you lived for 160 days before being a PR, so for that you don't need. You were in Canada for 3 days and went back for another 100 days. so for that as well you don't need.
PCC(Police certificate) requirement for Citizenship
- Thread starter RMinna
- Start date
It is clear that an applicant for citizenship who was not physically present in another country for 183 days or more, in a row, during the four years prior to making the application, can check the [No] box for 10.b in the application without making a misrepresentation. Checking "no" means no PCC is required in order to make a complete application.
Even if the period of time is only broken by a brief trip to another country.
But the language in 10.b is not precise. It refers to being "in a country," rather than using terms like "physically present in" or "resident in" or "residing in" or "living in."
And the examples in the guide do not clarify whether "in a country" means days actually physically present or not.
This leaves it open to be interpreted to mean "present in," as in physically present in the country. So, if a person came to Canada and landed, but within days returned to their home country, so that neither the period before or after coming to Canada was 183 days in a row in that country, and within the preceding four years, again, it would not be a misrepresentation to check "No," and no PCC needs to be included with the application. (Note: that does NOT preclude IRCC from requesting a PCC anyway, later in the process.)
In this same scenario, nonetheless, a prudent applicant inclined to be proactive and try to pre-empt potential non-routine processing, however, could otherwise interpret "in a country" to encompass maintaining a residence there, and honestly answer "yes" to 10.b despite having physically left that country for periods of time, and so list the country and provide a PCC with the application. Which could save being subject to a non-routine processing request for a PCC later, which would avoid the delays that would cause.
Remember there is nothing special about the 183 day time period. This is just the cutoff that IRCC employs to determine who must include a PCC with their application, in order to make a "complete" application. In particular, IRCC will sometimes request a PCC later in the process from applicants who were not required to submit one with the application.
Applicants might also want to be aware that unless the trip outside the other country included coming to Canada, so that the break in presence in the other country clearly shows up in the physical presence calculator, there have been reports that IRCC has inferred they were in the other country for more than 183 days in a row even though the applicant has truthfully checked "no" in 10.b, resulting in a request for the PCC.
And, again, IRCC can (and sometimes does) request PCCs from applicants despite the fact the applicant was in the other country for fewer than 183 days in a row.
Even if the period of time is only broken by a brief trip to another country.
But the language in 10.b is not precise. It refers to being "in a country," rather than using terms like "physically present in" or "resident in" or "residing in" or "living in."
And the examples in the guide do not clarify whether "in a country" means days actually physically present or not.
This leaves it open to be interpreted to mean "present in," as in physically present in the country. So, if a person came to Canada and landed, but within days returned to their home country, so that neither the period before or after coming to Canada was 183 days in a row in that country, and within the preceding four years, again, it would not be a misrepresentation to check "No," and no PCC needs to be included with the application. (Note: that does NOT preclude IRCC from requesting a PCC anyway, later in the process.)
In this same scenario, nonetheless, a prudent applicant inclined to be proactive and try to pre-empt potential non-routine processing, however, could otherwise interpret "in a country" to encompass maintaining a residence there, and honestly answer "yes" to 10.b despite having physically left that country for periods of time, and so list the country and provide a PCC with the application. Which could save being subject to a non-routine processing request for a PCC later, which would avoid the delays that would cause.
Remember there is nothing special about the 183 day time period. This is just the cutoff that IRCC employs to determine who must include a PCC with their application, in order to make a "complete" application. In particular, IRCC will sometimes request a PCC later in the process from applicants who were not required to submit one with the application.
Applicants might also want to be aware that unless the trip outside the other country included coming to Canada, so that the break in presence in the other country clearly shows up in the physical presence calculator, there have been reports that IRCC has inferred they were in the other country for more than 183 days in a row even though the applicant has truthfully checked "no" in 10.b, resulting in a request for the PCC.
And, again, IRCC can (and sometimes does) request PCCs from applicants despite the fact the applicant was in the other country for fewer than 183 days in a row.
Thank you for reply .It is clear that an applicant for citizenship who was not physically present in another country for 183 days or more, in a row, during the four years prior to making the application, can check the [No] box for 10.b in the application without making a misrepresentation. Checking "no" means no PCC is required in order to make a complete application.
Even if the period of time is only broken by a brief trip to another country.
But the language in 10.b is not precise. It refers to being "in a country," rather than using terms like "physically present in" or "resident in" or "residing in" or "living in."
And the examples in the guide do not clarify whether "in a country" means days actually physically present or not.
This leaves it open to be interpreted to mean "present in," as in physically present in the country. So, if a person came to Canada and landed, but within days returned to their home country, so that neither the period before or after coming to Canada was 183 days in a row in that country, and within the preceding four years, again, it would not be a misrepresentation to check "No," and no PCC needs to be included with the application. (Note: that does NOT preclude IRCC from requesting a PCC anyway, later in the process.)
In this same scenario, nonetheless, a prudent applicant inclined to be proactive and try to pre-empt potential non-routine processing, however, could otherwise interpret "in a country" to encompass maintaining a residence there, and honestly answer "yes" to 10.b despite having physically left that country for periods of time, and so list the country and provide a PCC with the application. Which could save being subject to a non-routine processing request for a PCC later, which would avoid the delays that would cause.
Remember there is nothing special about the 183 day time period. This is just the cutoff that IRCC employs to determine who must include a PCC with their application, in order to make a "complete" application. In particular, IRCC will sometimes request a PCC later in the process from applicants who were not required to submit one with the application.
Applicants might also want to be aware that unless the trip outside the other country included coming to Canada, so that the break in presence in the other country clearly shows up in the physical presence calculator, there have been reports that IRCC has inferred they were in the other country for more than 183 days in a row even though the applicant has truthfully checked "no" in 10.b, resulting in a request for the PCC.
And, again, IRCC can (and sometimes does) request PCCs from applicants despite the fact the applicant was in the other country for fewer than 183 days in a row.
let me give more details ;
My 5 yrs eligibity for citizenship is falls from - 2018 - April -01 TO 2023 - APRIL -01
so my 4 yrs falls from - 2019-APRIL-01 TO 2023- APRIL-01.
I have lived in UK [This is my home country] from 2019-april-01 - till 2020-MARCH-10 and in between i travelled to Canada to become PR on 2019-oct-01 and return back to UK after 3 days and permanently came to Canada on 2020-MARCH-10.
In my case 4 years period have lived more than183 days in UK , I need to select yes for 10B and no need to provide PCC because its my home country already provided PCC while PR application.
Here all my forum members request you do i need to select YES for 10B since i have lived more than 183 days OR Do i need to calculate before PR or after PR days /, if that case what is mean by 4 years period.
Please HELP!
I received citizenship AOR and a subsequent email as to why i did not present a PCC from India where i lived for more than 183 days. But that is my home country by birth and read somewhere that i don't need a PCC if its birth country. So is it true ? what should my response be in this case ? Thank you.
I received citizenship AOR and a subsequent email as to why i did not present a PCC from India where i lived for more than 183 days. But that is my home country by birth and read somewhere that i don't need a PCC if its birth country. So is it true ? what should my response be in this case ? Thank you.
For a fuller explanation about this, see my comments below in response to @RMinna. And for an even more in-depth discussion, see the thread "Asked for Police Certificate for a Country ,I did not spend 183 days in?" (it's a very lengthy discussion, and my posts there are not easy reading, sorry, but it unravels a lot of the tangents and tangled threads for this subject).I received citizenship AOR and a subsequent email as to why i did not present a PCC from India where i lived for more than 183 days. But that is my home country by birth and read somewhere that i don't need a PCC if its birth country. So is it true ? what should my response be in this case ? Thank you.
There is an exception to the requirement for providing a PCC with the application if the applicant was in the applicant's "country of origin immediately prior to becoming a permanent resident and landing in Canada," but only in certain circumstances.
If the applicant was in their country of origin for 183 or more days, in a row, within the four years prior to applying for citizenship, even if the exception applies the applicant still needs to check "Yes" in response to question 10.b and either include a PCC or state they are not including a police certificate and enter an explanation for why they are not submitting a PCC (basically a statement that the exception for country of origin applies).
Even if the exception applies, IRCC can still request a PCC.
Reminder: I am NOT an expert and not qualified to give personal advice.Thank you for reply .
let me give more details ;
My 5 yrs eligibity for citizenship is falls from - 2018 - April -01 TO 2023 - APRIL -01
so my 4 yrs falls from - 2019-APRIL-01 TO 2023- APRIL-01.
I have lived in UK [This is my home country] from 2019-april-01 - till 2020-MARCH-10 and in between i travelled to Canada to become PR on 2019-oct-01 and return back to UK after 3 days and permanently came to Canada on 2020-MARCH-10.
In my case 4 years period have lived more than183 days in UK , I need to select yes for 10B and no need to provide PCC because its my home country already provided PCC while PR application.
Here all my forum members request you do i need to select YES for 10B since i have lived more than 183 days OR Do i need to calculate before PR or after PR days /, if that case what is mean by 4 years period.
Read the question and instructions carefully and revisit the examples in the guide. You need to figure out YOUR best understanding of what is asked and how to answer.
What I can offer:
As previously noted, EVEN if the applicant is not required to provide a PCC with the application itself, IRCC can (and it is clear they sometimes will) request one anyway. For prospective applicants in your situation it is probably a good idea to go ahead and obtain the PCC, and the real question is whether to go ahead and include it with the application (which may delay making the application for some if they have to wait a longer to get the PCC) or to at least have it on hand so you can promptly submit it if IRCC requests one later. (Having it available to submit is to minimize the inherent delay when there are non-routine processing requests for additional information).
As you appear to be well aware, your accounting indicates you spent 183 days in a row in the UK during the relevant four years if you make the application between now and April 2, 2023; that is, the period April 1 to October 1 in 2019, which is within the relevant four years (April 1, 2019 to April 1, 2023). So you will need to check "yes" in response to 10.b. and list the UK in the chart. Which it appears you understand.
So the question for you is whether you can check "no" in the column where the applicant indicates whether they are submitting a PCC. If there is a reason to not include a PCC, the applicant can check "no" in that column and then enter the explanation (why a PCC cannot be provided, or why an exception applies).
It appears you believe that there is an exception based on that time being in your "home" country since you provided a PCC with your PR application.
Many in the forum agree. That is a fair reading and understanding of the "Note" in the application form itself. If you check "no" and state an explanation, that meets the application completeness criteria. HOWEVER, that does NOT preclude IRCC from asking for a PCC anyway.
That said, some (including me) understand that Example 1 in the guide is intended to illustrate how that exception works in practice, which limits the exception to those who did not travel to the country of origin after becoming a PR. Opinions differ regarding this. I cannot say which is for sure correct. Some believe that "your country or territory of origin" (which is the language used in the "Note" in the application form) is the individual's home country, and that Example 1 is a different scenario.
For clarity and assurance: Even if we are correct, that is those of us who think Example 1 does apply to the applicant's country of origin, and thus the fact that the applicant returned to their country of origin after landing and becoming a PR means they should include a PCC with the citizenship application (the country of origin exception does not apply because of the return to the country of origin after landing), even if we are right about that, the instructions are vague enough that an applicant in your situation is not going to be accused of misrepresentation because they checked "no" (not providing a Police Certificate) and give the explanation (that they were in their country of origin before becoming a PR and they provided a PCC with their PR application).
Moreover, it appears unlikely that IRCC will return the application as incomplete even if they conclude the applicant should have included a PCC . . . worst case scenario is that IRCC makes a non-routine processing request for a PCC anyway. So the only risk is some delay due to that happening.
Which just the anecdotal reporting in this forum indicates is common; in just the last few days there have been at least three similar reports from applicants surprised they received a request for their PCC.
Some Further Observations . . .
It is a lot easier and faster to get a PCC from some countries compared to others. For an easy country, it makes sense to obtain and submit a PCC, even if that means waiting a little longer to apply if more time is needed to get the PCC. Submitting a fresh PCC will almost always eliminate the risk of non-routine processing to request one later (IRCC can, but usually will not, ask for another PCC later during processing).
In your situation waiting an additional month to apply would actually mean you could check "no" in response to 10.b and not include a PCC without having to explain why.
Meanwhile, the when-to-apply decision is perhaps the best example of what works versus what can work better. Many, probably most, maybe even nearly all PRs planning to apply for citizenship base their when-to-apply decision on when they meet the physical presence requirement, subject to a broad consensus it is wise to wait at least a few extra days and apply with a buffer, a margin over the minimum. And a few days to a week extra will, indeed, work for most qualified applicants. But there are risks involved, risks which can be significantly reduced by waiting longer. How much longer depends on the individual PR's situation, including their history, as to travel, addresses, and work, as well as their respective ties outside Canada, among other considerations. I generally think at least a full month buffer is better. In my own case, however, in my circumstances (self-employed providing services to clients outside Canada), I elected to wait a full extra year.
The Trouble With Technicalities . . .
Finally, prospective applicants should be aware that technicalities offer little cover, little protection. This is mostly about the fact that even if the applicant can honestly check "no" for 10.b, and thus does not need to include a PCC with the application, that does not protect them from a PCC request later.
That is, again, IRCC can always still ask for a PCC later in the process. And the problem with a later request is that would be non-routine processing, meaning delays in processing.
In your situation for example, if you wait until July 1 to apply, you can truthfully check "no" for 10.b because between July 1, 2019 and July 1, 2023 you were not in the UK for 183 or more days in a row during these four years. That said, between July 1, 2019 and March 10, 2020, you were in the UK more than 240 days, with only a three day break in that in October 2019. Whether or not that will tip the scales and lead to a later PCC request is hard to forecast. Some applicants in a similar situation might decide to interpret days "in a country" to not be limited to days physically present, but more or less living in that country, and thus choose to check "yes" to 10.b based on that interpretation and include a PCC . . . just to avoid the risk of a non-routine later slowing down processing their application . . . even though technically they could check "no" and not include a PCC.
Nonetheless, it is for you to figure out the most appropriate way to answer the questions, and when is the right time for you to apply.
All That Said . . . (in previous post) . . . What Works versus What Might Work Better . . . including When-to-ApplyMy 5 yrs eligibity for citizenship is falls from - 2018 - April -01 TO 2023 - APRIL -01
so my 4 yrs falls from - 2019-APRIL-01 TO 2023- APRIL-01.
I have lived in UK [This is my home country] from 2019-april-01 - till 2020-MARCH-10 and in between i travelled to Canada to become PR on 2019-oct-01 and return back to UK after 3 days and permanently came to Canada on 2020-MARCH-10.
It is a lot easier and faster to get a PCC from some countries compared to others. For an easy country, it makes sense to obtain and submit a PCC, even if that means waiting a little longer to apply if more time is needed to get the PCC. Submitting a fresh PCC will almost always eliminate the risk of non-routine processing to request one later (IRCC can, but usually will not, ask for another PCC later during processing).
In your situation waiting an additional month to apply would actually mean you could check "no" in response to 10.b and not include a PCC without having to explain why.
Meanwhile, the when-to-apply decision is perhaps the best example of what works versus what can work better. Many, probably most, maybe even nearly all PRs planning to apply for citizenship base their when-to-apply decision on when they meet the physical presence requirement, subject to a broad consensus it is wise to wait at least a few extra days and apply with a buffer, a margin over the minimum. And a few days to a week extra will, indeed, work for most qualified applicants. But there are risks involved, risks which can be significantly reduced by waiting longer. How much longer depends on the individual PR's situation, including their history, as to travel, addresses, and work, as well as their respective ties outside Canada, among other considerations. I generally think at least a full month buffer is better. In my own case, however, in my circumstances (self-employed providing services to clients outside Canada), I elected to wait a full extra year.
The Trouble With Technicalities . . .
Finally, prospective applicants should be aware that technicalities offer little cover, little protection. This is mostly about the fact that even if the applicant can honestly check "no" for 10.b, and thus does not need to include a PCC with the application, that does not protect them from a PCC request later.
That is, again, IRCC can always still ask for a PCC later in the process. And the problem with a later request is that would be non-routine processing, meaning delays in processing.
In your situation for example, if you wait until July 1 to apply, you can truthfully check "no" for 10.b because between July 1, 2019 and July 1, 2023 you were not in the UK for 183 or more days in a row during these four years. That said, between July 1, 2019 and March 10, 2020, you were in the UK more than 240 days, with only a three day break in that in October 2019. Whether or not that will tip the scales and lead to a later PCC request is hard to forecast. Some applicants in a similar situation might decide to interpret days "in a country" to not be limited to days physically present, but more or less living in that country, and thus choose to check "yes" to 10.b based on that interpretation and include a PCC . . . just to avoid the risk of a non-routine later slowing down processing their application . . . even though technically they could check "no" and not include a PCC.
Nonetheless, it is for you to figure out the most appropriate way to answer the questions, and when is the right time for you to apply.
Some Further Observations . . .
All That Said . . . (in previous post) . . . What Works versus What Might Work Better . . . including When-to-Apply
It is a lot easier and faster to get a PCC from some countries compared to others. For an easy country, it makes sense to obtain and submit a PCC, even if that means waiting a little longer to apply if more time is needed to get the PCC. Submitting a fresh PCC will almost always eliminate the risk of non-routine processing to request one later (IRCC can, but usually will not, ask for another PCC later during processing).
In your situation waiting an additional month to apply would actually mean you could check "no" in response to 10.b and not include a PCC without having to explain why.
Meanwhile, the when-to-apply decision is perhaps the best example of what works versus what can work better. Many, probably most, maybe even nearly all PRs planning to apply for citizenship base their when-to-apply decision on when they meet the physical presence requirement, subject to a broad consensus it is wise to wait at least a few extra days and apply with a buffer, a margin over the minimum. And a few days to a week extra will, indeed, work for most qualified applicants. But there are risks involved, risks which can be significantly reduced by waiting longer. How much longer depends on the individual PR's situation, including their history, as to travel, addresses, and work, as well as their respective ties outside Canada, among other considerations. I generally think at least a full month buffer is better. In my own case, however, in my circumstances (self-employed providing services to clients outside Canada), I elected to wait a full extra year.
The Trouble With Technicalities . . .
Finally, prospective applicants should be aware that technicalities offer little cover, little protection. This is mostly about the fact that even if the applicant can honestly check "no" for 10.b, and thus does not need to include a PCC with the application, that does not protect them from a PCC request later.
That is, again, IRCC can always still ask for a PCC later in the process. And the problem with a later request is that would be non-routine processing, meaning delays in processing.
In your situation for example, if you wait until July 1 to apply, you can truthfully check "no" for 10.b because between July 1, 2019 and July 1, 2023 you were not in the UK for 183 or more days in a row during these four years. That said, between July 1, 2019 and March 10, 2020, you were in the UK more than 240 days, with only a three day break in that in October 2019. Whether or not that will tip the scales and lead to a later PCC request is hard to forecast. Some applicants in a similar situation might decide to interpret days "in a country" to not be limited to days physically present, but more or less living in that country, and thus choose to check "yes" to 10.b based on that interpretation and include a PCC . . . just to avoid the risk of a non-routine later slowing down processing their application . . . even though technically they could check "no" and not include a PCC.
Nonetheless, it is for you to figure out the most appropriate way to answer the questions, and when is the right time for you to apply.
@dpenabill well Said and it make sense .Thank you all.