Application for citizenship - a few questions
- Thread starter WednesdayBlues
- Start date
1. IELTS test results are enough.
2. You need not mention vacation address if you gone to India for same. If it was for long term then do mention India address.
3. Checklist not needed for online application
4. For online only bio page is needed.
5. Physical presence upload not needed for online application
For citizenship applications the information provided by IRCC clearly dictates that FPs must be collected IN Canada, either by a local police service, the RCMP, or an RCMP accredited FP company. See https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/canadian-citizenship/become-canadian-citizen/apply/submit-fingerprints.html#fingerprints-cit-locations and https://ircc.canada.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=857&top=4
I do not know if there are exceptions or ways to work around this.
Beyond that . . .
An Overall Note: the queries posed by @WednesdayBlues, and the situation as presented, indicate a higher-than-usual risk of triggering substantial non-routine processing. This is in significant part due to the conjunction of factors more than the impact of any one of them alone. For example, even though applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport has NO effect on an applicant's eligibility, and in itself probably would not trigger non-routine processing, that in conjunction with an application relying on a narrow margin or buffer over the minimum physical presence requirement probably elevates the risks, at least some, which could be further elevated by other circumstances (such as non-routine processing in regards to providing additional documents or information, especially while the applicant is outside Canada).
This is not to forecast how things are likely to go for the OP here . . . except to caution there appears to be multiple aspects of the OP's situation likely to elevate the risk of non-routine processing which could lead to some delay in getting to the oath. And thus, perhaps the OP might want to consider what they can change to reduce or mitigate the risks (just reduce the risks, noting that the risk of non-routine processing cannot be eliminated for any applicant).
The obvious variable within the OP's control is when-to-apply and the OP may want to consider whether it would be prudent to wait to apply later and, in particular, consider one or more or perhaps even all the following:
-- wait until a PCC can be included with the application (or wait long enough a PCC is unnecessary)
-- wait to have current identification without relying on temporary documents for the name change
-- wait to apply with a bigger margin over the minimum physical presence requirement
-- wait until after returning to Canada to make the application
Not sure to what extent I will try to explain or elaborate. It is not as if eligibility itself is at stake. Mostly just the risk of non-routine processing and delays, which might not happen or which might happen anyway.
That said, for just one example, no expertise or deep knowledge required to recognize that relying on temporary documents as identification to document a name change is a factor likely to trigger a fingerprint request (noting too that just a name change alone might trigger a FP request), which in-itself should not cause much delay in processing. However, things get a little more complicated if the applicant is outside Canada; again, for citizenship applications the information provided by IRCC clearly dictates that FPs must be collected IN Canada.
And beyond that there are some particular aspects calling for more in-depth commentary . . .
ADDRESS HISTORY; The Long Read:
In particular, for a short period of time in transit, listing the former address as continuing to the day the applicant moves into a different, new address, should easily suffice. (In many other contexts, a person's primary address is often considered to continue to be their address until the day a different primary address is established.)
Note, too, that the addresses listed can overlap (more about this below).
A persnickety note: The application and instructions require more than a mere "mention" of addresses.*** (Yeah, picky, picky. But the objective is to get it right. "Mention" suggests an incidental, by the way reference. Applicants need to definitively state addresses in full, including unit details if applicable, and postal codes.)
Explanation:
The list-addresses question in the application for citizenship, which is question 10 in CIT 0002 (10-2024) E (online application has the same question but in a different format or arrangement), does not ask applicants to report the address of every location where the applicant spent a night or stayed for a period of time, but it does ask the applicant to report "all addresses." Meanwhile, generally a person's residential address continues to be their address (or to be more precise, at least one of their addresses) until they have established a different address. There are exceptions, in which cases the applicant needs to use their best judgment in how to honestly answer this question in a way that is open, accurate, and complete, and in no way evasive or deceptive, leaving no gaps. Again, addresses can overlap.
Overlapping Addresses: Just as employment listed in response to the activity/work history question can overlap, meaning more than one employment can be listed for the same period of time (and for someone who works more than one job at a time, or goes to school while at the same time they have a job, they should list both), likewise the applicant for citizenship can (and in some circumstances should) list multiple or overlapping addresses. For example, students often have both a home address and their at-school address, and should list both.
Caveat: In regards to declaring "all addresses" in response to the list-addresses question in the application for citizenship it appears that my views differ some from many other forum participants. For one thing, I probably put significantly more emphasis on what "all" entails, acknowledging what it what it does not entail.
The only exception referred to in the instructions is for the addresses of "family, friends, hotels or resorts" where the applicant stayed "while on vacation" (as emphasized in the guide). Does that mean the applicant should list hotels as addresses for periods of time they were traveling on business? Does the instruction to report "all addresses" mean the applicant should list business addresses here? Meanwhile there is no hint, for example, that IRCC is asking the applicant to list email addresses here, notwithstanding the emphasis on listing "all" addresses.
Even though the instruction should clearly be interpreted broadly, it is probably fair to interpret the instruction such that in many instances, in most cases even, IRCC is NOT asking for temporary addresses for brief, transitory stays in any location, whether for holidays or business. The difficulty some wrestle with is distinguishing what places they have stayed for short periods of time should be listed versus those that do not need to be listed, and those which should not be listed (do not list the hotel in Amsterdam where you stayed for three days during a business trip).
I will be blunt: many if not most of the queries about this, in this forum, are B.S., or at the least a bit disingenuous. It does not take much common sense to easily distinguish the kind of addresses IRCC is asking applicants to list versus the places where the applicant has briefly stayed. Feints of confusion otherwise should not fool anyone.
For example, some hang their residences-hat on whether or not they label a period of time a "vacation" (or holiday). Here's a hint: if the applicant is staying in their home town for three months, IRCC almost certainly wants to know the address even if that's where the applicant's parents live and the applicant calls the visit a vacation. And anyone who is sincerely addressing the addresses question knows this.
How about two months? That question misses the point. The answer is probably yes, but not necessarily yes. And even if the applicant should list it but does not, as long as there are no gaps and the applicant has accurately disclosed travel outside Canada, it is likely to slide by, no problems. No problems for some, even most, does not guarantee no problems for anyone in particular. Use common-sense and do not play games. It really is not that hard to know what addresses to disclose.
Here's the thing: IRCC often employs broad, imprecise terms, which despite being ambiguous or vague are not difficult to interpret or apply in the vast, vast majority of circumstances. This is often aimed at getting a broad range of relevant information while at the same time trying to avoid massive information dumps.
It is no coincidence that neither the application form nor the instructions say to list addresses where the applicant has "lived," or to list "residential addresses" or "residences." Both say to list "all" addresses, even though it is obvious that does NOT really mean ALL addresses -- for sure not email addresses, and not likely business addresses, not the address of hotels, or family or friends, where one stayed on vacation. It is mostly about places the applicant has stayed long enough to establish that location as a place of residence, but not limited to locations the applicant has formally established as their primary place of residence.
The application is not a test. IRCC does not engage in gotcha-games. How to appropriately answer most of the questions in the application does not depend on the technical meaning of the words used. For address history IRCC is looking for information illuminating and illustrating where the applicant has been living and working in sufficient detail to assess the applicant's credibility, and in particular the extent to which the applicant can be relied on to be an honest, complete, and accurate reporter of their travel history, residences, employment, and other details sufficient to verify the applicant's declared physical presence.
As long as the applicant leaves no gaps (gaps will result in the application being returned, not processed), does not make any overt misrepresentations (including by omission), and the address information given is based on those places where the applicant was actually living or staying for a period of time, the address history does not need to meet technical specs. It needs to be an honest, open, complete, and mostly accurate account of places where the applicant has lived or stayed more than briefly.
This particular item in the application leaves a lot of room for fudging some. Big difference, however, in fudging something like the precise "to" or "from" date because that's not clear in the applicant's memory or papers, so the applicant declares a more or less best estimate of the dates (caution: best to NOT do this for travel history), versus failing to disclose the address of a home the applicant owns or leases in another country, even if during the relevant five years the applicant only went there to "vacation."
A lot of words, a whole lot of words, just to emphasize that in answering the list-addresses question in the citizenship application, use common sense and focus on honestly, accurately, and completely disclosing all addresses where the applicant has lived, leaving no gaps, and not bogging down the information given by including a lot extraneous detail about locations where the applicant's stay was transitory and brief.
No need to get at all technical. Definite need to be open.
Generally it should go the other way: declare (list) the address being left as continuing to the day a different address is established. "Generally" does not mean always, but the exceptions depend on very specific circumstances which vary considerably, and in most of those situations applicants will be OK if they use common-sense and their best judgment aimed at being honest, open, and complete.
In particular, for a short period of time in transit, listing the former address as continuing to the day the applicant moves into a different, new address, should easily suffice. (In many other contexts, a person's primary address is often considered to continue to be their address until the day a different primary address is established.)
Note, too, that the addresses listed can overlap (more about this below).
A persnickety note: The application and instructions require more than a mere "mention" of addresses.*** (Yeah, picky, picky. But the objective is to get it right. "Mention" suggests an incidental, by the way reference. Applicants need to definitively state addresses in full, including unit details if applicable, and postal codes.)
Explanation:
The list-addresses question in the application for citizenship, which is question 10 in CIT 0002 (10-2024) E (online application has the same question but in a different format or arrangement), does not ask applicants to report the address of every location where the applicant spent a night or stayed for a period of time, but it does ask the applicant to report "all addresses." Meanwhile, generally a person's residential address continues to be their address (or to be more precise, at least one of their addresses) until they have established a different address. There are exceptions, in which cases the applicant needs to use their best judgment in how to honestly answer this question in a way that is open, accurate, and complete, and in no way evasive or deceptive, leaving no gaps. Again, addresses can overlap.
Overlapping Addresses: Just as employment listed in response to the activity/work history question can overlap, meaning more than one employment can be listed for the same period of time (and for someone who works more than one job at a time, or goes to school while at the same time they have a job, they should list both), likewise the applicant for citizenship can (and in some circumstances should) list multiple or overlapping addresses. For example, students often have both a home address and their at-school address, and should list both.
Caveat: In regards to declaring "all addresses" in response to the list-addresses question in the application for citizenship it appears that my views differ some from many other forum participants. For one thing, I probably put significantly more emphasis on what "all" entails, acknowledging what it what it does not entail.
The only exception referred to in the instructions is for the addresses of "family, friends, hotels or resorts" where the applicant stayed "while on vacation" (as emphasized in the guide). Does that mean the applicant should list hotels as addresses for periods of time they were traveling on business? Does the instruction to report "all addresses" mean the applicant should list business addresses here? Meanwhile there is no hint, for example, that IRCC is asking the applicant to list email addresses here, notwithstanding the emphasis on listing "all" addresses.
Even though the instruction should clearly be interpreted broadly, it is probably fair to interpret the instruction such that in many instances, in most cases even, IRCC is NOT asking for temporary addresses for brief, transitory stays in any location, whether for holidays or business. The difficulty some wrestle with is distinguishing what places they have stayed for short periods of time should be listed versus those that do not need to be listed, and those which should not be listed (do not list the hotel in Amsterdam where you stayed for three days during a business trip).
I will be blunt: many if not most of the queries about this, in this forum, are B.S., or at the least a bit disingenuous. It does not take much common sense to easily distinguish the kind of addresses IRCC is asking applicants to list versus the places where the applicant has briefly stayed. Feints of confusion otherwise should not fool anyone.
For example, some hang their residences-hat on whether or not they label a period of time a "vacation" (or holiday). Here's a hint: if the applicant is staying in their home town for three months, IRCC almost certainly wants to know the address even if that's where the applicant's parents live and the applicant calls the visit a vacation. And anyone who is sincerely addressing the addresses question knows this.
How about two months? That question misses the point. The answer is probably yes, but not necessarily yes. And even if the applicant should list it but does not, as long as there are no gaps and the applicant has accurately disclosed travel outside Canada, it is likely to slide by, no problems. No problems for some, even most, does not guarantee no problems for anyone in particular. Use common-sense and do not play games. It really is not that hard to know what addresses to disclose.
Here's the thing: IRCC often employs broad, imprecise terms, which despite being ambiguous or vague are not difficult to interpret or apply in the vast, vast majority of circumstances. This is often aimed at getting a broad range of relevant information while at the same time trying to avoid massive information dumps.
It is no coincidence that neither the application form nor the instructions say to list addresses where the applicant has "lived," or to list "residential addresses" or "residences." Both say to list "all" addresses, even though it is obvious that does NOT really mean ALL addresses -- for sure not email addresses, and not likely business addresses, not the address of hotels, or family or friends, where one stayed on vacation. It is mostly about places the applicant has stayed long enough to establish that location as a place of residence, but not limited to locations the applicant has formally established as their primary place of residence.
The application is not a test. IRCC does not engage in gotcha-games. How to appropriately answer most of the questions in the application does not depend on the technical meaning of the words used. For address history IRCC is looking for information illuminating and illustrating where the applicant has been living and working in sufficient detail to assess the applicant's credibility, and in particular the extent to which the applicant can be relied on to be an honest, complete, and accurate reporter of their travel history, residences, employment, and other details sufficient to verify the applicant's declared physical presence.
As long as the applicant leaves no gaps (gaps will result in the application being returned, not processed), does not make any overt misrepresentations (including by omission), and the address information given is based on those places where the applicant was actually living or staying for a period of time, the address history does not need to meet technical specs. It needs to be an honest, open, complete, and mostly accurate account of places where the applicant has lived or stayed more than briefly.
This particular item in the application leaves a lot of room for fudging some. Big difference, however, in fudging something like the precise "to" or "from" date because that's not clear in the applicant's memory or papers, so the applicant declares a more or less best estimate of the dates (caution: best to NOT do this for travel history), versus failing to disclose the address of a home the applicant owns or leases in another country, even if during the relevant five years the applicant only went there to "vacation."
A lot of words, a whole lot of words, just to emphasize that in answering the list-addresses question in the citizenship application, use common sense and focus on honestly, accurately, and completely disclosing all addresses where the applicant has lived, leaving no gaps, and not bogging down the information given by including a lot extraneous detail about locations where the applicant's stay was transitory and brief.
No need to get at all technical. Definite need to be open.