Please share successful or in the process applications if you have had implied status.
- Thread starter Favourexpedited83
- Start date
Your question doesn't make sense. Implied status is known and acknowledged, but not as a status you can be in while applying for citizenship, which was the question asked before it was deleted.
wstrn24
Hero Member
- Feb 23, 2017
- 162
- Category........
- NOC Code......
- 4012
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
I had implied status in between each study permit renewal and work permit before I got my PR. I don't think it will be an issue...
wstrn24
Hero Member
- Feb 23, 2017
- 162
- Category........
- NOC Code......
- 4012
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
SOME REMINDERS RE PRE-PR STATUS:
A FN (Foreign National) has temporary resident status during a period of time the FN has "implied" status, and thus technically this period of time should count toward meeting the grant citizenship actual physical presence requirement (if within the previous five years, and calculated as counting a half day to a total pre-PR credit of no more than 365 days).
However, this involves significant RISKS if a citizenship applicant relies on credit for implied status days. The overall RISK is that IRCC might NOT recognize the applicant's status for those days and thus not give them credit.
The prudent applicant will WAIT to apply with a margin over the minimum presence requirement that is LARGER than the credit for implied status days. Such an applicant will still count the implied status days, including them in the presence calculation. BUT will make sure he or she still has enough credit to meet the presence requirement IF IRCC does not count those days.
This should NOT require waiting all that much longer to apply. Indeed, if it does, that is if the prospective applicant has a large period of "implied status" time, there is a greater risk of miscalculating and overestimating what days will be credited. Implied status is a bridge between a period with formally documented status and an extension in status (NOT restoration of status). It is ordinarily ONLY for relatively short periods of time.
Since having a good margin over the minimum requirement is a good idea (and IRCC actually encourages this in its information for prospective applicants), and how much longer it will take to build a margin larger than any period of implied status should be relatively small, it is downright foolish to not wait.
THE PARTICULAR RISKS:
What looms large over questions of credit for time periods with implied status is the burden of proof. The applicant has the burden of proving BOTH actual presence AND temporary resident status. Easily done for any period of time the applicant had formally documented status, and indeed the applicant's GCMS records will readily verify such status.
How does an applicant "PROVE" he or she had implied status IF IRCC's reading of the applicant's GCMS records do not readily verify the applicant's implied status?
Many times the GCMS record probably does readily show the individual's implied status, such as when it is clear from the documented grants of status that an application for extension of status was timely made AND THAT application granted. Such periods of time will ordinarily be relatively short.
In contrast, if it was more complicated than that, odds are high that a review of the GCMS records will not readily confirm a period of implied status. The RISK is that in such circumstances IRCC will NOT recognize credit for the period of time the APPLICANT CLAIMS he or she had implied status.
Part of the problem, I suspect, is that in some, perhaps even many circumstances, IRCC might not actually make formal determinations that an individual has or had implied status. So there is no objective record of status. No documented status. The individual ARGUABLY had status. But arguably having status does not mean status is sufficiently proven to be given credit. Again, the burden of proof is on the applicant.
The RISK is actually larger than that for many. And this especially applies in situations where the individual believes he or she had implied status for more lengthy periods of time. For example, just because the individual never ran into status problems along the way, does not necessarily mean that the individual actually had implied status bridging the entire period of time between the end date of documented status and the next date the individual is given formally DOCUMENTED status. It is obvious more than a few believe they have implied status when they might not actually have implied status. The fact they never got-into-trouble over status, so to say, does NOT mean they actually had implied status. The Canadian immigration system automatically considers many out-of-status periods to be cured once an individual is granted valid status. That does not mean the individual had legal status during that period of time.
What I am saying is that many, many may believe they had implied status when in fact they did NOT. Thus, in addition to the RISK that even if they had implied status it might not be sufficiently documented in GCMS to be given credit for that time, for more than a few there is a RISK they are mistaken about when they actually had implied status. AND the PROBLEM, much of the time, is that the individual receives no objective documentation showing when they had implied status, and thus has no objective documentation to prove implied status.
SPECIAL NOTE RE VISITOR STATUS:
Undocumented visitor status is the most obvious and common example of situations for which, many times, NO credit is allowed. Here again, a FN legally IN Canada as a visitor has temporary resident status, and technically those days in Canada should be given credit. BUT more than a few have reported returned applications due to IRCC NOT giving credit for these periods of time. Again, the problem is the burden of proof. Without formal documentation of status (such as a formal visitor's visa or a Visitor's Record for those who are visa-exempt), there is insufficient proof of status to be given the credit. This is not to assert that such periods of time will never be given credit, but to say the RISK is high that such periods of time will not get credited. Moreover, the applicant can and should still declare status and presence in Canada for any such period, but should make sure that they have enough credit to meet the requirements without counting those days.
A FN (Foreign National) has temporary resident status during a period of time the FN has "implied" status, and thus technically this period of time should count toward meeting the grant citizenship actual physical presence requirement (if within the previous five years, and calculated as counting a half day to a total pre-PR credit of no more than 365 days).
However, this involves significant RISKS if a citizenship applicant relies on credit for implied status days. The overall RISK is that IRCC might NOT recognize the applicant's status for those days and thus not give them credit.
The prudent applicant will WAIT to apply with a margin over the minimum presence requirement that is LARGER than the credit for implied status days. Such an applicant will still count the implied status days, including them in the presence calculation. BUT will make sure he or she still has enough credit to meet the presence requirement IF IRCC does not count those days.
This should NOT require waiting all that much longer to apply. Indeed, if it does, that is if the prospective applicant has a large period of "implied status" time, there is a greater risk of miscalculating and overestimating what days will be credited. Implied status is a bridge between a period with formally documented status and an extension in status (NOT restoration of status). It is ordinarily ONLY for relatively short periods of time.
Since having a good margin over the minimum requirement is a good idea (and IRCC actually encourages this in its information for prospective applicants), and how much longer it will take to build a margin larger than any period of implied status should be relatively small, it is downright foolish to not wait.
THE PARTICULAR RISKS:
What looms large over questions of credit for time periods with implied status is the burden of proof. The applicant has the burden of proving BOTH actual presence AND temporary resident status. Easily done for any period of time the applicant had formally documented status, and indeed the applicant's GCMS records will readily verify such status.
How does an applicant "PROVE" he or she had implied status IF IRCC's reading of the applicant's GCMS records do not readily verify the applicant's implied status?
Many times the GCMS record probably does readily show the individual's implied status, such as when it is clear from the documented grants of status that an application for extension of status was timely made AND THAT application granted. Such periods of time will ordinarily be relatively short.
In contrast, if it was more complicated than that, odds are high that a review of the GCMS records will not readily confirm a period of implied status. The RISK is that in such circumstances IRCC will NOT recognize credit for the period of time the APPLICANT CLAIMS he or she had implied status.
Part of the problem, I suspect, is that in some, perhaps even many circumstances, IRCC might not actually make formal determinations that an individual has or had implied status. So there is no objective record of status. No documented status. The individual ARGUABLY had status. But arguably having status does not mean status is sufficiently proven to be given credit. Again, the burden of proof is on the applicant.
The RISK is actually larger than that for many. And this especially applies in situations where the individual believes he or she had implied status for more lengthy periods of time. For example, just because the individual never ran into status problems along the way, does not necessarily mean that the individual actually had implied status bridging the entire period of time between the end date of documented status and the next date the individual is given formally DOCUMENTED status. It is obvious more than a few believe they have implied status when they might not actually have implied status. The fact they never got-into-trouble over status, so to say, does NOT mean they actually had implied status. The Canadian immigration system automatically considers many out-of-status periods to be cured once an individual is granted valid status. That does not mean the individual had legal status during that period of time.
What I am saying is that many, many may believe they had implied status when in fact they did NOT. Thus, in addition to the RISK that even if they had implied status it might not be sufficiently documented in GCMS to be given credit for that time, for more than a few there is a RISK they are mistaken about when they actually had implied status. AND the PROBLEM, much of the time, is that the individual receives no objective documentation showing when they had implied status, and thus has no objective documentation to prove implied status.
SPECIAL NOTE RE VISITOR STATUS:
Undocumented visitor status is the most obvious and common example of situations for which, many times, NO credit is allowed. Here again, a FN legally IN Canada as a visitor has temporary resident status, and technically those days in Canada should be given credit. BUT more than a few have reported returned applications due to IRCC NOT giving credit for these periods of time. Again, the problem is the burden of proof. Without formal documentation of status (such as a formal visitor's visa or a Visitor's Record for those who are visa-exempt), there is insufficient proof of status to be given the credit. This is not to assert that such periods of time will never be given credit, but to say the RISK is high that such periods of time will not get credited. Moreover, the applicant can and should still declare status and presence in Canada for any such period, but should make sure that they have enough credit to meet the requirements without counting those days.