Even though minor mistakes that do not affect the applicant's eligibility are generally no problem, and many mistakes can simply be corrected by webform after AOR, when there is a significant factual discrepancy that is not nearly so simple a question as it might seem.
What to do if an application has been made that includes inaccurate information is complicated and varies considerably depending on the particular details, especially the specific "
mistake" and its context. Fact that after correction the applicant still meets all the eligibility requirements is key context, of course, but that alone does not determine what will happen or what is the best approach to fixing the error.
Prudent commentators will be very reluctant (or at least they should be) to offer an opinion about big discrepancies in an application based on a "
for example" hypothetical, particularly where (as here) the example lacks concrete details and other context. To be clear,
I cannot offer an opinion about what you should do or what will happen. I can offer some observations about what might matter which might help you figure out how to address the situation.
It warrants cautioning that IRCC will not deny an application specifically because incorrect information was provided in the application. It makes a huge difference, all the difference, in whether the inaccuracy is determined to be a
mistake or
misrepresentation of a material fact. Mistakes are not a stand alone ground for denying the application. Misrepresentation, in contrast, not only is grounds for denying the application but will constitute a prohibition for five years (and could also result in criminal prosecution, albeit we do not see that happen much).
Obviously (or it should be obvious), just saying (claiming) it was a "
mistake" does not stop an IRCC officer from concluding otherwise, from ruling it was misrepresentation (which, again, would mean a five year prohibition in addition to grounds for denying the application).
On the other hand, historically IRCC has been rather understanding about mistakes, recognizing we all make mistakes. But of course not all mistakes are created equal, so even if IRCC accepts that the erroneous (not true) information declared in an application (which the applicant attests is true and accurate in signing/submitting it) is just a mistake, or one might say an "
honest" or "
innocent mistake," the impact of the mistake will vary and what happens will depend on other factors. The big factor, of course, is whether the applicant still meets the eligibility requirements based on the corrected information. If IRCC concludes the applicant made a mistake but still meets the requirements, it will proceed to grant citizenship; the application must be denied, of course, if the applicant does not meet the requirements based on the corrected information.
Rather common example (please forgive me for stating the obvious, for clarity): Applicant makes an application declaring more than 1095 days physical presence credit but mistakenly leaves a three week trip out of the calculation. When those days are deducted from the presence calculation, if the total days credit left fall below 1095 (even by just one day) the application must be denied. If after deducting the overlooked trip days the total is still at least 1095 and the applicant otherwise meets all the requirements, IRCC will proceed to grant citizenship, but
that only happens if IRCC accepts the discrepancy was a mistake and is otherwise satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements.
A regular contributor here did indeed make an application overlooking a three week trip, but they had a margin of presence well over that; this was an issue addressed during an interview, following which they were scheduled to take the oath, no significant problem. Many other forum participants were compelled to withdraw when IRCC identified additional days outside Canada that resulted in them being short of 1095 days credit (if they did not withdraw, the application would end up before a Citizenship Judge who would deny it).
So, the key forking path is whether or not IRCC sees the discrepancy as a
mistake? or
misrepresentation?
-- if misrepresentation, game over, cannot apply again for five more years
-- if a mistake, the impact depends first on whether the applicant is still qualified based on the correct information
-- -- if applicant no longer meets the requirements, game over, application denied, but applicant can re-apply if and when they do meet the requirements
-- -- beyond that, the extent to which the mistake affects the applicant's credibility can have a big influence in how IRCC handles the application
Just making a mistake indicates the applicant is not an entirely reliable reporter of facts, no matter how innocent the mistake was. So the nature and scope of the mistake, and the context, will influence the extent to which the applicant is perceived to be a reliable, or not reliable reporter of facts. Typically minor mistakes, particularly typographical errors, have little or no negative impact on the applicant's perceived credibility. Obviously, more and bigger mistakes indicate a less reliable reporter of facts. Obviously, if the manner in which the applicant has provided other information suggests evasiveness or deception, even assuming the particular discrepancy in facts was a mistake, that is likely to compromise the applicant's credibility.
Leading, finally, to the particular mistake: a single more or less typographical error in entering the year of an event can usually be seen to be just that, a mistake. Whether this can be corrected depends on the particular date. If the applicant enters the wrong year for the date the application is submitted, that is something that cannot be corrected.
Your "
for example" . . . the context looms large. If the address history, work history, travel dates in the presence calculation, and other information in the application, and your immigration history as well, are all verifiably accurate and consistent with having made a simple typographical-like error as to the year in just one entry in the application, that should not cause much of a problem . . . except perhaps if the application was made online it may trigger the application being returned as incomplete (because date in application does not match GCMS record), which would be an opportunity to correct and re-submit. But a lot of how this is perceived could depend on the accuracy of all that other information and how that relates.
If the applicant gets AOR, that too is an opportunity to make a correction via webform.
