The following will only be of interest to those tending to closely follow the minutia in application processing, of very little interest for the vast majority of applicants:
I made something similar mistake. Instead of mm/dd/yyy format I did dd/mm/yyyy format. My application was returned after two month, as this makes ,not to meet the physical presence requirements.
In my case I got AOR for first application with wrong date format within one month. Then after one more month, instead of going to IP my application was returned . I lost two month of time before I send mt second application.
These posts illustrate how such details in information can help the forum immensely. Of course a single participant's anecdotal report is NOT sufficient to draw a firm conclusion, but this reporting makes very good sense and likely (even though not for-sure) illuminates some insights into the CPC-Sydney process.
What I take away from these reports is NOT based entirely on these reports BUT rather based on what these reports appear to illuminate in CONTEXT with a lot of other information we know about the procedures in CPC-Sydney.
We have long understood there is a two-step (at least two-step) screening at CPC-Sydney, a completeness check followed by a more substantive screening which, if and when passed, results in IP. These reports (to my view) illuminate some differences in these two-steps with more granularity. (Probably, likely, albeit not for-sure.)
What I take away from these reports:
The main take-away is that AOR is indeed currently MERELY a completeness check, pursuant to which there is minimal or NO cross-checking or assessment of the information substantively. Then the more substantive screening of the application (again, if and when passed this results in IP) includes some cross-checking, including cross-checking the signature dates and other information in the application, and to some extent a preliminary assessment of the presence calculation . . . at least to the extent of cross-checking it against the date the application was signed.
Some observations about the significance of this:
For the vast majority of qualified applicants, this does not mean much at all. The vast majority of qualified applicants will generally want to watch for AOR, to be sure the application has been received and is being processed by IRCC, but beyond that merely watch for any further correspondences or notices from IRCC while they prepare for the test. That is, the vast majority of applicants merely need to WAIT, and then show up and pass the test, show documents and answer a few perfunctory questions in the interview, and show up for the oath. Smooth sailing.
BUT the take-away here is illuminating and of interest for those who follow the process more closely, those who attempt to provide information to prospective and current applicants about the process, and those who have some concerns, such as those who recognize some errors were made in the application, and those who recognize their history, facts, or circumstances otherwise involve some risk of non-routine processing.
The main thing is that this illuminates just how superficial the initial completeness check is and how relatively insignificant AOR is.
But this also illuminates something about the nature and scope of the screening between AOR and IP, and that it includes some substantive cross-checking of the application, at least to some extent. THIS MAY EXPLAIN WHY there can be a significant difference in the timeline between AOR and IP, something of concern identified in the second-level of screening which, in turn, puts the application in queue for further screening or scrutiny prior to referring the application to the local office (I am not sure, but I believe it is this action, making the actual referral to the local office, which is denoted as IP, that is "In Process"). Of course we do not know the actual internal practice. So we do not know, for example, if there is a more or less clerical screening pursuant to a checklist of criteria and if a concern is identified the application is put in queue for more scrutiny and assessment by a supervisor. Or some other bifurcation which promptly results in the referral to the local office for some applications and for others a more thorough review in Sydney prior to taking the referral action (which, as these reports illustrate, can still result in the application being returned despite AOR).
For context, what I take from this reporting is based on the following understanding of what happened:
Applicant H submitted application in which the presence calculator showed days present meeting the presence requirement but made error in the application date (signature box date), the entered application date nonetheless within the ninety-day window before date application was actually received at CPC-Sydney. Applicant received AOR. But application subsequently returned (not denied, but returned), no IP status.
Distinction between Applicant H and the OP:
It appears there was nothing about the application date in Applicant H's application which would, on its face, would indicate an invalid or stale application. I assume the erroneous date was not a date which rendered the application stale. I assume it was a date consistent with the form of application submitted. It was only when the application date was cross-checked against the presence calculation that it became apparent the applicant failed to meet the presence requirement BASED on the erroneous date entered as the signature date. BUT that erroneous date thus being the date the application is considered made.
OP's signature date, in contrast, was way outside the staleness period, and was a date for which a different application form would be used.
REMINDER:
The date in the application signature box is, by definition, the date the application is made. If there is an error made in entering this date, the erroneous date is, nonetheless, the date the application is made. This cannot be changed. To change the date the application is made requires a new, different application.
As Applicant H's report illustrates, the impact of a typographical error in the signature box date depends on how that affects the application. In some situations the transposing of the day-date and month-date might have no substantive impact other than its inconsistency with the date the presence calculator is signed and calculates presence based on. I wonder whether some inconsistency is allowed, at least to the extent the application will proceed to be processed by a local office. My guess is yes, so long as there is sufficient presence shown to accommodate still meeting the presence requirement based on the date in the signature box. In Applicant H's case, apparently there was not a sufficient buffer of days to still meet the presence requirement based on the date in the signature box.
