Sending Additional nonrequested documents with Citizenship Application

[elie72]

Is it ok to send additional nonrequested documents with my citizenship application to further prove physical presence, like rental agreeements or health report? Does this help ?

 

[scheherzade]

Is it ok to send additional nonrequested documents with my citizenship application to further prove physical presence, like rental agreeements or health report? Does this help ?

You can send job letters etc with your application. Hold the rental docs n receipts for future. If they really need them they will ask for physical presence proof questioner.

 

[dpenabill]

You may have noticed, my participation in this forum is generally not about short and easy answers. There are others here who cover those. I tend to explore the more nuanced issues, which from my perspective demand more nuanced responses. That takes time and a concerted effort, usually more lengthy observations than the typcial discussion here.

The short and easy answer to your question is yes, it is OK to send additional, non-requested documents with the citizenship application.

Should you? however, is a more nuanced question.

Addressing the more nuanced questions, when should an applicant include more, and what additional documents should be sent, and in what circumstances should an applicant not do this, and what additional documents should not be sent, tends to get a lot more complicated.

Frankly, I doubt sending additional documents to "further prove physical presence" will help much. But a few additional documents probably, emphasis on probably, should not hurt either.

Is it ok to send additional nonrequested documents with my citizenship application to further prove physical presence, like rental agreeements or health report? Does this help ?

Hi dpenabill,

You have mentioned in your reply that you have sent along with your application some additional documents. Is it ok to send some additional documents which are not requested , in order to add proof to our physical presence?
Thanks for your answer.

Generally best approach is to follow the instructions, and thus to include what the instructions say to include, no more.

As I acknowledged, or perhaps one might say confessed, I did not follow the instructions and I included CRA Notices of Assessment with my application.

Including extra documents is not prohibited.

Whether to include additional documents with the application, or not, is a personal decision. Will they help? Is there a chance they could invite more questions than they resolve? What sort of impression does it make to include more than what is requested?

Frankly, despite what I did, my inclination is against including additional documents. Again, including extra documents is not prohibited and it is not like including extra documents will, itself, trigger elevated scrutiny or problems, let alone risk a negative outcome. If the information in the application raises a question, and there are a few, specific documents which will in effect answer that question, it probably does not hurt to include those, and perhaps they will help.

To be clear, however, some applicants have included what amounts to the same thing as responding to full blown RQ (CIT 0171) and still been issued RQ, and still compelled to respond to the RQ despite the fact they had already, essentially, provided all the documents and information requested in RQ. So, including extra documents will not necessarily preclude further inquiry, investigation, or requests for additional information and documentation.


My experience:

I offer the following NOT as a model to follow (it absolutely is not), nor as representative of what one should expect to happen (how things go for one individual usually depends on a wide, wide range of factors, and it is foolish to think what happened for one person will be the same for another, no matter how similar their situations are). I offer it as an example of the thought-process involved in making a decision like this.

Caveat: for the vast majority of applicants, this would be grossly overthinking things. Really. The vast majority of applicants do not need to include anything extra with the application. Thus, for the vast majority of applicants, including anything extra only increases the risk that a bureaucrat at IRCC will see something odd in that. Best to stay in the routine track.

I applied in the summer of 2013, in the wake of the huge 2012 wave of pre-test RQ, at a time when the prospect of pre-test RQ was very, very high for anyone self-employed. I was self-employed. At the time, CIC had recently started asking for CRA Notices of Assessment as part of the application to renew PR cards. In the application part for work-history I described my employment accurately but without using the terms "self-employed," and included my CRA Notices of Assessment thinking that including these should not appear odd, given that they were then being requested for PR card applications, and that they would reflect actual employment in Canada (yeah, while I do not make a real lot, I make enough to pay a good deal in taxes). I reasoned that the number of additional documents (four years NoAs) I was submitting was small in number, would not be a distraction, would not be confusing, and would verify four plus years of employment in Canada (my application, obviously, was under the 3/4 rule). And there was no information in those documents which was likely to raise questions when compared to the rest of the information that was part of my application.

Thus, I reasoned there was minimal risk involved by including the CRA Notices of Assessment, and a small chance they might help in the triage screening stage. So I included these. Note: we see rather few pre-test RQs reported these days. It is not even clear that IRCC is conducting this stage of screening now.

Nonetheless, my guess is that for me the inclusion of the CRA Notices of Assessment did not hurt but, also, they did not help or had very little impact. I was, after all, obviously living in Canada and had been for more than four years prior to applying (I waited to apply for well more than a year beyond the date I met the minimum residency requirement).


Overall: OK to include extra documents, but usually I would not expect there to be any advantage in doing so.

 

[elie72]

You may have noticed, my participation in this forum is generally not about short and easy answers. There are others here who cover those. I tend to explore the more nuanced issues, which from my perspective demand more nuanced responses. That takes time and a concerted effort, usually more lengthy observations than the typcial discussion here.

The short and easy answer to your question is yes, it is OK to send additional, non-requested documents with the citizenship application.

Should you? however, is a more nuanced question.

Addressing the more nuanced questions, when should an applicant include more, and what additional documents should be sent, and in what circumstances should an applicant not do this, and what additional documents should not be sent, tends to get a lot more complicated.

Frankly, I doubt sending additional documents to "further prove physical presence" will help much. But a few additional documents probably, emphasis on probably, should not hurt either.


Generally best approach is to follow the instructions, and thus to include what the instructions say to include, no more.

As I acknowledged, or perhaps one might say confessed, I did not follow the instructions and I included CRA Notices of Assessment with my application.

Including extra documents is not prohibited.

Whether to include additional documents with the application, or not, is a personal decision. Will they help? Is there a chance they could invite more questions than they resolve? What sort of impression does it make to include more than what is requested?

Frankly, despite what I did, my inclination is against including additional documents. Again, including extra documents is not prohibited and it is not like including extra documents will, itself, trigger elevated scrutiny or problems, let alone risk a negative outcome. If the information in the application raises a question, and there are a few, specific documents which will in effect answer that question, it probably does not hurt to include those, and perhaps they will help.

To be clear, however, some applicants have included what amounts to the same thing as responding to full blown RQ (CIT 0171) and still been issued RQ, and still compelled to respond to the RQ despite the fact they had already, essentially, provided all the documents and information requested in RQ. So, including extra documents will not necessarily preclude further inquiry, investigation, or requests for additional information and documentation.


My experience:

I offer the following NOT as a model to follow (it absolutely is not), nor as representative of what one should expect to happen (how things go for one individual usually depends on a wide, wide range of factors, and it is foolish to think what happened for one person will be the same for another, no matter how similar their situations are). I offer it as an example of the thought-process involved in making a decision like this.

Caveat: for the vast majority of applicants, this would be grossly overthinking things. Really. The vast majority of applicants do not need to include anything extra with the application. Thus, for the vast majority of applicants, including anything extra only increases the risk that a bureaucrat at IRCC will see something odd in that. Best to stay in the routine track.

I applied in the summer of 2013, in the wake of the huge 2012 wave of pre-test RQ, at a time when the prospect of pre-test RQ was very, very high for anyone self-employed. I was self-employed. At the time, CIC had recently started asking for CRA Notices of Assessment as part of the application to renew PR cards. In the application part for work-history I described my employment accurately but without using the terms "self-employed," and included my CRA Notices of Assessment thinking that including these should not appear odd, given that they were then being requested for PR card applications, and that they would reflect actual employment in Canada (yeah, while I do not make a real lot, I make enough to pay a good deal in taxes). I reasoned that the number of additional documents (four years NoAs) I was submitting was small in number, would not be a distraction, would not be confusing, and would verify four plus years of employment in Canada (my application, obviously, was under the 3/4 rule). And there was no information in those documents which was likely to raise questions when compared to the rest of the information that was part of my application.

Thus, I reasoned there was minimal risk involved by including the CRA Notices of Assessment, and a small chance they might help in the triage screening stage. So I included these. Note: we see rather few pre-test RQs reported these days. It is not even clear that IRCC is conducting this stage of screening now.

Nonetheless, my guess is that for me the inclusion of the CRA Notices of Assessment did not hurt but, also, they did not help or had very little impact. I was, after all, obviously living in Canada and had been for more than four years prior to applying (I waited to apply for well more than a year beyond the date I met the minimum residency requirement).


Overall: OK to include extra documents, but usually I would not expect there to be any advantage in doing so.

Many Thanks dpenabill!!!
Have a Great Day!

 

[allawy86]

Ellie, hope you are doing good. I would prepare everything all papers, rent, stamps, letter of employment, etc... Take them with you during the interview and present only whatever the officer ask you. In my case, I prepared everything I was so paranoid and nervous but the officer only wanted to verify my name, date of birth etc...

 

[elie72]

Ellie, hope you are doing good. I would prepare everything all papers, rent, stamps, letter of employment, etc... Take them with you during the interview and present only whatever the officer ask you. In my case, I prepared everything I was so paranoid and nervous but the officer only wanted to verify my name, date of birth etc...

Thanks Allawy86 for the info.

Have a Great Day!

 

[Rigly68]

Ellie, hope you are doing good. I would prepare everything all papers, rent, stamps, letter of employment, etc... Take them with you during the interview and present only whatever the officer ask you. In my case, I prepared everything I was so paranoid and nervous but the officer only wanted to verify my name, date of birth etc...

Lol...I am doing the same thing right now in preparation for my test on Thursday. My problem is that I do not have a any mortgage or utility bills for over 4 years as they are all in my husbands name .

 

[dpenabill]

Lol...I am doing the same thing right now in preparation for my test on Thursday. My problem is that I do not have a any mortgage or utility bills for over 4 years as they are all in my husbands name .

Odds are there will be no need to present any extra documents at the interview, and while there have been exceptions, most reports suggest that applicants usually do not have an opportunity to present material that was not requested.

Absolutely does not hurt to have extra documents with you. Odds are you will not need them, however, so the extent to which they might be lacking is nothing to worry about . . .
. . . well, at this stage anyway, which for the vast majority should be and will be the last stage of examination.

But sure, if IRCC has concerns or questions still, then IRCC may give the applicant either a CIT 0520 request for additional documents, or the full blown RQ CIT 0171, in which case, at which stage, problems with documents (like gaps) can be an issue. That said, while the fact that certain documents are in a partner's name, not in the applicant's name, weakens them some, explaining that will usually be sufficient, recognizing after all that a person ordinarily resides with one's partner, so a lease in the partner's name tends to prove that is where an individual was also living. But sure, there have been cases where this was a problem, but in those cases there were, undoubtedly, other reasons why CIC (for pre-2016 cases) or IRCC had concerns about the applicant's credibility . . . in effect, not buying the explanation.


Interview tends to be perfunctory:

The interview is largely about
(1) verifying the identity of the applicant
(2) verifying the authenticity of the required documents, and to some extent examining the documents for consistency with information in the application and information in IRCC's records (the most oft discussed aspect of this being the comparison of passport stamps with information in the presence calculation declarations)
(3) and a few questions to assess the applicant's credibility

That is, the interview is mostly a verification step. If there are concerns or questions about some aspect of the applicant's case, which can be resolved by a relatively simple Q & A exchange, the interview may be a little more extensive. But it is nonetheless about IRCC being satisfied with the information in the application. If there are concerns or questions beyond that, and particularly if there are doubts or outright suspicions, the interviewer will not attempt to resolve those in the interview. At most, the interviewer will attempt to get the applicant on the record, so to say, but the interview will not become a hearing, will not become an opportunity for the applicant to prove his or her case. If there are questions still, the applicant will be given (or later sent) either the CIT 0520 or CIT 0171 requests for information or supporting documents.

My interview went by incredibly quickly. I brought two groups of documents, those specifically requested, and a separately organized group of additional documents. Q & A was so quick, and short, there was no reasonable opportunity to offer even additional information verbally let alone to proffer additional documents. As noted before, my main concern was that I was self-employed. I was asked just two questions about my work, and one just asked if I am working (answer: "yes," and yes it was indeed that simple), and the other was in a form which caught me a bit off guard (despite, I thought, being well-prepared to fully explain any and all aspects of my work) and it flustered me, I stumbled, perhaps even stuttered, and clumsily gave a vague, largely non-responsive answer, realized immediately how poorly I had responded and was anticipating more, harder questions, but the interviewer immediately, quickly, asked the next question about a different subject. I took the oath the morning after the next morning (as in less than 48 hours later).

While I was a little surprised by how quickly the interview was conducted, that it was perfunctory was not a surprise. Again, the interview is NOT a hearing, NOT an opportunity for the applicant to prove his or her case.

 

[Rigly68]

Thank you dpenabill. I hope you didn't jinx me by mentioning the RQ ;D.

I have also made a binder with the original documents and also other documents requested as per the letter and only included tax assessments and letters of employment to it. I figured it can't hurt to have these as well.
Now the only question I do have is in the letter it says to bring all passports in my possession. On the website contraire to that it says "when you come to your written test .... •any passport or travel documents you used in the four years before you applied" So I should bring one that expired in 2007 as well if it is still in my possession or not?

 

[dpenabill]

Thank you dpenabill. I hope you didn't jinx me by mentioning the RQ ;D.

I have also made a binder with the original documents and also other documents requested as per the letter and only included tax assessments and letters of employment to it. I figured it can't hurt to have these as well.
Now the only question I do have is in the letter it says to bring all passports in my possession. On the website contraire to that it says "when you come to your written test .... •any passport or travel documents you used in the four years before you applied" So I should bring one that expired in 2007 as well if it is still in my possession or not?

Without revisiting the instructions and examining the letter's instructions in context, I am reluctant to suggest anything other than to follow the instructions as best you understand and can follow them.

That said, my understanding is that generally there is no need to present or submit any passports or TDs which expired before the relevant time period in the application and which could not have otherwise been used during or since the relevant time period. For example, for an application made May 1, 2015 (thus under the 3/4 rule), if the passport expired in April 2011 or before, and could not have been used after April 30, 2011, there is no need to present it. For an application made July 1, 2015, perhaps a bit ironically since it would be under the 4/6 rule, the cutoff date would be June 30, 2009, so any passport or TD that had any validity or could have been used on or after June 30, 2009, would need to be presented.

Thus, for me for example, without revisiting the exact language in the instructions, my recall is that the applicant was required to submit a copy the biographical pages from all passport which were valid or could have been used during the four years preceding the date of application. And similarly for any other type of Travel Document. The original of all these should be taken to the interview/test (not sure what the interview invite letter now says, but when I went through the process it also instructed to bring a full color copy of each of these . . . but when I sat my copies on the desk at my interview, the interviewer seemed surprised I had them, although she did take them).

As I further recall, the language in the letter made it clear that if the applicant is in possession of any additional passport or TD, such as a new passport issued since applying, any additional TDs acquired since applying, those too should be brought to the interview in addition to the originals of all those a copy of which was sent with the application (assuming proper copy of all relevant ones obtained prior to applying had already been submitted with the application).

I hope to not jinx anyone . . . . well, except perhaps Donald Trump, for whom I am hoping all the jinxing possible.

 

[Rigly68]

I will just bring the passport that expired in 2007 and mention that I have it in the interview. If they want to see it then OK and if not OK too!