Hi Everyone,
I have to provide the past 5 years of Address history in Canada. From March 2021 to May 2021 I left my apartment for good and was traveling in Car around Canada. From June 2021 I rented a different apartment.
How should I explain this period?
Can I just mention that I lived in the previous apartment until May end and moved to the new one on June 1st?
OR
From March 2021 to May 2021 I can give my friend's address?
PLease help!
I agree with most of what
@QueenPeaches has suggested,
with emphasis on truthfully giving the best answer YOU can.
Technically, in most contexts, an individual is considered to still have the same residential address UNTIL they establish a new, different address. Technically you could list the address where you were actually living continuing through the period of time between moving out of the one address until you established a new address. But, yes, if IRCC asks for proof of address then you will only be able to prove that was your address up to the date you moved out, and be left explaining the transition period. And there is obviously a limit on how long a person can reasonably state their address was a location they have definitively vacated. The "
technically" side of reporting addresses can, indeed, get bogged down in technicalities that are more confusing than helpful.
If the in-transit period was just one month, or not much longer than that, it would be easy to just report the previous address until the date you established the new address. For a longer period, what
@QueenPeaches proposes makes good sense.
I would not say "
homeless" but rather refer to something like "in transition" or whatever terminology you are comfortable using; but such semantics are not important. What is important is that you list the From date and the To date, so there are no gaps, and enter as much information as you can -- as I recall, as long as you enter something in the city and country boxes, the form works -- so maybe "in transit" or "in transition," or such, in the street box and also "in transit," or such, in the city box, and "Canada" in the country box, will work. As
@QueenPeaches also suggested, you could include a supplemental page with the application (paper application) in the nature of a Letter-of-Explanation, describing that period.
Ordinarily I would not bother to post to simply concur or affirm something like this. I generally focus on more complicated issues.
But I emphatically disagree with the suggestion about waiting to apply a month or two longer;
@QueenPeaches posted:
"Worse case scenario, you could give yourself an extra 2 month buffer before you apply, so that no matter what, you'd still meet the residency obligation. However, I wouldn't do this as in my opinion, it is not necessary."
Waiting at least an extra month to apply for citizenship is a good idea for ALL citizenship applications, even those with the strongest, so-called air-tight cases. NOT at all a bad case scenario let alone a worst case.
It is not "necessary." That is correct.
But it is a very good idea to wait at least long enough to fully cover any and all periods of time for which a total stranger bureaucrat might have questions. This is not just about making sure to meet the minimum physical presence requirement, but also about minimizing the risk that, again, a total stranger bureaucrat will have questions.
IRCC is still issuing RQ-related requests if and when there are questions about physical presence, including in regards to an applicant's address. That involves non-routine processing. That means delays, and those delays can be from months to more than a year.
For the vast majority of applicants IRCC does
NOT ask for proof documenting the address where the applicant reported living. If they do ask, that is RQ-related non-routine processing. Far, far better to submit an application that minimizes the risk IRCC will see a need to ask for such proof. A buffer helps, again it helps even the applicant with a solid, air-tight case.
WAITING Longer to Apply Can Mean Actually Taking the Oath SOONER.
In regards to this transitory, traveling-about time period, in particular: if you were IN Canada, those days count. Actually the worst case scenario is that period of time is what triggers RQ-related non-routine processing, resulting in a need to provide objective documentation, proof, of all the presence related elements, all addresses, all employment.
In terms of keeping good records, in addition to all the usual records a person should keep, including copies of rental agreements, rent payment receipts, and so on, for the in-transit period of time you may want to keep a detailed itinerary of the locations you were at over that course of time. These are not your "address," so you do not list the individual locations as addresses, but if you are asked for proof, a detailed itinerary would be evidence and if corroborated by bank or credit card or other transactional evidence, that should be pretty strong evidence for that period of time. Best to avoid having to do that, if possible, but also best to be prepared if asked for proof.
