There are a lot of accurate and informative observations already posted in response to the OP's situation and initial queries. (While I might quibble with some of the observations, overall most are responsive, accurate, and informative.)
For emphasis, the posts by
eileenf and
sjakub are worth paying particular attention to . . . much of which, respectively, has been said by others here as well (such as to forget the plane landing before midnight issue), but the posts by
eileenf and
sjakub combine and aptly state the most important observations.
My Observations (as I am wont to do, once again I am making a very long post):
It is simply not true that CIC instructed applicants to use their passports as the main source of information regarding absences.
I acknowledge that much of the information provided by CIC is flawed in one regard or another, that in particular there has been a blatant failure to give instructions which adequately inform CIC clients (PRs and such), particularly as to some critical aspects of residency under the old law. Confusion is common. A lot of the confusion is CIC's fault.
There never was, however, any confusion in the instructions regarding reporting travel abroad: the applicant for citizenship was clearly instructed to accurately declare his or her travel abroad. (Exception: pre-June 11 applicants did not need to declare U.S. trips if the return to Canada was the
same day, unless issued RQ.)
Assertions to the contrary are simply wrong. I say this understanding
baz and some others may continue to dispute this . . . but again CIC's instructions have always made it clear that the applicant is obligated to
fully and accurately declare all travel (with day-trip exception). CIC's online instructions, and CIC's instructions in the "Guide," and the online residency calculator instructions in particular, do
not and have
not (in at least more than a decade) offered suggestions about how the applicant acquires this information, let alone state that the passport is the "main source" for applicants. Rather, all these reiterated it was the applicant's obligation to report all travel.
It is possible that a CIC call centre representative said something along the lines
baz asserts was an instruction. It is quite likely this
instruction has been oft stated by a range of other people, from consultants to volunteers at a settlement centre, to online forum participants (including some here), among others. There are many sources this may have come from, but it did not come from CIC's instructions.
It is also true that in collateral sources (such as Federal Court decisions, internal memos at CIC, and perhaps even CIC FAQs about the
documents check interview), CIC has stated or is cited as stating something similar (similar but different in important respects): that in the process of
verifying residency, CIC relies on the applicant's passport(s) as their main source of information regarding absences . . . but this is about
verifying absences, about what
CIC does . . .
not about what sources applicants should use or rely upon.
To be clear, the main source of information about an applicant's travel, even for CIC, has long been the applicant's residency declaration. The instructions have long made it clear the applicant is obligated to declare
all travel in the relevant time period (with the previously noted day-trip exception, which is no longer an exception as day-trips too must now be declared). CIC's assessment of residency has long begun with the residency calculation declarations submitted by the applicant. CIC only goes to the passport in the
verification stage of assessing the applicant's qualifications (at interview and in assessing response to RQ). And for several years now, going back to 2012, CIC has actually relied more on the CBSA travel history as a primary source for
verification purposes, which is consulted by CIC in conjunction with reviewing the applicant's travel documents (which are typically the applicant's passport or passports).
It warrants remembering, moreover, all PRs are subject to the PR Residency Obligation, and are thus on notice from day one that they may need to account for all days they are in Canada, or out of Canada. The burden of proving compliance has always been on the PR. There should be NO surprise that a PR is expected to accurately account for dates of travel outside Canada.
How It Will Go For the OP's Application:
It is worth noting that how it will go for this application, for the OP, is a big
unknown. No one here can reliably predict the outcome. It appears to clearly be a shortfall case now. That's a problem. It appears to be a case involving discrepancies of significant concern to CIC. That might be a problem, depending on the nature and extent of the discrepancies, and other factors. It appears to be a case in which CIC might have concerns, even overt doubts, about the applicant's residency during an extended period of self-employment. Regarding the period of unemployment, depending on the overall impression the Citizenship Officer has of the applicant, and the applicant's credibility in particular, this may or may not be a serious issue and problem . . . a lot depends of course on the extent to which the response to RQ sufficiently documented place of abode, activity, presence, other indications of living in Canada, for that period of time . . . and, of course, on CIC's perception of the OP's credibility.
In this regard, in how this is likely to go, there is an aspect of some earlier observations I do quibble with, and that has to do with the role of
luck; luck has very little to do with how these things go. Yes, luck can play a role in a close call case, but few cases are really a close call. All the facts and circumstances of the case, how the applicant responded to the RQ, what evidence the applicant submitted to support and corroborate the applicant's account of the facts, and especially the standing of the applicant's credibility with CIC, will be far more influential than luck in determining whether it is a close call case and how it goes.
Thus, let me be clear about the real issue in this particular case, in the OP's case, about what really matters. It is
not about whether the OP was actually present 1095 or 1093 or 1091 days during the relevant time period. An APP shortfall by two or four days may very well become the specific factual finding which is cited in denying the application, but in practical terms that is not what is going to determine the outcome of the application.
Indeed, as suggested by
CanV,
sirine1,
adzees, and
ashirale, if CIC concludes the OP made a simple, minor mistake (or two) but was nonetheless actually present for at least 1091 days, and CIC has little or no doubt about the OP's credibility, no doubts about the genuineness of the OP's application and account of the facts,
the odds are GOOD that a Citizenship Officer will approve the application and the next thing that happens is the oath is scheduled. (Notwithstanding a two or four day shortfall.)
So what really matters, for this specific case, is whether or not CIC (as decided by the responsible Citizenship Officer)
believes the OP and is satisfied the OP otherwise reported all absences and otherwise had a life well-established in Canada.
Again, no one can reliably predict how this will go. There are so many factors which can influence the view CIC takes, even as to the applicant's credibility alone, it is impossible to do more than highlight some factors which might make the difference. Obviously, though, some factors loom larger than others, and the nature and extent of identified discrepancies are factors which loom rather large in this.
Self-favouring interpretations; analysis:
What follows is more for illustrative purposes than it is about the OP's case; this is about the more general, and extremely common mistake, the mistake of approaching this process without stepping back and being objective, without examining things from the perspective of a total stranger. There are aspects of the OP's report which illustrate this mistake particularly well.
I acknowledge that aspects of CIC's information and instructions contribute to this problem. This has been particularly so relative to the residency requirement under the pre-June 11 requirements, CIC failing to communicate the importance of the applicant's burden to show the applicant was actually physically present at least 1095 days, to show this with, in effect, no doubts about it.
But, the number of PRs who wander into the morass more or less willfully blind is huge. Many, perhaps most, appear to be qualified, and among those who might not be qualified, many could have saved themselves aggravation, if not grief, by just waiting another month to apply.
At the risk of being overly repetitive, here are some particular quotes from the OP's situation which, I think, illustrate this:
baz said:
:
". . . I argued that even though I crossed the border after midnight, my plane landed in Canada before midnight"
baz said:
"The instructions at the time specifically said to use your passport as your main source of information for declaring your trips, and this is what I did."
" . . . all the [trips other than the one not declared] having stamps in my passport on entry to Canada."
" . . . let me elaborate why I claim I was two days short instead of four days short. On two occasions, my airplane landed in Canada before midnight. However, I passed through CBSA after midnight. I have airplane tickets to to prove this."
"The reason why I am a little angry is that I suspected that something like this could happen, and I wanted to get the CBSA reports before I submitted. Only, the form discourages this. It says in bold: 'Do not request the CBSA reports, rather give us permission to do this on your behalf'."
baz said:
" . . . For your information, I did not only use my passport for declaring absences, I used many other sources."
(
emphasis added))
It should be easy to see where this is going:
-- Relied on the passport for information about absences . . . except not really, actually used
"many other sources."
-- Reliance on passport because of CIC's instruction . . . except for knowing enough otherwise to apprehend possibility of omitting a trip, and aware of the inadequacy of relying on the passport to the point of
wanting to obtain a CBSA report.
-- Reliance on passport as the main source of information . . . except recognition of the importance of the CBSA travel history and giving CIC authorization to access that information directly.
-- Reliance on passport as the main source of information . . . except on two occasions declared return to Canada
day before passport stamp, the declaration based on plane landing prior to midnight.
I am afraid this appears to be more in the vein of a lawyer engaging in cross-examination, focusing on picayune details. However, I do not mean to put so much emphasis on any of these details or these observations, nor even on them in total.
I am trying to focus on
why applicants make these kinds of mistakes. These are easy to make. They are, however, also easy to avoid.
These mistakes are generally rooted in looking at things from a what-is-favourable-to-the-applicant perspective. That perspective is generally consistent with how CIC personnel see
routine cases in which there are no omissions, no discrepancies, no gaps, no circumstances indicating
a-reason-to-question-residency. But once something triggers a concern or question, CIC is no longer looking at the facts or circumstances to find what supports the applicant's case. CIC will no longer be looking at things from a what-is-favourable-to-the-applicant perspective. CIC will be looking for inconsistencies, discrepancies, gaps, incongruities, anomalies. Everyone who applies is at risk for this happening (this is one of those aspects which can be affected by luck, as in who ends up under the microscope, so to say).
Way, way better to go into the process covering all the bases from a potentially skeptical perspective, aware of how a total stranger bureaucrat might see things and react to them. Not easy to take off the self-favouring glasses and see things through a more critical view, but anyone dealing with any bureaucracy is typically better off taking this approach . . . let alone dealing with a massive bureaucracy like CIC.
For example, it is readily apparent a stranger bureaucrat is going to notice a reported date of return a day earlier than the passport stamp (and/or corresponding CBSA record in travel history) and count that as a discrepancy. The applicant who wants to argue he or she is entitled to an additional day, based on when the plane's wheels touched tarmac in Canada, is picking a fight with very, very little to gain. Clue: picking a fight with a bureaucracy rarely goes in any direction other than
not-good, and picking a fight with little or nothing to gain is downright stupid. (I hope no one attempts to argue that declaring the date based on the plane landing before midnight was intended to be more precisely accurate . . . that will not fly.)
For another example, those PRs who figured out early that they should keep precise logs or a journal or other form of records for their travels, usually also recognized the importance of the actual date of exit and date of entry. For those who did not figure this out early, and were left scrambling later to reconstruct their travel history, there was nonetheless no doubt: residency was mostly, if not entirely, dependent on days present in Canada versus days absent from Canada. An actual, accurate accounting of absences is critical. Whatever instructions are referenced, the overall message in the instructions was clear: report all travel, report all absences.
Reconstructing a complex history involving frequent travel and without contemporaneously made records is, of course, difficult. It is usually easy to recall more significant or out-of-the-ordinary trips, like a trip abroad to interview with a prospective employer or to visit a seriously ill family member, but individuals who travel often but without keeping a record of their travel are definitely at a serious disadvantage. Reconstructing a history of frequent travel without complete records is simply a nightmare.
But frequent travelers, at least those who give any consideration at all to the task CIC has in verifying the qualifications of those applying for citizenship, should readily recognize that accurate and complete records for them are particularly important: frequent travel is evidence of continuing ties abroad, and having continuing ties abroad is a rather obvious reason why CIC might further scrutinize an applicant's residency.
Regarding the prospective applicant who discovers late that it was important to record dates of travel, and who (for whatever reason, but especially if there was frequent travel or other indications of continuing ties outside Canada) realizes he or she is having difficulty reconstructing the dates of travel,
it warrants remembering the burden of proof is on the applicant AND odds are now high that unreported trips or errors will be noticed by CIC. No advanced degrees in engineering or formal logic are necessary for someone in that position to recognize the potential problems in making an application containing omissions or errors. No aptitude for rocket science or expertise in political science is necessary for such an individual to be aware how important it is to get the information right
before applying, which for some PRs means not applying until they do get it right. The prospective applicant always has the prerogative to wait longer before applying (for reference, I waited well more than a year beyond the date I passed the 1095 day APP threshold . . . acknowledging I had personal reasons for doing so).
All these observations come back to a common thread: recognizing that the primary responsibility for establishing the facts, the full and complete and accurate facts, belongs to the applicant, and considering what is involved in CIC's task to verify qualification for citizenship. That is, trying to look at things through other than one's own prism, trying to see what may be necessary to prove the case to a stranger.
There is a widespread impression that PRs are entitled to the grant of citizenship once they meet the statutorily prescribed qualifications . . . but this view often overlooks the overriding importance of the procedural requirements: the applicant must make the application establishing qualifications for citizenship, remain qualified for citizenship while the application is pending,
prove qualification if requested to do so, and affirmatively take the oath. No matter how long the PR lived in Canada, how thoroughly settled in Canada, a failure to meet any of these procedural requirements precludes the grant of citizenship.
Many of those denied citizenship were not denied because they were not qualified. They were denied because they failed to prove they were qualified. The Federal Court decisions are full of such cases. Many of them may have, in fact, met the qualifications . . . except that most important one, the requirement to prove qualification if requested. That is how the process works.
Best to take stock of this up front and approach the process fully cognizant of the burden to prove qualification. Appearances matter. Context matters. The applicant's credibility matters big, big time. Sure, the applicant must meet the prescribed requirements, but the applicant who overlooks or disregards appearances, impressions, context, and most of all factors affecting CIC's assessment of credibility, does so at his or her peril.
Additional observation re sources for declaring travel:
There are no government records an applicant can rely upon in making the declarations of travel. Never were. Even CBSA reports are not necessarily complete. Passports are often not stamped. (Even when they are stamped, for some reason many applicants will report the date of exit as the date stamped for entry into another country even if they took a red-eye flight and thus actually left Canada the day before, even if they crossed the Pacific and thus the International Date line and it was two days before . . . the date of exit is the date of
exit, the date the PR crossed the
imaginary line at the POE . . . not the date the plane lifted off the tarmac . . . not the date the plane arrived abroad.)
The most reliable source of dates of travel are those records the applicant keeps for himself or herself. I discussed the problem of reconstructing travel dates in the long narrative above. A real nightmare for any frequent traveler who does not have his own records. Such an applicant might consider waiting long enough to apply to be certain to have an accurate and complete accounting of travel to submit to CIC. The PR, after all, can always wait to apply later, when
both qualified and prepared to prove qualification. The Federal Court decisions are rife with cases in which the applicant should have done precisely that.
