Mistake on Physical Presence Calculator

[dpenabill]

I'm 3 days below the requirement. I wrote back the letter to the officer today acknowledging that I did a mistake in counting; I counted my physical presence from the date I was granted my Student visa and not from the first day I entered Canada

I redid the calculator and I apologized and acknowledged my mistake and I wrote that I hope the judge will still accept my application and send it back to the officer yesterday.

I mostly agree with @zardoz. If the facts are clear, that is if it is clear that you are, at best, SHORT three days credit toward the Physical Presence requirement, there is no doubt about the outcome: this application will NOT, CANNOT, lead to a grant of citizenship. Whether you withdraw this application, or it is denied, you will need to make a NEW application in order to obtain citizenship.

For emphasis: as I previously noted, IRCC has NO discretion if the applicant is short. There is NO authority to grant citizenship to an applicant who was even one day short AS OF THE DAY THE APPLICATION WAS MADE. (There was back when it was a Residency requirement rather than a Physical Presence requirement, for applications made prior to June 11, 2015, but that is no longer anywhere near relevant.)

Thus, if in the meantime you have been IN Canada sufficiently to now meet the Physical Presence requirement AND you meet all other requirements of course, to obtain Canadian citizenship you can make a NEW application. That appears to be your only path to citizenship.

No need to withdraw the first application before making a new application BUT it is probably best to withdraw the current application sooner rather than later (submitting both around same time is probably OK).

Yes, it is true that this is a factor significantly increasing the RISK of RQ-related non-routine processing for the second application. But you have already crossed that bridge. This RISK factor is triggered as much by the denial of an application as it is withdrawing. And this is not necessarily a big risk and not nearly so negative as one might apprehend even if the new application encounters some RQ-related processing . . . how it will go will DEPEND a lot on whether IRCC processing agents perceive reason to doubt your information. Many who withdrew and reapplied in the past have reported very smooth sailing the next time; they had made easily understood mistakes the first time and were clearly qualified by the time they reapplied.

HOWEVER, I am NOT advising you do this or that. I am NO expert. I am NOT qualified to offer personal advice. I do not know all the relevant facts and thus, even if I was an expert, I could NOT reliably offer any personal advice anyway. (And this is NOT an appropriate venue for attempting to discuss or share anywhere near sufficient details for anyone here to offer personal advice, notwithstanding how much advice is offered in this forum.)

AND this might be an important distinction for you in particular. It appears you have made not just any mistake, but a mistake based on a rather important misunderstanding . . . and frankly, it appears likely there was some misunderstanding during the interview.

To what end I cannot guess. If I was to GUESS I'd guess you have recognized and acknowledged your mistake, and assuming you now qualify for citizenship a new application should proceed fairly smoothly.

That said, that is a GUESS and it is not easy to discern how IRCC sees the situation. Again, it appears there was also some sort of misunderstanding during the interview. Additionally, I am not sure of the procedure once you have acknowledged the error AND that you are short of the minimum actual physical presence requirement. Whether you withdraw (or, perhaps more to the point, ASK to withdraw) or you allow the process to proceed.

I am hesitant to elaborate beyond this. I realize that some of my what-if analyses tend to be, as some put it, "SCARY." I do not want to scare you. I doubt there is much reason to worry. While I emphasize it is merely a GUESS that now things should go relatively smoothly if you make a new application, my impression leans far more heavily that way and hardly at all toward some . . . well, potentially scary what-if alternatives.

So for now I will skip the more scary what-if possibilities. They seem unlikely, unlikely enough to not worry about them . . . and, anyway, you have done what would need to be done anyway, by acknowledging the mistake.

In this regard it warrants noting and emphasizing that you sending communication to IRCC ACKNOWLEDGING and explaining the error, the mistake, should resolve things about as favourably as they can be. This will not change the outcome, regarding qualification for citizenship, since the mistake renders you not qualified for purposes of that application. But other than that, for example, that should preclude or at least greatly mitigate any IRCC perception of misrepresentation. As I have previously observed, IRCC recognizes most people make mistakes, and sometimes some rather big mistakes. IRCC does not go out of its way to punish clients for mistakes. Odds seem good all should go well now if you withdraw and reapply.

 

[dpenabill]

I don't think that it will get to a judge. You seem to be ineligible at the legislation level, so it will simply be denied.

At the risk of wandering into some tall weeds . . .

I am not sure what you mean about being "ineligible at the legislation level."

I suspect you are referring to what more formal jurists distinguish as matters-of-law versus questions-of-fact. And decision-making similar to that done during the application-completeness screening, where the applicant's submission regarding physical presence is screened to ascertain whether on-its-face it shows the presence requirement was met.

We see, for example, sometimes an application is returned because IRCC records do not verify the applicant had temporary resident status for some period of time, and without including that period of time in the calculation the applicant falls short . . . so that application is returned for failing to show, on-its-face, the presence requirement was met.

And for sure, applications in which the applicant's presence calculation clearly falls short of the minimum will indeed be returned . . . the application failing to show, on-its-face, the presence requirement was met and thus, as a matter-of-law the applicant is not qualified. (Not sure why anyone would submit such an application, but we've some instances where this is what some did indeed do.)

In a more formal sense: where the asserted facts, even if they are taken as true, fail to meet the legal requirements, the application fails as a matter-of-law . . . in such circumstances there is no need to address any questions about what the facts are, since even if all the favourable facts are taken to be true, the applicant is still NOT qualified.

And that would appear to apply in the scenario discussed, where during the course of processing the application it is determined the applicant made a mistake and it is clear, as a matter of fact, the applicant was SHORT of meeting the presence requirement. As repeatedly emphasized, this mandates the application being denied. As a matter-of-law there is no legal authority for granting citizenship to such an applicant.

Moreover, as I think you are stating, since there is no longer any question about the facts, and not qualifying as a matter-of-law, IRCC should be able to summarily deny the application, and in particular it appears you are suggesting IRCC likely will do that.

I have wondered about this.

And I wonder to what extent it makes a difference whether or not the applicant explicitly agrees or concedes, or implicitly concedes by submitting a response to RQ-related requests which in effect admit to physical presence SHORT of the requirement.

This much I am fairly confident about: so long as the applicant claims enough days to meet the minimum requirement, even if IRCC has strong evidence to the contrary, and even if quite sure to the contrary, that apparently is NOT a case a Citizenship Officer can summarily deny BUT must refer to a Citizenship Judge. Indeed, with one narrow exception (not worth going into), the ONLY cases referred to a Citizenship Judge are those cases where IRCC is NOT satisfied the applicant met the minimum presence requirement, in which event it is for a Citizenship Judge to determine the facts, to determine whether the applicant has sufficiently met the burden of proving actual presence for at least the minimum number of days during the eligibility period.

For a situation similar to the one discussed here, IF the applicant does not explicitly acknowledge he or she is SHORT, even if the applicant's responses to requests for further information and documentation rather clearly show that the applicant's presence calculation is wrong and that a recalculation will necessarily reveal it is SHORT, so far as I can discern that is a case which still goes to a Citizenship Judge. And that tends to take a long time. Can take a YEAR or more longer. And the outcome at that stage is fairly easy to predict.

There is no reason to pursue any such case further. If an applicant is aware that he or she fell short, there is no good reason to delay the inevitable.

That said, ultimately the Citizenship Judge has rather broad discretion in determining the FACTS . . . not so broad as to make findings of fact at all contrary to agreed upon facts or much contrary to what are clearly well-established facts. So if it is clear the applicant fell short by a day, NO discretion to grant citizenship. As a matter-of-law the applicant is not qualified.

BUT if there is some uncertainty about the facts, some room to reasonably conclude the applicant met the requirements, the decision can go the other way.

In any event, I am not at all sure what degree of certainty as to the facts will result in IRCC denying the application without a referral to a Citizenship Judge. I have the sense that many times, even for a very clear cut, not qualified case, IRCC depends on the applicant to withdraw, and if the applicant does not withdraw the application goes into the long, long queue waiting for a Citizenship Judge hearing.

This matters for some. There was, for example, a forum participant here who felt that the referral to a Citizenship Judge meant there was still a chance his application might be granted (he thought he might be given some credit for days he was sent into the U.S. related to his job in Canada). And despite a lot of input from multiple forum participants about the wisdom of withdrawing, he stayed with it . . . until the CJ hearing, more than a YEAR later, at which point under advice from the CJ, suggesting it would be better to withdraw than to have the CJ deny the application (personally I doubt it would have made much difference at that stage) he did finally withdraw . . . long delaying the process of reapplying and eventually (I assume, absent him following up on his story in the forum) becoming a citizen.

 

[sistemc]

To save reading time to visitors of this forum here is a short summary of above posts.

After a lot of speculation, guessing, excluding liability, irrelevant gibberish, and uncited “references” dpenabil suggested withdrawing existing application and reapplying with a new one.

 

[zardoz]

At the risk of wandering into some tall weeds . . .

I am not sure what you mean about being "ineligible at the legislation level."

I suspect you are referring to what more formal jurists distinguish as matters-of-law versus questions-of-fact. And decision-making similar to that done during the application-completeness screening, where the applicant's submission regarding physical presence is screened to ascertain whether on-its-face it shows the presence requirement was met.

We see, for example, sometimes an application is returned because IRCC records do not verify the applicant had temporary resident status for some period of time, and without including that period of time in the calculation the applicant falls short . . . so that application is returned for failing to show, on-its-face, the presence requirement was met.

And for sure, applications in which the applicant's presence calculation clearly falls short of the minimum will indeed be returned . . . the application failing to show, on-its-face, the presence requirement was met and thus, as a matter-of-law the applicant is not qualified. (Not sure why anyone would submit such an application, but we've some instances where this is what some did indeed do.)

In a more formal sense: where the asserted facts, even if they are taken as true, fail to meet the legal requirements, the application fails as a matter-of-law . . . in such circumstances there is no need to address any questions about what the facts are, since even if all the favourable facts are taken to be true, the applicant is still NOT qualified.

And that would appear to apply in the scenario discussed, where during the course of processing the application it is determined the applicant made a mistake and it is clear, as a matter of fact, the applicant was SHORT of meeting the presence requirement. As repeatedly emphasized, this mandates the application being denied. As a matter-of-law there is no legal authority for granting citizenship to such an applicant.

Moreover, as I think you are stating, since there is no longer any question about the facts, and not qualifying as a matter-of-law, IRCC should be able to summarily deny the application, and in particular it appears you are suggesting IRCC likely will do that.

I have wondered about this.

And I wonder to what extent it makes a difference whether or not the applicant explicitly agrees or concedes, or implicitly concedes by submitting a response to RQ-related requests which in effect admit to physical presence SHORT of the requirement.

This much I am fairly confident about: so long as the applicant claims enough days to meet the minimum requirement, even if IRCC has strong evidence to the contrary, and even if quite sure to the contrary, that apparently is NOT a case a Citizenship Officer can summarily deny BUT must refer to a Citizenship Judge. Indeed, with one narrow exception (not worth going into), the ONLY cases referred to a Citizenship Judge are those cases where IRCC is NOT satisfied the applicant met the minimum presence requirement, in which event it is for a Citizenship Judge to determine the facts, to determine whether the applicant has sufficiently met the burden of proving actual presence for at least the minimum number of days during the eligibility period.

For a situation similar to the one discussed here, IF the applicant does not explicitly acknowledge he or she is SHORT, even if the applicant's responses to requests for further information and documentation rather clearly show that the applicant's presence calculation is wrong and that a recalculation will necessarily reveal it is SHORT, so far as I can discern that is a case which still goes to a Citizenship Judge. And that tends to take a long time. Can take a YEAR or more longer. And the outcome at that stage is fairly easy to predict.

There is no reason to pursue any such case further. If an applicant is aware that he or she fell short, there is no good reason to delay the inevitable.

That said, ultimately the Citizenship Judge has rather broad discretion in determining the FACTS . . . not so broad as to make findings of fact at all contrary to agreed upon facts or much contrary to what are clearly well-established facts. So if it is clear the applicant fell short by a day, NO discretion to grant citizenship. As a matter-of-law the applicant is not qualified.

BUT if there is some uncertainty about the facts, some room to reasonably conclude the applicant met the requirements, the decision can go the other way.

In any event, I am not at all sure what degree of certainty as to the facts will result in IRCC denying the application without a referral to a Citizenship Judge. I have the sense that many times, even for a very clear cut, not qualified case, IRCC depends on the applicant to withdraw, and if the applicant does not withdraw the application goes into the long, long queue waiting for a Citizenship Judge hearing.

This matters for some. There was, for example, a forum participant here who felt that the referral to a Citizenship Judge meant there was still a chance his application might be granted (he thought he might be given some credit for days he was sent into the U.S. related to his job in Canada). And despite a lot of input from multiple forum participants about the wisdom of withdrawing, he stayed with it . . . until the CJ hearing, more than a YEAR later, at which point under advice from the CJ, suggesting it would be better to withdraw than to have the CJ deny the application (personally I doubt it would have made much difference at that stage) he did finally withdraw . . . long delaying the process of reapplying and eventually (I assume, absent him following up on his story in the forum) becoming a citizen.

My response is based on the specific legislation, 5(1)(c)(i), as quoted below from the Citizenship Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29)

Grant of citizenship

5 (1) The Minister shall grant citizenship to any person who

• (a) makes application for citizenship;
• (b) [Repealed, 2017, c. 14, s. 1]
• (c) is a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, has, subject to the regulations, no unfulfilled conditions under that Act relating to his or her status as a permanent resident and
  has
  • (i) been physically present in Canada for at least 1,095 days during the five years immediately before the date of his or her application, and

In other words, it's objective, as the Citizenship Act sets it as a primary eligibility requirement.
The following clauses merely refer to "an adequate knowledge", which may be subjective...

 

[dpenabill]

I don't think that it will get to a judge. You seem to be ineligible at the legislation level, so it will simply be denied.

My response is based on the specific legislation, 5(1)(c)(i), as quoted below from the Citizenship Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29)

In other words, it's objective, as the Citizenship Act sets it as a primary eligibility requirement.
The following clauses merely refer to "an adequate knowledge", which may be subjective...

Except the ONLY cases (again with a narrow exception not worth the tangent) which go to a Citizenship Judge are those cases in which IRCC is NOT satisfied the applicant met the requirement stated in Section 5(1)(c)(i) of the Citizenship Act.

That is, just because IRCC (per a Citizenship Officer's decision) concludes the applicant did NOT meet the presence requirement specified in in Section 5(1)(c)(i), does NOT allow IRCC to deny the application.

If the Citizenship Officer concludes the applicant did not meet the presence requirement, the case is referred to a Citizenship Judge who in most cases will interview the applicant in person and weigh the applicant's credibility before making a decision.

This is actually why it makes so much more sense to withdraw the application when a person recognizes there was an error in their submissions that means that they were not in Canada enough days to meet the presence requirement . . . otherwise their case will be "in process" for a very long time and it will be months, perhaps a year or more, before they get a final decision, and that final decision will not be favourable (unless the applicant has a credible case, supported by evidence, to show they did in fact spend enough days in Canada to meet the presence requirement).

Moreover, in contrast, it is indeed the Citizenship Officer who makes the final decision for all the other issues, including knowledge of Canada, ability in an official language, absence of prohibitions, and meeting tax filing obligations. The absence of prohibitions is definitely NOT subjective. Whether the applicant met the tax filing obligations for the requisite number of years may be subject to differing views but is essentially an objective requirement. And even the knowledge of Canada requirement is determined by an objective written test (not to be confused with the extent to which subjectivity may play a role in the administrative process of drafting test questions).

 

[CherineAmr]

I don't think that it will get to a judge. You seem to be ineligible at the legislation level, so it will simply be denied.
You are going to have to reapply anyway. It's up to you how to handle the sequence of events.

Hi!
So my application is still pending all this time! I was hoping it would get denied so I would reapply but it seems like it's been passed to a judge maybe? What do you think I should do? The last communication I had with the office was via mail in October.

 

[hssam]

You can check some of @dpenabill detailed messages regarding similar issues.

But long story short, if you're below the 1095 days threshold, the best thing to do is to withdraw the application and start again. This will save you months if not years down the line, and will avoid you a hearing with a citizenship judge.
You can clarify this with the citizenship officer during the interview.

HI I had similar issue but my mistake was caught by the officer after i passed my test. Until then i never realized this issue. I am now short of 2 days! will the judge accept it?

 

[manarbasha]

Hi Canada Visa,

I made a terrible mistake of forgetting to include a vacation on my physical presence calculator and unfortunately I did not provide myself enough cushion to accommodate this mistake. Taking the mistake into account, I would be 9 days away from the required 1095 days.

I received an invitation to write my citizenship exam and interview on June 15 (this Saturday). I only found out about my mistake when I translated my passport stamps this week and realized what I forgot to include on my physical presence calculator.

I am planning to bring with me to the interview the following:
A formal apology letter and an updated physical presence calculator (which will show that I am not eligible).

Has anyone had a similar experience? What does everyone think I should do? Should I bring any additional documents?

Appreciate your input, whatever it may be!

Thanks!

Would you please update what happened with you after missing the 9 days?

 

[nicolass]

Hi!
So my application is still pending all this time! I was hoping it would get denied so I would reapply but it seems like it's been passed to a judge maybe? What do you think I should do? The last communication I had with the office was via mail in October.

What happened with your application? Good news to report?

 

[dpenabill]

Would you please update what happened with you after missing the 9 days?

This regards the query and situation posted by @egyptbasha:

Taking the mistake into account, I would be 9 days away from the required 1095 days.

What happened with your application? Good news to report?

This regards the query and situation posted by @CherineAmr

I haven’t realized that I made a mistake and I passed the test and now I’m going back and forth with the office regarding a couple of travels I totally forgot to declare. DO you think i will be denied? Will i have to retake the test again?

I redid the calculator and . . . I'm 3 days below the requirement. I wrote back the letter to the officer today acknowledging that I did a mistake in counting;

It is not clear what sort of update either query is anticipating . . . let alone what is suggested by the question "Good news to report?"

To be clear, barring a major deviation from how things work, some rare and very weird anomaly, neither @egyptbasha nor @CherineAmr can report that the citizenship applications they reference above led to being granted citizenship. They both report NOT being eligible when they applied. As @zardoz and others responded, including me, whatever path was followed getting there, in BOTH these cases the applications were going to END without a grant of citizenship. For both these individuals, obtaining citizenship would require making a NEW citizenship application.

If a PR applies for citizenship BEFORE they meet the actual physical presence requirement, they are NOT eligible for a grant of citizenship based on that application. IRCC has NO discretion to waive the physical presence requirement, not even for an applicant who is just one day short. A Citizenship Judge likewise has NO discretion to approve a grant of citizenship for an applicant who was short of the presence requirement on the day the application was made.

So, if a mistake in the travel history was made, the key question is whether the applicant still meets the minimum physical presence requirement AFTER deducting any known absences not included with the applicant's initial presence calculation. If the calculation of credit for days present in Canada falls to 1094 or less, the applicant is NOT eligible, that application MUST NOT be granted. Simple as that. Definite as that.

For @manarbasha this appears to be bad news, delivered by several forum participants in the other topic where a query was posed in regards to what happens for an applicant who made a mistake resulting in being 12 days short of the requirement, the responses there echoing the obvious: being short means the application is a no-go. Simple as that. Definite as that.

But assuming @manarbasha remained in Canada after making the ill-fated application, and now meets the presence requirement (and other requirements as well), there should be little or no problem proceeding with a new application. Which was the situation for both @egyptbasha and @CherineAmr . . . who, one might guess, probably have made new applications for which there may indeed be good news or at least their applications, assuming they made new applications, are in process and on track for citizenship to be granted.

 

[Satyaprakash]

Hi,

I made a mistake in filling up the Physical presence calculator, I came to Canada on August 07th 2017 as a Dependent Work permit, I got my PR on 31st May 2018 and counted my days in order to apply for Citizenship in the physical presence calculator and I got 1,449 days. But in the form I made a mistake that I am in Canada from May 2017(Mistake in selecting the calendar). So, now instead of 1,449 it went to 1,491 days there I did not realize the days but after submission I found that made a mistake.

So, I am just worrying about the application whether do I need to withdraw or to write an email explaining the situation to the immigration. Any suggestions please


Thanks

 

[dpenabill]

Hi,

I made a mistake in filling up the Physical presence calculator, I came to Canada on August 07th 2017 as a Dependent Work permit, I got my PR on 31st May 2018 and counted my days in order to apply for Citizenship in the physical presence calculator and I got 1,449 days. But in the form I made a mistake that I am in Canada from May 2017(Mistake in selecting the calendar). So, now instead of 1,449 it went to 1,491 days there I did not realize the days but after submission I found that made a mistake.

So, I am just worrying about the application whether do I need to withdraw or to write an email explaining the situation to the immigration. Any suggestions please


Thanks

Generally an applicant can wait for AOR and then submit a webform or paper letter with a correction for a mistake made in the physical presence calculation; good idea to briefly (very briefly) explain why there was a mistake.

There is a chance, however, that the application will be returned, no AOR, since yours (it appears) includes time in Canada before you had status in Canada. I am no expert. This is not something typically reported or seen in the forum. So I am far from sure how this will affect the initial screening for completeness.

But if it the application is returned, you then submit a corrected application. No problem.

If you get AOR, you make the correction by webform or letter, with brief explanation, and odds are it does not cause any significant issues.

IRCC is well aware people make mistakes. They do not play gotcha games.

Of course not all mistakes are created equal . . . but if the mistake does not change the applicant's eligibility and a correction is timely submitted, it should be OK . . . a mistake that meant the applicant did not meet the requirement, or a mistake that suggests cause for suspicion, would be a different deal.

No need to sweat this one. Just wait to see if you get AOR, and if so, submit the correction.

 

[Satyaprakash]

Generally an applicant can wait for AOR and then submit a webform or paper letter with a correction for a mistake made in the physical presence calculation; good idea to briefly (very briefly) explain why there was a mistake.

There is a chance, however, that the application will be returned, no AOR, since yours (it appears) includes time in Canada before you had status in Canada. I am no expert. This is not something typically reported or seen in the forum. So I am far from sure how this will affect the initial screening for completeness.

But if it the application is returned, you then submit a corrected application. No problem.

If you get AOR, you make the correction by webform or letter, with brief explanation, and odds are it does not cause any significant issues.

IRCC is well aware people make mistakes. They do not play gotcha games.

Of course not all mistakes are created equal . . . but if the mistake does not change the applicant's eligibility and a correction is timely submitted, it should be OK . . . a mistake that meant the applicant did not meet the requirement, or a mistake that suggests cause for suspicion, would be a different deal.

No need to sweat this one. Just wait to see if you get AOR, and if so, submit the correction.

Hi,

Thank you so much for your reply, I am just waiting for AOR then I will Submit the web form or the letter briefly about the Issue.
Once again thanks for your help and time.

 

[Anastasia_17]

HI I had similar issue but my mistake was caught by the officer after i passed my test. Until then i never realized this issue. I am now short of 2 days! will the judge accept it?

Hi @hssam, I am in a similar situation. Can you please let me know what happened with your situation? I am 3 days short and only got an email with this discrepancy AFTER my citizenship interview, now I am waiting on a response from the officer.

 

[rudi51]

I went through the same thing, the CIC cannot advise you whether to withdraw your application or not and will just tell you to wait. I waited 5 years with no news and various non committal answers, even doing an interview, I ended by withdrawing my application, reapplied, had my test after 2 months, just waiting for my oath now. To clarify I was ineligible by 15 days after recalculation