So much analysis isn't really necessary.
Very true. Particularly for an item like this in the application form.
There is, however, a broader and more important concept involved. The inclination of some to parse the language in the application form to justify a particular approach to answering the question. Those who are focused on best practices for navigating the application process will be prudent to avoid that approach.
There are many who obviously have questions and are just trying to figure out how to best fill in the application form. And this form in particular has more than a few wrinkles.
Item 10.b is NOT among the parts of this form which are confusing or otherwise difficult to figure out. Indeed, while it is numbered differently now (it was item 6.M previously), it is essentially in the same form as it has been since June 2015.
The best approach is usually the most honest approach. Or, the most honest approach is usually the best approach. Whichever way states it better, it is about reading the instructions and questions and doing one's best to give an honest answer.
In contrast, trying to craft answers based on parsing the language, especially where to do so is to justify avoiding giving IRCC some information or documentation, tends to be a bad idea. Sure, sometimes works. Quite often it just causes more problems than otherwise.
For example, in your "Buffalo case", common sense may lead you to believe that you can't be in two places at the same time. So if you reply that "you were in Buffalo last Saturday", that may imply that "you were not in Canada" last Saturday. However, according to the definitions of the Physical Presence Calculator, that day will be considered as a day of presence in Canada. It is somewhat counter intuitive to consider a day both as part of the count of the days you were present in Canada and also as part of the count of the days you were present in another country. However this seems to be a somewhat foregone conclusion based on the "definitions" set by IRCC.
Again, your concept of "spending a lot of time in the US" is extremely subjective: IRCC draws the line at 183 days in a 4-year period. Two 3-week vacations a year would actually put you over the limit, and personally I wouldn't consider that "a lot of time", but that is a very subjective view. Someone else may consider that "a lot of time", and both views are perfectly acceptable in everyday's life. That's why, in a process like this, it would be highly recommendable that IRCC remove any possibility of subjective interpretation and define concepts as unequivocally as possible.
"Spending a lot of time in the U.S." is of course imprecise. It does not refer to criteria at all, let alone criteria employed by IRCC. It is merely a description I used to highlight the only circumstances in which this
faux-issue arises, in that it is NOT relevant for anyone other than someone who was IN another country at least 183 days in the relevant four years, but who is considering checking "no" based on not counting partial days in that country.
"So if you reply that "you were in Buffalo last Saturday", that may imply that "you were not in Canada" last Saturday.
No. That is not true. If someone asks if you were in Buffalo last Saturday, and you were, and you answer "yes," that is a simple and honest answer. It suggests nothing otherwise, implies nothing otherwise. As I noted, if asked this question under oath, there is NO doubt what the proper answer is. If a traveler is asked when was the last time he traveled to the States (I have indeed been asked this at the U.S. border, more than once), and the traveler's last trip was a short day trip, make no mistake, the correct answer would be the day of that day trip.
If someone asks if you were Toronto last Saturday, and you were in Toronto, and you answer "I was in Buffalo last Saturday," that's a classic
misrepresentation by omission. That's deception. Even if it is true you were indeed in Buffalo last Saturday. That is not merely implying you were not in Toronto.
And that is largely what this
faux-issue is about. Playing word-games. Which in citizenship application processing tends to not go well.
Which is the point I am making.
Approaching the citizenship application playing word-games tends to cause more problems than it avoids.
Moreover, especially,
the honest answer is the best answer. The honest way to approach this item does not need theorizing or an analysis of the jurisprudence.
Anyone who wants to argue the point with IRCC is missing the point: there is nothing about 183 days in particular that has any bearing on the applicant's qualification for citizenship.
But, approaching this as if there is an arguable posture to be made with IRCC is more than that. As I previously acknowledged, there is a good chance someone can slide through this way, by checking "no" and not including a Police Certificate, based on not counting partial days. BUT if they don't slide through, if an IRCC processing agent notices that the trips add up to 183 days in the U.S., think of the sound of a cash register going
chaa-ching in someone's head (probably a grossly outdated metaphor, but oh well). And that cash-register-
chaa-ching might not be just ringing in the cost of submitting a police certificate, it could be tabulating doubts about the accuracy of a lot more than that, about the presence calculation itself.
There is, probably, minimal risk of an informal let alone formal allegation of misrepresentation. An applicant's response (if asked) that they did not count partial days in the U.S. because they were not counted as days absent from Canada, should be an explanation which avoids a misrepresentation charge. But anyone who pursues this approach thinking there is minimal risk of it raising red flags about the applicant's credibility, notwithstanding this "argument" or "explanation," is likely to be quite mistaken, the real question being how negatively this might affect the processing agent's perception of the applicant.
