Coolridervinny said:
When i got return my application coz of photo stamp.after i send back the same application and there were stamp on my application that received 15 july.is there will be some
Problem ? Bcoz they never mantion in the letter that send all new application.they wrote reason of rrefirn application was photo stamp.hope they won't send back my application...
If the problem is fixed in what was submitted, this should
NOT cause any concerns or issues.
mfyz said:
We have the exact timelines. Mine got back sent to me due to passport renewal gaps. I was also super confused on whether send complete new application or old one. So I read from the forum that it is better to send a complete new application, and thats what I did :'(
Not sure where you read in the forum that it was better to send a completely new application.
As is all too common in this and other similar forums, way too much advice is offered in a declarative form without recognizing the extent to which there are many, many variables. There is rarely any
one-size-fits-all-answer. (With obvious exceptions for questions based on specific information.)
I doubt that it is a problem to have sent a completely new application . . . assuming of course that all the information in
both is consistent and accurate. It is likely, after all, that IRCC will have kept a complete copy of the original application, and it is possible that comparing the two is routine.
Difference, of course, is that a new application changes the date establishing the relevant time period for assessing presence requirements. Date application is signed determines the relevant time period for assessing presence. For many applicants, sending in a new application gives them more credit for days present, so that is an advantage.
But neither should there be a problem sending the original application with whatever the problem was fixed. And there is far less risk of inconsistencies in the information this way.
Gaps between passports:
This is one of those issues which in particular illustrates the extent to which differences in circumstances can have a big impact.
Not all gaps in time, that is time not covered by a valid passport, are created equal.
Foremost, the applicant is absolutely required to submit a copy of
ALL potentially relevant Travel Documents . . . any and all Travel Documents which could possibly have been used during the relevant time period (which under current law is the six years prior to applying; if Bill C-6 proposals are adopted and when in effect, it will be the five years prior to applying).
Thus, if the gap in any way suggests the applicant may have had some other Travel Document that has not been provided, that is a big concern, likely to be a big issue, and there is a substantial risk it could become a serious problem.
Note, for example, potential alternative Travel Document would be indicated by any international travel during the gap or, for that matter, during the three or six months prior to the expiration date of the older passport (since, for entry most countries require passports have a validity date of at least three or six months). And there are other circumstances which could invite concerns. Obviously, for another example, the longer the gap the greater the risk IRCC will have concerns.
For an applicant with a gap between expiration date of old passport and issue date of more recent passport, a separate page acknowledging the gap and explaining that the applicant has had no other passport or other Travel Documents, and explaining reason for the gap, should suffice. Of course the explanation must be the true explanation, and likewise the affirmation of no other Travel Documents. The heading on the separate page should clearly show applicant's name, client number, and reference to passports.
Many forum participants have reported their application was returned if there was an unexplained gap. But not all. Best to include in the application package the extra page acknowledging the gap, affirming copies of all passports are included, and explaining reason.
