Some clarifications, observations, and cautions:
(regarding shortfall applications)
Clarification:
Applying with less than 1095 days is something they will allow in cases where you clearly live in Canada but are unable to clock the required days of physical presence.
Probably well understood that this is no longer true, but given that this was recently stated in present tense, it needs to be made clear this no longer applies. Any possibility of being granted citizenship based on applying with less than 1095 days is limited to applications submitted prior to June 11, 2015.
Observation:
The outcome of individual cases indicates a
possible outcome, not necessarily a likely outcome, let alone a
probable outcome. One person's success offers another hope, but is not really much of an indicator as to how it will go for another shortfall applicant. Similarly, one person's denial does not mean there is no chance of success for another.
It should be widely understood by now that
shortfall applications have a high risk of denial. This does not mean all
shortfall applicants will be denied. Indeed, as noted above, there are reports of some being successful. But it does mean that the odds are not good.
What makes the biggest difference is rooted in the particular facts and circumstances of the individual case. These vary greatly. Thus the ultimate outcome of these cases varies greatly.
Caution:
Even just two days short can be fatal, can result in the denial of the application.
Indeed, even if a CJ approves a shortfall applicant, CIC can appeal, and has appealed many CJ decisions to grant citizenship.
There is in fact a very recent case in which the applicant
fell just two days short, the CJ approved citizenship, but CIC successfully appealed.
In his decision, Justice Michel Shore concluded "The Court observes that the Respondent may re-apply for citizenship if she so wishes."
This is a July 2015 decision (but only just recently published) by Justice Shore regarding
an appeal by the Minister regarding Venera Demurova. It illustrates the observation I made above about the effect that particular factors and circumstances can have.
It also illustrates the extent to which CIC can critically dissect the formal requisites of the decision, as the CJ in this case failed to properly specify proper reasons for granting approval and CIC leveraged this into grounds upon which the Federal Court could grant CIC's appeal even though the crux of the case was really the fact that CIC disagreed with the CJ's decision (which in itself is not a sufficient ground for granting the appeal).
There are some anomalies in this case. For example, CIC focused on the applicant's failure to declare a trip to Turkey, but that trip (referenced as an "undeclared entry/exit stamp from Turkey" occurred in the course of a trip that was declared. And the applicant had clarified this in her response to RQ. Nonetheless this was among challenges raised by CIC.
Technically, instructions for the residency calculator stated that trips to additional countries, while abroad, should be noted in the box for explaining reason or purpose for the trip. But this is not a failure to declare an absence.
In any event, it appears that CIC had substantial concerns about the credibility of this individual and that was probably the main motivation for challenging residency, referring the case for a CJ referral, and appealing the CJ's decision. The two day shortfall is merely the technical hook the negative decision could be based upon.
But it does indeed illustrate that a two day shortfall can be the basis for denying a pre-June-11-2015 application.
