CAUTION: the referenced discussion linked above is two years old.
Things change. For this subject, in particular, Item (or question) 13 in the citizenship application has changed. The list of examples of status did not include "visitor" in the 2019 versions of CIT 0002. Now it does, as
@PMV observed and as earlier this year it was discussed with screenshots showing it.
In particular:
Item 13 drop down selections for "status" now includes "visitor."
Kind of a clue, some may infer. More like an instruction others will suggest.
Really? Some might ask. OK to ignore and not disclose some appear to still be saying.
For those who find all this confusing, worse than cloudy, and actually rather muddy, sorry, my observations may muddy things even more. For example, without intending to be abstruse, I actually agree with most of these: that the inclusion of "visitor" in the drop down is essentially a clue; yet to some extent it is specifically an instruction; but in some contexts one is compelled to ask "
really?" and conclude it is probably OK to not disclose some instances, like having had visitor status for a very brief period of time decades ago when one was a child. I do not agree with ignoring the fact that "visitor" was added to the drop down; almost never a good idea to ignore the actual language in an application.
Some Observations:
There is some discussion in other posts suggesting that "
immigration status" does not include temporary status, like visitor status. That is not how things are structured in Canadian immigration law and regulations (and probably not in most countries). Even persons with visa-exempt passports, including for example U.S. citizens, who are casually waived through the PoE, have temporary resident status in Canada upon their entry. That is, temporary resident status is the "
immigration status" of a FN visitor in Canada. A FN visitor in Canada has temporary resident status in Canada whether they were issued a formal visitor's visa or were waived through.
Note, to be in Canada legally means to be in Canada with properly granted status, which again can be temporary resident status as a visitor granted without much if any formality. I have not visited most countries in the world nor studied their immigration laws, but I am fairly confident many if not most operate at least somewhat similarly, requiring individuals to be granted some legal status, and that is their immigration status, in order to lawfully enter and remain in the country. Indeed, a person's immigration status in some countries can include unlawful presence in the country; in the U.S., for example, people in the country without permission to stay have what is called "
undocumented immigration status."
Visa versus Status . . . it's a bit of a red herring . . .
As some have noted, the presence of a "
visa" in a passport does not necessarily mean the individual had immigration status in the country that issued the visa. That is a "
visa" does not equal or necessarily define "
immigration status."
BUT they are related. Closely related. The presence of a visa in a passport at the least suggests the individual had status in that country, and of course actually entering a country almost always definitively means the individual had status in that country. In particular, typically it is the visa that was issued that determines the status a person has when they actually enter a country. Not necessarily, but usually. For example, when a FN who has been issued a student-permit arrives at a Canadian Port-of-Entry, border officials will ordinarily grant the individual authority to enter Canada as a temporary resident as a student; but, when this individual is examined at the PoE, border officials may determine the individual does not qualify to enter Canada as temporary resident with status to attend school in Canada, and so decline entry on that basis, but nonetheless allow this individual to enter Canada as a temporary resident with visitor status.
Overall: if an individual was issued a visa and then traveled to that country and entered it, this will almost always mean the person had immigration status in that country, usually consistent with the visa, but in some instances a different status based on determinations made at the PoE. As a practical matter, the "
visa" versus "
status" distinction is a distinction without a difference, typically not one that matters anyway.
SO . . . SO What About Brief Travel to Countries?
Does the addition of "visitor" to the drop down menu for "status" in Item 13 mean that every time the prospective applicant had visitor status in another country that is to be reported? This is the part where I agree with it being OK to not disclose SOME of these instances, but I also must caution that I really do not know what IRCC is expecting.
Best I can suggest is to use common sense.
REMEMBER: The application is not intended to test the applicant's ability to navigate bureaucratic forms. IRCC does not engage in
gotcha-games. An honest response based on the applicant's genuine, best understanding of what is asked, not only usually works, but generally is what works best most of the time. IRCC is not looking for what is precisely the technically correct answer. They are asking applicants for information, expecting applicants to honestly provide that information according to the individual's genuine understanding of the question and what is the accurate answer. Generally there is little need to parse the precise meaning of terms in the questions and, in contrast, doing so can be a mistake. (Thus, for example, not a whole lot of weight should be given the fact the Instruction Guide does not list "visitor" status as an example of status to report; the examples are representative, not comprehensive or definitive, and the application itself clearly lists "visitor" status.)
Did I mention my observations may make things even more muddy? The good news is that as long as the applicant is not actually concealing something, and discloses the big ticket items (for sure any grant of permanent status, like a U.S. Green Card, but also any status to work or study in a country, and discloses status for any period of time in which the individual was more or less residing in another country), it is not likely IRCC will have a problem if brief or inconsequential instances are not reported, especially older ones (outside the eligibility period and otherwise not indicated in a relevant passport).
