This post by canadavisa says there are exceptional circumstances that judges could consider.
https://www.canadavisa.com/canadian-citizenship-the-1095-day-rule.html
- The applicant's overall pattern of physical presence in Canada indicates that he or she returns home to Canada, and does not merely "pay a visit" to Canada.
- Despite repeated absences, the total number of days absent from Canada are relatively few.
- The physical absence from Canada is caused by a clearly temporary situation such as employment or study abroad for a limited period of time.
- The quality of the applicant's connection with Canada is more substantial than that which exists with any other country, as reflected by the applicant's involvement in Canadian work and business ventures, community organizations, and payment of Canadian income tax."
Wouldn't the fact that i have been here since i was 17yrs(i am 35 now) away from my family count towards quality of connection as mentioned above?
i spoke to a Cohen lawyer and they said it wouldn't work so i guess i'm just gonna suck it up and wait another 2 yrs
As others have said, in their various ways (including this site's hosts) and persuasively, forget trying to apply for a grant of citizenship without meeting the physical presence requirement.
I hope our hosts revise their web page information about eligibility for citizenship accordingly.
Beyond that . . . by way of explanation, with some history:
Dare I be so bold and impolite as to challenge our hosts here? Apparently no need to do that; their advice too is no go (according to the OP). So the challenge goes to whoever is responsible for the "
special circumstances" discretion misstatement on the web site . . . which, perhaps (and hopefully), will be rectified soon.
For purposes of the query and the OP here, the question is resolved. No doubt. No special circumstances relief for those who fall short of meeting the physical presence requirement.
For purposes of explaining for anyone still wondering and interested . . . .
For any PR who does not have a citizenship application already in progress that was made before June 10, 2015, the law is clear and NO, Citizenship Judges do NOT have discretion to "
bend" the 1095 days physical presence requirement.
In a very narrow sense the "
exceptional circumstances" information posted by our hosts is valid, but only applicable to anyone who applied for citizenship prior to June 10, 2015 and whose application is still pending (do not dismiss the prospect there are citizenship applications made more than nine years ago still in process -- just last year the Federal Court finally ordered IRCC to finalize an application for citizenship that had been pending for more than TWO DECADES . . . yeah, more than twenty years).
That information, as posted by our hosts, is badly misleading since there is nothing to indicate the "
exceptional circumstances" discretion Citizenship Judges had under prior law (when there was a "
residency" rather than physical presence requirement) does NOT apply to citizenship applications made since June 10, 2015 (when the residency requirement was repealed and replaced by a physical presence requirement), including applications made under current law (subject to the 3/5 presence requirement).
Just how misleading is aggravated by the representation this web page was updated as recently as March 2023, as if it represents recent and current rules. Moreover, there is another
web page about eligibility for citizenship where our hosts outright misstate the eligibility requirements. There, on a page also purportedly updated March 2023, it states:
You must have lived in Canada for at least three years (1,095 days) out of the past five years before applying for Canadian citizenship (unless there are exceptional circumstances).
For adults to be eligible for a grant of citizenship, currently, there is no "
unless there are exceptional circumstances" exception to the 1,095 days within five years physical presence requirement. (The residency requirement for which CJs had exceptional circumstances discretion, allowing the grant of citizenship to applicants who were not physically present at least 1,095 days, was a 3/4 rule interpreted and applied in different ways by different CJs and different FC justices (a real mess for a long time, until 205), requiring
residency (so not necessarily physical presence) for . . . at least three years under the most liberal interpretations, or four years according to Justice Reed and his decision in Koo.)
For further explanation as to why it is so obvious that the exceptional circumstances discretion posted by our hosts is actually about the residency requirement, under previous law, see below.
Section 5(4) applications for a grant of citizenship:
That said, there has been too much misleading buzz lately about the prospect of making a Section 5(4) application for a grant of citizenship which does not require physical presence in Canada, let alone providing discretion to "
bend" the 1,095 day presence requirement. It appears that this buzz is largely derived from reddit discussions, and, I suspect, is perhaps fueled by unauthorized con-consultants trolling for easy marks.
Section 5(4) in the Citizenship Act provides:
Despite any other provision of this Act, the Minister may, in his or her discretion, grant citizenship to any person to alleviate cases of statelessness or of special and unusual hardship or to reward services of an exceptional value to Canada.
The part of this provision getting attention (and there have been waves of this in the past) is its authorization of discretion in the Minister (not CJs) to grant citizenship to alleviate cases "
of special and unusual hardship." On its face that looks like a big, wide open door, and maybe like
exceptional circumstances. Historically, and most likely still (contrary to reddit spill into this forum), that's a narrow path and damn tough hill to climb.
Since we currently live in a world in which scores and scores tend to claim special and unusual, or undue hardship, if inconvenienced, or even if they do not get what they want and get it soon, it appears many are seeing this as a way to apply for and be granted Canadian citizenship. I do not mean to dismiss sincere and legitimate applications for citizenship on this basis (it appears there has been an increase in these grants recently, but in situations where there is indeed special and unusual hardship, including grants to children born to a Canadian citizen but excluded from citizenship by the first-generation-limitation (FGL) where the individual is dealing with hardships and needs citizenship without waiting for upcoming changes in FGL rules pursuant to which they will become citizens by operation of law, as of their birth to a Canadian citizen parent -- as of their birth, but not yet, with when currently undetermined although a March deadline is rapidly approaching).
But there is little evidence to support the suggestions in other threads here that this approach is an easy, alternative path to citizenship.
And it is NOT what our hosts' website is referencing in the information about "
exceptional circumstances" discretion. Leading to . . .
. . . source for the list of exceptional circumstances, which is no mystery . . . to be continued . . .
