Mistake in writing the application date

[SANDID]

Guys, any one had this problem of mistakenly writing the date on the application different from the on on the physical presence sheet?
I actually passed my test yet the dates on both papers are different, and sadly the one on the app is counting less than 1460, while actually we are around 1465 based on the physical count?

any input?

 

[Politren]

The officer didn't ask you anything about the date difference at the test?

 

[SANDID]

He did, and we just explained that we were focused on the date of the physical presence as it is clear enough there we are exceeding the needed nos of days. he said normally the date to be considered is the app's one and not the date of the presence claculator. We will wait for a communication ( not sure what type) from them, so anyone here had this issue before?

 

[dpenabill]

Guys, any one had this problem of mistakenly writing the date on the application different from the on on the physical presence sheet?
I actually passed my test yet the dates on both papers are different, and sadly the one on the app is counting less than 1460, while actually we are around 1465 based on the physical count?

any input?

Generally the applicant must be qualified for citizenship as of the date the application was made. But that would ordinarily be screened in the initial screening done in Sydney before the application is transferred to the local office, and if on the face of the application the applicant falls short of the physical presence requirement, the application would be returned to the applicant.

Somehow, apparently, your application passed that screening. How and/or why might forecast the impact it will have, but without knowing what there was about your application in particular that allowed it to pass that initial screening it is difficult, if not impossible, to know how this will affect the outcome.

There is little or no discretion to in effect grant citizenship based on close-enough. (There was when the requirement was a residency requirement, but with a physical presence requirement one-day short is fatal.)

All past reports and cases indicate that the date on the application is considered the date the application was made. And, again, the applicant must meet the qualifications as of that date or the application fails.

There was, for example, a report in one of the forums (I forget which one, but I think it was not this forum) by someone whose date in the application was obviously a typographical error, given other dates listed in the address and work history, the latter consistent with the Residency Calculation (this was a pre-June 11, 2015 application, under the 3/4 residency rule), but the application was ultimately denied due entirely to the applicant not meeting the requirements as of the erroneous date in the signature box on the application. (Caveat: one, or even a dozen examples, only indicate what sometimes happens, not necessarily what usually happens or what must happen.)


Any possibility IRCC will or even could treat the application-made date as the date on the physical presence calculation?

A key question is whether there is any discretion to treat the application-made date as the date on the physical presence calculation. I would guess, a strong guess, no, that the date the applicant purports to have signed the application must be considered the date the application was made. My only caveat is that some of the 2014 changes govern the date the application is made based on it being a "complete" application, so perhaps there is a backdoor of sorts through which a particularly generous Citizenship Officer might deem the application made later than the date on the application. Frankly I doubt this is possible, but it might be, and even if possible, wow, that would be very unusual, extremely lucky, and the applicant must have made a very positive impression on the interviewer and the Citizenship Officer (these may be the same individual, but often are not).

There is the possibility the Minister will grant citizenship under another subsection of Section 5 in the Citizenship Act, a provision which authorizes the Minister to grant citizenship in unusually special cases. Prospect of this is low. But it is possible.

Sorry I cannot offer a more positive prognosis. Best I can offer is one of the three rather unusual possibilities, which may be summarized:
-- whatever facilitated the application passing the initial screening is something which will enable IRCC to treat the application-made date as the later date in the APP calculation
-- revised provision governing what establishes the application-made date based on submitting a complete application possibly allows the Citizenship Officer to treat the application-made date as the later date in the APP calculation; this would require an extremely friendly, generous decision by the Citizenship Officer
-- remote possibility of a Minister's grant of citizenship

I suppose there could be the possibility of IRCC allowing the application date to be, in effect, corrected. This would be extremely unusual. This too would require an extremely friendly, generous decision by the Citizenship Officer. However, I have seen no indications that IRCC can or would do this.

 

[SANDID]

Many thanks dpenabill for your elaborated message.
Let me put few facts here so your input can be finalized.
1- I have more than 1460 days physical presence
2- the difference is between the date I ve written on the application and the date i ve written on the physical presence
3- i filed the whole file in a date (say 10 april) later than the date on the application(say 5 april) and the date on the physical presence (say 9).
4- I succeeded my test

Obviously there is mistake. However,Why to pass the screening and complete the test if this mistake should make a problem?

what you said exactly " I suppose there could be the possibility of IRCC allowing the application date to be, in effect, corrected." is actually to put instead of 5 april, 9 april, which was the date that prior mailing the whole file.

The agent mentioned he will rectify something but not said exactly what...

I will wait and hope, yet not sure how long will take to receive a response, and if refused ehat will be my next step

 

[SANDID]

and if the application is refused, means new fees, new test?

 

[srinichand]

What Happens if the person sent the letter explaining the mistake and request the IRCC to consider the date to use it? Will it be accepted?

Thanks

 

[dpenabill]

I referred to the possibility that IRCC can acknowledge the date in the signature box was a mistake and allow it to be corrected. But I did so almost in passing. This is not likely. Maybe. But frankly, unfortunately, probably not.

The date the application is signed is critical, a fundamental fact upon which much of the application depends. Your signature right there, in the same box, affirms the date. In the only case I have seen someone report an obvious mistake of this sort, that individual was not allowed to correct the date. (I do not recall the details, it was at least a couple years ago, but my recollection is that the date in the application actually made no sense, was an obvious typo, and otherwise all the other dates in the application and residency calculation were consistent . . . it was obvious the intended date was the same as the date on the residency calculation.)

For some reason your application passed initial screening. This is a big deal. Something happened. It could have been a simple oversight, but the date of the application itself is one of the most important items in the application, as again it is the date upon which virtually everything depends (basic eligibility, prohibitions, physical presence calculation, and more). So it is hard to imagine it was a simple oversight, as it is a specific date which even in that preliminary screening is ordinarily cross-checked against the information in not just the APP calculation but against all other dates in the application.

But, neither can I guess why else the application passed that initial screening.

I do not recall the precise refund policies, but if the date was properly identified as precluding you from meeting the physical presence requirement, in the initial screening, the application should have been returned to you and at least a portion of the fees refunded. Ordinarily that would be within a few weeks to two months after submitting the application, and would allow the applicant to submit a proper application . . . and presumably would not constitute a rejected or denied application, so as not to trigger elevated scrutiny when the second application is submitted.


If the application is refused?

Sorry to say, but my sense is that you will be lucky, very, very lucky, if indeed the application is not refused.

And yes, that would mean starting over. There is still a part of the fees that should be refunded, as I recall, but without revisiting the fee requirements I am not sure. But yeah, new application, new payment of fees, new interview and test, and perhaps, because second applications after a refusal, withdrawal, or abandonment are usually subject to additional scrutiny, potentially RQ.


As for the suggestion about sending a letter explaining the mistake and asking for the date to be corrected, I assume that in some manner of speaking that was essentially what you did in the interview. If not, I suppose it would not hurt to make a more or less formal request to, in effect, correct the date on the application form. Again, I cannot say for sure that will not be allowed, but my impression is that is unlikely.


Reminder: Margin, margin, margin! The idea that waiting a week or two before applying gives the applicant a margin is, frankly, ludicrous. All of us make mistakes. All of us. The APP rule is inflexible. One day short means the application must fail. IRCC has no discretion to in effect waive even a single day shortfall. (Minister can still grant discretionary citizenship, but that just does not happen except in the most extra-ordinary circumstances.)

And there is the impression made. Margin, margin, margin.

Reminder: Follow the instructions and triple check everything. A citizenship application is not like applying for a loan or a lease or school.

Cannot count the number of times I have seen applicants download the application forms, complete the forms over the course of a couple weeks, and then send it off . . . failing to go to the IRCC site online to double check to make sure nothing in the application has changed. Let's be blunt: that is simply stupid. Regardless how casual the applicant might approach this process, the government takes grant citizenship applications very, very seriously. It has to. That is the law.

I feel bad for those caught by a slip here or there. We all make mistakes. But for a citizenship application, the prudent applicant goes the extra hundred kilometres and then some to get it as right as possible. And the government often takes notice if an applicant does not.

In any event, please let us know how this turns out. Either way, it will offer some insight into whether IRCC under Liberal leadership is or is not significantly more lenient or generous than CIC was under Harper.

I wish you well and I am sorry I cannot offer more hope.