have you ever had immigration or citizenship status in any country other than canada? Does this question include visitor visa's too?
Question #13: on Citizenship application
- Thread starter screech339
- Start date
As a general rule, immigration status is when a country grants you a right to work, study and/or live in the country, even if not as an immigrant. Transit, visitor or business visit visas are not a grant of immigration status.
Thankyou so much
Anyone have experience with accidentally omitting an immigration status from Q13? Did you correct it after receiving AOR or encounter any hiccups during the process? I forgot to add a student status, since I misunderstood the question thinking it was only asking for PR/citizenship status.
Any advice would be appreciated!
Any advice would be appreciated!
No one there that can provide information on this, ideally from experience? Just realized I am in same boat with my application already IP for some time, and wondering mostly about potential impact/consequences...
I interpreted question 13 similarly: either some long term work or PR visa, or citizenship status. In my particular case, long time ago I worked for some time in a European country without needing to deal with visas/immigration simply because originally being from a country part of European Union allowed me to do just that. Hence I did not include that country and time-period in response to question 13. However, I am now concerned that IRCC might see it differently, and with the test/interview approaching I am even more anxious
My interpretation is Business Visa/ Visitor visa is clearly not the ask in that Q13 as they are neither "immigrant" or "citizenship" status. All other categories including Student, Worker, "Implied" worker, yes.Awesome , Thanks so much , I will do so
this is not correct.. work visas generally in US (on L1, H1) are treated as non-immigrant and doesn't need to be listed.. business and visitor visa are same cases. those doesnt need to be listed. If you had applied for GC, while you were on H1, L1.. then it's different case and it needs to be listed.
These are correct:
The following is clearly NOT correct:
No interpretation necessary. CIT 0002 (06-2019) specifically gives examples at the head of the second column in the chart where this information is to be disclosed, where it states (verbatim):
Again, no interpretation necessary, the examples given clearly state applicants need to disclose the country and specified details for any country in which the applicant has had employment or worker status.
REMINDER: this has NOTHING to do with how other countries categorize such things. For example, if a country treats temporary worker permits as "non-immigrant," THAT does NOT (edit to add this omitted "not," which makes a big difference; sorry for the typo) change what is required in a CANADIAN application under citizenship or immigration law. Canadian laws, regulations, and rules govern. Temporary worker status is clearly considered immigration status under Canadian law. The citizenship application form specifically lists employment/worker status in a country as an example of immigration status to be disclosed.
The following is clearly NOT correct:
In particular, as noted above, the post by @Natan is correct.
No interpretation necessary. CIT 0002 (06-2019) specifically gives examples at the head of the second column in the chart where this information is to be disclosed, where it states (verbatim):
"Status (e.g. student, employment/worker, refugee, permanent resident or citizen)"
Again, no interpretation necessary, the examples given clearly state applicants need to disclose the country and specified details for any country in which the applicant has had employment or worker status.
REMINDER: this has NOTHING to do with how other countries categorize such things. For example, if a country treats temporary worker permits as "non-immigrant," THAT does NOT (edit to add this omitted "not," which makes a big difference; sorry for the typo) change what is required in a CANADIAN application under citizenship or immigration law. Canadian laws, regulations, and rules govern. Temporary worker status is clearly considered immigration status under Canadian law. The citizenship application form specifically lists employment/worker status in a country as an example of immigration status to be disclosed.
Last edited:
So then, if I left out a country for question 13 for reason mention in my post above, although the country it is mentioned in address and work history, do I need to let them know via webform? My test/interview invite should be coming any moment now. Not sure if sending them this update would stir things up unnecessarily, or if there is no actual risk for me to let it go. I would personally believe it can be let to slide, because they will see that country listed in address and work history they would categorize my omission as an innocent mistake when filling form rather than doing it on purpose to withhold material information.
NOTE: edited my post because an important "NOT" was omitted, a typo. It appears you well understood the post anyway.
HOWEVER . . . I am NO expert and I do not offer personal advice . . . I am NOT qualified to offer personal advice and this venue is NOT appropriate for offering personal advice (with obvious exceptions, such as to easily stated basic advice, ranging from generic do-not-make-misrepresentations and follow-the-instructions, to advice that is little more than reiterating well-known rules).
I cannot say what you should do.
That said, I can explain the reasoning behind why my sense is you properly completed the application.
The explanation is lengthy, a bit convoluted, mostly making common-sense seem far more complicated than needed, but sometimes it helps to walk through such things (that is, most can and should skip what follows, but some may find the logic helpful).
While I do not fully understand how the EU works or its rules for EU citizens employed in other EU countries, my impression is that there is NO additional status granted a qualified EU citizen, but rather the status to work in other EU countries derives directly from citizenship in one of the qualifying countries. Thus, if my impression is correct, disclosing citizenship status in one of these countries is disclosing status to work in other EU countries. So, as long as you disclosed the respective EU country citizenship, that was disclosing status in the other EU country . . . and, indeed, it was disclosing status to work in ANY of the other EU countries, not just a country in which you actually worked.
The application does NOT ask the applicant to disclose ALL countries in which the applicant has worked. In Item 11 the application asks for work history for the five years preceding the date of the application (which you report you properly did). And presumably the applicant has already disclosed full lifetime work history (with exceptions for some individuals) in his or her PR application.
In Item 13, in contrast, what the application asks for is the disclosure of all countries in which the applicant has had immigration status (under Canadian law definitions of what constitutes immigration status), including status to work . . . even if the applicant did not live or work in that country. That is, this Item is not asking about the applicant's address or work history, but specifically about IMMIGRATION STATUS in other countries.
An applicant with citizenship in a qualified EU country, as I understand things, has status to work in other EU countries. So disclosure of that citizenship is in fact disclosure of that status. A citizen of France properly disclosing his or her citizenship in France is thus disclosing status to work in Germany, Spain, Belgium, and so on, even if that individual never visited those countries let alone worked there.
After all, for example, in almost all (and maybe all) countries, citizenship in that country includes status to work in that country. Applicants do not list a country in which they have citizenship multiple times in order to specifically describe status to work, and to attend school, and so on, in that country. Thus, for example, an individual with citizenship in two countries, one of which the individual may not have spent any time in at all, lists both countries as countries in which he or she has citizenship . . . and again, obviously, this individual has *status* (which is "immigration status" under Canadian law) to work or go to school, and so on, in both those countries, but all the applicant does is list the country and in the details references status as "citizenship."
Additional Note: These days I largely focus on more complicated matters related to grant citizenship and maintaining PR status, and I do NOT, not ordinarily, participate much in addressing the scores of issues and questions for which many other forum participants readily provide good responses. And thus, ordinarily, I would not have weighed in here, noting for example (as I did above) that @Natan and @trk1, and others previously, have provided accurate and adequate explanations for how to respond to Item 13.
In particular, the discussion here readily provided enough information for those with questions to determine, for themselves, how to best respond to Item 13. NO NEED for me to complicate things with my typical and lengthy in-depth explications. My posts probably bore most, and can be overly complex as well as potentially distracting, and otherwise tend to invite some to overthink things.
Thus, even when there is a post which overtly misrepresents things or otherwise is NOT accurate, such as the post above by @last_try, unless it involves one of the issues I largely focus on these days I will ordinarily ignore it and allow someone else here to provide more accurate information.
But my impression (without being at all sure) was this particular inaccuracy was rooted in a crucial misunderstanding which is important in many other respects. That is, I suspected that the mistake may have been rooted in a failure to recognize that CANADIAN LAW and CANADIAN RULES govern the meaning of terms used in applications like the grant citizenship application. So I felt obligated to make and emphasize this clarification. That is, I apprehended a bigger, broader issue was at stake than merely stating what Item 13 is about. So at the risk of boring many and confusing some, I have offered the deep-dive clarification and explanation.
Overall, in this particular regard, my sense is you properly completed the application. That is, my sense (FWIW) is there is no need to correct your application since it is probably proper as is.
HOWEVER . . . I am NO expert and I do not offer personal advice . . . I am NOT qualified to offer personal advice and this venue is NOT appropriate for offering personal advice (with obvious exceptions, such as to easily stated basic advice, ranging from generic do-not-make-misrepresentations and follow-the-instructions, to advice that is little more than reiterating well-known rules).
I cannot say what you should do.
That said, I can explain the reasoning behind why my sense is you properly completed the application.
The explanation is lengthy, a bit convoluted, mostly making common-sense seem far more complicated than needed, but sometimes it helps to walk through such things (that is, most can and should skip what follows, but some may find the logic helpful).
While I do not fully understand how the EU works or its rules for EU citizens employed in other EU countries, my impression is that there is NO additional status granted a qualified EU citizen, but rather the status to work in other EU countries derives directly from citizenship in one of the qualifying countries. Thus, if my impression is correct, disclosing citizenship status in one of these countries is disclosing status to work in other EU countries. So, as long as you disclosed the respective EU country citizenship, that was disclosing status in the other EU country . . . and, indeed, it was disclosing status to work in ANY of the other EU countries, not just a country in which you actually worked.
The application does NOT ask the applicant to disclose ALL countries in which the applicant has worked. In Item 11 the application asks for work history for the five years preceding the date of the application (which you report you properly did). And presumably the applicant has already disclosed full lifetime work history (with exceptions for some individuals) in his or her PR application.
In Item 13, in contrast, what the application asks for is the disclosure of all countries in which the applicant has had immigration status (under Canadian law definitions of what constitutes immigration status), including status to work . . . even if the applicant did not live or work in that country. That is, this Item is not asking about the applicant's address or work history, but specifically about IMMIGRATION STATUS in other countries.
An applicant with citizenship in a qualified EU country, as I understand things, has status to work in other EU countries. So disclosure of that citizenship is in fact disclosure of that status. A citizen of France properly disclosing his or her citizenship in France is thus disclosing status to work in Germany, Spain, Belgium, and so on, even if that individual never visited those countries let alone worked there.
After all, for example, in almost all (and maybe all) countries, citizenship in that country includes status to work in that country. Applicants do not list a country in which they have citizenship multiple times in order to specifically describe status to work, and to attend school, and so on, in that country. Thus, for example, an individual with citizenship in two countries, one of which the individual may not have spent any time in at all, lists both countries as countries in which he or she has citizenship . . . and again, obviously, this individual has *status* (which is "immigration status" under Canadian law) to work or go to school, and so on, in both those countries, but all the applicant does is list the country and in the details references status as "citizenship."
Additional Note: These days I largely focus on more complicated matters related to grant citizenship and maintaining PR status, and I do NOT, not ordinarily, participate much in addressing the scores of issues and questions for which many other forum participants readily provide good responses. And thus, ordinarily, I would not have weighed in here, noting for example (as I did above) that @Natan and @trk1, and others previously, have provided accurate and adequate explanations for how to respond to Item 13.
In particular, the discussion here readily provided enough information for those with questions to determine, for themselves, how to best respond to Item 13. NO NEED for me to complicate things with my typical and lengthy in-depth explications. My posts probably bore most, and can be overly complex as well as potentially distracting, and otherwise tend to invite some to overthink things.
Thus, even when there is a post which overtly misrepresents things or otherwise is NOT accurate, such as the post above by @last_try, unless it involves one of the issues I largely focus on these days I will ordinarily ignore it and allow someone else here to provide more accurate information.
But my impression (without being at all sure) was this particular inaccuracy was rooted in a crucial misunderstanding which is important in many other respects. That is, I suspected that the mistake may have been rooted in a failure to recognize that CANADIAN LAW and CANADIAN RULES govern the meaning of terms used in applications like the grant citizenship application. So I felt obligated to make and emphasize this clarification. That is, I apprehended a bigger, broader issue was at stake than merely stating what Item 13 is about. So at the risk of boring many and confusing some, I have offered the deep-dive clarification and explanation.
Thanks dpenabill, for weighing in on this. Your analysis is appreciated.
And yes, I am even more so inclined not to make a big issue out of this anymore, since all those details about me living&working in another EU country were also captured in the PR application at the time.
Moreover, should they really have any concerns, they would probably bring them up during interview and/or by issuing a dreaded RQ.
And yes, I am even more so inclined not to make a big issue out of this anymore, since all those details about me living&working in another EU country were also captured in the PR application at the time.
Moreover, should they really have any concerns, they would probably bring them up during interview and/or by issuing a dreaded RQ.