This post goes long on a TANGENT . . . while generally my sense is that applicants should be forthcoming with nicknames and such, I doubt this is an issue let alone a big issue . . . so long as, of course, the applicant discloses the obvious.
So this post is not intended to change anyone's mind about how to answer the 'names-used' item in the application. It is more about the context in which IRCC asks for and uses information like this.
Yeah, those aren't official government documents.
Just to be clear, the form clearly asks the applicant to disclose "nicknames," which are generally NOT name variants used in official government documents.
An appropriate response is NOT limited to names used in official government documents.
I am NOT suggesting prospective applicants need to go overboard in responding to Item 5 in the application (referring to the CIT 0002 (02-2019) version). Not at all. There is little hint this item causes problems for applicants.
However, it is worth remembering that IRCC wants information like this so it can better verify the applicant's facts. Disclosing nicknames or such can be a good thing . . . it can help fill in a more complete picture of the applicant.
That said . . . if the prospective applicant is or has been known by a name variant, whether at work or one's place of worship, or in this or that organization (sports, community, hobby, whatever), probably a good idea to disclose that name variant.
For example, if people where you work know you by a variant of your name, and particularly so if that is different enough from your legal name that the employer might not recognize a question is about you when an IRCC official telephones and asks about you by your legal name, probably a good idea to have disclosed that variant so the IRCC official says a name the employer will readily recognize, and verify yeah, been working here since xxxx. So if your legal name is Richard Thornhill but everyone at the shop or store or wherever you work calls you "Jake," it would be a good idea to list "Jake" as a nickname . . . so if IRCC calls (they usually do
NOT but they sometimes do), and asks about Richard Thornhill, and the receptionist or supervisor responds "
who . . . don't know that person," the IRCC official can then ask about "
Jake Thornhill," and get an acknowledgement verifying employment.
Again,
no need to go overboard. No need to mention baby names. Or a lover's pet name. Probably no need to disclose every online moniker ever used. I had been using "dpenabill" as an online moniker for two decades when I applied for citizenship and I did NOT list it.
But I did list just about every variant of my name I have ever used in person. I'm an old dude, and how people refer to me has changed a lot over the decades, from who I was known as in church in the 1950s (too embarrassing to share) to variants I've used in communicating with colleagues in the various settings of different careers in the half century plus since, with other variants in university and when in military service along the way. Actually all the ones I listed were the same as I recall listing for my PR application as well. So for me it would have been foolish to not list them in my citizenship application, since CIC (I applied and became a citizen before the name changed to IRCC) already had the list. (So that probably warrants one of those banal platitudes: of course list every name variant you previously listed in your PR application.)
Again, I do not mention this as if to suggest, let alone encourage, anyone to go overboard . . . just to mention that offering a more complete picture of oneself can actually be a positive.
WHAT FOLLOWS IS A TANGENT . . . more about how information the applicant provides, which includes names, fits into the processing of the application. A lot of the information the applicant provides is NOT directly about any requirement for citizenship. Work history, for example. There is NO work or employment requirement. Yet IRCC considers the applicant's work history to be so important that every month of the eligibility period must be accounted just to make a complete application.
Names used is of this sort. It is about getting a relatively complete picture of who the applicant is and a sense of the life the applicant has been living in Canada . . . so IRCC wants information it can use to cross-check background information.
Most applicants will benefit from facilitating this.
There is a myth, for example, that applicants who never travel abroad have stronger cases . . . and in contrast applicants with frequent travel abroad are scrutinized more extensively and skeptically. As generalizations go, this one is off by quite a lot. Regular travel abroad can actually make the case obviously more strong, especially where it indicates a clear pattern of living in Canada and going abroad for short visits and then returning to a home in Canada. (Sure, some patterns of frequent travel will suggest otherwise, indicating ongoing ties abroad, suggesting the possibility of undisclosed employment abroad, or such.)
The point of this is that IRCC looks at the whole picture, the pattern and how the details fit into the pattern. For the vast majority of qualified applicants there is a rather clear picture of an immigrant living a life in Canada, no reason for concern.
Names are just another small part of the matrix which may or may not fill in some of the picture.
TWO-EDGED SWORD:
Obviously, IRCC can do research for any name disclosed. IRCC is known, for example, to research LinkedIn accounts connected to names clients use (both for grant citizenship, see Sukkar FC case for example at
http://canlii.ca/t/h504b and the Farghal FC court case at
http://canlii.ca/t/hpms7 as well as in other cases, like PR appeal of Removal Order for breach of Residency Obligation, such as in the Haidar IAD decision at
http://canlii.ca/t/gwxpd ). And, obviously, there is a risk that IRCC will find information in open sources connected to a name the applicant discloses that is NOT actually about the applicant.
In contrast, though, if the information found at an open source, including social media such as LinkedIn, is consistent with what the applicant has reported, that will actually reinforce and tend to verify the applicant's information. A positive.
Which is to say that facilitating access to information about the applicant will tend to bolster the case for applicants who have been honest in their dealings generally and truthful in their application.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE RISK A NAME IS USED BY SOMEONE ELSE (and thus IRCC gets wrong information):
Sure, so the processing agent does an open source search for "Jake Thornhill" because Richard Thornhill listed this as a name sometimes used, and gets hits, including a LinkedIn account with very different information about education and experience, a different work history, than what Richard Thornhill reported in his citizenship application. OUCH?
NO, not so fast. Anyone who has done even a bit of research about people is well familiar with scores of false-hits, which are almost always easy to recognize they are NOT about the person being researched.
And despite hyperbolic complaints here otherwise, actually the IRCC processing agents who will be doing this have done it before, many, many times, and they GET IT. They can and do figure things out. They can and will sort out and dismiss the NOT-relevant hits.
By the way, if you are one of the applicants picked for this sort of additional inquiry (my guess is they do not do this kind of research for most applicants, just some),
odds are they run name variant searches anyway, not just the names the applicant lists. (Same for RCMP screening.)
If per chance IRCC comes across a social media source, such as LinkedIn, that a processing agent believes reveal information about the applicant that conflicts with the applicant's information in the application, the applicant will be given an opportunity to respond and show that the other information is NOT about the applicant.
An illustrative example is the case of Ms. El Sayed. See
http://canlii.ca/t/gwxmn
This is a case where CIC/IRCC found information at a LinkedIn account with a user name the same as one of the name variants Ms. El Sayed reported, in her application, that she had used. The LinkedIn account included information indicating employment abroad at a time she reported she was present in Canada. She denied it was her account and denied she was employed as indicated in that account. But the person indicated in the account and Ms. El Sayed shared some obvious history (same university, banking background, and such), and somehow the officer had obtained a magazine article which showed a photo of Ms. El Sayed to be the person employed as indicated in the LinkedIn account. Among her various denials she claimed the photo could have been used without her knowledge or permission.
Like the Citizenship Officer, the Federal Court was not amused let alone persuaded.
Did not work out well for her. Not only denied citizenship but subjected to a five year prohibition for misrepresentation.