Hi,
Just out of curiosity. What's the main purpose and the process of this Finger Print Request by the CIC? If somebody got arrested by the Police would they take the culprit's Finger Print based on their status in Canada (Like PR, Temporary workers etc) for any offences and later they match it with the randomly selected Citizen Applicants? If so then what if somebody got arrested and took the FP and later his charges were settled? Still it got flagged when he/she send his FP result? Or FP is just to get enough time for the CIC to process the Citizenship Application?
Thanks and apologies if this is a stupid and illogical doubt.
Similar questions have been asked and discussed in this forum, many times, in many threads, many of them specifically referencing Finger Prints or "FP" in the title. Thus, to get a comprehensive explanation, do some reading in the back pages of this forum. Obviously one needs to employ critical thinking skills in doing so but there is actually a lot of informative discussion in the back pages here.
The "main purpose" for a Finger Print request is obvious: verification of identity. That, however, hardly illuminates the many reasons why IRCC in practice requests FPs from an applicant. Note, for example, the identity concern may be related to verifying the applicant is a particular client of IRCC or it may be related to verifying that a name-record hit in criminal history databases is not the applicant.
In any event, it appears clear from recent reporting that IRCC is requesting FPs more frequently these days than it has in the past. Odds are good that for most who get the FP request it is a relatively routine verification measure and so long as the applicant timely obtains and submits the FPs, for most applicants this will have little impact on the overall timeline. That is, little delay.
As much of your query alludes, however, sure, concerns about potential criminality or criminal history also loom as a possible reason for the FP request. And of course the impact in this event depends on whether what triggered the concern and FP request is in fact connected to the applicant or the FP request confirms it has to do with someone other than the applicant.
Beyond that your query also raises questions about the impact of an applicant's involvement in the criminal justice system, and about how and when IRCC might be apprised an applicant is in some regard involved in a criminal matter. This too is another subject widely discussed in the forum, often in topics with titles referring to police certificates or clearances, some referring to "charges" or "arrest" or other terms related to being involved in a criminal case.
The latter is a big subject, huge, with lots of tangents, lots of nuance, but the bottom-line is simple:
-- if an applicant has been arrested, charged, convicted, or otherwise has been the subject of a criminal case during the four years prior to applying, the applicant is obligated and absolutely should disclose this to IRCC in the application for citizenship
-- if an applicant is arrested, charged, convicted, or otherwise becomes the subject of a criminal case after applying (even if it happens the morning the applicant is scheduled for the oath), the applicant is obligated and absolutely should disclose this to IRCC as soon as practical
Odds are high that IRCC will be apprised of the criminal matter, SOONER or LATER.
Even if the matter is NOT one which will result in a prohibition, it is absolutely imperative to inform IRCC about it. As noted, this is a big subject and has far too many tangents and nuances to so much as attempt a comprehensive explanation in this post, but addressing one aspect of your query may illuminate the importance of NOT MESSING AROUND with this, the importance of simply, directly, and timely informing IRCC of any involvement in a criminal matter.
You ask: "what if somebody got arrested and . . . later his charges were settled?"
The impact on a citizenship application will vary depending on the particulars. It will depend on what the charges were (a charge for a summary offence will have no impact so long as the applicant is not incarcerated or on probation); on what "settled" means; on how and when the charges were brought and how and when they are resolved (what the disposition is), and other factors.
BUT what the applicant NEEDS TO DO does NOT VARY: the applicant needs to inform IRCC of the situation promptly. A failure to notify IRCC constitutes misrepresentation by omission.
Even if the charges are eventually dropped as totally unfounded, that is if the applicant is totally innocent and the charges are dismissed, if the applicant fails to timely notify IRCC that would be a material misrepresentation by omission. Whether or not IRCC will subsequently prosecute the applicant for the misrepresentation may depend on the merits and equities of the matter (if a person is arrested for a crime totally due to a mistake in identity, and the charges are dropped forthwith, for example, IRCC MIGHT, might but not necessarily, decide to not pursue the misrepresentation), but make no mistake, applicants are required to notify IRCC of an arrest even if the arrest is totally unfounded and the applicant is totally innocent. The failure to notify IRCC is a material misrepresentation by omission.
Which leads back to the observation about IRCC being apprised of the situation SOONER or LATER.
Later could be years later, years after the individual becomes a citizen. This is one of the more common reasons why IRCC in actual practice initiates proceedings to revoke citizenship: the failure to properly disclose criminal matters (arrests, charges, convictions, and such). Sure, if the criminal case resulted in all charges being totally dismissed, there is a good probability that IRCC will not be so draconian to nonetheless proceed to revoke the person's citizenship, BUT IT COULD. And of course the probability of revocation increases relative to the extent the individual is implicated in criminal activity EVEN IF the ultimate outcome is not a conviction for an offence which would constitute a prohibition . . . recognizing again that the grounds for revocation (or finding of misrepresentation if IRCC is apprised and takes action prior to the person taking the oath) is making a material misrepresentation.
Here is the thing: if the criminal charges are NOT such as to result in a prohibition, disclosing them to IRCC will NOT have any detrimental impact. But the failure to disclose them is probably a material misrepresentation which could have serious consequences (potentially a sojourn in secure public housing, the kind with bars on the windows, if there are windows). Thus, not only SHOULD a citizenship applicant be forthcoming and notify IRCC of any involvement in a criminal matter, doing so is undoubtedly the BEST approach.
