There are a few gray areas, like for example how it is counted if an individual switches flights in a country C while traveling between country A and country B without actually entering the country, i.e. remaining in the airside zone of the airport, before passport control. But it is unlikely to make a huge difference in the 183 days mark "around which" a police certificate is required.
You know, you have criticized my explanations related to this as patronizing, but I have made an effort to illuminate how the process actually works as best we can discern.
There really is no gray area. It is not about some potential vagueness in how a question applies to some unusual factual situation. It is simply an outright mistake to parse the questions and instructions this way.
The requirement to submit a police certificate with the application depends on whether or not IRCC reasonably asks for it. It does
NOT depend on precisely how much time was spent in a country. It just happens that IRCC currently has administratively established a 183 day threshold for requiring the police certificate upfront, to be included in the application.
What really matters is whether IRCC perceives the extent or nature of time in another country as warranting proof there are no charges pending, and no convictions within the preceding four years, in that country. 183 days total in a country automatically triggers the request for proof. But as the referenced report illustrates, other factors can also trigger the request for proof.
IRCC's approach could be challenged. Providing a police certificate is
NOT a statutory requirement for a grant of citizenship. Not even a regulation prescribes that a police certificate is a requirement. The question would be whether IRCC requiring the submission of the police certificate is reasonable.
If challenged, the current practice and policy will almost certainly be determined to be reasonable. It is directly related to what is a statutory requirement: proof that the applicant has no charges pending or, within the preceding four years, any convictions in another country. And, moreover, if the applicant asserts it is inordinately difficult to obtain the police certificate, IRCC specifically allows the application to be processed without submitting a police certificate, subject to whether IRCC is subsequently satisfied with the applicant's submissions.
One can theorize situations in which IRCC might make unreasonable demands for police certificates. That will not illuminate the appropriate way to respond to the item about spending 183 or more days in a country.
As for your hypothetical, it is posed as if every nuance in facts has a definitive interpretation. That is not how these processes work. Most applications include information which more or less amounts to the applicant's best response given the applicant's understanding of the question and instructions, and the applicant's best judgment as to how to respond based on his or her facts. Some may describe the scores and scores of potentially iffy calls as falling into a gray area, but that is missing the point.
As I have repeatedly illuminated, foremost the applicant needs to approach answering questions based on the applicant's best understanding of what is requested, what is required. If there is more than one arguable or plausible interpretation or way to answer the question, the best approach is to be forthcoming, which is to say respond based on an interpretation that results in giving more not less information, and then be honest, accurate, complete, and
forthcoming. Any other approach tends to invite problems. In particular, it is generally a mistake to parse a question, identify an arguably plausible interpretation which would allow the applicant to omit some information, and proceed on that basis to omit that information. Bad idea. Really. This is not rocket science. It is not merely common sense either. This is how the process works.
But as I have acknowledged, sure, applicants can and many do slide by. So sure, an applicant who has spent 171 days in the UK and who has also transited an additional dozen times through Heathrow on the way to and from other destinations, could check "no" to the item about spending a total of 183 days in another country. But that would be stupid. It might slide by. Good chance it would slide by. But it would still be stupid. I could go further into the weeds explaining this, why it would be stupid, but I'll let it suffice to note that if IRCC perceives an applicant is dodging questions, deliberating avoiding the disclosure of information, things tend to go off the rails hard and fast. Check yes and submit the police certificate. Or, if it is a country for which obtaining a police certificate would be excessively difficult, check yes and explain why a certificate is not submitted. There is a box provided precisely for that purpose.
At some point what is hypothetical is really merely theoretical, not at all realistic.
Otherwise, an effort to avoid having to do something (like obtain a somewhat difficult to get police certificate) tends to cause more delay and difficulty, not less. Rather than avoiding a hassle, parsing a question to justify omitting something will more often result in a bigger hassle. Again, this is not mere common sense. This is a real life observation based on seeing, literally,
how things have actually worked in scores and scores of cases, based not just on anecdotal sources like forum reports, but also based on reading dozens and dozens of official accounts of actual cases.
