Further Explanation and Observations:
. . . question 13: "Do you currently, or have you ever held immigration or citizenship status in a country or territory other than Canada (this includes your country of birth)?”
. . . Is this a new change ?
This question was added to the grant citizenship application in February 2019, in paper application form CIT 0002 (02-2019)E . . . it was not in the previous application forms including the form adopted in June 2017, that is CIT 0002 (06-2017)E.
The status column was revised to include a drop down list of statuses that includes "
visitor" status in the October 2020 version CIT 0002 (10-2020)E.
Since this question has been asked since early 2019 (and has specifically included "
visitor" in the status list since October 2020) that means around a million or more immigrants to Canada have applied for and become Canadian citizens since this question was added to the application. That's long enough ago, involving more than enough applicants, that if applicants were running into significant problems due to this particular question we would have most likely (perhaps almost certainly) seen a lot more discussion and evidence of that here in this forum.
So to some extent I agree with
@armoured's approach, a somewhat casual interpretation of the question oriented to a practical application of common-sense. I agree to the extent that approach is likely to be OK, BUT I have some concerns about this -- I lean a lot in the direction of following the instructions, when in doubt or otherwise.
In contrast, however, the CIC News article says the applicant needs to disclose all "
travel history" including all entry and exit dates for travel to other countries, even for brief layovers. There is no hint IRCC is asking applicants for the latter, and indeed I agree that "
seems completely insane."
Even though we have not seen signs this question is causing problems, you are not the first here (nowhere near the first) to ask about the scope of the question, including in particular whether applicants are being asked to disclose visitor status. In regards to this I will note again that since "
visitor" is in the drop down in the status column for Q 13 (again, Q 13 added in 2019 and the list including visitor status was added in 2020), that's a rather strong indication IRCC is asking applicants to disclose visitor status. But what that practically means is not necessarily all that clear.
The Source You Reference: CIC News article titled "What travel history do I have to disclose in my Canadian citizenship application?"
The very recent CIC News article about this was written by Asheesh Moosapeta who, as I understand it, is NOT a lawyer, not an immigration professional. That said, CIC News is a relatively reliable source that is not at all akin to posts in Facebook (as it appears
@armoured suggests), or for that matter to posts here.
In particular . . .
What does the CIC website article tell us? IMO: if you ask a question by email or on facebook, without context, you will sometimes get VERY stupid answers. Unless you can be certain that the person responding actually knows what they are talking about - and in this case, I'm convinced that person does not.
Let's be clear: there is a lot of misinformation posted in this forum. For example, even many regular participants in this forum continue to
erroneously say that if a PR is subject to a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility at a Port-of-Entry that would be the "
beginning" of the process to revoke PR status when, in fact, the process for revoking/terminating PR status based on inadmissibility for failing to comply with the RO is started
and completed (finalized) attendant the PoE examination (subject to the right of appeal, and in some instances subject to exceptions such as where the hearing/interview and decision whether to issue a Removal Order or set the Report aside for H&C reason is delayed).
So far as I can discern (noting the CIC News coverage goes well beyond not just what in recent years I follow but beyond what I have followed in Canadian immigration going back to 2007 and before), the CIC site is a considerably more reliable source of general immigration news than this forum.
But it is journalism, news commentary, not legal advice. And should be understood in that context. (Noting, with a sigh, it tends to offer quite a bit of advice, and in regard to that the caution expressed by
@armoured is very well taken.)
Not only do I disagree with some of the information published at the CIC News website, and as good as some articles are, some articles do indeed seem rather off the mark, there are some so far off the mark that the author appears to not know what they are talking about. And in regards to this particular article, as
@armoured framed it: "
in this case, I'm convinced that person does not." Yeah, looks that way.
That said, I consider a lot of the responsibility for the confusion is in IRCC's hands. The temptation is to use the "
blame" word, as in blame IRCC, but over the years I have come to appreciate that IRCC
deliberately uses certain terms imprecisely and some instructions that are deliberately vague, and that there often is rhyme and reason, good reason, underlying this. Gets complicated.
It seems to me, for example, that IRCC often asks for more than it expects and that this is often done using broad or vague terms. I have mixed feelings about it but I understand that IRCC often wants a little more, and particularly may want leverage to justify increased scrutiny.
Immigration Status versus Travel History:
This particular CIC News article is purportedly about what "
travel history" must be disclosed in an application for citizenship (just framing the issue in terms of disclosing "
travel history" outside the eligibility period is misleading enough to characterize it as erroneous). The author conflates immigration status and travel history.
BUT, to be clear, there simply is NO place in the application Question 13 to disclose travel history dates, only the dates that an immigration status started and the date it ended.
This is easily illustrated by a simple example: someone who was granted Permanent Resident status in CountryX, say that was April 25, 2010, and they still have that status. Does not matter how many times they entered and exited CountryX, all Q 13 asks for is the name of the country (first column), type of status ("
Permanent resident" is in the drop down list in the second column), and since the status is listed there is no need to describe it in the third "
Other" column, and then, finally, there are two columns for the date status was obtained and end date "
if applicable." For this example, the only date that needs to be disclosed is 2010-04-25 in the column for listing the date this status was obtained. Does not matter if the person applying for citizenship entered and exited CountryX six or eight times a year, over a hundred times in the last 15 years, all Q 13 is asking for is that one date.
Of course a definitive immigration status like Permanent Residence makes this quite straight-forward.
What about visitor status for example? The drop down status list includes visitor status but the detailed instructions for Q 13 only lists "
student, employment/worker, refugee/protected person, permanent resident or citizen" as examples of status.
Avoiding that morass, and sorting out factually challenging cases, for now anyway, it is worth focusing on what is clear. If a person has been issued a visa, that's a grant of immigration status. That should clarify things a little. If a visitor visa has been issued, Q 13 is asking for that to be disclosed.
That brings up the more or less casual, practical application of common-sense approach which
@armoured referenced and which probably describes how most approach this question. Here's my take: if a visitor visa was issued, IRCC is clearly asking for that to be disclosed in the application BUT my sense is in line with
@armoured and the view that the failure to disclose past visitor status is not likely to come up or be questioned in processing the application, very unlikely to cause any significant issues or concerns. . . . unless, of course, there is something in the applicant's past and relationship to a particular country or a particular trip there that raises questions for IRCC to wrestle with.
So, as I said earlier in this post: applicants should exercise discretion and use their best personal judgment.
