My question is about the cumulative 183 days in a single country over the past 4 years requiring a police certificate:
Prudence would dictate using the most conservative calculation and would put me over 183 days, but I would like to know if anyone knows definitively what internal method is used for calculation.
The question has been adequately answered by others, and in effect by yourself as well ("
Prudence would dictate using the most conservative calculation and would put me over 183 days . . ." YEAH).
As others have noted, what an applicant should consider and count as a day present in any country, in Canada or in another country,
generally,
obviously, is any and every day the applicant was in fact present in that country (so sure, a person could be in more than one country in any given day, and indeed as a simple fact this is very commonly the case). No hint otherwise. No hint less than a full day in the other country does not count as a day in that country. No hint days prior to becoming a PR do not count. No hint there is any complicated formula. Count all the days in a particular country during the preceding four years. If that number adds up to 183 or more, CHECK YES in response to Item 10.b. (10-2017 version), and follow the instructions (to include police clearance or explain why not). Other than the detail provided in the Presence Calculation travel dates, NO need to report just how many days to IRCC, in the application or otherwise (unless specifically requested, such as during a RQ related process).
And, in particular,
the precise number does NOT matter.
Since the precise number does not matter, NO definitive method for calculating the precise number is necessary.
For clarification; longer explanation regarding how and why the precise number does NOT matter.:
The query itself, and particularly framing it in terms of whether "
anyone knows definitively what internal method is used for calculation," tends to derive from a misunderstanding rooted in conflating what is required information in an application versus the eligibility requirements. That is, the query tends to derive from conflating an administrative requirement with eligibility requirements. This, and similar queries, have been floated in the forum multiple times going back to 2015 when the application form first began requiring applicants to declare if they had been in any particular country a total of 183 or more days during the preceding four years, and if so to submit a police clearance from that country.
The query is largely based on an INACCURATE assumption, that there is some "DEFINITIVE" method for calculating the 183 days presence in a country. There is none known. None is necessary. It is almost certain there is NO DEFINITIVE method or approach;
NONE. That is because there is NO DEFINITIVE consequence depending on whether the applicant was present in a particular country for precisely a total of 183 or more days during the preceding four years.
In particular, the response to the question (whether present in another country a total of 183 or more days in the preceding four years) is NOT directly about eligibility. It makes NO DEFINITIVE difference if the applicant was present in a particular country for a total of 183 or more days, or not.
What makes a difference is whether the applicant has been convicted of an offense in another country during the preceding four years (which would constitute a prohibition). As an ADMINISTRATIVE policy, IRCC requires an applicant who was present in another country a total of 183 or more days during the preceding four years to affirmatively acknowledge this in the application (by answering yes in item 10.b. in the 10-2017 version of the application) and then to submit proof of NO convictions in that country with the application, by providing a police clearance WITH the application, unless a proffered reason for not doing so is accepted.
REMINDER: IRCC can, and sometimes will, also request applicants to provide a police clearance from a country even though the applicant was in that country for fewer (even way fewer) than 183 days.
It seems quite likely, in contrast to engaging in any precise or definitive calculation, IRCC simply discerns whether a "NO" response (again, to Item 10.b. in the 10-2017 version of the application) appears to be truthful or not,
GENERALLY rather than precisely, OR, in some instances IRCC simply decides it wants the applicant to provide a police clearance from a country REGARDLESS how many days the applicant was in that country.
Thus, if contrary to the applicant's response IRCC perceives the appropriate response should have been "yes," then IRCC will, ordinarily, simply request the applicant to provide a police clearance from the respective country . . .
UNLESS it appears there was a willful misrepresentation (which would trigger the consequences for making a misrepresentation).
Again, NO precise calculation necessary. In reviewing information in the presence calculation and travel history, and other sources related to that review, IRCC may, for example, decide to request the police certificate EVEN IF it appears the applicant was in the respective country ONLY 173 days . . . or just 63 days for that matter.
In particular, again,
NO PRECISE CALCULATION is necessary because there is no minimum threshold of days in another country necessary to justify a request for a police certificate from that country.
Obviously, the applicant is required to truthfully answer all questions in the application, and thus an applicant should truthfully respond to the question asking whether the applicant was present in another country 183 or more days, in total, during the preceding four years.
While an untruthful answer, like any other untruthful answer, risks the consequences for making a misrepresentation if it appears to have been willfully false, checking "no" alone even if it is fairly obvious the correct response was "yes," is NOT likely to trigger misrepresentation consequences
UNLESS in conjunction with other information it is apparent the applicant was deliberately trying to conceal the extent of his or her presence in a particular country . . . such as, if the applicant also fudged the presence calculation to also conceal travel to that country and especially if the applicant has been convicted of an offense there (that being the reason to conceal extent of time there).
More commonly, if IRCC perceives the "no" response was not the truthful answer, IRCC is likely to consider it a mistake, which depending on context, other factors, and IRCC's perception of the applicant generally, may have an impact on IRCC's perception of the applicant's credibility, ranging from very little impact to potentially seriously compromising the applicant's credibility. BUT most reports suggest that all IRCC does, when it perceives or believes the response to the question should have been "YES," is to request the police clearance . . . which again it can and sometimes does even if IRCC does not question the correctness of the "no" response.
Some applicants have reported being questioned, during their interview, about why they checked "no" when it appears the truthful response should have been "yes." This is typical, for example, in cases where the applicant misunderstood the question was about the cumulative number of days, and some of these individuals were in the respective country way, way more than 183 days during the relevant four years. IRCC appears to usually be satisfied with the applicant's explanation for the mistake, based on a misunderstanding, and the only consequence is some delay due to the additional time it takes to make the request, obtain the certificate, and submit it.
