My spouse’s online application’s returned with the reason that the time in Canada prior to becoming PR cannot be confirmed.
Here’s the timeline:
3/17/2020- Entered Canada as Visitor accompanying PR
5/15/2020- applied for inland spousal PR along with Open work permit
8/19/2020- applied for visitor record
12/16/2020- OWP approved and so we withdrew visitor record
3/15/2021- visitor record app withdrawal successful
4/20/2021- became landed PR inside Canada.
so when completing the Physical presence, in the initial submission we have split temporary residence to two sections:
Visitor- 3/17/2020 till 12/15/2020
Temporary foreign worker- 12/16/2020 till 4/19/2021
But the app was returned
so we resubmitted it with physical presence section for temporary residence updated as below:
Visitor-3/17/2020 till 12/15/2020
Extension- 12/16/2020 till 4/19/2021.
Not sure if this is the correct way. Did anyone go through similar path or had a similar issue? How were you able to navigate through this?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
No similar experience and I am not an expert.
But I have discussed similar scenarios many times in this forum, and gone into some depth explaining. I am feeling a bit lazy this morning, too lazy to look up my other posts, so if you are interested in the longer explanations you will need to go looking for my posts about this.
Basically it is about IRCC records not verifying the applicant's visitor status, so those days not getting credit. The problem is the burden of proving temporary resident status
is on the applicant. It appears that IRCC's GCMS records for the client (your spouse) do not document some, or perhaps all of the period of time the client was in Canada with visitor status.
Yes, visitor status is temporary resident status, and counts. If the evidence and information verifies the dates the applicant had visitor status.
So, again, the problem is the burden of proof is on the applicant. Which most pay no attention to because it is generally sufficient for the applicant to simply report when status was granted, and then it is then verified in GCMS records. For example, this should work for getting credit for the period on an OWP, since that status was formally granted and should be sufficiently verified by GCMS records.
When there is no formal grant of status (like a visitor with a visa exempt passport who is waived through the Port-of-Entry without being issued a formal Visitor Record), or in some circumstances involving implied status, the client's GCMS records might not verify the client actually had temporary resident status. If GCMS does not verify the applicant's pre-PR temporary resident status, there is a real risk IRCC will NOT count those days.
Feedback from forum participants with personal experience is too limited, too sparse, to illuminate the full parameters of this, to enable us to figure out all the angles involved.
My sense is the prudent approach is to
wait to apply for citizenship NOT relying on that period of time counting . . . still include it in the application when it is made, but only make the application AFTER the applicant has enough days in Canada to meet the presence requirement without counting those days.
It may be possible to contest what amounts to a rejection of the application, more or less demanding that IRCC process the application and give credit for the period of time as, essentially, a non-documented visitor. Probably requires a paper application with a supplemental submission (some refer to this as a Letter of Explanation). I am not sure this will work, but in theory it should have a chance. Even if it does work, however, it likely makes it a "
complex" case which will almost certainly put the application into a non-routine residence case processing stream. That means a much longer processing timeline can be expected.
Leading back to the prudence of simply waiting to apply not relying on credit for that period of time. Here, for example, the maximum credit that could possibly be gained from the period prior to 12/16/2020 is approximately 135 days (half day credit for the approximately 270 days between mid-March 2020 to mid-December 2020). So, the prospective applicant can:
-- Wait five or five and a half more months, adding another 150 to 165 more days to the presence calculation, to cover the 135 days claim for visitor days credit plus a good margin.
Or,
-- Pursue the effort to compel IRCC to give those visitor days credit, more or less litigating the issue, and hope IRCC is persuaded without too much delay in non-routine processing, at the risk it is denied, or delayed for many, many months, potentially for years if it goes to a Citizenship Judge hearing
Odds are better the prospective applicant takes the oath significantly sooner following the first option, waiting five or so months to make the application, but by doing that making an application that sails smoothly through the process rather getting bogged down in non-routine processing.
Observation About Online versus Paper Applications:
I am not certain, but based on pilot projects for other types of IRCC applications, starting around 2018, there is some likelihood that online applications are initially screened by an automated decision making process employing advanced analytics and machine learning. Yeah, AI. Based on the decision-hierarchy in the pilot projects, if this has been adopted for citizenship applications (someone should do the ATI requests to learn more . . . I am too old and tired), the online application criteria is probably more strict, as to what meets the requirements for a complete application, and as to what will avoid complex case processing (which is significant for anyone trying to avoid lengthy delays in processing timelines).
Again, I am not at all sure about this, but it is quite likely that anyone with any complicating factors should go the paper application route . . . and I am also not sure to what extent claiming pre-PR credit might constitute a complicating factor, EXCEPT, claiming credit for days the client's status in Canada was non-documented or implied appears to be a complicating factor and, in some circumstances, at risk for not being given credit.
