Thanks for the response. Yes, I am going to reapply. And yes, I am in and out of the country as my husband works abroad. I left in Dec, back in Jan, out in Feb, back in march (when I returned to find my application in the mail box) and am currently out now!
FOR FOLLOW-UP and CLARIFICATION:
Presence Calculation; dummy-calculation versus calculation to be submitted with application:
First, a clarification regarding my suggestion to do some dummy-calculations excluding Pre-PR time which is not clearly documented (clearly documented pre-PR status would be evidenced by a Visitor's Record, visa stamp in the passport, or other TRV). This is to help make the decision about
WHEN it is the right time to apply . . . when the dummy-calculation shows actual presence ABOVE the minimum presence requirement, with a sensible margin (more than just three days), that signals
WHEN you can make a stronger application.
THEN . . . once you reach the date WHEN you are confident it is the right time to apply and you are filling out the forms . . . FOR your actual physical presence calculation, the calculation to be submitted with the application, that one should include ALL DATES you were present in Canada, including for example days you were in Canada as a visitor but did not have formally issued documentation as to status. Thus the dates you did not include in the dummy-calculation are included, and these are in effect additional buffer days.
My sense is that for purposes of the dummy-calculation, for sure do NOT include presence during that Nov 2014 to January 30, 2015 time period (but again you can include this in the calculation you submit with the application). Whether or not to further exclude further periods of time probably depends on the first date you were issued a Visitor's Record or formal visa.
This exercise is about making sure you meet the minimum presence requirement based on days you can be confident that IRCC will count.
If you were issued a Visitor's Record January 30, 2015, for example, you can probably rely on days in Canada after that date.
If you were not issued a Visitor's Record that day but issued one later after applying to extend your stay, it MIGHT be safe to count days based on the date of entry referenced in the application for that extension but I am NOT at all sure of this.
Personal experience: I was actually in fairly similar circumstances, albeit under the older, old law (when pre-PR credit was still available before the Harper era changes). I had initially been waived into Canada (based on my visa-exempt passport) and later applied to extend my visitor status while my spousal sponsored PR application was pending. I initially planned to apply for citizenship counting such days, back to the initial date I was waived into Canada (which was the date of entry that my later issued Visitor's Record was based on). However, due to multiple circumstances at the time I ended up waiting nearly two more years to apply (two years AFTER I was eligible counting those days). Since I applied under the 3/4 rules, and I waited to apply more than four years after I landed, I ended up not reporting (in my citizenship application residency calculation) any pre-PR days at all. I mention this to illustrate that your scenario is not merely something I have thought about in the abstract, but one I carefully and thoroughly researched and analyzed and considered in making personal decisions about when was the right time FOR ME to apply (but there were other compelling reasons for me to wait longer, not the least of which was the virtual purge Harper-Kenney were engaged in at the time).
Presence Calculation and the Pattern of Absences:
Also regarding the presence calculation, if going forward you will be in and out of Canada similar to the pattern of absences described for approximately the last six months, it may take several more months before you can confidently, comfortably, make a citizenship application.
Many, many personal factors and circumstances can and do influence how smoothly the citizenship application process will go. Efforts to forecast how things will go for a particular individual tends to be mostly a GUESS, at best merely speculation.
But some factors are readily recognized as increasing the RISK of non-routine processing. While no one can say for sure that your recent pattern of presence-absence will, or will not, trigger elevated scrutiny and non-routine RQ-related processing, it is easy to venture that this scenario probably triggers some questions and increases the RISKS. Thus, you may want to carefully consider building an even bigger margin over the minimum before you apply, to in-a-sense buy some insurance against IRCC questions or skepticism.
One thing which some forum participants seem oblivious to is the looming prospect of a majority Conservative government by fall. The Liberal Party did not win a single seat, NOT ONE SEAT, in the Alberta election this week. And Jason Kenney, the field commander of CIC's draconian imposition of RQ to so many applicants it nearly crashed the system back in 2012 (Benjamin Perrin, in Harper's PMO, was the probable architect), is now the Premier of Alberta. Some would be wise to note the
handwriting is on the wall. Whether the next Federal government will be greatly or significantly more severe and strict in how it processes citizenship applications is largely GUESSWORK BUT the RISK of that is for sure substantial. Sure looks like the
handwriting is on the wall. For anyone applying now or in the coming months, whose application is not likely to be completed before there is a new government, my sense is that prudence dictates exercising extra caution and waiting to apply with a stronger case, at the least building a confident buffer over the minimum.
Edit-to-Add Clarification About Challenging Presence Calculation:
I do not mean to totally dismiss options and possibilities which would involve challenging the presence calculation.
Days in Canada with legitimate visitor status should count. (Subject to sufficient proof.) As I noted in my previous post, recourse is available. Perhaps a simple but carefully composed demand letter, with supporting evidence, might work. But as I also noted in my previous post, my sense is that any such effort is probably NOT worth it in this situation, particularly given that re-applying with a much stronger case is almost certainly the faster and easier route to take.
