Hi All
Before becoming a PR, I’ve visited Canada a few times. I entered Canada on an electronic travel authorization.
is this considered ‘lawful authorization to enter Canada as a temporary resident’?
I was wondering if I could use these days as half day credits.
Thanks
Short answer: visitor days count, and the citizenship applicant should accurately report those in the presence calculation. However, unless formally documented (such as by a formal visitor visa or Visitor's Record),
it is better to wait to apply with enough other days (plus some) without counting those days.
Example: for a visa-exempt prospective applicant who spent two months in Canada as a casual visitor, no formal visa or Visitor's Record, before landing and becoming a PR, wait to be sure to have 1095 days credit (better to have 1125 or more days credit) as a PR to apply . . . but go ahead and report the 60 days presence as a visitor, which would count as 30 days credit, so as to have at least 1125 days credit. (Note: again, better to have at least a month more solid credit, so a total 1155 days credit in this approach.)
Work-around-approach: Do a draft of the physical presence calculator not including pre-PR visitor days. When that calculation shows the PR to meet the physical presence requirement (and again, my view is to even then wait another month), THEN do the formal presence calculation counting those days as a visitor and submit that.
Longer Explanation; Why (for those who are interested in what goes on under-the-hood)
:
Technically any days in Canada with any valid temporary resident status, within the five year eligibility period, "count" toward meeting the actual physical presence requirement. Days in Canada with visitor status are days in Canada with Temporary Resident Status.
Where a lot of people miss the boat regarding this is that it is also
the applicant's burden to prove both the fact that those days were physically present in Canada and that the non-PR had been granted temporary resident status for those days.
It is the latter that poses a problem if and when an applicant is relying on visitor days to count.
Holding a visa-exempt passport and eTA does not document (prove) actual visitor status was granted. It is not likely that the client's record will otherwise document a grant of visitor status. Thus, even though days in Canada with visitor status do count, if properly PROVEN, more than a few forum participants have reported what is actually fairly predictable: if those days make the difference between meeting and falling short of the presence requirement, the application is returned as incomplete for failing to meet the presence requirement.
It is not clear this is what always happens. And many visitors will have a GCMS client record that documents their status. For example, anyone issued a Visitor's Record. But there have been more than enough anecdotal reports of returned applications to caution prospective applicants to wait to apply with enough days that count to meet the minimum requirement without counting non-documented visitor days.
This is different from what is involved in the typical RQ-related processing, which is about proving presence during the days claimed to be in Canada. This can still be an issue, and indeed, since the visitor typically has no address in Canada, is not employed in Canada, and otherwise has ongoing residence status outside Canada (would not qualify for visitor status otherwise), the basic circumstances corroborating presence are largely absent, which rather obviously means IRCC will likely need to pursue additional inquiry to verify presence during those days. This aspect actually also applies to all periods of time in Canada as a visitor, even if documented by a formal visitor visa or Visitor's Record. So even these applicants would be prudent to wait longer to apply, even though they are not at risk (or at least not much risk) that the complete-application screening will result in not counting those days and the application being returned. There are exceptions of course. For example, a person who is a visitor to Canada staying with a Canadian (either PR or citizen) spouse settled in Canada pending a sponsored spouse PR application, for which there is typically ample corroborating evidence of both status and presence during that pre-PR period of time.
To understand why and how this happens it helps to recognize the extent to which IRCC relies on its own internal records to verify some of the applicant's information. Technically the burden of proof is on the applicant as to each and every element in the qualifying requirements. But if IRCC's internal records (which are mostly the client's personal records in GCMS) sufficiently document the information, IRCC does not make the applicant jump through technical hoops to prove that information. So when the applicant is issued a student or worker permit, that is well documented in GCMS, including the date of arrival. So the processing agent screening the application for completeness can readily verify the information about this pre-PR status by checking the applicant's GCMS record. In contrast, many visa-exempt visitors, including those with eTA arriving by air, are waived into Canada. The entry is typically recorded in the client's CBSA travel history, but that is not in GCMS. So there is no GCMS record verifying status. As a result, the forum has seen more than a few applicants relying on this time to barely meet the presence requirement end up having their application returned.
FURTHER, VERY TECHNICAL, and NOT worth it OPTION:
Applicants whose application has been returned as incomplete can make a request that IRCC process the application as-is. Reporting of this, including anecdotal reporting as well as actual cases seen in official sources, is at best scarce. There is a reason why: it is not worth it. If the applicant is qualified, the faster and easier approach is to resubmit the application completed to IRCC screening standards. And if the applicant is not qualified, then it would really be pointless.
But technically the applicant who was in Canada on visitor status within the eligibility period is entitled to credit for that time, subject to actually meeting the burden of proof, which again means proving BOTH that the applicant was present in Canada those days, and that the applicant had visitor status. Still NOT worth it. Still the faster and easier approach is to wait to apply without relying on that credit. Especially since pushing this probably risks aggravating the citizenship officer and processing agents who will be making decisions as the application proceeds; no stretch of imagination necessary to see this approach sliding deep into the slower and slower bin.
