Is this true - You can apply for citizenship with less than 1095 days physical

[dpenabill]

I have been been granted citizenship despite having a small shortfall in the number of days. I applied with 1,097 days, and I subsequently realized that I forgot a trip outside of Canada. Therefore, I had 1,091 days of physical presence.

I think that I was very lucky. According to my file notes requested under the <i>Privacy Act</i>, the officer in Montreal applied the legal test from <i>Papadogiorgakis</i>, and found that I have centralized my life in Canada. The officer noted that I had a stable government job in Canada and a teaching position in Canada, that my absences were for an average of one week and never more than two weeks, that I have community involvement in Canada, that I owned property in Canada and in my home country, and that I paid taxes in Canada and my home country. Based on that information, the officer granted me citizenship.

The officer noted that my credibility was not at issue.

The RQ process was time consuming, and I urge most applicants to retain legal counsel if you receive an RQ. I did it myself because I am native English speaker, and I am used to communicating with government officials.

I urge all applications to apply for more than a few days over the minimum requirement!

Good report.

And congratulations.

The suggestion to have a buffer over and above the minimum requirement is particularly sensible now that there is no leeway for shortfall cases for an applications submitted after June 10, 2015. Going forward, the kind of mistake you made would have no chance of success at all.

Your facts and circumstances reflect, I think, the narrow range of circumstances in which CIC will still process some shortfall cases to a positive, grant of citizenship outcome (for applications made by June 10).

Just four days short with a lot of corroborating facts and circumstances reflecting the extent to which you were living your life in Canada and had centralized your life in Canada. That is about as strong as a shortfall case gets.

Unfortunately, I suspect there will a large number of shortfall applicants, made in the last few months leading up to June 11, which will not fare so well, leaving more than a few disappointed.

 

[screech339]

In gte's case, he honestly thought he had met the 1095 day requirement when submitted. A big difference from someone who submitted an application less than 1095 day requirement on purpose. Another big factor not mentioned is that gte probably didn't use any pre-PR days towards qualification.

Congrats to gte on getting his citizenship.

 

[janoo]

I think officer will consider your honest mistake and grant you the Citizenship.

 

[keesio]

Just four days short with a lot of corroborating facts and circumstances reflecting the extent to which you were living your life in Canada and had centralized your life in Canada. That is about as strong as a shortfall case gets.

I think the strongest case for gte439u is having a government job. They tend to give the most leeway to people/families who work for the government. There was another case years ago where someone miscalculated some days and was short by over a week. But she was out of the country because she with was her husband, who was stationed abroad in the Canadian military for a stretch. The interviewer mentioned her husband's strong ties to Canada and she did not have an issue.

 

[longwaitwithrq]

I think officer will consider your honest mistake and grant you the Citizenship.

He is already a Canadian citizen !

 

[gte439u]

Thank you to all for the kind words.

In gte's case, he honestly thought he had met the 1095 day requirement when submitted. A big difference from someone who submitted an application less than 1095 day requirement on purpose. Another big factor not mentioned is that gte probably didn't use any pre-PR days towards qualification.

I used 15 months of pre-permanent residence time in my application. I came to Canada as a graduate student, and then I became a PR shortly after finishing graduate school.

I think the strongest case for gte439u is having a government job. They tend to give the most leeway to people/families who work for the government. There was another case years ago where someone miscalculated some days and was short by over a week. But she was out of the country because she with was her husband, who was stationed abroad in the Canadian military for a stretch. The interviewer mentioned her husband's strong ties to Canada and she did not have an issue.

I tend to agree. I think that being a lawyer for the provincial Crown added credibility to my file. Being a native-English speaker and a lawyer in government also made it much easier to communicate with CIC staff and understand the subtext of their questions.

I really think that RQ recipients should consider getting a lawyer or other adviser if they are not used to communicating with government.

 

[dpenabill]

I used 15 months of pre-permanent residence time in my application. I came to Canada as a graduate student, and then I became a PR shortly after finishing graduate school.

This makes your report particularly salient.

Indeed, I have seen only one other person report being approved for citizenship who applied with a shortfall and reliance on pre-landing credit, and that individual's case was appealed by CIC and CIC won the appeal.

While it is a surprise, it is not necessarily a big surprise. As already noted, there were a number of factors favouring a positive outcome in your case and the shortfall was minimal.

In the last couple years the consensus has been do not apply with a shortfall, with a significant number of observers giving near zero odds of success. I agreed with the admonition, that it was best to not apply with a shortfall, but also consistently tempered that with the observation we did not really know to what extent shortfall applications may still be approved.

A shortfall plus reliance on pre-landing credit, however, is a scenario I too have consistently given near zero odds . . . although frankly I don't think your report changes that outlook much, given how strong your case was otherwise, particularly given the minimal shortfall involved. There is no reason to think, for example, your outcome represents a likely outcome for shortfall applicants generally let alone those relying on pre-landing credit.

At this juncture, this information is about cases already in process, for those who went ahead and applied with a shortfall and can only wait to see how things unfold. Your case offers positive hope, particularly for those whose case is comparably strong. And perhaps even for some who applied with a shortfall and relying on pre-landing credit (but still the odds for such cases are very poor).

Regarding the strengths in your case: sure, this or that individual factor might quite likely be a big positive factor, but the main thing is probably the overall combination of positive factors plus context which emphasized the relative reliability (veracity) of the information . . . including employment reflecting a career in Canada.

 

[gte439u]

This makes your report particularly salient.

Indeed, I have seen only one other person report being approved for citizenship who applied with a shortfall and reliance on pre-landing credit, and that individual's case was appealed by CIC and CIC won the appeal.

While it is a surprise, it is not necessarily a big surprise. As already noted, there were a number of factors favouring a positive outcome in your case and the shortfall was minimal.

In the last couple years the consensus has been do not apply with a shortfall, with a significant number of observers giving near zero odds of success. I agreed with the admonition, that it was best to not apply with a shortfall, but also consistently tempered that with the observation we did not really know to what extent shortfall applications may still be approved.

A shortfall plus reliance on pre-landing credit, however, is a scenario I too have consistently given near zero odds . . . although frankly I don't think your report changes that outlook much, given how strong your case was otherwise, particularly given the minimal shortfall involved. There is no reason to think, for example, your outcome represents a likely outcome for shortfall applicants generally let alone those relying on pre-landing credit.

I agree completely with your assessment. My individual circumstances may provide a "ray of hope," but I doubt that many other applicants with a shortfall with be successful. Frankly, I am still looking at the letter inviting me to take the oath with a degree of surprise.

On a side note, I volunteer with a community organization that offers summary legal advice to low income people. I have assisted low income immigrants with their citizenship applications, and I always made very clear that they should always wait an extra month before applying if that had ever left Canada since landing in case there was an error on their application. In my personal circumstances, I did not practise what I preached, and, therefore, I have had to wait an extra eight months to become a citizen.

To future applicants, wait a few weeks before applying!

 

[bestfriendever]

This happened to me. I was naive enough to apply on the day of my eligibility and 4 years later to see the judge, my application was denied.

Even the judge told me I should have waited a few more weeks to create a buffer - It was denied 4 years later.

 

[amazing21]

i got my citizenship without 1095 physical days , despite most people doubting my case…..anyway i believed my own case..thats all that matters..and i am now a canadian citizen

 

[annoying001]

my wife's case
http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/update-oath-letter-received-after-rq-t352612.0.html;msg4669204#msg4669204

around 20 days short, citizenship granted after RQ.

We made a terrible mistake on calculation when we summited the application and we can only consider us very very lucky. I definitely do not recommend others to do it intentionally, even if you have any good reasons, it's too risky.

 

[adzees]

I got my citizenship with 17 days of shortfall. I forgot to include one trip outside Canada, and only found about that during my interview. Recieved RQ and got invited for Oath ceremony after 5 months of submitting the RQ. It took 23 months for my case to process from the day i sent my application.
I also had 1 year of PRE-PR days credit toward my physical presence calculation

BUT I Strongly suggest NOT to applying with less than 1095 days (specially knowingly). You should always put 15-20 days buffer. I did too otherwise i would have been short by 32 days.

 

[dpenabill]

Congratulations for those reporting success.

And the reports are appreciated precisely because some do indeed assert there is no chance and those with a shortfall application should withdraw their application. Whereas these reports confirm that some shortfall applicants are still succeeding. There are probably thousands of shortfall applications still in the system.

Note, though, this issue is no longer about encouraging or discouraging anyone to apply with a shortfall. Last possibly successful shortfall application arrived at CIC on June 10, 2015. After June 10 there is NO doubt, NO shortfall applications.

Which means any one applying now should be absolutely certain about ALL travel dates, and still give themselves a significant margin. Any new application falling short by one day will for sure NOT be approved, because the law no longer allows for qualifying based on residency, but is specifically conditioned on actual presence.

For those with a shortfall application in process, submitted before June 11 this year, these reports offer some solace, some hope.

 

[kingadil]

I am coming back to this post after two years from creating it in 2015 to thank all those who advised me to wait which i did.

I applied under the new law in Jan 2017 and my file came back with incomplete when calling the call center they explained that it might be because you ticked on the wrong box in Language Evidence and they told me which box i should tick as me having the Canadian Benchmark assessment result. I did that and sent the application back on March 2017 but it was returned again. I called them and they explained that it should not have come back just send it again.

This time i decided to call one of the assessment centers and explained to them the issue and she easily explained to me that Canadian Benchmark assessment test are only accepted if you have completed a class with them, the other option is to take Ielts test or CLPIP.

If i would have known from the beginning i would have saved time and did the test

So i did the test, got the results and sent my application today, lets hope that it doesn't return again

 

[bluethoor]

Hello everyone,

I am new here, this is my first participation. I have a question for all. I applied for the citizenship in 2018 and I passed the test in 2019, in 2020, the immigration sent me a letter saying to me that they think I have only 1042 not 1095. they asked me for clarification. I sent mine in march 2020 and it has been 3 months so far and no response from them. I asked a lawyer and he advised me to withdraw the current application and submit a new one. I don't want to go through the process again especially before I receive the final decision from the immigration. what's your advise for me?