For general consumption: this post is aimed at reinforcing the conventional wisdom about waiting to apply with a decent margin of days IN Canada over the minimum requirement. It is simply foolish to not wait at least ten days or so, which is the lower end of how-big the margin should be; as I have oft noted, my sense suggests at least a month for most, and longer for some.
This is not about how things should be, but a reminder that even though exactly 1095 days is enough, just playing the odds waiting longer to apply can mean taking the oath sooner. Make no mistake, cutting-it-close increases the risk of RQ-related non-routine processing and delays.
Until the evidence submitted meets that burden of proof, any and all factors which are considered in weighing the evidence remain relevant. Cutting-it-close simply, rather obviously, increases risks of questions which can trigger non-routine processing and delays; cutting-it-close makes it more imperative that IRCC examine and evaluate the evidence more extensively to meet their mandate to verify the applicant's presence (and other eligibility requirements).
Fortunately for applicants, IRCC does not see a need to actually verify every single one of the days the applicant reports being in Canada. Even though the statute does require the applicant to prove actual presence for at least 1095 days.
Very few of us could easily prove where we were actually located every day. Every applicant relies on IRCC to make some inferences about many if not most of the days in between days-certain-in-Canada. Days at work, at the dentist, at the doctor, and so on, are typical days for which there is direct and objective evidence the individual was actually physically present in Canada those days. For most of us, there are a lot of other days in-between those days for which we do not have direct objective evidence to show we were in fact actually physically in Canada that day.
Remember, all the travel history actually proves is that the applicant was in Canada the day of entry and the date of exit, and that does NOT prove presence in Canada any of the days in-between. To some extent, the burden of proof is on the applicant to prove he or she did not leave Canada in-between those dates. Proving a negative is very difficult. So, if there is any "reason-to-question-residency" IRCC requires the applicant to more fully document and prove actual presence in Canada during the days in-between known dates of travel. Work in Canada for a known employer at a known facility tends to be among the strongest forms of evidence, but even that typically leaves a lot of days unaccounted for. So, again, it is fortunate that IRCC will indeed make "reasonable inferences" about an applicant's likely location for days other than those the applicant has direct evidence of presence in Canada.
Indeed, actually the vast majority of qualified applicants benefit from IRCC seeing enough corroborating evidence in the application itself, the work and address history looming large, to make a positive inference that the applicant was indeed IN Canada days between a known entry date and the next reported exit date. But not every applicant gets the benefit of this inference, at least not until IRCC has made inquiries verifying some information, and then if in the course of that there appears to be any "reason-to-question-residency," then that inference carries less weight, more proof of actual presence is required, and the process can get very bogged down.
For some reason, the fact that travel dates do not actually prove presence in Canada for those in-between days seems to be much under-estimated; and the fact that the determination the applicant met the physical presence requirement is so dependent on an inference of days in-between tends to be overlooked.
Except when an applicant with a more complicated travel history, and who appears to POSSIBLY have continuing work or residential ties abroad, applies cutting-it-close (one among various scenarios elevating the risk of RQ-related non-routine processing), and they notice other applicants who applied around the same time are progressing through the process ahead of them, and then the questions come, and the request for additional information, and the timeline grows longer and longer.
Yeah, I know, I use a lot of words to say something quite simple: but make no mistake, yes, cutting-it-close increases the risk of delays in processing a citizenship application, so waiting to have a decent margin before applying is the prudent approach. Which is the conventional wisdom. Which, however, is still sometimes disputed or derided. Demanding a reminder of why this is the conventional wisdom.
This is not about how things should be, but a reminder that even though exactly 1095 days is enough, just playing the odds waiting longer to apply can mean taking the oath sooner. Make no mistake, cutting-it-close increases the risk of RQ-related non-routine processing and delays.
And it does not matter . . . but that is only once the applicant has met the burden of proving that they were in fact physically present in Canada at least 1095 days within the five year eligibility period.
Until the evidence submitted meets that burden of proof, any and all factors which are considered in weighing the evidence remain relevant. Cutting-it-close simply, rather obviously, increases risks of questions which can trigger non-routine processing and delays; cutting-it-close makes it more imperative that IRCC examine and evaluate the evidence more extensively to meet their mandate to verify the applicant's presence (and other eligibility requirements).
Fortunately for applicants, IRCC does not see a need to actually verify every single one of the days the applicant reports being in Canada. Even though the statute does require the applicant to prove actual presence for at least 1095 days.
Very few of us could easily prove where we were actually located every day. Every applicant relies on IRCC to make some inferences about many if not most of the days in between days-certain-in-Canada. Days at work, at the dentist, at the doctor, and so on, are typical days for which there is direct and objective evidence the individual was actually physically present in Canada those days. For most of us, there are a lot of other days in-between those days for which we do not have direct objective evidence to show we were in fact actually physically in Canada that day.
Remember, all the travel history actually proves is that the applicant was in Canada the day of entry and the date of exit, and that does NOT prove presence in Canada any of the days in-between. To some extent, the burden of proof is on the applicant to prove he or she did not leave Canada in-between those dates. Proving a negative is very difficult. So, if there is any "reason-to-question-residency" IRCC requires the applicant to more fully document and prove actual presence in Canada during the days in-between known dates of travel. Work in Canada for a known employer at a known facility tends to be among the strongest forms of evidence, but even that typically leaves a lot of days unaccounted for. So, again, it is fortunate that IRCC will indeed make "reasonable inferences" about an applicant's likely location for days other than those the applicant has direct evidence of presence in Canada.
Indeed, actually the vast majority of qualified applicants benefit from IRCC seeing enough corroborating evidence in the application itself, the work and address history looming large, to make a positive inference that the applicant was indeed IN Canada days between a known entry date and the next reported exit date. But not every applicant gets the benefit of this inference, at least not until IRCC has made inquiries verifying some information, and then if in the course of that there appears to be any "reason-to-question-residency," then that inference carries less weight, more proof of actual presence is required, and the process can get very bogged down.
For some reason, the fact that travel dates do not actually prove presence in Canada for those in-between days seems to be much under-estimated; and the fact that the determination the applicant met the physical presence requirement is so dependent on an inference of days in-between tends to be overlooked.
Except when an applicant with a more complicated travel history, and who appears to POSSIBLY have continuing work or residential ties abroad, applies cutting-it-close (one among various scenarios elevating the risk of RQ-related non-routine processing), and they notice other applicants who applied around the same time are progressing through the process ahead of them, and then the questions come, and the request for additional information, and the timeline grows longer and longer.
Yeah, I know, I use a lot of words to say something quite simple: but make no mistake, yes, cutting-it-close increases the risk of delays in processing a citizenship application, so waiting to have a decent margin before applying is the prudent approach. Which is the conventional wisdom. Which, however, is still sometimes disputed or derided. Demanding a reminder of why this is the conventional wisdom.
