Regarding Physical Presence & Work Experience during Citizenship Application

[dopelemon]

Hi all, I'm in the process of submitting my Canadian Citizenship Application and had a couple of question regarding Physical Presence and Work experience. I'll be applying on Feb 15, 2024 which means I'll have to submit all required information from Feb 15, 2019 until Feb 14, 2024 (5 year period).

1. Physical Presence:
   I was a student on study permit from August 2018 until November 2020. My letter of completion (for my program) is dated May 25, 2020 and I applied for PGWP on May 28, 2020 (3 year based on DLI). I started working full-time on implied status from June 1, 2020 until I received my PGWP on November 04, 2020.
   Question: For the question 'List the time with Canadian temporary resident', should I state 'International Student' for the time I was working full-time on implied status and waiting for PGWP? If not, what should it be?
2. Work experience:
   I need to account for all time frames without leaving a gap. I was a student student between 2018-2020 and I was also working as a consultant (self employed) from 2019 - 2020 as well as I also worked on campus as a Research Assistant between 2018 - 2019.
   Question: How do I list all these experiences as they have an overlap? Also, do I need to show all of them? I do not want to hide any information and be truthful at all times.

Thank you for your help, I really appreciate it.

 

[dpenabill]

Hi all, I'm in the process of submitting my Canadian Citizenship Application and had a couple of question regarding Physical Presence and Work experience. I'll be applying on Feb 15, 2024 which means I'll have to submit all required information from Feb 15, 2019 until Feb 14, 2024 (5 year period).

1. Physical Presence:
   I was a student on study permit from August 2018 until November 2020. My letter of completion (for my program) is dated May 25, 2020 and I applied for PGWP on May 28, 2020 (3 year based on DLI). I started working full-time on implied status from June 1, 2020 until I received my PGWP on November 04, 2020.
   Question: For the question 'List the time with Canadian temporary resident', should I state 'International Student' for the time I was working full-time on implied status and waiting for PGWP? If not, what should it be?
2. Work experience:
   I need to account for all time frames without leaving a gap. I was a student student between 2018-2020 and I was also working as a consultant (self employed) from 2019 - 2020 as well as I also worked on campus as a Research Assistant between 2018 - 2019.
   Question: How do I list all these experiences as they have an overlap? Also, do I need to show all of them? I do not want to hide any information and be truthful at all times.

If you are very confident (essentially if you are sure) of the dates you had implied status, it is probably OK to claim temporary resident status during those periods in the actual physical presence calculator. HOWEVER, it would be prudent to wait to apply as if there is NO credit for days in Canada with implied status.

There are other discussions about this here, in other topics, which go into more depth explaining why. Bottom-line, if your GCMS records do not show status as a temporary resident there is a likelihood (a high risk) IRCC will not count it. This can be contested but that approach is almost always NOT worth it, since that approach will at best likely involve a much longer processing timeline, with a net result it takes much longer to get to take the oath than it would if you wait to apply without relying on credit for such periods. And there is the risk the application fails if the credit is not allowed. Navigating this is complicated because it appears some periods of implied status might be given credit without question (hard to be sure of this given how imprecise, and often sketchy, the relevant anecdotal reporting is).

Remember the burden of proof is on the applicant. This includes proving the applicant had status. If IRCC's records do not verify status for a period of time, how can the applicant meet their burden of proving they had status? (Generally there are no concerns with proving status since the client's GCMS records will confirm the grant of status and dates; but there is often no clear documentation of implied status, which is the source of the problem.)

Safe approach, and the usually faster-to-oath approach. is to apply with a big enough margin over the minimum presence requirement that the applicant is qualified even if there is no credit allowed for the period in Canada with implied status.

In regards how to report, how to describe what status the applicant had during a period of days in Canada with implied status . . .
If you are sure you had implied status, you must know what that status was. Report that in the calculator. If you are not quite sure what status you had that was implied, that suggests you are not really all that sure you had implied status. If this is your situation best to very carefully weigh whether to claim temporary resident status during those periods. Use your best judgment. Avoid making conclusions based on what favours you; that is, be as objective about this as you can. As long as you are applying without relying on credit for that period of time (it would be foolish to do otherwise), if you do not claim credit for that period of time you do not lose much.

Overlapping Activities:

In the work/activity part of the application, of course some activities can overlap. Probably OK to omit very brief, isolated work or school experiences, like a single day, now and then, of casual work, or attending an educational conference for one weekend, as long as that period of time is otherwise covered by a more consistent work or study activity. But generally all work experience and attendance in formal courses of study should be reported, even if they overlap. BUT NO GAPS. If "unemployed" honestly describes a period of time, that's what the applicant should report.

Using Draft Physical Presence Calculations to Know When to Apply:

As noted above, for periods of time the applicant is certain they had implied status, it should be OK to report that as pre-PR days in Canada with temporary resident status, but the applicant would be wise to WAIT to apply as if there is no credit for such periods of time.

The online actual physical presence calculator can be used to precisely figure out when is the best time to apply. Doing rough drafts without including the implied status periods of time will facilitate figuring out when the physical presence calculation is met, then WAIT another month to make the application (some here advocate a sufficient margin is as little as a week or ten days; but waiting an extra 30 days goes by much faster than four or eight months will go, later, if the application gets bogged down in non-routine processing to verify physical presence). In the final draft of the application, the calculation that will be submitted, then include the period of time with implied status (if the applicant is quite sure of their implied status), which will add to the size of the buffer over the minimum. This approach, in conjunction with a properly and fully completed application, including a precisely accurate travel history, will give the applicant their best shot at sailing through the process smoothly and as quickly as IRCC is processing clearly qualified applicants . . . the idea is to make a very solid case that will minimize the risk that a total stranger bureaucrat has questions, let alone doubts, thus minimizing the risk of non-routine processing that can cause rather lengthy delays in getting to the oath.

 

[dopelemon]

If you are very confident (essentially if you are sure) of the dates you had implied status, it is probably OK to claim temporary resident status during those periods in the actual physical presence calculator. HOWEVER, it would be prudent to wait to apply as if there is NO credit for days in Canada with implied status.

There are other discussions about this here, in other topics, which go into more depth explaining why. Bottom-line, if your GCMS records do not show status as a temporary resident there is a likelihood (a high risk) IRCC will not count it. This can be contested but that approach is almost always NOT worth it, since that approach will at best likely involve a much longer processing timeline, with a net result it takes much longer to get to take the oath than it would if you wait to apply without relying on credit for such periods. And there is the risk the application fails if the credit is not allowed. Navigating this is complicated because it appears some periods of implied status might be given credit without question (hard to be sure of this given how imprecise, and often sketchy, the relevant anecdotal reporting is).

Remember the burden of proof is on the applicant. This includes proving the applicant had status. If IRCC's records do not verify status for a period of time, how can the applicant meet their burden of proving they had status? (Generally there are no concerns with proving status since the client's GCMS records will confirm the grant of status and dates; but there is often no clear documentation of implied status, which is the source of the problem.)

Safe approach, and the usually faster-to-oath approach. is to apply with a big enough margin over the minimum presence requirement that the applicant is qualified even if there is no credit allowed for the period in Canada with implied status.

In regards how to report, how to describe what status the applicant had during a period of days in Canada with implied status . . .
If you are sure you had implied status, you must know what that status was. Report that in the calculator. If you are not quite sure what status you had that was implied, that suggests you are not really all that sure you had implied status. If this is your situation best to very carefully weigh whether to claim temporary resident status during those periods. Use your best judgment. Avoid making conclusions based on what favours you; that is, be as objective about this as you can. As long as you are applying without relying on credit for that period of time (it would be foolish to do otherwise), if you do not claim credit for that period of time you do not lose much.

Overlapping Activities:

In the work/activity part of the application, of course some activities can overlap. Probably OK to omit very brief, isolated work or school experiences, like a single day, now and then, of casual work, or attending an educational conference for one weekend, as long as that period of time is otherwise covered by a more consistent work or study activity. But generally all work experience and attendance in formal courses of study should be reported, even if they overlap. BUT NO GAPS. If "unemployed" honestly describes a period of time, that's what the applicant should report.

Using Draft Physical Presence Calculations to Know When to Apply:

As noted above, for periods of time the applicant is certain they had implied status, it should be OK to report that as pre-PR days in Canada with temporary resident status, but the applicant would be wise to WAIT to apply as if there is no credit for such periods of time.

The online actual physical presence calculator can be used to precisely figure out when is the best time to apply. Doing rough drafts without including the implied status periods of time will facilitate figuring out when the physical presence calculation is met, then WAIT another month to make the application (some here advocate a sufficient margin is as little as a week or ten days; but waiting an extra 30 days goes by much faster than four or eight months will go, later, if the application gets bogged down in non-routine processing to verify physical presence). In the final draft of the application, the calculation that will be submitted, then include the period of time with implied status (if the applicant is quite sure of their implied status), which will add to the size of the buffer over the minimum. This approach, in conjunction with a properly and fully completed application, including a precisely accurate travel history, will give the applicant their best shot at sailing through the process smoothly and as quickly as IRCC is processing clearly qualified applicants . . . the idea is to make a very solid case that will minimize the risk that a total stranger bureaucrat has questions, let alone doubts, thus minimizing the risk of non-routine processing that can cause rather lengthy delays in getting to the oath.

Hello! Thank you for your time in providing me with such in-depth reply, I truly appreciate your time and efforts in doing so. This is extremely helpful to me. One followup I had on the Physical Presence part was:

Even though I was on an implied status, my student permit was still valid for the entire duration. It took me almost 6 months to get my PGWP as it was during the start of COVID. As stated above, my implied status(for PGWP) was based on an active/valid Study Permit and I was not, at any given point out of status. Ex: My Study Permit was expiring on 31, December 2020. I received my PGWP on November 04, 2020.

Does it still fall under the classical category of "implied" or a "temporary resident"?

As on of the requirements is (and at that time I was a student with valid permit, awaiting decision for my work permit):

A temporary resident is someone who is authorized to enter or stay in Canada as a:

• visitor
• student
• worker or
• temporary resident permit holder

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[dpenabill]

Hello! Thank you for your time in providing me with such in-depth reply, I truly appreciate your time and efforts in doing so. This is extremely helpful to me. One followup I had on the Physical Presence part was:

Even though I was on an implied status, my student permit was still valid for the entire duration. It took me almost 6 months to get my PGWP as it was during the start of COVID. As stated above, my implied status(for PGWP) was based on an active/valid Study Permit and I was not, at any given point out of status. Ex: My Study Permit was expiring on 31, December 2020. I received my PGWP on November 04, 2020.

Does it still fall under the classical category of "implied" or a "temporary resident"?

As on of the requirements is (and at that time I was a student with valid permit, awaiting decision for my work permit):

A temporary resident is someone who is authorized to enter or stay in Canada as a:

• visitor
• student
• worker or
• temporary resident permit holder

What are your thoughts on this?

I have not been following what status Foreign Nationals are granted in Canada for a long while.

For purposes of an application for citizenship . . . In particular, for purposes of how to report your immigration status in Canada prior to becoming a Permanent Resident, YOU know far better what status you had for what periods of time. If you were issued a study permit, for example, it should have been issued for a prescribed period of time, date granted to the date it expired. Status ordinarily expires as stated when issued, in the issuing documentation (paper or digital), OR sooner if that status is terminated for any of various reasons (date a person becomes a PR terminates any temporary status for example).

For purposes of what pre-PR days IN Canada get credit (half day credit per day in Canada), up to the maximum allowed for days in Canada within the eligibility period, as long as the Foreign National (FN) had some version of temporary resident status those days count. You cite the types of status covered, which includes visitor, student, worker, or temporary resident permit holder. If the FN has been explicitly granted any of these (which, again, will have a beginning date and an expiration date), any days in Canada during that time get the pre-PR temporary resident half-day per day credit toward the citizenship presence requirement. Just log the dates of the status in the calculator, and travel history dates of course.

In contrast, for example, NOT all visitor status is explicitly granted. FNs with visa-exempt passports routinely come and go from here, no formal visitor visa or Visitor Record issued. Thus it is likely their GCMS records do not show a grant of visitor status, even though as a matter of fact they did have status. Since IRCC may not be able to verify that individual's visitor status, however, because it is not reflected in GCMS, IRCC might NOT give credit for those periods of time.

Similarly in regards to implied status. The individual's GCMS records might not verify they had implied status. It is not that the individual did not have temporary resident status, but rather it is about IRCC not being able to verify they had status. Might not get credit.

But YOU should know what status you had during what periods of time, and you honestly report that information accordingly. That includes any period of implied status . . . as best I recall there is no generic "implied status," but rather a particular type of implied status (visitor, student, worker) that the FN has based on the rules governing implied status. Again, if you know you had implied status, you must know whether you had implied student status, or implied visitor status, or . . . whichever YOU know YOU had.

As I described in my previous post, the prudent approach is to accurately report, if the individual is confident they had status, any time period for which status is not verified in the individual's GCMS records, which is typically undocumented visitor status or periods of implied status. BUT, again BUT NOT rely on actually getting credit for those days.

Whether you had implied status or a particular grant of status during a particular period of time is something you should know, and report it accordingly.