Hi,
I became a PR in 2018 and moved to Toronto to fulfill my Citizenship Obligations in January 2020. I've now completed my 1,095 days and am going to apply for Citizenship (off course after buffering about 15 days).
I have translated my passports and uploaded them in Residence and Tax section. However, due to long periods of unemployment, frequent visits to my birth country and staying for extended periods (sometimes up to 6 months), I'd like to use the "Optional Documents" section of the online application form to provide further proof for my 1,095+ days of physical presence within Canada.
I've organized the following in PDF format:
- Letter of employment and bank statements showing the income from a sales job I had with a well known Canadian company for almost a year
- Bank statements showing income from Uber Eats Delivery that I did for a while
- NOAs
- Proof of investment/income property I purchased (from inherited money off course tho there is no section to declare it being from heritage)
- Various dated documents that cary my name such as applying for Driver's License, Covid tests, Opening bank accounts, appointments I had with YMCA for settlement information etc
Now on one hand, I've been told the more I provide the more questions I rise. On the other hand, due to my circumstances, I feel more comfortable with doing so.
It's really confusing specially as I am leaving Canada agin soon after I submit my application. I have to, my life is a bit of complicated one.
I'd appreciate your opinions both on how much and what to include as proof physical presence during for 1,095+ within the las five year.
I largely concur with the observations by
@Seym . . .
. . . well, except to the extent "
luck," in the
per chance happening sense, influences how it goes. (I admit to probably being a bit too anal in distinguishing what is due to "
luck" versus what happens due to uncertain causation or an unpredictable effect -- just because we do not know and cannot map the cause and effect does not mean what happens is a matter of chance.)
That said, the conventional wisdom is to submit what is requested and little if any more. In some circumstances an applicant will want to include SOME supplemental information, BUT not a lot, AND this should ordinarily be about explaining or clarifying something in the application that might be misconstrued or misunderstood.
This is consistent with conventional wisdom in regards to interactions and transactions with CBSA and IRCC generally: no hint more is better.
In particular, there is NO reliable reporting that submitting additional proof of physical presence, with the application itself, reduces the risk of RQ-related non-routine processing and related delays.
Note: This is hard to confirm these days in which it appears that many of those affected by RQ-related non-routine processing do not actually see that happening, IRCC conducting non-routine inquiries or even referring the matter to CBSA to investigate, rather than issuing RQ-related requests to the applicant (asking for additional information), proceeding with making RQ requests to the applicant only if after further inquiry IRCC continues to have concerns about the applicant's physical presence. Unless the applicant gets RQ requests there is no way of knowing if the delay in processing their application is due to RQ-related investigatory processing, and even the client's copy of GCMS records will rarely reveal this is happening since investigatory processing is confidential (allowing that there may be some information revealed in GCMS that hints of this happening, and eventually most of those affected can figure it out). Back when RQ questionnaires were more common, it was clear that additional proof included with the application did NOT preclude getting RQ'd, with no indication that it would reduce the risk of RQ. Information obtained through ATI requests, at the time, included internal memos confirming that if the triage criteria for issuing RQ was met, RQ should be issued even if the applicant had already submitted that information with the application.)
In particular, in regards to this:
"Now on one hand, I've been told the more I provide the more questions I rise. On the other hand, due to my circumstances, I feel more comfortable with doing so."
@Seym hit the key: making a mistake-free application, to the extent that is possible, is the applicant's best approach to minimizing the risk of non-routine processing let alone challenges. And doing so with an emphasis on providing complete, honest, and accurate information -- recognizing that while there is a lot of overlap in what is "
honest" and what is "
accurate," they are not the same and it is important to be BOTH.
As noted above, there is no indication that including additional proof with a citizenship application will help. But it will need to be reviewed in processing the application, so it necessarily adds some level of additional screening. To what extent that might tip the application into a more complex processing stream, or as you have been told, the extent to which that might raise more questions, is difficult to forecast and of course it depends in large part on whether the information provided fully fits the picture of a qualified applicant, or has wrinkles, incongruities, apparent inconsistencies, something that might tickle a total stranger bureaucrat's suspicions.
That is, additional/extra proof with the application is not likely to help. For most it probably does not hurt much either. But there is significantly more risk it invites additional review and questions than it will help.
"It's really confusing specially as I am leaving Canada again soon after I submit my application. I have to, my life is a bit of complicated one."
As long as you meet the qualifying requirements, submit a complete and accurate application, appropriately and timely respond to any requests and notices from IRCC, and you continue to be in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation, leaving Canada after applying should not have any impact on the outcome. It should not preclude getting the grant of citizenship.
It can, however, influence processing and the timeline. Whether it does have an impact, and to what extent, is a complex subject, with how it goes varying widely depending on the particular circumstances. There are numerous threads here in which this is discussed. Ignore the comments claiming it has no-impact, does not matter at all, which is misinformation. It can definitely affect how things go, especially as to the timeline. Submitting additional proof, more than requested, is not likely to make a difference.
But again, in itself it has no direct impact on eligibility.
