queries generally than this individual case.

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS: For clarity and most likely stating what is already well understood by the OP and most others:

(This is included for clarity because many of the queries about police certificates in this forum approach responding to item 10.b. as if an applicant who does not need to submit a certificate can answer [No] even if they were in fact in another country 183 or more days in a row within the relevant four years; not how it works.)

If a citizenship applicant was present in another country for 183 days or more, in a row, within the four years prior to the date of the application, the accurate response to item 10.b. is [Yes]. This is a straight-forward question of fact. Answer does NOT depend on whether the applicant is required to submit a police certificate.

Applicants who answer [Yes} to item 10.b. must list the country in the chart provided.

Whether or not the applicant must then include a police certificate, or may give an "explanation" in lieu of a police certificate, is a separate question.

The application itself provides 5 examples to help applicants understand both parts of Item 10.b. It also includes a "Note" regarding applicants who were in their "country of origin" before landing. There is also some instruction as to when the certificate was issued.

It warrants emphasizing that applicants may be asked to provide a police certificate later in the process. Whether or not they should have included one with the application. Whether or not they did provide one with the application.


Sidebar (see next post for the Deep-Dive in regards to the OP's particular query):

Country of origin just means the country you lived in before you became a PR (irrespective of whether you were on a work visa or you were a citizen). So, country of origin is not the same as the country of nationality.

Am curious about what this is based on? I have no strong reason to disagree . . . but my understanding was otherwise, without having thought much about it, just the way I read this (rooted largely in general usage, in which it usually refers to country of First Nationality in contrast to countries in which an individual subsequently obtained citizenship, recognizing however it is used far more often in reference to where products were manufactured and labeling requirements; also considering IRCC uses this term most often in the context of refugee or asylum claims).

In particular, my sense was that the reference to "country of origin" in the citizenship application referenced a country in which an individual had, at the least, some PERMANENT status rather than transient or temporary status, but again this is without an official or authoritative source. And I thought it was phrased this way, "country of origin," so that it would encompass both a country of nationality, as applicable to most Canadian immigrants, but also cover those who are stateless, such as most Palestinians living in certain ME areas.

THAT SAID, for purposes of whether a PR applying for citizenship is instructed to provide a police certificate, it does not matter much, since the situation in which a person was living in another country prior to landing, and present in that country for 183+ days in a row, within the relevant four years, regardless the individual's status in that country, is covered by Example 1 in the drop down instructions in the application form. Example 1 ONLY applies if the PR did NOT travel to that country AFTER landing and becoming a PR. If the PR did not travel to that country after date of landing, the PR checks [yes] in response to 10.b. and then EITHER:

-- submits a police certificate if no police certificate was provided with the PR application, OR​

-- enters an explanation that a police certificate for that country was submitted with the application, and probably should add that she has not returned to that country since landing​

NOTE: Neither Example 1 NOR the Note in the instructions referencing applicants in their country of origin apply to the OP @Zrejal . . . which is explained in-depth in the next post.

 

[dpenabill]

PART II Deep-Dive

My question is: is it possible to submit the old PC with the package next month, explaining in a letter that I also applied for a new PC, then update the file when I get the new certificate?

Actually the answer for the particular query here is quite simple. The "correct" way is to check [Yes] in response to item 10.b. List Qatar in the chart. Include a Police Certificate that meets the requirements stated in the application instructions.

No, a police certificate issued more than six months ago and prior to the last time in that country does NOT meet the requirements stated in the application instructions.

That said, it is POSSIBLE that including the old PC, with or without an explanation, might get past the completeness screening, and if so, bringing a more current PC to the test/interview event, or submitting it before that in a supplemental submission, will probably be OK. Not "correct" but not causing a problem or much of a problem.

I will explain the above answer (even though it should be rather obvious) and elaborate some, but what follows is more about using this scenario and query to do a deep-dive into approaching these sorts of questions more generally. Including a bit about that gray area between what the instructions require and what might ordinarily slide by (without condoning let alone encouraging deliberately doing the latter; indeed, I generally discourage any approach other than meticulously following the instructions).


SCENARIO POSED By @Zrejal

I am gathering my documents to apply for citizenship next month and will be required to submit a police certificate from Qatar where I stayed for more than 6 months in the last 4 years. I have a certificate from when my time there but it's old, so I will probably need to apply for a new one. The problem is that it can take months to arrive, and maybe longer with COVID in place, but I will still apply for it nonetheless. My question is: is it possible to submit the old PC with the package next month, explaining in a letter that I also applied for a new PC, then update the file when I get the new certificate?

I will address the "what is possible" part of the query separately, below.

If you follow the instructions, how they apply to your situation is quite clear.

-- A truthful response to item 10.b. is [Yes] if you were in Qatar for 183 or more days in a row in the four years immediately preceding the the date you apply for citizenship​

-- If you check [Yes] you need to list the country (Qatar) in the chart provided, and​

-- Submit a police certificate which has been issued EITHER​

-- -- within the last six months, or​

-- -- issued since the last time you were in Qatar​

IN PARTICULAR . . .

Example 1 clearly does NOT apply to the OP's situation, since the OP traveled to Qatar AFTER landing . .

I lived in Qatar from 2012 to 2017, became a PR in 2015

Additionally, the "Note" in the instructions in regards to being in one's "country of origin" also only applies to presence in that country BEFORE landing BUT STILL within the relevant FOUR YEARS. Since the date of landing (2015) was more than four years ago, this note has NO application to the OP's scenario.

Thus, whether or not Qatar is the OP's "country of origin" does NOT matter.

The PC I have dates to 2016, so a year is missing from coverage.

If you have been in Qatar since the date the PC was issued, and it was issued more than six months ago, it does NOT satisfy the instructions. That is obvious on its face.


WHETHER IT IS "POSSIBLE" TO SUBMIT THE OLD POLICE CERTIFICATE . . .

My question is: is it possible to submit the old PC with the package next month, explaining in a letter that I also applied for a new PC, then update the file when I get the new certificate?

I should add that I understand some would advise to wait till I get the new PC, but my question is about the correctness of the process itself this way, rather than the ideal practice.

As previously noted, if you have been in Qatar since the date the PC was issued, and it was issued more than six months ago, it does NOT satisfy the instructions. That is obvious on its face. So NO, obviously, it would NOT be *correct* procedure to submit the older PC, with or without an explanation that a request for a more recent PC has been made.

But many of us tend to drive well over the speed limit. 10k over is still NOT legal (not "correct" one might say), but it would be rather unusual to get a ticket (absent other factors, like a crash, poor driving conditions, or such). More than a few us will drive even more over the speed limit on open highways, and usually without legal consequences. That noted, no matter how easy it is to drive any amount over the limit (even less than 10k over), it is NOT legal to do so.

How much over the speed limit is it POSSIBLE to drive? What is correct, or lawful, or legal, or "allowed" even, is one thing. What is possible is another, and that depends on the roadway and the vehicle and the driver.

I realize I am, so to say, scratching-where-there-is-no-itch. You are not actually asking what is possible, since after all you know that no one is going to stop you from putting an application package together with the old PC and sending it off. It is for sure "possible" to do this.

What you want to know (or so I discern) is

(1) whether Citizenship Canada will accept the application as complete and process it (rather than return it as incomplete for failing to include a proper PC), and​

(2) if they do accept it as complete, and process it, will not having included a proper PC with the application HURT, and if so, in what way will it hurt?​

You appear to harbour the hope that it will be accepted, the application not returned for being incomplete, and that it will not hurt otherwise. This hope based on including a PC from Qatar and promising to submit one meeting the instruction requirements in the near future. I say this even though you asked about the "correctness" of this, as I suspect you already knew it was not "correct" but thinking it might be tacitly allowed (like drivers on the 401 going 10k over; like many of us going to the interview without a proper translation of passport stamps containing information in an unofficial language).

The underlying distinction here may help us understand the import of an anecdotal response to a question like this.

If someone reports they did something like this and the application was returned as incomplete, that would largely tell the tale. Still "possible" someone else might do it and NOT have their application returned as incomplete, but since all applications are screened in the same facility and probably by a rather small group of processing agents, the one returned application indicates that this is likely something noted in the application-completeness-screening process and deemed incomplete.

But in contrast, a single report, or even a dozen reports, from applicants who did this, reporting they got AOR (application not returned as incomplete), only indicates that at least some of the time this gets past the completeness screening, but does not illuminate much about what impact it might have later in the process (follow-up anecdotal reporting here tends to be scant and woefully inadequate).

Somewhat Related Reports:

There are MANY reports throughout this forum (not so much recently, but since the police certificate requirement was added to applications) in which applicants approached item 10.b in various other INCORRECT ways and got AOR and apparently most (with exceptions for obvious reasons) were not penalized for it, not much anyway; worst cases appearing to be a request (made at or after the interview) the applicant obtain and submit a proper PC. Of course this means their application is non-routine and thus at higher risk for delays in processing. And of course (alluding to the "obvious exceptions") if the circumstances indicate the applicant was making a misrepresentation or being manipulative or otherwise indicate cause for concern, more negative consequences can be anticipated.

Leading to this: I do NOT know how this will go if you attempt it. My guess is that IF it gets past the completeness screening, it will not cause a problem, especially if you obtain and submit an updated PC. Main thing is I do not know whether it will get a pass in the completeness screening. Ironically, if you leave out the explanation, submit the old PC, and accordingly check for this in the checklist, without any explanation, that would probably slide pass the completeness screening. I am far, far short of being sure of this. I emphatically suggest you NOT do this. It could come across manipulative or even somewhat deceptive. While it might be similar to choosing to go to the interview without a proper translation for passport stamps, which I emphatically suggest others NOT do even though I did it myself (like most, I had my reasons), there's enough difference to warrant more diligently doing it right.

 

[dpenabill]

(Sorry this actually wandered into a third post.)

ALL THAT SAID . . . WARRANTS EMPHASIZING THAT NOT RUSHING THINGS TENDS TO LEAD TO BETTER RESULTS

From waiting to have a bigger margin when applying, to taking the time to get everything as right as possible, NOT RUSHING appears to generally pay off and pay off well for most. Often by a lot. Non-routine processing tends to cause the process to take many weeks or a few months longer, at the least, and oft times can result in very long processing times.

This will likely be especially true going forward in the near future. Indeed, there should be NO rush at all to submit a citizenship application right now. Odds are high that applications being submitted now will sit in limbo for quite some time, and even though they will likely, EVENTUALLY, be processed in the order of receipt, the differences in processing time based on order of receipt is likely to be small in comparison to how much of a delay ALL applications suffer due to this year's circumstances related to covid-19.

And in the wake of the massive slowdown in processing due to covid-19, applicants involved in any non-routine processing are quite likely to suffer even longer delays.

Regarding the effort to get things as right as possible and why, apart from moral or ethical considerations, I would encourage prospective applicants to avoid sliding into any gray area (relying on what seems likely allowed rather than focusing on getting it as correct, as right as possible) because, all things considered:

(1) we all make mistakes, so even when we are making our very best effort to get things as right as possible, we often if not usually miss in some regards; seems foolish to deliberately add another miss to those unintentionally made, and​

​

(2) no advanced degrees in political science necessary to recognize that if a total stranger bureaucrat perceives an applicant is deliberately skirting the rules, trying to slide by, that is likely to have some influence on that bureaucrat's perception of the applicant's credibility, and second only to meeting the requirements themselves, the applicant's credibility looms as the next most influential factor affecting how things go, both time-wise and sometimes outcome wise​

​

Leading back to this:

I should add that I understand some would advise to wait till I get the new PC, but my question is about the correctness of the process itself this way, rather than the ideal practice.

Getting it right is not merely the "ideal" practice. Falling short of getting it right, missing it by a bit, might get by, might be OK, but REMEMBER it is NOT just about whether it works in terms of the final outcome. There really is no point rushing to make an application that will take much longer in processing. Peruse the tales of woe told by many in this forum whose applications are taking a lot longer than it takes for most others. Read between the lines. Sure, for many the delays are not their fault and were not avoidable. But for many, many others a little patience upfront, and a slightly bigger dose of diligence, could have saved them a lot of anxiety, lowered the stress, and put a Canadian passport in their hands a lot sooner. And, after all, the meaning of "ideal" is not a gratuitous label. There are reasons why certain practices are described "ideal."

 

[rajkamalmohanram]

Am curious about what this is based on? I have no strong reason to disagree . . . but my understanding was otherwise, without having thought much about it, just the way I read this (rooted largely in general usage, in which it usually refers to country of First Nationality in contrast to countries in which an individual subsequently obtained citizenship, recognizing however it is used far more often in reference to where products were manufactured and labeling requirements; also considering IRCC uses this term most often in the context of refugee or asylum claims).

In particular, my sense was that the reference to "country of origin" in the citizenship application referenced a country in which an individual had, at the least, some PERMANENT status rather than transient or temporary status, but again this is without an official or authoritative source. And I thought it was phrased this way, "country of origin," so that it would encompass both a country of nationality, as applicable to most Canadian immigrants, but also cover those who are stateless, such as most Palestinians living in certain ME areas.

THAT SAID, for purposes of whether a PR applying for citizenship is instructed to provide a police certificate, it does not matter much, since the situation in which a person was living in another country prior to landing, and present in that country for 183+ days in a row, within the relevant four years, regardless the individual's status in that country, is covered by Example 1 in the drop down instructions in the application form. Example 1 ONLY applies if the PR did NOT travel to that country AFTER landing and becoming a PR. If the PR did not travel to that country after date of landing, the PR checks [yes] in response to 10.b. and then EITHER:
-- submits a police certificate if no police certificate was provided with the PR application, OR-- enters an explanation that a police certificate for that country was submitted with the application, and probably should add that she has not returned to that country since landing
NOTE: Neither Example 1 NOR the Note in the instructions referencing applicants in their country of origin apply to the OP @Zrejal . . . which is explained in-depth in the next post.

Well, my understanding of this stems from the fact that 'Country of origin' is a rather peculiar term. To me, country of origin = country the applicant was living in (established residence of some sort like working or studying, not just touring) rather than their country of citizenship. IMO, IRCC would have called it 'country of citizenship' if they actually meant 'country that the applicant was citizen of'.

Also, my understanding comes from the fact that applicants had to submit police certificates for the countries they were living in at the time of PR application (irrespective of whether or not they were a citizen of that country). For instance, if I (an Indian citizen) were working on a H1-B visa in the US (a temporary resident) when I applied for PR, I would have certainly provided the police certificate for US at the time of my PR application.

The reasoning behind this : IRCC, for citizenship application, considers a police certificate valid only if it was either issued when the applicant was last in the country OR if it was issued in the last 6 months. Some people might have been residing in a different country since a very young age for many years but weren't citizens (in UAE, for instance). They might not even have had to submit a police certificate for their country of birth. Considering the above, it makes sense to me that 'Country of origin' means the country the person was living in at the time of PR application.

If you happen to go back to this 'country of origin' for 183 days or more AFTER establishing PR, you will have to provide a police certificate.

Also, if you look at the notes from the GCMS system (under 'Client Details' section) - there are 4 separate fields (Country of Citizenship, Country of Residence, Country of Birth and Country of Refuge). A person who was born in country X could have moved to country Y at a very young age as a refugee. In that case, when s/he applies for PR from country Y, the CoR (equivalent to Country of Origin, IMO) would be country they are living in and not the country of citizenship.

IMO, there is nothing that suggests that 'Country of Origin' has to be a country where people have some kind of permanent residence. Instead, IMO, it is just the country where the applicant 'resided' (was living) at the time of PR application.

I based my conclusion on the above facts and is definitely up for debate. Please let me know if you think my understanding is incorrect.

 

[rajkamalmohanram]

That said, it is POSSIBLE that including the old PC, with or without an explanation, might get past the completeness screening, and if so, bringing a more current PC to the test/interview event, or submitting it before that in a supplemental submission, will probably be OK. Not "correct" but not causing a problem or much of a problem.

This was exactly my thought. But why I did not bring this up was because if the completeness check passes but then the officer issues a document request, that might add more time to the process. I did not want to suggest something that has even the slightest chance of causing the application to become non-routine.

 

[dpenabill]

This was exactly my thought. But why I did not bring this up was because if the completeness check passes but then the officer issues a document request, that might add more time to the process. I did not want to suggest something that has even the slightest chance of causing the application to become non-routine.

Such reluctance I understand. Moreover, I usually focus on and emphasize what the law, regulations, rules, and known policies and practices, including the guidelines and instructions, prescribe.

I try to steer very wide of what-might-work if it is not following-the-instructions.

I wandered some outside those parameters a bit, above, because the query here seemed a good candidate for an illustrative exploration into gray-area nuances. Generally I avoid even indirectly recognizing let alone possibly encouraging foraging into gray-area, pushing-the-envelope approaches, since following-the-rules-and-instructions is what is known to almost always work best, and work best by a big margin. Generally there is no need and it is not a good idea to be colouring-outside-the-lines, even if it is known to work for some.

But as I noted in the long posts, over the years there have been many anecdotal reports from applicants who clearly did not properly respond to Item 10.b who got AOR and for most the worst of it was a later request for the PC.

And even though I explored this approach, which is clearly NOT consistent with the instructions, not "correct" so to say, I hope I have been emphatic enough in discouraging it. Especially now, in the current situation.


MORE REGARDING "COUNTRY of ORIGIN:"

Foremost, to be clear, for the OP, for @Zrejal, it does NOT matter whether Qatar is considered a "country of origin." Timing and duration of stay in Qatar clearly does NOT fit any of the exceptions. As @Zrejal appears to recognize, the instructions require a PC be submitted. (The OP's question, to put it bluntly, is whether or not @Zrejal can get-away-with using an older PC even though the instructions are clear that a more recent PC is required.)

Beyond that, as I have said, I did not put much thought into what "country of origin" means. I assumed it was being used in the way it is commonly used. Which for most people would mean it is in reference to the country of nationality. And otherwise construed Example 1 to cover the situation where applicants were living in a country other than their nationality before becoming a PR.

If you are correct, I WAS WRONG in previous posts of mine in which I indicated merely visiting one's "home" (so to say) country after landing would NOT trigger the need to submit a new PC even if before landing but still within the previous four years the applicant was living in her home country for 183 or more days in a row.

I do not know the correct answer. And this is not the sort of question one can rely on the call centre agents to get right. Obviously, applying Example 1 the safest approach is to submit a new PC if there have been any trips to the home country after landing.

Some discussion: What Difference Does It Make For Citizenship Applicants?

. . . If you happen to go back to this 'country of origin' for 183 days or more AFTER establishing PR, you will have to provide a police certificate.

That one is easy. No exception applies, and rather clearly so. Regardless what "country of origin" means. That is, if the applicant happens to go back to the country she was living in before becoming a PR and is THEN there for 183 or more days in a row (within four years of applying for citizenship), a PC is needed whether that country is considered the applicant's country of origin or not.

What about just visiting that country after landing, the country where the applicant was living before landing and the latter (time living there before landing) includes being there 183 days or more in a row within four years of applying for citizenship? (Only applicable to those who apply just barely more than 3 years, up to 3 and a half years, after landing and at the same time settling in Canada.)

MY previous understanding:

My understanding was that ANY return, after landing, to the country where one was living before landing, triggers the instruction to include a PC issued either within the previous six months or at the least since the last time the applicant was in that country. This understanding is based on Example 1 in the drop down instructions. Which specifically addresses the situation where an applicant was "living" in a country before landing.

EXCEPT, UNLESS, that country is also the applicant's "country of origin," in which event merely visiting the country since landing does NOT trigger the need to submit a police certificate. This is based on the "Note" regarding country of origin.


Understanding Otherwise:

If the country where the applicant was living before becoming a PR is considered the applicant's "country of origin," even if not the PR's nationality, then under Example 1 ANY return after landing to that country would trigger the need for a new PC.

And that may indeed be what is intended. I did not think so. That is, I understood the note about "country of origin" to have a more narrow scope than that described in Example 1.

But sure, Example 1 could be intended to simply clarify the "note." In particular, Example 1 indicates that the exception to submitting a PC for a country the applicant was living in before becoming a PR requires, first, that the applicant "did not travel" to that country after the applicant became a PR. It states IF after landing the applicant did not return to the country where she was living before landing, and a police certificate was submitted for that country in the PR application process, then NO PC needs to be submitted with the application.

For Reference:

Example 1:

Example 1
You lived in France for one year (365 days) before you became a permanent resident 3 years ago. You did not travel to France after you became a permanent resident. You would answer “Yes” to the question and you would need to provide a police certificate from France if you did not provide one with your immigration application. If you provided a police certificate from France with your immigration application, tell us this in the box provided at Question 10b.

Note re "country of origin" (this quotes the application itself, which differs slightly, in form only, from what is in the guide):

Note: If you were in your country or territory of origin immediately prior to becoming a permanent resident and landing in Canada and this time falls with this four (4) year period, you are not required to provide a police certificate. Please indicate this in the explanation box.

As I noted before, I do not have a strong feeling about this. On those occasions I have addressed aspects of this before, I have suggested that for those who were living in their country of origin before becoming a PR, alluding to country of origin being something more than just where they were living (more or less assuming that others understood it to be the country of nationality or birth, or habitual residence for stateless persons), they state this as an explanation and could apply without including a PC, but also suggesting they go ahead and obtain a PC in the meantime just in case they are asked for it. Even if they had visited the "home" country on some occasions since landing.

Thus, as I indicated at the outset, if you are correct, I was wrong about that. If after landing they visited their "home" country, one might say, even though briefly, and "country of origin" means the same as where one was living prior to becoming a PR, Example 1 clearly indicates they need to submit a fresh PC with the application. This would of course be the safest approach. For most countries probably no big deal. Just a little forethought and planning needed to obtain the PC before applying.

 

[Zrejal]

@rajkamalmohanram and @dpenabill, thank you so much for your thorough replies.

Just a last question: Are the original PCs the ones needed, or notarized copies?

 

[PMM]

Hi

@rajkamalmohanram and @dpenabill, thank you so much for your thorough replies.

Just a last question: Are the original PCs the ones needed, or notarized copies?

1. The original plus the notarized translation if the in neither English or French.

 

[Trifid]

Reply from IRCC by email:

• If you were in your country of origin immediately before becoming a permanent resident and landing in Canada and this time falls within this four year period, you are not required to provide a police certificate. Please indicate this in the explanation box.