How to calculate time for Citizenship

[domi_87]

Hi All,
Does anyone know if time spent on eTA (electronical Travel Authorization) counts towards required time needed for citizenship?

Thank you
B.R
Domi

 

[harirajmohan]

Hi All,
Does anyone know if time spent on eTA (electronical Travel Authorization) counts towards required time needed for citizenship?

Thank you
B.R
Domi

eta or non-eta: no difference. eta is issued for certain passports instead of visa. it has nothing to do with status after coming inside the country as all are treated the same.
legal Temporary residence is counted as half day.
https://eservices.cic.gc.ca/rescalc/resCalcStartNew.do?&lang=en

 

[domi_87]

eta or non-eta: no difference. eta is issued for certain passports instead of visa.
legal Temporary residence is counted as half day.
https://eservices.cic.gc.ca/rescalc/resCalcStartNew.do?&lang=en

Thank you a lot. Perfect. I was not sure if there was a difference between eta and visa - so thank you for that.
Amazing, seems that all legal presence in Canada counts in this case that is great to hear.

 

[rajkamalmohanram]

Hi All,
Does anyone know if time spent on eTA (electronical Travel Authorization) counts towards required time needed for citizenship?

Thank you
B.R
Domi

If you spent time as a visitor in Canada within the past 5 years, each day will count as half-a-day of physical presence in Canada.

 

[dpenabill]

Hi All,
Does anyone know if time spent on eTA (electronical Travel Authorization) counts towards required time needed for citizenship?

Thank you
B.R
Domi

Sorry to quibble about the assurances others have offered, but it would be imprudent to rely on credit for days in Canada based on visitor status, as a visa-exempt visitor without that status having been formally documented. eTA alone does not document a grant of visitor status.

Best to be sure to apply without relying on those days counting. Consider them buffer days. Moreover, best to have a good buffer apart from those days, that is, in addition to counting those days. That is, report and count them in the physical presence calculation, but best to be sure to have more than 1095 days credit without counting those days; actually better to have 1130 or more days credit without counting those days.

A relatively easy way to do this is to do draft physical presence calculations NOT including the visitor days, and when the draft version shows 1095 days credit (better if it shows at least 1130 days credit) THEN proceed to do the actual physical presence calculation to be submitted with the application, INCLUDING, in the final to be submitted version, the visitor days.

Despite this having been stated more than a few times (and not just by me), given the previous responses here without this caution, I will offer an explanation and the reasoning underlying this observation. So you can decide for yourself how to navigate the WHEN to apply question.


Long EXPLANATION and Reasoning For the Above Observation (with perhaps more detail than you care to know):

NEVER, never, never hurts to have more days credit. In many, many situations, waiting longer to apply can mean taking the oath sooner.

Waiting two or three months more to apply will, at the very, very worst, delay the oath by no more than those two or three months. But waiting those two or three months more to apply can make the difference in (1) whether there is non-routine processing that makes the process go longer, and (2) dramatically reduce the impact of non-routine processing if it happens, thus very much reducing the delay it causes.

It's like buying insurance (but, unfortunately, without the guarantees that insurance typically comes with; nonetheless still generally a good deal and more peace of mind when the process drags on, as it is wont to do).

Overall: waiting longer to apply is NO guarantee the application will proceed without delay, without non-routine processing. But it can dramatically reduce the risks of delays and non-routine processing, and reduce the amount of delay for some.


As for the days in Canada as a visitor without any formal visa or visitor record:

Sure, visitor status is a valid form of temporary resident status (Regulation 193 IRPA Regulations generally throws visitors under the umbrella of temporary residents; for the full range of regulations governing temporary residents and visitors see Part 9 and Part 10 of the IRPA regulations 179 to 193, beginning with Regulation 179 here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/page-37.html#docCont ), and days in Canada with such status meet the definition of days in Canada pre-PR entitled to the one-half day per day of presence credit (subsection 5(1.001)(a) Citizenship Act) .

BUT the applicant bears the burden of proving BOTH actual physical presence AND valid temporary resident status.

For those in Canada on work visas or work permits, student visas, formally issued visitor visas, and probably those issued visitor records as well, the *client*'s GCMS record will (always but for an error) show and verify the individual's status pursuant to those. Applicant must report these in a section of the actual physical presence calculation, including date status began and ended, and then IRCC checks GCMS to verify the status and dates. The latter appears to happen during the completeness screening step at CPC-Sydney. The anecdotal reporting (somewhat dated) reflects that many of those relying credit for days in Canada as a visitor (absent a formal visitor visa or visitor record) to meet the minimum requirement, have had their applications returned as incomplete, for failing to show (in the application itself) meeting the presence requirement.

Why this happens:

It appears that most (not all) eTA travelers arriving in Canada as visitors are waived through border control without any formal documentation of their status in Canada. Absent formal documentation of status there is a real risk there is NO GCMS record documenting temporary resident status and that IRCC will NOT count those days, at least not during the completeness screening. Thus, if the applicant does not meet the minimum physical presence WITHOUT counting those days, there is a real risk the application will not even be processed, that rather it will be returned as incomplete.

Most of the anecdotal reports of this happening are a little dated now, so it is possible that CBSA and IRCC have revised record gathering particulars for eTA travelers since the numerous anecdotal reports about returned applications. So it is possible there is no problem getting credit for days waived through into Canada as a eTA traveler with visitor status while in Canada.

Apart from that possibility, the more likely situation is a continuation of prior practices pursuant to which CBSA captures the eTA travelers' entry into Canada with visitor status, which can be accessed in a client's CBSA travel history, but there is no particular record of it created in GCMS. So far it looks like NO record of it in GCMS means a real risk these days are not counted during the completeness-screening.

In contrast, it is worth noting, later in the process (for an applicant who applied with enough credit to pass the completeness screening), if a processing agent is examining the applicant's actual physical presence and cross-checking it against the CBSA travel history, in that stage of processing there should be NO PROBLEM getting the visitor days credit, as the respective dates should be verified by the CBSA travel history.


Some Further Observations:

Is It Wrong For IRCC To Do This?

If IRCC will eventually give credit to visitor days, since such days are entitled to credit, is it wrong (contrary to law) for IRCC to in effect reject the application based on the absence of verification of status in GCMS?

I am not qualified to answer that question.

Someone could challenge it. Submit an explanation and request IRCC to process the application as is. And I think there is a procedure by which the applicant could more or less require IRCC to process the application. I suspect that would succeed. BUT that would almost certainly be taking the long road, a very, very long road, and virtually guarantee it will be a much longer time before the oath is taken.

Generally, the best approach is to fix the problem that caused the application to be returned and resubmit it. Or fix the problem and submit a new application (for many this has the advantage of adding more days to the physical presence, building an even bigger margin over the minimum).

An even better approach is to anticipate the problem and avoid it . . . wait to apply until after it does not matter if IRCC gives credit to those days . . . again, apply later and consider those days, the credit for those days, as part of the buffer.

 

[domi_87]

Thank you so much for taking you time and sharing such a valuable post. It is much appreciated.

What I have learned during my EE journey is that it is worth to double check everything, look thru the different sources and short answers doesn’t mean they are the best – your post seems to confirm that.

The perspective you have shared is exactly what I was concerned about while thinking about eTA vs Visitor Visa/Record.

Of course, I will include additional missing days when applying to avoid that situation which I think is the best option. The thing in my case was that I have spent almost 6 months on eTA and I wanted to use that time as it would be 3 months towards citizenship.

In terms of proof. If IRCC is basing on GCMS notes that indeed could be difficult to proof but on the other hand I have stamps in the passport that proof that I was entering and when I was leaving the country. These plus the CBSA travel record I would assume should be enough to calculate and prove my time in CA. Unless, there is clearly stated that eTA status time do not qualify towards citizenship – I have asked IRCC directly perhaps they will reply.



Thank you once more for all the information.