Fire your lawyer. In fact, if you have written proof that you lawyer specifically said this time would be counted, I would file a report against your lawyer to the law association. The time your husband spent outside of Canada cannot be counted and your lawyer should have known this immediately. Anyone who doesn't understand the difference between PR and citizenship residency rules should be advising clients on immigration matters. Again, this is very very basic knowledge. Your application is taking a long time because your husband applied without meeting the requirements.tintin said:
Real Torture and depressing
- Thread starter tintin
- Start date
the husband application will be rejected anyway, CIC just need to confirm the number of days of physical presence in Canada to put in the file and this requires a lot of work. As for the wife, they have to give an answer to both since they apply together, have heard many cases like this, best choice is to apply separately
Foremost, the OP describes a fairly typical shortfall case. Contrary to what some post in this forum, a shortfall (less than 1095 days actual physical presence) did not necessarily mean the applicant failed to meet the requirements.
For applications made prior to June 2015, the requirement was residency in Canada, not necessarily physical presence, even though the primary test of residency being used was a calculation of days actually physically present in Canada.
In particular, for an application made in July 2012, it is correct that the days spent abroad working for a Canadian company MIGHT be counted as days resident-in-Canada, even though they will not be counted as days physically present in Canada, so long as the applicant was in fact maintaining residence in Canada and had centralized his life in Canada. (Caveat: a Citizenship Judge is free to apply the strict physical presence test no matter how strong a case is made that the applicant's only residence remained in Canada; which is to say, a CJ can elect to apply the physical presence test in assessing residency, and if that test is applied then even a one-day shortfall fails.)
There are multiple topics here discussing fairly recent examples of successful shortfall cases, including one in which the shortfall was huge (less than half the time actually spent in Canada).
Thus, for example, the following post is wrong:
Regarding information from the lawyer:
It is not easy to clearly explain the distinctions and nuances, which are subject to caveats and complications, between resident-in-Canada and present-in-Canada. So it would be no surprise that a lawyer's advice about qualifying for citizenship glossed over the difference. That said, my impression is that the lawyer must have made it at least somewhat clear given that you fully expected RQ due to the time spent working abroad.
Leading to this:
Just like a resident of Toronto who spends a month in PEI on holidays does not cease to be a resident of Toronto for that month, if the holiday was spent in Italy or Japan the resident of Toronto nonetheless remains a resident of Toronto. If a person is a resident of Toronto for a certain period of time, that is strong evidence he is resident of Canada during that same period of time.
But by 2012, six years into Harper's Conservatives running the government, the approach taken by CIC dramatically increased the emphasis on meeting the actual physical presence test, that is three years of actual presence. This was not so widely understood as some might think. A new Federal Court justice (Donald Rennie, appointed by Harper and then promoted to the Federal Court of Appeal) issued a decision in 2011 stating the view that the only correct test was the physical presence test, and this was among the earliest formal indications of how hard the government was pushing the physical presence test. But Justice Rennie's decision was not binding, and indeed conflicted with numerous other Federal Court decisions of equal weight. (By the way, CIC never revised its information online to warn PRs that the approach to assessing residency had changed or that the APP test was being pushed by CIC.)
In the meantime, there were many PRs who had employment abroad which they, in effect, commuted to from their primary residence in Canada, such that they would never qualify for citizenship based on a physical presence test. It made total sense for a lawyer to advise a family in that situation, where the family was settled and staying in Canada, while one member of the family commuted for months at a time to a job abroad, or otherwise took temporary assignments abroad, that the whole family could apply together, including the one who did not meet the physical presence test but whose life was centralized in the home being maintained for his family in Canada.
The odds of success for such a PR applying for citizenship are very difficult to predict. A great deal depends on the particular facts, which CJ decides the case, how good the applicants' response to RQ was, and other details.
Time-wise, your case is bound to be approaching the last leg of the journey. Ordinarily I do not give advice (at least I usually try to offer information rather than advice; and generally if a post contains direct advice that, to my view, is enough to be highly skeptical of it, as this is not an appropriate venue for obtaining or giving advice), but it seems to me there would be nothing gained by trying to split or withdraw either or any of the applications at this stage. The CJ phase is bound to be coming soon. You go, you make your case, and see what happens. No one here can predict how this is going to turn out. Again, how it turns out will depend a lot on what was submitted in response to the RQ.
If you still have the lawyer, better to rely on the lawyer more than anyone here (including me of course). Sure, do what you can to confirm information obtained from the lawyer. Always approach any source of information with your best critical thinking skills working hard.
And, to be clear, if it is torture to remain in Canada, perhaps it would be worth your while to consider if there are other, better alternatives to becoming Canadian citizens.
For applications made prior to June 2015, the requirement was residency in Canada, not necessarily physical presence, even though the primary test of residency being used was a calculation of days actually physically present in Canada.
In particular, for an application made in July 2012, it is correct that the days spent abroad working for a Canadian company MIGHT be counted as days resident-in-Canada, even though they will not be counted as days physically present in Canada, so long as the applicant was in fact maintaining residence in Canada and had centralized his life in Canada. (Caveat: a Citizenship Judge is free to apply the strict physical presence test no matter how strong a case is made that the applicant's only residence remained in Canada; which is to say, a CJ can elect to apply the physical presence test in assessing residency, and if that test is applied then even a one-day shortfall fails.)
There are multiple topics here discussing fairly recent examples of successful shortfall cases, including one in which the shortfall was huge (less than half the time actually spent in Canada).
Thus, for example, the following post is wrong:
deerestlovelybear said:unfortunately he does not meet either new or old rules. Working for a Canadian company oversea only works for PR renewal and not for citizenship. He has to work for a goverment agency in order to count the days abroad in his citizenship eligibility.
Regarding information from the lawyer:
It is not easy to clearly explain the distinctions and nuances, which are subject to caveats and complications, between resident-in-Canada and present-in-Canada. So it would be no surprise that a lawyer's advice about qualifying for citizenship glossed over the difference. That said, my impression is that the lawyer must have made it at least somewhat clear given that you fully expected RQ due to the time spent working abroad.
Leading to this:
Again, for an application made in July 2012, it is correct that the days spent abroad working for a Canadian company MIGHT be counted as days resident-in-Canada. Again, for applications made prior to June 2015, the requirement was residency in Canada, not necessarily physical presence, even though the primary test of residency being used was a calculation of days actually physically present in Canada.scylla said:Fire your lawyer. In fact, if you have written proof that you lawyer specifically said this time would be counted, I would file a report against your lawyer to the law association. The time your husband spent outside of Canada cannot be counted and your lawyer should have known this immediately. Anyone who doesn't understand the difference between PR and citizenship residency rules should be advising clients on immigration matters. Again, this is very very basic knowledge. Your application is taking a long time because your husband applied without meeting the requirements.tintin said:I must say that is news to me!
He worked for an immigration Law firm and the lawyer NEVER mentioned that those days will not count towards his citizenship days.
Even the lady that interviewed us did not have a problem with his days.
I honestly hope that you are wrong on this!
Phew, it would be devastating.
Just like a resident of Toronto who spends a month in PEI on holidays does not cease to be a resident of Toronto for that month, if the holiday was spent in Italy or Japan the resident of Toronto nonetheless remains a resident of Toronto. If a person is a resident of Toronto for a certain period of time, that is strong evidence he is resident of Canada during that same period of time.
But by 2012, six years into Harper's Conservatives running the government, the approach taken by CIC dramatically increased the emphasis on meeting the actual physical presence test, that is three years of actual presence. This was not so widely understood as some might think. A new Federal Court justice (Donald Rennie, appointed by Harper and then promoted to the Federal Court of Appeal) issued a decision in 2011 stating the view that the only correct test was the physical presence test, and this was among the earliest formal indications of how hard the government was pushing the physical presence test. But Justice Rennie's decision was not binding, and indeed conflicted with numerous other Federal Court decisions of equal weight. (By the way, CIC never revised its information online to warn PRs that the approach to assessing residency had changed or that the APP test was being pushed by CIC.)
In the meantime, there were many PRs who had employment abroad which they, in effect, commuted to from their primary residence in Canada, such that they would never qualify for citizenship based on a physical presence test. It made total sense for a lawyer to advise a family in that situation, where the family was settled and staying in Canada, while one member of the family commuted for months at a time to a job abroad, or otherwise took temporary assignments abroad, that the whole family could apply together, including the one who did not meet the physical presence test but whose life was centralized in the home being maintained for his family in Canada.
The odds of success for such a PR applying for citizenship are very difficult to predict. A great deal depends on the particular facts, which CJ decides the case, how good the applicants' response to RQ was, and other details.
Time-wise, your case is bound to be approaching the last leg of the journey. Ordinarily I do not give advice (at least I usually try to offer information rather than advice; and generally if a post contains direct advice that, to my view, is enough to be highly skeptical of it, as this is not an appropriate venue for obtaining or giving advice), but it seems to me there would be nothing gained by trying to split or withdraw either or any of the applications at this stage. The CJ phase is bound to be coming soon. You go, you make your case, and see what happens. No one here can predict how this is going to turn out. Again, how it turns out will depend a lot on what was submitted in response to the RQ.
If you still have the lawyer, better to rely on the lawyer more than anyone here (including me of course). Sure, do what you can to confirm information obtained from the lawyer. Always approach any source of information with your best critical thinking skills working hard.
This is a bit hyperbolic. There are scores and scores of splendid holiday destinations in Canada, especially during the summer. No visa necessary for any Canadian PR.tintin said:It's becoming a torture as I am not able to plan a thing for summer. Unfortunately, my home country's passport is as useless as useless can get, so I need Visa to go anywhere.
And, to be clear, if it is torture to remain in Canada, perhaps it would be worth your while to consider if there are other, better alternatives to becoming Canadian citizens.
Thanks so much for the reply and the glimmer of hope.
I will wait it out as other options I am advised to look at are quite cumbersome. I also think we are at the tail end of our application and it's better not to rock the boat now.
Point of correction though, re-summer. I did say my husband still works abroad. I don't work, so summer is a good time to go to Qatar and live like a normal family.Unfortunately, I can't get visitor's visa to Qatar because of my country of birth.
And the torture is in reference to not having a clue what is happening to an application. (I have never even called the CIC call center and I just applied for my first ATIP yesterday). Not been able to know if I will be able to spend summer where I desire. It's not in reference to life here.
I will wait it out as other options I am advised to look at are quite cumbersome. I also think we are at the tail end of our application and it's better not to rock the boat now.
Point of correction though, re-summer. I did say my husband still works abroad. I don't work, so summer is a good time to go to Qatar and live like a normal family.Unfortunately, I can't get visitor's visa to Qatar because of my country of birth.
And the torture is in reference to not having a clue what is happening to an application. (I have never even called the CIC call center and I just applied for my first ATIP yesterday). Not been able to know if I will be able to spend summer where I desire. It's not in reference to life here.
Hello,
I just got an update through my MP office.
We are slated to see the CJ on the 28th of June. (At least that is a move on the application).
He mentioned something about all our clearances are in please. What does this mean.
My cry for help today is, what do we need to start gathering? We don't have the letter yet.
Should we request for the CBSA thing now? What about health record?
I plan to get letter from my church and from my kids school. I remember the interviewer saying she's not sure I have been living here. What else should I gather to proof I was physically present here.
Finally, has it ever happened that the CJ would decide on the spot if to grant or not? I am hoping for a miracle!
Thanks for the help.
I just got an update through my MP office.
We are slated to see the CJ on the 28th of June. (At least that is a move on the application).
He mentioned something about all our clearances are in please. What does this mean.
My cry for help today is, what do we need to start gathering? We don't have the letter yet.
Should we request for the CBSA thing now? What about health record?
I plan to get letter from my church and from my kids school. I remember the interviewer saying she's not sure I have been living here. What else should I gather to proof I was physically present here.
Finally, has it ever happened that the CJ would decide on the spot if to grant or not? I am hoping for a miracle!
Thanks for the help.