Does "visitor" status count as credit time before PR ?
- Thread starter mixoqc
- Start date
It did before the current rules took effect. See:
http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/does-time-as-a-visitor-count-towards-citizenship-time.266553/
http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/does-time-as-a-visitor-count-towards-citizenship-time.266553/
screech339
VIP Member
- Apr 2, 2013
- 552
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Vegreville
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 14-08-2012
- AOR Received.
- 20-11-2012
- Med's Done....
- 18-07-2012
- Interview........
- 17-06-2013
- LANDED..........
- 17-06-2013
Yes, it does count towards citizenship provided that you prove you were "residing" in Canada. For example, name on a lease. Providing only entry/exit records does not qualify as "residing temporary" in Canada. All that does is prove you were just a tourist. Tourists cannot claim pre-PR credit. Spouses/Common Law awaiting spousal PR inland while on visitor status, for example, would qualify for pre-PR credit.
C-6 returns things to the way they were (in terms of pre-PR credit) before they were changed to the current system. C-6 is not yet in effect.
thanks for your answers, do you think things like owning a car, can be see as proof of residency, with a tourist visa ?
i was in the country for +1 year before PR (while waiting for PR i lived in Canada with a valid tourist visa, i applied for PR outside Canada in order to get the PR sooner.)
i was in the country for +1 year before PR (while waiting for PR i lived in Canada with a valid tourist visa, i applied for PR outside Canada in order to get the PR sooner.)
I have a friend, a U.S. citizen, who lived in Canada for several years with no status other than visitor, then applied for PR and later citizenship. (He travelled in and out of Canada weekly by car, so his visitor status never expired.) He applied for citizenship with two years (two years of residence = one year of credit) of pre-PR residence when he applied for citizenship and it was never questioned. He did include a few receipts with his pre-PR Canadian address on them with his application (these were not requested, and some people say to only send what is requested). I have no idea whether the receipts made any difference or whether it made a difference that he was a U.S. citizen who was interviewed in a border city, where cross-border interactions are common.
Last edited:
Well, I will advise that you make sure your facts are verified before you use visitor time.
Technically from the requirements of C-24 and C-6, it is required for applicants to provide evidence of income tax during the years of residency required. Visitors don't file income tax as they don't have temporary social insurance number. So it is most likely the visitor time will be rejected.
Even if you're a spouse in Canada on visitor visa being sponsored for PR, you'll be expected to apply for a work permit based on your spouse's PR or Citizenship status. So it is difficult to use visitor time. However, if you're on visitor status and you became a PR between March and December. You can do income tax for the previous year but this doesn't guarantee your visitor time will be accepted.
Disclaimer: This is my own analysis. It is up to each individual to make their own decisions.
Technically from the requirements of C-24 and C-6, it is required for applicants to provide evidence of income tax during the years of residency required. Visitors don't file income tax as they don't have temporary social insurance number. So it is most likely the visitor time will be rejected.
Even if you're a spouse in Canada on visitor visa being sponsored for PR, you'll be expected to apply for a work permit based on your spouse's PR or Citizenship status. So it is difficult to use visitor time. However, if you're on visitor status and you became a PR between March and December. You can do income tax for the previous year but this doesn't guarantee your visitor time will be accepted.
Disclaimer: This is my own analysis. It is up to each individual to make their own decisions.
My husband obtained citizenship with no issues using 2 years of visitor time (counted as 1 year towards the citizenship requirement). He had no work permit.
So what physical presence in the country do you have Dec 2013 through June 2017 ? What was your actual legal status June 2012 through DEc 2013, accompanying a spouse on a work or study permit or just a visitor ?
screech339
VIP Member
- Apr 2, 2013
- 552
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Vegreville
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 14-08-2012
- AOR Received.
- 20-11-2012
- Med's Done....
- 18-07-2012
- Interview........
- 17-06-2013
- LANDED..........
- 17-06-2013
My spouse will be able to claim pre-PR credit under visitor status on account of her name on my lease and on account that I have been claiming her as my spousal dependent in my income tax. She also had a Ontario Health Card while under visitor status as well. While she doesn't file income tax herself as a visitor, she still needed to file to claim 1 year prior to landing as PR to claim Canada child benefit. By the time 3/5 rule will kick in, she won't be needing pre-PR credit anyway.
While it is up to each individual to make the pre-PR claim while on visitor status, he/she must provide proof of it to claim it. Visitor Records, Name on lease, Driver's Licence. Health Card (ie OHIP). All evidences that point to the fact that the person was "living" in Canada, not just "visiting" as a tourist.
Last edited:
Counting days: in Canada as a visitor? in Canada with visitor status?
While the range of responses by others cover the essentials, this is another line of inquiry which warrants the reminder that technicalities are one thing, practicalities are another.
Technically a day in Canada is, ispo facto, a day present in Canada, and thus presence in Canada pursuant to legal status CAN be counted (this was NOT necessarily true under the old 3/4 residency rules).
But one can nonetheless ask, and in more than a few scenarios should ask, WILL? those days be counted?
For this particular question, while the matter of proof looms large, another important consideration has to do with the potential for triggering non-routine processing.
The latter, non-routine processing, does not necessarily mean there will be a negative outcome, but most applicants will prefer to avoid non-routine processing, both to avoid the inconvenience (especially the particularly inconvenient and intrusive RQ) and the inherent delays (which, depending on various factors, can be rather lengthy).
The matter of proof, however, can result in a negative outcome. Remember, if IRCC questions the applicant's accounting of days present, the burden is on the applicant to prove all the days claimed to have been in Canada. IRCC does not have to conclude, let alone prove, that the applicant was not in Canada for days to NOT count. If IRCC merely determines that the applicant has failed to affirmatively prove some days in Canada, those days will NOT count. In that event, the case goes to a Citizenship Judge, whose role is not to determine how many days the applicant was present in Canada, but to determine how many days the applicant has proven he or she was present in Canada.
If and when it comes to proving presence, such as in the event of being RQ'd, it warrants remembering that the applicant may no longer benefit from the inference of being present in Canada between a reported date of entry and the next reported date of exit. Routine applicants generally benefit from this inference. That is, they in effect get the benefit of the doubt, a conclustion that they were present in Canada between a reported date of entry and the next reported date of exit. Applicants with a presence case do not get the benefit of this inference, at least not nearly to the same extent as routinely processed applicants.
Not all visitors are created equal.
Note, for example, a FN can be residing in Canada even though his or her immigration status is that of a visitor. The most obvious example is the FN married to a Canadian who is sponsoring the FN for family class PR, the FN allowed to reside in Canada with visitor status pursuant to dual intent. There are other examples, seasonal residents for instance, persons who maintain a non-primary residence (typically a secondary or recreational residence) in Canada (I did this for many years prior to formally immigrating to Canada).
That distinction could have been a significant factor under the old 3/4 residency rules since technically no days in Canada counted until the applicant had established in-fact residence in Canada. Thus, even someone with PR status who only came to Canada briefly, more or less visiting, was not entitled to have days in Canada count until after having established an in-fact residence in Canada. (I have oft discussed elsewhere the nuances and parameters for enforcing this.)
While that distinction technically should not matter for a physical presence requirement, it likely looms relative to whether there is immigration documentation of status and presence, apart from and in addition to evidentiary documentation of physical presence.
Which leads back to recognizing that not all visitors are created equal. There is a big difference, for example, between the visitor who has a formal TRP or other formal immigration documentation confirming status and entry into Canada with that status, versus the visitor who was waived through the PoE without a referral to Secondary, without formal documentation of status or entry.
A common example: a visa-exempt visitor who is, for whatever reason, issued a Visitor's Record upon entering Canada. This can be common in the situation where a FN married to a Canadian has come to Canada to stay with his or her sponsoring spouse pending an application for PR. (And, indeed, I was such a FN, issued a VR while I was living with my sponsoring spouse pending my application for PR.)
The practical import of this is that when such formal immigration documentation exists, IRCC's own records for the client verify the entry, and thus support an inference of presence.
Without such formal documentation, IRCC is more likely to request the applicant provide evidence to document the entry and stay in Canada. The problem with this is that this knocks the application off the routine track, renders it a non-routine application. While perhaps in some cases there is minimal difference in how IRCC personnel view non-routine applicants versus routine applicants, my sense is that not only does non-routine processing inherently mean inconvenience and delays, at the least it probably increases the risk of elevated scrutiny if not skepticism.
Thus, it would be prudent to carefully consider the particular circumstances in one's situation before deciding to proceed with an application dependent on counting time in Canada as a visitor.
For some it will make sense to proceed. For others it probably will not be worth the risk of non-routine processing even if there is little or no doubt about obtaining a successful outcome. In this regard, one of the more foolish practices evident in forum reports is rushing to apply before the best time to apply. Reaching the threshold of eligibility is merely one factor (albeit a necessary one) to consider when deciding when is the best time to apply. (I practiced what I preach in this regard: I literally waited to apply nearly two years after the date I became eligible for citizenship. That is undoubtedly at the more unusual end of the spectrum, but in my personal situation that was indeed the prudent course to take.)
The short answer: yes, one can count days in Canada as a visitor, but prospective applicants should be cautious about whether they will actually get counted.
While the range of responses by others cover the essentials, this is another line of inquiry which warrants the reminder that technicalities are one thing, practicalities are another.
Technically a day in Canada is, ispo facto, a day present in Canada, and thus presence in Canada pursuant to legal status CAN be counted (this was NOT necessarily true under the old 3/4 residency rules).
But one can nonetheless ask, and in more than a few scenarios should ask, WILL? those days be counted?
For this particular question, while the matter of proof looms large, another important consideration has to do with the potential for triggering non-routine processing.
The latter, non-routine processing, does not necessarily mean there will be a negative outcome, but most applicants will prefer to avoid non-routine processing, both to avoid the inconvenience (especially the particularly inconvenient and intrusive RQ) and the inherent delays (which, depending on various factors, can be rather lengthy).
The matter of proof, however, can result in a negative outcome. Remember, if IRCC questions the applicant's accounting of days present, the burden is on the applicant to prove all the days claimed to have been in Canada. IRCC does not have to conclude, let alone prove, that the applicant was not in Canada for days to NOT count. If IRCC merely determines that the applicant has failed to affirmatively prove some days in Canada, those days will NOT count. In that event, the case goes to a Citizenship Judge, whose role is not to determine how many days the applicant was present in Canada, but to determine how many days the applicant has proven he or she was present in Canada.
If and when it comes to proving presence, such as in the event of being RQ'd, it warrants remembering that the applicant may no longer benefit from the inference of being present in Canada between a reported date of entry and the next reported date of exit. Routine applicants generally benefit from this inference. That is, they in effect get the benefit of the doubt, a conclustion that they were present in Canada between a reported date of entry and the next reported date of exit. Applicants with a presence case do not get the benefit of this inference, at least not nearly to the same extent as routinely processed applicants.
Not all visitors are created equal.
Note, for example, a FN can be residing in Canada even though his or her immigration status is that of a visitor. The most obvious example is the FN married to a Canadian who is sponsoring the FN for family class PR, the FN allowed to reside in Canada with visitor status pursuant to dual intent. There are other examples, seasonal residents for instance, persons who maintain a non-primary residence (typically a secondary or recreational residence) in Canada (I did this for many years prior to formally immigrating to Canada).
That distinction could have been a significant factor under the old 3/4 residency rules since technically no days in Canada counted until the applicant had established in-fact residence in Canada. Thus, even someone with PR status who only came to Canada briefly, more or less visiting, was not entitled to have days in Canada count until after having established an in-fact residence in Canada. (I have oft discussed elsewhere the nuances and parameters for enforcing this.)
While that distinction technically should not matter for a physical presence requirement, it likely looms relative to whether there is immigration documentation of status and presence, apart from and in addition to evidentiary documentation of physical presence.
Which leads back to recognizing that not all visitors are created equal. There is a big difference, for example, between the visitor who has a formal TRP or other formal immigration documentation confirming status and entry into Canada with that status, versus the visitor who was waived through the PoE without a referral to Secondary, without formal documentation of status or entry.
A common example: a visa-exempt visitor who is, for whatever reason, issued a Visitor's Record upon entering Canada. This can be common in the situation where a FN married to a Canadian has come to Canada to stay with his or her sponsoring spouse pending an application for PR. (And, indeed, I was such a FN, issued a VR while I was living with my sponsoring spouse pending my application for PR.)
The practical import of this is that when such formal immigration documentation exists, IRCC's own records for the client verify the entry, and thus support an inference of presence.
Without such formal documentation, IRCC is more likely to request the applicant provide evidence to document the entry and stay in Canada. The problem with this is that this knocks the application off the routine track, renders it a non-routine application. While perhaps in some cases there is minimal difference in how IRCC personnel view non-routine applicants versus routine applicants, my sense is that not only does non-routine processing inherently mean inconvenience and delays, at the least it probably increases the risk of elevated scrutiny if not skepticism.
Thus, it would be prudent to carefully consider the particular circumstances in one's situation before deciding to proceed with an application dependent on counting time in Canada as a visitor.
For some it will make sense to proceed. For others it probably will not be worth the risk of non-routine processing even if there is little or no doubt about obtaining a successful outcome. In this regard, one of the more foolish practices evident in forum reports is rushing to apply before the best time to apply. Reaching the threshold of eligibility is merely one factor (albeit a necessary one) to consider when deciding when is the best time to apply. (I practiced what I preach in this regard: I literally waited to apply nearly two years after the date I became eligible for citizenship. That is undoubtedly at the more unusual end of the spectrum, but in my personal situation that was indeed the prudent course to take.)
The short answer: yes, one can count days in Canada as a visitor, but prospective applicants should be cautious about whether they will actually get counted.
In my Case, I arrived in Canada as tourist last Nov 2015 because our wedding is set here on jan 2016 then filed our inland spousal sponsorship together with work permit and visitor extension.
Spousal Sponsorship received by cic: May 2016
Open work permit received September 2016 valid until 2018
Visitor extension received September 2016 extended until March 2017
Become PR this coming July 2017.
When should i start counting? is my tourist days are counted too?
Spousal Sponsorship received by cic: May 2016
Open work permit received September 2016 valid until 2018
Visitor extension received September 2016 extended until March 2017
Become PR this coming July 2017.
When should i start counting? is my tourist days are counted too?