Overall: it is important to NOT be misled about the current physical presence requirements. For any application made after June 10, 2015, any short-fall is fatal. Reason for absences is NOT relevant.
This is because an actual physical PRESENCE requirement applies.
For applications made prior to June 11, 2015 there was a three year RESIDENCY requirement. While a physical presence test could be applied for those applications, and during the Harper years that became the standard, usual test applied, Citizenship Judges could count days outside Canada toward residency in certain conditions. This has no relevance, no applicability, to any application made after June 10, 2015. This will continue to be true after the Bill C-6 3/5 rules take effect. Any short fall is fatal to the application, and reason for absences is NOT relevant.
This topic is about an application made by MW2015 September 28, 2015, for which the Bill C-24 presence requirements apply, which require at least 1460 days actual presence in Canada during the preceding 6 years. For the application made by MW2015, and any application made after June 10, 2015 (up to when the new Bill C-6 3/5 rule will take effect) it is absolutely the case that . . .
If the count of days actually physically present in Canada falls below 1460 days, even by one day, the application will almost certainly be denied. Reason for absence is NOT relevant.
Note too that the last report from MW2015 was just Saturday, the day after the scheduled interview with the Citizenship Judge, and the OP reported withdrawing the application (due to a 32 day shortfall). In context that made perfect sense.
When the Bill C-6 3/5 rule takes effect, which is supposed to happen this Fall, the minimum physical presence requirement will be 1095 days. This should NOT be confused with the three year RESIDENCY requirement which applied for applications made prior to June 11, 2015, and which was the applicable requirement in the Saddique case.
(For actual decision, see http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/233847/index.do )
In particular, for applications made after the Bill C-6 3/5 rule takes effect, it will continue to be the case that falling one day short of the minimum required (which will be 1095 days rather than the current 1460 days which is required) will mandate IRCC denying the application. And, likewise, the reason for absences will NOT be relevant.
The distinction between the pre-June 11, 2015 Residency requirement and an actual physical presence requirement has been discussed and illuminated in depth in many other topics, but mostly dating back to around the time Bill C-24 was proposed and subsequently implemented (discussions taking place between February 2014 up through the summer of 2015).
There may still be some older residency cases in process. At the least, some of these cases are only recently making their way to the Federal Court, as there were three relevant decisions in older, residency, so-called short-fall cases published recently. The other two recent cases did not go the applicants' way. One was a rather typical, failed appeal by an applicant with a relatively small short-fall who had been denied approval by the Citizenship Judge. The other was somewhat similar to the Saddique case in that it involved a Citizenship Judge granting approval despite a very large shortfall, an applicant who maintained no other place of residence in the world, who worked for a United Nations organization at various locations around the world at various times, who maintained his only residence in Canada, whose family was fully settled and residing in Canada (and who had in the meantime become Canadian citizens), and who had been in Canada more than twice as much as Saddique. For this case, the Motchian Aman case, see http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/fr/item/233859/index.do
In any event, make no mistake. For all applications made after June 10, 2015, and going forward, an actual physical presence requirement applies, falling short even a little will mean the applicant is NOT eligible, and citizenship will be denied. And reasons for absences are not relevant.
This is because an actual physical PRESENCE requirement applies.
For applications made prior to June 11, 2015 there was a three year RESIDENCY requirement. While a physical presence test could be applied for those applications, and during the Harper years that became the standard, usual test applied, Citizenship Judges could count days outside Canada toward residency in certain conditions. This has no relevance, no applicability, to any application made after June 10, 2015. This will continue to be true after the Bill C-6 3/5 rules take effect. Any short fall is fatal to the application, and reason for absences is NOT relevant.
That case has NO relevance at all in this topic. In particular, the 1460 days actual physical presence requirement had no relevance in the Saddique case discussed in the Global News article.
This topic is about an application made by MW2015 September 28, 2015, for which the Bill C-24 presence requirements apply, which require at least 1460 days actual presence in Canada during the preceding 6 years. For the application made by MW2015, and any application made after June 10, 2015 (up to when the new Bill C-6 3/5 rule will take effect) it is absolutely the case that . . .
If the count of days actually physically present in Canada falls below 1460 days, even by one day, the application will almost certainly be denied. Reason for absence is NOT relevant.
Note too that the last report from MW2015 was just Saturday, the day after the scheduled interview with the Citizenship Judge, and the OP reported withdrawing the application (due to a 32 day shortfall). In context that made perfect sense.
When the Bill C-6 3/5 rule takes effect, which is supposed to happen this Fall, the minimum physical presence requirement will be 1095 days. This should NOT be confused with the three year RESIDENCY requirement which applied for applications made prior to June 11, 2015, and which was the applicable requirement in the Saddique case.
(For actual decision, see http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/233847/index.do )
In particular, for applications made after the Bill C-6 3/5 rule takes effect, it will continue to be the case that falling one day short of the minimum required (which will be 1095 days rather than the current 1460 days which is required) will mandate IRCC denying the application. And, likewise, the reason for absences will NOT be relevant.
The distinction between the pre-June 11, 2015 Residency requirement and an actual physical presence requirement has been discussed and illuminated in depth in many other topics, but mostly dating back to around the time Bill C-24 was proposed and subsequently implemented (discussions taking place between February 2014 up through the summer of 2015).
There may still be some older residency cases in process. At the least, some of these cases are only recently making their way to the Federal Court, as there were three relevant decisions in older, residency, so-called short-fall cases published recently. The other two recent cases did not go the applicants' way. One was a rather typical, failed appeal by an applicant with a relatively small short-fall who had been denied approval by the Citizenship Judge. The other was somewhat similar to the Saddique case in that it involved a Citizenship Judge granting approval despite a very large shortfall, an applicant who maintained no other place of residence in the world, who worked for a United Nations organization at various locations around the world at various times, who maintained his only residence in Canada, whose family was fully settled and residing in Canada (and who had in the meantime become Canadian citizens), and who had been in Canada more than twice as much as Saddique. For this case, the Motchian Aman case, see http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/fr/item/233859/index.do
In any event, make no mistake. For all applications made after June 10, 2015, and going forward, an actual physical presence requirement applies, falling short even a little will mean the applicant is NOT eligible, and citizenship will be denied. And reasons for absences are not relevant.
