+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445

Is this an application return worthy mistake ?

razerblade

VIP Member
Feb 21, 2014
4,197
1,355
From user @glob

"Question 11.
I put "Yes" checkmark for "I was employed", but forgot to explicitly specify "No" for other options such as "I was in school".
Hopefully, it's not a big issue because I was continuously employed by the same company during my whole stay in Canada."
 

Conor9900

Hero Member
Jun 20, 2013
358
13
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: razerblade

Goku

VIP Member
Jan 13, 2014
4,082
730
Category........
From user @glob

"Question 11.
I put "Yes" checkmark for "I was employed", but forgot to explicitly specify "No" for other options such as "I was in school".
Hopefully, it's not a big issue because I was continuously employed by the same company during my whole stay in Canada."
Don't worry you should be alright. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: razerblade

_MK_

Hero Member
Aug 20, 2014
594
49
Category........
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
App. Filed.......
04-01-2016
AOR Received.
09-04-2016
File Transfer...
23-06-2016
Med's Request
18-01-2017
Med's Done....
01-02-2017
Passport Req..
Waiting
VISA ISSUED...
Waiting
@_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
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vancouverbc2013

marcher

Hero Member
Mar 30, 2016
534
60
@_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 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.
 

razerblade

VIP Member
Feb 21, 2014
4,197
1,355
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.
 

razerblade

VIP Member
Feb 21, 2014
4,197
1,355
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.
Will do, and I hope so!
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,267
3,028
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.)
 

razerblade

VIP Member
Feb 21, 2014
4,197
1,355
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.)
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: benitaagogo

CanadianC

Full Member
Mar 15, 2017
37
14
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.
 

robw

Hero Member
Mar 10, 2014
286
91
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.
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,267
3,028
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.