IS IT MISREPRESENTATION!!!!

[CIT0002NOOB]

Is it Misrepresentation!!!!

I am planning to move to a new house (Same City) next month and I was about to send a web form to CIC to update my current address. This is when I found out that I accidentally sent wrong address history to CIC when I applied for my citizenship.

I have over 1500 days, way over the required 1095 days.
Left country twice for 1 day and 4 days (US Trips) in last 9 years ( Total 5 days absence in 9 years).
No criminal record.
Already 7 months since I applied.
Finger prints are done and background check is complete.
Lost my wallet before I applied so my IDs were issued a month before I applied.
Working full time in Canada since 2014.
Filing my taxes since 2012.
Everything else Employment history, Name, Important dates etc is accurate.
No error in Physical presence calculator.
No gap in Employment.

NOTE: These are the only 3 addresses I used/lived ever since moving to Canada.

What I wrote on my form when I applied.

2017-07 to present - Address C
2016-01 to 2017-07 - Address B
2011-01 to 2016-01 - Address A

I roughly filled out the form and later corrected this but I believe I forgot to save the form and when I printed it out it gave me the wrong address sequence.

Correct address Sequence is as follows:

2018-05 to present - Address C
2017-07 to 2018-05 - Address A
2016-01 to 2017-07 - Address B
2011-01 to 2016-01 - Address A


From Jan 2011 to July 2017 everything is correct. Address A and C are in same City ( 5 min drive).

Now my question is should i update CIC of my mistake, and send them a new form to update my address history, will they consider it as misrepresentation! or can I correct it during my test/interview. It was an honest mistake as i did not saved the application form when i updated my address history and next day when i printed the form I paid attention to things like Correct SIN, signatures, Important dates, Complete checklist etc and totally ignored address history. I am really worried as how can i be soooo stupid, I agree I should have checked 10 time before sending it in. But, i just became aware of this mistake and want to get it corrected.

Also is the address history MATERIAL in this scenario since I never went back home ever since moving here (Moved in 2011) and can prove my physical presence in many ways! As I am not someone who isn't living here and pretending to live in Canada using fake address. To the best of my knowledge, me living on a different address in same city cannot induce an error while making a decision. Its not like I never lived on that address, I accidentally reported some of the time wrong. Can i get RQ'ed since my IDs issue date were a month before i sent my Application.

I appreciate all the help I can get. I read some very knowledgeable reviews by a forum member named Dpenabill. Maybe if you can shed some light on this and help me deal with my anxiety.

Thanks in Advance.

 

[k.h.p.]

Unless you've got bodies buried in the backyard of address A that were discovered between 2017-07 and 2018-05, I highly doubt this would be any problem that would amount to material misrepresentation of any kind.

You could certainly submit a webform explaining a mistake in the address history. I really highly doubt it's something to be anxious about.

Of course, @dpenabill can comment and provide carefully reasoned analyses to suggest I'm wrong

 

[dpenabill]

It was an honest mistake as i did not saved the application form when i updated my address history and next day when i printed the form I paid attention to things like Correct SIN, signatures, Important dates, Complete checklist etc and totally ignored address history.

Of course, @dpenabill can comment and provide carefully reasoned analyses to suggest I'm wrong

OVERALL: Based on what is reported, and assuming the mistake is corrected during the PI Interview (or possibly sooner), my impression is that there is no *misrepresentation* problem. But of course I am NO expert. I do not know all the facts. And forecasting particular outcomes in individual cases is generally not what I do.

My guess (FWIW): NO PROBLEM. Probably no need to correct this until the test event interview (the PI Interview).


The Longer Version:

IRCC sees all sorts of mistakes made by clients including citizenship applicants. Many, if not most, if not the vast majority of mistakes do not cause a problem. IRCC is well acquainted with the range of mistakes applicants make. And IRCC rolls with it.

But sure, some mistakes can be a serious problem, and particularly will be a problem if they directly affect the applicant's eligibility. For example, there was a recent post in the forum by an applicant who was "100% certain" of his travel dates, and he applied with no margin at all, who later learned he missed a short trip to the U.S. adding two days more absent . . . for most a very minor mistake often having no impact at all, but in his case losing two days in the presence calculation meant he was short. IRCC has no discretion to grant citizenship if the applicant is short.

In any event, small and few mistakes, meaning minor discrepancies between what the applicant reports the facts to be and what the facts actually are, will ordinarily NOT be problematic UNLESS they directly affect eligibility.

HOWEVER, make no mistake, when there are discrepancies between what the applicant reports and what the actual facts are, that means the applicant is NOT an entirely reliable reporter of the facts. No matter how innocent the mistake. So sure, if dishonesty is suspected, that really hurts one's credibility, but to the extent an individual otherwise fails to reliably report the facts for any reason, no matter how innocent, that indicates that individual cannot be relied on to accurately report the facts. Credibility compromised.

Again, IRCC is well-acquainted with the propensity of humans to err. Most errors are taken in stride. BUT if the nature or quantity of mistakes made show the applicant to not be a reliable reporter of the facts, that can lead to an elevated level of scrutiny and concerns.


Misrepresentation Distinguished:

Misrepresentation is serious stuff. But there's more to how such things can go than a simple dichotomy. It is not a matter of YES -- this is misrepresentation, or NO -- this is not misrepresentation.

One does not often see so much as a reference to "misrepresentation" in citizenship application cases, let alone an actual allegation of misrepresentation, let alone a decision overtly based on a finding of misrepresentation. (Nonetheless, it warrants noting, misrepresentation is a stand alone ground for denying citizenship even if the applicant otherwise met all the requirements.) It happens, yes (will cite and link such a case below). But there are scores and scores of cases in which an individual's declared facts are questioned, challenged, and even rejected, with no mention that the individual made misrepresentations as such. And there are many, many, many more cases in which factual discrepancies are considered mere mistakes of little import.

That is, generally there is no accusation (let alone finding) of misrepresentation EXCEPT when it is blatant and egregious. With some exceptions, though the exceptions tend to be individuals IRCC has other reason to be suspicious about.

However, as I discussed above, factual discrepancies can be a problem without IRCC apprehending they were misrepresentations. How much a problem varies widely. How big the discrepancy is a factor. How many discrepancies is a factor. How important the discrepancy is can be a big factor. IRCC's perception of the applicant's credibility generally is a big factor. After all, since the information in the application comes from the applicant, the extent to which IRCC can rely on the applicant to be an accurate reporter of the facts is a huge consideration.

Leading to . . .

Also is the address history MATERIAL in this scenario since I never went back home ever since moving here (Moved in 2011) and can prove my physical presence in many ways! As I am not someone who isn't living here and pretending to live in Canada using fake address. To the best of my knowledge, me living on a different address in same city cannot induce an error while making a decision. Its not like I never lived on that address, I accidentally reported some of the time wrong. Can i get RQ'ed since my IDs issue date were a month before i sent my Application.

Any applicant can be issued RQ. And IRCC does not need a reason to issue RQ.

Back in 2012 to 2013, newly issued ID was an explicit triage factor that would trigger pre-test RQ. I have not seen anyone report a pre-test RQ (other than the quality control exercise version) for many years now. There has been no indication the newly issued ID has been a triggering factor since 2013 or so. Obviously, though, it can factor into what a processing agent or Citizenship Officer thinks about the case.


Address History in Particular:

As I observed above, concurring in large part with @k.h.p., my impression is that the mistake in your address history will not be treated as a misrepresentation. And probably no problem otherwise, at least not beyond acknowledging the error and correcting it during the interview.

That said, however, yes the details reported in the address history are material even though the applicant was physically present and living in Canada more than enough to meet the presence requirement. Or there is at least one Federal Court decision stating this. But that was one of those blatant and egregious examples. The false address was NO mistake, but rather deliberate, pursuant to the advice of a consultant who advised Mr. Raslan to withdraw an application already in process and re-apply using a Mississauga address rather than Mr. Raslan's actual address (well, what he claimed to be his actual address), because (the consultant advised) the application would be processed far more quickly using the Mississauga address. This was more than a decade ago. The case is Raslan v. Canada, 2010 FC 189 (CanLII) http://canlii.ca/t/286nt

Crux of the case: Raslan argued he was living in Canada albeit at a different address the whole time, so the false address was not material. That argument crashed and burned. Perhaps the extent to which Raslan intended to make the misrepresentation, to gain a perceived advantage (faster processing in the local office for Mississauga applicants), is what really tipped the scales. Moreover, that case itself was at the epicenter of CIC's discovery of widespread fraud being orchestrated by crooked consultants, as the Mississauga address Raslan used had been repeatedly used by the consultant's other clients.

I'm guessing that scenario bears NO resemblance to yours. But yes, address history details are considered material. That does not mean you need to worry. But you probably should at least correct things during the interview.

 

[CIT0002NOOB]

Unless you've got bodies buried in the backyard of address A that were discovered between 2017-07 and 2018-05, I highly doubt this would be any problem that would amount to material misrepresentation of any kind.

You could certainly submit a webform explaining a mistake in the address history. I really highly doubt it's something to be anxious about.

Of course, @dpenabill can comment and provide carefully reasoned analyses to suggest I'm wrong

Thank you so much for the reply. I'm definitely feeling less anxious now.

 

[CIT0002NOOB]

OVERALL: Based on what is reported, and assuming the mistake is corrected during the PI Interview (or possibly sooner), my impression is that there is no *misrepresentation* problem. But of course I am NO expert. I do not know all the facts. And forecasting particular outcomes in individual cases is generally not what I do.

My guess (FWIW): NO PROBLEM. Probably no need to correct this until the test event interview (the PI Interview).


The Longer Version:

IRCC sees all sorts of mistakes made by clients including citizenship applicants. Many, if not most, if not the vast majority of mistakes do not cause a problem. IRCC is well acquainted with the range of mistakes applicants make. And IRCC rolls with it.

But sure, some mistakes can be a serious problem, and particularly will be a problem if they directly affect the applicant's eligibility. For example, there was a recent post in the forum by an applicant who was "100% certain" of his travel dates, and he applied with no margin at all, who later learned he missed a short trip to the U.S. adding two days more absent . . . for most a very minor mistake often having no impact at all, but in his case losing two days in the presence calculation meant he was short. IRCC has no discretion to grant citizenship if the applicant is short.

In any event, small and few mistakes, meaning minor discrepancies between what the applicant reports the facts to be and what the facts actually are, will ordinarily NOT be problematic UNLESS they directly affect eligibility.

HOWEVER, make no mistake, when there are discrepancies between what the applicant reports and what the actual facts are, that means the applicant is NOT an entirely reliable reporter of the facts. No matter how innocent the mistake. So sure, if dishonesty is suspected, that really hurts one's credibility, but to the extent an individual otherwise fails to reliably report the facts for any reason, no matter how innocent, that indicates that individual cannot be relied on to accurately report the facts. Credibility compromised.

Again, IRCC is well-acquainted with the propensity of humans to err. Most errors are taken in stride. BUT if the nature or quantity of mistakes made show the applicant to not be a reliable reporter of the facts, that can lead to an elevated level of scrutiny and concerns.


Misrepresentation Distinguished:

Misrepresentation is serious stuff. But there's more to how such things can go than a simple dichotomy. It is not a matter of YES -- this is misrepresentation, or NO -- this is not misrepresentation.

One does not often see so much as a reference to "misrepresentation" in citizenship application cases, let alone an actual allegation of misrepresentation, let alone a decision overtly based on a finding of misrepresentation. (Nonetheless, it warrants noting, misrepresentation is a stand alone ground for denying citizenship even if the applicant otherwise met all the requirements.) It happens, yes (will cite and link such a case below). But there are scores and scores of cases in which an individual's declared facts are questioned, challenged, and even rejected, with no mention that the individual made misrepresentations as such. And there are many, many, many more cases in which factual discrepancies are considered mere mistakes of little import.

That is, generally there is no accusation (let alone finding) of misrepresentation EXCEPT when it is blatant and egregious. With some exceptions, though the exceptions tend to be individuals IRCC has other reason to be suspicious about.

However, as I discussed above, factual discrepancies can be a problem without IRCC apprehending they were misrepresentations. How much a problem varies widely. How big the discrepancy is a factor. How many discrepancies is a factor. How important the discrepancy is can be a big factor. IRCC's perception of the applicant's credibility generally is a big factor. After all, since the information in the application comes from the applicant, the extent to which IRCC can rely on the applicant to be an accurate reporter of the facts is a huge consideration.

Leading to . . .



Any applicant can be issued RQ. And IRCC does not need a reason to issue RQ.

Back in 2012 to 2013, newly issued ID was an explicit triage factor that would trigger pre-test RQ. I have not seen anyone report a pre-test RQ (other than the quality control exercise version) for many years now. There has been no indication the newly issued ID has been a triggering factor since 2013 or so. Obviously, though, it can factor into what a processing agent or Citizenship Officer thinks about the case.


Address History in Particular:

As I observed above, concurring in large part with @k.h.p., my impression is that the mistake in your address history will not be treated as a misrepresentation. And probably no problem otherwise, at least not beyond acknowledging the error and correcting it during the interview.

That said, however, yes the details reported in the address history are material even though the applicant was physically present and living in Canada more than enough to meet the presence requirement. Or there is at least one Federal Court decision stating this. But that was one of those blatant and egregious examples. The false address was NO mistake, but rather deliberate, pursuant to the advice of a consultant who advised Mr. Raslan to withdraw an application already in process and re-apply using a Mississauga address rather than Mr. Raslan's actual address (well, what he claimed to be his actual address), because (the consultant advised) the application would be processed far more quickly using the Mississauga address. This was more than a decade ago. The case is Raslan v. Canada, 2010 FC 189 (CanLII) http://canlii.ca/t/286nt

Crux of the case: Raslan argued he was living in Canada albeit at a different address the whole time, so the false address was not material. That argument crashed and burned. Perhaps the extent to which Raslan intended to make the misrepresentation, to gain a perceived advantage (faster processing in the local office for Mississauga applicants), is what really tipped the scales. Moreover, that case itself was at the epicenter of CIC's discovery of widespread fraud being orchestrated by crooked consultants, as the Mississauga address Raslan used had been repeatedly used by the consultant's other clients.

I'm guessing that scenario bears NO resemblance to yours. But yes, address history details are considered material. That does not mean you need to worry. But you probably should at least correct things during the interview.

Thank you so much for providing all this valuable Information. Feeling a little better about myself now. I totally agree the Mr. Raslan deliberately lied about his residential address on his application (On consultant's advice) in order go get faster processing. Whereas, my case is totally different as if I hadn't made that mistake my processing office will still remain Mississauga. And I'm actually living here rather that some random address used by many individuals as in Mr. Raslan case. I was actually surprised to read that so many individuals were even using same phone number. My employment is in the same city as my residence. All the other facts are 100% accurate, I double checked everything. It was just a mere mistake rather than an attempt to mislead CIC.

Now I have to make a decision if I should send a Web form now or Should I just wait till the interview. I'm stuck in a dilemma as I don't want to try too hard and wait if they need more information, but at the same time I don't want to take chances of interviewer asking me of why I didn't corrected this mistake as soon as I became aware of it. What would you recommend should I do it now or wait till my interview ! Just your personal opinion.

Really appreciate all the help i got from you and @k.h.p.

 

[Hasan9999]

OVERALL: Based on what is reported, and assuming the mistake is corrected during the PI Interview (or possibly sooner), my impression is that there is no *misrepresentation* problem. But of course I am NO expert. I do not know all the facts. And forecasting particular outcomes in individual cases is generally not what I do.

My guess (FWIW): NO PROBLEM. Probably no need to correct this until the test event interview (the PI Interview).


The Longer Version:

IRCC sees all sorts of mistakes made by clients including citizenship applicants. Many, if not most, if not the vast majority of mistakes do not cause a problem. IRCC is well acquainted with the range of mistakes applicants make. And IRCC rolls with it.

But sure, some mistakes can be a serious problem, and particularly will be a problem if they directly affect the applicant's eligibility. For example, there was a recent post in the forum by an applicant who was "100% certain" of his travel dates, and he applied with no margin at all, who later learned he missed a short trip to the U.S. adding two days more absent . . . for most a very minor mistake often having no impact at all, but in his case losing two days in the presence calculation meant he was short. IRCC has no discretion to grant citizenship if the applicant is short.

In any event, small and few mistakes, meaning minor discrepancies between what the applicant reports the facts to be and what the facts actually are, will ordinarily NOT be problematic UNLESS they directly affect eligibility.

HOWEVER, make no mistake, when there are discrepancies between what the applicant reports and what the actual facts are, that means the applicant is NOT an entirely reliable reporter of the facts. No matter how innocent the mistake. So sure, if dishonesty is suspected, that really hurts one's credibility, but to the extent an individual otherwise fails to reliably report the facts for any reason, no matter how innocent, that indicates that individual cannot be relied on to accurately report the facts. Credibility compromised.

Again, IRCC is well-acquainted with the propensity of humans to err. Most errors are taken in stride. BUT if the nature or quantity of mistakes made show the applicant to not be a reliable reporter of the facts, that can lead to an elevated level of scrutiny and concerns.


Misrepresentation Distinguished:

Misrepresentation is serious stuff. But there's more to how such things can go than a simple dichotomy. It is not a matter of YES -- this is misrepresentation, or NO -- this is not misrepresentation.

One does not often see so much as a reference to "misrepresentation" in citizenship application cases, let alone an actual allegation of misrepresentation, let alone a decision overtly based on a finding of misrepresentation. (Nonetheless, it warrants noting, misrepresentation is a stand alone ground for denying citizenship even if the applicant otherwise met all the requirements.) It happens, yes (will cite and link such a case below). But there are scores and scores of cases in which an individual's declared facts are questioned, challenged, and even rejected, with no mention that the individual made misrepresentations as such. And there are many, many, many more cases in which factual discrepancies are considered mere mistakes of little import.

That is, generally there is no accusation (let alone finding) of misrepresentation EXCEPT when it is blatant and egregious. With some exceptions, though the exceptions tend to be individuals IRCC has other reason to be suspicious about.

However, as I discussed above, factual discrepancies can be a problem without IRCC apprehending they were misrepresentations. How much a problem varies widely. How big the discrepancy is a factor. How many discrepancies is a factor. How important the discrepancy is can be a big factor. IRCC's perception of the applicant's credibility generally is a big factor. After all, since the information in the application comes from the applicant, the extent to which IRCC can rely on the applicant to be an accurate reporter of the facts is a huge consideration.

Leading to . . .



Any applicant can be issued RQ. And IRCC does not need a reason to issue RQ.

Back in 2012 to 2013, newly issued ID was an explicit triage factor that would trigger pre-test RQ. I have not seen anyone report a pre-test RQ (other than the quality control exercise version) for many years now. There has been no indication the newly issued ID has been a triggering factor since 2013 or so. Obviously, though, it can factor into what a processing agent or Citizenship Officer thinks about the case.


Address History in Particular:

As I observed above, concurring in large part with @k.h.p., my impression is that the mistake in your address history will not be treated as a misrepresentation. And probably no problem otherwise, at least not beyond acknowledging the error and correcting it during the interview.

That said, however, yes the details reported in the address history are material even though the applicant was physically present and living in Canada more than enough to meet the presence requirement. Or there is at least one Federal Court decision stating this. But that was one of those blatant and egregious examples. The false address was NO mistake, but rather deliberate, pursuant to the advice of a consultant who advised Mr. Raslan to withdraw an application already in process and re-apply using a Mississauga address rather than Mr. Raslan's actual address (well, what he claimed to be his actual address), because (the consultant advised) the application would be processed far more quickly using the Mississauga address. This was more than a decade ago. The case is Raslan v. Canada, 2010 FC 189 (CanLII) http://canlii.ca/t/286nt

Crux of the case: Raslan argued he was living in Canada albeit at a different address the whole time, so the false address was not material. That argument crashed and burned. Perhaps the extent to which Raslan intended to make the misrepresentation, to gain a perceived advantage (faster processing in the local office for Mississauga applicants), is what really tipped the scales. Moreover, that case itself was at the epicenter of CIC's discovery of widespread fraud being orchestrated by crooked consultants, as the Mississauga address Raslan used had been repeatedly used by the consultant's other clients.

I'm guessing that scenario bears NO resemblance to yours. But yes, address history details are considered material. That does not mean you need to worry. But you probably should at least correct things during the interview.

I have a question. If individuals are working on minimum paying jobs with cash remuneration and no employment record, how would you insert this employment in the application? Will it not be misrepresentation if you do not include this part time information? For this type of part time income, how to include in the yearly tax return?

Thank you in advance for your candid comment.