Citizenship / Police certificate / clearance requirement

[armoured]

So I'd like to confirm something, requirement of a police certificate for two 20-somethings who will be applying for citizenship fairly soon. Their case seems pretty clear to me that it's not required but I'd like to confirm as there's a small wrinkle. Actually another adult too but that case a bit more straightforward as there's no 'wrinkle' noted below.

The CIT-007 checklist form states that a police clearance is needed ... "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) for the four years immediately before the date of your application."

But the instruction guide (here https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/application/application-forms-guides/guide-0002-application-canadian-citizenship-under-subsection-5-1-adults-18-years-older.html#Step3) says "You don’t need to provide a police certificate if - you were in your country of origin immediately prior to becoming a permanent resident and landing in Canada, and -this time falls within the past 4 years.

These two immigrated in the last four years (will apply before the fourth anniversary of their landing), immigrated straight from country of origin to here, and have basically only left Canada for a handful of short trips, only one of which was longer than a few weeks (45 days or so to home country, only one visit to home country). That is, they haven't even been out of Canada for more than 183 days, let alone in a row in any one place.

The wrinkle is this: neither of these two have ever submitted PCCs from country of origin - they were under 18 when the application was submitted, and although they arrived in Canada after they turned 18, IRCC never asked for a PCC after they turned 18. So they've never submitted one at all (although zero concern there's anything actually on police records abroad or in Canada).

Now, I know I'm over-worrying a bit, in that the language is pretty clear in the instructions and nothing addressing this situation in the requirements, but due to various admin requirements, it would be VERY difficult and time-consuming to get PCCs for them if we had to. (Country of origin requires physical presence if national identity doc is not currently valid, and a chain of related admin difficulties / requirements that complicate things tenfold.)

If we had to submit an explanation explaining why they can't get a PCC for them, we'd be comfortable doing so (there are good reasons why it's a problem). But would prefer not to have to deal with that.

 

[Seym]

The best advice is always to stick to what IRCC asks for, and nothing else.
Youve copy-pasted what says that they don't need one, so apply without one and without a letter of explanation as you don't need to explain why you didn't provide what you're not asked to provide.

 

[dpenabill]

Whether to include a PCC with the application needs to be approached based on how the applicant answers Question 10.b. in the application form.

In addition to instructions in the application form itself, and in the checklist, see specific detailed instructions in the Guide, the Step 4 instructions for Question 10 in particular.

Even if an applicant is not required to include a PCC with the application, a PCC can be required later in the process.

If an applicant claims a reason for not including a PCC, even if that is not a valid reason that might pass the completeness screening. In these cases there is a higher risk that IRCC will later request a PCC, or this could trigger non-routine processing related to background screening, or BOTH. Neither is also possible (IRCC seems to overlook technicalities in some cases).

The CIT-007 checklist form states that a police clearance is needed ... "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) for the four years immediately before the date of your application."

But the instruction guide (here https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/application/application-forms-guides/guide-0002-application-canadian-citizenship-under-subsection-5-1-adults-18-years-older.html#Step3) says "You don’t need to provide a police certificate if - you were in your country of origin immediately prior to becoming a permanent resident and landing in Canada, and -this time falls within the past 4 years.

. . .
If we had to submit an explanation explaining why they can't get a PCC for them, we'd be comfortable doing so (there are good reasons why it's a problem). But would prefer not to have to deal with that.

Probably best to obtain and include PCC (police certificate) OR wait until they can apply and truthfully check [No] in response to Question 10.b.

If the applicant for citizenship checks [Yes] in response to Question 10.b., they need to include a PCC with the application UNLESS:

-- it is NOT possible to obtain a PCC, or​

-- the exemption for country of origin applies​

Thus, if the applicant applies when a truthful response to Question 10.b. is [Yes] they do not need to include a PCC with the application (one can still be required by IRCC later) if they assert it is NOT possible to obtain a PCC, or they assert that the exemption based on being in their country of origin prior to becoming a PR applies. This is done by checking drop down "No" in the 10.b. chart, in the column for specifying whether a PCC will be provided, and giving the appropriate explanation in the third column in that chart.

For example, a draft of sample explanation for asserting the country of origin exemption: "No PCC included because XXX country is my country of origin and time period there was prior to my becoming a permanent resident."

Not Possible to Obtain PCC Exception:

Difficulty obtaining a PCC does NOT mean it is not possible to obtain one.

See IRCC instructions for the specific country. If IRCC has instructions for how to obtain PCC from the country, it is likely that IRCC will require a PCC from that country. That request will come later if just asserting the claim one cannot be obtained is sufficient to get past the completeness screening.

For applicants anxious to start the application, this can allow them to apply now without a PCC and in the meantime begin the process to obtain a PCC so they have it to submit quickly when IRCC later requires it, minimizing the amount of delay this non-routine processing will involve. That is, if IRCC later requires it, recognizing that IRCC is not always strict in enforcing these sorts of things (similar to the requirement to provide translations).

Question is whether the application will pass the completeness screening (so not be returned to the applicant as incomplete) if the applicant asserts they cannot obtain a PCC in the Question 10.b. chart for a country IRCC's information indicates a PCC can be obtained. If the application does not pass the completeness screening, it is returned to the applicant with instructions about what needs to be included to make it complete.

Country of Origin Exemption:

For an example of how the country of origin exemption can apply, see Example 1 in the Guide instructions, in Step 4 instructions for Question 10 in particular.

It is probably sufficient to pass the application completeness screening without including a PCC with the application if the applicant claims (in response to Question 10.b. in the application) the exception for a period spent in the applicant's country of origin prior to becoming a PR . . . at least if other information in the application (travel, address, and work histories) is consistent in showing the 183 days in a row in the country of origin were BEFORE the applicant became a PR.

However, based on Example 1 in the guide, I understand (and am quite confident) that for an applicant whose 183 days in another country were in their country of origin and that period of time was prior to becoming a PR, nonetheless the exemption does NOT apply if:

-- the PR/applicant returned to that country after landing, or​

-- the PR/applicant did not submit a PCC attendant the process of becoming a PR​

That said, many have interpreted this otherwise, and it is probably not unreasonable to assert this exemption applies if the applicant was in their country of origin "immediately prior to becoming a permanent resident and landing in Canada and this time falls with this four (4) year period" even though the applicant returned to that country after landing or did not submit a PCC attendant the process of becoming a PR. Asserting the country of origin exemption based on this understanding will probably suffice to get the application past the completeness screening.

Assuming that asserting the country of origin is sufficient to get past the completeness screening despite a return to that country or not having submitted a PCC in becoming a PR, if my understanding is correct the applicant will then be at risk for IRCC to later request the PCC, which again would be non-routine processing involving some delay.

Further Commentary About Example 1:

In Example 1, the scenario is premised on an applicant who "did not travel to" the country of origin (in the example this is France) after they became a PR, and they do NOT need to provide a PCC unless they "did not provide one with [their] immigration application."

Some have argued this example does not illustrate the country of origin exemption.

These instructions are vague enough some might proceed based on an understanding that a return to the country of origin does not preclude applying the exemption, or even based on an understanding that not having submitted a PCC with their immigration application does not preclude applying the country of origin exemption. And my sense is that there are very good odds that suffices for purposes of what constitutes a complete application. Whether IRCC requires a PCC later, or engages in non-routine background screening, might depend on the circumstances in the particular applicant's situation.

The individual applicant should proceed based on their own best understanding of the questions and what they believe is the proper, honest answer given the facts in their personal situation.

Or consult with a lawyer.

 

[armoured]

Thus, if the applicant applies when a truthful response to Question 10.b. is [Yes] they do not need to include a PCC with the application (one can still be required by IRCC later) if they assert it is NOT possible to obtain a PCC, or they assert that the exemption based on being in their country of origin prior to becoming a PR applies. This is done by checking drop down "No" in the 10.b. chart, in the column for specifying whether a PCC will be provided, and giving the appropriate explanation in the third column in that chart.

For example, a draft of sample explanation for asserting the country of origin exemption: "No PCC included because XXX country is my country of origin and time period there was prior to my becoming a permanent resident."

Thank you, this seems pretty clear and likely how we will proceed. I understand this does mean some risk of a delayed application process and/or request for a PCC.

Not Possible to Obtain PCC Exception:

Difficulty obtaining a PCC does NOT mean it is not possible to obtain one.

I am being rather vague (because reasons) but the issue is more than just being 'difficult' but effectively not possible. The conditions for getting one are not feasible. We'll cross that bridge should IRCC request. Or obviously if conditions change.

For an example of how the country of origin exemption can apply, see Example 1 in the Guide instructions, in Step 4 instructions for Question 10 in particular.

However, based on Example 1 in the guide, I understand (and am quite confident) that for an applicant whose 183 days in another country were in their country of origin and that period of time was prior to becoming a PR, nonetheless the exemption does NOT apply if:

-- the PR/applicant returned to that country after landing, or​

-- the PR/applicant did not submit a PCC attendant the process of becoming a PR​

​

I understand your point but the information in this example is incomplete/underspecified, IMO, to draw that conclusion - specifically it is not clear that 'France' is the country of origin of the applicant / nor that the individual resided for many years before. To wit, I believe in most/almost all cases that individual would have been required to submit a PCC for France, if that was the country of origin. An equally plausible interpretation of this example (was in fact how I interpreted it on first read) was that the person was from some other country, wasn't required to provide a PCC for France b/c not from there/hadn't lived there when applying, etc. Indeed it is more plausible because it says 'if provided before you don't need to provide.'

Now I'm not saying this to be tendentious - it could, plausibly, be the scenario of immigrated before becoming an adult hence no PCC. Not clear. But I'm keying off the lack of the specific language "country of origin" that would seem to be the point of how the examples are structured. (It doesn't, however, help that this 'did not provide a PCC with your immigration application' issue is not mentioned anywhere.)

So, I could be wrong, but it does not seem to specifically state that this scenario is about country of origin, an intent which would have been easy to put by using the phrase to clarify. But of course, 'example scenarios' can't really be read as if they were legal texts.

Your confidence about the scenario does give me pause, however.

Assuming that asserting the country of origin is sufficient to get past the completeness screening despite a return to that country or not having submitted a PCC in becoming a PR, if my understanding is correct the applicant will then be at risk for IRCC to later request the PCC, which again would be non-routine processing involving some delay.

I'm curious of course how long the non-routine processing might be compared to 'regular' but probably no way to know. Obviously if it were highly likely to mean that it would all get done quicker if we waited several months (so that days outside <183), then we should consider.

Thanks again. While this did seem quite straightforward to me, I accept it may not be so simple. Glad I checked.

 

[dpenabill]

. . . but the information in this example is incomplete/underspecified, IMO, to draw that conclusion - specifically it is not clear that 'France' is the country of origin of the applicant / nor that the individual resided for many years before.

There is a lot about the applicable instructions here that is not clear. (Saving the calls-to-fix and shame-on-IRCC discussion for elsewhere, since that would only be an unproductive distraction here where, or so I understand, the focus is on how to best navigate the PCC question when there is, as we tend to say, a wrinkle involved.) Indeed, even though this is actually very simple and straight-forward for the vast, vast majority of applicants, for that small percentage with a wrinkle involved, how to best approach this can pose a challenge.

I have offered some other observations regarding queries about this topic; see:

https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/need-a-police-certificate.848836/​

​

https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/police-certificate.848662/#post-10850424​

Additionally, in my previous post here I specifically acknowledged these instructions are vague, where I stated:

These instructions are vague enough some might proceed based on an understanding that a return to the country of origin does not preclude applying the exemption, or even based on an understanding that not having submitted a PCC with their immigration application does not preclude applying the country of origin exemption.​

Perhaps I should have been more clear that I meant that some applicants might reasonably proceed on that understanding . . . assuming that is their honest understanding.

But while it is not clear, for example, what "country of origin" means in these instructions, my understanding is that here, in this context, the meaning is similar to its former use by Statistics Canada (I believe they use the term "place of origin" now), that is that it refers to "the country in which a person, born outside Canada, last resided before immigrating to Canada." But yeah, this may rest on a bit of circular reasoning since my understanding relies to a significant extent on the view that Example 1 in the instructions is specifically intended to illustrate an application of the country of origin exemption -- noting that this example does not appear to illustrate how the instructions apply in any other way; that is, I don't see what Example 1 is intended to illustrate if it is not an illustration of the country of origin exemption.

But here too, I acknowledge that in other parts of the Canadavisa forums, in contrast, forum participants have said that "country of origin" means the individual's country of birth, others saying it means the person's country of nationality.


It Is Worth Considering What Is At Stake:

As long as the applicant is reasonably honest, what is at stake is:

(1) whether the application together with supporting documents meet the requirements for making a complete application (passes completeness screening, thus avoiding the application being returned without being processed), and​

(2) whether in the course of processing the application IRCC is satisfied the applicant has no prohibitions (no criminal or security issues possibly constituting a prohibition)​

Re Completeness Screening:

The completeness screening is largely mechanical, a more or less checklist operation. It is not clear to what extent this involves any substantive screening beyond the appearance of things. I am not sure, for example, if an application might be returned as incomplete if the answer for Question 10.b. is [No] but the applicant's address and travel history clearly shows a period of time abroad for more than six months within the preceding four years. My sense is no, that this would clear the completeness screening but be something the local office processing the application would likely take notice of leading to a request for a PCC at that stage of the process.

In contrast, if the answer for Question 10.b. is [Yes] but the applicant does not include a PCC and does not give an explanation in the 10.b. chart, I believe that will not pass the completeness screening and the application will be returned without being processed.

If the answer for Question 10.b. is [Yes] and a reason is stated in the chart, I do not know to what extent, if any, IRCC might screen that reason as part of the completeness screening. Perhaps a clearly unacceptable reason will not pass the completeness screening, but I believe a plausible reason will be sufficient to pass the completeness check. The question then is whether later IRCC is satisfied, leading to what is involved in prohibitions screening.

Re Prohibitions Screening:

While prohibitions screening is a huge, multifaceted subject, the focus here is about whether an applicant should include a PCC from another country. Foremost, the underlying concern is about possible prohibitions based on criminal or security related issues in other countries. Thus, while there is a more or less fixed parameter (183 days in a row) for determining who IRCC wants to include a PCC with the application, in order to verify there are no criminal or security related issues possibly constituting a prohibition, what IRCC is really focused on once the application is in process, is the extent to which IRCC can reliably conclude the applicant is not subject to a prohibition. So as long as the application passed the completeness screening, it's not the number of days a PR was in this or that country that matters much. What matters is whether IRCC is satisfied there are no criminal or security concerns, no possible prohibitions.

So how IRCC proceeds in cases where the applicant has extended absences during the four year period prior to a citizenship application undoubtedly varies depending on a lot of factors. The applicant's personal background will loom large in this, as does (apparently) which country is involved. Among various additional factors.

Leading to

I'm curious of course how long the non-routine processing might be compared to 'regular' but probably no way to know. Obviously if it were highly likely to mean that it would all get done quicker if we waited several months (so that days outside <183), then we should consider.

No way to know how long, that's true. Too true.

But there are scores and scores of anecdotal reports throughout the citizenship forum indicating that overseas background screening can be one of the more common reasons why an application is bogged down way longer than other applications. While all that posting tends to be riddled with uncertainty and often more than a little confusion if not misunderstanding, such that it is difficult to confidently draw strong conclusions about what is really happening in many of those cases, despite all that it is readily seen that many of the applications bogged down in the more lengthy processing times arise in cases IRCC makes a referral for overseas background screening (this is separate and apart from the routine referral for clearances from CSIS and the RCMP).

There are many variables which affect how that goes. Which country is involved looms large. Difficult to verify but it takes no stretch of imagination to apprehend, for example, that background screening for the U.S. or the UK, Australia or France, will likely be concluded far more quickly than for Pakistan or Yemen, Iran or Venezuela, Burkina Faso or Niger. And of course there are many variables in the specific individual's personal history which will have an impact on the process for verifying they have no criminal or security related issues in another country that could constitute a prohibition.

All of which I expect you understand well.

The reason for belaboring this some is to illustrate and emphasize the broad, broad range of potential outcomes in cases which involve a "wrinkle" or such.

Moreover, as I recently commented in response to another query, as long as the application has passed the completeness screening, my sense is that IRCC might be flexible if not outright lenient in deciding whether to require a PCC later even when it determines a PCC should have been included but wasn't. Again, depending a lot on the applicant's personal background, the country involved, and on the extent to which IRCC might have a concern the applicant has a criminal or security matter potentially constituting a prohibition. It might be similar to how IRCC does not always demand passport translations even though its instructions state that a translation is required for any information that is not in one of Canada's official languages . . . not as liberal as that, perhaps, but if it looks like there is no cause to apprehend the possibility of a prohibition, my guess is that IRCC might not bother to request a PCC later in the process, let alone pursue an investigatory referral for overseas checks.

 

[armoured]

Now, I know I'm over-worrying a bit, in that the language is pretty clear in the instructions and nothing addressing this situation in the requirements, but due to various admin requirements, it would be VERY difficult and time-consuming to get PCCs for them if we had to. (Country of origin requires physical presence if national identity doc is not currently valid, and a chain of related admin difficulties / requirements that complicate things tenfold.)

If we had to submit an explanation explaining why they can't get a PCC for them, we'd be comfortable doing so (there are good reasons why it's a problem). But would prefer not to have to deal with that.

As a small update to this: the general worry about this situation turned out to be misplaced. Despite all the reasons (genuine!) to worry about whether getting a PCC from abroad was possible, one of the intrepid youths dug deep in the internet and found the consulates still provide the service of obtaining a PCC (and even an official translation - for an additional fee). In our defence, this was hidden in some horrifically out of date web pages and with a clunky request mechanism that seemed like it couldn't possibly still be in use (especially since so much is now done exclusively on-line). All were skeptical that it would work, certainly within the promised 30 day period, but decided worth trying to avoid potential delays.

Our skepticism was misplaced; the consulate provided the necessary, professionally prepared and complete with quality translation attached, about 10 days before the promised 30 days. Problem solved. All the worry was for nothing.