183 days or more in a row in one country

[Forst]

Hey Guys,

My wife was in India for 170 days and travelled to Thailand for 5 days and then back to India for 96 days. The requirement is 183 days or more in a row in one country or territory.

Will she need to get a police clearance letter from India ?

Technically speaking she did not spend 183 days in a row as it was broken with a trip to another country.


Thank you.

 

[YVR123]

Your answer in the following link with examples:

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/application/application-forms-guides/guide-0002-application-canadian-citizenship-under-subsection-5-1-adults-18-years-older.html

 

[Forst]

In the examples the mention 183 days in a row in the country. That is what I am confused about.

She spent 170 days in the row in one country and then went to another country for 5 days - does this break the cycle they are talking about (183 day in a row)?

I would get a PCC ideally but it takes 10 weeks to get one from Toronto and I don't want to delay the application any more.

Please advice

 

[YVR123]

Technically, she didn't stay in one country 183 days in a row.

 

[dpenabill]

Hey Guys,

My wife was in India for 170 days and travelled to Thailand for 5 days and then back to India for 96 days. The requirement is 183 days or more in a row in one country or territory.

Will she need to get a police clearance letter from India ?

Technically speaking she did not spend 183 days in a row as it was broken with a trip to another country.


Thank you.

I have been surprised that this question has not come up more often. So far as I have seen, there is sparse anecdotal reporting about this, going either way.

Short Answer:

As long as it is a truthful response, it is OK to check [No] for item 10.b) in the application and submit the application without a police clearance certificate. The application will be complete and processed.

It is another matter, however, whether or not in this scenario the applicant is LATER asked to provide a PCC, or whether due to the applicant's time in India there is a later referral to make non-routine inquiries, complicating or delaying the background checks done in processing the application. That is, in this scenario it is not clear whether there is a risk (let alone how much of a risk) the applicant will encounter non-routine processing and potential delays.

And it is not clear whether checking [Yes] anyway and including the PCC will reduce or eliminate such a risk.


Longer Answer:

For clarity:

The applicant can truthfully answer [No] in response to item 10.b) in the application, since it is true the applicant was not in India for 183 days, or more, in a row. If the applicant checks [No] in response to item 10.b) the applicant is not required to list India in the chart, and not required to provide a police clearance WITH the APPLICATION.

Let's be clear, however, what that is about: it is about what is necessary to make a complete application, an application which will be put "in process." This does NOT necessarily mean that IRCC will be satisfied the applicant is clear of any foreign criminal cases constituting a prohibition.

To reiterate for emphasis:

The [No] response is NOT misrepresentation. So it is, as others have noted, technically OK.

A [No] response means no police clearance needs to be submitted with the application.

Beyond that it would be reasonable to conclude that if IRCC really means to ask whether the applicant was living or residing in another country for six months or more, that would be the question asked, or at least there would be an instruction clarifying how to answer item 10.b)

So, for purposes of meeting what is required to submit a complete application, answering [No] and not including a police clearance certificate, works, and should be OK . . .

. . . at least OK in the sense that (1) the application will be processed, and (2) answering this way will not disqualify the applicant.

BUT . . . But there is, of course, a contrary "reasonable" interpretation of 10.b), focusing on the absence of the term "present" or "physically present," such that a reasonable understanding of the question does not depend on parsing "were you in a country" to be about or limited to actual physical presence in the country continually but about where one was, in effect, generally, in another country for a six month or longer period of time.

Sidebar: This illustrates that what is "reasonable" is not necessarily one definite thing. Sometimes rather different things, even conflicting things, can both be "reasonable." This often comes up when a court reviews the decisions made by an agency, or a Citizenship Judge for example. The court might disagree with the decision but if it can be said that the agency's decision was "reasonable," then the court must nonetheless uphold the decision. ​

What To Do?

Again, I have been surprised that this question has not come up more often. So far as I have seen, there is sparse anecdotal reporting about this, going either way.

As addressed above. Answering 10.b) [No] is not (at least should not) be considered misrepresentation. No need to submit a PCC if the answer to 10.b) is no.

Waiting ten weeks, and especially so in the current situation (in which routine processing is likely to be closer to two years rather than one), is NOT a long wait. And would add a nice buffer margin (assuming the applicant remains in Canada). So a prudent applicant might easily think (1) waiting is good anyway, and (2) it will be OK to answer [Yes] since in a general sense I was in the other country for more than six months (even though not every day of that was being actually physically present in that country), (3) and including a PCC will avoid the appearance of misrepresentation and at the same time provide documentation I have no criminal case constituting a prohibition in that country.

As I have often said, waiting longer to apply can sometime mean getting to the date the oath is actually taken is sooner. I am not at all sure this is one of those situations. If making the choice for myself, I'd lean toward waiting, toward checking [Yes] and including the PCC.

Reminder: in the actual presence calculation the "trip" abroad will be reported with a date of exit from Canada and entry into Canada spanning a period of time well in excess of 180 days, and in the "Destination box" there will be just one country listed. The applicant is instructed to list additional countries visited during that "trip" abroad, in the box for explaining the purpose of the trip. To what extent this will be readily noticed and contrasted with a [No] response to item 10.b), triggering questions, is difficult to guess. That's at least a part of the risk.

 

[Forst]

I have been surprised that this question has not come up more often. So far as I have seen, there is sparse anecdotal reporting about this, going either way.

Short Answer:

As long as it is a truthful response, it is OK to check [No] for item 10.b) in the application and submit the application without a police clearance certificate. The application will be complete and processed.

It is another matter, however, whether or not in this scenario the applicant is LATER asked to provide a PCC, or whether due to the applicant's time in India there is a later referral to make non-routine inquiries, complicating or delaying the background checks done in processing the application. That is, in this scenario it is not clear whether there is a risk (let alone how much of a risk) the applicant will encounter non-routine processing and potential delays.

And it is not clear whether checking [Yes] anyway and including the PCC will reduce or eliminate such a risk.


Longer Answer:

For clarity:

The applicant can truthfully answer [No] in response to item 10.b) in the application, since it is true the applicant was not in India for 183 days, or more, in a row. If the applicant checks [No] in response to item 10.b) the applicant is not required to list India in the chart, and not required to provide a police clearance WITH the APPLICATION.

Let's be clear, however, what that is about: it is about what is necessary to make a complete application, an application which will be put "in process." This does NOT necessarily mean that IRCC will be satisfied the applicant is clear of any foreign criminal cases constituting a prohibition.

To reiterate for emphasis:

The [No] response is NOT misrepresentation. So it is, as others have noted, technically OK.

A [No] response means no police clearance needs to be submitted with the application.

Beyond that it would be reasonable to conclude that if IRCC really means to ask whether the applicant was living or residing in another country for six months or more, that would be the question asked, or at least there would be an instruction clarifying how to answer item 10.b)

So, for purposes of meeting what is required to submit a complete application, answering [No] and not including a police clearance certificate, works, and should be OK . . .

. . . at least OK in the sense that (1) the application will be processed, and (2) answering this way will not disqualify the applicant.

BUT . . . But there is, of course, a contrary "reasonable" interpretation of 10.b), focusing on the absence of the term "present" or "physically present," such that a reasonable understanding of the question does not depend on parsing "were you in a country" to be about or limited to actual physical presence in the country continually but about where one was, in effect, generally, in another country for a six month or longer period of time.

Sidebar: This illustrates that what is "reasonable" is not necessarily one definite thing. Sometimes rather different things, even conflicting things, can both be "reasonable." This often comes up when a court reviews the decisions made by an agency, or a Citizenship Judge for example. The court might disagree with the decision but if it can be said that the agency's decision was "reasonable," then the court must nonetheless uphold the decision. ​

What To Do?

Again, I have been surprised that this question has not come up more often. So far as I have seen, there is sparse anecdotal reporting about this, going either way.

As addressed above. Answering 10.b) [No] is not (at least should not) be considered misrepresentation. No need to submit a PCC if the answer to 10.b) is no.

Waiting ten weeks, and especially so in the current situation (in which routine processing is likely to be closer to two years rather than one), is NOT a long wait. And would add a nice buffer margin (assuming the applicant remains in Canada). So a prudent applicant might easily think (1) waiting is good anyway, and (2) it will be OK to answer [Yes] since in a general sense I was in the other country for more than six months (even though not every day of that was being actually physically present in that country), (3) and including a PCC will avoid the appearance of misrepresentation and at the same time provide documentation I have no criminal case constituting a prohibition in that country.

As I have often said, waiting longer to apply can sometime mean getting to the date the oath is actually taken is sooner. I am not at all sure this is one of those situations. If making the choice for myself, I'd lean toward waiting, toward checking [Yes] and including the PCC.

Reminder: in the actual presence calculation the "trip" abroad will be reported with a date of exit from Canada and entry into Canada spanning a period of time well in excess of 180 days, and in the "Destination box" there will be just one country listed. The applicant is instructed to list additional countries visited during that "trip" abroad, in the box for explaining the purpose of the trip. To what extent this will be readily noticed and contrasted with a [No] response to item 10.b), triggering questions, is difficult to guess. That's at least a part of the risk.

This is really helpful. Thank you for taking the time to clarify this for me and I really appreciate how detailed your response was.

 

[jayharper]

I have been surprised that this question has not come up more often. So far as I have seen, there is sparse anecdotal reporting about this, going either way.

Short Answer:

As long as it is a truthful response, it is OK to check [No] for item 10.b) in the application and submit the application without a police clearance certificate. The application will be complete and processed.

It is another matter, however, whether or not in this scenario the applicant is LATER asked to provide a PCC, or whether due to the applicant's time in India there is a later referral to make non-routine inquiries, complicating or delaying the background checks done in processing the application. That is, in this scenario it is not clear whether there is a risk (let alone how much of a risk) the applicant will encounter non-routine processing and potential delays.

And it is not clear whether checking [Yes] anyway and including the PCC will reduce or eliminate such a risk.


Longer Answer:

For clarity:

The applicant can truthfully answer [No] in response to item 10.b) in the application, since it is true the applicant was not in India for 183 days, or more, in a row. If the applicant checks [No] in response to item 10.b) the applicant is not required to list India in the chart, and not required to provide a police clearance WITH the APPLICATION.

Let's be clear, however, what that is about: it is about what is necessary to make a complete application, an application which will be put "in process." This does NOT necessarily mean that IRCC will be satisfied the applicant is clear of any foreign criminal cases constituting a prohibition.

To reiterate for emphasis:

The [No] response is NOT misrepresentation. So it is, as others have noted, technically OK.

A [No] response means no police clearance needs to be submitted with the application.

Beyond that it would be reasonable to conclude that if IRCC really means to ask whether the applicant was living or residing in another country for six months or more, that would be the question asked, or at least there would be an instruction clarifying how to answer item 10.b)

So, for purposes of meeting what is required to submit a complete application, answering [No] and not including a police clearance certificate, works, and should be OK . . .

. . . at least OK in the sense that (1) the application will be processed, and (2) answering this way will not disqualify the applicant.

BUT . . . But there is, of course, a contrary "reasonable" interpretation of 10.b), focusing on the absence of the term "present" or "physically present," such that a reasonable understanding of the question does not depend on parsing "were you in a country" to be about or limited to actual physical presence in the country continually but about where one was, in effect, generally, in another country for a six month or longer period of time.

Sidebar: This illustrates that what is "reasonable" is not necessarily one definite thing. Sometimes rather different things, even conflicting things, can both be "reasonable." This often comes up when a court reviews the decisions made by an agency, or a Citizenship Judge for example. The court might disagree with the decision but if it can be said that the agency's decision was "reasonable," then the court must nonetheless uphold the decision. ​

What To Do?

Again, I have been surprised that this question has not come up more often. So far as I have seen, there is sparse anecdotal reporting about this, going either way.

As addressed above. Answering 10.b) [No] is not (at least should not) be considered misrepresentation. No need to submit a PCC if the answer to 10.b) is no.

Waiting ten weeks, and especially so in the current situation (in which routine processing is likely to be closer to two years rather than one), is NOT a long wait. And would add a nice buffer margin (assuming the applicant remains in Canada). So a prudent applicant might easily think (1) waiting is good anyway, and (2) it will be OK to answer [Yes] since in a general sense I was in the other country for more than six months (even though not every day of that was being actually physically present in that country), (3) and including a PCC will avoid the appearance of misrepresentation and at the same time provide documentation I have no criminal case constituting a prohibition in that country.

As I have often said, waiting longer to apply can sometime mean getting to the date the oath is actually taken is sooner. I am not at all sure this is one of those situations. If making the choice for myself, I'd lean toward waiting, toward checking [Yes] and including the PCC.

Reminder: in the actual presence calculation the "trip" abroad will be reported with a date of exit from Canada and entry into Canada spanning a period of time well in excess of 180 days, and in the "Destination box" there will be just one country listed. The applicant is instructed to list additional countries visited during that "trip" abroad, in the box for explaining the purpose of the trip. To what extent this will be readily noticed and contrasted with a [No] response to item 10.b), triggering questions, is difficult to guess. That's at least a part of the risk.

Hi @dpenabill , thank you very much for sharing your views here. Your insights are always appreciated. I'd appreciate if you could share your thoughts on my situation.

After staying in the US from February 2nd to June 28th (147 days), I visited Canada just for two days (June 28th-29th), and re-entered the US on June 29th and stayed there until August 10th (43 days). Technically speaking, I didn't stay in the US for 183 days or more IN A ROW because I was in Canada on June 28th and 29th. However, depending on how you interpret "183 days or more IN A ROW," one could say that I stayed in the US from February 2nd to August 10th (190 days), which would require me to submit a PCC from the US.

What would be your call? Do you think I can check [no] to item 10.b? Of course it'd be safe to include a PCC from the US, but this will take me two months, and I am planning to apply sooner than that. I can't wait due to personal circumstances.

My concern is that, if I don't include a PCC, because I spent part of June 28th and part of June 29th in the US, the system would decide that I was in the US from Feb 2nd to Aug 10th and automatically reject my application due to incompleteness before AOR. It is true that I can argue that I spent part of June 28th and 29th in Canada so this breaks the 183-day cycle, but if my application gets rejected before AOR, I won't even have a chance to explain. I am not sure if it'd be a good idea to include a Letter of Explanation detailing this argument since this could trigger non-routine processing.

What would be the best approach in your opinion?

 

[dpenabill]

Hi @dpenabill , thank you very much for sharing your views here. Your insights are always appreciated. I'd appreciate if you could share your thoughts on my situation.

After staying in the US from February 2nd to June 28th (147 days), I visited Canada just for two days (June 28th-29th), and re-entered the US on June 29th and stayed there until August 10th (43 days). Technically speaking, I didn't stay in the US for 183 days or more IN A ROW because I was in Canada on June 28th and 29th. However, depending on how you interpret "183 days or more IN A ROW," one could say that I stayed in the US from February 2nd to August 10th (190 days), which would require me to submit a PCC from the US.

What would be your call? Do you think I can check [no] to item 10.b? Of course it'd be safe to include a PCC from the US, but this will take me two months, and I am planning to apply sooner than that. I can't wait due to personal circumstances.

My concern is that, if I don't include a PCC, because I spent part of June 28th and part of June 29th in the US, the system would decide that I was in the US from Feb 2nd to Aug 10th and automatically reject my application due to incompleteness before AOR. It is true that I can argue that I spent part of June 28th and 29th in Canada so this breaks the 183-day cycle, but if my application gets rejected before AOR, I won't even have a chance to explain. I am not sure if it'd be a good idea to include a Letter of Explanation detailing this argument since this could trigger non-routine processing.

What would be the best approach in your opinion?

The post you quote discusses similar situations in about as much depth as I can. I am no expert and not able to offer personal advice for a particular individual's case. But your situation appears to be different in a key respect: it appears you were in fact in the U.S. for more than 183 days in a row.

The question does NOT ask if the applicant stayed "continuously" in another country for 183 days or more in a row.

Further observations:

That post is nearly three years old. I have not seen much discussion of this in the meantime. My guess, emphasis on it being a guess, is that many applicants have checked [No] (not in another country 183 days or more in a row during the eligibility period) even though their work and address history reflects continually living in another country for that long. Checking [No] so based on having left the country for some period of time during their stay there. So the absence of this coming up suggests a low risk of problems answering based on days "in a row" being about days physically present, not just residing.

That said, as I noted, it appears you were actually present in the U.S. for more than 183 days in a row. I am not sure what you mean when you say "the system would decide that I was in the US from Feb 2nd to Aug 10th," but by your account it appears you were in fact in the U.S. every day during that period . . . even if you spent part of the day outside the U.S. on some days. Obviously, spending part of a day in a country means you were in that country that day.

What will happen if you check [No]? Forecasting such things is mostly guessing. I can identify a range of possibilities. You query whether IRCC might "automatically reject my application due to incompleteness before AOR." IRCC does NOT "reject" applications due to "incompleteness." If the application is incomplete, IRCC returns the application and allows the applicant an opportunity to fix the application to make it complete, and so far as I am aware, the applicant can actually submit a new application and the fee paid for the first is still credited. If an application is "rejected" that means a new fee would need to be paid to submit another.

If you check [No] that would obviously be a misrepresentation. My guess is that it would not be the sort of misrepresentation that would trigger prosecution for misrepresentation (which would be a stand-alone ground for denying the application, which in turn would result in a lengthy prohibition blocking getting citizenship for at least five years, might be ten, I forget how long this prohibition is).

As you note, if prosecuted for misrepresentation, or even just asked about this in subsequent proceedings (such as an interview), you can argue you answered based on having left the U.S. And that would quite likely be enough to show it was a mistake and not a deliberate misrepresentation.

But it is also possible there is little if any attention given to this. It is possible the application proceeds without a problem (depending on other factors of course). It is possible that IRCC requests you to provide a U.S. police certificate and then the application proceeds without a problem.

I cannot say how it will go. Smooth and easy is a possibility. Prosecution for misrepresentation highly unlikely but some concern about your credibility is a possibility. I do not know.

 

[Sabial99]

I have the same situation now just wanted to ask that did you guys submitted the application with no or yes and what was the reponse did they asked for pcc later if answered no

 

[Sabial99]

Hey Guys,

My wife was in India for 170 days and travelled to Thailand for 5 days and then back to India for 96 days. The requirement is 183 days or more in a row in one country or territory.

Will she need to get a police clearance letter from India ?

Technically speaking she did not spend 183 days in a row as it was broken with a trip to another country.


Thank you.

What was the response of your citizenship application

 

[schilz]

Hi @dpenabill , thank you very much for sharing your views here. Your insights are always appreciated. I'd appreciate if you could share your thoughts on my situation.

After staying in the US from February 2nd to June 28th (147 days), I visited Canada just for two days (June 28th-29th), and re-entered the US on June 29th and stayed there until August 10th (43 days). Technically speaking, I didn't stay in the US for 183 days or more IN A ROW because I was in Canada on June 28th and 29th. However, depending on how you interpret "183 days or more IN A ROW," one could say that I stayed in the US from February 2nd to August 10th (190 days), which would require me to submit a PCC from the US.

What would be your call? Do you think I can check [no] to item 10.b? Of course it'd be safe to include a PCC from the US, but this will take me two months, and I am planning to apply sooner than that. I can't wait due to personal circumstances.

My concern is that, if I don't include a PCC, because I spent part of June 28th and part of June 29th in the US, the system would decide that I was in the US from Feb 2nd to Aug 10th and automatically reject my application due to incompleteness before AOR. It is true that I can argue that I spent part of June 28th and 29th in Canada so this breaks the 183-day cycle, but if my application gets rejected before AOR, I won't even have a chance to explain. I am not sure if it'd be a good idea to include a Letter of Explanation detailing this argument since this could trigger non-routine processing.

What would be the best approach in your opinion?

I think you can get a US PCC much faster than 2 months.
Getting a PCC from the US is considerably faster and simpler than other countries. It's possible the delay by IRCC to stop processing your application, contact you to request the certificate, and eventually resume processing of your application, might be worse than providing it upfront.

In my case, it took me ~3 weeks total from the time I got my fingerprints taken in Canada to receiving the electronic version of the PCC.
If you live near the border, or can travel to the US, you can expedite even further by giving your fingerprints at a USPS office that offers this service (you can find further details on the FBI site).

 

[dpenabill]

I have the same situation now just wanted to ask that did you guys submitted the application with no or yes and what was the reponse did they asked for pcc later if answered no

It is unlikely you have the "same situation" since there are undoubtedly some differences in the details. The details almost always matter.

And, in particular, it would be impossible to have the "same situation" given there are two different situations discussed in this thread, one involving a PR who did not spend 183 days in a row physically present in another country but who was living/residing in a country (India) for 270 or so days broken up by travel to another country for five days, versus the other PR who was in another country (the U.S.) for more than 183 days in a row (but had made an overnight trip outside the U.S. during that period of time).

First consideration is which of these scenarios is similar to your situation.

If your situation is similar to that described by @jayharper, in which the PR was in the U.S. for more than 183 days in a row (notwithstanding day or overnight trips outside Canada during that period), the only truthful answer for 10.b) is [YES], and that country should be listed in the chart. A [NO] response could be seen as misrepresentation but even if considered to be just a mistake, in addition to the likelihood of non-routine requests or inquiries this would likely raise credibility concerns.

That is, if your situation is similar to that described by @jayharper, that is if you were in another country for 183 or more days in a row (no matter how many of those days were partially spent in another country), a [YES] answer for 10.b) is the proper answer.

If your situation is similar to the OP's, where the PR did not actually spend more than 183 days in a row in India, answering [NO] in response to 10.b) should not be considered a misrepresentation. But if you were living in a country for more than 183 days during which your stay there was briefly interrupted by a trip to another country, and you answer [NO], it is likely that IRCC will do one of the following:

-- return the application as incomplete based on an apparent discrepancy in that answer and the travel history reported in the physical presence calculation, or​

-- process the application but later on request a PCC (which would make the application non-routine and result in a longer processing time), or​

-- process the application but engage in non-routine processing related to verifying no criminality or security concerns, likewise likely resulting in a significantly longer processing time, or​

-- do both of the latter, that is later request a PCC and also engage in additional non-routine processing related to verifying no criminality or security concerns​

There is, of course, some chance that a [NO] answer in either of these scenarios does not trigger non-routine processing, and the application slides through without a problem. Betting on that is not a good gamble.

As noted in a scenario similar to that described by @jayharper, the proper answer is [YES}, and a [NO] answer is likely to cause some problems; the question is how much of a problem that causes.

In the OP's scenario, the applicant can reduce the risk of problematic non-routine processing by answering [YES} (based on understanding that being in another country is not limited to days actually physically present) and including the PCC, or answer [NO] but include a LoE (supplemental information many refer to as a Letter-of-Explanation) together with a PCC.