realized that i missed the entry for physical presence entry for landing done which was done on the same day and also wrote the wrong date for one of the entry will that be a issue ???
Isolated, minor mistakes should NOT be a problem. IRCC is well aware applicants make mistakes and it does not punish applicants for this.
Obviously, however, not all mistakes are created equal, so the number of mistakes, the seriousness of a mistake, the impact a mistake might have on the presence calculation, or the context otherwise (such as a mistake which suggests willful deception for example), can have a big impact on whether IRCC pays it much attention and what action IRCC might take in response to it.
The WHY question:
What follows is a long post about the requirement to provide the information IRCC asks for, even if the applicant has provided this information already, even if the information has no affect on whether the individual is eligible for citizenship.
I go into this detail because there is a common theme underlying the way some approach the application process which is flawed. The police certificate issue, for example, tends to invite an approach from the wrong side of the equation. More than a few have approached this from the perspective that there is no reason why IRCC should need a police certificate from me, and thus I should not have to submit such a certificate. The appropriate approach is to determine if the instructions specify a police certificate needs to be submitted, and then follow the instructions.
There are also, however, many other aspects of the application for which some advocate responding to questions based on what it is IRCC is looking for, often based on interpreting why IRCC wants the information. The more appropriate approach, the approach which is almost always the right approach, is to make a concerted effort to
determine WHAT the question asks, as best it can be understood, and to provide an honest, accurate, and responsively complete answer to that question, to
WHAT is asked. And following the instructions otherwise.
This approach can be awkward sometimes (note item 9.c in the current application for example), but it will surely work, it will avoid making any misrepresentations which could be the subject of a material misrepresentation accusation.
Always, always, be skeptical of any suggestion to respond to an item in a way that is factually inaccurate, which some sometimes suggest based on interpreting
what-IRCC-is-really-looking-for rather than a direct, accurate answer to the question as it is asked.
Thanks for your response .But if during PR application they got all info regarding history and police certificates then why they need again those things for that period ?
It warrants noting and emphasizing that for the most part an answer to "why" IRCC requires applicants to provide information is NOT relevant to whether the applicant needs to provide it. If IRCC asks for certain information, that means it is RELEVANT (as many Federal Courts have ruled) and must be provided. That does not mean it is necessarily material. IRCC can, and often does, require applicants (for citizenship and in other contexts) to provide a lot of information which is well beyond the scope of what is material, what can directly affect eligibility.
Work history information for a citizenship application is an example. There is no work-related requirement for citizenship. Yet, work history is requested. (Work history is not the best example because not only is it relevant, it is also material in that it can indirectly affect the assessment of facts which are about eligibility, because it is evidence of presence or absence.)
Which is to say, if IRCC asks for it, the applicant generally must provide the information asked for. (There are exceptions, but that subject tends to be complicated and a distraction, since the general rule almost always applies: if IRCC asks, the applicant must answer.)
Which is to say, the "why?" question is generally NOT relevant, not much anyway.
Sure, however, answering this question, the "why" question, can help us better understand certain aspects of the process. Take the requirement for some applicants to submit a police certificate, for example, which I explain in my previous post, for which the answer to why derives from Section 22(3)(a) in the
Citizenship Act. Regardless why, the bottom-line, nonetheless, is that applicants who were in another country for 183 or more days, during the preceding four years, should check "yes" in response to item 10.b (current version of application), and the instructions further state that if the applicant checks "yes" to this item, the applicant needs to submit a police certificate for that country (OR, explain why one cannot be obtained).
The police certificate should generally be dated no longer ago than six months or since the last time the individual was in that country.
WHY? IRCC requires this or that information generally:
Again, the "why" is not relevant to whether or not an applicant needs to provide information requested. If IRCC asks for it, the applicant is required to provide it.
Why does not matter.
Nor does the "why" dictate how the applicant should answer the question. Applicants should make a concerted effort to understand
WHAT is asked and provide an honest, accurate, responsively complete answer to that.
Beyond that, "why?" is a multifaceted query, with relevant responses ranging from what is the motive for the question to how the answer is used or can be used. In this regard, the reason why certain information is requested DOES
NOT LIMIT HOW IT IS USED. At the very least, for example, almost all information submitted with an application is used to compare with other information, at the least to assess the credibility of the applicant, regardless why IRCC asks for the information itself.
Why IRCC requests or requires certain information is not necessarily because IRCC "
needs" that information. It is common for IRCC, just like CBSA, to not only ask a question to which the government already knows the answer, but to ask virtually the same question multiple times. I cannot begin to count the number of times a CBSA officer who is holding my passport in his hands has asked me what my citizenship is, or "where" I am from, even though both my citizenship and country of birth are right there, easily read on my passport. It is not uncommon to be asked the same question multiple times during an interview. Since it is not a formal judicial proceeding, no, objecting on the grounds the question has been asked and answered will not work, and in fact is likely to make things more difficult.
Citizenship application examples: Once an applicant has given his or her name and unique client identifier number, IRCC can look up the PR's date of birth in its databases, and look up the date the PR became a PR, but of course the application requires the applicant to provide this information. Similarly item 13 in the application, it requires the applicant to declare all status in other countries including the applicant's status in the PR's birth country, which of course is already of record in IRCC databases. I believe that leaving either 4.c) or 4.d) blank will result in the application being returned as incomplete even though, again, the applicant's name and client ID # is sufficient for IRCC to know date of birth and date of becoming a PR.
Item 10.a requires the applicant to list all addresses for where the applicant has lived during the eligibility period. If the applicant lived abroad during the eligibility period, the applicant is required to disclose that by giving the address and dates. Yet, item 9.c also, separately, asks "did you live outside Canada [during the eligibility period]?" And the applicant is also required to detail this time abroad in the Presence Calculator.
During the course of processing a citizenship application the applicant is required to declare, at least twice and for most three times, that the applicant was not convicted of an indictable offense during the four years prior to applying. The fact the applicant has declared this already in the application does not allow the applicant to not reiterate this declaration at the interview or, for many, again prior to taking the oath.
Applicants who are issued the PPQ - QAE, or RQ-lite, or the full blown RQ, are specifically required to submit a lot of information again, information already provided.
BOTTOM-LINE: The fact that this or that has already been provided does not excuse having to provide it again. If IRCC asks for work history for the full five years prior to the date the applicant applies for citizenship, the applicant should provide that information even if the applicant has already submitted that information before.
The obligation to submit information does not necessarily illuminate what will happen if the applicant fails to submit it. That is a different question. That question tends to get complicated unless there is an obvious consequence (failure to give a date of birth in item 4.c will, for example, most likely result in the application being returned; leaving a big gap in work or address history for time the applicant claims presence in Canada will likely result in the application being returned . . . but the consequences for other omissions of information are not so easily forecast and can vary).
