Self Employed Question for citizenship and PR renewal application?

[messiry]

Hi Guys, I have been in Canada for more than three years. I have a self employment business as a Financial Consultant, which generated business in 2019. However, the business was not successful afterwards, as I was not able to generate business at all due to the pandemic and other multiple factors. I haven't shut down the legal entity which I own as a self employed person, but I filed a nil revenue for HST, and stated in my personal income taxes for the absence of income after 2019. My Question is regarding PR Renewal and Citizenship application. In the work and Education history, shall I state that I was self employed only for the period which generated business, and state that I was unemployed afterwards ? or shall I state that I was self employed from the date of starting the business till now, regardless of the period you gained business or not ?

Thanks everyone, I appreciate your help

 

[bellaluna]

I’d say if you were actively working on that business even without revenue you can still write self-employed. But if you were not doing anything for that business, then you can write unemployed.

 

[messiry]

I’d say if you were actively working on that business even without revenue you can still write self-employed. But if you were not doing anything for that business, then you can write unemployed.

Thanks. My only concern is that since the business is still exists, and I didn't legally shut it down, wouldn't writing unemployed count as misrepresentation ? I am sorry for the hassle, just want to be certain before submitting the application

 

[akbardxb]

Thanks. My only concern is that since the business is still exists, and I didn't legally shut it down, wouldn't writing unemployed count as misrepresentation ? I am sorry for the hassle, just want to be certain before submitting the application

The existence of a registered business does not necessarily mean self employed. As @bellaluna mentioned, if you were not actively working on it, then perhaps not indicate self employed.

Also, a word of caution without being alarmist. Till the time I applied for citizenship, I had been on contract positions, so did not have a regular T4/ payslip and was a self employed consultant. I had a rough interview and this was one of the things seen as suspicious while determining my physical presence. So whether you choose to go with self-employed or unemployed, ensure that all other elements esp your travel history, passport stamps translation etc leave ABSOLUTELY no room for ambiguity which could be considered misrepresentation. This is even more critical if you have moved from the Middle East and also travelled there during your eligibility period. I had frequent travels and can vouch for the trouble I have gone through to furnish evidence that I was actually in Canada, when I claimed to be in Canada.

 

[messiry]

The existence of a registered business does not necessarily mean self employed. As @bellaluna mentioned, if you were not actively working on it, then perhaps not indicate self employed.

Also, a word of caution without being alarmist. Till the time I applied for citizenship, I had been on contract positions, so did not have a regular T4/ payslip and was a self employed consultant. I had a rough interview and this was one of the things seen as suspicious while determining my physical presence. So whether you choose to go with self-employed or unemployed, ensure that all other elements esp your travel history, passport stamps translation etc leave ABSOLUTELY no room for ambiguity which could be considered misrepresentation. This is even more critical if you have moved from the Middle East and also travelled there during your eligibility period. I had frequent travels and can vouch for the trouble I have gone through to furnish evidence that I was actually in Canada, when I claimed to be in Canada.

Thanks , guess it's safer to write the exact period of self employment, while writing the name of my business as an employer. I appreciate the heads up regarding this. If you don't mind me asking, why were they suspicious concerning the issue and relating it to the physical presence in Canada ? If you don't mind sharing the questions asked during the interview ?

 

[akbardxb]

Thanks , guess it's safer to write the exact period of self employment, while writing the name of my business as an employer. I appreciate the heads up regarding this. If you don't mind me asking, why were they suspicious concerning the issue and relating it to the physical presence in Canada ? If you don't mind sharing the questions asked during the interview ?

Self employed. Frequent travels, in and out of Canada, to the Middle East. Was a single applicant, family were already citizens. Even though I was applying with over 100 extra days without a shred of doubt on my physical presence. From IRCC's perspective, these could be misrepresentation red flags.

Without casting aspersions on any group, a combination of Male (single) / Mississauga / Middle East has been a tad problematic. So if you fit all three or at least two of these M, be prepared for a slightly longish processing. I could add another M, but that might be considered biased / racist. I can say this with confidence because I personally know a few who fit this profile and have gone through similar hardship.

 

[messiry]

Self employed. Frequent travels, in and out of Canada, to the Middle East. Was a single applicant, family were already citizens. Even though I was applying with over 100 extra days without a shred of doubt on my physical presence. From IRCC's perspective, these could be misrepresentation red flags.

Without casting aspersions on any group, a combination of Male (single) / Mississauga / Middle East has been a tad problematic. So if you fit all three or at least two of these M, be prepared for a slightly longish processing. I could add another M, but that might be considered biased / racist. I can say this with confidence because I personally know a few who fit this profile and have gone through similar hardship.

Thanks, really appreciate your feedback. Unfortunately, this is something we can't control. Anyways, just had one more question, when applying to renew the PR, Do you write down the business name, or the business number or self employed ? As the self employment business legal entity has my name as the name of the business ?

 

[akbardxb]

Thanks, really appreciate your feedback. Unfortunately, this is something we can't control. Anyways, just had one more question, when applying to renew the PR, Do you write down the business name, or the business number or self employed ? As the self employment business legal entity has my name as the name of the business ?

In the column for Occupation, I had mentioned Self Employed, while in the name of Employer, I had mentioned my company's name. I did not use my own name when registering the business, so it was a numbered corporation.

In your case, I feel you should use whatever is the legal entity name. As mentioned earlier, there should be ZERO differences between the application form and the supporting documents for that information. If you feel it doesn't 'look' right, stick stating facts. It will be simpler to explain if it comes to that.

In my case, processing took almost two years longer, but nothing changed on my information. I'm happy to believe that the delay was result of Covid

 

[messiry]

In the column for Occupation, I had mentioned Self Employed, while in the name of Employer, I had mentioned my company's name. I did not use my own name when registering the business, so it was a numbered corporation.

In your case, I feel you should use whatever is the legal entity name. As mentioned earlier, there should be ZERO differences between the application form and the supporting documents for that information. If you feel it doesn't 'look' right, stick stating facts. It will be simpler to explain if it comes to that.

In my case, processing took almost two years longer, but nothing changed on my information. I'm happy to believe that the delay was result of Covid

I am sorry to hear that your application is lengthy. I am still in the process of applying for a PR renewal, which I am filling the application. Then, I am planning to submit an application for Citizenship next month. I called IRCC this morning, told them I am applying for a PR card renewal, asked them shall I write in the activity the company name (i.e my name), followed by self employed between brackets. The agent seemed puzzled, then replied "Sure, why not ?"

 

[dpenabill]

Just a note to say that populating information in the employment history is not a test. Technicalities are not much relevant. Honesty and forthright disclosures are important. IRCC is asking the applicant for information about what they were doing, where, when, with enough detail to assess that information on its face and to facilitate cross-checking with other information in the application, or in some instances cross-checking against other sources. The latter can include so-called open-sources, such as social media. LinkedIn, for example, has been one of the most commonly referenced sources that IRCC processing agents sometimes research for information about a client.

Unemployment, self-employment (whether as an individual or as a business entity), employment as a consultant, can raise questions . . . for obvious reasons, as these are not readily verifiable against other sources of information. If the applicant reports working in a particular branch of well known banks in Canada, like RBC or TD, that readily ties that individual and their life in Canada to a particular location in Canada. For someone like me, self-employed providing services remotely to clients outside Canada, obviously I could be doing my work anywhere, so obviously that does not constitute strong evidence of my presence in Canada (hence I waited a full extra year to apply for citizenship). There are many, many, many variations in between.

But what to put in the particular fields/boxes in the application form is mostly for the applicant to decide what the best, most accurate, honest information is. It is not about whether one was technically an employee or an independent contractor. It is about what the individual was doing, employment or school or such wise, and who they were doing that for or with, and where, for what period of time. Give that information to the best of one's understanding. Realistic and practical.

Note: many self-employed individuals appear to unnecessarily complicate things by forming corporate or similar business organizations. Whether there is an advantage to that depends on the particular person's actual business activities and relationships with vendors and vendees. But for many it is too often more or less for show. IRCC is not much interested in what is for show but more about what the actual activity is, and again, where and for or with whom, and of course when.

Few need to get worked up much about this. Just give one's best answer based on one's best understanding of what is asked and what information will appropriately answer what is asked. And sure, sometimes the facts can raise questions. No point trying to hide, paint, sugarcoat, or otherwise dodge just telling it like it is. Tell it like it is. If, like in my case, that seems like it could raise questions, wait a little longer, or in my case a lot longer, and be sure to build up a strong case otherwise. Which should not be difficult. Running a business has expenses, for example, and requires keeping business records including receipts . . . so of course I had all the receipts from Staples and the computer store that helped build and maintain my IT system and so on. Never needed to present it, but I had it . . . not just in case, because such records are needed for filing taxes as well.

Mostly, relax, give the information straight, and do not leave gaps.

 

[messiry]

Just a note to say that populating information in the employment history is not a test. Technicalities are not much relevant. Honesty and forthright disclosures are important. IRCC is asking the applicant for information about what they were doing, where, when, with enough detail to assess that information on its face and to facilitate cross-checking with other information in the application, or in some instances cross-checking against other sources. The latter can include so-called open-sources, such as social media. LinkedIn, for example, has been one of the most commonly referenced sources that IRCC processing agents sometimes research for information about a client.

Unemployment, self-employment (whether as an individual or as a business entity), employment as a consultant, can raise questions . . . for obvious reasons, as these are not readily verifiable against other sources of information. If the applicant reports working in a particular branch of well known banks in Canada, like RBC or TD, that readily ties that individual and their life in Canada to a particular location in Canada. For someone like me, self-employed providing services remotely to clients outside Canada, obviously I could be doing my work anywhere, so obviously that does not constitute strong evidence of my presence in Canada (hence I waited a full extra year to apply for citizenship). There are many, many, many variations in between.

But what to put in the particular fields/boxes in the application form is mostly for the applicant to decide what the best, most accurate, honest information is. It is not about whether one was technically an employee or an independent contractor. It is about what the individual was doing, employment or school or such wise, and who they were doing that for or with, and where, for what period of time. Give that information to the best of one's understanding. Realistic and practical.

Note: many self-employed individuals appear to unnecessarily complicate things by forming corporate or similar business organizations. Whether there is an advantage to that depends on the particular person's actual business activities and relationships with vendors and vendees. But for many it is too often more or less for show. IRCC is not much interested in what is for show but more about what the actual activity is, and again, where and for or with whom, and of course when.

Few need to get worked up much about this. Just give one's best answer based on one's best understanding of what is asked and what information will appropriately answer what is asked. And sure, sometimes the facts can raise questions. No point trying to hide, paint, sugarcoat, or otherwise dodge just telling it like it is. Tell it like it is. If, like in my case, that seems like it could raise questions, wait a little longer, or in my case a lot longer, and be sure to build up a strong case otherwise. Which should not be difficult. Running a business has expenses, for example, and requires keeping business records including receipts . . . so of course I had all the receipts from Staples and the computer store that helped build and maintain my IT system and so on. Never needed to present it, but I had it . . . not just in case, because such records are needed for filing taxes as well.

Mostly, relax, give the information straight, and do not leave gaps.

Thanks, but if you don't mind me asking. Why did you choose to apply a year later ? How would more days presence in Canada help if you are self employed, compared to non self employed ?

 

[akbardxb]

Just a note to say that populating information in the employment history is not a test. Technicalities are not much relevant. Honesty and forthright disclosures are important. IRCC is asking the applicant for information about what they were doing, where, when, with enough detail to assess that information on its face and to facilitate cross-checking with other information in the application, or in some instances cross-checking against other sources. The latter can include so-called open-sources, such as social media. LinkedIn, for example, has been one of the most commonly referenced sources that IRCC processing agents sometimes research for information about a client.

If IRCC is using LinkedIn to verify credentials that’s a tad disappointing to hear that they can give credence to something which can easily be faked and still not legally construe misrepresentation. What is the source of this information?

 

[dpenabill]

Thanks, but if you don't mind me asking. Why did you choose to apply a year later ? How would more days presence in Canada help if you are self employed, compared to non self employed ?

I am a firm believer in the bigger the margin over the minimum presence requirement, the less likely a total stranger bureaucrat will have questions, let alone doubts, that the applicant met the minimum requirement.

Obviously a bigger margin will not entirely overcome concerns or doubts based on questions about the applicant's credibility. So there are many other factors in play. But that goes both ways. Most of us leave a paper and digital trail that signals quite a lot about who we are and the life we live, including where we live.

The thing about my "business" is that I continued to do precisely what I had been doing for many years before I became a PR, same services for the same clients, none in Canada. Only thing that changed was the situs of my business, the physical location where I did the work. (I did not immigrate to Canada for economic reasons . . . some people claim there is a woman to blame, and they'd be right, a woman to whom I am most grateful.) So I knew my case was, so to say, at risk for being weak on the employment in Canada side of the equation. I waited to apply knowing that in the meantime I was building a longer, bigger paper and digital trail of my life in Canada, and keeping the records to document that if needed.

Those records were not needed. Some may see a bit of irony: the better record of a life in Canada one has, the less likely IRCC will be asking to see those records.

This is not about IRCC officials having access to a crystal ball. It is a lot more practical, and simple, than that. Again, most people living in Canada will leave a rather robust paper and digital trail of their life in Canada. Makes it rather easy for a fact-finder to cross-check the information, perhaps look at some other sources, and not only readily verify beyond-a-balance-of-probabilities the applicant's account of things, especially dates actually IN Canada, but get a good sense of the applicant's credibility, at least in regards to the credibility of the information the applicant has provided in the process of applying for citizenship.

Thus the vast, vast majority of qualified applicants sail relatively smoothly through the process. Emphasis on "relatively," since as processing in the days of Covid have all too bluntly illustrated, sometimes the process gets bogged down for reasons outside the scope of the individual applicants' qualifications. So, for example, scores and scores of citizenship applicants are currently suffering an inordinately long processing timeline. Not because of problems in their case, but because IRCC has failed to adequately deal with the pandemic, affecting all applicants across the board.

But there are also situations which can affect the process for individual qualified applicants. The vast majority encounter no problem other than something like slow processing. But there will be a few for whom things do not go so smoothly. Not everyone lives a life that is so readily verified by a public paper and digital trail, for example. And they tend to also be the ones who have less solid work history, perhaps some significant periods of transient address history, and so on. So, despite being fully qualified, some applicants can run into non-routine processing, non-routine background investigations, requests for additional proof, and longer processing times . . . which, when processing times for everyone are long, means really long processing times.

In any event, I waited so I would have as many days as possible credit, so I would have a longer and more solid paper and digital trail of a life in Canada, hoping that would be enough to be processed routinely, but also building a record, a body of evidence, to submit in case I was RQ'd (back when I applied the number of applicants RQ'd was much, much higher than it is these days).

 

[dpenabill]

If IRCC is using LinkedIn to verify credentials that’s a tad saddening to hear that they can give credence to something which can easily be faked and still not legally construe misrepresentation. What is the source of this information?

There is no doubt that LinkedIn is one of the open sources IRCC sometimes looks at and *considers* in the process of evaluating the information applicants provide. More so for PR and other visa applications, but also in processing citizenship applications. I discussed this in some depth a few years ago, and referenced various sources.

At the moment I cannot put my cursor on the key discussions about this, but one does not need to look any deeper than some Federal Court decisions which discuss actual cases where LinkedIn information was considered and influenced the outcome of the case. Again, more so for visa applications (typically evaluating work experience claims) but also in regards to citizenship applications. I will cite, link, and discuss a few below.

But first it might be helpful to address how information is *evidence* and how *evidence* is considered by fact-finding decision-makers. Note, after all, all the information an applicant enters into the citizenship application and physical presence calculation is, in practice, "evidence." A lot of what processing agents do is evaluate the credibility of the applicant's information, to determine whether it is reliable. If they find reason to question the applicant's information, that information, that *evidence* will carry less weight, be less persuasive.

Many times evidence and proof are conflated. But many times there can be outright contradictory evidence in a case, let alone inconsistent and incongruent evidence. Not all evidence is credible. Even evidence which is considered credible enough to be factored into the decision-making will often have varying degrees of persuasiveness. It is common, for example, to talk about the "weight" of the evidence, recognizing some evidence has more weight (tends to be stronger proof), some evidence not so much weight.

Perhaps the key threshold question is whether this or that evidence appears credible enough to be given any weight, any consideration. For example, how reliable is information found at LinkedIn and how much weight should it be given in weighing all the evidence in a case?

You appear to be suggesting that information IRCC might find in LinkedIn is so unreliable it should be given no consideration.

Frankly, I have never used LinkedIn and actually my only familiarity with it comes from reading about it in Canadian immigration cases. I don't really know where on the scales of reliability it fits. Could be, for all I know, akin to a dating website for people cheating on their spouses . . . except, again, I have seen many discussions about it in official Federal Court and IAD decisions.

The use of LinkedIn information by IRCC varies widely. It can be used as peripheral information. For example, in a recent PR RO breach and consideration of H&C factors case before the IAD, there was a reference to LinkedIn solely to rebut the PR's claim she left Canada because her son had taken a job outside Canada, but the son's work history on LinkedIn showed he did not take the job outside Canada until after she had already left Canada. She lost. See Jurdak v Canada, 2021 CanLII 134210 https://canlii.ca/t/jlhwm (decided late last year).

In any event, weighing the credibility and significance of various sources of information, various "evidence," is a key part of the fact-finding decision-maker's job. Contrary to a lot of the derisive civil servant bashing that is rife in this forum, from visa officers and processing agents, Citizenship Officers and Citizenship Judges, they mostly know what they are doing. In citizenship cases, for example, they typically have experience handling hundreds of applications, and have seen these cases from almost every angle. They mostly figure things out. Not always. There are errors. Sometimes there is discrimination. That is why there is a judicial review process. But they mostly get it right. With the result that the vast majority of qualified applicants are routinely processed, no problems (again, other than slow processing times).

Moreover, and this is especially relevant in regards to evidence like what is taken from LinkedIn, applicants must be given an opportunity to respond to evidence that can have a significant negative impact in their case. This is essential procedural fairness.

Which leads to the first of those particular citizenship cases I said I would cite, link, and discuss: Ilori v. Canada, 2021 FC 627 https://canlii.ca/t/jgpzq

Information in LinkedIn was among the evidence a Citizenship Judge considered in rejecting Mr. Ilori's application for citizenship. Sidenote: want an example of how long processing can go, this case is one of the longer ones. Application made in 2013. Application denied 2017. Federal Court appeal decision 2021. Eight years and still counting.​

​

The Federal Court did not have a problem with considering information from LinkedIn itself. The problem was Mr. Ilori was not given a sufficient or fair opportunity to rebut or explain the LinkedIn evidence.​

​

Take-away: case illustrates IRCC use of LinkedIn information, but also illustrates that applicants must be given a fair opportunity to rebut or explain such evidence. (Note: the LinkedIn evidence undoubtedly was presented to the CJ in the submission from the Citizenship Officer in IRCC.)​

​

Mr. Ilori won the appeal, which means the case goes back to be decided by a different Citizenship Judge.​

A somewhat older citizenship case which better illuminates the process of assessing information or evidence from a source like LinkedIn is the El Sayed v. Canada, 2017 FC 39 https://canlii.ca/t/gwxmn case in which not only was she denied citizenship but had a prohibition period imposed for making misrepresentations of fact in her citizenship application.

From the FC decision denying her appeal:​

Ms. El Sayed takes the position that the Officer’s finding that the LinkedIn profile belongs to her is based on speculative conclusions and is therefore unreasonable. She argues that anyone can create a LinkedIn profile, and that there is no explanation as to why the Officer believed that this profile should carry more weight than her oral testimony.​

The FC justice's conclusion in part:​

I am unable to conclude that the Officer’s conclusions in the present case were unreasonable. I recognize that the Officer’s decision was significantly influenced by the content of the LinkedIn profile in the name of Samar Hegazy, which Ms. Sayed says she did not create and is not accurate. However, the Officer afforded her an opportunity to respond to this evidence . . . [and she failed to adequately address that evidence]​

In any event, there is an extensive discussion in that decision about the process of weighing this kind of evidence; also involves some other internet based evidence that went against her. No citizenship. Prohibited for five years for misrepresentation.​

An even little older case, but one which is probably the more typical, is the Shahein v. Canada, 2015 FC 987 https://canlii.ca/t/gkrbc case. Not a complex case. Simple thing is that the Dr.'s LinkedIn account contradicted the employment history he gave in his citizenship application. He applied with 1097 days (this was under the old, older requirements, under the 3/4 rule). Denied citizenship. Lost the appeal. His LinkedIn account was the primary source of information that did his case in.

There are many more cases out there. The above are, I think, representative samples.

 

[akbardxb]

There is no doubt that LinkedIn is one of the open sources IRCC sometimes looks at and *considers* in the process of evaluating the information applicants provide. More so for PR and other visa applications, but also in processing citizenship applications. I discussed this in some depth a few years ago, and referenced various sources.

There are many more cases out there. The above are, I think, representative samples.

wow! That’s super informative. I would have considered the converse to be true ie the application would be accurate but LinkedIn would be a little ‘embellished‘. There‘s no shortage of fake profiles on LinkedIn. When I moved here, I was frantically applying for jobs via the likes of indeed, glassdoor etc and had posted profiles on these sites. Within a few days, I had an ‘email interview’, I got a job offer to be a finance manager to collect funds. it wasn’t difficult to figure out that a professional footballer from Europe offering me a job was a little over the top!