And when filling out the calculator, there is the portion where I fill out my status (eg visitor), from and to, and also the absence part. If I've come and gone over the course of the years, but always within the 6 month periods, would it make sense to put that I've held visitor status between first entry in 2017 and PR approval in 2020 and then just report all absence, or would I report each entry into Canada as a "new" visitor status entry.
To me it feels like both of them are kind of the same thing but opposite reporting, reporting I was in Canada with status, or out of Canada for a visit.
Example,
2017-10-01 - 2017-10-14 - Visited spouse in Canada
2017-12-01 - 2017-12-31 - Visited spouse in Canada
Would I put I held Visitor status between 2017-10-01 - 2020-01-01 (For example when I received PR) - and just report absence between 2017-10-14 - 2017-12-01? Or do I just report every time I renewed the visitor status, as well as every period I was not in the country?
Thanks
For dates of status, declare the dates stated in the visa you were issued.
And in travel history report ALL dates of entry and exit.
Longer Response If No Formal Visa Was Issued:
Since you do not mention the dates of a formal visa . . . If you were not issued a formal visa, which is typical for a short-term visitor carrying a visa-exempt passport,
be aware that your GCMS records might
NOT show you had Temporary Resident status.
Technically days IN Canada as a visitor should count toward meeting the grant citizenship actual physical presence requirement, whether a formal visa was issued or not. The problem appears to be the absence of sufficient proof of status if there was no formal visa issued. At least in some cases anyway.
The anecdotal reports seen in this forum indicate at least some applicants have had their application returned as insufficient to show physical presence if their presence calculation included periods of temporary residence not supported or documented in their GCMS records, and without counting that period of time the applicant was short of 1095 days.
I cannot offer personal advice. I am no expert. But it is fairly easy to see that the safe approach for the prospective citizenship applicant who was in Canada as a visitor, but not issued a formal visa, is to WAIT to apply so it does not matter whether he or she is given credit for that period of time. To my view, best to WAIT long enough to have a good margin over the minimum (a month or MORE, depending on individual circumstances) PLUS long enough to fully cover any period for which the applicant did not have a formally issued visa (including periods of implied status).
The easy way to calculate WHEN to apply, taking this into consideration, is to do ROUGH drafts of the presence calculation simply NOT including any potentially questionable period of time, and WHEN that calculation shows at least 1125 or so, or MORE days credit (1095 plus a margin of at least a month), then it is SAFE to apply.
THEN do the formal, to be submitted version of the presence calculation, including a totally, precisely accurate and complete accounting of ALL dates of entry into Canada and dates of exit from Canada for the full five year "eligibility period." Including the visitor days.
For dates of status, again those are the dates on the formally issued visas. For periods of time in Canada as a visitor without any formally issued visa, the dates of Temporary Resident status would be limited to the dates of actual presence, so each such period in Canada as a visitor will need to be entered separately. (A Foreign National who has not been issued a formal visa and is outside Canada does not have Temporary Resident status in Canada. So only days actually IN Canada are days the FN can be said to have Temporary Resident status.)
Some visa-exempt visitors are issued a Visitor's Record, which does document status. My sense is having a VR will increase the likelihood of actually getting credit for time in Canada, but the safe approach would still be to wait long enough to apply that such a period is fully covered even if those are not credited.
NOTE for emphasis (for forum participants and others who may be skeptical about the need to wait long enough to not rely on days with visitor status unless there was a formally issued visa):
There may be a tendency for some to hang their hat on what days SHOULD count, and thus apprehend that as long as the applicant was IN Canada with valid status, those days WILL COUNT. Again, this forum has seen a significant number of reports in which it did NOT work this way.
How things SHOULD work and how they ACTUALLY WORK are not always the same.
As long as the applicant was IN Canada with valid Temporary Resident status, the statutory provision prescribing the actual physical presence requirement TECHNICALLY provides that those days count . . . at the half-day credit rate.
What many appear to overlook, however, is that the applicant has the burden of proving ALL the requirements, and thus ALL the elements of each requirement. Days IN Canada do NOT count UNLESS the applicant proves actual presence those days AND the applicant proves having valid status those days, including valid Temporary Resident status those days the applicant declares presence in Canada as a Temporary Resident, visitor or otherwise.
It is clear that the very first screening of a newly submitted grant citizenship application includes a review of the applicant's GCMS records (in fact, while it was awhile ago, responses to ATI requests included information that a GCMS record check MUST be done each and every time any action is taken on a citizenship application). As I noted, this forum has seen numerous reports of applications returned which, so the reporting indicates, were returned because this or that period of time claimed by the applicant was NOT credited, and without those days the applicant fell short of meeting the requirement.
HOWEVER, we only see reports for a slim slice of all applications. It is possible many or even most such applications are NOT returned. That it is those who are surprised by their application being returned who come to a forum like this to report it and ask questions about it.
We have seen enough such reports, nonetheless, to recognize there is at least a very substantial risk IRCC will NOT give credit for those days. And, it makes sense. It makes sense that if the client's own GCMS records do not verify status, that falls short of the proof necessary (in the judgment of IRCC) to meet the burden of proving status.
Sure, someone could challenge this, but those kinds of cases tend to take at least twice as long as routine cases, and may take a lot longer than that.
