Hello everyone,
In regards to the 1095 physical presence requirement, these are to have occurred on the 5 years prior to the APPLICATION DATE
(
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/canadian-citizenship/grant/residence/calculate-physical-presence.html).
That is clear.
However, I wonder if throughout the entire process the 1095 days in the last 5 years rule is (or can be) re-assessed. For example, will an official, on the day of the oath, look back in the 5 years prior to THE DATE OF OATH to be sure you still have 1095 days?
I believe the entire process is based on the physical presence calculation made on the application date but am not entirely sure.
This is important for people who, for example, travel frequently, had its process exceeding normal processing times or accepted a job contract outside Canada after the citizenship application.
The relevant time period for some citizenship requirements is fixed as of the date the application is made, which is the date the application and presence calculation are signed (so long as the application is timely received by IRCC; it has not been "CIC" since 2015).
The minimum actual physical presence in Canada requirement is one of these, the date the application is made (signed) fixes the five year "eligibility period" during which a total of 1095 days actual presence in Canada is required. This does not change no matter how long the application is in process.
Staying in Canada after applying does NOT, cannot, add any days to this calculation.
Spending time outside Canada after applying will NOT deduct any days from this calculation.
BUT if your query is really about whether or not, and if so how, extensive travel outside Canada after applying might affect things, that is a much broader and more complicated issue than just the actual physical presence requirement and its calculation.
It is also an issue which involves practical RISKS as well as potential requirements issues. The practical RISKS probably loom larger for most applicants who are abroad for extended periods of time after applying (for example, logistics related to getting notices and appearing for events on time, and such, loom particularly large). These have been addressed in numerous topics where leaving Canada after applying is discussed.
The most significant, although not common, requirement-issue is probably PR Residency Obligation compliance. The citizenship applicant must, of course, continue to be in compliance with the PR RO right up to the day the oath is taken. Thus, for example, there have been cases in the past where the PR has been mostly abroad after applying, returning to Canada for test and interview, and then again for the oath, but upon arrival at the PoE to return to Canada to attend the PR's scheduled oath ceremony, is REPORTED for a breach of the PR RO, which automatically means the individual is PROHIBITED. NO oath. PR status itself LOST unless the Report is appealed and that appeal is won.
THIS HAS NOT BEEN MUCH OF A PROBLEM LATELY. But given the somewhat recent increase in processing time lines, in conjunction with the extent to which PRs abroad have pursued citizenship given the changes which took effect in October 2017, it seems likely a significant number of applicants may be at RISK of remaining outside Canada long enough, after applying, to potentially be in breach of the RO, thus at risk for being Reported, and instead of becoming a citizen, losing their PR status.
THIS AFFECTS ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE (which adds up, however, to a significant number of applicants), and is mostly limited to applicants who are living abroad after applying or who spend most of the time abroad after applying, AND even then, it depends on how much the PR was in Canada during the periods three and four years prior to the application.
As long as the processing time is LESS than a year, this is NOT a potential problem since the maximum number of days absent in the preceding five years can only increase by 365 days (over the number of days absent in the five years preceding the date the application was made). That is: It is NOT arithmetically possible to breach the obligation to be in Canada 730 days within the preceding five years, if one year prior to that the individual was IN Canada 1095 days during five years preceding that day . . . again, at the most being absent the full year could result in a net loss of just 365 days, still leaving 730 days present in Canada.
BUT as the processing timeline has gotten longer, and more than a few are now approaching a year and a half processing time line, for those spending most of the time abroad (after applying), the PR Residency Obligation calculation may again loom problematically. (The older cases I referenced, for example, largely occurred during the Harper years when processing times often exceeded TWO years, and for more than a few exceeded THREE years, many approaching and some going beyond four years.)
ANOTHER REASON TO PAY ATTENTION TO THIS GOING FORWARD: SIGNS ARE THERE WILL BE A CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT WITH THIS YEAR'S FEDERAL ELECTION.
Any applicant who is at risk for NOT reaching the oath before late in the year, AND who is living or working abroad (that is, spending most of their time abroad), would be prudent to exercise some caution in regard to how much they stay abroad. NOTE, a new government does not need to actually change the law for there to be a big impact on those within this somewhat small group of applicants.
EXPLANATION:
One of the key provisions in the law repealed by the Liberal government was the "intent to continue residing in Canada" requirement. Many, indeed most by a big margin, misunderstood the real meaning and import of that requirement that Harper's government added (and which, again, the Liberal government repealed). Its primary focus was aimed at the so-called "
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport" applicant. That provision gave the government grounds to deny any applicant who at any time after applying was perceived to be living outside Canada (one cannot intend to continue living in Canada unless one is actually living in Canada).
This was part of the Harper government's overall effort to discourage those considered or perceived to be "
seeking-a-passport-of-convenience."
BUT long before the "intent to continue residing in Canada" requirement was added, CIC (as it was named prior to the name change in 2015) was screening applicants and more skeptically approaching those perceived to be "
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport" or "
seeking-a-passport-of-convenience." There were many suggestions, to some extent circumstantially corroborated indications, that CIC may have been subjecting such applicants to additional screening that deliberately delayed processing long enough to test whether the applicant might breach the PR RO before reaching the oath stage.
If for example there is a Conservative government taking office later in the year, there is a significant likelihood IRCC could return to similar policies and practices, such that applicants perceived to be "
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport" or "
seeking-a-passport-of-convenience" face higher hurdles, longer timelines, and perhaps some overt obstacles for those spending long periods of time abroad deliberately making it difficult for them to reach the oath without running afoul of the PR RO.
There are a LOT of IFs in this. Some big MAYBEs. Biggest MAYBE depends on who wins this year's Federal election. And even if it is the Conservatives, who knows, maybe the next Conservative government will not be so hostile toward globally-mobile immigrants as the Harper government was. BUT ANYONE APPLYING THIS YEAR, and is planning to be abroad extensively after applying, should NOT take for granted that current policies and practices will continue after the Federal election later in the year.
