1. 9 b) During your eligibility period did you have Temporary Resident Status in Canada? If yes provide details in the chart below.
My work permit expired on 11/20/2015 and I submitted a work permit renew application on 10/19/2015. However, I didn't heard back anything even when I landed as PR on 01/20/2016(I cancel the renew application after landing). I understand I was on implied status from 11/20/2015 to 01/20/2016. In such case, how to fill the chart in Question 9 b)?
I am afraid it leaves gaps if I write down status obtained date and status expired date on my work permit.
2. 10 a) Where have you lived during your eligibility period?
I was on 3 weeks vacation in my home country. Shall I list it as a separate line in Question 10 a)?
Thanks for your help!
Item 10.a. is for addresses where the applicant lived, not merely visited. Sure, long visits may be long enough that the person could be said to be residing there for that period of time, especially if the individual did not maintain a primary residence in Canada during that period of time. But there is no need to list addresses for mere holidays or other brief periods of time away from one's primary residence.
Credit for Pre-PR Days:
I am not sure whether technically the period of time you were present with implied status will count, particularly given cancellation of the application your implied status was based on.
I believe that technically it should count. At least one other forum participant has reported a call centre agent stated that days in Canada with implied status count.
BUT that does not guarantee it will count. And, it especially does not guarantee routine processing.
In particular, for practical reasons it may be best to NOT rely on that period of time as counting. The burden of proving status qualifying for credit is on the applicant. Proving implied status may be cumbersome (as in inviting non-routine processing and delays), or possibly even problematic.
I do not recall how to handle status gaps in pre-PR status in the presence calculator. I'm confident you can figure that out.
For item 9.b. in the application
probably best to just list the dates for your actual permit(s). And not count the days between the date the work permit expired and you landed.
MORE EXTENSIVE EXPLANATION (for taking a cautious approach):
There is
a fair chance there will be NO problem with adding an extra line in 9.b. for "implied worker permit," date obtained being date the granted permit expired and date expired being date PR status obtained. And counting this time. The application may very well simply sail through as a routine application.
HOWEVER . . . my primary response above, in contrast, aims to minimize the risk of --
-- a problem up front, when IRCC first opens the application and attempts to verify status in GCMS (which could result in application being returned if deduction of that time period results in falling short of the minimum presence requirement), or
-- later requests for further information or documentation, such as to show pre-PR status, which would mean non-routine processing and potentially causing delays in processing time
What signals a significant risk of a problem is that GCMS probably does not show you had implied status during that period of time. Many processing agents can and probably will recognize and credit the implied status based on information in your application and what should be fairly easy inferences. But again there is no guarantee that the processing agent who screens your application will in fact conclude you had implied status during a period of time GCMS does not document actual status. Since the total credit possible for this period of time is merely 30 days (approximately 60 days earning half day credit), it makes more sense, practically, to simply wait an additional month or two before applying. Waiting a month or two longer could easily make the difference in becoming a citizen several months sooner overall.
That is, the more prudent approach is usually one which will minimize potential pitfalls and risks. What technically should count is often not a good indicator of what will work best.
