I had 400+ trips between Canada and US border. I missed adding them as they were mostly same day trips.
My total physical presence buffer time is still many months beyond the minimum.
Some further observations about meeting the physical presence requirement; this is NOT so much for the situation presented here, regarding @okbangaram (as noted, it looks like all is well), but for clarification:
The only criterion for physical presence is 3 years out of 5 years (1095 days) during the eligibility period.
Read here for more info:
https://maxcanvisa.com/blog/2022/01/28/applying-for-citizenship-from-overseas/
The blog post you reference, by an immigration consultant, overlooks a key element in regards to actual physical presence, and glosses over the risks. (Generally I am no fan of consultants, but there are undoubtedly many who are good, just not easy to determine which are good versus those who, well, are better avoided; I have tried to not let my bias shade these comments.)
That blog post is actually a well organized and quite good explanation, better than some seen at websites for immigration lawyers.
I will not rehash the increased risks an applicant living abroad has, compared to applicants staying in Canada, as these have been discussed at length, and often, in many threads here. But for anyone making decisions related to applying from abroad or living abroad after applying, it would be prudent to at least look into and consider the nature of the risks, both procedural and logistical risks.
The more significant element that blog post overlooks, and a problem with statements like the one you make (referencing the "
only criterion"), is
the burden of proof. This is no small thing if and when IRCC questions the applicant's physical presence.
The applicant for citizenship must not only have been actually physically present in Canada for at least 1095 days during the "
eligibility period" (five years), but in regards to this the applicant MUST (additionally):
-- submit sufficient information with the application that allows IRCC to verify the applicant's physical presence, AND
-- if the physical presence is questioned, provide sufficient evidence to prove beyond a balance of probabilities that they met the physical presence requirement
Or, as a Denzel Washington character in a cop movie stated it: "
it's not what you know, it's what you can prove."
And, again, if and when questions arise, this burden is no small thing.
Make no mistake, despite a whole lot of noise to the contrary, the risk that IRCC will have questions about the applicant's actual physical presence is significantly higher for applicants living abroad. It is worth noting, after all, unless it is certain where an individual was in the past, where they are now is at the least some indication of where they were before . . . and no mastermind expertise necessary to recognize that when the applicant is abroad at the time an application is made, a total stranger bureaucrat assessing the evidence of physical presence has to at least inquire into the extent that supports an inference about how much they may have been abroad in the five years before applying.
Bringing this to the situation here, where there is apparently a major, looming issue potentially arising from omissions in the physical presence calculation submitted with the application. Offset, it likely appears, by a couple very positive factors.
Key factors: Big margin over minimum in corrected calculation. Missed trips in application calculation. Number of trips.
As noted, the large buffer over the minimum physical presence requirement PROBABLY means things will go OK. Bigger the margin, easier it is for a bureaucrat to conclude the minimum was met even if the calculation is not entirely accurate.
Obviously, however, the extent of errors (omissions or inaccuracies) in the travel history submitted with the application, in the physical presence calculation, has a big, big influence in whether IRCC is satisfied the applicant met the actual physical presence requirement. The more discrepancies, the more that evidences or at least suggests the applicant is NOT a RELIABLE reporter of facts. If, of course, IRCC were to conclude the extent to which the applicant is not a reliable reporter of facts constitutes misrepresentation, that is a stand alone ground for denying the application (resulting in being barred from reapplying for years), even if the evidence otherwise established the applicant met all the requirements for citizenship, including physical presence. But short of that, and the far more common scenario, and even if IRCC concludes the errors made were totally innocent mistakes, significant discrepancies can lead IRCC to consider the applicant an unreliable reporter and, basically, not give much if any weight to what the applicant reports except to the extent it is positively corroborated by other, objective sources.
The facts are the most important element. But the applicant's credibility is hugely important as well. And, again, this is not limited to whether the applicant is deceptive or honest. Mistakes matter. Even if innocent. How much so depends on how big they are, how many there are.
Influence of Frequent Travel:
Some seem to think that frequent travel outside Canada tends to increase the risk that IRCC will have concerns about the applicant's physical presence. However, and perhaps some might see this as irony, the frequency of trips can be a big factor that helps make the case for physical presence. The more trips there are, the shorter the periods of time in-between, the more complete a picture there is of the applicant's travel in and out of Canada. Thus, for example, even if IRCC suspects the applicant might have left Canada on a date the applicant has not reported doing so, if the gap between reported dates of entry into Canada (which IRCC should be able to easily verify in CBSA records) are no longer than a couple weeks, a couple weeks is the very longest they could have been outside Canada not otherwise accounted for in their calculation travel history. And, a pattern of frequent travel in itself tends to show a more complete, reliably complete picture, and a more easily verified picture.
PROCEDURE:
As long as the applicant has submitted a claim that they met the physical presence requirement, in fact and based on days with status, IRCC cannot and does not reject a citizenship application based on concluding the applicant did not meet the presence requirement. Such cases must be referred to a Citizenship Judge. As long as the applicant's submissions claim presence meeting the requirement,
ONLY a CJ can deny the application on the grounds the applicant did not meet the presence requirement.
(IRCC can deny the application on grounds the applicant did not meet the physical presence requirement based on not counting days IRCC concludes the PR did not have PR status or temporary resident status. Only a CJ can deny the application on the grounds the applicant did not prove they were actually present in Canada the days they claim to have been present.)
Cases that go to a CJ take much, much longer. Three or four years seems to be common.
