Is this an application return worthy mistake ?
- Thread starter razerblade
- Start date
I doubt it will be an issue, especially since you have to fill in details about your employment history which cover the eligibility period anyway
@_MK_ @gommi @natk @faycal09 @glob @MasterGeek
I tweeted to IRCC mentioning the wording issue on q11, and asking if applicaiton will be returned. No reply yet.
Maybe if a lot of people tweet or re-tweet it, they may respond or maybe even do something about it.
https://twitter.com/mercalex04/status/920671080628539392
I tweeted to IRCC mentioning the wording issue on q11, and asking if applicaiton will be returned. No reply yet.
Maybe if a lot of people tweet or re-tweet it, they may respond or maybe even do something about it.
https://twitter.com/mercalex04/status/920671080628539392
Thanks for asking them the question. Let us know if you get a reply.
I suspect a lot of people will do the same mistake. It should be a non-issue as long as you have filled out the 5 year history with no gaps.
I doubt that, twitter is used as a communication tool by IRCC by their communication specialists; not a source to comment on policies and procedures. The chaps handling the twitter account might not know anything about the procedures, not their job. They will always avoid commenting on such a question to prevent any wrong information they could be held accountable for.
I looked at the history of the tweets and they responded to several technical questions about PCCs, eligibility criteria etc. It's a shot in the dark, if it hits well and good. Else we gotta wait anyway to find out.
Observation:
The parenthetical instruction in the preliminary part of item 11, "You may check more than one," clearly suggests it is not necessary to check more than one. On the other hand, statements posed in the form "yes/no" clearly suggest that one or the other must apply, that for each statement either a "yes" or "no" must apply, that the applicant should check either yes or no for each statement.
Perhaps IRCC should be require further training, in the official languages, for its staff.
I have this nagging sense this is among parts of the form which are not going to be revised anytime soon. Perhaps just to remind applicants they are dealing with a bureaucracy. (To be clear, the last remark is tongue-in-cheek, but of course it is indeed such a reminder.)
The parenthetical instruction in the preliminary part of item 11, "You may check more than one," clearly suggests it is not necessary to check more than one. On the other hand, statements posed in the form "yes/no" clearly suggest that one or the other must apply, that for each statement either a "yes" or "no" must apply, that the applicant should check either yes or no for each statement.
Perhaps IRCC should be require further training, in the official languages, for its staff.
I have this nagging sense this is among parts of the form which are not going to be revised anytime soon. Perhaps just to remind applicants they are dealing with a bureaucracy. (To be clear, the last remark is tongue-in-cheek, but of course it is indeed such a reminder.)
Exactly, that question is what threw all of us off. I was continually employed with the same employer throughout my eligibility period. I read the question "Check all that *apply* (You *may* check more than one)", and simply ticked the one that applied to me ("I was employed"). So sad I didn't catch it even on 6-8 reviews conducted before and even after sending the application.
I’ve made exactly the same mistake; only checked yes for being employed and being student. The question was asking check all that applies; that’s probably why my mind did not look at the ‘no’ part.
I’m positive that they won’t return the app; we have provided all details of our status in the table just underneath that question.
Thing is: If you tick Yes or No on that question, you can't untick it, so that must mean it's an essential question...however, if you go down to Q12b, you can tick and untick the Yes/No for Required to File and Taxes Filed...
So you can't really draw a conclusion from that.
It's a pointless question anyway. You, as an officer with very basic deduction skills, can infer from the table below the question what the client has been doing in the past 4 years. Exactly what purpose do these tick boxes serve? It's just very redundant.
As to whether or not this justifies a returned application, I would say the odds of that happening are very low. They'd have to return a lot of applications for a "mistake" like this. My suspicion is that the top brass there will notice that this is a very common oversight.
So you can't really draw a conclusion from that.
It's a pointless question anyway. You, as an officer with very basic deduction skills, can infer from the table below the question what the client has been doing in the past 4 years. Exactly what purpose do these tick boxes serve? It's just very redundant.
As to whether or not this justifies a returned application, I would say the odds of that happening are very low. They'd have to return a lot of applications for a "mistake" like this. My suspicion is that the top brass there will notice that this is a very common oversight.
It is not uncommon for application forms to require redundant information, particularly since one of the key examination techniques is to compare various input from the applicant for consistency. After all, name, date of birth, and such information, is all encompassed in the applicant's UCI, so in a sense that is all redundant information (unless the applicant is seeking to employ a name change).
It should be uncommon, however, for the items in the application form to be vague, ambiguous, internally inconsistent, or unnecessarily confusing.
The objective to implement a more dynamic and robust application form, while at the same time not making it too complicated, long, or otherwise unwieldy, is readily apparent. IRCC's execution, however, fell rather dismally short. It's a muddle. A real muddle. It is as if basic Boolean reasoning was abandoned.
I likewise would be surprised if these items, either this one or items like 9.c, will trigger the return of applications. That would take a mess and create chaos from it. But, this item in particular so obviously constitutes a mistake in form, it is disconcerting and not a good sign.
My guess is that scores of complaints and suggestions and a few colorful diatribes have been echoing in the halls of IRCC offices, so hopefully there will be appropriate handling of these inconvenient problems. Hopefully IRCC will indeed, as I have otherwise suggested seems likely, make a concerted effort to make this work until some fixes have been made. As in, not return applications for minor deviations from expectations, particularly since it is really their error.
We'll see.
But bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does. And that is too often not so pretty.
It should be uncommon, however, for the items in the application form to be vague, ambiguous, internally inconsistent, or unnecessarily confusing.
The objective to implement a more dynamic and robust application form, while at the same time not making it too complicated, long, or otherwise unwieldy, is readily apparent. IRCC's execution, however, fell rather dismally short. It's a muddle. A real muddle. It is as if basic Boolean reasoning was abandoned.
I likewise would be surprised if these items, either this one or items like 9.c, will trigger the return of applications. That would take a mess and create chaos from it. But, this item in particular so obviously constitutes a mistake in form, it is disconcerting and not a good sign.
My guess is that scores of complaints and suggestions and a few colorful diatribes have been echoing in the halls of IRCC offices, so hopefully there will be appropriate handling of these inconvenient problems. Hopefully IRCC will indeed, as I have otherwise suggested seems likely, make a concerted effort to make this work until some fixes have been made. As in, not return applications for minor deviations from expectations, particularly since it is really their error.
We'll see.
But bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does. And that is too often not so pretty.
@_MK_ @gommi @natk @faycal09 @glob @MasterGeek @CanadianC
Received a response from IRCC on facebook
https://imgur.com/a/08L8c
How do I embed pics in here ?
IMG tag doesn't work
Received a response from IRCC on facebook
https://imgur.com/a/08L8c
How do I embed pics in here ?
Last edited:
That’s great!@_MK_ @gommi @natk @faycal09 @glob @MasterGeek @CanadianC
Received a response from IRCC on facebook
https://imgur.com/a/08L8c
How do I embed pics in here ?IMG tag doesn't work