Context: Mistakes Happen. We all make them, and IRCC generally recognizes this and does not punish applicants for mistakes that do not affect eligibility.
Apart from discussions about other types of immigration status, there is NO doubt that at least since the citizenship application version adopted in October 2016,
an applicant is CLEARLY asked to disclose permanent resident status in any other country. This is and has been clear, again at least since October 2016. Since a Green Card is issued to individuals who have been granted Permanent Resident status in the U.S., it is clear, a PR applying for Canadian citizenship is obligated to disclose a U.S. Green Card.
How or why a particular applicant might have mistakenly failed to accurately provide this information, it is up to the individual to explain how or why it happened. Mistakes happen; we all make them; and if an omission like this comes up in processing the citizenship application, it is up to the individual to address the how or why in their particular case. An honest
mea culpa, in circumstances that make sense, can go a long way toward avoiding negative perceptions about an applicant's credibility.
In contrast, blaming it on the application being confusing is not likely to get much traction, since in regards to the application and the obligation to disclose permanent resident status elsewhere, including a U.S. GC, this has not been at all confusing, again at least since October 2016. Some excuses cast a shadow on credibility. Some excuses make "
the dog ate my homework" pale in scale.
How a failure to disclose this information will influence things for a particular applicant will undoubtedly vary considerably. Lots of
it-depends-factors at play. Context and circumstances matter. IRCC might find one applicant's explanation credible and entirely believable, such as a genuine statement "
it was an honest oversight" (such as I overlooked or forgot or was not thinking about the status I had gotten but did not use). But in other circumstances IRCC might not be so convinced, ranging from having minor concerns about the applicant's credibility to alleging misrepresentation (the latter would be unusual and limited to more egregious settings, such as someone who has a spouse living in the U.S. and who has spent lengthy or frequent periods of time in the states). Far better to straight up own making a mistake than claim the language in the application was so confusing that the applicant did not understand it was asking them to disclose permanent resident status in the U.S., especially since it is patently clear the application asks for this.
. . . the wording for that question (currently question 13) was extremely unclear for a long time . . .
. . . even when I applied almost 1.5 years ago, the wording did not make it clear whether the non-immigrant visas other than PR or citizenship had to be included. The French version of the form even specifically asked only if you have gotten PR status or applied for citizenship . . .
To be clear, at the least since October 2016 (probably longer but the archive of application versions I can readily access only goes back to the October 2016 version), the questions in the application for a 5(1) grant of citizenship have consistently and very clearly asked applicants to disclose "
permanent resident" status in any country other than Canada. There is nothing about the language used in the application forms or the instructions which is at all confusing about this.
A U.S. Green Card is issued to those who are granted
PERMANENT Resident status in the U.S. There is no doubt the application asks applicants to disclose having such status. Whatever confusion there has been in regards to other types of status, and regardless the back-and-forth about whether tourist or visitor status should be disclosed, in particular, since October 2016
ALL the various forms of applications for a Section 5(1) grant of citizenship have
CLEARLY called for the applicant to disclose "
permanent resident" status in "
any country other than Canada" . . . going back at least to CIT 0002 (10-2016), in question 6.F. Since the October 2017 version, this information has been requested in question 13),
This is clear. Just plain clear. It is clear and has been clear notwithstanding expressions of confusion among those who, apparently, do not read the instructions, sometimes appearing to not even read the question itself, or among those who (imprudently) approach questions based on interpreting
what-IRCC-really-wants (spoiler alert:
when in doubt, follow the instructions, otherwise, yep, follow the instructions, and that means reading the questions and instructions without personalized interpretation, without revision based on what one believes IRCC really wants -- although for those who think they know what IRCC really wants, it may a good idea to also include that in their answer in addition to answering the question actually asked).
Off Topic Tangent; Disclosing other immigration status:
It warrants noting that citizenship application forms since the October 2017 version ask about status in other countries in question 13, and this includes the June 2018 version, the various 2019 versions including different versions issued in February, June, and December 2019, all of which reference permanent resident status in other countries but, additionally, SPECIFICALLY, list examples of status the applicant needs to disclose, which includes "
student, employment/worker, refugee, permanent resident or citizen."
As of the October 2020 version, and in the currently used January 2022 version, this is still asked in question 13 but the list of examples is expanded a little and is in a drop down box; in these versions of the application,
visitor status is added as an example of immigration status to disclose.
Otherwise, you reference "
the kind of confusion that still exists" and link the thread.
The OP there posted:
Are tourist trips required to be added in question 13.
. . . during those trips I had tourist visas (visitor visas) . . .
The drop down box lists "
visitor" as a status to be disclosed. The only confusion about this is either rooted in simply not reading the question or in trying to justify an interpretation that avoids what is patently clear.
Or confusion perpetrated by those giving out-of-date (and thus erroneous) information.
The real question for
@Akh88 is how to deal with this. And the answer to that question is not about question 13 being confusing . . . it's not.
It is rather simple, and you and others basically did answer how to deal with it: report what is known, acknowledge by description (as best one can) what is missing, what might be left out, and explain why. An "LOE" you and others referenced. And it does not need to be complicated. It should not be complicated. Keep it simple. As noted there, this is not critical information, so probably no need to elaborate much if at all. List the known, relevant information; note there are other details that cannot be recalled, and briefly explain the time factor.
