I am short of 0.5 days to apply on the date I applied, therefore says I’m not eligible. Has anyone been in this situation or knows what my options are considering it is half a day short?
Posts above already adequately answer the OP's query.
That is, assuming the OP is an
adult applicant, there is NO authority, thus NO discretion to grant citizenship if there is a physical presence shortfall; thus if the facts are determined to show the applicant did not meet the minimum actual physical presence requirement, the application for citizenship must be denied. To obtain citizenship, a new application will need to be made.
Whatever the timing, withdrawing this application is probably the prudent course. Whether to proceed with a response to the request for additional documents if the OP decides to withdraw sooner rather than later is largely a personal decision, but a full response to the RQ related requests (probably CIT 0502 or CIT 0171 but OP does not specify), and an explanation for the error (as simple as "it was an unintended oversight" or simply "I made an unintentional mistake," should suffice), could help reduce any potential suspicions and thus reduce the risk of non-routine processing for a new application.
That said, falling short one-half day is the closest call case possible. Rather remarkable. And may warrant thoroughly reviewing ALL the travel dates to verify if it is FOR SURE there is a shortfall. In this regard it is worth remembering that the number of days the applicant was actually physically present in Canada is a question of fact to be determined based on the available evidence. If there is FOR SURE a shortfall, that closes the door. Definitively. No exception (for an ADULT applicant).
There may be an argument that since a half day credit is based on a day present in Canada, a calculation of 1094.5 days IN Canada should be, in effect, rounded UP to 1095. However, since there is such broad room for IRCC to conclude the applicant falls short of PROVING at least 1095 days presence when
cutting-it-so-close, regardless of any particular days, probably NOT an argument worth pursuing. Technically it might be a feasible case IF (1) the applicant's case as to presence is otherwise rock-solid, and (2) the applicant has continued to be settled and living in Canada while the application is pending and otherwise has a strong equitable case. But if this is the situation, the odds are still against prevailing, and it will almost certainly be FASTER and EASIER to withdraw and re-apply anyway.
A Distinction:
It warrants acknowledging, however, that in some
close-call cases there might be discretion in deciding what the facts are. Probably not in a case where established travel dates show a shortfall (any shortfall at all). So this probably does NOT help or apply to the OP's situation. And, actually, this discretion tends to work against close-call applicants rather than in their favour. But for those who want to better understand how and why there might be disparate outcomes notwithstanding applicants reporting the same physical presence calculation, recognizing the distinction between IRCC's discretion to decide facts versus a lack of discretion in deciding legal questions can be helpful.
SOME IN-DEPTH (in the weeds) OBSERVATIONS:
The following discussion probably does NOT help the OP and most will want to simply skip (scroll) past. As already noted, if there is FOR SURE a shortfall, that closes the door. Definitively. Only options are to withdraw and re-apply (assuming now qualified), or wait to application is denied and then re-apply (when qualified).
That observation, which appears to be the case here, is based on there being
CERTAINTY as to a key
FACT: that there is no question, no doubt, no arguable basis for claiming otherwise, that on the date the application was signed the OP was short, that is, the OP did NOT meet the actual physical presence requirement. Half day short or half a month short or half a year short: same outcome.
BUT this alludes to some distinctions in the nature and scope of IRCC's discretion (technically the "Minister's" discretion). This is rather technical. And may be confusing for some. The distinction is between questions of fact versus questions of law; that is between decisions or determinations deciding what the facts are versus those applying the law to established facts. And it can get complicated because IRCC sometimes is allowed discretion in deciding questions of law (as it is in the case of a minor and the physical presence requirement) and other times, as a practical matter, there is NO discretion in deciding a question of law.
KEY PREMISE: If there is some question about what the facts actually are, IRCC has discretion in determining (deciding)
what those actual facts are. In deciding questions of fact, IRCC has "reasonable" discretion.
This usually, almost always, comes up in regards to cases where the applicant claims travel dates which support a calculation of days present in Canada equal to or greater than the minimum actual physical presence requirement (APP). And, in such cases, the discretion IRCC has to nonetheless determine the applicant FAILED to PROVE the APP requirement was met. I, and others as well, have addressed the matter of PROVING APP in many, many topics, at much length. In many cases this is largely about whether the evidence adequately shows the applicant was IN FACT present IN Canada ALL the days
in-between known dates-of-entry and next reported date-of-exit.
Remember: for the vast, vast majority of applicants, there is an INFERENCE that the PR was IN Canada all the days in-between known dates-of-entry and next reported date-of-exit. And this is indeed precisely how the online physical presence calculator works: it counts all those in-between days as days IN Canada.
In contrast, for example, if there is scant direct, objective evidence the applicant was in fact living in Canada during a period of time, little or no paper or digital trail of a life being lived in Canada during that time, or any indication at all that the applicant may have been OUTSIDE Canada during that period of time, then IRCC does NOT need to claim let alone prove there was a particular error in the applicant's accounting of dates of exit or entry. The absence of evidence showing presence during a period of time between a known date-of-entry and the next reported date-of-exit is a "reasonable" basis for IRCC to NOT make an inference of presence during those days, putting the burden of proving actual presence on the applicant. Then IRCC has discretion to reasonably weigh that evidence to determine if it is sufficient to meet the beyond a balance of probabilities standard of proof. That is, even though the applicant's accounting and IRCC verifies a known date-of-entry, IRCC does NOT need to count all the following days, until the next reported date-of-exit, as days IN Canada UNLESS the applicant presents sufficient evidence to PROVE being present in Canada those days.
The point of this is that IF,
again IF there is some question as to what the facts are, IRCC does have some discretion to weigh the relevant evidence and decide what the actual facts are.
There is no discretion to ignore known, or for-certain facts. That would not be "reasonable." Thus, in the OP's situation, where apparently there is no doubt, no question, based on known travel dates the APP calculation comes up short (by how much does not matter), the outcome is known: application must fail. IRCC has NO authority to grant citizenship to PRs who do not meet the requisite qualifications. (With narrow exceptions prescribed in Section 5(3) Citizenship Act. Relative to physical presence, this provision allows the Minister to waive, on compassionate grounds, "
the requirement respecting length of physical presence in Canada set out in paragraph (1)(c)" but
ONLY "
in the case of a minor.")
For both Sections 5(3) and 3(1)(c) in Citizenship Act see
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-2.html#docCont
So, if the OP is an adult applicant, there is NO authority, thus NO discretion. If the facts are determined to show the applicant did not meet the minimum actual physical presence requirement, the application for citizenship must be denied.
Moreover, there is NO question, none at all, that the minimum presence requirement must be met as of the day prior to the date the application was made, which is the date the application and presence calculation are signed. So there is no flexibility or leniency available which might allow granting the application based on presence in Canada AFTER that date, while the application is pending.
BUT if there is an open question about some travel dates, or the matter is contested (caution: NOT a good idea to contest facts contrary to what one knows is the truth; that would be misrepresentation), then IRCC has discretion in deciding what the facts are.
This was the long, long way around to acknowledging there may be some anecdotal reports regarding close-call cases where IRCC initially concludes the applicant was short but then, either pursuant to an interview with a Citizenship Officer, or in a hearing with a Citizenship Judge, there is a decision to grant citizenship . . . in the case of an adult this is possible but DEPENDS on there being enough of an open question about the facts for the Officer or Judge to conclude the applicant did, as a matter-of-fact, meet the minimum 1095 days actually physically present in Canada.
