Clarifications . . . (yeah, the dreaded editor, never satisfied . . . )
Obviously, truthful disclosures in the citizenship application are not misrepresentation. So I sense this query is more about whether there will be a negative credibility factor in processing the citizenship application due to a discrepancy arising from the disclosure of brief jobs not disclosed in a PR application.
Even if an IRCC official takes note of the discrepancy (assuming there is one; I don't know what was asked about work history in the PR application process), it seems rather unlikely this would cause IRCC to commence inadmissibility proceedings to revoke PR status based on a misrepresentation by omission in the PR application (for a failure to disclose information requested).
But if that is your question, whether divulging this information now might trigger inadmissibility proceedings to revoke PR status based on a misrepresentation by omission in the PR application, the question is . . .
Was it a misrepresentation? Or an oversight? Or a mistake? Or beyond the scope of questions asked?
Misrepresentation by omission is a tricky subject, even without getting into the weedy stuff distinguishing whether that which was omitted was material or not. (FWIW, anyone relying on a materiality defense for having given false information, or failing to disclose what an application asks, is playing against the odds.)
Even though misrepresentation by omission is quite likely to be:
This is no small thing. Second to the requirements themselves (which mandate outcomes), the applicant's credibility is perhaps the most influential factor in how things go, especially in regards to the scope and intensity of scrutiny, thus potentially affecting processing times even for a solidly qualified applicant, and of course elevating the risk of finding any detrimental information that has not been disclosed.
Which leads back to whether there is a discrepancy, and if so will it be noticed, and if noticed could that have a negative impact on processing of the citizenship application. Again, I do not know what the PR application asked for, so I do not know there is a discrepancy.
This seems like a rather small discrepancy, something easily explained as an oversight if asked, while the odds of even being asked seem low.
If it was a bigger or more significant discrepancy, that could indeed be a concern.
But is this particular information enough of a discrepancy to cause a concern suggesting it would be better to wait until that particular work history is no longer in the five year eligibility period, so it does not need to be disclosed in the citizenship application? That's a personal call.
But, in any event, unless there is some aspect of this information that implicates more serious concerns, failing to mention two brief stints of casual employment in work history hardly seems likely to get much attention let alone have a significantly negative impact.
Even though attendant an investigation IRCC, and more particularly CBSA/NSSD on a referral from IRCC, can get access to a lot of intergovernmental personal information, including a lot of personal information in the possession of other agencies like the CRA, there are very substantial limitations restricting such access. It is not like IRCC will routinely consider the details in a citizenship applicant's tax filings. Indeed, this is not likely unless there are rather exceptional reasons to do that.
(In regards to personal information, most parts of the government do not know what other parts or departments know; access to personal information is governed, in general, by section 8 in the Privacy Act, in addition to provisions governing what particular agencies or departments can disclose or access, including between agencies and departments, in the particular Acts and regulations respectively governing those agencies or departments. I am not certain, but my understanding is that personal information in CRA tax filings is protected nearly as much as personal medical information.)
That is, they can in some situations, BUT IRCC is not likely to look for or see personal tax related information beyond what is needed to verify the applicant's declarations in regards to meeting CRA requirements for filing tax returns for at least three of the preceding five tax years.
BUT . . . the risk of getting caught is never a good guide post for how to answer questions in an immigration or citizenship application. Best guide is what is necessary to be truthful.
That probably underlies (at least in part) the reason that section 5(1)(c)(iii) was added to the Citizenship Act in 2015 (that version requiring compliance for four of the preceding six tax years), but meeting CRA requirements for filing tax returns for at least three years is the specific requirement (as of 2017), the primary thing IRCC confirms in regards to tax history.
That is, IRCC primarily looks at tax history to verify the applicant met the section 5(1)(c)(iii) requirement to qualify for citizenship.
If, as I take it, the gist of what you say is intended to reinforce it is not likely that IRCC goes digging into the details in tax filings, I agree.
Individual applicants need not give much consideration to what is required in an application according to the actual text of the law or regulations. As I have said often, perhaps more often than anything else:
Applicants need to answer application questions accurately and completely, according to the instructions, and this means honestly, not evasively, and for sure not deceptively (as many a lawyer has leveraged in argument, the crafty can be accurate but deceive; those applying for citizenship would be wise to not go anywhere near there).
It is, moreover, important for those engaged in transactions with IRCC to recognize that what will support an allegation of misrepresentation is a poor guideline for how to best answer application questions. That's nearly a what-constitutes-a-crime standard, what could send you to jail or get you deported. That's another do not go anywhere near there setting.
What often looms larger (for mostly honest and qualified applicants, allowing many of us may only be as honest as a gambling man can be, to steal a line from the grateful dead), often looming a lot larger, is what might cause a total stranger bureaucrat at IRCC to see reason to question the applicant's credibility. Make no mistake, even if the credibility concerns do not rise to the level a decision-maker articulates a lack of credibility in support of a negative decision, such concerns can quickly steer things off course if not outright tip the scales.
So, looking back at that May 2025 discussion you link about disclosing "all" activities (work, study, and such), I would caution that what matters, in terms of what an applicant is required to disclose, is what is asked in the application, in the questions understood according to the instructions. It would be a mistake to respond to application questions based on analyzing if that information is required by law, statutorily or by regulation.
There is no doubt that it is no defense that the information is not required by statute or regulation if one is charged with submitting false information or failing to disclose requested information.
Yeah, the latter gets into materiality weeds (been there, discussed that elsewhere here). But make no mistake, even in the context of misrepresentation allegations this defense is tough going for a failure to honestly answer questions in an application. In the context of what undermines an applicant's credibility, it's a whole lot tougher.
Obviously, truthful disclosures in the citizenship application are not misrepresentation. So I sense this query is more about whether there will be a negative credibility factor in processing the citizenship application due to a discrepancy arising from the disclosure of brief jobs not disclosed in a PR application.
Even if an IRCC official takes note of the discrepancy (assuming there is one; I don't know what was asked about work history in the PR application process), it seems rather unlikely this would cause IRCC to commence inadmissibility proceedings to revoke PR status based on a misrepresentation by omission in the PR application (for a failure to disclose information requested).
But if that is your question, whether divulging this information now might trigger inadmissibility proceedings to revoke PR status based on a misrepresentation by omission in the PR application, the question is . . .
Was it a misrepresentation? Or an oversight? Or a mistake? Or beyond the scope of questions asked?
Misrepresentation by omission is a tricky subject, even without getting into the weedy stuff distinguishing whether that which was omitted was material or not. (FWIW, anyone relying on a materiality defense for having given false information, or failing to disclose what an application asks, is playing against the odds.)
Even though misrepresentation by omission is quite likely to be:
-- at least commonly alleged in inadmissibility proceedings based on misrepresentation, and
-- commonly referenced in negative decisions based on misrepresentation (most applications, including citizenship applications, can be denied on the sole ground the applicant made misrepresentations in making the application)
omissions of information probably surface most frequently in regards to negative concerns about an applicant's credibility.This is no small thing. Second to the requirements themselves (which mandate outcomes), the applicant's credibility is perhaps the most influential factor in how things go, especially in regards to the scope and intensity of scrutiny, thus potentially affecting processing times even for a solidly qualified applicant, and of course elevating the risk of finding any detrimental information that has not been disclosed.
Which leads back to whether there is a discrepancy, and if so will it be noticed, and if noticed could that have a negative impact on processing of the citizenship application. Again, I do not know what the PR application asked for, so I do not know there is a discrepancy.
This seems like a rather small discrepancy, something easily explained as an oversight if asked, while the odds of even being asked seem low.
If it was a bigger or more significant discrepancy, that could indeed be a concern.
But is this particular information enough of a discrepancy to cause a concern suggesting it would be better to wait until that particular work history is no longer in the five year eligibility period, so it does not need to be disclosed in the citizenship application? That's a personal call.
But, in any event, unless there is some aspect of this information that implicates more serious concerns, failing to mention two brief stints of casual employment in work history hardly seems likely to get much attention let alone have a significantly negative impact.
Even though attendant an investigation IRCC, and more particularly CBSA/NSSD on a referral from IRCC, can get access to a lot of intergovernmental personal information, including a lot of personal information in the possession of other agencies like the CRA, there are very substantial limitations restricting such access. It is not like IRCC will routinely consider the details in a citizenship applicant's tax filings. Indeed, this is not likely unless there are rather exceptional reasons to do that.
(In regards to personal information, most parts of the government do not know what other parts or departments know; access to personal information is governed, in general, by section 8 in the Privacy Act, in addition to provisions governing what particular agencies or departments can disclose or access, including between agencies and departments, in the particular Acts and regulations respectively governing those agencies or departments. I am not certain, but my understanding is that personal information in CRA tax filings is protected nearly as much as personal medical information.)
That is, they can in some situations, BUT IRCC is not likely to look for or see personal tax related information beyond what is needed to verify the applicant's declarations in regards to meeting CRA requirements for filing tax returns for at least three of the preceding five tax years.
BUT . . . the risk of getting caught is never a good guide post for how to answer questions in an immigration or citizenship application. Best guide is what is necessary to be truthful.
That probably underlies (at least in part) the reason that section 5(1)(c)(iii) was added to the Citizenship Act in 2015 (that version requiring compliance for four of the preceding six tax years), but meeting CRA requirements for filing tax returns for at least three years is the specific requirement (as of 2017), the primary thing IRCC confirms in regards to tax history.
That is, IRCC primarily looks at tax history to verify the applicant met the section 5(1)(c)(iii) requirement to qualify for citizenship.
If, as I take it, the gist of what you say is intended to reinforce it is not likely that IRCC goes digging into the details in tax filings, I agree.
Individual applicants need not give much consideration to what is required in an application according to the actual text of the law or regulations. As I have said often, perhaps more often than anything else:
If in doubt, follow the instructions; otherwise, yep, follow the instructions.
Applicants need to answer application questions accurately and completely, according to the instructions, and this means honestly, not evasively, and for sure not deceptively (as many a lawyer has leveraged in argument, the crafty can be accurate but deceive; those applying for citizenship would be wise to not go anywhere near there).
It is, moreover, important for those engaged in transactions with IRCC to recognize that what will support an allegation of misrepresentation is a poor guideline for how to best answer application questions. That's nearly a what-constitutes-a-crime standard, what could send you to jail or get you deported. That's another do not go anywhere near there setting.
What often looms larger (for mostly honest and qualified applicants, allowing many of us may only be as honest as a gambling man can be, to steal a line from the grateful dead), often looming a lot larger, is what might cause a total stranger bureaucrat at IRCC to see reason to question the applicant's credibility. Make no mistake, even if the credibility concerns do not rise to the level a decision-maker articulates a lack of credibility in support of a negative decision, such concerns can quickly steer things off course if not outright tip the scales.
So, looking back at that May 2025 discussion you link about disclosing "all" activities (work, study, and such), I would caution that what matters, in terms of what an applicant is required to disclose, is what is asked in the application, in the questions understood according to the instructions. It would be a mistake to respond to application questions based on analyzing if that information is required by law, statutorily or by regulation.
There is no doubt that it is no defense that the information is not required by statute or regulation if one is charged with submitting false information or failing to disclose requested information.
Yeah, the latter gets into materiality weeds (been there, discussed that elsewhere here). But make no mistake, even in the context of misrepresentation allegations this defense is tough going for a failure to honestly answer questions in an application. In the context of what undermines an applicant's credibility, it's a whole lot tougher.
Last edited:
