[requester]

Record

5.19(1) FFD erccepcress Semone conse From: Sent: [requester] To: Immigration Representatives / Représentants immigration (IRCC) <[requester email]>; Immigration Representatives / Représentants immigration (IRCC) <[IRCC Immigration Representatives mailbox]> Subject: [requester] CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Government of [requester] not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ATTENTION: Ce courrie! provient de I'extérieur du gouvernement du [requester] cliquez pas sur les liens et n‘ouvrez pas les pieces jointes sauf si vous reconnaissez 'expéditeur et sachez que le contenu est sir. Dear [requester] mailbox, My Party ID is and my RCIC number is lam seeking clarification regarding the IRCC requirements for submitting Use of Representative forms via webforms, particularly regarding the necessity of wet ink signatures. The current instructions available online (hitos:/Ammw.canada,ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/application/application-forms- quides/imm5476.him)) are confusing, non-specific, and appear to contain grammatical errors, and incomplete sentences. Previously, |have successfully utilized digitally signed representative forms, which offer enhanced security, efficiency, and environmental advantages over wet ink signatures. Recently, however, | received several responses requiring a wet ink signature without clearly explaining why this is necessary. Security: Wet ink signatures pose substantial security risks as they are easily replicated or misused, potentially exposing representatives to identity fraud. This is an issue Ive already experienced professionally. Digital signatures provide significantly greater security, incorporating authentication measures, secure PDFs, and domain-linked verification with two-factor authentication. Accessibility and Environmental Impact: Mandating wet ink signatures requires unnecessary printing and scanning, resulting in wasted resources, increased costs, and inefficiency. This requirement seems contradictory to IRCC’s broader promotion of encouraging digital submission and environmental responsibilty Inconsistency and Unclear Guidance: The instructions provided on the IRCC website lack clarity and consistency. The delineation of when digital signatures are accepted (e.g., application submissions via portals) and when wet ink signatures are mandated it appears in some cases (¢.g., webform submissions) is ambiguous and unexplained. Given these concerns, and the possibility that ambiguous and inexplicable procedural hurdles may prevent clear and effective communication with IRCC officers, especially when time of the essence which could prejudice applicants, could you please clarify: 1. 1. Where | can find explicit and definitive guidance regarding circumstances in which wet ink signatures are strictly necessary? 02262

2, 2. Whether an Access to Information request would provide insight into the rationale behind this policy? 3, 3. IRCC accommodates applicants who cannot submit electronically by allowing mail submissions; similarly, can accommodations be made for applicants and representatives who prioritize digital submissions, maintaining paper-free offices? Specifically, is there room to consistently accept digital signatures, considering their proven advantages in security, convenience, and sustainability and acceptability on some submissions but not on other types of submissions? Thank you very much for addressing these concerns. | appreciate your clarification and guidance. [NAME REDACTED] [requester]