Police Certificate requirement for countries where an individual spent 6+ months
- Thread starter avro1959
- Start date
Hi dpenabill,
While going through all the discussions, it prompted me to check the sections of the Bill C-24 which related with the prohibitions. I believe you would agree that s. 22 talks about all the prohibitions which would bar a person to take the oath for citizenship. Now going through the entire section, it doesn't say anywhere about the 183 days prohibition.
I then started wondering what is prompting everyone to relate that the new condition to submit the police certificate from the country where you are living is a "prohibition". So, I gathered that since everyone is referring to this new form CIT 0002 for adults which makes it a requirement to submit the police certificate, if the applicant has been to a country more than 180 days , cumulative, than he or she should produce the police certificate of that country. Question no. 8 (k) specifically demands you to answer if you have lived over six months, if yes, please provide with a police certificate.
Now my argument is that if it was really a "prohibition", that would have been specifically mentioned in the s.22 of the act, as all other prohibitions are mentioned, in almost same order, as mentioned on the form. So 8(k) is the only prohibition, which is missing from the section, where it should have been in the Act. This physical presence requirement is actually talked in s. 5(1)(ii) of the act where all other major eligibility "conditions" about applying for citizenship has been mentioned.
Here is my deduction, and I have evidence to support, if you remember there were talks of inconsistency in the earlier version of the citizenship application form, few questions were placed with different sections. Also, almost everyone was not clear that if the old form talked about the details about the workplace and job, but then how was it that the check-list never required the work related documents such as T4, pay stubs etc. In another way, some questions were vaguely written or at least the language was little ambiguous, so there were lot of questions in the applicants mind or confusion, while filling the earlier version of the form.
I think the same is the case with this 8(k) in this new form. To me 8(k) should have a separate question, apart from prohibitions. My logical guess, is that it has wrongly been placed with the prohibitions, it is actually a condition which if it is applicable to an applicant, than he is obliged to provide the police certificate or else just answer as “No” , if that does not apply to him. Placing it within the question 8 in prohibition section of the form, has made everyone feel as if this "requirement" is actually a "prohibition".
Since, some of the members in discussion have already affirmed that there is no such question about “living outside Canada for more than six months” in the form needed to sign before taking citizenship test and oath, this confirms the theory that it was placed wrongly in the new application form. The questions asked on the form relates exactly to prohibitions as mentioned in s.22 of the act. This eligibility condition would be applicable to all applicants who applied since June 11.
Also, if someone’s oath is held up at the last moment than there could be so many different reasons, perhaps some security concern, or mismatch of travel dated found later etc. No one can really say with surety about that situation.
Perhaps, it is too early to say with certainty, I feel there will be some update of the application form soon.
While going through all the discussions, it prompted me to check the sections of the Bill C-24 which related with the prohibitions. I believe you would agree that s. 22 talks about all the prohibitions which would bar a person to take the oath for citizenship. Now going through the entire section, it doesn't say anywhere about the 183 days prohibition.
I then started wondering what is prompting everyone to relate that the new condition to submit the police certificate from the country where you are living is a "prohibition". So, I gathered that since everyone is referring to this new form CIT 0002 for adults which makes it a requirement to submit the police certificate, if the applicant has been to a country more than 180 days , cumulative, than he or she should produce the police certificate of that country. Question no. 8 (k) specifically demands you to answer if you have lived over six months, if yes, please provide with a police certificate.
Now my argument is that if it was really a "prohibition", that would have been specifically mentioned in the s.22 of the act, as all other prohibitions are mentioned, in almost same order, as mentioned on the form. So 8(k) is the only prohibition, which is missing from the section, where it should have been in the Act. This physical presence requirement is actually talked in s. 5(1)(ii) of the act where all other major eligibility "conditions" about applying for citizenship has been mentioned.
Here is my deduction, and I have evidence to support, if you remember there were talks of inconsistency in the earlier version of the citizenship application form, few questions were placed with different sections. Also, almost everyone was not clear that if the old form talked about the details about the workplace and job, but then how was it that the check-list never required the work related documents such as T4, pay stubs etc. In another way, some questions were vaguely written or at least the language was little ambiguous, so there were lot of questions in the applicants mind or confusion, while filling the earlier version of the form.
I think the same is the case with this 8(k) in this new form. To me 8(k) should have a separate question, apart from prohibitions. My logical guess, is that it has wrongly been placed with the prohibitions, it is actually a condition which if it is applicable to an applicant, than he is obliged to provide the police certificate or else just answer as “No” , if that does not apply to him. Placing it within the question 8 in prohibition section of the form, has made everyone feel as if this "requirement" is actually a "prohibition".
Since, some of the members in discussion have already affirmed that there is no such question about “living outside Canada for more than six months” in the form needed to sign before taking citizenship test and oath, this confirms the theory that it was placed wrongly in the new application form. The questions asked on the form relates exactly to prohibitions as mentioned in s.22 of the act. This eligibility condition would be applicable to all applicants who applied since June 11.
Also, if someone’s oath is held up at the last moment than there could be so many different reasons, perhaps some security concern, or mismatch of travel dated found later etc. No one can really say with surety about that situation.
Perhaps, it is too early to say with certainty, I feel there will be some update of the application form soon.
chabha said:
It is to be expected that the citizenship application form will be modified or amended from time to time, including to improve or refine the manner in which it requests the applicant to provide certain information.
That said, there is no significant incongruity in including item 8 K in item 8, which is titled "PROHIBITIONS UNDER THE CITIZENSHIP ACT," so there is no reason to expect that part to be modified anytime soon.
Item 8 in the current application form does not merely ask the applicant to disclose prohibitions per se. Some of the items ask for information which may or may not be related to prohibitions, especially information which might lead CIC to discover or affirm the presence or absence of a prohibition. What, after all, is the point of having a details box . . . if a "yes" check necessarily constituted a prohibition, there would only need to be an instruction: do not apply for citizenship now as you are subject to a probhition.
Rather, CIC solicits related information and provides a space for the applicant to provide details, so a determination can be made as to whether there is a prohibition precluding qualification for a grant of citizenship.
For example, in particular, item 8 A asks for information which is largely more relevant to the calculation of time present in Canada, since for example it asks whether the applicant has been on probation in the previous SIX (6) years, recognizing that time on probation will not count toward the requisite time present in Canada. Having been on probation within the preceding six years does not, in itself, constitute a prohibition.
Items 8 D and 8 I both refer to any offence committed outside Canada. Not any offence outside Canada constitutes a prohibition. Only those offences which would be an indictable offence under Canadian law if committed in Canada constitute a prohibition. Thus, CIC is requesting information beyond the scope of the prohibition. There has been extensive discussion in this forum, for example, about whether a foreign country's charge of a criminal offence arising from a property default will constitute a prohibition . . . if the underlying facts would constitute a civil matter under Canadian law, such a charge should not be a prohibition. Nonetheless, the applicant needs to check "yes" for item 8 D if such a charge is pending, or item 8 I if convicted of it within the preceding four years . . . again, even if the applicant is certain it does not constitute a prohibition.
CIC applications typically ask for information beyond the scope of the relevant issue, so that CIC can determine whether further inquiry or investigation is warranted.
Item 8 K asks applicants to disclose if they have been in any other country for six months, cumulative, within the preceding four years, and if the answer to this is "yes," then to provide a police certificate for any such country. The obvious purpose is that CIC is requiring the applicant to prove there is no criminal record in any such country. Remember, in addition to regular GCMS checks (which include a name-record check which should show any charges or convictions in Canada, the U.S., or warrants issued by INTERPOL), CIC makes a referral to the RCMP for the more thorough criminal record check, which will clear the applicant if there are no Canadian charges or convictions. But CIC apparently is not willing to rely on the word of applicants who have spent six months or more in a given country other than Canada, and thus is demanding the police certificates as proof of no offences there constituting a prohibition. Makes sense. This no doubt imposes a significant burden on some applicants.
Whether CIC keeps this as part of Item 8, or separates this and impose this as an entirely separate item in the application, really does not matter. It is clearly putting the burden to prove no foreign charges or conviction, upfront as part of the application itself, on an applicant who has been abroad more than six months in any given country.
Not really. What emerged from the reports is that the form to be signed, before taking the oath, now is very similar to the form many of us signed last year, except that it now lists and refers to the expanded version of the prohibitions. Signing the form affirms that none of the prohibitions apply to the applicant. This is a conclusion, an affirmation by the applicant that the applicants knows and understands the prohibitions sufficiently to affirm that none apply to him or her.chabha said:
Both the previous and current application forms required, instead, detailed responses to the specific items which would either constitute a prohibition, or were information related to possible prohibitions, or related to time which is precluded from counting toward residency (old forms) or presence (post June 11 forms).
What also emerged from the reports is that just the fact of having declared, in the residency declaration (pre-June-11-applicants), absences for more than 183 days (six months) total, even if indicating that amount of time in a particular country, are not automatically resulting in a request for a police certificate . . . even though these applicants, just like the post-June-11-applicants, are now subject to the expanded prohibitions including for offences abroad (if indictable in Canada). That noted, I would anticipate that at least some pre-June-11-applicants whose application and residency disclosures indicate six months plus abroad will be sent a CIT 0520, or a similar type form, requesting police certificates, before their case proceeds to the oath. Not sure of this, but it seems likely . . . at the least, though, so far the reports indicate this is not automatic.
Absolutely, there are many reasons why someone's oath might bet held up at the last moment, even some which are unrelated to the individual applicant.chabha said:
Relative to some other versions of the application, this one actually seems to be as carefully composed as CIC tends to do these things. That said, as noted, changes can always be anticipated. And, indeed, the statement near the end of Item 8 "I have read and understand the prohibitions under the Citizenship Act" kind of just hangs there . . . no box to check, no way of affirming or disaffirming the statement.
And, to be frank, it is one thing to affirm that one understands the prohibitions well enough to be sure none apply, and another to affirm that one understands them generally. A lot of applicants for citizenship probably do not have a real understanding of the difference between what constitutes an indictable offence and an offence which is not an indictable offence . . . but since they have not been charged with any offences of any sort, they can confidently and truthfully affirm that they understand there are no prohibitions applicable to them. without fully understanding the prohibitions.
While the inclusion of the request to disclose presence in another country for six or more months (183 or more days), and related request to provide a police certificate if yes, may or may not be modified in the near future, it is, anyway, a natural fit in item 8.
The expansion of the prohibitions to encompass foreign offences makes total sense . . . but it is easy to see that implementing this and enforcing it may indeed complicate things considerably for some applicants.
CAUTION:
Re prohibitions listed in form those scheduled for the oath must sign:
I have finally gotten a copy of the prohibitions form sent to those who are scheduled to take the oath.
Multiple participants in this forum have referred to the form in general terms without quoting its precise language. It is possible that there are various versions of the form and thus that the copy I have received is not the same as has been discussed by others in this topic and in other topics.
But I think the copy I have is the one being currently used by CIC generally: CIT 0039 (05-2015) E (French version is CIT 0039 F).
It is stated in discussions/posts above that the form only requires the applicant to affirm that "none of the prohibitions apply."
That glosses over some key language in the form. In particular, the form ends with a declaration, to be signed by the applicant, in which the applicant is required to "declare I am not described in any of the above listed prohibitions."
This is not a declaration that the applicant has read and understands the prohibitions, which are prescribed by Section 22 in the Citizenship Act. This is a declaration that none of the fourteen listed items in the form describe the applicant.
Note, for example, the following items:
1. Are you now, or have ever been in the last 6 years:
-- On probation?
-- On parole?
-- An inmate of a penitentiary, jail, reformatory, or prison?
4. Are you now charged with, on trial for, or subject to or a party to an appeal relating to, an offence outside Canada?
14. In the past 4 year, have you been convicted of an offence outside Canada, regardless of whether you were pardoned or otherwise granted amnesty for the offence?
All three of these is significantly more broad than the prohibitions prescribed by statute. Indeed, there are many potential instances in which the true answer to these questions would be "yes" but the reason for the yes does NOT constitute a prohibition.
The obvious example, often discussed example, is an offence abroad that would be a summary offence if committed in Canada, or perhaps even a mere civil matter if it occurred in Canada. If there was a conviction for that offence abroad, "yes" is the truthful answer to item 14. If such a charge has been made and is still pending, "yes" is the truthful answer to item 4.
Additionally, the applicant who had been on probation imposed by a foreign court for a minor offence which took place more than four years previous, but was technically on probation within the previous six years, would have to acknowledge that item 1 in this list describes him or her.
Thus, an applicant is obligated to not falsely declare he or she is "not described" in the listed prohibitions if the applicant was on probation five years ago, as imposed by a foreign court for, say, a minor offence (item 1); if the applicant has a charge pending abroad for what would be a summary offence in Canada or even a mere civil matter in Canada (item 4); or has been convicted outside Canada for what would be a summary offence in Canada or even a mere civil matter in Canada (item 14) . . . Even though none of these would constitute a prohibition pursuant to section 22 of the Citizenship Act.
Note that above I said:
And it clarifies things for the OP of this topic: no need to declare the ME charge that would constitute a civil matter in Canada, since it is not a prohibition, and all the OP needs to do is affirm that there are no prohibitions.
This was in response to the description of the form stating that it requires the applicant to affirm the applicant is not subject to any of the prohibitions.
In fact, in a subsequent post I further clarified:
Thus, it appears (based on your report) that most pre-June-11-applicants will only be required to affirm the conclusion that there are no prohibitions, rather than checking off yes or no to a list like that in the application. The difference, a significant difference, is that for applicants with a ME property default charge, for example, the application now requires checking off "yes" and including details, and then CIC evaluates the foreign charge to determine if it is for acts which would be an indictable offence in Canada. In contrast, the form only requires the applicant to affirm there are no prohibitions, so knowing that the ME charge would be a civil matter in Canada, that allows the applicant to affirm the absence of any prohibitions without further declarations as to the ME property default charge. (The former could easily lead to significant delays, if required at a later stage in the process; so this is important for some applicants.)
Wrong. That analysis, by me, was wrong.
It was wrong because I was relying on a description of the form which was less than illuminating.
Here and in other discussions of this issue I have repeatedly emphasized that the precise language in the form is what matters.
See, for example, the following which I posted in another topic related to this issue:
What the current pre-oath form requires?
I do not know what the current pre-oath form requires. I would like to see someone who is taking the oath, or who has taken the oath since June 11, clearly state what the current affirmation of no prohibitions form actually says. We have seen some clearly erroneous accounts, such as that the form now requires all those taking the oath to affirm an intent to reside in Canada. But we have seen no reliable accounts of what the new form actually prescribes.
The language of the form matters; indeed, it makes all the difference.
Now we do know. And the applicant cannot just conclude he or she is not subject to any of the statutory prohibitions . . . but must make a far broader declaration.
To be clear: the form requires the applicant to declare:
"I declare I am not described in any of the above listed prohibitions.
And that list is far broader than what is listed as prohibitions in section 22 of the Citizenship Act . . . so no, an applicant cannot go ahead and sign the declaration and later claim he or she knew there was no prohibition applicable to him or her and so signed it . . . even though an item in the form's list did describe him or her. And yes, CIC can demand applicants disclose information related to prohibitions which is broader than the prohibitions themselves.
If the applicant falsely declares this, the applicant is warned, citizenship "can be taken away (revoked)."
I understand why CIC is doing this. I do not understand why so many of those (at least several participants in this forum) who have actually been scheduled for the oath and who have received this form, who have asked questions related to this issue, who should very well know what it states (they have the actual form), have not been forthcoming about the language of the declaration itself . . . which again is the critical language.
Re prohibitions listed in form those scheduled for the oath must sign:
I have finally gotten a copy of the prohibitions form sent to those who are scheduled to take the oath.
Multiple participants in this forum have referred to the form in general terms without quoting its precise language. It is possible that there are various versions of the form and thus that the copy I have received is not the same as has been discussed by others in this topic and in other topics.
But I think the copy I have is the one being currently used by CIC generally: CIT 0039 (05-2015) E (French version is CIT 0039 F).
It is stated in discussions/posts above that the form only requires the applicant to affirm that "none of the prohibitions apply."
That glosses over some key language in the form. In particular, the form ends with a declaration, to be signed by the applicant, in which the applicant is required to "declare I am not described in any of the above listed prohibitions."
This is not a declaration that the applicant has read and understands the prohibitions, which are prescribed by Section 22 in the Citizenship Act. This is a declaration that none of the fourteen listed items in the form describe the applicant.
Note, for example, the following items:
1. Are you now, or have ever been in the last 6 years:
-- On probation?
-- On parole?
-- An inmate of a penitentiary, jail, reformatory, or prison?
4. Are you now charged with, on trial for, or subject to or a party to an appeal relating to, an offence outside Canada?
14. In the past 4 year, have you been convicted of an offence outside Canada, regardless of whether you were pardoned or otherwise granted amnesty for the offence?
All three of these is significantly more broad than the prohibitions prescribed by statute. Indeed, there are many potential instances in which the true answer to these questions would be "yes" but the reason for the yes does NOT constitute a prohibition.
The obvious example, often discussed example, is an offence abroad that would be a summary offence if committed in Canada, or perhaps even a mere civil matter if it occurred in Canada. If there was a conviction for that offence abroad, "yes" is the truthful answer to item 14. If such a charge has been made and is still pending, "yes" is the truthful answer to item 4.
Additionally, the applicant who had been on probation imposed by a foreign court for a minor offence which took place more than four years previous, but was technically on probation within the previous six years, would have to acknowledge that item 1 in this list describes him or her.
Thus, an applicant is obligated to not falsely declare he or she is "not described" in the listed prohibitions if the applicant was on probation five years ago, as imposed by a foreign court for, say, a minor offence (item 1); if the applicant has a charge pending abroad for what would be a summary offence in Canada or even a mere civil matter in Canada (item 4); or has been convicted outside Canada for what would be a summary offence in Canada or even a mere civil matter in Canada (item 14) . . . Even though none of these would constitute a prohibition pursuant to section 22 of the Citizenship Act.
Note that above I said:
And it clarifies things for the OP of this topic: no need to declare the ME charge that would constitute a civil matter in Canada, since it is not a prohibition, and all the OP needs to do is affirm that there are no prohibitions.
This was in response to the description of the form stating that it requires the applicant to affirm the applicant is not subject to any of the prohibitions.
In fact, in a subsequent post I further clarified:
Thus, it appears (based on your report) that most pre-June-11-applicants will only be required to affirm the conclusion that there are no prohibitions, rather than checking off yes or no to a list like that in the application. The difference, a significant difference, is that for applicants with a ME property default charge, for example, the application now requires checking off "yes" and including details, and then CIC evaluates the foreign charge to determine if it is for acts which would be an indictable offence in Canada. In contrast, the form only requires the applicant to affirm there are no prohibitions, so knowing that the ME charge would be a civil matter in Canada, that allows the applicant to affirm the absence of any prohibitions without further declarations as to the ME property default charge. (The former could easily lead to significant delays, if required at a later stage in the process; so this is important for some applicants.)
Wrong. That analysis, by me, was wrong.
It was wrong because I was relying on a description of the form which was less than illuminating.
Here and in other discussions of this issue I have repeatedly emphasized that the precise language in the form is what matters.
See, for example, the following which I posted in another topic related to this issue:
I will repeat part of this for emphasis:dpenabill said:
What the current pre-oath form requires?
I do not know what the current pre-oath form requires. I would like to see someone who is taking the oath, or who has taken the oath since June 11, clearly state what the current affirmation of no prohibitions form actually says. We have seen some clearly erroneous accounts, such as that the form now requires all those taking the oath to affirm an intent to reside in Canada. But we have seen no reliable accounts of what the new form actually prescribes.
The language of the form matters; indeed, it makes all the difference.
Now we do know. And the applicant cannot just conclude he or she is not subject to any of the statutory prohibitions . . . but must make a far broader declaration.
To be clear: the form requires the applicant to declare:
"I declare I am not described in any of the above listed prohibitions.
And that list is far broader than what is listed as prohibitions in section 22 of the Citizenship Act . . . so no, an applicant cannot go ahead and sign the declaration and later claim he or she knew there was no prohibition applicable to him or her and so signed it . . . even though an item in the form's list did describe him or her. And yes, CIC can demand applicants disclose information related to prohibitions which is broader than the prohibitions themselves.
If the applicant falsely declares this, the applicant is warned, citizenship "can be taken away (revoked)."
I understand why CIC is doing this. I do not understand why so many of those (at least several participants in this forum) who have actually been scheduled for the oath and who have received this form, who have asked questions related to this issue, who should very well know what it states (they have the actual form), have not been forthcoming about the language of the declaration itself . . . which again is the critical language.
Hello,
from past four years I have lived in United kingdom, pakistan and now in united arab emirates... do i need to collect 3 PCC from these three countries??
from past four years I have lived in United kingdom, pakistan and now in united arab emirates... do i need to collect 3 PCC from these three countries??
When you apply for citizenship? If this is your question, the application asks the applicant to disclose whether or not the applicant has spent six months or more, cumulative, in any particular country and to provide a police certificate for any such country. Thus, whether or not you will need to provide a police certificate for one or more of these three countries depends on how much time you have spent in the respective country . . . if more than six months in each of them, than all of them . . . if more than six months in one, but say only five months or less in the other two, then only that country in which you spent six months (total, over the full four years).Adil Khan123 said:
So far, no pre-June 11, 2015 applicants have reported being asked for police certificates.
Observation: While it would be possible to meet the residency requirement despite spending six months in each of three countries abroad during the previous four years, the arithmetic gets difficult recognizing that if you have been abroad 184 or more days in three of the preceding six calendar years that will NOT meet the requirements even if the total presence in Canada in the preceding six years is more than 1460 days.
avro1959 said:dpenabill and manianz47, I really appreciate your insights on this. I wasn't aware this was a new requirement for Citizenship applications. I'm curious to see how they intend to screen for this.
My first worry that comes to mind is whether South Korea would actually be able to provide a Police Certificate considering I have not actually resided in South Korea. From looking at the process, it seems like I need to provide a copy of my Korean Identification when making the request. I have no such document so if the Korean Embassy is unable to provide a police certificate, I guess I'm going to have to enclose an explanatory letter and hope that CIC accepts it.
Is it actually fair that criminal conduct abroad is considered a prohibition? Does CIC do some kind of equivalency test to check if the crime abroad is also a crime in Canada? For example in Ireland, all traffic violations are criminal offenses. I hope someone isn't being barred from citizenship because of an unpaid parking fine.
Also consider the case of countries that lack fair trials altogether where you could be convicted without sufficient evidence.
In this case, it would make more sense if CIC did not add the "cumulative" phrase if they're trying to determine ties to foreign countries. Generally if people have significant ties to foreign countries, they spend really long periods of time outside Canada.
It's hard enough that days outside Canada for genuine reasons can't be counted towards citizenship, and now we're having to prove lack of foreign ties even when we've been resident in Canada throughout! I've been a PR since 2010, worked for a Canadian company since then, paying ridiculously high Canadian taxes, and through the misfortune of being in a profession (manufacturing engineering) that requires frequent travel to countries where manufacturing takes place (Korea, China, etc), I'm being penalized with an ever-so-elusive citizenship that is still at least 2.5 to 3 years away for me because of said absences.
Apologies for the rant at the end, but thanks again for clarifying the situation !!
You do not need a copy of your Korea ID (which I believe you turned it in at the airport when you last left Korea). You only need copy of your passport as identity. As for Korea embasssy, I'm not sure your case but for me and many others, the Korean embassy isn't able to issue the correct certificate that CIC requires (they issue another one instead).
As someone who successfully got my Korean Police certificate, I suggest you to refer to my blog with a Step-to-step guide on how to correctly get Korea PC. I also put the relevant forms on my blog for you to download.
taffytoffy.wordpress.com/2016/11/17/korea-police-certificate-a-step-by-step-guide-%E9%9F%A9%E5%9B%BD%E6%97%A0%E7%8A%AF%E7%BD%AA%E8%AF%81%E6%98%8E/
(copy and paste the link to browser)
To note, if you live outside Korea, you have to ask your friend in Korea to represent you.
I have a question related to this topic on the following scenario:
An individual was absent for less than 6 months in the last 4 years. However, one of the absence windows was more than 6 months with only a month falling within the last 4 years. Is that person required to provide a Police Certificate?
Date of Application: Jul-2016
Absence: Jan 2012 to Jul 2012 (Total 7 months absence with only 1 month absence within last 4 years)
Absence: July 2013 to Aug 2013 (2 months' absence)
Total absence within 4 years before date of application : 3 months
An individual was absent for less than 6 months in the last 4 years. However, one of the absence windows was more than 6 months with only a month falling within the last 4 years. Is that person required to provide a Police Certificate?
Date of Application: Jul-2016
Absence: Jan 2012 to Jul 2012 (Total 7 months absence with only 1 month absence within last 4 years)
Absence: July 2013 to Aug 2013 (2 months' absence)
Total absence within 4 years before date of application : 3 months
No..in that case, PCC is not required. I remember a similar scenario for one of my friends and was processed without any further docs required.square111 said:
taffytoffy, this is extremely helpful, thank you for going through the effort of documenting the process!!taffytoffy said:
I expect I will be submitting my citizenship application in the next few months.
In terms of processing time, you mentioned in your blog post that the Criminal Records Check Reply is issued instantly. How about the Certificate of Entry/Departure Record? Any idea how long that takes? If that's instant as well, then I assume I can start this process perhaps 2-3 weeks before I intend to submit my citizenship application.
Cheers...
ar all i need your advice regarding pcc,
I have lived in pakistan, uk and currently in uae. I have already appleid for uk and uae pcc.
In pakistan i have lived in three cities. For two cities i have got my pcc. And som1 has asked me to prepare pcc from the city where i have graduated and stayed from 2006 till 2011. Do i really need pcc from all these three cities in pakistan?
I have lived in pakistan, uk and currently in uae. I have already appleid for uk and uae pcc.
In pakistan i have lived in three cities. For two cities i have got my pcc. And som1 has asked me to prepare pcc from the city where i have graduated and stayed from 2006 till 2011. Do i really need pcc from all these three cities in pakistan?