As noted in my previous post . . .
THIS BRINGS ME TO AN IMPORTANT CAVEAT AND AN EVEN MORE IMPORTANT CAUTION:
The caveat: No one wants to get bogged down in a full blown "presence-case." There are some situations, fairly rare situations, in which an applicant may want to stick it out, but generally even if the applicant has a fair chance of ultimately persuading a CJ to find the facts in his or her favour and get a grant of citizenship, at least as often as not it would be prudent, and probably faster, to withdraw and re-apply (this depends, of course, on the applicant not only continuing to be qualified but the intervening time helping to make the case stronger). Just getting RQ does NOT mean it is a full blown "presence-case." Most applicants issued RQ, qualified applicants, can and should simply make an appropriately responsive submission including relevant documents supporting their case and wait to see how it goes. Many do not take terribly much longer. But most applicants know what their situation is and whether there are likely to be contested issues, whether their current application has real problems, and thus most should be able to make a reasonable decision about whether to stick it out or not. In particular, most applicants should be able to objectively assess their situation and apprehend whether or not it would be prudent to withdraw and re-apply or to at least go through the RQ process to the next step before making such a decision. That noted, the applicant should, probably, either respond to the RQ or include, with the request to withdraw, an explanation why, to in effect communicate a mistake was made . . . which brings up the more serious side of this, a caution . . .
THE CAUTION: Potential Allegation of Misrepresentation
This is the more important aspect to consider for an applicant who has submitted a presence calculation which IRCC identifies as not only containing inaccuracies or omissions, but which involves the difference between claiming to meet the presence requirement and upon correction falling way short of the minimum requirement.
I cannot guess whether the trucker-applicant here has reason to be concerned about this. So far as anecdotal reporting and even the Federal Court decisions go, it appears that IRCC is generally NOT particularly strict let alone aggressive in making allegations of presence-fraud based on discrepancies between an applicant's original presence calculation and a corrected calculation. In particular, it appears that IRCC will not pursue a formal allegation of misrepresentation unless IRCC perceives the applicant has deliberately engaged in overt deception.
BUT the vast majority of reports relative to this have involved discrepancies in the range of weeks or a few months. A difference of more than six months (going from claiming 1096 days to only 900 days, more than 190 days fewer, for example) probably elevates the risks at least some.
I cannot guess how much risk there is for an applicant whose actual presence is six months or more less than that claimed in the application. I can forecast that there are various factors which can affect the risks, some increasing the risk substantially, some tending to reduce or mitigate the risks. Obviously, factors tending to indicate deliberate omissions will have a more negative influence. Factors tending to illustrate an innocent misunderstanding should favour the applicant.
BUT the risk is enough that an applicant faced with a large difference between what was first declared, and what the facts are, should at least think about this and perhaps be sure to make it clear to IRCC that a MISTAKE was made, not a deliberate misrepresentation.
It is the potential consequence which elevates the importance of this. If IRCC denies the application for misrepresentation that results in a five year prohibition, meaning the individual would not be eligible to re-apply for citizenship for another full five years. Not a matter to trifle with.
