SUMMARY OF MY PREVIOUS POST:
You have a rather unusual case. I do not know what the status is or why it is this way. I do not know what CAN happen next let alone what will happen next. I doubt anyone here can much illuminate the situation for you. PROBABLY TIME TO SEE A COMPETENT LAWYER.
THAT NOTED: It may be time to pursue a Writ of Mandamus. But that is a decision regarding which you really need competent legal advice. And to do it, you will need competent legal representation.
SOME OBSERVATIONS ABOUT CITIZENSHIP ELIGIBILITY:
Without knowing what the underlying issue actually is, an application for citizenship will be, in effect,
shooting-in-the-dark. It is NOT likely your case has fallen into a bureaucratic crack. It is far more likely there is SOME CAUSE, some reason why it is where it is. Concern about your compliance with the Residency Obligation APPEARS to be the most likely culprit BUT THIS is FAR FROM CERTAIN.
I suppose an application for citizenship could
shake-the-trees (so to say) and what falls out may resolve matters or at least better illuminate the problem. That, however, seems like gambling blind.
And while the Citizenship Act does not appear to impose a prohibition against a grant of citizenship based on an outstanding 44(1) Report, Section 13.1 authorizes the Minister to SUSPEND processing a citizenship application when there is an outstanding issue as to inadmissibility, and to specifically suspend processing pending a determination as to whether a removal order is to be made against the applicant. If (with much emphasis on "IF"), if it is indeed an outstanding, unresolved 44(1) Report for a breach of the RO, that is holding things up for you, it appears 13.1 will apply. Whether or not a Citizenship Officer will actually suspend processing the application based on this I cannot predict.
FRANKLY, to my view there appears to be something in addition to evaluating your compliance with the RO involved in your situation. I do NOT know this. I have little or no idea what that might be. Personally I tend to favour risk-averse approaches, so from my perspective I would want to know more about the situation before forcing IRCC's hand, before
shaking-the-trees.
A carefully composed custom ATIP request for records and information MIGHT illuminate more. A generic ATIP request is not likely to illuminate the real issues. So here too, the advice and assistance of a competent lawyer is the more or less obvious way to go.
FRANKLY, HOWEVER, IT STILL COMES BACK TO THIS: You have a rather unusual case. I do not know what the status is or why it is this way. I do not know what CAN happen next let alone what will happen next. I doubt anyone here can much illuminate the situation for you.
PROBABLY TIME TO SEE A COMPETENT LAWYER.
If you are referring to what counts as days present in Canada for purposes of a grant citizenship application, this is most likely
NOT CORRECT.
In particular, I know of NO authority for this.
It is Section 21 in the Citizenship Act that prescribes time periods that will NOT count, and that section only specifies periods of probation, parole, or imprisonment. And as
@MUSTAFACAN referenced, the relevant statutory prohibition is for PRs subject to a "Removal Order," not an outstanding 44(1) Report. Moreover, as I referenced above, where there is an outstanding 44(1) Report, the applicable procedure is for the Minister to "suspend" processing the citizenship application. But this is permissive not mandatory, so IRCC may proceed with the citizenship application anyway (but see my observations above, in effect cautioning against
shaking-the-trees without advice from a lawyer).
Otherwise, as long as there is an outstanding 44(1) Report, days in Canada do NOT count toward compliance with the PR Residency Obligation. This is prescribed in the IRPA Regulations, Section 62(1)(a). This Regulation specifically applies only to a calculation of days under Section 28(2)(a) in IRPA and thus has NO APPLICATION to the calculation of days under the Citizenship Act.
Relevant Sources:
