I failed to be clear about an important distinction for shortfall cases not relying on credit for presence in Canada prior to date of landing. Even though the odds of success, for almost all shortfall applications (applying with less than 1095 days actual presence), are obviously daunting, the odds are probably significantly better for those with a shortfall not relying on pre-landing credits, particularly for applicants who have a small shortfall, strong equitable reasons for the shortfall (ill parent abroad for example), and who otherwise have centralized their life in Canada for well over three years, even more so for those with over four years.
I admit this is not encouraging for some in a position similar to that of nadeem55, but it is a significant consideration for those with a small shortfall not relying on pre-landing credit.
Still a difficult decision, given the higher fees now, the prospect of a profoundly intrusive RQ process with attendant delays in processing, and the fact that regardless of equitable arguments CJs can (and apparently most will) apply the strict presence test . . . which I suspect will be even more the case once the amended residency requirement is in force (that is, even if the strict presence test is not absolutely required, it will most likely be the test applied CJs choose to apply).
Overall there are many factors which will tend to tip the scales toward waiting rather than applying with a shortfall just before the deadline.
There is also an anticipated rush of applicants who meet the physical presence threshold test but who will apply sooner, with significantly less of a margin, in order to beat the deadline . . . and this will include, in particular, many applicants in a similar position to that of nadeem55 getting in just under the wire with 1095+ days credit including time based on pre-landing presence. Indeed, this is the group of PRs who are currently watching the news most closely, who will be sitting close to the edge of their keyboards, ready to send off that application in short order. As the end of April approaches, many will be able to see that if the coming into force date is May 1st, they meet the 3/4 rule and beat the 4/6 rule if they get the application delivered by April 30th . . . and similarly so as the end of May approaches, if the provision has not already come into force, and again as the end of June approaches if again the provision has not yet already come into force.
For example, if an applicant will meet the 1095 days of presence test on June 25th, counting ten months credit for time in Canada prior to landing, and the provision comes into force on July 1st, this individual better get the application delivered to CIC . . . I would say by Monday June 29th . . . recognizing that this individual cannot sign the application and send it until June 26th. If this individual misses the deadline, he will not be eligible again until May 2017 at the soonest. There are probably many thousands of PRs in this situation, thousands for whom June is the critical month, a different group of thousands for whom May or July are the critical month. Regardless which month it is, the impact will affect many thousands.
So for a PR who was planning to spend a two week holiday in Cuba or Jamaica in March, but for whom that will mean not meeting the 1095 day test until July 5th instead of in mid-June, does he cancel the holiday? But what if the government decides to make the provision come into force June 1st rather than July 1st? He will have cancelled his holiday for nothing.
I know which way I would lean (toward waiting), personally, but we all have our own priorities, our own plans, our own histories and circumstances . . . and as nadeem55 illustrates, one factor that can make a huge difference is if one has career ambitions for a position requiring Canadian citizenship.
It warrants noting, though, that at least there has been a lot, lot, lot more advance notice this was coming than what was anticipated right up to mid-June last year, when it was expected that Bill C-24 would pass and be fully implemented on a much shorter timeline . . . most observers having the opinion (back then) that the new residency requirements would be in effect by September 2014, some time in December at the latest. Minister Alexander, and before him Minister Kenney, had promised the changes would be made, initially promising before the end of 2013 and later at the least before the end of 2014 . . . and since the legislation was tabled in February 2014, there has been practical notice of these changes coming for well over a year, leaning toward a year and a half.
I admit this is not encouraging for some in a position similar to that of nadeem55, but it is a significant consideration for those with a small shortfall not relying on pre-landing credit.
Still a difficult decision, given the higher fees now, the prospect of a profoundly intrusive RQ process with attendant delays in processing, and the fact that regardless of equitable arguments CJs can (and apparently most will) apply the strict presence test . . . which I suspect will be even more the case once the amended residency requirement is in force (that is, even if the strict presence test is not absolutely required, it will most likely be the test applied CJs choose to apply).
Overall there are many factors which will tend to tip the scales toward waiting rather than applying with a shortfall just before the deadline.
There is also an anticipated rush of applicants who meet the physical presence threshold test but who will apply sooner, with significantly less of a margin, in order to beat the deadline . . . and this will include, in particular, many applicants in a similar position to that of nadeem55 getting in just under the wire with 1095+ days credit including time based on pre-landing presence. Indeed, this is the group of PRs who are currently watching the news most closely, who will be sitting close to the edge of their keyboards, ready to send off that application in short order. As the end of April approaches, many will be able to see that if the coming into force date is May 1st, they meet the 3/4 rule and beat the 4/6 rule if they get the application delivered by April 30th . . . and similarly so as the end of May approaches, if the provision has not already come into force, and again as the end of June approaches if again the provision has not yet already come into force.
For example, if an applicant will meet the 1095 days of presence test on June 25th, counting ten months credit for time in Canada prior to landing, and the provision comes into force on July 1st, this individual better get the application delivered to CIC . . . I would say by Monday June 29th . . . recognizing that this individual cannot sign the application and send it until June 26th. If this individual misses the deadline, he will not be eligible again until May 2017 at the soonest. There are probably many thousands of PRs in this situation, thousands for whom June is the critical month, a different group of thousands for whom May or July are the critical month. Regardless which month it is, the impact will affect many thousands.
So for a PR who was planning to spend a two week holiday in Cuba or Jamaica in March, but for whom that will mean not meeting the 1095 day test until July 5th instead of in mid-June, does he cancel the holiday? But what if the government decides to make the provision come into force June 1st rather than July 1st? He will have cancelled his holiday for nothing.
I know which way I would lean (toward waiting), personally, but we all have our own priorities, our own plans, our own histories and circumstances . . . and as nadeem55 illustrates, one factor that can make a huge difference is if one has career ambitions for a position requiring Canadian citizenship.
It warrants noting, though, that at least there has been a lot, lot, lot more advance notice this was coming than what was anticipated right up to mid-June last year, when it was expected that Bill C-24 would pass and be fully implemented on a much shorter timeline . . . most observers having the opinion (back then) that the new residency requirements would be in effect by September 2014, some time in December at the latest. Minister Alexander, and before him Minister Kenney, had promised the changes would be made, initially promising before the end of 2013 and later at the least before the end of 2014 . . . and since the legislation was tabled in February 2014, there has been practical notice of these changes coming for well over a year, leaning toward a year and a half.
