Asked for Police Certificate for a Country ,I did not spend 183 days in?

[MEB]

Here's what this boils down to:

- You are right about the four years.
- Regardless of the four years, IRCC can still request a PCC per the guide.
- You can either get the PCC or try to argue this with IRCC and get them to drop the requirement.
- Recommendation is to get the PCC.
- Based on your posts, it feels like you would prefer to go down the path of trying to get IRCC to drop this request. Assuming that's correct, submit the response to IRCC as soon as you can with your ask to drop this requirement and see if they consider it.

Perfect summarization Scylla, thanks!

LOR with the 3 points I discussed earlier here with you ,already submitted 1 hour back!

I am assessing in parallel obtaining such certificates through 3rd parties, but given this time of the year(approaching's the Holy month of Ramadan +EID period),5-6 months would be minimum time frame ,regardless of the cost impact by going through such channels !

 

[dpenabill]

I solely received an ADR from IRCC for Police certificate from the GCC country or a letter of explanation on why I cannot submit it .So why are they requesting such certificate and only from me ,if my wife have an identical timeline and we filled our application together+ we did not spend 183 successive days in any country since our COPR date!

I concur with what @scylla has posted here.

Bottom-line IRCC has very broad discretion to request additional information and documentation when processing a citizenship application, and that includes requests for a police clearance from the applicant for any country with which the applicant has or has had any contact.

While the most obvious and primary purpose for requesting the police certificate is about verifying the applicant has no criminal matters in a country that would constitute a prohibition, and thus is focused on the period of time going back four years prior to the date of the citizenship application, and up to the present, that does not limit what can trigger such a request. They could, for example, be screening pre-PR information to verify that the PR visa was properly obtained.

Seeking out @dpenabill expertise as well, appreciate your kind and valuable support!

I am NOT an expert, NOT close. And, as noted elsewhere, I am not one of those who spends a lot of the day on the internet, and I generally take some time to give thoughtful responses, so it should be no surprise when I do not respond to queries right away.

Bottom-line, again, in processing a citizenship application IRCC can request a broad range of additional documents and in particular request a police clearance from any country with which the applicant has or has had any contacts.

Contesting the Request:

There are ways to contest the request. I cannot say whether you would be successful (probably not is my guess). I believe, nonetheless, it is safe to say that it would likely take a lot longer (perhaps a year or more) to contest this than it would be to provide the requested clearance.

What is legally outside the bounds or contrary to procedural fairness, for which recourse is available (but can take time and would be best pursued with the assistance of a lawyer, which can be quite costly), is not about what is "fair" in a broad, general sense. (I am sympathetic to the latter, but in addressing how to navigate the application process it can be and typically is a distraction.)

So long as the what the applicant has provided meets the standards for what consists of a "complete application," it is possible, for example, to more or less demand that IRCC process the application without the additional documentation, in effect forcing IRCC to make a decision based on what it has or to conduct an investigation before making a decision. Or, I should say it is *theoretically* possible to do this, but navigating forward in this way is complicated and any chance of doing it successfully would almost certainly require the assistance of a lawyer, which I suspect would not be readily available since even those lawyers on the more greedy end of the scales, typically willing to push whatever a client will pay for however non-productive that is likely to be, would probably turn this down, acknowledging that it is just not worth it. And, it warrants noting, that unless IRCC readily concedes, this approach would likely lead to a very lengthy process, potentially bogging the application down for YEARS in litigation, or lengthy investigations by CSIS or CBSA or both, and it could be both years of litigation attendant very lengthy investigations. Not the route most applicants are interested in pursuing.

NOTE: The information and instructions regarding providing police clearances if the applicant was in another country for 183 days or more in a row within the relevant four years is ONLY about what is needed to make a complete application. That in no way defines or limits the scope of what IRCC can ask for and in effect require applicants to provide.

 

[MEB]

I concur with what @scylla has posted here.

Bottom-line IRCC has very broad discretion to request additional information and documentation when processing a citizenship application, and that includes requests for a police clearance from the applicant for any country with which the applicant has or has had any contact.

While the most obvious and primary purpose for requesting the police certificate is about verifying the applicant has no criminal matters in a country that would constitute a prohibition, and thus is focused on the period of time going back four years prior to the date of the citizenship application, and up to the present, that does not limit what can trigger such a request. They could, for example, be screening pre-PR information to verify that the PR visa was properly obtained.



I am NOT an expert, NOT close. And, as noted elsewhere, I am not one of those who spends a lot of the day on the internet, and I generally take some time to give thoughtful responses, so it should be no surprise when I do not respond to queries right away.

Bottom-line, again, in processing a citizenship application IRCC can request a broad range of additional documents and in particular request a police clearance from any country with which the applicant has or has had any contacts.

Contesting the Request:

There are ways to contest the request. I cannot say whether you would be successful (probably not is my guess). I believe, nonetheless, it is safe to say that it would likely take a lot longer (perhaps a year or more) to contest this than it would be to provide the requested clearance.

What is legally outside the bounds or contrary to procedural fairness, for which recourse is available (but can take time and would be best pursued with the assistance of a lawyer, which can be quite costly), is not about what is "fair" in a broad, general sense. (I am sympathetic to the latter, but in addressing how to navigate the application process it can be and typically is a distraction.)

So long as the what the applicant has provided meets the standards for what consists of a "complete application," it is possible, for example, to more or less demand that IRCC process the application without the additional documentation, in effect forcing IRCC to make a decision based on what it has or to conduct an investigation before making a decision. Or, I should say it is *theoretically* possible to do this, but navigating forward in this way is complicated and any chance of doing it successfully would almost certainly require the assistance of a lawyer, which I suspect would not be readily available since even those lawyers on the more greedy end of the scales, typically willing to push whatever a client will pay for however non-productive that is likely to be, would probably turn this down, acknowledging that it is just not worth it. And, it warrants noting, that unless IRCC readily concedes, this approach would likely lead to a very lengthy process, potentially bogging the application down for YEARS in litigation, or lengthy investigations by CSIS or CBSA or both, and it could be both years of litigation attendant very lengthy investigations. Not the route most applicants are interested in pursuing.

NOTE: The information and instructions regarding providing police clearances if the applicant was in another country for 183 days or more in a row within the relevant four years is ONLY about what is needed to make a complete application. That in no way defines or limits the scope of what IRCC can ask for and in effect require applicants to provide.

Thanks @dpenabill for your valuable feedback as usual!
Regardless if you are a formal /official expert or not, unfortunately we cannot have a natural conversation with an IRCC officer or IRCC process owner...And believe me I am active on this forum since 2017...and the opinions you or or other senior members like @scylla provide...are considered the top level guidance normal applicants like us can get with these kind of IRCC processes!

Allow me to have a last reply in a separate post ,to describe exactly my specific case layout.

 

[MEB]

I concur with what @scylla has posted here.

Bottom-line IRCC has very broad discretion to request additional information and documentation when processing a citizenship application, and that includes requests for a police clearance from the applicant for any country with which the applicant has or has had any contact.

While the most obvious and primary purpose for requesting the police certificate is about verifying the applicant has no criminal matters in a country that would constitute a prohibition, and thus is focused on the period of time going back four years prior to the date of the citizenship application, and up to the present, that does not limit what can trigger such a request. They could, for example, be screening pre-PR information to verify that the PR visa was properly obtained.



I am NOT an expert, NOT close. And, as noted elsewhere, I am not one of those who spends a lot of the day on the internet, and I generally take some time to give thoughtful responses, so it should be no surprise when I do not respond to queries right away.

Bottom-line, again, in processing a citizenship application IRCC can request a broad range of additional documents and in particular request a police clearance from any country with which the applicant has or has had any contacts.

Contesting the Request:

There are ways to contest the request. I cannot say whether you would be successful (probably not is my guess). I believe, nonetheless, it is safe to say that it would likely take a lot longer (perhaps a year or more) to contest this than it would be to provide the requested clearance.

What is legally outside the bounds or contrary to procedural fairness, for which recourse is available (but can take time and would be best pursued with the assistance of a lawyer, which can be quite costly), is not about what is "fair" in a broad, general sense. (I am sympathetic to the latter, but in addressing how to navigate the application process it can be and typically is a distraction.)

So long as the what the applicant has provided meets the standards for what consists of a "complete application," it is possible, for example, to more or less demand that IRCC process the application without the additional documentation, in effect forcing IRCC to make a decision based on what it has or to conduct an investigation before making a decision. Or, I should say it is *theoretically* possible to do this, but navigating forward in this way is complicated and any chance of doing it successfully would almost certainly require the assistance of a lawyer, which I suspect would not be readily available since even those lawyers on the more greedy end of the scales, typically willing to push whatever a client will pay for however non-productive that is likely to be, would probably turn this down, acknowledging that it is just not worth it. And, it warrants noting, that unless IRCC readily concedes, this approach would likely lead to a very lengthy process, potentially bogging the application down for YEARS in litigation, or lengthy investigations by CSIS or CBSA or both, and it could be both years of litigation attendant very lengthy investigations. Not the route most applicants are interested in pursuing.

NOTE: The information and instructions regarding providing police clearances if the applicant was in another country for 183 days or more in a row within the relevant four years is ONLY about what is needed to make a complete application. That in no way defines or limits the scope of what IRCC can ask for and in effect require applicants to provide.

Before any thing let me stress again that I totally agree with both you and @scylla on 2 main aspects :
A)IRCC can request almost everything they want basically whenever they want within the process duration
B)In "Normal" circumstances, going along with their ad-hoc requests is usually the correct way to go.
That being said and agreed on , let me place my case in specific "containers" ,to make sure that my opinion aspects are very clear.

There are three main pillars of my case, the first two will be the most important for this discussion:
1)They/their process may not be as diligent as most of the applicants !

2)Practicality of the request itself

3)Showing even further "Due Diligence"

Now let me elaborate more on each point:

Regarding #1 : I wanted to ensure that it is clear for IRCC, that their ADR was not by any means a result of ignorance or negligence from the applicant...on the contrary there is a huge defect in this particular area in the process...and they need to start hearing some honest opinions,why?

In my case I knew that this part is critical from day 1 ,but I simply could not -as per the form's context-do anything about it!

The question again for the PCC section was "Did you spend more than 180 days in a row" outside Canada in the last 4 years " the Answer in "No", Period!
If I wanted to activate the provided explanation table and provide detailed justification I would be dishonest as I needed to answer "YES" ; and if I provided a letter of explanation with my application ,I would over complicate the process for an already fully honest and simply answered question !

A) As IRCC ,you know that this PCC thing is critical and that you may ask about it any time during the process, then do not give us merely No /Yes for the 183 days requirement without giving me a chance to elaborate through the "No" answer ,then come and waste 60 full days of my application process time to ask me for the PCC only on your first touch for such application (the AOR)!

B) Most importantly, the body of ADR itself! Which is phrased like this :

"-You must provide a police certificate for each country or territory where you have been present for 183 days or more in a row (since the age of 18). If you cannot get a police certificate, please explain why. A police certificate or explanation for no certificate is required for your time spent in Country X

-You didn’t upload a police certificate (wrong or blank document uploaded)."

Gentleman, look again please at their message ! Its all about "not providing" any input for the Police certificate section and the 183 days fulfillment thing! How and why would I provide an input for PCC section & address the 183 days thing, if I simply didn't even spend 183 days and answered No and you blacked out the details/reasoning table, and hence didn't have a chance to justify or give you any early information in my application regarding this critical part in the provided table!

And if we assumed it is just a robotic/generic message ,this is even worse! I did my full due diligence as an applicant to address your gigantic forms and spent weeks doing my due diligence in answering accurately ,while you didn't even customize your ADR messages to such diligent applicants ?

Will follow with elaboration on points 1 & 2 in my final explanation post....

 

[MEB]

Regarding point # 2,
Unlike most cases, I simply cannot get along and proceed with their ad-hoc request in the provided time frame by any means!

As advised before I now don't have any residential rights in such country to deal directly with associated local governmental entities !Need to go through associated embassy in Canada ,again I submitted a formal letter from them in my LOR stating this may take 4 months...Kindly note the 4 months duration is not a worst case scenario at all ...from previous experience it is almost an average! Furthermore after few days the Holy month will come into action after which a couple of weeks will be a public holiday in most GCC countries...people who lived in GCC countries will know that the total hours worked during this entire 6 weeks period and associated productivity falls under40 %.Hence, we are talking about 5-6 months with ease to get this PCC,so how come I will fit it in 60 or even 90 days! Sorry I see it as being inconsiderate for applicants & unaware of different cultures and associated processes in relation to ADRs.

Regarding point # 3 and final point in my LOR(although may not be important in this discussion)

I provided the PCC that was previously issued for my immigration in 2017 .Yes, it is expired now but :
A)Covered 75 % of my residency period in this country
B)I also provided exact time line from the day such PCC was required to the date I issued it, showing full efficiency and due diligence in completing the requirement within few days when we had full capabilities to do that smoothly & when it was a clear requirement in the immigration process forms .Same requirement, same country and same IRCC, yet different circumstances and different way of asking for it !

Yes, I do know that they will 99.99% kill my legitimate explanation@ birth ,but I felt I need to speak out about the process defects and the way they issue the ADR's ,if not for me may be for upcoming applicants. Furthermore, I won't be able to achieve the time-frame provided for the request anyways....simply not applicable!

 

[Mounat]

Regarding point # 2,
Unlike most cases, I simply cannot get along and proceed with their ad-hoc request in the provided time frame by any means!

As advised before I now don't have any residential rights in such country to deal directly with associated local governmental entities !Need to go through associated embassy in Canada ,again I submitted a formal letter from them in my LOR stating this may take 4 months...Kindly note the 4 months duration is not a worst case scenario at all ...from previous experience it is almost an average! Furthermore after few days the Holy month will come into action after which a couple of weeks will be a public holiday in most GCC countries...people who lived in GCC countries will know that the total hours worked during this entire 6 weeks period and associated productivity falls under40 %.Hence, we are talking about 5-6 months with ease to get this PCC,so how come I will fit it in 60 or even 90 days! Sorry I see it as being inconsiderate for applicants & unaware of different cultures and associated processes in relation to ADRs.

Regarding point # 3 and final point in my LOR(although may not be important in this discussion)

I provided the PCC that was previously issued for my immigration in 2017 .Yes, it is expired now but :
A)Covered 75 % of my residency period in this country
B)I also provided exact time line from the day such PCC was required to the date I issued it, showing full efficiency and due diligence in completing the requirement within few days when we had full capabilities to do that smoothly & when it was a clear requirement in the immigration process forms .Same requirement, same country and same IRCC, yet different circumstances and different way of asking for it !

Yes, I do know that they will 99.99% kill my legitimate explanation@ birth ,but I felt I need to speak out about the process defects and the way they issue the ADR's ,if not for me may be for upcoming applicants. Furthermore, I won't be able to achieve the time-frame provided for the request anyways....simply not applicable!

It's still not very clear to me what you're protesting. IRCC is not out of line in their request, regardless of how long or difficult acquiring that PCC may be. They may use discretion to give you more time to get it or simply reverse their request asking for it. But if they draw a line in the sand and insist that your application would not proceed without it, you have no choice but to comply or abandon your application.

This all seems fairly straightforward. I don't see where fairness or the lack of it comes in. IRCC is an amoral government entity. They simply follow rules and regulations on the books, whether they're deemed fair or not.

Good luck.

 

[DSEuro78]

It's still not very clear to me what you're protesting. IRCC is not out of line in their request, regardless of how long or difficult acquiring that PCC may be. They may use discretion to give you more time to get it or simply reverse their request asking for it. But if they draw a line in the sand and insist that your application would not proceed without it, you have no choice but to comply or abandon your application.

This all seems fairly straightforward. I don't see where fairness or the lack of it comes in. IRCC is an amoral government entity. They simply follow rules and regulations on the books, whether they're deemed fair or not.

Good luck.

Agree!

MEB - Just get the PCC and move on. Keep IRCC informed if it's taking a long time, but provide them proof you've applied for the PCC as well, all you can do. All this protesting makes it sound like you have something to hide.

 

[MEB]

It's still not very clear to me what you're protesting. IRCC is not out of line in their request, regardless of how long or difficult acquiring that PCC may be. They may use discretion to give you more time to get it or simply reverse their request asking for it. But if they draw a line in the sand and insist that your application would not proceed without it, you have no choice but to comply or abandon your application.

This all seems fairly straightforward. I don't see where fairness or the lack of it comes in. IRCC is an amoral government entity. They simply follow rules and regulations on the books, whether they're deemed fair or not.

Good luck.

Hi Mounat,

Sorry for the long reply ,but apparently due to the previously lengthy chain of posts the discussion flow was broken, as most of what you mentioned was already agreed on / actioned!

1)I mentioned few times here, that the PCC request -as a standalone request in itself- is not an issue by any means and got nothing to do with the discussed process issues I mentioned. Not only this, I mentioned in a couple of occasions here that IRCC can ask for almost whatever they want whenever they want during the process duration .So your comment regarding such aspect was already agreed on from the first hour of my thread.

2)I am not protesting , there was a specific flow of discussions I was having with @scylla & @dpenabill...and I was elaborating more on my opinion regarding certain details in how the process flow is constructed and that there is a defect in the flow "in my own opinion". I am not expecting everyone reading portions of such discussion to agree or cheer for such opinion, that being said the associated process is not part of a holy book and criticizing some aspects of such process is neither forbidden nor does it mandate agreement from everyone. Furthermore, no member here can really enforce an action with or against the process anyways .Again, it was a certain discussion flow!

3)Returning back to your comment. Who said that I did not start addressing this show stopper at once ? On the first hr. of my thread I had already mentioned that I submitted an LOE+ started assessing unconventional methods of getting the PCC, however till this moment and although I explored services that do cost 27 times more(yes you did read it correctly!) than going through the embassy (which provided a formal letter that I attached to the LOE ,that this could take 4 months even though my previous practical experience say minimum 5-6 months !),no one is able to confirm ability to provide this within ADR limits!

4)Still.... point 3 got nothing to do my my criticism to the process ,and once again, this got nothing to do with me protesting about the PCC request itself ,If you went through the thread from the beginning and associated discussion with @scylla & @dpenabill ending with my post regarding point 1 only, you may be able to get that I am focusing on certain process flow in relation to how PCC section was constructed in the application form and how the ADR sent to me was crafted.

Kindly note that I had to provide an LOE anyways ,why?
A)Associated response time frame is not applicable ("Lose -Lose "situation),this was my first point in my LOE.
B)The ADR body itself mandates an LOE ,why? It was not simply saying for example " You need to provide PCC", period! Let us see the phrasing :
B1- "PCC is required if you spent 183 days outside Canada "(Which did not happen & if I have answered "Yes" to this in the application form="I am dishonest" ,which is bigger problem!)
B2-"You did not attach a PCC or justification why you did not provide a PCC (Which is again not applicable because the process flow did not allow me to provide any justification or more information in the provided justification table once I answered "No "to the 183 days question in B1,as the justification and explanation regarding my response to the PCC section is available ONLY if I have answered "Yes" in B1's related question)

What if the ADR is just an robotic/generic message? It is another defect for me ,as candidates spend too much time to craft and customize their applications to be as accurate as possible, hence ADR messages need to be equally customized or more, as it represents a huge entity within Canada and defines the exact action required by the candidate ..as per my ADR the issue was that I spent 183 days outside Canada ,which is simply incorrect! This is an undebatable fact and got nothing to do with their right to ask for PCC in general!

Bottom line, my reply to IRCC 's ADR and my previous criticism to certain aspects of the process in this thread ,simply got nothing to do with protesting against PCC requests in general and for sure does not mean that I refused to proceed or that I didn't action the request itself from day 1!

 

[DSEuro78]

Maybe , just maybe, IRCC have an automated % tolerance for applicants who spend time outside of Canada that is close to 183 days and in certain countries that they might deem a potential flag? Especially certain GCC countries.

The amount of effort creating this thread, typing, bullet pointing, underlining, formatting and protesting this request you could have put towards ordering the PCC as per IRCC's request and moved on from it.

Yes it's frustrating and annoying they've requested the PCC, since you'd hope they wouldn't ask for it. But they hold the keys.

 

[MEB]

Maybe , just maybe, IRCC have an automated % tolerance for applicants who spend time outside of Canada that is close to 183 days and in certain countries that they might deem a potential flag? Especially certain GCC countries.

The amount of effort creating this thread, typing, bullet pointing, underlining, formatting and protesting this request you could have put towards ordering the PCC as per IRCC's request and moved on from it.

Yes it's frustrating and annoying they've requested the PCC, since you'd hope they wouldn't ask for it. But they hold the keys.

Again I cannot assume anything @DSEuro78 ...I must solely act and behave honestly based on the initial application form flow and exact ADR details provided formally by IRCC ,and I already acted on both with 150% due diligence on the same day of receiving the ADR (for example from the first read of the form I wanted to provide explanation to section 10b as I knew the PCC is a sensitive topic ,but had no option but to answer NO which deactivated the explanation section ,and providing dedicated LOE for something I answered "No" to, would hugely add overhead and complications to my application

My posts here got nothing to do with halting or wasting efforts in relation to addressing this request from day 1 with the IRCC. Again no one here can practically solve or worsen this issue in real life.

Also requesting the PCC is not that hard and I am not complaining about it in the first place ...it is the response time from the embassy -as per both my previous experience and their formal correspondence to my query-that cannot fit the ADR response limits. Again this was made clear in the first point of the LOE that I sent on the same day of the ADR supported by the letter from the embassy as an attachment.
Once again LOE was mandated by their process flow and ADR content , based on 3 main aspects of the formal IRCC:
*******************************************************************************************
A)You spent more than 183 days >>>Incorrect and need to be mentioned in the LOE
B)Did not provide justification why you did not provide PCC ,that is required for the 183 days stay in country X>>Not applicable+ Incorrect and need to be mentioned in the LOE
C)60 days response time>>>It is standard and not an issue from their side. However, had to mention ,explain & proof why this isn't applicable in an LOE
*******************************************************************************************

That's it ...as straightforward as this...regardless on their/my intentions ,my/their rights, having the keys to the kingdom, etc...I just cannot avoid submitting an LOE and cannot leave these 3 main aspects unaddressed in it....it is not about protesting or not !

 

[Mounat]

Hi Mounat,

Sorry for the long reply ,but apparently due to the previously lengthy chain of posts the discussion flow was broken, as most of what you mentioned was already agreed on / actioned!

1)I mentioned few times here, that the PCC request -as a standalone request in itself- is not an issue by any means and got nothing to do with the discussed process issues I mentioned. Not only this, I mentioned in a couple of occasions here that IRCC can ask for almost whatever they want whenever they want during the process duration .So your comment regarding such aspect was already agreed on from the first hour of my thread.

2)I am not protesting , there was a specific flow of discussions I was having with @scylla & @dpenabill...and I was elaborating more on my opinion regarding certain details in how the process flow is constructed and that there is a defect in the flow "in my own opinion". I am not expecting everyone reading portions of such discussion to agree or cheer for such opinion, that being said the associated process is not part of a holy book and criticizing some aspects of such process is neither forbidden nor does it mandate agreement from everyone. Furthermore, no member here can really enforce an action with or against the process anyways .Again, it was a certain discussion flow!

3)Returning back to your comment. Who said that I did not start addressing this show stopper at once ? On the first hr. of my thread I had already mentioned that I submitted an LOE+ started assessing unconventional methods of getting the PCC, however till this moment and although I explored services that do cost 27 times more(yes you did read it correctly!) than going through the embassy (which provided a formal letter that I attached to the LOE ,that this could take 4 months even though my previous practical experience say minimum 5-6 months !),no one is able to confirm ability to provide this within ADR limits!

4)Still.... point 3 got nothing to do my my criticism to the process ,and once again, this got nothing to do with me protesting about the PCC request itself ,If you went through the thread from the beginning and associated discussion with @scylla & @dpenabill ending with my post regarding point 1 only, you may be able to get that I am focusing on certain process flow in relation to how PCC section was constructed in the application form and how the ADR sent to me was crafted.

Kindly note that I had to provide an LOE anyways ,why?
A)Associated response time frame is not applicable ("Lose -Lose "situation),this was my first point in my LOE.
B)The ADR body itself mandates an LOE ,why? It was not simply saying for example " You need to provide PCC", period! Let us see the phrasing :
B1- "PCC is required if you spent 183 days outside Canada "(Which did not happen & if I have answered "Yes" to this in the application form="I am dishonest" ,which is bigger problem!)
B2-"You did not attach a PCC or justification why you did not provide a PCC (Which is again not applicable because the process flow did not allow me to provide any justification or more information in the provided justification table once I answered "No "to the 183 days question in B1,as the justification and explanation regarding my response to the PCC section is available ONLY if I have answered "Yes" in B1's related question)

What if the ADR is just an robotic/generic message? It is another defect for me ,as candidates spend too much time to craft and customize their applications to be as accurate as possible, hence ADR messages need to be equally customized or more, as it represents a huge entity within Canada and defines the exact action required by the candidate ..as per my ADR the issue was that I spent 183 days outside Canada ,which is simply incorrect! This is an undebatable fact and got nothing to do with their right to ask for PCC in general!

Bottom line, my reply to IRCC 's ADR and my previous criticism to certain aspects of the process in this thread ,simply got nothing to do with protesting against PCC requests in general and for sure does not mean that I refused to proceed or that I didn't action the request itself from day 1!

If your aim is to vent, this thread has successfully achieved that. But if you wish to affect policy, I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree.

Forums like this are useful for some information gathering but they're mostly for venting, commiserating with others, a bit of schadenfreude, etc. IRCC will not change policy no matter how well you articulate your case here.

Good luck.

 

[MEB]

If your aim is to vent, this thread has successfully achieved that. But if you wish to affect policy, I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree.

Forums like this are useful for some information gathering but they're mostly for venting, commiserating with others, a bit of schadenfreude, etc. IRCC will not change policy no matter how well you articulate your case here.

Good luck.

100 % agree on the conclusion itself ,and this is what I was saying already during the last few posts(kindly notice 2nd paragraph in my previous post above, stating the exact same thing already) .

Kindly note also that the thread did not start as venting or discussing dents in the process, it started by me having ideas regarding how my LOE is to be constructed then reaching out for members who I trust their guidance based on my experience with this forum since 2017.

I may have taken my own path in the end yes, but the guidance of members like @dpenabill and @scylla were hugely important in how to modify my ideas and craft the LOE.

After taking this associated action in the first day of this thread/ADR, the discussion flow went into criticizing certain aspects of the process that were related to my case, however again it neither affected my action at that point nor could I have taken another path from the beginning ;as I needed to send the LOE anyways and address those specific 3 not applicable/ incorrect aspects of the process/ADR body(mentioned in my previous post in a straight forward way), respectively.

It is up to applicants who would face similar scenario/corner case in the future to digest all aspects of this thread and choose their own path.

 

[abbas.pasha]

Hi all,

Just received an ADR for my citizenship application for a police certificate from a GCC country I was working as an expat in, before moving to Canada.

I was working in this GCC country from 1st of April 2014 till 3rd of July 2019 .

I got approved for Canadian PR in 2017 and hence we -as a family- proceeded with soft landing in August 2018.

I returned to resume my expat role in the GCC country till 3rd of July 2019 ,after which moved to Canada permanently in August 2019.

By the time we were able to complete all required documents & forms to submit the Citizenship application it was the 6th of January 2023 (we submitted our combined applications on the 7th of January 2023).

Upon reaching section 10 b in Citizenship application, we answered the following question as “NO”

“In the past 4 years, were you in a country or territory other than Canada for 183 days or more in a row (Since the age of 18)? ”

We provided such answer, as the date 4 years before our application submission date was (7th of January 2019), hence the associated period until we left such country as expats (3rd of July 2019) was less than 183 days(Around 176 days).

Once we selected “No”, the associated table to fill- if you will provide Police Certificate or not and related explanation- is dimmed and cannot by typed in.

Furthermore, we never left Canada since our perm. move for more than 6 weeks, and all these visits were to our country of citizenship only (twice)

Finally, my wife is having exact timelines ,and was not asked for a Police certificate (Me, my wife and my 2 kids filed our application together) !

However, I solely received an ADR from IRCC for Police certificate from the GCC country or a letter of explanation on why I cannot submit it .So why are they requesting such certificate and only from me ,if my wife have an identical timeline and we filled our application together+ we did not spend 183 successive days in any country since our COPR date!

Appreciate your urgent feedback guys!

PCC from which GCC country have they asked for ?

 

[dpenabill]

For clarity I am rewinding a bit, revisiting and addressing the primary issue, and then will try to elaborate more in a subsequent post (or two).

I . . . received an ADR from IRCC for Police certificate from the GCC country or a letter of explanation on why I cannot submit it .

I do not have any reason to disagree with the repeated recommendations here, by others, more or less saying "get and submit the PCC." BUT that is assuming you can do that, in which case that's a reasonable recommendation and almost certainly the most practical approach.

It appears likely (and you have said as much) you are NOT able to submit a PCC within the time period specified in the request. In which case the most appropriate way to respond to the request, probably, is to give an explanation saying you cannot provide a police certificate within the time specified in the request. (It is important to make some response within the time period specified.)

Many would suggest, and I agree, that (again probably) it is also better to include, in such a response, a statement that you have initiated the process for obtaining a PCC and will submit the PCC when it becomes available.

Note: I am NOT recommending what you should do. (I am not at all qualified to give personal advice.) That is for you to decide. Best I can offer is some relevant information and commentary, about how things work (to the extent we know), which I hope will help YOU to make better decisions and appropriately respond as best YOU can. (Acknowledging you may have already responded.)​

I may try to elaborate more later, regarding the options, including some detailed observations about submitting an "explanation." For now I will just say that overall it is probably better to keep it simple, direct, and brief. IRCC is well aware of the complications involved in obtaining PCCs from just about every country in the world. See, for example, the information about obtaining a PCC from particular countries that IRCC provides here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/application/medical-police/police-certificates/how.html where I believe all the GCC countries are listed and for which there is a link to particular information about obtaining a PCC (or equivalent) from those countries.

For Example: Qatar is among the GCC countries IRCC provides information about in regards to obtaining a PCC. See https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/application/medical-police/police-certificates/how/qatar.html
There is a link on that page leading to this page: https://portal.moi.gov.qa/wps/portal/MOIInternet/infocenter/conductcertificate

Since IRCC provides this information, it is clearly aware of the process, its complications, and probably the timeline.

So, if the GCC country involved is Qatar, for example, there is no need to give an elaborate or in-depth explanation, and frankly, probably, no advantage in doing so. Moreover, perhaps a lengthy explanation may involve some risk of a negative impact (I may try to expand on why *more* can have a negative impact later), at least in terms of increasing delays in processing. A simple statement saying, in effect, it is not possible to provide a PCC within the time requested, but an application has been made for one, which will be provided when obtained, should readily suffice. The applicant might elect to request that IRCC proceed with processing in the meantime, considering the process for obtaining one from Qatar (or whichever country it is), and the difficulties involved for a non-resident of Qatar (again, as an example), including the lengthy and uncertain timeline. The applicant might also add that they have no criminal record in Qatar, no prohibitions, and make reference to a previously submitted clearance. BUT KEEP IT SIMPLE.

Note: Even though the processing agent (the total-stranger-bureaucrat) at IRCC, the official processing this, could figure this out even if the applicant does not give this explanation, that's probably not how it works. The applicant needs to put enough information on the table to identify the applicant's position and the issue, enough to invite the official to evaluate it in proper context.

Some Further General Observations:

Things That Impact Processing Timeline: The long timeline, and especially when that is delayed even more, is among the most common and persistent complaints regarding the application for citizenship process. The timeline is clearly a much more important factor, a far more pressing priority for applicants, than it is for the government. If and when a non-routine matter results in a delay, the bottom-line (or so it appears) is that the extent of a resulting delay is given very little consideration. IRCC clearly does NOT consider time to be of the essence in processing citizenship applications. Not even close. As much as many rail about the unfairness of delays in processing citizenship applications (which can go incredibly long in some cases), absent blatant, egregious, and a delay that is more or less totally and vastly disproportionate to the reason for it, something that results in an additional year or years, let alone just six or ten months, is not considered to be an undue burden or even, generally, unfair. That's how it is; that things should be otherwise is a very frequent refrain in the forum.

Caution: I am not at all sure but it is my impression that IRCC will proceed with processing a citizenship application without receiving a PCC if the applicant provides anywhere near a reasonable explanation as to why they are not including a PCC in response to a request for one. This might NOT be good news. This might trigger a referral to CBSA or CSIS to conduct a more particularized investigation of the applicant's background in that other country, and we have no idea how much delay that might cause in processing the citizenship application. There could be a rather significant delay. Could depend on which country it is.

That said . . . it is possible that IRCC will put an application on-the-shelf, so to say, until a PCC is received, unless IRCC concludes the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to provide a PCC. In particular, one of the options, and as I have otherwise noted perhaps the most appropriate approach for @MEB, the OP here, is to respond to the request with an explanation saying they cannot provide a police certificate within the time specified in the request, but that they have initiated the process for obtaining a PCC and will submit it when it becomes available. And, again, this might result in the application being put on-the-shelf, so to say, until a PCC is received.

 

[dpenabill]

More comments, and again for clarity I am rewinding a bit, revisiting and addressing the primary issue.

I know I did my full due diligence on this topic in my application and I know it is up to me to provide it or not...but providing it after wasting 2 months(till I received the AOR) although the certificate is 100% not applicable to me as per the info. they provided in the form then wasting another 6 months just to get it(not to mention associated cost) ,is just very unfair/unrealistic .

Additional General Observations:

Acknowledgement: There is no doubt that individuals can be at a disadvantage due to their circumstances, including circumstances that are totally outside their control, and circumstances which do not in any way affect the individual's eligibility for citizenship ("innocent circumstances," one might say). This is true generally; being born into poverty, for example, tends repress a person's opportunities for a long time, if not life. And also, in some cases, particularly; yes, living or working in certain parts of the world before coming to Canada to live can influence how things go in a citizenship application, not in terms of whether the individual is eligible for citizenship and thus not itself something that will dictate whether citizenship will be granted, but in terms of how complicated and long the process might take.

The unfairness inherent in such situations, affecting some individuals, is outside the scope of procedural fairness in processing citizenship applications, and thus there is minimal (if any) recourse for the particular individual. At the risk of sounding callous (though I wish not to; I get why this is a sore point, a very sore point, for so many), this tends to fall under the when-life-is-unfair umbrella. (Also note, again, the low priority given delays in the processing timeline, discussed in my previous post.)

Of course such unfairness can be cause for advocating changes to the law and procedures, pushing for changes that will at least reduce if not eliminate the deleterious impact that results from otherwise innocent circumstances. The efficacy of such advocacy depends on the particulars. It is clear that obtaining a PCC from certain countries can and does impose additional hurdles, and potential delays, affecting certain individuals more, and in some contexts disproportionately so. I generally do not wrestle much with how-things-should-work issues, but it appears to me that IRCC and Parliament generally (not just under the current government) is well-acquainted with issues related to PCCs, including difficulties arising in relation to certain countries, and that consequently there is, probably, not much likelihood the government will be persuaded to change current policies and practices, not by much anyway. (My impression is that personal relief is probably allowed on a case-by-case basis.)

It is not likely it will help to address this, the unfairness or how things should work, in a response to a request for additional documents. The better response to a request for documents is, usually, one that is simple, direct, and brief. Bureaucrats tend to have a narrow focus, at least in regards to doing their job, and any information that is a distraction or is complicated risks causing confusion, even mistakes.

Proactive, Pre-emptive Preparation: (Too late to help @MEB.) The discussion here illuminates another element prospective citizenship applicants would be prudent to consider BEFORE they make the application for citizenship. A lot of the discussions in this forum are about meeting the requirements and applying. A few regular participants, including me, are often reminding others that there are other factors to consider in deciding WHEN to apply. For example, I am a big proponent of considering waiting significantly longer, after reaching the minimum eligibility threshold, BEFORE applying, to build not just a few days margin but a bigger margin, and for SOME it is best to wait considerably longer (I waited for a full extra year, given my business with ties abroad).

I have also often mentioned that prospective applicants with significant ties abroad, and particularly those who were living and working outside Canada for an extended period of time within the four years previous to the date they make the application, should consider going through the process of obtaining a PCC from such countries EVEN THOUGH they are not required to include one with the application itself. Just in case they are asked for one, so they can provide it to IRCC quicker, reducing delays.

The situation illustrated by @MEB suggests that this would be a good idea for applicants who have spent a considerable amount of time in a country for which obtaining a PCC is more difficult or subject to a lengthy timeline (and especially so if much of that time there has been within the previous four years). To be prepared. That said, I recognize some countries require someone applying for a PCC to document an official reason showing the PCC is needed.