Hi
@dpenabill
I am wondering if I can still say 'No' in the question but I can still attach PCC from India just in case. It will not look suspicious in that case though, correct? I mean I do not want to experience any delay in the process in case if they come back asking for PCC after submitting the application? So I am thinking to get PCC and attach it with the application for the best case scenario. What do you think?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
Somewhat Short Response: Without offering "advice" . . . if you want to preemptively provide a police clearance, and if you were in effect living (staying, or "
spending most of [your]
time") in that country for more than six months, my sense is that it would be OK to check 'Yes' in response to the question, list the country, and include the clearance.
This, in my view, would actually be more appropriate (even if not necessary) IF,
IF for example, your address history shows you with an address in that country for six months or more, even if during that time you occasionally traveled outside that country so that you were not continuously, physically present in that country for 180 days in a row.
That involves a bit of parsing the question (explained in the longer response) which, generally, is NOT a good idea . . . but parsing questions is generally NOT a good idea because most of the time people are parsing the question to, in effect, justify giving a response they believe will benefit them, such as to avoid disclosing something they apprehend might be turned against them. Which tends to be evasive if not misleading, or even outright deceptive. Nonetheless, the best approach is almost always to simply be honest and forthcoming, to accurately and completely respond to the question according to one's best understanding of what is asked and what the truthful response is.
Leading to
my LONGER response . . . but first, as to the question as asked, conventional wisdom leans toward NOT submitting extra information or documents EXCEPT when clearly necessary. One can. I did. Many others have done so as well, without triggering problems. And especially if the extras included are limited, as in not voluminous and not distracting, and they are directly relevant. The caveat is that there is minimal evidence doing so helps much if at all.
Anyway
. . . The LONGER Response (with a side trip into the nuances of interpreting and responding to bureaucratic form questions)
:
First, to be clear: I am no expert and I am absolutely NOT qualified to give advice.
Much of what I post consists, more or less, of platitudes with some extended analysis and observation, with a focus on information derived from reliable, authoritative sources (thus, for example, not unreliable sources like those reporting "
I did XXX and it was OK"). Mostly I go into more depth but nonetheless it's still based on generally known, or at least generally accessible information. Aided some by having a historical context which helps clarify certain aspects of the process.
If what you are actually asking is what would be OK, which is what I believe you are asking, as I have noted my sense is it would be
OK to check 'yes' in response to the question about being in a country for more than 180 days in a row based on mostly being in that country for more than six months, notwithstanding some brief travel to other countries during that time, so that you were not actually, physically present in that country, technically, 180 days in a row. I am no expert. I cannot advise you to answer that way. But my sense, my impression, is that sure, that would be OK. And thus, in particular, if you were primarily residing (living, staying, "
spending most of [your]
time") in that country for more than six months and the "
days in a row" are only interrupted by brief travel outside the country, my sense, my take, which is NOT an expert's view, is that might actually be the better, more appropriate way to respond . . . even if technically it is not precisely accurate.
I would note that item 10 b) frames the question "
were you in a country . . . " (emphasis added) and NOT "
were you actually, physically present in a country . . . ?" Is there a difference? a difference that matters? What does "
in a country" mean?
As I have noted, I am usually reluctant, extremely reluctant actually, to parse questions this way. The best approach is to read the question and understand it as asked, as best one can, and give a response to the question asked that is accurate and complete according to one's understanding of the facts and the question. My sense, my very strong sense, is that it is usually a mistake to approach requests for information from the perspective of
*what-CAN-I-say?* Rather, the better approach is to focus on what is the most honest, accurate, and complete answer to the question . . . more from the perspective of
*what-SHOULD-I-say?* given the facts.
In contrast, as I more than occasionally comment, we know that the application form is not a test, and in particular it is not about testing an applicant's ability to fill in bureaucratic forms. We know IRCC is not engaged in
gotcha-games. IRCC, in the application form, is asking for information relevant to evaluating and verifying the applicant's claim of eligibility for citizenship. There is often no precise right answer to a question, other than what is the honest, most accurate, and complete response to the question asked. And, indeed, while certain questions have very specific answers (there is, for example, only one date to give when the form asks for a date of birth), many of the questions are soliciting more general but honest and relevant information about the applicant, more than asking for a technically correct answer. The language used is often more open-ended, and it seems to me this is very deliberate, intended to solicit the disclosure of what really reveals relevant information about the individual rather than some technically correct answer.
Which goes back to the question here, item 10 b) and the question "
were you in a country . . . ?" and regarding which many will probably be quite certain about what "
in a country . . for 180 days in a row" means, and that it does not encompass just living in that country for six months. And answering it that way, checking 'No' for example if one left the country briefly and thus was not actually physically IN the country for 180 days in a row, is the right way to respond. I would agree, but only that that is PROBABLY ONE right way, or "OK" way to respond. BUT not necessarily the ONLY right way to respond. Indeed, I would easily place my bet that for someone who was, for example, living and working in the U.S., for eight months say, but who in the middle of that time took a week-long holiday in Cancun, Mexico, it would be entirely OK, and my guess is better, to check 'Yes' for item 10 b) and include a U.S. FBI clearance with the application . . . even though a 'No' response would not constitute misrepresentation.
There is some risk in approaching questions this way. And in general overthinking things tends to not be productive.
But what appears to be your instinct here, that it might be a good idea to submit a police certificate from the country where you spent so much time during the last four years, even if you can technically answer 'No,' seems well-founded, a good idea, with due consideration for how convenient, or not, it is to do this. If it is convenient, sure, why not. Almost no risk it would hurt. And perhaps it could avoid a background investigation referral abroad which, it seems, can cause significant processing timeline delays.
A comment about the quote, which I used multiple times, "
spending most of [your]
time," in reference to where one was living. This language is taken from the 2017 version of the full-blown Residence Questionnaire, CIT 0171, except in the RQ it is in reference to family members and an item asking for address history for where they were "
living/spending most of their time." This illustrates why I say that IRCC is often less interested in technically correct answers and more interested in information that is revealing, information that discloses the substantive, real life nature of who the applicant is and the life the applicant has been living, not just what some paper or digital records might show.
