The linked discussion containing my observations about citizenship revocation, from well over a year ago, is lengthy and complicated. In those observations I offered NO definitive parameters for gauging which inaccuracies will lead to the revocation of citizenship. That was because there are NO definitive parameters.
There is a huge difference between what the practical risks are and the potential risks. When there are literally millions of naturalized citizens with vastly varying backgrounds, even the very unusual will sometimes happen to some. And from millions, "some" can add up to numerous individuals. (If the odds of getting hit are one-in-a-thousand, and the pool is a million or more, that means a thousand or more may get hit.)
Everyone makes mistakes. Especially those who believe they do not make mistakes. Citizenship will NOT be revoked because there was a mistake made during the immigration process. The standard is "material misrepresentation." But of course claiming an inaccuracy was a "mistake" does not always fly. There are scores of actual cases described in official sources that address what constitutes a "material misrepresentation" in the context of visa applications and other immigration related transactions with the government. Those discussions illuminate the wide range of issues and outcomes in misrepresentation cases.
Generally there is little risk of citizenship revocation, even for those with rather significant discrepancies between the facts and what they disclosed to the Canadian government in the course of their immigration journey. HOWEVER, there are certain misrepresentations which increase the risk of citizenship revocation, IF the government is made aware or discovers the discrepancy. Some examples:
-- Presence fraud in the citizenship application
-- Undisclosed criminal history
-- Undisclosed activities or associations involving terrorist organizations or their activities
-- Marriage fraud for the purpose of obtaining sponsored spouse PR
-- Participation in immigration fraud scheme facilitated by crooked consultants
But even among these examples there is wide variation. A lot may depend on whether someone informs on the individual, or the individual becomes the focus of investigation for other reasons, or the individual is swept into the scope of investigations arising from fraud committed by others.
The latter has loomed large in the last few years, largely fallout from the major fraud investigations triggered about a decade ago and still unraveling. In addition to a number of recent media reports about Xun (Sunny) Wang (who managed a release on parole after serving barely a couple years in prison), a number of other high profile targets of the fraud investigations have been in media stories, including some consultants AND employers identified as facilitating paid-for jobs in Canada for immigration (the prospective immigrant literally paying for the job, including reimbursing the employer for wages if actual wages paid, though apparently for many of these schemes the paperwork, including pay stubs and such, are simply phony). A number of the investigations into particular "consultants" includes investigating the consultant's clients. Thus, just having been the client of a consultant who, it turns out, was involved in perpetrating fraud schemes and is investigated, can in turn lead to an investigation of the former client.
Back to Sunny, for example, see this story:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/xun-sunny-want-release-fines-immigration-1.4727253
It reports that more than a thousand of Sunny's former clients face deportation or have already left Canada.
As for the particular query posed here . . .
I came across this link recently where in a senior
member”dpenbill” has written about possibility of Revoking Canadian Citizenship .
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/what-happens-if-you-are-found-to-have-obtained-your-pr-and-then-citizenship-by-fraud.561151/
According to him for those of us who made some errors, whose PR applications contained some inaccuracy or two, or in which there was an omission have almost NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT...even in terms of whether accuracy or omission might have triggered an allegation of misrepresentation.
For the purpose of Citizenship revocation the bar is practically much much higher than that.
So given above explanation what would be the CIC ‘s possible action on those who acquired Canadian Citizenship and later following was found out.
A) Someone did not mention about his small crime (not a war crime) in his/ her native country in their PR application.
B) Did not mention about the refusal of his/ her visitor visa in United Kingdom.(UK) or any other country.
C) Someone did not mention about his ex wife as well as kids from that marriage.
In the above mentioned cases What would be the course of action by the CIC once they find out about above misrepresentations in their PR applications and now they are Canadian Citizens.
I cannot begin to say what the Canadian government will do in these circumstances. No one here can reliably predict what will happen.
Overall, very few revocation cases are pursued by the government. But some are.
Odds are probably good that not much will happen. But that could be comparable to the odds of surviving a round of Russian Roulette . . . five to one odds it will go OK . . . or as more than a few in this forum might say, "you'll be fine." But one in six who pull the trigger will have no more memories.
The particular details matter. "Small crime" is not a category of offences in Canadian law. The New York Times recently tweeted that some might think a sexual assault was "harmless fun" (deleted after igniting outrage, for obvious reasons). No irony in how the perpetrators tend to characterize their crimes to be smaller than, say, the victims.
How and why the factual discrepancies happened matters. How and why they have been reported to the government can make a difference. Context, scope, and number can make a big difference.
Overall, again, very few revocation cases are pursued . . . but far more these days than in the past. (Between 2008 and 2012 Canada initiated many, many more revocation cases than it had pursued in its entire history prior to 2008.)
In any event, there are good reasons for repeating the caution to be truthful. Just one among many, skeletons in the closet tend to rattle the brain. For a long time.
