At the risk of giving the issue more attention than warranted . . .
And noting that IRCC information about "
How residence/physical presence is calculated" (here:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...nt/residence/calculate-physical-presence.html ) includes a reference to processing the citizenship application "
In cases where an applicant insists on filing an application without evidence of meeting the residence/physical presence requirement . . . "
Noted. Thanks for the clarification on this.
To be clear, what you suggested might work . . . noting that it might depend on just how the applicant presents things in the application.
As noted above, IRCC information refers to applicants insisting on processing an application despite being short of the physical presence requirement. Does not illuminate how an applicant can insist and compel processing the application.
Since we do not know for sure what criteria is applied, or how it is applied in conducting the completeness screening in regards to claiming pre-PR credit toward meeting the physical presence requirement, even generally let alone in detail, we just don't have enough information to know what will work.
In fact, I cannot say my account of what happens is for sure what happens . . . as I repeat, because it warrants emphasis, this is
just the best I can figure out . . . noting that what we know about this is limited, the only sources of information about this, that it happens and how it happens, are the anecdotal reports from applicants (or those assisting applicants) who have had their citizenship application returned who reference a physical presence issue related to pre-PR credit. Such anecdotal reporting is at best limited, often sketchy, almost always lacking a lot of relevant detail, and regrettably some is unreliable. Follow-up reporting is nearly non-existent.
And it is not at all clear what the scope of the issue is. We do not precisely know what is at risk for not being counted. Some has been easy to discern from the anecdotal reporting, like visitor status for those who carry a visa-exempt passport and are allowed to enter Canada without getting their passport stamped. It is readily apparent this is one of the situations in which pre-PR credit is not recognized (or at least sometimes not recognized . . . there is not enough information to know whether this is always, or even usually, what happens).
And the anecdotal reporting has amply illustrated examples in which some periods of implied status have been discounted. BUT it is especially not clear that all periods of implied status will be discounted in the completeness screening. Some of the anecdotal reporting indicates there may be applicants who have not had a period of implied status deducted in the completeness screening.
What We Do Know:
What we do know is that since the physical presence requirement was amended to include pre-PR credit more than seven years ago, there have been numerous anecdotal reports from applicants whose applications are returned because IRCC does not give credit for some of the applicant's days in Canada prior to becoming a PR, and this has happened in various contexts. The most common contexts are applicants relying on periods of undocumented visitor status (like those who were visa-exempt and waived through the Port-of-Entry examination) or periods of implied status.
From these reports it is clear this is happening before AOR, so it must be attendant the completeness screening. And much of the anecdotal reporting refers to the communication from IRCC indicating the application is returned because it is incomplete.
Beyond that, I (and others here) are making the inference that the problem must be the failure of GCMS records to verify temporary resident status for these periods. Even though days present in Canada with visitor status or implied status are days in Canada during which the applicant had temporary resident status, and thus should be credited.
An Analogy of Sorts:
This may be somewhat comparable to establishing the applicant meets the language-ability requirement. Even an applicant for whom English or French is their first and primary language, perhaps even the only language in which they are fluent, they must submit documentation with the citizenship application demonstrating their official language ability. Even if their particular path to obtaining PR status already required establishing their ability in an official language.
Absent such documentation the citizenship application will be returned as incomplete. Not because the applicant does not meet this requirement but because the applicant's application does not satisfy the criteria for making a "
complete" application.
If the applicant includes an affidavit of their language ability together with an explanation, and includes other types of documentation which is more than enough to prove their language ability, that will NOT work. The application will be returned as incomplete unless the documentation of language ability is one of the types of documentation IRCC specifies must be included to make a complete application.
That is, just the fact that the applicant meets the requirement is not enough. Prescribed documentation verifying the applicant meets the requirement must be submitted with the application. (And note, a reminder, language ability is subject to further verification during processing the application, primarily attendant knowledge of Canada testing and for some applicants in an interview.)
The difference . . . the difference is that this is clearly spelled out in IRCC information. There is no ambiguity: unless exempt, applicants MUST include specified documentation of language ability in order for their application to get past the completeness screening and be processed.
I am not aware of any comparable information in regards to claiming credit for presence based on pre-PR status.
There is a potentially relevant caution in the information provided for completing CIT 0407, the paper form for the physical presence calculation; it states:
Note: If you are unsure if you held authorized temporary resident . . . status for any period before becoming a permanent resident, do NOT include that period in your physical presence calculation. This will prevent you from applying too early and will avoid the rejection of your application.
IRCC information when starting the online physical presence calculation similarly states that pre-PR days count for days the applicant was "
physically present in Canada as an authorized temporary resident . . . "
The relevant PDI (linked in beginning of this post) likewise refers to credit for presence in Canada "
as an authorized temporary resident . . ."
Emphasis of "
authorized" temporary resident status is added in these quotes.
Few are likely to distinguish holding temporary resident status versus "
authorized" temporary resident status. I cannot say this is intended to distinguish formally or explicitly authorized status (status indicated in visas, permits, or other documentation issued by IRCC) versus "
implied" status. I doubt many would read this information and see that meaning. If the reference to "
authorized" is intended to be about formal documentation of status versus implied status, it is remarkably obscure if not abstruse. And in regards to visa-exempt visitors waived through a PoE, this would be outright misleading since the border officials have "
authorized" visitor status by allowing entry.
Meanwhile, in the relevant PDI, in the section specifically about "
Counting Physical presence before becoming a permanent resident of Canada," it states: "
Each day spent in Canada as a temporary resident" counts as one half day, without qualifying or limiting this to days in Canada as an "
authorized temporary resident."
In the PDI five of the six examples illustrating the calculation of physical presence include pre-PR credit. None address a period of implied status. One includes a period of time in Canada "
out of status," after which they "
regained authorized temporary resident status." This does not clearly address situations involving periods of implied status. A period of time in which the applicant had implied status is
NOT a period of time that is "
out of status" (see reference to regulations governing implied status in previous post).
And so . . . in Conclusion . . .
A lot of words to dance around what I stated as the "
Somewhat Short Version" in my prior post . . . concluding that the better approach . . .
. . . is to wait and apply when the applicant has a good margin over the minimum based on days in Canada with PR status plus pre-PR days for which the applicant's temporary resident status is explicitly documented (relying on from-and-to dates based on the date that status is granted, and the date status expires, as stated in the grant of status).
