At the obvious risk of feeding a trolling hypothetical . . .
. . . and of course there is NO path to citizenship without first becoming a Permanent Resident, so even if posed sincerely the hypothetical really is more in the realm of . . . well nonsense.
But there is a broader lesson and it is largely about the futility of machinations focused on technicalities when it is readily apparent the individual is indeed manipulating technicalities. Technicalities tend to cut both ways, and the intersection between CREDIBILITY and the technical burden of proof tends to be a particularly sharp, oft times brutal cut, when the decision-maker perceives a rather glaring ploy to exploit Canadian immigration.
One word: CREDIBILITY. A key albeit unspecified requirement.
There will be virtually no opportunity to explain your pure intentions, that despite the apparent if not blatantly obvious manipulation of technicalities, you really are NOT trying to game-the-system.
To be clear, IRCC personnel will almost certainly perceive that you are. The impression this scenario is bound to make shouts gaming-the-system. (Even just in the PR part, since the purpose for granting PR is so the individual can settle and LIVE in CANADA permanently.)
BUT there is no particular prohibition against taking advantage of technicalities. No particular requirement to not game-the-system. No particular provision is violated.
So IRCC will not ask about it, not directly. And if you gratuitously (without being asked) make an effort to argue you are not gaming-the-system, because you want to make it clear that you aren't, that your motives are pure, that is only going to make the machinations all the more obvious, make your scheme appear all the more manipulative.
MAKE no mistake, the appearance of manipulating the system (regardless what your intent is) will have a big effect on how IRCC agents and officers view your case. A big effect on how they assess your credibility.
Which might lead to revisiting your rather optimistic arithmetic (52 X 4 = 208, not 212 for example, and the difference adds up; and remember, once you count four days of every week, that only leaves 3 more to count for any full week vacation; and, remember EVEN the PR who is well settled in Canada with no cause for IRCC to question her credibility should have at least two to four weeks margin over the minimum . . . in other words, your numbers fall rather way short of a number that "crosses the 1095 easily") but the bigger issue is CREDIBILITY.
Which does lead to this:
All the U.S. and Canadian border crossing records will show is a record of crossing the border THOSE days. So if you spend, say, four or five full weeks in Canada and ALL other weekends, that is at most 50 border crossings coming in and 50 going out each year. So sure, U.S. and Canadian travel history records will likely corroborate your account of all those crossings. That gives you PROOF of 100 days a year that will count as days present in Canada. (And by the way that will also prove 100 days of presence in the U.S. as well.)
Proving 100 days presence a year for five years does not get you even HALF WAY to proving 1095.
From your point of view it is, no doubt, obvious you were in Canada every Saturday and Sunday (and full weeks of days for four or five weeks of the year) in between the entering day and the day reported as leaving.
From the point of view of a total stranger bureaucrat who sees a clear pattern suggesting someone is gaming-the-system, what is quite likely to be more obvious is that you are present in the U.S. well over half the days of the year, year in and year out. No profound powers of intuition necessary to apprehend such a bureaucrat might reasonably infer that for any day there is not direct proof of where you were, you COULD HAVE BEEN (not necessarily were) in a country where you were otherwise present more than half the days of the year AND where your job is, your family lives, and where your primary residence is. No rocket science necessary.
And sure, you can argue that it is reasonable to infer that you were actually in Canada all those days in-between the known date of entry and next known date of exit. You can argue the absence of any record showing you leaving or entering other days supports this inference. If a Canadian priest provides an affidavit you and your family were in his church every Sunday, that gets you another 52 days a year closer to actually proven to be in Canada.
Fair chance you would get an opportunity to make this argument to a Citizenship Judge. Who will have already read and considered the bureaucrat's conclusions and reason for those conclusions. Which, to be clear, will not necessarily be that you were NOT in Canada at least 1095 days. To deny the application IRCC does not need to conclude let alone prove you were NOT in Canada at least 1095 days. It will suffice if IRCC concludes you MIGHT have been outside Canada SOME of those days, and that without direct proof of actual presence in Canada those in-between days you have failed to prove you were in fact in Canada at least 1095 days.
Which brings this back around to the key, CREDIBILITY. And appearing to be gaming-the-system. Kind of easy to picture the Citizenship Judge's face. Her head nodding. Her eyes rather wide. Whose version of reasonable inferences is she going to buy?
"I schwear offff-ferrr-cerrr, just two beers and I am ummm ok to drive, just to get home."
CREDIBILITY. No advanced research into non-linear probabilities to map the trajectory here.
As I previously noted, better odds at the Casino slots. And, to be clear, those are not good.
Reminder: As I previously noted, the vast, vast majority of applicants benefit from the inference they were in Canada from a date of known entry (reported by applicant and often verified by CBSA travel history) to the next reported date of exit (reported by applicant, possibly verified by U.S. records for land crossings if IRCC bothers to check those). That is a very reasonable inference in the vast, vast majority of cases.
BUT how much will an applicant benefit from such an inference when the applicant's primary ties, especially if ALL his or her primary ties, are ABROAD, and the applicant is obviously in another country 220 or more days a year, that is, in another country MORE THAN HALF the days in the year (remember, all those border crossing days are also days in the U.S.), year after year? And when the impression SHOUTS gaming-the-system? Again, no advanced research into non-linear probabilities to map the trajectory where this is headed.
THAT SAID:
There are actual commuter cases. More than a few have gone well. More than a few crashed. None I have seen push the envelope nearly so far as your hypothetical scenario.
Those which have sailed through the process smoothly tend to be cases in which the PR is actually settled and living in Canada but commuting to a job in the U.S. (typically Windsor/Detroit area, with the result the local office personnel there are probably experienced assessing commuter scenarios), and typically there is a very strong impression that Canada is the applicant's real home and that they otherwise deserve citizenship, in the equities sense (apart from the rules, apart from the technicalities).
But many of the commuter cases run into highly skeptical RQ processing and more than a few have crashed.
As for the repeal of the intent-to-reside requirement, that hardly eliminates the dramatically elevated scrutiny that is likely when an applicant appears, from the perspective of a total stranger bureaucrat who is paid to be skeptical, to be seeking-a-passport-of-convenience. Again, this is about appearance, about impression. How negative this is varies. Credibility and equities and credibility again, looming large.
And, again, that burden-of-proof edge of the technicality sword, it can cut a case to pieces, especially when IRCC perceives reason to doubt the applicant's credibility . . . like when IRCC has the impression the applicant might be trying to game-the-system. (And, anyway, it is NOT nearly so easy as it used to be.)
. . . and of course there is NO path to citizenship without first becoming a Permanent Resident, so even if posed sincerely the hypothetical really is more in the realm of . . . well nonsense.
But there is a broader lesson and it is largely about the futility of machinations focused on technicalities when it is readily apparent the individual is indeed manipulating technicalities. Technicalities tend to cut both ways, and the intersection between CREDIBILITY and the technical burden of proof tends to be a particularly sharp, oft times brutal cut, when the decision-maker perceives a rather glaring ploy to exploit Canadian immigration.
One word: CREDIBILITY. A key albeit unspecified requirement.
It is "not about gaming-the-system . . ." you say. Do you honestly believe you can sell that to IRCC processing agents and Citizenship Officers? Especially when they will NOT ask if you are gaming-the-system.
There will be virtually no opportunity to explain your pure intentions, that despite the apparent if not blatantly obvious manipulation of technicalities, you really are NOT trying to game-the-system.
To be clear, IRCC personnel will almost certainly perceive that you are. The impression this scenario is bound to make shouts gaming-the-system. (Even just in the PR part, since the purpose for granting PR is so the individual can settle and LIVE in CANADA permanently.)
BUT there is no particular prohibition against taking advantage of technicalities. No particular requirement to not game-the-system. No particular provision is violated.
So IRCC will not ask about it, not directly. And if you gratuitously (without being asked) make an effort to argue you are not gaming-the-system, because you want to make it clear that you aren't, that your motives are pure, that is only going to make the machinations all the more obvious, make your scheme appear all the more manipulative.
MAKE no mistake, the appearance of manipulating the system (regardless what your intent is) will have a big effect on how IRCC agents and officers view your case. A big effect on how they assess your credibility.
Which might lead to revisiting your rather optimistic arithmetic (52 X 4 = 208, not 212 for example, and the difference adds up; and remember, once you count four days of every week, that only leaves 3 more to count for any full week vacation; and, remember EVEN the PR who is well settled in Canada with no cause for IRCC to question her credibility should have at least two to four weeks margin over the minimum . . . in other words, your numbers fall rather way short of a number that "crosses the 1095 easily") but the bigger issue is CREDIBILITY.
Which does lead to this:
IRCC does NOT have to disprove anything. The applicant has the burden of proving ALL the requirements, including, especially, the applicant met the actual physical presence requirement.
All the U.S. and Canadian border crossing records will show is a record of crossing the border THOSE days. So if you spend, say, four or five full weeks in Canada and ALL other weekends, that is at most 50 border crossings coming in and 50 going out each year. So sure, U.S. and Canadian travel history records will likely corroborate your account of all those crossings. That gives you PROOF of 100 days a year that will count as days present in Canada. (And by the way that will also prove 100 days of presence in the U.S. as well.)
Proving 100 days presence a year for five years does not get you even HALF WAY to proving 1095.
From your point of view it is, no doubt, obvious you were in Canada every Saturday and Sunday (and full weeks of days for four or five weeks of the year) in between the entering day and the day reported as leaving.
From the point of view of a total stranger bureaucrat who sees a clear pattern suggesting someone is gaming-the-system, what is quite likely to be more obvious is that you are present in the U.S. well over half the days of the year, year in and year out. No profound powers of intuition necessary to apprehend such a bureaucrat might reasonably infer that for any day there is not direct proof of where you were, you COULD HAVE BEEN (not necessarily were) in a country where you were otherwise present more than half the days of the year AND where your job is, your family lives, and where your primary residence is. No rocket science necessary.
And sure, you can argue that it is reasonable to infer that you were actually in Canada all those days in-between the known date of entry and next known date of exit. You can argue the absence of any record showing you leaving or entering other days supports this inference. If a Canadian priest provides an affidavit you and your family were in his church every Sunday, that gets you another 52 days a year closer to actually proven to be in Canada.
Fair chance you would get an opportunity to make this argument to a Citizenship Judge. Who will have already read and considered the bureaucrat's conclusions and reason for those conclusions. Which, to be clear, will not necessarily be that you were NOT in Canada at least 1095 days. To deny the application IRCC does not need to conclude let alone prove you were NOT in Canada at least 1095 days. It will suffice if IRCC concludes you MIGHT have been outside Canada SOME of those days, and that without direct proof of actual presence in Canada those in-between days you have failed to prove you were in fact in Canada at least 1095 days.
Which brings this back around to the key, CREDIBILITY. And appearing to be gaming-the-system. Kind of easy to picture the Citizenship Judge's face. Her head nodding. Her eyes rather wide. Whose version of reasonable inferences is she going to buy?
"I schwear offff-ferrr-cerrr, just two beers and I am ummm ok to drive, just to get home."
CREDIBILITY. No advanced research into non-linear probabilities to map the trajectory here.
As I previously noted, better odds at the Casino slots. And, to be clear, those are not good.
Reminder: As I previously noted, the vast, vast majority of applicants benefit from the inference they were in Canada from a date of known entry (reported by applicant and often verified by CBSA travel history) to the next reported date of exit (reported by applicant, possibly verified by U.S. records for land crossings if IRCC bothers to check those). That is a very reasonable inference in the vast, vast majority of cases.
BUT how much will an applicant benefit from such an inference when the applicant's primary ties, especially if ALL his or her primary ties, are ABROAD, and the applicant is obviously in another country 220 or more days a year, that is, in another country MORE THAN HALF the days in the year (remember, all those border crossing days are also days in the U.S.), year after year? And when the impression SHOUTS gaming-the-system? Again, no advanced research into non-linear probabilities to map the trajectory where this is headed.
THAT SAID:
There are actual commuter cases. More than a few have gone well. More than a few crashed. None I have seen push the envelope nearly so far as your hypothetical scenario.
Those which have sailed through the process smoothly tend to be cases in which the PR is actually settled and living in Canada but commuting to a job in the U.S. (typically Windsor/Detroit area, with the result the local office personnel there are probably experienced assessing commuter scenarios), and typically there is a very strong impression that Canada is the applicant's real home and that they otherwise deserve citizenship, in the equities sense (apart from the rules, apart from the technicalities).
But many of the commuter cases run into highly skeptical RQ processing and more than a few have crashed.
As for the repeal of the intent-to-reside requirement, that hardly eliminates the dramatically elevated scrutiny that is likely when an applicant appears, from the perspective of a total stranger bureaucrat who is paid to be skeptical, to be seeking-a-passport-of-convenience. Again, this is about appearance, about impression. How negative this is varies. Credibility and equities and credibility again, looming large.
And, again, that burden-of-proof edge of the technicality sword, it can cut a case to pieces, especially when IRCC perceives reason to doubt the applicant's credibility . . . like when IRCC has the impression the applicant might be trying to game-the-system. (And, anyway, it is NOT nearly so easy as it used to be.)
Last edited:
