Why 1115 days post threshold and not just a week or so?

[BarryOSullivan]

I noticed in the main guide this is the recommended minimum for waiting to ensure you've enough days built up to pass that threshold. Why so much extra though? I figured a week or so on top would be sufficient to cover any minor mistakes

 

[rajkamalmohanram]

I noticed in the main guide this is the recommended minimum for waiting to ensure you've enough days built up to pass that threshold. Why so much extra though? I figured a week or so on top would be sufficient to cover any minor mistakes

1115 is about 20 days in addition to the minimum required 1095 days. Its personal preference, what I had mentioned in my guide was a suggestion. I applied with 1116 days I think.

The point is to be safe, in case there were any forgotten calculations or anything else that would mess with your minimum required 1095 days. It is good to have a buffer.

However, 1116 is not any hard or necessary threshold. If you feel comfortable with 1102 days (1095 days + a week), then go ahead by all means.

Good luck!

 

[dpenabill]

I noticed in the main guide this is the recommended minimum for waiting to ensure you've enough days built up to pass that threshold. Why so much extra though? I figured a week or so on top would be sufficient to cover any minor mistakes

In addition to the observations offered by @rajkamalmohanram a good margin over the minimum can reduce the RISK of RQ-related non-routine processing. No brainiac necessary to sort this out. The closer to the minimum the applicant is, the more closely the applicant's accounting of days in Canada needs to be scrutinized in order to positively verify the applicant did in fact meet the minimum requirement. Waiting longer to apply can mean actually taking the oath sooner.

I would also add that there is no shortage of anecdotal reporting in this forum from individuals who were certain they made no mistakes, or no more than very minor mistakes, in their actual physical presence travel history, who later realize or learn they did indeed make a significant mistake. A margin larger than the sum total of mistakes will avoid the application being rejected (remember, IRCC has no discretion to grant citizenship to an applicant even just one day short). But the impact on potential RQ-related processing looms even far larger in this context.

Compare for example the applicant whose mistake is relying on entry stamps abroad to report dates exiting Canada (trans-Pacific flights, for example, can result in an entry stamp abroad that is two days later than the date the PR actually exited Canada; which at least in the past has been a rather common mistake by applicants), and was off just a few days in total . . .

-- for the applicant without a margin larger than the mistake(s), the application will be denied​

-- for the applicant with a small margin but large enough to cover the mistake(s), the application will not be denied but taking the oath can be delayed by months or even many months, even more than a year, if IRCC issues a more probing version of RQ (Residence Questionnaire)​

. . . with an applicant who mistakenly left out a three-week trip abroad (referring now to a particular actual case as reported by the applicant here) but who had a margin much larger than that, who acknowledged the mistake during the interview, explained it was an oversight, and was then approved and took the oath soon after the interview, no non-routine processing delay at all.

 

[BarryOSullivan]

In addition to the observations offered by @rajkamalmohanram a good margin over the minimum can reduce the RISK of RQ-related non-routine processing. No brainiac necessary to sort this out. The closer to the minimum the applicant is, the more closely the applicant's accounting of days in Canada needs to be scrutinized in order to positively verify the applicant did in fact meet the minimum requirement. Waiting longer to apply can mean actually taking the oath sooner.

I would also add that there is no shortage of anecdotal reporting in this forum from individuals who were certain they made no mistakes, or no more than very minor mistakes, in their actual physical presence travel history, who later realize or learn they did indeed make a significant mistake. A margin larger than the sum total of mistakes will avoid the application being rejected (remember, IRCC has no discretion to grant citizenship to an applicant even just one day short). But the impact on potential RQ-related processing looms even far larger in this context.

Compare for example the applicant whose mistake is relying on entry stamps abroad to report dates exiting Canada (trans-Pacific flights, for example, can result in an entry stamp abroad that is two days later than the date the PR actually exited Canada; which at least in the past has been a rather common mistake by applicants), and was off just a few days in total . . .

-- for the applicant without a margin larger than the mistake(s), the application will be denied​

-- for the applicant with a small margin but large enough to cover the mistake(s), the application will not be denied but taking the oath can be delayed by months or even many months, even more than a year, if IRCC issues a more probing version of RQ (Residence Questionnaire)​

. . . with an applicant who mistakenly left out a three-week trip abroad (referring now to a particular actual case as reported by the applicant here) but who had a margin much larger than that, who acknowledged the mistake during the interview, explained it was an oversight, and was then approved and took the oath soon after the interview, no non-routine processing delay at all.

Excellent response, thank you for sharing. So in that case I will go ahead with playing it safe simply because so many have come before who were certain they were in the clear (like me) but actually weren't. Appreciate it!

 

[PoutineLover]

In addition to the observations offered by @rajkamalmohanram a good margin over the minimum can reduce the RISK of RQ-related non-routine processing. No brainiac necessary to sort this out. The closer to the minimum the applicant is, the more closely the applicant's accounting of days in Canada needs to be scrutinized in order to positively verify the applicant did in fact meet the minimum requirement. Waiting longer to apply can mean actually taking the oath sooner.

I would also add that there is no shortage of anecdotal reporting in this forum from individuals who were certain they made no mistakes, or no more than very minor mistakes, in their actual physical presence travel history, who later realize or learn they did indeed make a significant mistake. A margin larger than the sum total of mistakes will avoid the application being rejected (remember, IRCC has no discretion to grant citizenship to an applicant even just one day short). But the impact on potential RQ-related processing looms even far larger in this context.

Compare for example the applicant whose mistake is relying on entry stamps abroad to report dates exiting Canada (trans-Pacific flights, for example, can result in an entry stamp abroad that is two days later than the date the PR actually exited Canada; which at least in the past has been a rather common mistake by applicants), and was off just a few days in total . . .

-- for the applicant without a margin larger than the mistake(s), the application will be denied​

-- for the applicant with a small margin but large enough to cover the mistake(s), the application will not be denied but taking the oath can be delayed by months or even many months, even more than a year, if IRCC issues a more probing version of RQ (Residence Questionnaire)​

. . . with an applicant who mistakenly left out a three-week trip abroad (referring now to a particular actual case as reported by the applicant here) but who had a margin much larger than that, who acknowledged the mistake during the interview, explained it was an oversight, and was then approved and took the oath soon after the interview, no non-routine processing delay at all.

I hadn't taken note of this and had applied in 1100 days or so. End result, still waiting for my test invite and also got an FP request.
I know, correlation is not necessarily causation, but still...

 

[thesonicbro]

Unless you are confident the proof of your absences are matching official records, it is recommended to leave some period of time to apply. @dpenabill have had great write up posts about this specific topic and he was a great help to understand the expected scenarios my application would have taken.

I applied back in September 2019 with 6 days to spare. The travel details I have were supported by emails and stamps in my passport. Throughout the process, towards last year, I received RQ-lite prior to taking the knowledge test back in April requesting only photocopies of my current and previous passports.

I was able to attend the oath in May this year thankfully.