I recently found out through a lawyer friend that some countries have reduced the validity of certified document copies. Certain type of copies that used to be valid for a year or indefinitely, are only valid for 3 months. And I don’t understand why.
If you need a police clearance certificate to prove you have not been convicted of a crime, it makes complete sense that such a document or a certified copy is only valid for short period of time.
However, for things like your diplomas, your driver’s license, your national ID, passport, certified copies should be valid indefinitely, but they aren’t in many places.
1) Why is that the case?
When I travel, I don’t carry my passport with me. I leave it in my hotel room or at the place of the friend or relative I am staying at. I will only carry a certified copy on my person when I go out, just in case.
2) Why is that not enough in some places?
I would find it frustrating to have to make certified copies of the same documents every 3 months.
I’ve also heard that some countries may not recognize certified copies of other countries.
For example, suppose I’m Italian and I have a US green card. I don’t like carrying my green card with me in the US, so I have 2 certified copies of it on me, one that was made in the UK, and the other in Italy.
3) Why would the US not recognize them if it was made by official authorities?
Having to make certified copies of your documents every couple of months is risky, because it means you have to take out those documents frequently, instead of keeping them stored. Every time you go out with them to make copies, you take the risk of losing them.
Because my physical personal documents are private, and I want to protect them. Especially my ID documents. Having to produce them frequently and unnecessarily is a form of surveillance I would like to avoid. Many countries that have national IDs, which is most, require their citizens to carry them at all times, even if they have other forms of ID they can produce.
For example, if you drive every day to work, it’s normal to carry your driver’s license on you at all times. However, in some countries, the police can stop you and ask for your national ID in addition to your driver’s license. The latter is not enough.
Hence, some people, to protect their national IDs, would rather carry a certified copy of it, because it is considered the most important ID document in their country. It supersedes passports and drivers licenses. They don’t want to risk losing it, because administratively, getting it replaced is a pain in the ass, and can take months.
Marginalized communities also have an incentive to protect their documents, because not being able to produce them can marginalize them further. Consider all the American citizens and US residents who were arrested and locked up by ICE because they couldn’t “prove” their legal status on the spot.
This is why I would rather carry a certified copy instead of my actual passport. But if certified copies are only valid for a short period, I constantly have to risk losing my passport. Replacing a certified copy is easier than replacing a passport, especially when you’ve made multiple certified copies in advance.
This thread is tagged “Off Topic” but the tag may have been added after you posted. Besides, I immediately imagined there is some relevance to privacy because it relates to identity documents and other sensitive documents, and the copying and citing of such documents.
Technically speaking, certified copies don’t actually “expire”, at least in the US or the UK. Cannot speak for other jurisdictions. However, many institutions will reject them after a certain period due to internal AML and KYC policies.
Fraud is getting more sophisticated, so some institutions are shortening this timeframe and some have begun to reject certified copies altogether, requiring real-time verification instead.
I don’t have a good answer for why certified copies of documents are deemed valid only for a limited lifespan, when one exists. The lifespan varies and is AFAIK arbitrary.
Nor do I know why these lifespans are diminishing like you suggest. That is an interesting change. I wonder what is/was causing this change. The only reason I can think of is fraud is getting more sophisticated (AI perhaps?) like @Litigated said.
In principle, a document is valid if the requesting organization will accept it. Sometimes copies do not need to be certified. My limited understanding is the lifespan or (more generally) validity of a certified copy depends on
What document is the copy a copy of.
The condition and quality of the copy.
How the copy was certified: who did it and in what jurisdiction.
The lifespan of the original document: the copy may become invalid when the original document becomes invalid, for instance if it expires or was revoked or amended.
The purpose of using the document, and the arbitrary lifespan limitations imposed by the requesting organization: is it for a visa application, job application, KYC, or for showing to police?
Relevant laws of the jurisdiction where the copy is used may place additional restrictions.
In the context of bureaucracy, organizations may require certified copies that were made in the past few months. It isn’t necessarily country that dictates this. Further, different copies of documents may have different lifespans.
While certified copies are very common in bureaucracy, some jurisdictions may require people to carry around original ID cards (for showing to police) and disallow certified copies for this purpose.
I may be wrong but I thought this was always the case. I wouldn’t have expected a certified copy of a US green card to be deemed valid in the US for the purpose of proving lawful immigration status if it was certified outside the US. I guess because different jurisdictions have different systems for certifying copies of documents which may conflict or lack certain requirements.
Loss of ID can be more than a pain in the ass; as you know, it can also lead to real harm: arrest, deportation, financial loss etc. It can mean life or death.
I don’t believe that to be true. My cousin’s husband, who is half-British, and half-Canadian, studied in the UK. They both live in Canada and are planning to move to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for a high-paying job opportunity. They are required to provide certified copies of their university diplomas. I believe this is required not just for their job but also for their visa application.
My cousin’s husband studied at Oxford and has to send his original UK diplomas to a company in the UK that makes certified copies. He can’t have the certified copies made in Canada, even though that’s where he lives. He was told the certified copies are only valid for a year.
A couple of things don’t make sense to me. I don’t understand why he has to go through a third party in the UK to make certified copies of his diploma.
Why can’t he have them done in Canada or ask Oxford to make a certified copy and send it to him?
The organization that produces the original document should be able to make certified copies. And I don’t see why those copies need to expire.
I’m not very convinced by this argument, because I don’t see how reducing the validity period prevents fraud. I think enshittification could be a reason. It’s more profitable for those certifying the copies if there is a limitation.
Depending on the case yes. I don’t think that every certified copy of a document that expires should automatically be invalidated once that document expires. If the original is destroyed or lost, that certified copy can be used as evidence in court for example.
As I said, for certain things like a police clearance certificate proving that you have not been convicted of any crime, that makes complete sense. I believe that my cousin and her husband will also have to produce one for their visa application. It makes sense that it can’t be a year old.
I hear you on this, but it can be very risky. For example, France is a country where the average person, often a minority, gets regularly checked for ID. It doesn’t matter if you are a tourist in France or a citizen, they expect you to have your ID on you to prove you are there legally. Many won’t care that you ID is in your home. If they want to arrest you, they will.
As a tourist in France, I think it’s ridiculous to expect me to have my passport on me at all times. Especially when people get mugged every day.
Moreover, as I have previously said, in certain countries with national IDs the police are not satisfied with your driver’s license. They want to see your national ID, even though both it and your driver’s license are government issued ID. The national is considered the primary form of ID. But precisely because it is so important, some people would rather have their driver’s license on them, and leave their national ID at home. They would rather carry a certified copy on them, with their real driver’s license. But some authorities, like the police will not accept that, even though it is technically legal.
If I’m at a US airport, of course not. But if I live in the US, I don’t expect to be asked for my green card at a traffic stop or if I’m walking in the street. Or at least I shouldn’t. Imagine you are British, but you grew up your whole life in Germany. However, while living in Germany, your entire schooling was done in an American school. You graduate from an American high school in Germany.
You decide to apply to universities in the UK. Should you be expected to have the certified copies of your diplomas made in the US when you don’t live there and never spent a single day of your life there? I don’t think so. And FYI, there are a lot of American, British, and German schools around the world.
Yes. That is terrifying. That’s why many people rightly IMO, prefer to keep their most important documents at home, and carry certified copies on them. I wouldn’t carry my green card on me.
This is not legal advice, only general guidance. You must not rely on this as legal advice.
Regarding your cousin’s husband. Because the documents are English, the English and Welsh legal system govern the initial certification.
Because he will not be using the document in England or Wales, he will have to have it certified according to the UAE’s specific jurisdictional requirements. For the UAE (and Qatar, for that matter) simply having a document certified or notarised is not sufficient. It needs to be certified by a solicitor or notary, then apostilled by the British government, and then attested by the UAE Embassy or Consulate.
I can say with 100% certainty that under English and Welsh law, there is no expiration date on a document’s certification. However, the UAE authorities and UAE employers often require the certification stamp to be recent, that is strictly their own internal policies, not the law (even in UAE).
The reason these policies exist is to prevent fraud. The time limit (policy, not law) to certified copies ensures that the solicitor or notary who stamped the document is still actively practicing, currently registered, and easily contactable should they need to verify their signature
Thanks for your insight. I will ask my cousin’s husband, because he told me that he has to send his UK diplomas to a private organization in the UK that does certified copies of the diplomas. It’s possible this UK organization is recognized by the UAE. I will ask him. But even so, I find this procedure ridiculous.
I get that, but I do find it weird that he has to go through a third party, and one that is outside of the country he lives in (Canada). IMHO, any university should be able to provide certified copies of their alumni’s diplomas. Since they make the originals too. Also, many UK universities have been around for centuries, so it’s easy for the UAE or any foreign country to call up Oxford and ask about specific individuals.
Driver’s license vs National ID
I also find it weird that in some countries the police won’t accept certain original proofs of ID like your driver’s license, but insist you show your national ID. In this specific scenario, you have an original legal document that is not a copy, and yet, it’s not satisfying.
In the US, many states allow undocumented people to have a driver’s license. However, in 2005, the US passed the REAL ID act, that establishes minimum security standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards, which are required for accessing federal facilities and boarding commercial flights.
They are not mandatory, but they require that you prove your legal status in the US (US birth certificate /passport, Green card). This means that if you have a REAL ID driver’s license, it is proof you are legally in the US.
In the example I am describing, you are carrying a REAL ID driver’s license on you, and a certified copy of your green card. And despite having your REAL driver’s license, the police asks you at a traffic stop or in the street while you’re walking, to produce your green card. That doesn’t make sense to me. The driver’s license should suffice. So should a certified copy of your green card.
Overall I think we’re on the same page on this topic. I hope some of my comments were helpful.
But there is unfortunately nothing much people can do about the issues of certified copy lifespans, difficulty of getting valid certified copies, the need to carry original IDs in contexts where certified copies are not accepted for that purpose, etc. It is called a bureau-cracy precisely because offices (bureaus) have coercive power and rulership (krátos) over people.
Bureaucracy isn’t meant to make sense. The requesting organization, in your cousin’s husband’s case the company in the UAE and the embassy of the UAE, made decisions about how copies of documents shall be certified that their applicants must follow. Thsoe decisions may have good reasoning, are nonsense, or may have certain agendas like deals with certification bodies for financial gain.
After I posted my previous post, I also thought my argument doesn’t make sense. Sorry. Like you suggest it could be intended to increase bureaucratic power, including financial gain. That thought has crossed my mind several times in my past dealings with bureaucracies.
I did say may become invalid and not will become invalid.
Like you suggest it could be intended to increase bureaucratic power, including financial gain. That thought has crossed my mind several times in my past dealings with bureaucracies.