I have a question guys!
What is the reason behind translating stamp(s) in a passport even if the date is nowhere near close to your eligibilty period for citizenship?
It warrants some emphasis that the reason for requiring a document containing information not in an official language be accompanied by a proper translation is the same for all documents, for almost all processing of applications made to IRCC, and that is so IRCC can read and assess the information submitted without speculation as to the meaning or relevance of the information that is not in an official language.
Sure, sometimes without a translation the meaning is clear, or the lack of relevance is readily apparent. Does not affect how the instructions apply.
It might affect how IRCC responds. It is quite common for citizenship applicants to submit or present a passport without translating all stamps not in an official language, and not encounter a problem, no request for a translation, no non-routine processing, no delays. Been there, did that, took the oath less than 48 hours after my interview during which I presented a passport which did indeed include older stamps not in English, not in French. I had my excuses (got the notice to attend the interview months before I was expecting it, and that notice was just a week before the interview, with no time to arrange for a translation; yeah, as I too often do, I had not been following my own advice and was not prepared in advance; there was that and I forgot those older stamps included some language not English or French).
So, the instructions are clear. The enforcement, however, varies. As I have often noted, IRCC does not play
gotcha-games. If it does not matter, it usually does not matter.
But of course just a more or less obvious failure to follow the instructions can be a factor in how an official assesses an individual. Even though it would not take much for a reasonably well-informed individual to determine, without a translation, the meaning and import, including lack of import, of the information, whether a processing agent or citizenship officer might still request a translation or otherwise see the failure to provide one as cause to elevate scrutiny in the case, is not easily predicted. Obviously, the safe approach is to follow the instructions. The instructions unequivocally say to provide a translation.
In any event, the reason why a translation is required is not about the reason why the document is requested or the information in the document is of interest to IRCC. If a document is required, or an applicant otherwise chooses to include a document (in effect asking IRCC to consider it), any information that is not in an official language needs to be translated. The answer to the "
do I need a translation for . . . " question does not depend on what the document is or what it is for. It depends on (1) whether the document is being submitted or presented to IRCC, and (2) whether it contains information not in an official language. If both are true, the instructions say to provide a translation.
I have in the past referenced and linked a PDI which makes it clear this applies virtually universally. Particular instructions, including those applicable to citizenship applications, typically make multiple references to this. Thus, even if a particular request for this or that document does not itself explicitly REPEAT the instruction to include a translation if the document contains information not in an official language, there is NO DOUBT, basically unless excepted in some way, the instructions clearly call for any information that is not in an official language be accompanied by a proper translation.
In contrast, obviously, the reason why this or that document is requested, or the information in this or that document is of interest to IRCC, is particular to the document and the kind of information IRCC wants from the applicant. Even though most people tend to focus on IRCC cross-referencing travel history information with entry or exit stamps in the passport, information in passports can be examined and assessed for multiple reasons. Note, for example, visa stamps are likely to get more attention than mere entry/exit stamps.
Moreover, remember that the "
reason" for a request by IRCC does not limit the scope of how IRCC uses the information.
Someone recently referred to the reason why IRCC asks for employment history, for example, saying the reason was to assess the applicant's physical presence, which is mostly true, but added "
not for anything else," likewise essentially true but potentially overlooking the extent to which IRCC can and rather often will cross-check or cross-reference, and correlate information, for various reasons. The most common reason any information or document provided is examined, beyond the specific reason for requesting the particular information, is to evaluate the individual's credibility. But again, the scope of how IRCC uses any information provided is not limited to any particular reason.
