He has to withdraw this one and send another one right after... He has a big buffer now.
NEED HELP: Citizenship Application Declined
- Thread starter marido
- Start date
If you actually read the previous posts in this thread, the answer to this question should have been readily apparent. In your application you claimed enough credit to meet the qualifications, and that meets the completeness requirements, which means IRCC must, in effect, accept your application and then fully process it to determine if you in fact meet the requirements.
And then @itsmyid made it clear enough:
Beyond that, the observations offered by @frange otherwise emphasize that the presence-requirement, 1095 days credit, is an absolute requirement. One day short means the application MUST BE denied. And presence in Canada after the day the application was made DO NOT COUNT. This warranted emphasis given what appears to be a misunderstanding:
(context/full quote below)
To be clear: How many days you were present in Canada by the time of the test DOES NOT MATTER.
What matters is how many days you were present in Canada in the five years preceding the date you applied for citizenship, for which you would be credited:
-- a full day credit for each day present after landing
-- a half day credit for each day present prior to landing, but only days you had lawful status as a temporary resident of Canada (visitor status is a temporary resident status)
-- NO credit for days in Canada without status
-- a half day credit for each day present prior to landing, but only days you had lawful status as a temporary resident of Canada (visitor status is a temporary resident status)
-- NO credit for days in Canada without status
Moreover, the burden of proof is on the applicant. So, getting the credit can depend on the applicant affirmatively proving actual presence on any or ALL the days the PR claims presence. AND, potentially, PROVING STATUS AS WELL.
All of that was already explained in previous posts in this topic. And, to be frank, is readily discerned from IRCC information about eligibility for a grant of citizenship. It is not that complicated.
What all this means for you, however, in particular, for this particular application, is NOT so easily discerned. Among somewhat relevant facts you offer a lot of irrelevant facts, and leave out some crucial details, and you offer some questionable details. (Example: you report that your application was received on Jan 8, 2018 BUT you also report you applied Jan 8, 2018, which seems highly unlikely unless you completed the application and somehow had it delivered to IRCC Sydney the very same day.)
FOR NOW YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY IN A WAIT AND SEE MODE. How this is going to go, how it will turn out, will largely depend on the calculation of credit for days in Canada, as I outlined above.
Getting back to your primary question, as to how or why your application has reached this stage, IF IRCC has concluded you are short days, as @itsmyid noted: IRCC does NOT reach a conclusion about the facts until it has seen and evaluated enough evidence to VERIFY the applicant's calculation, or enough to conclude there is a QUESTION about the veracity of the applicant's presence calculation.
The acceptance of the application is based merely on it being complete. If the applicant claims status and presence that adds up, in the applicant's presence-calculation, to a total of 1095 days credit, that meets the completeness check. BUT the completeness check says NOTHING, nothing at all, about whether IRCC believes the applicant's information is true and accurate. That is to be determined.
Basically, you claimed you are entitled to credit for at least 1095 days and that you meet the presence requirement. Canada is a RULE-OF-LAW country. This means a government agency or official cannot simply conclude a person is not entitled to citizenship. The applicant is entitled to a FAIR PROCEDURE. The applicant is entitled to have a complete application processed.
And, moreover, the presence requirement is different from other requirements. A Citizenship Officer can assess other requirements and if the Citizenship Officer determines the applicant does NOT meet those qualifications, the Citizenship Officer can deny the application. There is still a substantial procedural process IRCC must follow. Fairness letters for example. An opportunity to respond. But a Citizenship Officer can make the final decision as to those issues (like whether there is a prohibition barring the applicant from being granted citizenship).
BUT a Citizenship Officer CANNOT deny the application based on a conclusion the applicant failed to meet the 1095 day requirement as long as the applicant has at least a prima facie claim of presence meeting the requirement. If IRCC (per the decision-making of the responsible Citizenship Officer) concludes the applicant did not meet this requirement, based on NOT counting days the applicant claims presence, the Citizenship Officer must then MAKE a CITIZENSHIP JUDGE REFERRAL. The case then goes to a CJ who will ordinarily hold a hearing, which is more like an interview with the applicant, before the CJ decides what the facts are, whether the applicant has met the burden of proving presence in Canada that meets the 1095 presence requirement.
That process tends to take a very, very long time.
SHOULD YOU WAIT TO SEE HOW THIS GOES or SHOULD YOU WITHDRAW AND RE-APPLY?
I cannot say. I doubt anyone here can say with any confidence. MY GUESS is that you will need to re-apply BUT I am far from confident about this GUESS.
And I am NOT even sure whether the issue in your case actually qualifies as a Presence-Case which would require referral to a CJ.
OBVIOUSLY YOU WILL NEED CREDIT FOR DAYS BETWEEN MARCH 2014 AND AUGUST 2015 IN ORDER TO MEET THE PRESENCE CALCULATION. PERHAPS PLUS SOME.
JUST AS OBVIOUSLY, YOU SUBMITTED A PRESENCE CALCULATION COUNTING THOSE DAYS. PLUS SOME?
If the question is NOT whether you were present in Canada those days, but whether those days get credit or not, based on whether you had lawful status in Canada those days or not, I DO NOT KNOW if that constitutes an issue which a Citizenship Officer can make a final decision about, or whether that would require the referral to a CJ.
My GUESS is that a Citizenship Officer can make this decision. It seems likely that IRCC is the final arbiter of what status an individual has. And that appears to be the key question for your application: did you have status for at least 600 or so of the days you were present in Canada prior to August 2015.
Here's the arithmetic:
-- November 2 2015 to January 8, 2018, minus 41, totals around 748 days. Status is certain. These count full credit.
-- August 2, 2015 to November 1, 2015, totals 92 days. Status appears to be certain. Credit 46 days.
Total of for sure credits: 794 days. This is still 301 days short, for which you would need to be present WITH some status at least 602 days in order to get this credit. Even if you also for-sure get the credit for the six weeks on a visitor visa, that would add up to 21 days credit, and that still leaves you short by around 280 days.
So you need credit for those other days.
And ordinarily it would be fairly easy to conclude that you will NOT get credit for those days. In which case you fall short. In which case EVENTUALLY this application will be denied.
BUT there are, perhaps, other factors in play. Was your PR application based on refugee grounds? Was your PR application an inland spouse sponsored application? Is there any basis for concluding you had IMPLIED STATUS during that additional time period.
There are many potential questions leading to a range of possible results. My guess is that you will NOT be credited for some of that time, and thus this application will fail. BUT that is just my GUESS. I do NOT know.
A tangential observation about the periodic requests for GCMS notes is warranted: I have no idea whether officials in IRCC perceive this was about a rather juvenile, immature and impatient are-we-there-yet inquiry, OR more like the GUILTY anxiously asking for information revealing whether he got away with it or not.
But of course repeated requests for GCMS notes has NO benefit to the applicant, and thus is just a drum beat message to IRCC suggesting the applicant has reason to be worried. Kind of like: HEY, I might not really qualified, so I will keep checking to see if I got away with not being qualified.
But, in any event, the repeated requests for GCMS notes was probably NOT a good idea. Probably will not make a difference. BUT for sure it does NOT help. At the least it constituted a reminder that you had something to worry about.
Oh well. So it goes.
But of course repeated requests for GCMS notes has NO benefit to the applicant, and thus is just a drum beat message to IRCC suggesting the applicant has reason to be worried. Kind of like: HEY, I might not really qualified, so I will keep checking to see if I got away with not being qualified.
But, in any event, the repeated requests for GCMS notes was probably NOT a good idea. Probably will not make a difference. BUT for sure it does NOT help. At the least it constituted a reminder that you had something to worry about.
Oh well. So it goes.
You have made some very important points. I will let the forum knows what communication I got from IRCC whether a referral to CJ or refused application. Thanks for the time you took to break down the times I will be credited for and the possible outcome of the application. I accept your reasoning behind why IRCC initially accepted my application. Btw, I work for Canada post in Sydney so I hand delivered my application myself, this is irrelevant as I didnt need to explain this bits of my life, but since you said it was irrelevant or does not add up there you go. Lastly, I was sponsored.
Assuming, as it appears, that you did not have status for enough days to get enough credit to meet the presence requirement, it is to some extent curious that IRCC has not directly made this an issue. And there are other reports about applications not passing the completeness check, and thus being returned rather than processed, when IRCC identified a lack-of-status issue. So I was not summarily dismissing the question itself. It is merely that the answer is no mystery: the claim of presence was sufficiently made to require IRCC, so to say, to fully adjudicate it, which takes time.
It is possible, perhaps even plausible, that an applicant who was an inland spouse-sponsored PR might get credit for that time based on having some kind of implied status. IRCC has an overt policy to NOT pursue removal of spouse-sponsored applicants for PR, allowing them, in effect, to lawfully stay in Canada (unless they were already subject to Removal proceedings or are otherwise considered inadmissible).
BUT even if this is your situation, and IRCC is in effect allowing credit while lawfully in Canada pursuant to an Inland spouse-sponsored application, the arithmetic still appears to possibly be problematic UNLESS IRCC will, in effect, allow credit for the time between the end of the first six weeks and the date the PR application was made.
In any event, if you were an INLAND spouse-sponsored PR applicant, how this goes for you could be very useful information for other PRs who were living in Canada while they had an inland PR application pending but who otherwise did not have explicit status during that time (I made the effort to apply for and obtain an extension of visitor status while I had a spouse sponsored PR application in process, so I continued to have formal status). So, while I am not clear that this is your situation it appears it likely is, in which event it would be appreciated if you return and report your progress, if you come back and report how this goes. It appears there are more than a few PRs in similar circumstances and wondering whether they should claim credit for such pre-landing time periods.
Thanks @dpenabill for your clarification and you advise him/her diplomatically to withdraw her application and then reapply right after if she/he doesn't to waist time .
1- In order to pretend to be in implied status, IRCC has to receive the PR sponsorship application and send its AOR while the applicant is in legal status in canada. Not the time the application is reached or delivered to IRCC. Otherwise, she/he is out of status and days unlawfully accumulated in Canada are void.
If CJ approves an application based on unlawful presence, the citizenship can be revoked at any time even after 50 years since it was granted by mistakes or illegally granted. Be aware of that.
2- @dpenabill ... According to your calculation, this applicant is under 1095 days rules and is short by around 280 days. There's no way that he reaches 1095 days unless they calculate unlawfull days in Canada.
Everybody knows that any application won't be accepted or citizenship granted with less than 1095 days.
Conclusion:
she has the final decision to make by choosing which step is better for her. If she is in a rush for her citizenship, she has to withraw the application and then reapply right after. If not, she can wait for even months or years.
And finally, if your citizenship is granted based on unlawfull presence, it is against immigration laws and can lead to its revocation at anytime.
1- In order to pretend to be in implied status, IRCC has to receive the PR sponsorship application and send its AOR while the applicant is in legal status in canada. Not the time the application is reached or delivered to IRCC. Otherwise, she/he is out of status and days unlawfully accumulated in Canada are void.
If CJ approves an application based on unlawful presence, the citizenship can be revoked at any time even after 50 years since it was granted by mistakes or illegally granted. Be aware of that.
2- @dpenabill ... According to your calculation, this applicant is under 1095 days rules and is short by around 280 days. There's no way that he reaches 1095 days unless they calculate unlawfull days in Canada.
Everybody knows that any application won't be accepted or citizenship granted with less than 1095 days.
Conclusion:
she has the final decision to make by choosing which step is better for her. If she is in a rush for her citizenship, she has to withraw the application and then reapply right after. If not, she can wait for even months or years.
And finally, if your citizenship is granted based on unlawfull presence, it is against immigration laws and can lead to its revocation at anytime.
Last edited:
All of what u reiterated was already
Established @frange. I am in no rush. I will wait on instructions from IRCC. I already know my decision. Might I add that IRCC IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE LAWFULLY PRESENCE CLAUSE? In sec 5 (2) (i & iii) it states that ‘
Been physically present in Canada for at least 1,095 days during the five years immediately before the date of his or her application, and
- Income Tax Act to file a return of income in respect of three taxation years that are fully or partially within the five years immediately before the date of his or her application;
No mention of lawful status was mention. This was taken from the citizenship act, wording is everything. I am not trying to justify my application as I already know what time of day it is. Long story short, the reason I am riding this wave is to hear what IRCC INSTRUCTIONS ARE. When I was doing my pr I was assaulted by my spouse before first stage approval and it was in court where an order was made of ‘no contact’ with my immigration application in process I seek a lawyer’s opinion who told me to withdraw my application because IRCC will never approve it base on the situation. I went home and wrote a letter to IRCC and I am a permanent resident today. I appreciate all the comments but IRCC IS INCONSISTENT AND UNPREDICTABLE HENCE WHY I WILL WAIT FOR ANY FURTHER communications from them.
SOME PROCEDURAL CLARIFICATION:
Saying something is so does NOT make it so. And this is especially so in regards to the FACTS an applicant reports in the application.
But it is also so in regards to what IRCC apprehends the facts to be. (No matter how likely it is, for example, that IRCC's records are accurate, just the fact that something is stated to be a fact in IRCC records does NOT make it so.)
When there is a conflict between the FACTS asserted by the applicant, and the FACTS as IRCC sees them, the applicant is entitled to have his or her account afforded due process, a FAIR procedure to determine what the facts are, or at least to determine whether the applicant meets the burden of proving the facts claimed by the applicant.
Thus, for example, just because a processing agent in IRCC is confident that the applicant's information is NOT accurate, not true, that will NOT mean IRCC can summarily deny the application.
In particular, as previous posts highlighted, there is a big difference in the completeness screening done when IRCC first receives an application, VERSUS the VERIFICATION assessment done in the local office.
An application will proceed to be processed based on the information the applicant submits in the application, so long as that information is sufficient to meet the requirements of making the application (that is, passes the completeness screening).
A final decision on the application, however, will depend on IRCC VERIFYING the applicant's information . . .
. . . or, if IRCC identifies some erroneous information in what the applicant submitted, the decision will then depend on what is VERIFIED.
ORDINARILY it is NOT the case that IRCC determines what the facts actually are . . . except to the extent that IRCC has other sources of information and will consider the extent to which other information either corroborates or controverts the information the applicant has submitted. (Of course there is some variability in the actual assessment process, and most indications suggest IRCC leans toward favourably approaching the applicant's case SO LONG AS it appears the applicant has been honest and forthcoming, and has in fact met the requirements based on what can be verified. NO GOTCHA GAMES.)
That is, IRCC's assessment is essentially a VERIFICATION process; it is mostly about determining whether the facts reported by the applicant are sufficiently verified to rely on them and then, given the extent to which the applicant's information is verified, if that information establishes qualification for citizenship.
This latest discussion, the case at issue here, appears to involve a situation in which the applicant, in however it is the applicant populated the respective fields in both the application and the presence calculator, made a claim of days present in Canada WITH status and of sufficient number to get credit enough to meet the minimum presence requirement. That is the applicant's submitted version of the facts.
IRCC will evaluate that information. If IRCC verifies the applicant's information, the decision will be based on the applicant's information. To whatever extent IRCC determines the applicant's information is NOT verified, IRCC will first consider whether the information that is verified is sufficient to grant citizenship, and if so it will most likely proceed to grant citizenship. If the information that IRCC has verified is NOT sufficient to grant citizenship, then IRCC will follow a FAIR PROCESS giving the applicant an opportunity to PROVE the information IRCC has not verified. If the applicant meets the burden of proof, the application will be granted. If the applicant falls short in meeting the burden of proof, the application will be denied.
The precise process employed will depend on what facts (and related conclusions) are in question. As previously observed, if it is a question about whether or not the applicant was physically present in Canada during this or that period of time, that ordinarily requires a referral to a Citizenship Judge. Other issues can be decided by a Citizenship Officer, but, again, only AFTER a fair process, such as a fairness letter, opportunity to respond, possible opportunity to ask for a hearing, the actual procedure depending (again) on what the particular issue is.
Applying this to the case being discussed:
As is the usual situation in a setting like this (recognizing protecting privacy is of course a big deal), the applicant here has not shared many of the specific details as to the precise information entered in the presence calculator or in the application (and item 9.b in particular). SO none of us can say, definitively, what the actual outcome will be. We do not even know the asserted facts. We certainly do not know what other information IRCC is comparing with those ASSERTED facts.
Sure, we recognize that IRCC will of course review the applicant's ASSERTED facts against its own records, including the client's immigration history to the extent there are GCMS and FOSS records (to, for example, verify temporary resident status). And IRCC will also consider other sources, especially the client's CBSA travel history.
BUT as long as the applicant claimed to have status in item 9.b and the time present in Canada reported in the presence calculator adds up to 1095 days or more (full day credits for time after landing; half day credits for time in Canada before landing during the period the applicant ASSERTS having status), THERE IS AT LEAST A PRIMA FACIE CASE.
If IRCC has reason to dispute what the applicant ASSERTS, there is then a QUESTION OF FACT. Just because IRCC's records show this or that does NOT mean they are conclusively correct. If IRCC's records conflict with the applicant's account of facts, the applicant should be (and most likely will be) given an opportunity to respond and dispute and, if possible (assuming the applicant is correct and the IRCC record is not) prove his or her version of the facts.
As has been emphasized, an IRCC official CANNOT summarily conclude the applicant's account of the facts is NOT true. Canada is a rule-of-law country. An applicant is entitled to FAIR PROCEDURE. If and when IRCC believes some facts reported by the applicant are NOT true, IRCC must follow a fair process to determine whether to make a decision based on the applicant's account of the facts or to conclude the applicant has not met the burden of proving those facts.
Of course, in many scenarios what is LIKELY is relatively easy to forecast. What will for sure happen, in contrast, typically CANNOT be reliably predicted. So we cannot for sure say what the outcome will be here, except in hypothetical, conditional form.
Thus, more to the point in this particular case, we can definitively state that IF (emphasis on "if") IRCC concludes this applicant did NOT have valid status in Canada prior to being issued a work permit, that will mean this application will fail. BUT we CANNOT definitively state that IRCC will in fact conclude this applicant did NOT have valid status in Canada prior to being issued the work permit. Probably, that is my GUESS. But we do not know for sure.
In the meantime, further reporting by the applicant, as to how it actually goes, should at least somewhat illuminate more about such scenarios . . . and again, the situation in which someone is in Canada pending an inland spousal sponsored PR application is a fairly common scenario.
Saying something is so does NOT make it so. And this is especially so in regards to the FACTS an applicant reports in the application.
But it is also so in regards to what IRCC apprehends the facts to be. (No matter how likely it is, for example, that IRCC's records are accurate, just the fact that something is stated to be a fact in IRCC records does NOT make it so.)
When there is a conflict between the FACTS asserted by the applicant, and the FACTS as IRCC sees them, the applicant is entitled to have his or her account afforded due process, a FAIR procedure to determine what the facts are, or at least to determine whether the applicant meets the burden of proving the facts claimed by the applicant.
Thus, for example, just because a processing agent in IRCC is confident that the applicant's information is NOT accurate, not true, that will NOT mean IRCC can summarily deny the application.
In particular, as previous posts highlighted, there is a big difference in the completeness screening done when IRCC first receives an application, VERSUS the VERIFICATION assessment done in the local office.
An application will proceed to be processed based on the information the applicant submits in the application, so long as that information is sufficient to meet the requirements of making the application (that is, passes the completeness screening).
A final decision on the application, however, will depend on IRCC VERIFYING the applicant's information . . .
. . . or, if IRCC identifies some erroneous information in what the applicant submitted, the decision will then depend on what is VERIFIED.
ORDINARILY it is NOT the case that IRCC determines what the facts actually are . . . except to the extent that IRCC has other sources of information and will consider the extent to which other information either corroborates or controverts the information the applicant has submitted. (Of course there is some variability in the actual assessment process, and most indications suggest IRCC leans toward favourably approaching the applicant's case SO LONG AS it appears the applicant has been honest and forthcoming, and has in fact met the requirements based on what can be verified. NO GOTCHA GAMES.)
That is, IRCC's assessment is essentially a VERIFICATION process; it is mostly about determining whether the facts reported by the applicant are sufficiently verified to rely on them and then, given the extent to which the applicant's information is verified, if that information establishes qualification for citizenship.
This latest discussion, the case at issue here, appears to involve a situation in which the applicant, in however it is the applicant populated the respective fields in both the application and the presence calculator, made a claim of days present in Canada WITH status and of sufficient number to get credit enough to meet the minimum presence requirement. That is the applicant's submitted version of the facts.
IRCC will evaluate that information. If IRCC verifies the applicant's information, the decision will be based on the applicant's information. To whatever extent IRCC determines the applicant's information is NOT verified, IRCC will first consider whether the information that is verified is sufficient to grant citizenship, and if so it will most likely proceed to grant citizenship. If the information that IRCC has verified is NOT sufficient to grant citizenship, then IRCC will follow a FAIR PROCESS giving the applicant an opportunity to PROVE the information IRCC has not verified. If the applicant meets the burden of proof, the application will be granted. If the applicant falls short in meeting the burden of proof, the application will be denied.
The precise process employed will depend on what facts (and related conclusions) are in question. As previously observed, if it is a question about whether or not the applicant was physically present in Canada during this or that period of time, that ordinarily requires a referral to a Citizenship Judge. Other issues can be decided by a Citizenship Officer, but, again, only AFTER a fair process, such as a fairness letter, opportunity to respond, possible opportunity to ask for a hearing, the actual procedure depending (again) on what the particular issue is.
Applying this to the case being discussed:
As is the usual situation in a setting like this (recognizing protecting privacy is of course a big deal), the applicant here has not shared many of the specific details as to the precise information entered in the presence calculator or in the application (and item 9.b in particular). SO none of us can say, definitively, what the actual outcome will be. We do not even know the asserted facts. We certainly do not know what other information IRCC is comparing with those ASSERTED facts.
Sure, we recognize that IRCC will of course review the applicant's ASSERTED facts against its own records, including the client's immigration history to the extent there are GCMS and FOSS records (to, for example, verify temporary resident status). And IRCC will also consider other sources, especially the client's CBSA travel history.
BUT as long as the applicant claimed to have status in item 9.b and the time present in Canada reported in the presence calculator adds up to 1095 days or more (full day credits for time after landing; half day credits for time in Canada before landing during the period the applicant ASSERTS having status), THERE IS AT LEAST A PRIMA FACIE CASE.
If IRCC has reason to dispute what the applicant ASSERTS, there is then a QUESTION OF FACT. Just because IRCC's records show this or that does NOT mean they are conclusively correct. If IRCC's records conflict with the applicant's account of facts, the applicant should be (and most likely will be) given an opportunity to respond and dispute and, if possible (assuming the applicant is correct and the IRCC record is not) prove his or her version of the facts.
As has been emphasized, an IRCC official CANNOT summarily conclude the applicant's account of the facts is NOT true. Canada is a rule-of-law country. An applicant is entitled to FAIR PROCEDURE. If and when IRCC believes some facts reported by the applicant are NOT true, IRCC must follow a fair process to determine whether to make a decision based on the applicant's account of the facts or to conclude the applicant has not met the burden of proving those facts.
Of course, in many scenarios what is LIKELY is relatively easy to forecast. What will for sure happen, in contrast, typically CANNOT be reliably predicted. So we cannot for sure say what the outcome will be here, except in hypothetical, conditional form.
Thus, more to the point in this particular case, we can definitively state that IF (emphasis on "if") IRCC concludes this applicant did NOT have valid status in Canada prior to being issued a work permit, that will mean this application will fail. BUT we CANNOT definitively state that IRCC will in fact conclude this applicant did NOT have valid status in Canada prior to being issued the work permit. Probably, that is my GUESS. But we do not know for sure.
In the meantime, further reporting by the applicant, as to how it actually goes, should at least somewhat illuminate more about such scenarios . . . and again, the situation in which someone is in Canada pending an inland spousal sponsored PR application is a fairly common scenario.
Did you read somewhere in her post that she was out of status for months.
Days accumulated in Canada with:
1- PR status count full-- 1
2- Temporary status -- 0.5
3- No status ---- zero
She thought that those days without legal status were counted.
I'm not there to give hope, I have to tell the truth even it hurts.
I believe u can use this below website for image uploading and post url of image here
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://imgbb.com/&ved=2ahUKEwjAu6Skh4DgAhVMPN8KHRK1D2wQFjALegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw37zPmM-Gtysj6MDSFt6kw-
Well man its clear the rejection is certain bcz being illegal does not count towards residence days. You have two options as per my understanding
1. Keep following up on this application and get rejected down the line which is again certain
2. Withdraw right now and file a new application without considering overstay illegal days..
Time is at stake for u as u r gonna looss fee anyways
I think you can just submit a new application- if you haven’t left Canada you should have more than enough days now.