After becoming PR I did not spend 183 or more days in a row in my country of origin. So does it mean I dont have to submit the police certificate with citizenship application?
Probably NOT.
And, if you list your country of origin in the chart for Item 10.b) and in the "Explanation" box state that the 183 days plus time period there was before becoming a PR, and that this is your country of origin, that should readily pass the completeness screening. Meaning this will not result in the application being returned for a failure to include a required clearance.
Whether or not you are required to submit a police clearance later in the process is a
separate question. What passes the completeness screening does not foreclose IRCC from later asking for a clearance. (Indeed, IRCC can request this for any country an individual has traveled to no matter how briefly . . . the 183 days in a row element is only about what triggers the requirement to include a certificate
WITH the application itself.)
Leading to some longer observations:
In the citizenship application guide there is an information "You don’t need to provide a police certificate if you were in your country of origin immediately prior to becoming a permanent resident and landing in Canada" and then there is an example that says "You lived in France for one year (365 days) before you became a permanent resident 3 years ago. You did not travel to France after you became a permanent resident. (...) If you provided a police certificate from France with your immigration application, tell us this in the box provided at Question 10b."
The example above talks about being in country of origin before obtaining the PR and not traveling to the country of origin after becoming the PR. If the person from the example would travel to France after obtaing the PR (for shorter time than 183 days or more in a row) then would that person be still exempt from providing the police certificate or not?
I do not think Example 1, referencing living in France for a year before becoming a PR, is about France as a country of origin, but rather any country (any country in which the PR was living or staying while working for six months or more prior to coming to Canada).
That is, my understanding of the instruction in the Note for Item 10.b) is that it is referencing the country of one's birth, or at least the country for which one carries a passport, AND that is the only country in which the applicant spent 183 days in a row within the relevant four years but that is also BEFORE becoming a PR. Which seems to suggest (but agreeing this is not entirely clear) that if this is the case, the mere fact of having returned to that country for some shorter period of time since becoming a PR does not trigger the need to submit a police clearance for that country.
In contrast, applying Example 1, if the country in which the applicant spent 183 plus days prior to becoming a PR is a country other than the applicant's country of origin, and that period (183 days or more) was still within the relevant four years, the applicant needs to submit a clearance for that country UNLESS all of the following:
-- the time in that country was before becoming a PR, and
-- the applicant submitted a clearance for that country during the PR application process, and
-- the applicant has NOT returned to that country since becoming a PR
Yes, the SAFEST approach would be to consider "country of origin" likewise, and thus again submit a clearance UNLESS:
-- the time in that country was before becoming a PR, and
-- the applicant submitted a clearance for that country during the PR application process, and
-- the applicant has NOT returned to that country since becoming a PR
But the "note" itself suggests, or perhaps even explicitly states otherwise. The note suggests that the applicant does NOT need to submit a clearance UNLESS the applicant has returned to the home country ("country of origin") for 183 days in a row AFTER becoming a PR.
Unfortunately, anecdotal reporting has failed to illuminate a for-sure interpretation.
Some Context and Analysis (this repeats some of the above a bit):
As already referenced, whether a police certificate is required WITH the application itself is a separate question from whether a clearance might otherwise be required during the process.
I am NO expert and I am especially NOT qualified to give advice, but I think it is fair to interpret the "Note" regarding "country of origin" in a way that does NOT require an applicant to provide a clearance from the country of origin (home country; distinguishable from a third country where the applicant may have been living for some time prior to becoming a PR) even though the applicant may have made short trips to the country of origin since becoming a PR. I am quite sure this assumes a clearance was submitted for that country during the process of becoming a PR.
In particular, entering an "explanation" as to this should readily PASS the completeness screening.
Thus, for example, if the applicant is in a rush to apply and does not want to wait until a clearance can be obtained from the country of origin, and as long as it is true that the six month plus period was BEFORE becoming a PR, and thus trips to the home country while a PR were brief, the applicant can give this explanation and the application should proceed into processing. That said, if the applicant has traveled to the home country since becoming a PR:
-- SAFEST to wait and submit a new clearance with the application (and note, waiting longer to apply is very often a very good idea anyway, and that is perhaps especially true right now)
-- short of that, if the applicant makes the application including the explanation and NOT including new home country clearance, still SAFER to at least do what is necessary to obtain a new clearance in order to have that in hand just in case IRCC later requires the applicant to obtain and submit it
-- nonetheless, seems OK to give the explanation and wait to see what happens, and unless there is some reason for IRCC to suspect criminal charges or activity abroad, the probability is this is OK all the way through the process
Reminder Re Waiting Generally:
It seem obvious that one of the most common mistakes, other than failing to follow the instructions, is rushing to apply. A good buffer over the minimum is no guarantee of problem-free processing but it almost certainly improves the odds of smooth sailing by a lot.
And at this time new applications are piling up in a backlog. There is very little to be gained these days by submitting an application sooner rather than waiting until later. Sure, the longer one waits the further down in the queue the application will be, but once IRCC is nearly back to routine processing, the difference that will make is likely to be minimal compared to how much stronger waiting longer can make the case.
Not everyone gains as much by waiting, so this is of course a personal thing. And how long to wait is indeed a very personal decision to make. Nonetheless, make no mistake, for the majority waiting a month longer to apply can often mean actually taking the oath sooner.
Edit to revise this part: If the reason for wanting to make the application without a clearance is about something other than to make the application sooner, without waiting to get a clearance, that is different and perhaps something to seriously reconsider.
That is: if it is just about not wanting to wait longer, that is one thing. If it is about something else, that quite likely is . . . well, something that demands careful consideration, at the least. And especially so if there is something about it the applicant wants to keep IRCC from seeing.
