There is more to it, and explaining that gets complicated, but for now here's the gist: if the Citizenship Officer handling your case is not persuaded the information submitted meets the burden of proving 1095 days of physical presence, the travel history is NOT enough.
Travel history dates showing at least 1095 days credit, based on counting date of entry through to the next date of exit, is the MINIMUM. If, as has been discussed, the calculation based on travel history totaled 1094 days, or fewer, the application must fail.
ONLY if the calculation shows at least 1095 days credit is it even possible for the application to succeed. So that much is for sure necessary. This is why I fully concur with
@scylla's observations about making sure to get travel history dates absolutely and precisely correct, "
100%" . . . as
@scylla put it . . . "
you need to . . . be 100% sure that you have all of the right entry and exit dates." If you had a margin, a buffer, there might be some
wiggle-room. You don't. There is no
wiggle-room. To have any chance of success at all, your dates need to be perfect because that is what you need to add up to credit for 1095 days. Anything less fails.
That said, as you are experiencing,
showing 1095 days credit does not guarantee it will succeed.
For most applicants, if the calculation based on travel history dates shows 1095 days credit, or more, that is enough. But that is because in conjunction with all the other information considered, IRCC does not doubt the completeness and accuracy of the travel history, and does not doubt the applicant actually was physically in Canada all those days in-between a date of entry and next exit. So they rely on that, relying on an
inference that the applicant was physically IN Canada not just the day of entry, but the next day and the following days, all the days between the date of entry and next date of exit. That is how the online presence calculator works: it works based on this inference, it automatically counts and totals days from date of entry until next date of exit.
If that falls short, even by one day, the applicant is NOT qualified to be granted citizenship.
Here is the rub, which is something many appear to not grasp: even if the travel history dates show 1095 days presence, for that to be enough depends on that inference of presence all those in-between days . . . AND
IRCC is not bound to make that inference. Canada has an incredibly porous border. There is no presumption of physical presence. All applicants, for example, must provide a complete address and activity history, and do so with sufficient information to enable IRCC to corroborate the physical presence calculation.
Expanding on that example: While address history and work history will be examined and compared to other information with some focus on whether the history is consistent with the applicant's reported travel history, the history is also examined and compared to consider whether it is consistent with and supports the applicant being actually physically present in Canada. Does the address and work history tend to show the applicant was actually physically present during ALL those days between reported dates of entry and next reported date of exit? Ultimately the latter may be more important, potentially a lot more important, than the travel history.
Which leads back to recognizing that
showing 1095 days credit does not guarantee an application will succeed.
If IRCC has doubts, it is the applicant's burden to present evidence sufficient to prove actual physical presence. And to present sufficient evidence that proves presence for at least 1095 days. That means evidence of presence for 1095 days, not just dates of entry and dates of exit. All a date of entry directly proves is presence for one day.
Many want IRCC to rely on CBSA travel history records, and assume or presume presence in Canada for the in-between days. But that is not how it works. IRCC looks at the CBSA travel history primarily to check on what the applicant has submitted, to see if there are any discrepancies or omissions with what the applicant has submitted. It is one way (among a number of ways) that IRCC is screening the applicant's credibility, to evaluate whether or not the applicant is a reliable reporter of the facts.
You kind of failed that test. Your account of travel history, in the application, was not complete, not accurate. In contrast, given that at best, at most, you were physically present for 730 days as a PR, which is the absolute minimum number of days needed to qualify for citizenship, that does not leave much room for doubt. Well, actually, it leaves no room for doubt.
There are many other tangents in your situation. It would be easy to get bogged down in clarifying whether the IRCC official you were dealing with was in fact the Citizenship Officer responsible for your case, or a processing agent. Routine PI interviews are usually done by a processing agent, who in turns provides the information to the responsible Citizenship Officer. If, in contrast, this was specifically a
presence-case-interview with a Citizenship Officer, and this official clearly expressed skepticism and an intention to refer the case to a Citizenship Judge, that's different and a big deal, and that suggests the Citizenship Officer may very well indeed
NOT be persuaded your information meets the burden of proof and so the case will be headed to a hearing with a Citizenship Judge.
I am not saying you will not prevail in a hearing with a Citizenship Judge. You might. But it is likely to take months or more to get there. And you might not prevail.
And even though it looks like this will go to a hearing with a Citizenship Judge, even that is not for sure.
For now, 1095 days gets you in the room where citizenship MIGHT be granted, but if and when challenged, it will take more than that to prove actual physical presence.
