For Further Clarification:
(This is long and will take two posts.)
At my test/interview/oath, I had to sign a paper saying that I have not had any new criminal issues/done anything to make me ineligible. Full disclosure, I did not fully read it because I knew that I had no legal issues or anything. But my point is that this absolutely needs to be disclosed to CIC. I would call and ask how to report it
Yeah I remember that, too. But I didn't read the thing in detail so I don't remember if it specifically said "indictable offense" or just "offense". There seems to a major difference between the two when it comes to citizenship eligibility.
After my test the CIC officer asked me did u get in trouble with police or anything like that.
First, yes, for purposes of citizenship eligibility whether or not an offence is "indictable" makes a big difference. For example, a conviction for a Summary offence does NOT constitute a prohibition. HOWEVER that does not necessarily mean an individual convicted of a Summary offence is not subject to a prohibition. If the Summary offence conviction results in a sentence of incarceration or probation, the individual is subject to a prohibition for as long as the individual is incarcerated or on probation.
I discuss HYBRID offences, those offences which may be prosecuted by indictment or as a Summary offence, in my previous post above. I am confident these offences SHOULD BE DISCLOSED. As I noted in that post, I do not know, not with confidence, how these offences are handled when there is a prosecution as a Summary offence. Again, whether or not the offence is considered a prohibition by IRCC, anyone arrested, charged, or otherwise subject to a hybrid offence clearly SHOULD disclose this to IRCC.
The prohibitions are listed in Section 22 of the Citizenship Act (see
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-7.html#docCont). Prohibitions are situations or conditions or circumstances which preclude the grant of citizenship. In particular, what circumstances or conditions specifically constitute a prohibition are enumerated in Section 22.
Item 16 in the current application form (CIT 0002 (06-2018) version) lists a number of situations which are RELATED to the prohibitions, and situations which might otherwise preclude eligibility for citizenship. Most of the items listed in Item 16 specifically constitute a prohibition. Some are only situations which MIGHT, but might NOT, constitute or indicate a prohibition.
Last version I have seen of
the prohibitions form,
which almost all applicants are required to sign attendant the PI Interview (the verification interview attendant the test), is substantively the SAME as Item 16 in the application, the format and grammar modified to be a stand alone form applicable to the context, that is, framed to ask the applicant to disclose if any of the same situations apply but as of that stage in the process. Some applicants, or many, or most, or it is supposed to be all applicants, are AGAIN required to affirm NONE of these situations apply prior to taking the oath (with exceptions, such as those who are scheduled for taking the oath attendant scheduling for the test and interview, the oath itself scheduled either the same day or within a very few days, who have thus just made this affirmation attendant their PI interview).
The reports in the posts quoted above are consistent with scores and scores of other anecdotal reports. Many, many applicants hardly take note of this aspect of the PI Interview, many only remembering a question similar to that here reported, something in the nature of asking if the applicant has had any trouble with the police or such. This makes sense. The majority of applicants, a big majority, have NEVER been in trouble with the police and for sure not since coming to Canada, so for sure NOT since applying. And in most cases the interviewer has very recently conducted the GCMS background query which would ordinarily show whether there had been any arrests while the application has been pending. (Will usually show arrests in the U.S. as well.) So there is no reason for either the Interviewer or the applicant to give the prohibitions form much attention at all.
As casual as the question is asked, it is a very serious matter. As I also noted in my previous post, the failure to disclose any situation covered by the Item 16 or the Prohibitions form can constitute a material misrepresentation by omission. This is serious, with potentially very serious consequences, ranging from being further prohibited from a grant of citizenship for another FIVE years to possible criminal prosecution, and if per chance the person is allowed to become a citizen, then there is the potential revocation of citizenship at any time for the rest of the individual's life. AND the failure to disclose a criminal matter NOW appears to be among the more common grounds, if not the most common ground, for commencing proceedings to revoke citizenship.
This is not something to mess around with. IRCC is NOT going to deny citizenship if the situation does NOT constitute a prohibition, so there is little downside to disclosure. If it does constitute a prohibition, it is far, far better to deal with that for what it is. Even if that means having to wait to apply again at a later time.
Situations Listed in application form Item 16 and in the Prohibitions Form:
Again, substantively the situations listed are the same in both Item 16 and the Prohibitions Form.
As noted, most of the situations listed specifically constitute a PROHIBITION. If one of these situations applies to the applicant, Section 22 in the Citizenship Act PROHIBITS a grant of citizenship to the applicant. IRCC is thus absolutely precluded from granting the application for citizenship. There is no discretion to waive the prohibition. (With possible highly unusual exceptions, although I am aware of NONE.)
In some of the situations listed, however, more information about it may be necessary to determine if it constitutes a prohibition.
For example, item 16.4. in CIT 002 (06-2018) asks if the applicant has ever been under a removal order. For a significant number of applicants the truthful response is yes, but that matter was fully resolved, cured, and does not constitute a prohibition. Best to disclose the prior matter and let IRCC conclude it is NOT a prohibition, NO problem.
For another example, both Item 16.3 and Item 16.8. in CIT 002 (06-2018) ask about charges or convictions for ANY offence OUTSIDE Canada. Charges or convictions for an offence outside Canada only constitute a prohibition IF it is an offence that "
if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence" under Canadian law. In some countries the failure to pay a debt can constitute fraud. A conviction for this kind of fraud does NOT constitute a prohibition because failing to pay a debt is NOT a criminal offence in Canada let alone an indictable offence in Canada. Applicant needs to disclose the offence but it is NOT a problem.
