Can I send the citizenship application early

[keesio]

DON'T YOU REALIZE THAT I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE?
DON'T YOU REALIZE THAT NO APPLICANT CAN EVER HAVE CALCULATION MISTAKES EXCEPT TROLLS OF YOUR TYPE?
DON'T YOU REALIZE THAT YOU HAVE SEVERE COMPREHENSION PROBLEMS?
YOU WERE TOLD AGAIN AND AGAIN BY MANY MEMBERS ON THIS FORUM, GO TAKE ENGLISH CLASSES AND TRY BRUSHING YOUR BRAIN FOR GOD'S SAKE

Why are you yelling? His advice is actually sound. I left a few days buffer for my application and it helped me. Take it from someone who went through the experience.

 

[ngag]

Why are you yelling? His advice is actually sound. I left a few days buffer for my application and it helped me. Take it from someone who went through the experience.

Thanks for the advice. I'll consider it when I qualify for applying

 

[Loulou79]

According to the information you provided, you meet the requirements to be physically present in Canada as a permanent resident for at least:

1460 days in the six years immediately before the date of your application, and
183 days in each of four calendar years that are fully or partially in the six years immediately before the date of your application.
Arrival date:

2010-07-02
Permanent residence date:

2010-07-02
Application date:

2016-07-03
Time spent serving a sentence (days):

0
Days absent:

726
Number of days physically present in last 6 years:

1466
Number of calendar years physically present for 183 days in last 6 years:

5
Number of days physically present per calendar year:
2010 11
2011 0
2012 223
2013 365
2014 318
2015 365javascript:void(0);
2016 184


I exceeded the days required for the first condition by 6 days. and one day for the second condition.

I'll see a settlement consultant this week to go through my application. you can find them in all newcomers centres.

Thank you all for the input and advice.

 

[dpenabill]

The crux of the question is not whether the applicant actually met the physical presence requirements. No point in applying at all if not. Under the current law the presence requirement has no flexibility. A day short means the applicant is not eligible and must be denied.

The crux of the question is about what might happen in the processing of the application when it is made with little or no margin above the absolute minimum, and however one slices it, there are risks, and a very significant risk of at least encountering delays for months or more even if ultimately IRCC verifies the applicant met the presence requirements.

I agree with the observations about the inherent risk of a miscalculation, albeit an oversight or mistake in entering a date is more likely than a miscalculation itself. Thus, for example, if there is no margin then just mistakenly entering a date of exit based on an entry stamp into another country, when it was a red-eye flight involving an exit actually the day before, could actually result in the application being denied.

But, again, it is not just about making sure to absolutely meet the eligibility requirements.

Even someone who is absolutely certain they got every date, every trip accurately entered into the presence calculator, is risking problems by applying with a minimal margin. A total stranger bureaucrat at IRCC cannot know, for certain, the applicant got every day right. But if there is no margin, that stranger bureaucrat knows that if there was even a small mistake, under the statute the applicant is NOT eligible. So due diligence may require scrutinizing that application more extensively than the routinely processed application. That could add months, maybe a year, maybe a CIT 0521 request for additional information, to the processing.

And again, impression and appearance and inference and credibility all mean a lot in how it goes. And applying with no margin does not make a good impression. And once an application goes off the routine rails, and there is elevated scrutiny, a minimal margin offers no insurance against negative inferences.



Summary:

That is, a minimal margin elevates an applicants risks in multiple ways:
-- outright denial if a mistake was made, such as a trip overlooked or the date entered for a trip was wrong
-- elevated scrutiny leading to non-routine processing and delays, including the possibility of long delays
-- negative impressions or inferences leading to a conclusion the applicant failed to prove actual presence for all days declared, leading to a CJ hearing (which means a very long delay) which could go either way depending on the CJ's assessment of the applicant's credibility



For example:

See the very recent decision in an appeal of a CJ's denial here: http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/144924/index.do It is a complicated case because the applicants (husband and wife) engaged in maneuvers in the appeal which could have justified dismissing their appeal.

Beyond the appeal stage wrangling, however, the merits of the underlying case warrant consideration: both husband and wife declared presence in Canada over the 1095 minimum physical presence threshold (they applied under the old 3/4 rule). CIC had doubts. And the CJ actually concluded, apparently, that the absence of evidence of travel in the applicant's passport, for a three year time period, somehow supported an inference the applicant did travel during that time period.

The reality is the wife applied with just one day more than the minimum, and CIC and then the CJ did not believe the wife did not travel abroad at least some days more than disclosed.

She won her appeal. There is no guarantee, however, another CJ will decide the case her way. She now has to go to another CJ hearing and wait for that decision. It may or not be favourable. She applied for citizenship September 28, 2009, and nearly SEVEN years later the application is still in process, still pending.

Here is a clue: in her case the CBSA Travel History did not disclose any travel during the time period she reported being in Canada. No stamps conflicting with her account of presence. Met the minimum physical presence requirement. And nearly SEVEN years later, still in limbo.

The CJ denied approval. Indeed, the CJ appears to have, as Federal Court Justice Roy overtly observes, concluded that the lack of stamps in the passports would be positive proof that the applicants would, or could, have been outside of the country without having disclosed their departure. Justice Roy points out the illogic of this.

I am very certain this did not occur in a vacuum, that the CJ's conclusions were largely influenced by an argument made in CIC's referral to the CJ.

The point is, just meeting the minimum threshold does not guarantee that a total stranger bureaucrat is going to just nod and approve the application. Many factors can play into how it goes. Timing when to apply is a very personal decision to be made depending on very individually specific circumstances. Applying with a minimal margin is just plain foolish, really.

 

[ngag]

The crux of the question is not whether the applicant actually met the physical presence requirements. No point in applying at all if not. Under the current law the presence requirement has no flexibility. A day short means the applicant is not eligible and must be denied.

The crux of the question is about what might happen in the processing of the application when it is made with little or no margin above the absolute minimum, and however one slices it, there are risks, and a very significant risk of at least encountering delays for months or more even if ultimately IRCC verifies the applicant met the presence requirements.

I agree with the observations about the inherent risk of a miscalculation, albeit an oversight or mistake in entering a date is more likely than a miscalculation itself. Thus, for example, if there is no margin then just mistakenly entering a date of exit based on an entry stamp into another country, when it was a red-eye flight involving an exit actually the day before, could actually result in the application being denied.

But, again, it is not just about making sure to absolutely meet the eligibility requirements.

Even someone who is absolutely certain they got every date, every trip accurately entered into the presence calculator, is risking problems by applying with a minimal margin. A total stranger bureaucrat at IRCC cannot know, for certain, the applicant got every day right. But if there is no margin, that stranger bureaucrat knows that if there was even a small mistake, under the statute the applicant is NOT eligible. So due diligence may require scrutinizing that application more extensively than the routinely processed application. That could add months, maybe a year, maybe a CIT 0521 request for additional information, to the processing.

And again, impression and appearance and inference and credibility all mean a lot in how it goes. And applying with no margin does not make a good impression. And once an application goes off the routine rails, and there is elevated scrutiny, a minimal margin offers no insurance against negative inferences.



Summary:

That is, a minimal margin elevates an applicants risks in multiple ways:
-- outright denial if a mistake was made, such as a trip overlooked or the date entered for a trip was wrong
-- elevated scrutiny leading to non-routine processing and delays, including the possibility of long delays
-- negative impressions or inferences leading to a conclusion the applicant failed to prove actual presence for all days declared, leading to a CJ hearing (which means a very long delay) which could go either way depending on the CJ's assessment of the applicant's credibility



For example:

See the very recent decision in an appeal of a CJ's denial here: http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/144924/index.do It is a complicated case because the applicants (husband and wife) engaged in maneuvers in the appeal which could have justified dismissing their appeal.

Beyond the appeal stage wrangling, however, the merits of the underlying case warrant consideration: both husband and wife declared presence in Canada over the 1095 minimum physical presence threshold (they applied under the old 3/4 rule). CIC had doubts. And the CJ actually concluded, apparently, that the absence of evidence of travel in the applicant's passport, for a three year time period, somehow supported an inference the applicant did travel during that time period.

The reality is the wife applied with just one day more than the minimum, and CIC and then the CJ did not believe the wife did not travel abroad at least some days more than disclosed.

She won her appeal. There is no guarantee, however, another CJ will decide the case her way. She now has to go to another CJ hearing and wait for that decision. It may or not be favourable. She applied for citizenship September 28, 2009, and nearly SEVEN years later the application is still in process, still pending.

Here is a clue: in her case the CBSA Travel History did not disclose any travel during the time period she reported being in Canada. No stamps conflicting with her account of presence. Met the minimum physical presence requirement. And nearly SEVEN years later, still in limbo.

The CJ denied approval. Indeed, the CJ appears to have, as Federal Court Justice Roy overtly observes, concluded that the lack of stamps in the passports would be positive proof that the applicants would, or could, have been outside of the country without having disclosed their departure. Justice Roy points out the illogic of this.

I am very certain this did not occur in a vacuum, that the CJ's conclusions were largely influenced by an argument made in CIC's referral to the CJ.

The point is, just meeting the minimum threshold does not guarantee that a total stranger bureaucrat is going to just nod and approve the application. Many factors can play into how it goes. Timing when to apply is a very personal decision to be made depending on very individually specific circumstances. Applying with a minimal margin is just plain foolish, really.

The case you mentioned may really imply that there had been some fraud involved. Actually lack of stamps may indicate that she was outside of country all the time not the opposite. Many have more than one passport. Some were found to have been using one passport and applying for citizenship with the other.
Here I have a question please, dpenabill. Although I am far from applying right now, but I am surprised with the volume of problems usually associated with the presence requirement.
My question is: If the applicant attaches to her/his application copies of all boarding passes (so as to have no doubts about entry and exit dates), proves of living a normal life in Canada, like medical history showing regular check ups (over the whole period, not only in certain months per year), pay-stubs, school bulletins of the kids, e-mails confirming engagement in any kind of activity, job interviews, job search programs, appointments (with members of different governmental organizations not a few private ones).
On what basis should an officer raise concerns with all these documents in hand? even with applying with no margin after being qualified?

 

[Loulou79]

The case you mentioned may really imply that there had been some fraud involved. Actually lack of stamps may indicate that she was outside of country all the time not the opposite. Many have more than one passport. Some were found to have been using one passport and applying for citizenship with the other.
Here I have a question please, dpenabill. Although I am far from applying right now, but I am surprised with the volume of problems usually associated with the presence requirement.
My question is: If the applicant attach to her/his application copies of all boarding passes (so as to have no doubts about entry and exit dates), proves of living a normal life in Canada, like medical history showing regular check ups (over the whole period, not only in certain months per year), pay-stubs, school bulletins of the kids, e-mails confirming engagement in any kind of activity, job interviews, job search programs, appointments (with members of different governmental organizations not a few private ones).
On what basis should an officer raise concerns with all these documents in hand? even with applying with no margin after being qualified?

When u first apply, you send the application form only. If the officer is suspicious, he/she will ask for bank statements, children's' school records, a record of OHIP claims etc. If u used to live in the U.A.E they will ask for the exit/entry report from the UAE, as many ppl used the e-gate facility to avoid stamps.

I travelled to the UAE in 2014, I have the entry and exit stamps from their end. However, the officers at Pearson did not stamp my passport. Would that be a problem?

 

[Almost_Canadian]

The case you mentioned may really imply that there had been some fraud involved. Actually lack of stamps may indicate that she was outside of country all the time not the opposite. Many have more than one passport. Some were found to have been using one passport and applying for citizenship with the other.
Here I have a question please, dpenabill. Although I am far from applying right now, but I am surprised with the volume of problems usually associated with the presence requirement.
My question is: If the applicant attaches to her/his application copies of all boarding passes (so as to have no doubts about entry and exit dates), proves of living a normal life in Canada, like medical history showing regular check ups (over the whole period, not only in certain months per year), pay-stubs, school bulletins of the kids, e-mails confirming engagement in any kind of activity, job interviews, job search programs, appointments (with members of different governmental organizations not a few private ones).
On what basis should an officer raise concerns with all these documents in hand? even with applying with no margin after being qualified?

Any excess documents you sent with your application the first time would most probably be discarded. So no point sending anything except what is required by them.
Once the officer reviews your file, he/she will determine whether your information needs further verification. If so, they will issue you the RQ or mini RQ as they think necessary.
Dpenabill has given you a very good analysis why an application with exact dates would tend to be more scrutinized.
My question to you is : if you are currently living in Canada and will be here for the near future, why would you not wait at least 2 -3 weeks to build up a buffer of dates before applying ? A wait of 3 weeks now could save you a year of waiting later on.

 

[dpenabill]

When u first apply, you send the application form only. If the officer is suspicious, he/she will ask for bank statements, children's' school records, a record of OHIP claims etc. If u used to live in the U.A.E they will ask for the exit/entry report from the UAE, as many ppl used the e-gate facility to avoid stamps.

I travelled to the UAE in 2014, I have the entry and exit stamps from their end. However, the officers at Pearson did not stamp my passport. Would that be a problem?

As you astutely observe, there is the routine application and if there are concerns, questions, issues, or as you describe it, suspicions, then there are additional inquiries including potentially requests for additional documents from the applicant.

What triggers this, however, does not have to rise to the level of suspicions. IRCC's primary focus, unless and until there are overt reasons for suspicion, is to verify the information submitted. IRCC's primary tools for doing this are old-fashioned: cross-checking the information submitted, both within the application itself and with existing data (GCMS, FOSS, CBSA travel history, RCMP and U.S. NCIC/FBI databases, and the data accessible in the various related databases maintained by IRCC and CBSA, including for example any previous Residency Determination).

Then there is, of course, the absolutely required PI interview (Program Integrity interview), which gives IRCC an opportunity to further verify the information submitted (often includes examination and cross-referencing information in passports for example, stamp dates and such) as well as assess the applicant in person.

If and when IRCC goes beyond that depends on the extent to which IRCC is satisfied it has adequately verified the information submitted and the applicant's qualifications.

Best to avoid doing something which will trigger further inquiry, especially any elevated scrutiny. Not just because of the risk of a negative decision. The majority of applicants burdened with the full-blown RQ process, for example, still proceed to a successful decision and taking the oath. But as much because when the application process goes non-routine in this way, at the least that is going to delay the process and it can delay the process by a lot. Many months, or years.

Applicants cannot entirely make sure to avoid triggering elevated scrutiny. The inclusion of additional documents with the application, as suggested by ngag is not likely to have any impact and may, depending on the documents and other circumstances, actually increase the risk of additional inquiry and elevated scrutiny.

But applicants can avoid doing certain things which increase the risk of additional inquiry and elevated scrutiny. Biggest thing is to carefully follow the instructions and make sure the application is fully completed, all relevant information provided, accurately provided. Applying with a prudent margin of physical presence about the minimum thresholds is another.

Regarding the latter, again how much of a margin an applicant should apply with varies depending on the individual's situation. Many are likely safe with just a couple or four weeks. Some should wait longer.

The circumstances which suggest the applicant should wait to have a bigger margin are way, way too many to attempt enumerating. A scratching-the-surface selection of examples:
-- an applicant who has had a child born abroad since becoming a PR
-- an applicant who has been employed abroad after becoming a PR and during the relevant time period
-- an applicant with frequent travel
-- an applicant claiming no travel
-- an applicant who has immediate family members living abroad or have been living abroad for an extended period during the relevant time; includes applicants with children attending school abroad; especially a spouse living or working abroad
-- an applicant with status to live or work in another country (U.S. Green Card holders, and those with status to work in the ME especially)

These are not fixed rules. They are not in any particular order. They do not affect all applicants the same way.

In any event, I think it is safe to say that all applicants should, at minimum, have a full week margin over the minimum, and frankly my sense is more like three or four weeks.

An applicant might go with a smaller margin over the minimum for one year in the 183 days in a calendary year, for four Calendary Years, requirement, but remember, under the current law this requirement is inflexible and if IRCC is not satisfied the applicant actually met the 183X4CY requirements, IRCC MUST refer the case to a CJ, and if the CJ is similarly not satisfied that the applicant has, at that juncture, proven beyond a balance of probabilities by clear and convincing evidence the requirement was met, the CJ must deny the application. Be clear what this means: just meeting the requirement is not sufficient if the case goes to a CJ: the applicant will have to prove all the days present by clear and convincing evidence. (Frankly, I used to think this language, in the court cases, was an overstatement, since "clear and convincing" usually refers to a standard of proof greater than "beyond a balance of probabilities." But I have now seen this language repeated in several decisions, and as incongruous as it seems to me, that is, imposing a burden higher than merely beyond a balance of probabilities, this appears to be the standard commonly applied now.)

By the way, regarding children's school records: This illustrates how often the application form and checklist can change and how important it is to be sure to use the correct application form on the date the application is made. In the past, applicants were required to submit children's school records with the application. This had been a source of much confusion, especially as to what records satisfied this requirement, and many applicants had their application returned to them as incomplete because IRCC/CIC concluded the records submitted were not satisfactory. In April a new application and checklist was implemented and while I have not reviewed changes in detail, and am not sure if there were other new forms in the intervening time since I last examined the application form and checklist, the school records for children no longer need to be included with the application.

This is relevant to the postdating the application question: be sure to compare the application form and checklist the day one makes the application to be sure it is the same as the one being submitted. Cannot do that if the application was postdated.

The case you mentioned may really imply that there had been some fraud involved. Actually lack of stamps may indicate that she was outside of country all the time not the opposite. Many have more than one passport. Some were found to have been using one passport and applying for citizenship with the other.

One would readily suspect that CIC's concerns in that case were at least somewhat founded on legitimate reasons to doubt the veracity of the applicant's declarations. While there are more than a few participants in this forum who tend to have a more negative view of CIC or IRCC, generally I believe they make a concerted effort to get things right and do not arbitrarily or capriciously subject applicants to protracted processing like they did the applicants in this case. That is, I believe there is, at least in the vast majority of cases, some reason for the government's doubts and challenges. The irony, though, as Justice Roy highlighted, is that in this case the CJ seemed to focus on a lack of indications of travel as reason to conclude there must have been travel.

Here I have a question please, dpenabill. Although I am far from applying right now, but I am surprised with the volume of problems usually associated with the presence requirement.
My question is: If the applicant attaches to her/his application copies of all boarding passes (so as to have no doubts about entry and exit dates), proves of living a normal life in Canada, like medical history showing regular check ups (over the whole period, not only in certain months per year), pay-stubs, school bulletins of the kids, e-mails confirming engagement in any kind of activity, job interviews, job search programs, appointments (with members of different governmental organizations not a few private ones).
On what basis should an officer raise concerns with all these documents in hand? even with applying with no margin after being qualified?

I largely agree with the response by Almost_Canadian

Any excess documents you sent with your application the first time would most probably be discarded. So no point sending anything except what is required by them.
Once the officer reviews your file, he/she will determine whether your information needs further verification. If so, they will issue you the RQ or mini RQ as they think necessary.
Dpenabill has given you a very good analysis why an application with exact dates would tend to be more scrutinized.
My question to you is : if you are currently living in Canada and will be here for the near future, why would you not wait at least 2 -3 weeks to build up a buffer of dates before applying ? A wait of 3 weeks now could save you a year of waiting later on.

And the question thus posed is precisely the question. And to be clear, it is all too likely that a total stranger bureaucrat might look at an application that barely meets the minimum requirements and wonder precisely this: why didn't this person wait a little longer. Only the bureaucrat will not ask the applicant this question. Rather the bureaucrat will take the file out of the routine processing track and put in a track for further scrutiny, to see if some reason pops up in the information, which may include things like going on the Internet to search for information about the applicant, the applicant's address(es) or employer(s), and so on, ranging from Canada411 to LinkedIn and Facebook, or other so-called "open-sources."

Note, however, the additional documentation will NOT be "discarded." Largely disregarded, perhaps, but not discarded. As I noted before, last I have seen based on responses to ATIP requests for physical files, IRCC keeps everything, even the packaging the application arrives in. And in this regard, many of the cases in which applicants have run into credibility issues and circumstances in which CIC and CJs identify inconsistent information as a basis for not accepting the applicant's version, involve CIC finding the inconsistencies in what the applicant himself or herself submitted. The more information an applicant submits, the more there is there for CIC to mine and discover some incongruities or inconsistencies. Among the most common are credit card transactions appearing to take place in a location other than where the applicant declared he or she was during that period of time. Which is ridiculous in most situations, since many credit card transactions are recorded as if done at a business location other than where the card holder was at the time. And remember, if IRCC identifies something which indicates, to IRCC's view, that the applicant was IN Canada at a time when the applicant declared he or she was Outside Canada, that can damage the applicant's credibility as much as if it was the other way. In the past anyway, CIC's reaction to this situation was not "Oh, the applicant must have been in Canada more than the applicant thought." No. Rather it was: "the applicant's declarations of dates of travel are NOT accurate and therefor not reliable evidence, therefore the applicant has not proven presence."

 

[dpenabill]

I travelled to the UAE in 2014, I have the entry and exit stamps from their end. However, the officers at Pearson did not stamp my passport. Would that be a problem?

I did not respond to this in the post above.

This used to be referred to a "missing stamp." But in the last many years, the practice at a Canadian PoE, and indeed in many other countries as well, has been away from stamping passports for every entry or exit. Thus, the practical reality is that many applicants have passports which have stamps for some cross-border events and not for others.

This used to be a big problem for some applicants. It was never clear, though, to what extent this arose as a problem in what otherwise was approached as a routine case. My impression, over the years, has been that CIC identified concerns and suspicions first, and if such concerns were identified, then focused on things like purportedly missing stamps to justify its more skeptical inferences about the applicant's version.

The reason it could indicate a real problem is that, in some contexts, a missing stamp does suggest the applicant may have had some other travel document the applicant used on that occasion. This is especially so for countries known to always stamp Travel Documents for every exit or entry. Thus, if the applicant traveled to such a country and there was no stamp for that trip, the "missing stamp" indicates the individual was using some other documentation to enter or exit that country. In other words, missing stamps were often viewed as indications the applicant may have undisclosed travel documents, which if presented and examined might reflect travel in addition that disclosed.

But again, this is usually not the problem today it used to be since it is very common for Canada to not stamp the passport.

As for travel to the UAE, my sense is that the context for that travel is what may make a difference in whether it invites additional inquiry. If it is related to a work permit/visa, for example, or a residential visa/permit, my sense is that will indeed increase the risk of elevated scrutiny. No way to get around that. It is what it is. (Likewise for a number of other countries; even for the U.S. . . . those who have work permits for the U.S., and especially GC holders, can anticipate an elevated risk of additional inquiry and scrutiny.)

Be aware that the date of entry into the UAE (or any other country for that matter) and the date of exit from there, do not necessarily indicate the date of exit and return to Canada. Be sure to accurately report the date actually exiting Canada for that trip, and the date of actual entry into Canada. This is actually one of the more common sources of discrepancies in travel reporting leading to elevated scrutiny and even RQ: applicant's relying on their passport stamps to report dates of travel, and failing to accurately report actual date of exit and return. And remember, if a flight is scheduled to depart at 11:30 p.m., it does not matter if it remained at the gate until after midnight, the date of exit is still the date the flight was scheduled to depart. On the other hand, if a flight lands in Canada at 10:45 p.m., the applicant has not actually arrived until processed through the PoE; so if that takes place after midnight, the return was not until the next day. Reason for this, going both ways, is that the technical exit and entry are when the PoE is passed (so just boarding the flight constitutes having exited Canada as scheduled, even though the plane does not actually leave the gate until much later . . . indeed, even if boarding itself is delayed, since again the "exit" is passing the PoE portal not the actual flying away), not when Canadian soil is being touched.

 

[Loulou79]

I did not respond to this in the post above.

This used to be referred to a "missing stamp." But in the last many years, the practice at a Canadian PoE, and indeed in many other countries as well, has been away from stamping passports for every entry or exit. Thus, the practical reality is that many applicants have passports which have stamps for some cross-border events and not for others.

This used to be a big problem for some applicants. It was never clear, though, to what extent this arose as a problem in what otherwise was approached as a routine case. My impression, over the years, has been that CIC identified concerns and suspicions first, and if such concerns were identified, then focused on things like purportedly missing stamps to justify its more skeptical inferences about the applicant's version.

The reason it could indicate a real problem is that, in some contexts, a missing stamp does suggest the applicant may have had some other travel document the applicant used on that occasion. This is especially so for countries known to always stamp Travel Documents for every exit or entry. Thus, if the applicant traveled to such a country and there was no stamp for that trip, the "missing stamp" indicates the individual was using some other documentation to enter or exit that country. In other words, missing stamps were often viewed as indications the applicant may have undisclosed travel documents, which if presented and examined might reflect travel in addition that disclosed.

But again, this is usually not the problem today it used to be since it is very common for Canada to not stamp the passport.

As for travel to the UAE, my sense is that the context for that travel is what may make a difference in whether it invites additional inquiry. If it is related to a work permit/visa, for example, or a residential visa/permit, my sense is that will indeed increase the risk of elevated scrutiny. No way to get around that. It is what it is. (Likewise for a number of other countries; even for the U.S. . . . those who have work permits for the U.S., and especially GC holders, can anticipate an elevated risk of additional inquiry and scrutiny.)

Be aware that the date of entry into the UAE (or any other country for that matter) and the date of exit from there, do not necessarily indicate the date of exit and return to Canada. Be sure to accurately report the date actually exiting Canada for that trip, and the date of actual entry into Canada. This is actually one of the more common sources of discrepancies in travel reporting leading to elevated scrutiny and even RQ: applicant's relying on their passport stamps to report dates of travel, and failing to accurately report actual date of exit and return. And remember, if a flight is scheduled to depart at 11:30 p.m., it does not matter if it remained at the gate until after midnight, the date of exit is still the date the flight was scheduled to depart. On the other hand, if a flight lands in Canada at 10:45 p.m., the applicant has not actually arrived until processed through the PoE; so if that takes place after midnight, the return was not until the next day. Reason for this, going both ways, is that the technical exit and entry are when the PoE is passed (so just boarding the flight constitutes having exited Canada as scheduled, even though the plane does not actually leave the gate until much later . . . indeed, even if boarding itself is delayed, since again the "exit" is passing the PoE portal not the actual flying away), not when Canadian soil is being touched.

My residency visa with the UAE was cancelled in 2012. I know that when I'm called for the test, I should bring a current exit and entry record from the UAE so as to ease suspicions.

Be aware that the date of entry into the UAE (or any other country for that matter) and the date of exit from there, do not necessarily indicate the date of exit and return to Canada.

Guilty as charged! lost two days when I corrected the dates!

Thank you VERY MUCH Dpenabill

 

[roshanf]

Any thoughts on applying exactly a day after meeting eligibility for someone who has never left Canada (not even for a day) after becoming a PR?

 

[imm_leb_01]

Any thoughts on applying exactly a day after meeting eligibility for someone who has never left Canada (not even for a day) after becoming a PR?

No issue, but if i were you i would wait a week ...

 

[roshanf]

No issue, but if i were you i would wait a week ...

Thanks imm_leb_01, without trying to sound like i'm questioning if its a good idea or bad (coz I know its better to wait), why would you wait a week if you have never left the country? Like, do you think the application is subject to more scrutiny for CBSA checks or something or you'd just do so to err on the side of caution? If I send my app a day later my police clearance will have crossed 3 months when they receive it.

 

[ZingyDNA]

Thanks imm_leb_01, without trying to sound like i'm questioning if its a good idea or bad (coz I know its better to wait), why would you wait a week if you have never left the country? Like, do you think the application is subject to more scrutiny for CBSA checks or something or you'd just do so to err on the side of caution? If I send my app a day later my police clearance will have crossed 3 months when they receive it.

You actually have a good point. People with trips abroad and exactly 1095 days probably will have their entry/exit records checked closely, as one day off will make them ineligible. But if you never had a trip, then there's no trip record to look at. So if it's a big hassle for you to get a police report, I say make sure you're eligible the day before you sign the application and go for it!

 

[roshanf]

You actually have a good point. People with trips abroad and exactly 1095 days probably will have their entry/exit records checked closely, as one day off will make them ineligible. But if you never had a trip, then there's no trip record to look at. So if it's a big hassle for you to get a police report, I say make sure you're eligible the day before you sign the application and go for it!

Thank you imm_leb_01 and ZingyDNA for your answers!