sushmet said:
I know that there is no rule of what is safe. But I am strongly banking on fact that:
1. I have very few entries and exits from Canada
2. I have my tickets, my boarding passes,my bag tags and all stamps on passports are in English to match my entry and exit in
Canada
However as a rule of thumb what would be CONSIDERABLY safe? What CIC is looking for is less than 1095 days outside Canada in last 5 years and I plan apply with 1083 days outside CANADA. What are my chances here?
Whatever I have looked so far, people having too many entries and exits and many of them to USA is the major cause of delay in application. Fortunately my only exit from Canada in last 5 years is to my home country.
PLEASE advise what do you think.
Foremost: my point was that the precise number of days matters far less than other factors. That is, it is
NOT all about the numbers.
One or ten days, more or less, will not usually be what determines how these things go. Other factors will have more influence. (Of course, meeting the absolute minimum, 730, is imperative.)
So, 741 versus 753, or 782, does not matter so much as all the other facts and circumstances.
Or even 815 . . . which still indicates the PR has spent less than half his or her time in Canada, which by the way would support an inference that he or she was outside Canada any time for which it is not certain he or she was in Canada . . . that is, if there is any doubt about a period of time, a stranger bureaucrat could infer that individual was more likely where he or she spent most of the time, and if most of the time was outside Canada, the reasonable inference is obvious.
I am no expert, and I am not qualified to offer advice in personal cases, BUT even for someone with expertise and qualified to offer advice in personal cases, there is no firm guideline for forecasting who will encounter delayed processing, a secondary review, or even a full blown Residency Determination.
You cite some relevant factors. But there are many variables, many relevant factors. It is not so much about what will be
safe, but about whether there are any facts, circumstances, or history which fit the criteria CIC employs to identify
risk indicators or a
reason-to-question-residency (CIC is scretive about the criteria used and the terms they use sometimes varies).
So there is no safe set of facts, so to say. The key is not having one of the facts that will trigger the secondary review.
And, any PR could be subject to secondary review . . . and at least in the not too distant past, CIC was overtly subjecting a certain percentage of PR card applications to a
random referral for secondary review.
In other words: no guarantees.
But there are situations more likely to trigger elevated scrutiny and secondary review. And sure, you probably want to avoid those. But again, it is not likely to be about the specific number of days (so long as the minimum is declared and there are no obvious discrepancies in that).
Worse case scenario is that you have to submit proof of where you have been living and working in Canada, and that it takes longer to actually get the PR card.
You could wait an additional six months to make the application, to give yourself a margin (I am assuming that would take you to having spent more than half the last five years in Canada), but some other factor may still trigger secondary review . . . or an application in June could stall some but you still get the card in three or four months.
Or it could sail through without a problem.
I just doubt that having 758 days, rather than applying with 739, will make the difference. So, whether February 29, 2012 counts will have virtually no effect.
