How soon after 1095 days did you apply for citizenship
- Thread starter lilybell
- Start date
Honestly, it’s your call. None of us here can recommend an adequate buffer. It just depends on how comfortable you feel with your physical presence calculator and if you think you’ve calculated all your absences correctly. So you can send it on Day 1096 or 10 days later or months later.
I was thorough, but still gave a buffer of 30 calendar days. Good luck!
Thank you. I do understand that I have to decide for myself but just want to see what people who have already applied have done. 30 days does seem reasonable.
technically the next day you will get those 1095 days. Those days are counted backwards from the date of your application (the date by signature).
The LONGER Response.
I waited nearly 18 months after I became eligible based on my physical presence in Canada.
I do not suggest others wait anywhere near that long. There were good reasons for me to wait. There was no compelling need for me to get citizenship sooner.
The observation that how-much-buffer to apply with is a personal choice is more than a casual suggestion. Personal circumstances vary widely. So how much buffer would be prudent varies widely. As I noted, in my case I waited well over an extra year. But . . . well, there were good reasons for how long I waited. For others, there are other considerations. For example, applicants relying on credit for days in Canada prior to becoming a PR that are based on implied status should seriously consider having a buffer significantly longer than the amount of credit they claim for days with implied status.
So "average" buffer does not illuminate much, since the prudent buffer depends on the individual PR's situation, the individual PR's history. Travel history varies. Some PRs spent significant periods of time between jobs and had less than stable addresses.
A PR with a job in a manufacturing facility for a company that is well known, a job where the PR in effect punched a time clock and was on the job five days a week for 46 or more weeks of the year, for the whole time, and is very certain about getting every date of travel perfectly correct in the presence calculator, could comfortably apply with just ten day's margin and would very likely be OK applying with just 1096 days, or even 1095.
WHAT TO CONSIDER:
In making the decision for oneself, it can help to keep in mind there are TWO big considerations.
The first one is the obvious one. Making sure that the minimum requirement is met. That only requires 1095 days. But applying within a few days of that means there is little or no room for error. We all make mistakes, so it is rather foolish to proceed on that basis. While overlooking a trip or two tends to be one of the relatively common mistakes (which for most would be easily covered by a 30 day margin . . . leaving out trips totaling longer than that would be very big mistake). But the most common mistakes are related to the date of exit from Canada. More than a few applicants sometimes, erroneously, report the date of arrival abroad as the date of exit when in fact the flight left Canada the day before (or sometimes two days before for some Trans-Pacific flights). The range of risk for this tends to vary with how precise the PR kept records (relying on passport stamps is not precise) and how frequent the individual travelled. IN ANY EVENT, this consideration is simply about making sure that after IRCC scrutinizes the travel history, the count is still at least 1095 days. This consideration is about making sure to be eligible, making sure the outcome will be a grant of citizenship.
The second consideration is less obvious. And often overlooked. And the criteria is less definite. This consideration is about submitting an application that avoids triggering questions or concerns, about trying to make an application that will not trigger RQ-related non-routine processing. This is NOT about making sure to be eligible. It is about making an impression, giving the appearance, that there is NO reason at all for IRCC to be concerned the applicant fell short. For example, applying with just 1096 or 1098 days, is almost demanding that IRCC more closely examine and scrutinize the applicant's travel history and proof of presence in Canada, since even a very innocent error by just a few days would mean the applicant falls short and IRCC MUST (no choice) deny the application. In contrast, not only will a margin of 30 days or so actually cover minor errors of a few days, it allows processing agents and Citizenship Officers to NOT worry so much about whether there were some small mistakes, since they can be confident the applicant still qualifies even if the applicant made some small mistakes. So all IRCC has to do is verify the applicant is generally credible and that overall the information provided is mostly accurate.
It is in relation to the second consideration that address and work history become important factors. A smaller margin should be fine for those with the more solid and stable address and work history. Those self-employed (like me), especially those providing services abroad (like me), and those with otherwise unstable or inconsistent address or work histories, should consider waiting to apply with a bigger margin . . . unless they do not care how long the process takes after they apply.
How soon after 1095 days did you apply for citizenship?
I waited nearly 18 months after I became eligible based on my physical presence in Canada.
I do not suggest others wait anywhere near that long. There were good reasons for me to wait. There was no compelling need for me to get citizenship sooner.
Many forum participants have suggested or recommended a week to ten day buffer over the minimum. My view is that a 30 day margin is a good place to begin, in considering when to apply, BUT recognizing that some would be wise to consider waiting longer.
The observation that how-much-buffer to apply with is a personal choice is more than a casual suggestion. Personal circumstances vary widely. So how much buffer would be prudent varies widely. As I noted, in my case I waited well over an extra year. But . . . well, there were good reasons for how long I waited. For others, there are other considerations. For example, applicants relying on credit for days in Canada prior to becoming a PR that are based on implied status should seriously consider having a buffer significantly longer than the amount of credit they claim for days with implied status.
So "average" buffer does not illuminate much, since the prudent buffer depends on the individual PR's situation, the individual PR's history. Travel history varies. Some PRs spent significant periods of time between jobs and had less than stable addresses.
A PR with a job in a manufacturing facility for a company that is well known, a job where the PR in effect punched a time clock and was on the job five days a week for 46 or more weeks of the year, for the whole time, and is very certain about getting every date of travel perfectly correct in the presence calculator, could comfortably apply with just ten day's margin and would very likely be OK applying with just 1096 days, or even 1095.
WHAT TO CONSIDER:
In making the decision for oneself, it can help to keep in mind there are TWO big considerations.
(1) Being sure to meet the presence requirement; that is, making sure there is enough of a margin to cover any potential errors. (Ending up one day short means the application MUST be denied.)
(2) Reducing the risk of residency-related questions and avoiding delays due to non-routine processing; that is, applying with enough of a margin to reduce the chances that IRCC might ask for additional information and proof of actual presence.
The first one is the obvious one. Making sure that the minimum requirement is met. That only requires 1095 days. But applying within a few days of that means there is little or no room for error. We all make mistakes, so it is rather foolish to proceed on that basis. While overlooking a trip or two tends to be one of the relatively common mistakes (which for most would be easily covered by a 30 day margin . . . leaving out trips totaling longer than that would be very big mistake). But the most common mistakes are related to the date of exit from Canada. More than a few applicants sometimes, erroneously, report the date of arrival abroad as the date of exit when in fact the flight left Canada the day before (or sometimes two days before for some Trans-Pacific flights). The range of risk for this tends to vary with how precise the PR kept records (relying on passport stamps is not precise) and how frequent the individual travelled. IN ANY EVENT, this consideration is simply about making sure that after IRCC scrutinizes the travel history, the count is still at least 1095 days. This consideration is about making sure to be eligible, making sure the outcome will be a grant of citizenship.
The second consideration is less obvious. And often overlooked. And the criteria is less definite. This consideration is about submitting an application that avoids triggering questions or concerns, about trying to make an application that will not trigger RQ-related non-routine processing. This is NOT about making sure to be eligible. It is about making an impression, giving the appearance, that there is NO reason at all for IRCC to be concerned the applicant fell short. For example, applying with just 1096 or 1098 days, is almost demanding that IRCC more closely examine and scrutinize the applicant's travel history and proof of presence in Canada, since even a very innocent error by just a few days would mean the applicant falls short and IRCC MUST (no choice) deny the application. In contrast, not only will a margin of 30 days or so actually cover minor errors of a few days, it allows processing agents and Citizenship Officers to NOT worry so much about whether there were some small mistakes, since they can be confident the applicant still qualifies even if the applicant made some small mistakes. So all IRCC has to do is verify the applicant is generally credible and that overall the information provided is mostly accurate.
It is in relation to the second consideration that address and work history become important factors. A smaller margin should be fine for those with the more solid and stable address and work history. Those self-employed (like me), especially those providing services abroad (like me), and those with otherwise unstable or inconsistent address or work histories, should consider waiting to apply with a bigger margin . . . unless they do not care how long the process takes after they apply.
siddharthbala
Hero Member
- Jan 12, 2016
- 474
- Visa Office......
- CPC-Ottawa
- NOC Code......
- 5241
- App. Filed.......
- 08-07-2016
- Doc's Request.
- 28-12-2016
- AOR Received.
- 10-12-2016
- Med's Request
- 06-12-2016
- Med's Done....
- 14-12-2016
- Interview........
- N/A
- Passport Req..
- 12-04-2017
- VISA ISSUED...
- 28-04-2017
- LANDED..........
- 14-09-2017
I submitted around 10 days after the 1095 day requirement to submit my application, which was by design - When I did my separate calculations, I noticed that I was accounting an extra day per trip I took (which was conveniently exactly ten in the residency period), whereas the online physical days calculator was not, which had me a bit suspicious about their calculations vs. my own. So, in order to win both ways, I gave a 10 day 'buffer' period before submitting it.
As @sydcarton said - it's your call - I've seen folks on the sheet who cut it down to the wire and submitted it at 1096 days, to folks who've applied years after meeting the requirement because they were not in any hurry to become citizens just yet.
I did some rough stats from the first 4 months of 2020 from the tracking sheet. Here are my results. I only included values where the Physical presence days were reported.
Top ten Intervals:
In the Sample, only 6 applicants applied at exactly 1095 days.
| Average | 127 |
| Median | 40 |
| Max | 801 |
| Min | 0 |
Top ten Intervals:
| Days over 1095 days | Count of Days over 1095 |
| 5 | 21 |
| 10 | 12 |
| 20 | 10 |
| 2 | 10 |
| 25 | 10 |
| 55 | 9 |
| 15 | 9 |
| 9 | 9 |
| 12 | 8 |
| 105 | 8 |
In the Sample, only 6 applicants applied at exactly 1095 days.
I think we waited almost 6 months... He was eligable (with the old rule) right at the point when they changed the number of years to apply (shorten). So we expected a lot of applicantion at that time. And we were procrastinating to list out all his short day trips to US.
I applied at 1096 days.
I made the calculation a few times and I was sure that there were no mistakes. If you want to put some buffer, go ahead. But the minimum is technically 1096. And again, technically there should be no difference between 1096 and 2096.
Currently I am in process though, I haven't received the citizenship yet.
I made the calculation a few times and I was sure that there were no mistakes. If you want to put some buffer, go ahead. But the minimum is technically 1096. And again, technically there should be no difference between 1096 and 2096.
Currently I am in process though, I haven't received the citizenship yet.
Not sure what you mean by technically.
But technically 1096 is different from 1101 (five days different) or 1143 or 1825. And technically no one can apply with 2096 days.
The main difference (assuming the applicant is PERFECT in reporting dates of travel; which is often not the case), and it is a real difference, is the influence a buffer can have in how smoothly and quickly the application is processed. (Well, "technically," there is no "quickly" in citizenship application processing; so it is more about avoiding delays in how long it takes.)
Discerning what meets the requirements (1095 days) versus what will not be diverted into RQ-related non-routine processing, which can take from three more months to perhaps an extra year, has less to do with what "technically" qualifies and more to do with the applicant's burden of proof, as in assuring total-stranger bureaucrats that there is no reason to question or be concerned about the applicant meeting the eligibility requirement.
For some, probably many applicants (even if the number is less than most), waiting longer to apply can often mean actually taking the oath, becoming a citizen, sooner.
Let alone the benefit of reducing the risk of the inconvenience, and potentially rather extensive intrusion into one's privacy, that can happen to those whose application is subject to RQ-related non-routine processing.
Bottom-line: there can be a big difference in how it goes for the same applicant applying with 1096 days versus applying with 1143 days. Even if both are ultimately, EVENTUALLY, granted citizenship.
I don't know if it's true now, but back when my husband applied, submitting your application at 1095 or just a few days over seemed to automatically trigger RQ and make the process much longer. So it was better to wait a few months. Of course this was years ago. And my husband got RQ anyway due to his travel patterns and self-employment - and mainly because of one single same day trip to the US he forgot to mention. Good times...
This is what I mean by technically. I don't think it is that difficult to understand.
I think we didn't get RQ because we listed ALL day trips... We used to live 30 min from the boarder and some days, he just went down there for gas near mid-night!! (make it harder to track and report the leaving and returning date) We did spend time to make sure we document them all. Very painful process.
What is difficult to understand is why anyone would so much as hint, let alone overtly suggest that there is not a big difference in applying with 1096 days versus having a decent buffer.
So, let's be clear: it is FOOLISH to apply without at least several days buffer, at the very minimum. Whatever you mean by "technically." Any suggestion otherwise is a disservice to those trying to decide when is the best time to apply.
NOTE: even IRCC explicitly suggests that applicants wait to apply with more than than what meets the requirement.
There is a lot, lot wrong with suggesting it is OK for applicants to apply when they just barely meet the minimum presence requirement. Sure, some applicants have no option (for example, those whose work requires extensive travel abroad, for whom waiting longer will not actually result in a bigger buffer). Sure, many and probably MOST applicants will be OK even if they applied with little or no buffer. But the RISKS are enough to nonetheless MAKE it OUTRIGHT FOOLISH, utterly foolish, to not wait long enough to have at least ten days more than the minimum.
Technically that's a big deal. Really, this is a big deal.
Even for those who might not avoid RQ-related non-routine processing (there is nothing an applicant can do to guarantee not getting RQ), how it goes in "residency-case" processing can vary widely. And it is likely that a good margin can make a big difference in how it goes for those subject to RQ. There can be a big difference between submitting what is requested in a RQ-lite, which might mean the process takes three to six months longer than it does for those routinely processed, versus the potential for a referral to a Citizenship Judge in a full-blown RQ case, which can add well more than an EXTRA YEAR PLUS to the timeline. And it is almost certain that a good buffer can dramatically reduce the risk of the latter.
And while more than a few applicants appear to believe they can and will be PERFECT in reporting travel history, EVERYONE makes mistakes, and for those who are certain they make no mistakes they are making the very big mistake of overlooking the fact that EVERYONE makes mistakes, including them. Sure, many have simple travel histories and can be confident they got every date correct. But their best insurance is nonetheless a BUFFER . . . remembering, after all, it is not just the number of days IN Canada that matter, but the number of days a total stranger bureaucrat concludes the applicant was for-sure IN Canada.
Again, I do not doubt that most applicants (meaning more than half) will be OK with a minimal if any buffer. But the number at risk for it going otherwise is larger than a few . . . SO, again, it would be FOOLISH for applicants to gamble on that rather than wait at least ten or thirty days to apply with a buffer.