While misrepresentation by omission is a real thing, not all omissions, and not all misrepresentations, are equal.
Many inaccurate or incomplete disclosures of fact are merely due to a mistake or oversight, not misrepresentation. And not all misrepresentations are material. IRCC does not play
gotcha-games so minor errors in fact will not, generally, cause much if any problem.
Failure to Fully Disclose Additionally Visited Countries Overall:
There is little or no indication that IRCC will allege an individual made a material misrepresentation based on the individual's failure to list or disclose countries the individual visited in addition to the primary destination during an absence from Canada.
Obviously, the best approach is to follow the instructions and disclose additional countries visited during an absence from Canada. And going forward, in making any further submissions to IRCC, the better approach is to do one's best to accurately and completely provide information. With some exceptions, this is true even if the individual has previously failed to fully disclose such information in previous submissions.
If an applicant has failed to previously disclose such information,
NO NEED to panic, and actually not even much cause to worry. UNLESS the omission was a substantial one and is misleading or deceptive. For the vast majority of individuals in this situation, all the applicant needs to do is be prepared to acknowledge the oversight or mistake, and be prepared to correct the information if asked about it. As someone noted, for example, a processing agent might notice there is a passport entry for a country not disclosed in the physical presence calculation travel history and ask about that. NOT a big deal, not a problem, so long as it fell within a disclosed absence, the applicant acknowledges the oversight, and it does not otherwise appear intended to mislead or deceive.
Compromised Credibility versus Misrepresentation:
For omissions as to additional countries visited during an absence from Canada, already made in an application that has been submitted, again such omissions might be noticed, and this could influence a processing agent's perception of the applicant's credibility. Just as any mistakes can. How much so will of course be relative to the nature and extent of the discrepancy, and will be affected by the extent to which the rest of the applicant's information appears credible, or not.
Which leads back to whether the omission could trigger a perception of misrepresentation. As I noted, there is little indication such omissions would trigger misrepresentation allegations. BUT OF COURSE, if the nature and extent, the context, the manner of the omission, signals the applicant was overtly deceptive, deliberately trying to conceal the fact of having gone to a particular country, sure, of course,
duh even, that could trigger a more severe assessment of the omission and perhaps even a formal allegation of misrepresentation. Nonetheless, generally, failing to list or disclose countries the individual visited in addition to the primary destination during an absence from Canada is not at all likely to be seen as misrepresentation.
The Longer Explanation:
In applying for citizenship the applicant is instructed to identify all countries visited during absences, and generally to do this by listing the additional countries visited during a particular absence (a period of time between the date of exit from Canada and next date of return to Canada), in addition to the primary destination country, in the "
Reasons" box in the physical presence calculation. A mere list suffices, as in stating "
also visited XX country, YY country, ZZ country."
A failure to do so is of course an omission. While omissions can constitute misrepresentation, not all omissions constitute a misrepresentation, and particularly not a "
material" misrepresentation.
We all make mistakes, including those rooted in an oversight.
IRCC is very well familiar with this and does not penalize its clients or applicants for minor mistakes. Even more substantial mistakes generally will not be treated as misrepresentation,
unless IRCC perceives the applicant intended to be deceptive or misleading.
Mistakes, including omissions, can affect IRCC's perception of the applicant's credibility. And credibility can be a huge factor in how things go. While honesty is of course the biggest element affecting an individual's credibility, such that a perception the applicant is at all evasive or deceptive can have a serious impact on how things go (even though the basis for that perception does not rise to the level of triggering an overt assessment of misrepresentation), credibility is basically about how much an individual can be relied upon to be an accurate and complete reporter of facts. Significant mistakes illustrate the individual might not be a reliable reporter of facts, since they have failed to accurately reports some facts.
If an applicant is perceived to not be a reliable reporter of facts, that is, the applicant has compromised credibility in the view of IRCC officials, that can have a negative impact on how the process goes, ranging from triggering non-routine processing (potentially including a referral to CBSA/NSSD for an investigation, which is not something the applicant will see noted in the version of GCMS notes disclosed in response to an ATIP request), to overt skepticism or suspicion of the applicant's other information.
But merely failing to disclose additional countries visited during absences from Canada generally is NOT likely to trigger a negative credibility perception of the applicant UNLESS there is cause for heightened concern. MOST, by far, will be OK, NO PROBLEM.
But sure, there are exceptions. I often say those for whom there is an exception generally know who they are. In the context of this topic, disclosure of additional countries visited in the presence calculation travel history, there are some fairly obvious examples:
-- NO problem implicated where the applicant --
-- -- failed to list a country the applicant did a stop-over in while traveling to or from the primary destination
-- -- failed to list visiting the Netherlands (or other nearby European) during a summer long absence primarily spent in France
-- NOT likely to be a problem if the applicant --
-- -- listed a country briefly visited and omitted the name of country where the individual spent most of the time while abroad during that absence; NOTE: the significance of this can vary and depend on other factors, as discussed in reference to potentially problematic scenarios
-- Potential Problems, subject to variability depending on the particular facts and circumstances, where the applicant --
-- -- omits a country in which there was an arrest or a criminal case involving the applicant (not a problem if the applicant otherwise appropriately disclosed relevant information about that in response to Prohibitions question in the application)
-- -- a PR with protected person status omits visiting their home country; of course listing the home country as visited can also be problematic for a refugee-PR . . . this involves issues related to the cessation of status as well as misrepresentation, discussed in another topic
These are just some examples illustrating the very wide range in potential significance.
Again, for most, the failure to list additional countries visited is NO big deal . . . (still, of course, applicants should follow the instructions and list the additional countries, at least going forward) . . . but for some the failure to do so could be an issue. And, yeah, the latter will generally know who they are and why, notwithstanding their typical protests to the contrary.
