Passport Stamps In Particular Part II:
There really should be no doubt that information in passport stamps is no different than language in other documents, and so require a translation if they are in a language other than either French or English.
But I will do a deep analytical dive into the reasoning for illustrative purposes.
I cannot see a single statement from IRCC official links where they state that you need to provide translation of passport stamps. It can be inferred but nowhere is it actually mentioned. IRCC would never leave anything ambiguous in my opinion.
As already mentioned, actually there are numerous reports by applicants who have been specifically told to provide a translation of their passport stamps by IRCC officials, the processing agents who conducted their interview.
Beyond that, the general instructions in regards to translations refer to "
any document" that is not in French/English. No inference necessary, rather simply understanding what "
any" means, this clearly covers ANY and ALL documents submitted with the application that contain information that is not in either French or English -- it is not limited to those particular documents mentioned as requiring a translation.
Note, the guide does not mention any particular documents requiring translations, but apart from the general instruction as to "
any" document, the more detailed instructions specifically mention three
types of documents in particular for which translations are required:
-- documents constituting proof of ability in an official language
-- supporting documents for applicants asserting exemption from knowledge of Canada requirement due to a medical condition
-- foreign documents supporting change in name
There is no hint, none, that this is the entire list. There is no hint, none, that not mentioning a particular document in the guide as requiring a translation means it is not covered by the general instructions regarding when to provide a translation.
There is no hint that passports, for which translations are not mentioned specifically, are not covered.
None of the instructions regarding translations "
mentions" any specific type or source or form of information within documents.
So it is clear that the relevant question is whether the document itself meets the criteria for requiring a translation.
And since, again, the instructions refer to "
any document," it is clear that any document submitted with the application that "
is not in English or French" must be accompanied by a proper translation; no interpretation or inference is necessary to understand
this applies to ALL documents submitted with the application, and thus
includes passports.
So, in regards to passport stamps, the question is not whether the instructions state that "
passport stamps" in particular require translation, but whether the passport is a document "
not in" English/French, and if it is, a translation is required. And if a translation is required, there is no doubt that any and all information in the passport that is in a language other than English, or French, should be translated.
But oddly enough there is no shortage of claims that passport stamps are different . . . even though the instructions do not mention an exception for passport stamps. Indeed, there is no hint of an exception for passport stamps.
AND, again, in contrast, more than a few forum participants have reported encountering substantial delays in processing their application, waiting for the submission of translations, following less than friendly interview experiences related to their failure to provide translations of stamp in their passport.
BUT NOT all who failed to provide a translation encounter such a problem. Again, I am among those who did this, but encountered no problem.
It is abundantly clear IRCC does not approach this the same for everyone. Moreover, so many others have reported no problems, similar to
@shariq123 and me, it is readily apparent that IRCC is rather lax in enforcing the requirement to provide a translation.
It is NOT likely this is random, arbitrary, or capricious. Does not matter for most, but for some IRCC wants more clarity. Who? Why? When? That gets complicated. Leading to Passport Stamps In Particular Part III . . .
Passport Stamps In Particular Part III (Why is IRCC interested in passport stamp content?)
:
Translating stamps for what purpose? Citizenship application? Is it even required to translate stamps?
IRCC can, and often will, examine and consider information on passport pages beyond what that information reveals about entry or exit dates.
It warrants noting with emphasis, in particular, that screening passport content is mostly about looking for clues there is reason to question the applicant further, not just as to the applicant's physical presence specifically, but also as to collateral matters that might indicate reason to look at the applicant more closely.
One salient aspect IRCC might be screening is whether there is a stamp, visa, permit, or other information in the applicant's passport (including in passport stamps) indicating status to work in a country that is inconsistent or incongruous with the applicant's reported employment history. Similarly as to residency status in other countries.
While the overriding concern is physical presence, IRCC can be and often will be looking to see if the passport reveals anything about the applicant that does not fit into the rest of the information the applicant has provided.
And yeah, it is also looking for clues more directly connected to travel history . . . for example, is there an entry or exit stamp for a country the applicant did not list in their travel history (remember, applicants are instructed to list, in the box for describing the reason for the absence from Canada, all countries visited in addition to the primary destination).
Also for RO check, IRCC has complete access to CBSA records so they exactly know your entry and exit dates from Canada from their own system. They don't need to rely on your passport stamps.
For citizenship applications (and for PR RO enforcement similarly) IRCC does not use its access to CBSA travel history to determine what dates a PR exited and entered Canada. To a large extent it could. But it doesn't. It uses its access to CBSA travel history information to see if that information reveals any omissions or inaccuracies in the travel history the PR has provided with the physical presence calculation. This is something I have addressed in depth repeatedly in numerous topics.
Note that IRCC "
could" use the CBSA information, "
to a large extent," to determine the individual PR's exit and entry dates. But that means NOT entirely. That is because Canada's border is notoriously porous. There are many ways for people to enter or exit Canada without CBSA capturing a record mapped to a particular client ID (and no, I do not share what I know about how to do that). Less and less so as the gaps in record capturing are closed, but still far shy of
Minority Report efficiency (which those who watched the film based on the Philip K. Dick story might note was also shy of perfect despite overwhelming surveillance technology).
Rather, IRCC relies on the best source of information for a particular PR's travel history: the PR, the person applying for citizenship. That person is the ONE and ONLY person or entity in the whole world who was FOR SURE there each and every time the PR exited Canada, each and every time the PR entered Canada, for sure capable of capturing and keeping a record of every exit, every entry.
The PR, the citizenship applicant is the ONE BEST SOURCE of travel history information.
So the question that IRCC has, in approaching verification of actual physical presence, is whether the best source of travel history information is reliable, is credible. IRCC actually has and uses many tools to evaluate the accuracy and completeness of what the PR/applicant has declared in their physical presence calculation, but a big one, of course, is cross-checking the PR/applicant's history with what CBSA has.
REMINDER: the burden of proof of actual physical presence is on the PR/applicant. If the best evidence is determined to not be credible, that can make meeting the burden of proof a lot more difficult. No applicant wants to go there.
BOTTOM LINE: The instructions say to provide a translation of any document not in English/French, and that includes a passport that has in it information that is not in either English or French. A failure to do so might not be a problem. And so far the worst case scenario, for failing to properly provide a translation, appears to be having to provide the translation following a PI interview.
