Hi All,
As noted on the "Online physical presence calculator" form the eligibility period is 5 years from the day you sign the application. Based on my calculations I should have the 1095 days if I apply on November 30, 2018. That said, my eligibility period is from Nov 30, 2013 - Nov 30, 2018.
After graduating from University, I was granted a work permit that expired on Sep 8, 2014. In January 2014 my employer at the time engaged an immigration consultant to aid in extending my work permit and applying for an LMIA so I can continue working past the Sep 8, 2014 date. We submitted both applications to CIC and Service Canada and were advised by the consultant that I can remain working past the Sep 8 date until a decision is made on my applications. A decision was made and denied on November 25, 2014. I did work from Sep 8 to Nov 25 and included that time as part of my application for citizenship. I have all the back up documentation including the letter of rejections from CIC and Service Canada. I also have a letter from my employer terminating my contract on November 26, 2014 due to the decision that was made. I am trying to avoid any delays to my application and was wondering if I may face an issue by including those 3 months. Can you please confirm if this time would count without any issues ?
How you approach this is largely a personal decision. Generally a period of implied status following a period during which the individual had a work permit should count. As you apprehend, however, it is not entirely clear how this will be handled by IRCC. And of course you apprehend the more likely RISK, that even if ultimately IRCC allows the credit and the application results in a grant of citizenship, relying on a period of implied status might trigger some non-routine processing and significant delays processing the application.
While the general consensus is to wait to apply only after one has a safe buffer over the minimum presence, there are widely varying views about what constitutes a "safe" buffer. I have consistently observed that prudence often favours waiting longer to apply. But I appear to be at the more extreme end of the spectrum about this (I personally waited nearly two years after qualifying, for a variety of personal reasons and related risks for RQ).
Many appear to advocate having just a few days buffer.
Ordinarily it would be prudent to wait long enough you do not need to count the days with implied status to meet the minimum. BUT your situation appears to be a little more complicated than that.
Note, in particular, waiting longer only makes sense if this is feasible and it significantly improves the case or otherwise significantly reduces RISKS. Risk-assessment is exceedingly personal; it is very much about the particular individual's specific facts and circumstances.
There are two very different categories of RISK. Forum discussions tend to conflate the two. These are:
-- Risks that application will fail; that is, risks of being denied
-- Risks that the application might encounter non-routine processing and thus delays
Rather big difference, being denied versus some inconvenient processing and a longer timeline.
To the extent possible, applicants will do what they can to avoid or at least minimize risks the application will be denied.
And this is a key consideration if there is a possibility the time with implied status does NOT get credited . . . if losing credit for those days means less than 1095 days credit, the application will be denied.
However, many will elect to proceed with an application notwithstanding an elevated risk the application will encounter non-routine processing and some delays. After all, this risk can never be totally eliminated. Any applicant, no matter how strong the case, can encounter non-routine processing, even procedures related to additional scrutiny of the applicant's presence calculation NO matter how big a buffer the applicant applied with.
That said, most applicants will proceed in a manner which minimizes all risks, and indeed most applicants would be prudent to delay applying to the extent that waiting a reasonable amount longer will significantly reduce the risks of non-routine processing.
BUT that said, for some prospective applicants, depending on personal circumstances, waiting longer might not improve the calculation all that much. In some cases waiting does not add days to the calculation at all (except for waiting a particularly long time).
I am guessing you may be among the latter, at least somewhat so. In particular, it is my impression that for the next many months you will need to stay two days to get an additional day's credit as the half-day credits back in late 2013, and then in 2014, fall outside the five year eligibility period.
In particular, if you want a margin which protects your application in the event the implied status days are NOT counted, that drops 39 days from your calculation (half the 78 days between September 8 and November 25). If, however, you wait another 40 days to apply, that in turn drops 20 days credit from December 2013 plus some, at half day credits, since those days will no longer be within the five year eligibility period. Thus leaving you short 20 days. So waiting another 20 past that likewise leaves you still 10 days short, and so on.
So, just to avoid relying on the implied status days, you would probably have to wait until nearly March or so next year. And, frankly, relying on the half-day credits for the rest of the days you did have an explicit work permit in 2014, suggests the prudence of building a good margin over the minimum before applying. But waiting even into March 2019, for every day you stay, you are still only adding a half day credit toward a buffer or margin.
I tend to approach such scenarios with a lot of caution, leaning heavily toward eliminating the risk of being denied, and leaning quite a bit toward building a comfortable, safe,
PEACE-OF-MIND buffer which will minimize the risk of non-routine processing. Thus, personally I'd be anticipating applying in May next year or later.
Many others probably lean toward applying quite a lot sooner. Again,
this is a very PERSONAL decision for YOU to make.
TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION YOUR PROOF DOCUMENTING ENTITLEMENT TO IMPLIED STATUS:
Your proof may indeed make the difference between a successful application versus a denied application, if you apply relying on credit for that September 8, 2014 to November 25, 2014 period.
BUT your proof might NOT help you avoid non-routine processing. There is no practical opportunity to have decision-making personnel at IRCC review and consider that proof until the interview (if even then) UNLESS IRCC has already initiated non-routine processing related to questioning the credit. Including it with the application is NOT likely to make any difference.
