How many days past 1095 days?

[dpenabill]

When I moved to Canada, I had to stay in a hotel for the mandatory quarantine. After that I rented a room in a house for less than 2 months. I moved to an apartment after that. All this time I was unemployed and also was unemployed beyond that for a few more months too.

Would all this period be considered transient?

It is not like labels are applied or that labels mean much.

If there is nothing to indicate a newly landed PR left Canada soon after the landing, a rather common, typical transient period of time is not going to tickle a bureaucrat's nose. Common sense plays a big, big role.

Context matters. Perceptions matter. Impressions matter. But there is no formula for identifying how these things matter. No equation, for example, for calculating the weight being unemployed for three months has.

What I think is generally overlooked a lot in forum discussions is that the travel history itself does not carry anywhere near as much weight as most seem to give it.

But for the vast majority of us (even me, despite my personal business having minimal ties to Canada, the only real tie to Canada being that this is where I was physically located doing the work), we leave a rather obvious paper and digital trail showing a life being lived in Canada. Not much there to question. So some transient periods (whether in address or work history, or both) can make total sense in the overall picture of the individual's life (in the preceding three to five years). And that's what matters. Does it add up? Make sense? Is the information the applicant has provided consistent with who the applicant is and the life the applicant has been living.

Compare, for example, the PR who reports being employed in a manufacturing job, say for a car parts manufacturer in the GTA, compared to the PR who is a university professor. If the latter reports taking three month long holidays abroad, corresponding to breaks between university sessions, shrug. If the assembly line worker reports periodically taking three month long holidays abroad, even though employed at a job where typical holidays are three weeks not three months, yeah, a total-stranger bureaucrat might scratch her head and decide to follow-up, checking the applicant and the applicant's information a bit more thoroughly, and then deciding whether to actually investigate or initiate RQ-related non-routine processing.

It's a lot about what just plain makes good sense.

How much buffer to apply with to more or less pad the bill, again that is a very personal decision. It's easy, damn easy, for most anyway, to wait an extra month, and for many that is actually more than needed to make it "safe."

So, yeah, the guy who has a steady job for a well known employer, and whose whole family is living with him here in Canada, smooth sailing is virtually guaranteed as long as he is qualified and he has completely and accurately provided the information asked for. No need for much of a buffer.

In contrast, the guy whose family lives outside Canada, who has gone from job to job with some big gaps in-between, well, he probably would be wise to wait longer and apply with a good buffer.

In-between, where many of us fall, it varies. It's personal. It's about whether a total stranger bureaucrat will look at our information and scratch her head, go "huh?" or whether that information makes total sense, no need for questions indicated.

Did I mention that the good news is that absent something triggering a cause to question the applicant's information, for the qualified applicant who has completely and accurately given the information requested, the odds are very high there will be no residency investigation and no RQ-related non-routine processing?

 

[krishere1982]

It is not like labels are applied or that labels mean much.

If there is nothing to indicate a newly landed PR left Canada soon after the landing, a rather common, typical transient period of time is not going to tickle a bureaucrat's nose. Common sense plays a big, big role.

Context matters. Perceptions matter. Impressions matter. But there is no formula for identifying how these things matter. No equation, for example, for calculating the weight being unemployed for three months has.

What I think is generally overlooked a lot in forum discussions is that the travel history itself does not carry anywhere near as much weight as most seem to give it.

But for the vast majority of us (even me, despite my personal business having minimal ties to Canada, the only real tie to Canada being that this is where I was physically located doing the work), we leave a rather obvious paper and digital trail showing a life being lived in Canada. Not much there to question. So some transient periods (whether in address or work history, or both) can make total sense in the overall picture of the individual's life (in the preceding three to five years). And that's what matters. Does it add up? Make sense? Is the information the applicant has provided consistent with who the applicant is and the life the applicant has been living.

Compare, for example, the PR who reports being employed in a manufacturing job, say for a car parts manufacturer in the GTA, compared to the PR who is a university professor. If the latter reports taking three month long holidays abroad, corresponding to breaks between university sessions, shrug. If the assembly line worker reports periodically taking three month long holidays abroad, even though employed at a job where typical holidays are three weeks not three months, yeah, a total-stranger bureaucrat might scratch her head and decide to follow-up, checking the applicant and the applicant's information a bit more thoroughly, and then deciding whether to actually investigate or initiate RQ-related non-routine processing.

It's a lot about what just plain makes good sense.

How much buffer to apply with to more or less pad the bill, again that is a very personal decision. It's easy, damn easy, for most anyway, to wait an extra month, and for many that is actually more than needed to make it "safe."

So, yeah, the guy who has a steady job for a well known employer, and whose whole family is living with him here in Canada, smooth sailing is virtually guaranteed as long as he is qualified and he has completely and accurately provided the information asked for. No need for much of a buffer.

In contrast, the guy whose family lives outside Canada, who has gone from job to job with some big gaps in-between, well, he probably would be wise to wait longer and apply with a good buffer.

In-between, where many of us fall, it varies. It's personal. It's about whether a total stranger bureaucrat will look at our information and scratch her head, go "huh?" or whether that information makes total sense, no need for questions indicated.

Did I mention that the good news is that absent something triggering a cause to question the applicant's information, for the qualified applicant who has completely and accurately given the information requested, the odds are very high there will be no residency investigation and no RQ-related non-routine processing?

I landed long ago, but I moved to Canada and have long ago satisfied the RO for PR.

People probably give more importance to travel history because that information can be cross checked with CBSA. As opposed to things which we are just merely mentioned in the application without any documentary evidence.

And when you mention about family living outside Canada, you are talking about spouse and children?

 

[dpenabill]

And when you mention about family living outside Canada, you are talking about spouse and children?

I am talking about circumstances tending to be more or less consistent with living in Canada. "Ties" to Canada as referenced in the cases where residency or physical presence have been litigated in appeal. More apparent ties to Canada, the less reason there is to question whether the individual was actually living in Canada during periods of time they claim to be living in Canada. More ties outside Canada, the more that suggests, in exercising due diligence, checking things a little more closely. Common sense. Basic reasoning.

Evaluating these things is not tied to a defined let alone rigid points scale. Common sense. Balancing things.

People probably give more importance to travel history because that information can be cross checked with CBSA. As opposed to things which we are just merely mentioned in the application without any documentary evidence.

Many, if not most, give more importance to travel history because they infer presence in Canada between a known date of entry and the next known date of exit. That's how the online physical presence calculator works. It is based on that inference, that the applicant was physically present in Canada all the days in-between listed dates of entry and exit.

That inference does indeed carry a lot of weight. But it depends on all the other information being consistent with the PR's actual presence. If the information about where a PR was living in Canada is not persuasive, that raises the question, was the PR actually in Canada all those days?

Many, if not a majority of forum participants, advocate that IRCC should rely more on the CBSA travel history, to rely on the inference the PR was actually in Canada all the days between a known date of entry and the next known date of exit, UNLESS there is some evidence to indicate the PR exited or entered Canada on some other dates. But IRCC, so far anyway, does not assume that the CBSA travel history is complete.

But as I keep saying, as long as the whole picture adds up, makes sense, indicates the applicant has been living a life in Canada consistent with the information in front of IRCC, which is mostly what is in the immigrant's application and GCMS records, there is no indication of a reason to question the applicant's physical presence declaration . . . in which event, 1095 days meets the requirement.

 

[krishere1982]

I am talking about circumstances tending to be more or less consistent with living in Canada. "Ties" to Canada as referenced in the cases where residency or physical presence have been litigated in appeal. More apparent ties to Canada, the less reason there is to question whether the individual was actually living in Canada during periods of time they claim to be living in Canada. More ties outside Canada, the more that suggests, in exercising due diligence, checking things a little more closely. Common sense. Basic reasoning.

Evaluating these things is not tied to a defined let alone rigid points scale. Common sense. Balancing things.



Many, if not most, give more importance to travel history because they infer presence in Canada between a known date of entry and the next known date of exit. That's how the online physical presence calculator works. It is based on that inference, that the applicant was physically present in Canada all the days in-between listed dates of entry and exit.

That inference does indeed carry a lot of weight. But it depends on all the other information being consistent with the PR's actual presence. If the information about where a PR was living in Canada is not persuasive, that raises the question, was the PR actually in Canada all those days?

Many, if not a majority of forum participants, advocate that IRCC should rely more on the CBSA travel history, to rely on the inference the PR was actually in Canada all the days between a known date of entry and the next known date of exit, UNLESS there is some evidence to indicate the PR exited or entered Canada on some other dates. But IRCC, so far anyway, does not assume that the CBSA travel history is complete.

But as I keep saying, as long as the whole picture adds up, makes sense, indicates the applicant has been living a life in Canada consistent with the information in front of IRCC, which is mostly what is in the immigrant's application and GCMS records, there is no indication of a reason to question the applicant's physical presence declaration . . . in which event, 1095 days meets the requirement.

I had applied for my PR card renewal recently, in Nov 2022. It was renewed in a total period of 3 weeks - from the time the mail reached them to me getting the new card in mail, including weekends. It was very fast! Which means they were able to verify my RO for PR easily.

I am wondering when I apply for citizenship, would they check if I have a recent PR card renewal file and use information from it to help verify my physical presence in Canada?

 

[crastoameetha]

Should the 1095 days (3 years) be continuous stay or I can exit and come back to the country and continue a total of 1095 days will be counted?

 

[CanGoldDigger]

Should the 1095 days (3 years) be continuous stay or I can exit and come back to the country and continue a total of 1095 days will be counted?

Not continuous, but within 5 years.

 

[Houtan]

It is not like labels are applied or that labels mean much.

If there is nothing to indicate a newly landed PR left Canada soon after the landing, a rather common, typical transient period of time is not going to tickle a bureaucrat's nose. Common sense plays a big, big role.

Context matters. Perceptions matter. Impressions matter. But there is no formula for identifying how these things matter. No equation, for example, for calculating the weight being unemployed for three months has.

What I think is generally overlooked a lot in forum discussions is that the travel history itself does not carry anywhere near as much weight as most seem to give it.

But for the vast majority of us (even me, despite my personal business having minimal ties to Canada, the only real tie to Canada being that this is where I was physically located doing the work), we leave a rather obvious paper and digital trail showing a life being lived in Canada. Not much there to question. So some transient periods (whether in address or work history, or both) can make total sense in the overall picture of the individual's life (in the preceding three to five years). And that's what matters. Does it add up? Make sense? Is the information the applicant has provided consistent with who the applicant is and the life the applicant has been living.

Compare, for example, the PR who reports being employed in a manufacturing job, say for a car parts manufacturer in the GTA, compared to the PR who is a university professor. If the latter reports taking three month long holidays abroad, corresponding to breaks between university sessions, shrug. If the assembly line worker reports periodically taking three month long holidays abroad, even though employed at a job where typical holidays are three weeks not three months, yeah, a total-stranger bureaucrat might scratch her head and decide to follow-up, checking the applicant and the applicant's information a bit more thoroughly, and then deciding whether to actually investigate or initiate RQ-related non-routine processing.

It's a lot about what just plain makes good sense.

How much buffer to apply with to more or less pad the bill, again that is a very personal decision. It's easy, damn easy, for most anyway, to wait an extra month, and for many that is actually more than needed to make it "safe."

So, yeah, the guy who has a steady job for a well known employer, and whose whole family is living with him here in Canada, smooth sailing is virtually guaranteed as long as he is qualified and he has completely and accurately provided the information asked for. No need for much of a buffer.

In contrast, the guy whose family lives outside Canada, who has gone from job to job with some big gaps in-between, well, he probably would be wise to wait longer and apply with a good buffer.

In-between, where many of us fall, it varies. It's personal. It's about whether a total stranger bureaucrat will look at our information and scratch her head, go "huh?" or whether that information makes total sense, no need for questions indicated.

Did I mention that the good news is that absent something triggering a cause to question the applicant's information, for the qualified applicant who has completely and accurately given the information requested, the odds are very high there will be no residency investigation and no RQ-related non-routine processing?

Hi, Could you paraphrase this part please? I can't understand what you mean..

 

[dpenabill]

Did I mention that the good news is that absent something triggering a cause to question the applicant's information, for the qualified applicant who has completely and accurately given the information requested, the odds are very high there will be no residency investigation and no RQ-related non-routine processing?

Hi, Could you paraphrase this part please? I can't understand what you mean.

I am not sure how to rephrase this. It is quite simple: For the applicant who meets all the requirements and who has properly provided a complete application containing accurate information, the application should easily sail through processing without encountering any non-routine processing delays due to concerns about the physical presence requirement . . . UNLESS there is something about the applicant, or information about the applicant, that raises concerns or questions.

In looking back at the discussion above, from more than a year and a half ago, it appears to well-cover many if not most of the factors a PR might want to consider in deciding WHEN to apply for citizenship AFTER passing the minimum physical presence threshold. This is as much about reducing the risk of non-routine processing delays, especially RQ-related non-routine processing, as it is about assuring a successful outcome. Meeting the requirements is the absolute minimum, and in most cases that is also enough. In contrast, however, many (probably most) applicants also want to avoid lengthy delays, and for many who want to improve their chances of that, of avoiding delays, it will be prudent to carefully consider waiting longer to apply.

How much longer is wise will vary considerably depending on individual circumstances. And of course for some applicants waiting longer is not practical in their situation.

 

[Houtan]

Your original post was very comprehensive indeed. I was just not sure about the end bit where you said "Did I mention that the good news is that absent something triggering a cause to question the applicant's information, for the qualified applicant who has completely and accurately given the information requested".
However, reading it a few more times again, I think now I understand what you meant.

Thanks again for your information.