Short version:
Justice Barnes recently issued a decision (dated in September but just recently published) which affirms a Citizenship Judge's grant of approval to a shortfall applicant who relied on pre-landing credit.
See the
decision in the Nena Felicilda Ampo case by Justice Barnes.
Long version:
Never say never.
This inherently self-contradictory imperative is perhaps among the most widely understood and agreed upon adages, despite being logically non-sense (as it is self-contradictory).
It really only means that there is always the potential for an exception to even the most definitive statement.
I never agreed with the widely offered proposition that shortfall applications were doomed, guaranteed to be denied. I did agree that shortfall cases had become increasingly problematic, increasingly at risk of a denial, and the larger the shortfall the more so. In contrast, indeed, over time and until now, there continues to be at least a trickle of reports of successful shortfall applications, shortfall applicants taking the oath.
But there was one type of shortfall case for which I suggested the odds are so against, that there was at best only the most remote chance of success, and that is the shortfall case also relying on credit for time in Canada prior to landing. In many years of following reports in multiple forums, and following virtually every published Federal Court decision regarding a citizenship application, I can recall only one report of success in the forums (subject, of course, to all the relevant caveats about the trustworthiness of reports in forums like this), and in the published Federal Court decisions only one instance in which a Citizenship Judge had approved a shortfall applicant who also relied on pre-landing credit . . . regarding the latter, the Minister's appeal was granted, so the approval by the CJ was set aside, and the case went back to another decision-maker, ultimate outcome unknown. Thus, no official cases reflecting the grant of citizenship to any shortfall applicant relying on pre-landing credit.
Until now.
Reminder:
There is no longer any question about applying with less than the threshold number of days physically present specified in the
Citizenship Act. Applicants now are simply
not eligible for a grant of citizenship if they fall short of the current requirements. But prior to June 11, 2015, many PRs did elect to apply for citizenship, based on the old requirements pursuant to which they would be
eligible despite falling short of 1095 days actual physical presence, subject to a Citizenship Judge deciding whether or not they nonetheless were resident-in-Canada for three years and thus also qualified for citizenship.
Thus, it is now a matter of who did apply with a shortfall, and how is that working out.
As I noted, I gave virtually no chance of success for a shortfall application which also depended on credit for pre-landing time. But,
never say never, so I did not suggest there was no chance at all, just such a poor chance it was practically equivalent to no chance. Like buying a ticket in the U.S. big powerball lottery. Well, actually a better chance than that, a lot better chance (chances of any given ticket being the winner in the U.S. powerball is now approaching one in three million) . . . and there are literally many, many millions of people buying that chance. It is not as if we are a rational species (more like the most sophisticated and pervasive form of locust nature has to date produced).
So while my sense is that the OP did not gamble so much, applying with a significant shortfall and (as I understand it) relying on a substantial amount of credit for time in Canada prior to becoming a PR, but wasted time and money pursuing what is pretty much a lost cause. Better odds than a buying a ticket for the U.S. powerball lottery, but a much, much higher cost.
Despite the
decision in the Nena Felicilda Ampo case by Justice Barnes, which dismisses the Minister's appeal of a CJ decision which, indeed, did
approve a shortfall applicant who relied on pre-landing credit, my appraisal of the OP's odds is mostly the same, not good, no where near reason for much hope.
That said, the case does offer a glimmer of more hope than what any reasonable person would have had before seeing this decision.
While it was a shortfall, it was a shortfall by just TWO days.
That said, there were other issues, in particular some conflict regarding what the evidence was before the CJ. The Minister advocating the failure of the CJ to include photocopies of certain evidence in the Certified Tribunal Record as warranting an inference that evidence was not actually presented or did not support the decision made.
I do not know what the shortfall is in the OP's case. If it is minimal, and the OP has a strong case showing both the extent of actual presence nearly meeting the threshold, and of establishing and maintaining residence in Canada, and that the OP's life was centralized in Canada, this
decision in the Nena Felicilda Ampo case by Justice Barnes does offer some hope, some chance of success.
If the shortfall is significant, say more than thirty days for example, and the OP is in fact relying on pre-landing credit, exerting much effort let alone spending money to continue pursuing it seems a waste . . . but of course it is already in process, and riding it out is perhaps not a problem, no major inconvenience, so how much effort, time, or money to invest going forward is a personal decision. A negative outcome will not have any detrimental impact on the OP, so there is no big reason to give it up now.
Again, though, the subject about whether to apply with a shortfall is now moot. Either those PRs who might have did so, before June 11, 2015, or they did not. For those who did, the cards are dealt and just need to be read.
