Do I declare myself as single or common law for citizenship application? Can stuff like this come up in interview? Do they check house title or am i worrying too much?
The application asks the applicant to "
indicate your marital status" and there is a drop down box with a list of choices. The applicant should select the choice the applicant believes best (most accurately) describes their status. As others have stated, this is no biggie.
As
@armoured noted, in particular, "
just tell the truth, and if there's doubt, short letter of explanation." And, indeed, "
do what feels correct."
As
@akbardxb noted, yes IRCC can ask questions about an applicant's family in addition to that solitary question about marital status in the application. Still, no biggie. Still, "
just tell the truth". . . as you understand it, as best you can accurately and directly answer whatever questions are asked.
That's It. Even if I have some further observations to make . . . for clarification.
(This is mostly clarification for forum discussion and a broader context; for you,
@trspy, all you really need to know has been observed by
@armoured and
@akbardxb, which is just be honest, giving your best answer, and be aware that during processing, particularly in an interview, you might encounter questions asking for more detailed information, but that too is still NO biggie, still in the range of just answer the questions honestly.)
Note that IRCC considers any question asked and its answer to be relevant.
In a general sense, the way most of us talk about things, as
@armoured noted, marital status is "
irrelevant;" HOWEVER, that is mostly in relation to the requirements. The applicant's marital status has no relevance in whether the applicant is eligible for citizenship. So, in regards to IRCC's assessment of the applicant, again as
@armoured noted, "
they don't care."
What this means, however, is that IRCC does not care ONLY in the sense that it makes no difference whether the applicant is married or single, separated or in a common-law relationship, divorced or widowed.
IRCC does care in that it wants an answer, and indeed the applicant is required to answer and do so truthfully.
The application actually asks a lot of questions which do not directly bear on the applicant's eligibility for citizenship, some of which is largely for logistical purposes (contact information for example), some to facilitate definitive identification (date and place of birth for example), and some which does not bear directly on the applicant's eligibility but is information that facilitates IRCC's assessment of information that does or might (work history for example; there is no employment related requirement, but this information helps IRCC assess other information bearing on verification of meeting the physical presence requirement). All this information is not only "
relevant," as IRCC frames it, but would almost certainly be considered "
material" if determined to be a misrepresentation (misrepresentation of relevant facts, which includes any response to a question asked by IRCC, can have significant negative consequences; if the fact is deemed a material fact, the consequences can be serious even severe, and constitutes a stand alone ground for denying an application).
While information like the applicant's marital status may indeed be "
captured . . . for statistical purposes," it is almost certainly asked to capture a more complete picture of the applicant, as to the applicant's identity and some context as to the applicant's life. This is mostly (not exclusively) about identifying residential ties and looking for indicators that might constitute
reason-to-question-presence. If and when, for example, IRCC perceives an applicant to have a spouse living outside Canada, that's a strong residential tie outside Canada. It does not disqualify an applicant. It is not even evidence sufficient to support an inference the applicant has been living or staying outside Canada other than as the applicant has declared. But in conjunction with other factors it may have sufficient circumstantial weight to be
part of the reason why IRCC makes additional inquiries to verify the applicant's physical presence.
Note that the nature and scope of additional inquiries to verify the applicant's physical presence varies widely, ranging from nominal cross-checks (including open source information) to more extensive investigatory measures, and if and when IRCC identifies questions constituting concern, can range from referrals to CBSA (and its NSSD) or RQ-related non-routine processing.
So, some applicants such as
@akbardxb will experience additional family related questions. This information has no substantive effect in itself. Whatever the information is, it does not change whether the applicant qualifies for a grant of citizenship or not. Nonetheless, such information can influence whether a processing agent or Citizenship Officer has concerns or questions that trigger additional scrutiny, even though generally
this should have little or no impact for an applicant who is in fact qualified, who meets the presence requirement and has no prohibitions. Indeed, standing alone it is not likely to invite questions or concerns, so if there is some related delay and non-routine processing, odds are there were other factors driving the processing in that direction anyway.
All that said, what warrants emphasis is that IRCC considers every question it asks to be relevant. No need to worry about the import of incidental details, but if asked they need to be provided, truthfully provided. And the scope of questions that IRCC can ask in follow-up questions is very, very broad.
