Hi,
I was not clear about one of the examples about police certificate on official website, which is about 183 days in a country IN A ROW:
Example 4
In the past 4 years, you travelled to Singapore four times for work. The first trip was for 30 days; the second trip was for 200 days; the third trip was for 60 days; and the fourth trip was for 120 days. While in Singapore, you took a trip to Malaysia (10 days) and Thailand (10 days). You would answer “Yes” to the question and you would need to provide a police certificate from Singapore because your second trip was more than 183 days in a row. You would not need to provide police certificates from Malaysia or Thailand.
So the problem is the second trip of 200 days to Singapore, which is more than 183 days according to its explanation. However, what if that Malaysia (10 days) and Thailand (10 days) happened within this 200 days? which breaks this 200day SG trip into: 150 days Singapore, 10 days Malaysia, 20 days Singapore, 10 days Thailand, 30 days Singapore. Will he still need police certificate from Singapore? apparently he didn't stay in Singapore for more that 183 days in a row in this case
I'm confused about this example. which I wanna ask, if I go in/out a country constantly and keep max duration less than 183 days, then I don't need police certificate anymore?
Thanks!
An applicant who honestly, with no intent to mislead let alone deceive, responds "no" in Item 10.b., in the current application form, does not need to include a police clearance with the application.
To be clear, however, any applicant for citizenship MAY be required to submit a police clearance regardless how many days were spent in this or that country.
Your query, similar to one posed many times in this forum, appears to be asking what is the appropriate response in item 10.b. based on parsing what "
in a country" means, or what "
in a row" means, in the mostly straight-forward question: "
In the past four (4) years, were you in a country or territory other than Canada for 183 days or more in a row?"
This question determines who must submit a police clearance WITH the application; regardless of the response, any applicant may still, nonetheless, later be asked to submit a police clearance for another country.
As for how to respond to item 10.b, applicants are obligated to read and understand the question as best an applicant can, and then respond based on their best understanding of what is asked and the their HONEST consideration of the facts in their individual situation. The current application help function offers five examples to assist applicants in deciding how they should respond. These are for guidance.
The examples do not state definitive rules.
My interpretation sees the reference, in example one, to an applicant who "lived" in France for a year, and that example clearly requires a "yes" response to Item 10.b. with no hint that periodic trips to Germany or the UK might interrupt the "
in a row" calculation of days. To me that suggests days "in a country" are not about a strict calculation of actual physical presence. That is, that brief trips outside a country during an extended period of time "
in a country" would not interrupt the counting of days "
in a row." That is my interpretation. So that is what would dictate how I am obligated to respond.
It is easy to have high confidence that this interpretation, my personal interpretation, would not invite any problems. It is NOT likely any processing agent at IRCC would look more closely at my travel history and think I should have responded differently, let alone apprehend reason to think the way I responded was in any way misleading or deceptive, let alone see cause to conclude a material misrepresentation had been made.
Others may interpret the question and examples differently, more strictly, parsing what "
in a country" means, or what "
in a row" means, and conclude that a trip outside the country for two consecutive nights or more (so that there is at least one calendar day NOT in that country) interrupts the counting of days "
in a row" in that country. One could certainly ARGUE in favour of such an interpretation. And that should be enough to defeat any allegation of intentional misrepresentation.
So if your question is whether deliberately taking an occasional side trip outside the country is enough to respond "no" in response to Item 10.b. without risking an accusation of misrepresentation. Sure. That is probably a safe gamble.
Whether there is some risk a processing agent reviewing your travel history, later in the process (typically attendant the test and interview), might challenge the way you answered 10.b., my sense is the risk of that is rather LOW as well, albeit the pattern might be enough for a more inquisitive processing agent to ask, in the interview, about the response and the time period spent in the other country.
I suppose whether IRCC at that point requests a police clearance may depend on whether the processing agent suspects there was a deliberate effort to evade having to submit a clearance with the application. Again, IRCC can request an applicant submit a police clearance anytime, and the longer someone was in a particular country the more risk there is of that happening . . . even if the total amount of time was significantly less than six months.
But more than that, there is that nagging fear the processing agent might suspect deliberate machinations but without saying anything out loud, affecting the processing agent's assessment of the applicant's credibility generally, and thus influence whether the processing agent is comfortable concluding all is well or whether there needs to be further, non-routine processing (and thus delays).
Those of us who are risk-averse tend to anticipate what might trigger concerns, let alone outright suspicions, and we are particularly cognizant that many times what triggers some concern is not addressed, offering no opportunity to explain, but it nonetheless has influence in the decision-making process. An arguable position offers little assurance if there is no opportunity to make the argument.
In the latter regard, to my perspective the more problematic risk is no one at IRCC asks the applicant anything about how he or she answered item 10.b., but the processing agent has concerns and decides to ask for Fingerprints and then makes a referral to other government agencies to verify that the applicant has no criminal charges pending or convictions in the other country. This could be something that delays processing for longer, even a lot longer, than it would take for the applicant to obtain and submit a police clearance.
But, to be clear, an attempt to parse what "
in a country" means, or what "
in a row" means, is not like finding and relying on a tax loophole. There is no requirement to submit a police clearance as such, in order to qualify for a grant of citizenship. The actual requirement is to have no prohibitions, which means no pending criminal charges and no convictions within the preceding four years.
