Additionally . . . in an effort make things clear despite the muddy waters . . .
Do you think it will be fine if I just marked that I had a visitor status from my arrival date until I got my PR, and . . . ?
First, at the risk of being overbearingly repetitive . . . in an effort to better explain . . .
Documented Resident Status Versus Resident Status Not Documented in GCMS; a Review:
It bears repeating that for purposes of actually getting credit toward the citizenship physical presence requirement, there
can be a difference (not necessarily will be, but potentially there
can be a difference) between pre-PR periods of time in Canada with temporary resident status (including visitor status) that is documented in GCMS
versus periods of time for which the temporary resident status of the Foreign National is not documented in their GCMS records. I have previously, here and multiple times in other threads, described various situations in which a FN's legal resident status might not be documented in that FN's GCMS records, and
CAUTIONED that for citizenship applicants IRCC might not count such period of time because the records do not verify the applicant's pre-PR resident status.
For a period of time the applicant KNOWS (that is, they are quite certain) they had valid resident status, this can be and probably should be included in the physical presence calculator attendant a citizenship application. Regardless whether it is documented in the applicant's GCMS records. It will add to the total credit toward meeting the physical presence requirement (half day credit for each day in Canada).
Noting, for example, if the case goes to a Citizenship Judge, the applicant will get credit for all those days the applicant sufficiently establishes they had STATUS
and PRESENCE.
HOWEVER,
NO prudent PR will proceed to make an application for citizenship based on what can be proved in a full blown evidentiary hearing before a CJ if all they need to do is wait a reasonable period of time longer to apply and thereby avoid all the hassle, and especially the very lengthy time it would take if the case goes to a CJ hearing, not to mention avoiding the risk the application is denied.
THUS, for purposes of deciding
WHEN to APPLY, it may be prudent to distinguish periods of time the applicant knows they had valid resident status VERSUS pre-PR periods of time their status might NOT be documented in GCMS, and, again for purposes of deciding
WHEN to APPLY, then WAIT to apply when they are quite certain they meet the minimum presence requirement
without counting the days during any period of time that potentially is not documented in their GCMS records.
In particular, for purposes of deciding
WHEN to APPLY, deciding to apply for citizenship based on just meeting the minimum requirements threshold might
NOT be a good idea . . . even though for most, among those who are very certain of their presence and status, it is likely to go OK (1095 days physical presence credit meets the requirements). For many the worse case scenario is some incidental non-routine processing causing a longer processing timeline. For some others, many others,
however, depending on the particular details, they risk getting tangled in a full blown presence/residency case which can delay taking the oath by many months, more than a year if it involves going to a Citizenship Judge hearing. And may include the risk the application is denied.
So, the prudent applicant relying on pre-PR presence credit will consider whether GCMS might not document (might not corroborate) their resident status for some of their pre-PR time in Canada. Again, I have previously described, at some length, situations in which this may happen; so far as can be discerned, for now, the most common scenarios appear to involve periods of visitor status not documented by a formal visa or Visitor Record, and some (not all) period of implied status.
BOTTOM-LINE: WAIT to apply based on total presence credit NOT COUNTING any pre-PR period of time the applicant is not certain that GCMS documents their status.
This is NOT about whether such a period of time should count. Or even whether it will count if the case goes to a full CJ hearing. It is about recognizing the practical impact that undocumented periods of status can have on the process, recognizing that the burden of proving status is actually on the applicant even though, as a practical matter, applicants rarely need to prove their status beyond simply reporting it and the respective dates in the presence calculator.
Some forum participants have noted that applicants can, in effect, contest IRCC's failure to count such periods of time. It may even be sensible to do so in some circumstances. But generally, given the downsides (especially in terms of the impact on the timeline, apart from the risk of losing), the better approach is to WAIT.
I have always had a valid visitor status prior to PR (from 2019 to 2021) and I have exact dates when I have been away so there shouldn't be any concern regarding the physical presence calculator. In my case I was granted 180 days with visitor status when arriving to Canada, and because of COVID I had to apply for extension for the visitor record as I was not able to leave the country to "reset" the 180 days. This extension was approved but I don't remember the dates around when I applied and how long it was granted for, but I'm 100% certain my status was valid this whole time before PR.
As I have described, what should count is NOT necessarily what IRCC will count, not without contest and a lengthy, cumbersome process.
If, as you say, you are "
100% certain my status was valid this whole time before PR," and putting that information into the presence calculator, as best you can (given uncertainties as to dates), is YOUR honest best answer, well, that's the obligation, to put HONEST information into the application and presence calculator.
But in this situation,
deciding WHEN to APPLY is the key question, and the prudent approach likely means
WAITING to apply based on meeting the presence requirement without counting any pre-PR periods of time for which you do not have a clear record of status, either in paper or formal digital communication from IRCC.
Noting my previous cautionary observations about the possibility that your GCMS records might not verify you were, as you say, "
granted 180 days with visitor status when arriving to Canada," if you were waived through at the Port-of-Entry, or this grant of 180 days status is based on a passport stamp (in contrast to a formally issued visa which documents date it is granted and expires, or a formally issued Visitor Record which likewise specifies date granted and date it expires), it warrants seriously considering waiting to apply NOT relying on credit for this period of time. Not because you did not have status (you did) but because your status is not readily verified in GCMS (and thus there is a risk it does not get credit).
Additionally, however, it also warrants an additional caution that any extension of visitor status was most likely documented by a Visitor Record (paper or digital), which generally is terminated by leaving Canada if the FN leaves BEFORE the date the Visitor Record expires. I do not know how CBSA and IRCC account for these scenarios in the client's GCMS records. I do know that there can be, and very often is, a rather informal approach in these scenarios . . . meaning, for example, that if the FN leaves Canada, then returns to Canada, CBSA can (often does so far as I am aware) waive the FN back into Canada more or less as if the Visitor Record authorizes their entry and stay as a temporary resident . . . BUT this does NOT mean the individual's GCMS records will document their status for that period of time.
