Do I need to notarize a section of a foreign legal document in order to submit it to IRCC?

[Ruffian2000]

In my H&C application, I am making a reference to a large legal document of my home country. The legal document is around 1000 pages (its also very huge in file size so I cannot upload the whole thing) to my application.

However the section I am referring to (within that larger document) is less than 80 pages. So I have extracted out that relevant section from the larger document and saved that as a seperate PDF file. This section which I have extracted clearly states a law in that country (it has a code, date, section number and everything).

I'm wondering but will IRCC accept this as a valid supplementary document in my application? Or will they expect it to be notarized, so that the notary can carefully examine each page, compare it to the original legal document and then attest to it genuineness? If so, does that mean I have to notarize ALL THE PAGES??? Remember its somewhere close to 80 pages.

Or can I just provide the link to that original whole legal document in my application, so that IRCC can compare my PDF to that if at all they suspect that my extracted section is not the same?

 

[armoured]

However the section I am referring to (within that larger document) is less than 80 pages. So I have extracted out that relevant section from the larger document and saved that as a seperate PDF file. This section which I have extracted clearly states a law in that country (it has a code, date, section number and everything).

Do you mean that the extract is part of the law (legal code or whatever) in that country?

Is the original in English?

I'm wondering but will IRCC accept this as a valid supplementary document in my application? Or will they expect it to be notarized, so that the notary can carefully examine each page, compare it to the original legal document and then attest to it genuineness? If so, does that mean I have to notarize ALL THE PAGES??? Remember its somewhere close to 80 pages.

Generally docs that are already in English or French don't need to be notarized. I'd guess that if it's a public document (such as a published law), even more so - an extract should be fine. An explanation can be appended saying that this is pp. x through (x+80), and that might help.

But I'm guessing based on generalities. This all sounds quite complex and frankly I'd suggest you need a lawyer.

 

[Ruffian2000]

Do you mean that the extract is part of the law (legal code or whatever) in that country?

Is the original in English?

Generally docs that are already in English or French don't need to be notarized. I'd guess that if it's a public document (such as a published law), even more so - an extract should be fine. An explanation can be appended saying that this is pp. x through (x+80), and that might help.

But I'm guessing based on generalities. This all sounds quite complex and frankly I'd suggest you need a lawyer.

Yes the extract describes a certain law and explains all the guidelines about it.

The larger legal document is a mix of a foreign language and english. The first half of that document is in the foreign language and the second half is the english version of it. I am extracting out one section of the English version.

My worry is that is since I am extracting it, what if IRCC says "hey you tampered with the original instead of just submitting it as it is. If you can extract pages out of it, how do we know you didn't modify some of the text in it as well?"

Realistically, if I were to give this extract to any lay person, as well as provide the URL which points to the resource from where it came from (which is hosted on a government website), they can easily open up the link on their computer and compare my version with that, and check if anything was changed. Plus even if that link gets changed or removed, there will always be some permanent archive since its a government document. But as per my understanding, IRCC does not do that because they don't open external links nor do they have the time to verify it themselves.

 

[armoured]

Yes the extract describes a certain law and explains all the guidelines about it.

But what is the document itself?

The larger legal document is a mix of a foreign language and english. The first half of that document is in the foreign language and the second half is the english version of it. I am extracting out one section of the English version.

Do you mean that the original document is in English and [Foreign], i.e. they are both the same text?

We're familiar with that in Canada. It won't be a problem.

My worry is that is since I am extracting it, what if IRCC says "hey you tampered with the original instead of just submitting it as it is. If you can extract pages out of it, how do we know you didn't modify some of the text in it as well?"

Realistically, if I were to give this extract to any lay person, as well as provide the URL which points to the resource from where it came from (which is hosted on a government website), they can easily open up the link on their computer and compare my version with that, and check if anything was changed. Plus even if that link gets changed or removed, there will always be some permanent archive since its a government document. But as per my understanding, IRCC does not do that because they don't open external links nor do they have the time to verify it themselves.

I do not know the situation or the context, but respectfully, I think you're worrying about the wrong thing.

It seems you're making a legal case, and IRCC officers are not - realistically - likely to read an 80-page extract. My gut is that if you need an 80-page doc, you need a lawyer to write the summary and argument and represent to IRCC that this is the correct interpretation. They may have a lawyer look at that document - but seems doubtful to me they'll work off what you provide.

Just my opinion. But the notarization part seems to me a red herring. It's not whether the document you provide is "real", it's whether the text is correct and authoritative and appropriate to the situation.

But again - it's hypothetical like this. So I repeat my suggestion. I'm not going to be able to add much more.

 

[Ruffian2000]

But what is the document itself?

Do you mean that the original document is in English and [Foreign], i.e. they are both the same text?

We're familiar with that in Canada. It won't be a problem.

I do not know the situation or the context, but respectfully, I think you're worrying about the wrong thing.

It seems you're making a legal case, and IRCC officers are not - realistically - likely to read an 80-page extract. My gut is that if you need an 80-page doc, you need a lawyer to write the summary and argument and represent to IRCC that this is the correct interpretation. They may have a lawyer look at that document - but seems doubtful to me they'll work off what you provide.

Just my opinion. But the notarization part seems to me a red herring. It's not whether the document you provide is "real", it's whether the text is correct and authoritative and appropriate to the situation.

But again - it's hypothetical like this. So I repeat my suggestion. I'm not going to be able to add much more.

The document is a legal publication that defines the assessment criteria for what qualifies as a disability. And it provides assessment tools on how to measure the disability (its severity). The first half is in foreign text, and the second half is in English.

The extract which I have made contains the pages from where the English version starts (where it defines the details of that law), and then the assessment criteria, right up until where the assessement tools start. That extract ends when it starts defining the tools (Because if I attach the tools too, it'll become extremely big. And the tools aren't really relevant. Only the assessment criteria is relevant).

I dont want them to read all 80 pages. I'm only refering to 2 pages from those 80 pages. The 80 pages are just there for their reference. I initially thought about just including the 2 pages but it seemed too incomplete. To use an analogy: It would be like attaching only 1 chapter from a story, when you could instead attach all chapters and just ask them to read that one chapter. That way they can at least see the titles of all those other chapters to get a better of idea of how that 1 chapter fits in and relates to everyhing else (even though they're not reading all the other chapters).