Yea, I did rush for it. No complains.
I think I will wait for two more weeks then call them again to see if there is any update. If there isn't anything happening, I will withdraw and reapply.
Thanks
Should I withdraw my application? CIT 0520 after citizenship test
- Thread starter yas_26
- Start date
I think I will wait for two more weeks then call them again to see if there is any update. If there isn't anything happening, I will withdraw and reapply.
Thanks
imm_leb_01
Hero Member
- Apr 3, 2013
- 400
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- CPP-ottawa
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 28 February 2013
- AOR Received.
- 11 April 2013
- Med's Request
- 25 April 2013
- Med's Done....
- 8 May 2013
- Interview........
- RPRF Request june 18th
- Passport Req..
- 26 February 2014
- VISA ISSUED...
- 5 March 2014
- LANDED..........
- 29 March 2014
If i were you i withdraw my application ... why go through this lengthy process to face a judge and at the end more likely you will be rejected.
Re-apply on a clean application which shouldn't take long
I'm not blaming you for being under the threshold here. Shit happens. It's more of a general comment that has nothing to do with your specific application. IRCC used, since 2015 and C24 rules, to be very strict regarding the "physical presence" requirement, and it seems from another forumer's experience that they're more comprehensive in the way they handle the situation.
That's a new...
That being said, hope you get your citizenship soon. Good luck!
Guys I have the same situation, I forgot to count 10 days trip to the USA and I was asked to submit my exit/entry record .. I still have 85 days over my eligibility I just don't know how they will count them to get me eligible. Does anyone know how they count it ? Do I have more days to get me eligible? Thanks .
If you have more days than required, I think you will be fine. Just call IRCC and they will tell you what to do.
Hope this helps.
Foremost, several posts above explicitly advise you do this or that: that you withdraw, that you do not withdraw. Ignore any definitive declaration advising a particular action. This is NOT an appropriate venue for obtaining or giving definitive advice.
For definitive advice, see a qualified professional, which in this situation would be a reputable, licensed immigration lawyer with experience in citizenship cases.
In contrast, some of the posts above offer general suggestions about what to take into account, and WHY, in YOUR approach to MAKING A DECISION FOR YOURSELF about how to best proceed. This sort of advice, as such, particularly when it comes with some analysis illuminating more about how to approach the decision-making, can be helpful . . . so long as you are wearing your best critical-thinking hat and are mindful that the decision is YOURS to make based on all the relevant factors KNOWN to YOU.
And I will offer some of my own observations in the latter vein, including some analysis which, I hope, will assist you making the decisions you need to make for yourself.
OVERVIEW:
Foremost, it is a good idea to submit the response to the CIT 0520 even if you will withdraw the application. Not a good idea to do anything which would give the impression of evading or avoiding the request since that could be interpreted as an effort to evade revelation of a misrepresentation made in the application.
Secondly, since this is a CIT 0520 it does NOT mean that IRCC has any overt suspicions about your qualifications or the credibility of the information you have submitted. (If in contrast you were issued full blown RQ, CIT 0171, and needed to submit a new declaration of absences, in effect a new presence calculation, and the latter showed you short of the 1460 day requirement, that would indicate IRCC is overtly challenging your qualifications and given a short fall would weigh heavily in favour of withdrawing . . . after submitting the response however.)
THUS:
It is quite possible that IRCC will ONLY conduct a general assessment based on your response to the CIT 0520, and if IRCC concludes that notwithstanding a small or minor error or omission, what you submitted is credible, IRCC could proceed to schedule you for the oath based on the presence calculation you submitted. Again, this is POSSIBLE. See more in-depth analysis for more about the nature of this possibility.
I apprehend that it is more likely IRCC will review your response, identify additional absences, do the arithmetic, and conclude you fell short of the minimum requirement, and thus proceed with your application as a presence-case. Not good. Ultimate outcome in this scenario is the application is denied. Neither IRCC nor a Citizenship Judge have any discretion to in effect waive a short-fall. If IRCC concludes you fell short, they have NO authority to grant citizenship. In effect your application must be denied.
BUT the latter is dependent on IRCC actually doing the PRECISE arithmetic and concluding that your presence calculator not only failed to declare all absences but the calculation itself falls short. That might not happen. As noted, it is POSSIBLE that IRCC will review the submission to generally assess whether to rely on what you have submitted, and conclude that despite a discrepancy, despite an omission in your declared absences, your information is sufficiently reliable and based on that conclude you met the qualifications based on your presence calculation as submitted.
CONCLUSION:
Thus I cannot advise whether you should withdraw sooner or later or at all. Again, this is not an appropriate venue for giving definitive advice. And, indeed, a lot of the factors which need to be taken into account in making this decision are personal to you, too personal to share in a forum like this. My sense is that it would be prudent to respond to the CIT 0520 and wait at least two to four months before deciding whether to withdraw.
Leading to this:
Submitting a new application:
You posit that you cannot make a new application unless you withdraw the first. That is NOT my understanding. My understanding is that you can indeed go ahead and make a new application now even though you have one pending. BUT I have not kept current with IRCC policy about this. This may be worth checking the IRCC website for information about submitting multiple applications. The rest of this post will go very long as is, so I will not attempt to address this further, except to say that if IRCC policy allows you to make a second application, that is worth considering even if it will require making an election (as to which application to proceed with) a couple months or so down the road . . . that may be time enough to see how things will go with the current application.
TIMELINE NOTE: While there have been reports of many applications processed to completion in six months or less, going forward most indications are that it will be, at the least, eight to ten months for any application submitted now. AND there is a significant risk this timeline will increase, that it will take closer to a year or so, or even more, for most applicants applying this year (and then the timeline should begin to decrease again as IRCC works its way through the surge of new applications following the implementation of the 3/5 rule).
Otherwise, in terms of overall odds my bet (just a bet, NOT a prediction) would be this application will fail, that the short fall will be obvious, too obvious for IRCC to in effect overlook it. But there is enough of a possibility it might succeed notwithstanding the omission of an additional absence that it is probably worth waiting to see . . . at least waiting a few months.
(to be continued . . . )
(. . . as continued . . . )
THE EXPLANATION WITH ANALYSIS:
To be granted citizenship based on an application made in July 2017, the applicant must establish he or she was physically present in Canada for at least 1460 days during the SIX years preceding the day the application was made.
If IRCC concludes (determines) that the applicant was not actually physically present at least 1460 days during the relevant six years, IRCC has NO authority, no power, to grant citizenship. Falling short even two days will, ORDINARILY, render the applicant NOT eligible and result in application being denied.
However, IRCC generally relies on the applicant's accounting of days present in the presence calculation UNLESS and until IRCC identifies reason to question that accounting.
Thus, if the applicant's physical presence calculation shows (purports to show) the applicant met the 1460 requirement, as long as IRCC accepts this, as long as IRCC does not dispute that conclusion, that will meet the eligibility requirement. Citizenship MAY be granted.
For the OP here, the question is whether or not the information showing an additional trip abroad will result in IRCC concluding the applicant's presence calculation fails to show the applicant met the minimum requirement.
Not every discrepancy between the travel history reported by the applicant and other information (such as CBSA travel history; entry/exit records from other countries; passport stamps; among other sources of information) will result in IRCC in effect challenging let alone rejecting the applicant's physical presence calculation.
For example, numerous forum participants have reported a failure to account for all travel without that negatively affecting the outcome of their application. Even when IRCC has identified the omission of a trip during which the applicant was abroad for three weeks, in some instances that has had no impact at all, not even a CIT 0520 request for additional documents. Otherwise, scores of applicants have reported inaccuracies and omissions in their presence calculation and even if required to submit additional information or documentation, such as getting a CIT 0520 request, still getting approved and taking the oath.
BUT WHAT ABOUT AN OMISSION THAT, WHEN DEDUCTED FROM THE CALCULATION, SHOWS A SHORT FALL?
The odds are probably quite high that if additional information shows the applicant was outside Canada more than disclosed in the applicant's physical presence calculation, the processing agent or Citizenship Officer will do the arithmetic and ascertain whether the additional absence results in reducing the applicant's total presence to less than the minimum requirement.
For the OP here apparently that would be bad news: deducting the additional absence, the OP reports, will reduce the days present to less than 1460. So, IF, if IRCC does the precise arithmetic, in effect recalculating presence taking into account the additional number of days absent, IRCC will determine the OP is NOT eligible. (Procedural note: in this instance IRCC cannot summarily deny the application but must refer the case to a Citizenship Judge, a process which takes a long time. Negative outcome easily predicted.)
That is a significant contingency, a BIG IF. That seems the likely outcome BUT we really do not know and cannot reliably guess precisely how IRCC will assess the OP's response to the CIT 0520. In particular we do not know whether the response to the CIT 0520 will result in a PRECISE re-calculation of the applicant's presence. That is, it is NOT for sure IRCC will precisely do the arithmetic.
It is possible that IRCC will compare the information submitted with information already known, including the applicant's presence calculation, and make a more general conclusion about whether to still rely on the applicant's presence calculation, to judge whether the calculation submitted is credible enough, reliable enough. If this is the analysis done, and there is only one quite minor omission identified, it is quite possible that IRCC concludes it can rely on the applicant's calculation and the OP could be scheduled for the oath.
That is, IRCC could look at what the OP submits, note there is a discrepancy, but conclude that discrepancy is minor enough it does not negatively affect the applicant's credibility, and relying on the applicant's presence calculation conclude the presence requirement was met. Citizenship granted.
While I cannot and will not attempt to explain the anecdotal experience reported by @moabbasi, this is one of the possible explanations. (An outright error by IRCC is another possible explanation, and of course IRCC does sometimes make errors. Note, if IRCC concluded @moabbasi was in fact short, IRCC would have NO authority to grant citizenship. There is no discretion to in effect waive the short fall. Close does NOT suffice. This is NOT a game of horseshoes.) That is, it is possible that IRCC reviewed what was submitted and concluded that the applicant's information was sufficiently credible to rely on the applicant's presence calculation as submitted . . . even though, IF IRCC PRECISELY re-calculated the arithmetic, that would show a short fall which would REQUIRE denying a grant of citizenship.
Moreover, it is feasible, not merely possible, that this is, in particular, an approach some IRCC local offices are taking in regards to outstanding 4/6 applicants (applications submitted between June 11, 2015 and October 10, 2017), given that such applicants would clearly and solidly meet the requirements under the new 3/5 rules. To be clear, IRCC cannot waive the 1460 minimum requirement for those who applied between June 11, 2015 and October 10, 2017, even if the short fall is a mere two days (Bill C-6 explicitly included, in its transition provisions, that the 4/6 rule still apply to all applications submitted before the effective date of the 3/5 rule). BUT IRCC could in practice rely on the applicant's accounting, where it shows 1460+ days and is otherwise credible, even when a thorough re-assessment of days absent might reveal a minor discrepancy which results in a small short fall.
BIG CAVEAT: Such a lenient approach is merely POSSIBLE. There is minimal information available which suggests this is happening. Moreover, my sense it that even if IRCC is doing this, it will NOT do this in a case where the short fall is more or less obvious.
EDIT TO ADD another CAVEAT: The above discussion is about applications governed by the 4/6 rule. It is way, way less likely that IRCC will take such a lenient approach to assessing a 3/5 rule application. The difference should be readily apparent. So long as the 4/6 applicant has been mostly in Canada since applying, it is virtually certain the applicant is CURRENTLY eligible for citizenship if there is the possibility of a small short fall, and thus there is an incentive for IRCC to not be so harshly strict.
The prospect of such a lenient approach is also way, way less likely if there are any other reasons to have concerns about the applicant . . . the applicant who applied-on-the-way-to-the-airport, for example, is NOT likely to benefit from such a lenient approach.
None of which, it warrants emphasizing, is to suggest such a lenient approach is likely IN ANY CASE. It is merely possible.
THE EXPLANATION WITH ANALYSIS:
To be granted citizenship based on an application made in July 2017, the applicant must establish he or she was physically present in Canada for at least 1460 days during the SIX years preceding the day the application was made.
If IRCC concludes (determines) that the applicant was not actually physically present at least 1460 days during the relevant six years, IRCC has NO authority, no power, to grant citizenship. Falling short even two days will, ORDINARILY, render the applicant NOT eligible and result in application being denied.
However, IRCC generally relies on the applicant's accounting of days present in the presence calculation UNLESS and until IRCC identifies reason to question that accounting.
Thus, if the applicant's physical presence calculation shows (purports to show) the applicant met the 1460 requirement, as long as IRCC accepts this, as long as IRCC does not dispute that conclusion, that will meet the eligibility requirement. Citizenship MAY be granted.
For the OP here, the question is whether or not the information showing an additional trip abroad will result in IRCC concluding the applicant's presence calculation fails to show the applicant met the minimum requirement.
Not every discrepancy between the travel history reported by the applicant and other information (such as CBSA travel history; entry/exit records from other countries; passport stamps; among other sources of information) will result in IRCC in effect challenging let alone rejecting the applicant's physical presence calculation.
For example, numerous forum participants have reported a failure to account for all travel without that negatively affecting the outcome of their application. Even when IRCC has identified the omission of a trip during which the applicant was abroad for three weeks, in some instances that has had no impact at all, not even a CIT 0520 request for additional documents. Otherwise, scores of applicants have reported inaccuracies and omissions in their presence calculation and even if required to submit additional information or documentation, such as getting a CIT 0520 request, still getting approved and taking the oath.
BUT WHAT ABOUT AN OMISSION THAT, WHEN DEDUCTED FROM THE CALCULATION, SHOWS A SHORT FALL?
The odds are probably quite high that if additional information shows the applicant was outside Canada more than disclosed in the applicant's physical presence calculation, the processing agent or Citizenship Officer will do the arithmetic and ascertain whether the additional absence results in reducing the applicant's total presence to less than the minimum requirement.
For the OP here apparently that would be bad news: deducting the additional absence, the OP reports, will reduce the days present to less than 1460. So, IF, if IRCC does the precise arithmetic, in effect recalculating presence taking into account the additional number of days absent, IRCC will determine the OP is NOT eligible. (Procedural note: in this instance IRCC cannot summarily deny the application but must refer the case to a Citizenship Judge, a process which takes a long time. Negative outcome easily predicted.)
That is a significant contingency, a BIG IF. That seems the likely outcome BUT we really do not know and cannot reliably guess precisely how IRCC will assess the OP's response to the CIT 0520. In particular we do not know whether the response to the CIT 0520 will result in a PRECISE re-calculation of the applicant's presence. That is, it is NOT for sure IRCC will precisely do the arithmetic.
It is possible that IRCC will compare the information submitted with information already known, including the applicant's presence calculation, and make a more general conclusion about whether to still rely on the applicant's presence calculation, to judge whether the calculation submitted is credible enough, reliable enough. If this is the analysis done, and there is only one quite minor omission identified, it is quite possible that IRCC concludes it can rely on the applicant's calculation and the OP could be scheduled for the oath.
That is, IRCC could look at what the OP submits, note there is a discrepancy, but conclude that discrepancy is minor enough it does not negatively affect the applicant's credibility, and relying on the applicant's presence calculation conclude the presence requirement was met. Citizenship granted.
While I cannot and will not attempt to explain the anecdotal experience reported by @moabbasi, this is one of the possible explanations. (An outright error by IRCC is another possible explanation, and of course IRCC does sometimes make errors. Note, if IRCC concluded @moabbasi was in fact short, IRCC would have NO authority to grant citizenship. There is no discretion to in effect waive the short fall. Close does NOT suffice. This is NOT a game of horseshoes.) That is, it is possible that IRCC reviewed what was submitted and concluded that the applicant's information was sufficiently credible to rely on the applicant's presence calculation as submitted . . . even though, IF IRCC PRECISELY re-calculated the arithmetic, that would show a short fall which would REQUIRE denying a grant of citizenship.
Moreover, it is feasible, not merely possible, that this is, in particular, an approach some IRCC local offices are taking in regards to outstanding 4/6 applicants (applications submitted between June 11, 2015 and October 10, 2017), given that such applicants would clearly and solidly meet the requirements under the new 3/5 rules. To be clear, IRCC cannot waive the 1460 minimum requirement for those who applied between June 11, 2015 and October 10, 2017, even if the short fall is a mere two days (Bill C-6 explicitly included, in its transition provisions, that the 4/6 rule still apply to all applications submitted before the effective date of the 3/5 rule). BUT IRCC could in practice rely on the applicant's accounting, where it shows 1460+ days and is otherwise credible, even when a thorough re-assessment of days absent might reveal a minor discrepancy which results in a small short fall.
BIG CAVEAT: Such a lenient approach is merely POSSIBLE. There is minimal information available which suggests this is happening. Moreover, my sense it that even if IRCC is doing this, it will NOT do this in a case where the short fall is more or less obvious.
EDIT TO ADD another CAVEAT: The above discussion is about applications governed by the 4/6 rule. It is way, way less likely that IRCC will take such a lenient approach to assessing a 3/5 rule application. The difference should be readily apparent. So long as the 4/6 applicant has been mostly in Canada since applying, it is virtually certain the applicant is CURRENTLY eligible for citizenship if there is the possibility of a small short fall, and thus there is an incentive for IRCC to not be so harshly strict.
The prospect of such a lenient approach is also way, way less likely if there are any other reasons to have concerns about the applicant . . . the applicant who applied-on-the-way-to-the-airport, for example, is NOT likely to benefit from such a lenient approach.
None of which, it warrants emphasizing, is to suggest such a lenient approach is likely IN ANY CASE. It is merely possible.
Last edited:
Thank you very much for your input.
It very helpful and I believe it is helpful to others too.
Actually, I called IRCC twice regarding the reapply matter but their answers were quite different. One said I can reapply without withdrawing my current case and one said I have to withdraw before I can reapply. Unfortunately, I didn't ask them for the call reference number so I don't have any evidence.
Since I have already submitted the CIT520, I would wait for a bit before I withdraw.
Again, thank you very much for your in-depth post.
This is my timeline
application received 20 of july 2017
Test passed with success the 26 of january 2018
i received the cit 0520 on the 31 of january 2018
supporting evidence where sent and received on the 6th of february 2018
Still in process since then, no news from cic
Should i worry?
application received 20 of july 2017
Test passed with success the 26 of january 2018
i received the cit 0520 on the 31 of january 2018
supporting evidence where sent and received on the 6th of february 2018
Still in process since then, no news from cic
Should i worry?