I have one more question about #9(b).
I was wondering if it would be ok if there were any missing days or period of time regarding the question 9(b)-that is, it would be ok if I leave gaps between the visas that I have had?
According to the physical presence calculator, my total physical presence in Canada is 1,361. I didn’t include any periods for the implied status when I calculated my physical presence in Canada. Then, when it comes to question 9(b), I don’t have to explain why there were gaps between work visa and student visa: implied status?
I am no expert.
Some observations:
For item 9.b. (in CIT 0002 (12-2019) version), I am not sure what you mean by "missing days or period of time" . . . if status expired prior to an extension or renewal of that status, it ended when it expired. So you report the date that status was obtained or became effective in one column and the date that status expired or ended in the other column. What's missing?
As for "gaps" it appears you are referring to the period of time between the date status expired for one line in the 9.b. chart and the start date (date status was obtained or became effective) for a different status listed in another row in that chart, when the second status did not begin immediately after the prior status expired. No, there is no need to explain any such gap. The explanation is actually obvious: the prior status expired and you did not obtain status again until the date listed for obtaining the status described in the next row.
Of course this leads back to emphasizing that I am NOT an expert. But perhaps even an expert would have difficulty saying how a processing agent will react if and when the processing agent compares information in 9.b. with information in your address and work/school history, and recognizes that you remained in Canada during a period of time you did not have temporary resident status, and even worked or attended courses during such a period of time, or did the latter when you only had visitor status. As I previously noted, being in Canada without status, and even working or attending classes without proper status, is CURED by leaving Canada or legitimately obtaining status. So the WORST effect this could have is it might suggest, to some processing agent, there is reason to more closely review your record and information. Which even if this happens is no big deal assuming (1) you have not made any material misrepresentations to IRCC along the way, (2) you accurately and completely provided the information requested, and (3) that information shows you in fact have met the requirements for citizenship. Which is how it is for the vast, vast majority of applicants. No need to worry.
BUT it is highly unlikely a processing agent will so much as blink even if the processing agent takes note that you remained in Canada during some period of time without status or attended classes when you only had visitor status. Because these circumstances present no reason for concern, and especially not in the context of a Permanent Resident applying for citizenship.
Sure, I can see the scenario rattling the sentiments of those who want to see hyper-technical enforcement of the rules (many of whom are selective about which rules, tending to not include rules they have not so diligently and precisely followed in their lives), but that perspective tends to distort the rules, since it is very much part of the rules, for example, that an overstay is CURED when a Foreign National leaves Canada or otherwise obtains status. Similar to when a PR remains outside Canada so long as to be in breach of the PR Residency Obligation, if the PR returns to Canada and stays long enough to get into compliance that totally CURES the RO breach (does not cure a Report for Inadmissibility which resulted in a Removal Order, but even in that situation the time in Canada after returning can be a positive H&C factor helping the PR make the case he or she should be allowed to keep status despite the breach).
I recognize that some Canadians sincerely advocate very strict enforcement of the rules without having an anti-immigrant agenda, my spouse is among those with such a view while generally very much in favour of Canada encouraging immigration here. That said, internet commentary, particularly the more zealous commentary, advocating very strict enforcement of these kinds of rules (such as out-of-status presence), tends to be rooted in an anti-immigrant view, and apart from the outright bots and trolls, often appears to be rather American in its origins. Not all, but that tends to be the direction those winds are blowing from.
Anyway, yeah, admitting to a previous overstay, for example, might feel like admitting to an old crime or at least having done something wrong. That is not how Canada's immigration law and policy are structured. And sure, some Canadian officials can be a bit uneasy about more obvious deviations from the rules. Been there. Done that. I let my last visitor record expire (a long time ago now) after I was issued my PR visa, staying in Canada a few more months until I went to the border to flagpole and land. (I had reasons for not landing sooner, a tangent not worth addressing here.) And yeah, when I pulled up to the PIL booth, and the PIL officer scanned my passport into the system, she hesitated a long moment plus several, and I said I was there to do my PR landing, she fumbled awhile longer and then spoke to someone in the office before giving me the referral to go inside to complete my landing. It was very obvious she recognized I had just left Canada months after my status in Canada had otherwise expired. And that she was uncomfortable with that, with me just turning around and entering Canada again. Probably aggravated by some older FOSS notes in my record (long story not worth telling, just to note that over the years I obtained more than a little experience being closely examined in Secondary). I was not surprised. Nor concerned. I understood the rules fairly well, at least well enough to know my overstay was not a problem. Once inside, the officers in Secondary were more than friendly, and congratulated me on becoming a Canadian. It was a great experience. Not quite as exhilarating as the experience of taking the oath for Canadian citizenship, five years later, but definitely one of the highlights of my long life.
