Hello fellow applicants,
I am having trouble on submitting my wife's application.
We kept getting fewer than 1095 days spent on Canada during the five year period but on the physical presence calculation itself we are good.
The first time it got sent back to us are not sure if it's just a glitch so I double check and got a good calculation. However it got rejected the second time.
Please help us where we got it wrong or if we need to submit more evidence. Wanted to know the cause before sending the citizenship application the third time.
Timeline is a follows:
Visitor: 2021 Jan 4 to 2022 Jan 8
Became PR: 2022 Jan 9
SHORT ANSWER (and Probably Easiest and Fastest Approach):
Wait to re-apply when the applicant does not need to get credit for days in Canada as a visitor. Still include those days in the presence calculation, but apply when there are enough days credit to meet the requirement without counting visitor days.
Depending on the particular circumstances and documentation of visitor status, there might not be a need to wait that long, if in particular a visitor visa was issued for example. This is more complex to figure out but basically if the applicant had a visitor visa it should be OK to rely on counting days in Canada between the issuance and expiration of the visa. See longer discussion below.
LONG ANSWER; The PROBLEM (at least possibly the problem):
It is possible (perhaps probable) the problem is about a period of status that is not verifiable in GCMS. If GCMS does not have a record of the status, IRCC might not count those days.
In particular, the problem
MIGHT be that in conducting the completeness screening IRCC is not able to confirm Temporary Resident Status for at least some of the pre-PR days in Canada as a visitor, enough of those days that when deducted from the physical presence calculation the applicant no longer meets the minimum 1095 day requirement.
Credit for pre-PR days in Canada is given for days in Canada with Temporary Resident Status.
Visitor status is one type of Temporary Resident Status. So generally days in Canada as a visitor count (half day credit) toward meeting the physical presence requirement.
HOWEVER, there are circumstances in which Temporary Resident Status is not documented in the client's GCMS records. This mostly affects those relying on implied status or undocumented visitor status.
So, as best I have been able to figure out what is happening in these situations, part of the completeness screening involves correlating/confirming status in the GCMS records for the applicant (client). In particular, GCMS will readily verify when the client became a PR and usually what pre-PR status a client had, including the from and to dates for that status. However, the latter is based on visas, permits, or visitor-records.
That is, a person may have legal status in Canada that is not documented by a visa, permit, or visitor record. If it is not documented by a visa, permit, or visitor record, or otherwise readily verified in the client's GCMS, the applicant for citizenship might not be given credit for those days.
This leads to understanding the burden of proof.
Burden of Proof:
The applicant has the burden of proving they meet all the requirements. Technically this includes proving they had Temporary Resident Status for any periods of time they are claiming pre-PR credit. So just having Temporary Resident Status is NOT necessarily good enough to get credit.
Generally applicants do not need to submit evidence documenting their status other than specifying what status they had and the from and to dates for that status, in conjunction with establishing their identity. IRCC is then able to readily verify periods of status, based on the client's identity, in the client's GCMS. This is sufficient to meet the burden of proving status.
But, as I have described, in some circumstances a person may have legal status in Canada that is not documented by a visa, permit, or visitor record. So IRCC cannot readily verify the applicant's status. Absent verification of status the applicant does not meet the burden of proof necessary to get credit for those days . . . even though as a matter of simple fact they did have status.
For those in Canada as visitors in particular:
Visitor Visa: Information in regards to a visitor visa will be in GCMS, so there should be no problem claiming and getting credit for days in Canada between the date the visa was issued and the date it expired. If there was a period of time the applicant had implied status pending an application to extend visitor status, that period of time between the expiration date of the visa and the date the extension of visitor status was actually granted, during which they had implied status, might not be readily verified in GCMS.
Visa-Exempt Visitors: Typically visa-exempt visitors are not issued any formal documentation of status. As a result, there often is NO record in GCMS of their status as a visitor. No record in GCMS, no credit for those days in Canada. Sometimes, however, a visa-exempt visitor is given a Visitor Record. I am not sure, but this should show up in GCMS, so days in Canada covered by the VR should count.
Like other instances in which a person can have implied status, if a visa-exempt visitor applies for an extension of status, and there is a period of time they are in Canada with implied status prior to the date the extension of status is granted, that period also might not be sufficiently indicated in GCMS and thus not counted.
Fixing the Problem (if undocumented pre-PR status is the problem):
The sane and easiest approach to fixing this problem is to just plain WAIT and re-apply, stay and wait long enough to meet the residency requirement without counting any questionable periods of implied or visitor status. Still include these periods in the presence calculator, but just wait long enough to meet the requirement subtracting credit for these periods.
The alternative is to challenge the IRCC in regards to returning the application. There are ways to do this but I do not address them because, frankly, that approach makes no sense. This makes no sense because it is so much more difficult and will likely take a lot longer than waiting to apply again with more days. That said, some individuals might be in situations in which waiting is not a viable option. If they are for-sure certain (being redundant here for emphasis) they had visitor status, and can document it, and waiting longer to apply is not an option, see a lawyer to help . . . or be prepared to do a good deal of homework to figure out how to force IRCC to process the application. (It can be done, but again not at all easily, and it will take time.)
