Applying with 1060 Physical Days
- Thread starter prasamp
- Start date
This is correct, for obtaining Canadian Citizenship, you will need to live in Canada.
However, being married (and/or) living with a Canadian citizen for a certain period qualifies you to enter as a Permanent Residence.
However, being married (and/or) living with a Canadian citizen for a certain period qualifies you to enter as a Permanent Residence.
prasamp said:
I really think this is gonna be a total waste of money, if you do so, because the only thing guaranteed is you will Not be refunded for the refused application fee.. I wouldn't , PLUS... YES you may have to wait a little longer , but take in considerations you could apply under the current system and that can also trigger RQ. so you will fall under the none routine which is 36 months and then you will have to wait for 2 good years! just for a hearing judge .... that's if the application was accepted which i doubt ..
Under the new decision making model the whole process will be less than a year, so i'd wait , but again this is just my opinion
Decision is yours .
Good luck!
billy85 said:
HELLO billy85 ..
No. Marriage to a Canadian citizen does not give you citizenship.
If you want to become a Canadian citizen, you must follow the same steps as everyone else , there is NO special process for spouses of Canadian citizens to become citizens.
You must meet several requirements to apply for citizenship. Two of them are:
* You must be a permanent resident of Canada.
* You must have lived in Canada for three of the four years according to the current system and 4 out of 6 years according to the new system, before you can apply.
However your wife would be able to sponsor you to become a permanent resident
Good luck!
aries9811
Hero Member
- Jun 6, 2009
- 8
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Buffalo-NY
- NOC Code......
- ................
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- Jan 27, 2010
- Doc's Request.
- March 17,2010 --> Documents Recieved @VO April 2,2010
- Nomination.....
- Not Applicable
- AOR Received.
- Second AOR 1st May 2010
- IELTS Request
- March 17,2010
- File Transfer...
- Nov 2, 2011
- Med's Request
- Jan 26,2012
- Med's Done....
- Received @Ottawa Feb 17,2012
- Interview........
- Waived
- Passport Req..
- May 10, 2012
- VISA ISSUED...
- June 2012
- LANDED..........
- August 2012
I would like to add on to it.
After you have your PR Card, and you are still not in Canada but your wife is staying with you (Outside Canada). That many number of days will count towards your Residency Requirements. So, it's okay after you get your PR Card, you can stay abroad with your Canadian Citizen Spouse.
After you have your PR Card, and you are still not in Canada but your wife is staying with you (Outside Canada). That many number of days will count towards your Residency Requirements. So, it's okay after you get your PR Card, you can stay abroad with your Canadian Citizen Spouse.
thanks guys for the clarification
what do we mean by my wife sponsor me for the PR ? can that be done from abroad where we are planning to live
can she sponsor me when she will not live in canada mean proceed from abroad (as we are planning to live outside canada due to my current job position)? or she must be in canada to proceed with this step ?
what do we mean by my wife sponsor me for the PR ? can that be done from abroad where we are planning to live
can she sponsor me when she will not live in canada mean proceed from abroad (as we are planning to live outside canada due to my current job position)? or she must be in canada to proceed with this step ?
Am quoting the original post and query, below, because it best outlines the issue raised and relevant considerations pertinent to applying with less than 1095 days APP (actual physical presence).
Such applications are commonly referred to shortfall applications. As others have indicated, these days the odds are not good for shortfall applicants, but as I discuss some below (and contrary to some comments above) there is still some chance that a shortfall applicant might be approved and granted citizenship. Current law does not absolutely require a minimum of 1095 days APP.
I offer my observations below with the caveat that they are about general principles and practices, about applying what is known to facts generally, and should not be taken as personal advice. For specific, personal advice about how to best proceed in a specific case, it would be better to at least obtain a consultation with a lawyer, a licensed, reputable, experienced Canadian immigration and citizenship lawyer.
The overriding observation, of course, is that it appears CIC is strictly enforcing an actual physical presence standard in most, if not nearly all but a few exceptional cases. While some assert there is an absolute requirement to have 1095 days APP, it is not an absolute requirement. Indeed, there have been a couple recent cases in which the Federal Court granted an appeal because the Citizenship Judge did not consider a qualitative test (oft called the Koo test). But, it does appear that CIC mostly applies the strict physical presence test (requiring physical presence for at least 1095 days), and encourages CJs to do likewise, and as a result it also appears that many if not most CJs are following CIC's lead in this. Moreover, most Federal Court judges are allowing this, some emphatically, some ruling this is the only correct interpretation and application of the law.
So the odds are probably less than 50-50, and perhaps significantly less than 50-50. But they are not zero. And the situation, the circumstances, will thus matter a great deal.
One more upfront observation: while Citizenship Judges have been taken out of routine case decision making, for now applicants will not be denied based on residency unless a Citizenship Judge, after a hearing, denies approval (allowing, however, that even if the CJ grants approval, CIC can still appeal that rather than forthwith grant citizenship). That is, if CIC is not satisfied the applicant met the residency requirement, CIC does not summarily deny a grant of citizenship; rather, the case will still be referred to a Citizenship Judge for a hearing.
The risks you are taking include:
-- virtual certainty of being issued RQ
-- likely delay over processing times for routine cases (but probably not the protracted residency case timelines suffered by so many these last three-five years)
-- substantial prospect of denial, thus wasted time and money
Given the substantial odds of CIC's opposition, if not an outright denial by a Citizenship Judge, there is little point in pursuing this without making a concerted effort to do it right, to make the best case you can. Practically that means you should obtain the assistance of a legal professional, preferrably from the beginning (as in including in preparing the application itself). This increases both the amount of money and effort you will need to invest to pursue this. (Otherwise it is a mere gamble with very poor odds.)
Make no mistake, there probably are many, many thousands of PRs in a similar position, on the cusp, facing the prospect of having to wait well more than an additional year if the new provision takes effect before they make their application. As the date when the new law takes effect approaches, thousands will probably, likewise, make the decision to go ahead and make a shortfall application.
In the meantime, CIC will be bogged down in adapting to a whole lot of new law, policy, and practice, and being a big bureaucracy it will not likely be a smooth transition. It could get rather messy. So those with issues may find their cases at low priority, not well-handled, and perhaps subject to the longer range of delays.
So, given the expense, the extent of effort involved, and the not-so-great odds, for the conscientious PR it will not be an easy decision.
As I suggested, though, the particular facts and circumstances in the individual's case are likely to make a big difference; some shortfall applicants will have better odds than other shortfall applicants, and some will have near zero odds even though not absolutely zero.
But it is difficult to outline what factors loom largest in making up one's mind about whether to pursue the shortfall application or not.
One of the giggest factors, of course, is the extent of the shortfall. The larger the shortfall, the worse the odds. Three years ago, a shortfall of less than a hundred days did not have such daunting odds. Federal Court cases the last several months, reflecting CJ decisions made in 2013, seem to indicate that a shortfall of 35 days poses a high hurdle, the odds not too good.
There is no doubt, up to when the new provisions take effect, credit for time spent living in Canada prior to landing as a PR, but still within the relevant four years, counts toward meeting the residency requirement (half-day credit), and thus for an applicant who met the 1095 day APP (actual physical presence) threshold there should be no problem relying on such credit.
But since the shortfall applicant is essentially asking a Citizenship Judge to find that his life has been sufficiently centralized in Canada to find he has met the residency requirement despite the extent of his absences, my strong sense is that someone who has not been a PR for at least three years, closer to four, is likely to have difficulty convincing a stranger bureaucrat that his life was centralized in Canada during a time period the individual only had temporary status to be in Canada (that is, during any period prior to landing as a PR).
Again, however, there is no indication this is an overt or explicit policy. Thus there is no sure rule about this.
prasamp further postulates that "waiting for another 35 days will put me under new law."
We do not know that. Some are speculating that the new law will not come into force until later in the summer of 2015, perhaps not until September or later even. The only indication the government has given suggested "about a year" from the date of Royal Assent, which would suggest a date in June 2015. On the other hand, there is no bar to the Governor in Council ordering the provisions to come into force sooner than that, perhaps quite a lot sooner.
We just plain do not know when the new residency requirements will take effect.
And for PRs like prasamp and nadeem55, like many thousands of PRs who landed and became PRs between late 2011 and into 2012 (depending on the extent of their travels abroad) the actual date the 4/6 provisions take effect is a big deal.
If, for example, the 4/6 provision takes effect July 1st, an applicant who reached the 1095 days within the previous four years threshold before June 30th and who got his application delivered to CIC by June 30th, meets the residency qualification. If, however, he does not reach the threshold until July 1st, or otherwise fails to get the application made and delivered to CIC before July 1st, that individual will probably have to wait a minimum of another full year before he will be qualified.
Whatever the cutoff date actually is, it will similarly affect all those who are close. The number affected is sure to be many thousands (recognizing that in a typical month 20,000 or more new immigrants land in Canada).
If the public is informed in advance of the date the 4/6 provisions will take effect, these PRs on the cusp can make appropriate plans, one way or the other. Unfortunately, the amount of notice is likely to be short, and there is the possibility of little or no notice at all.
Thus, taking prasamp's situation as an example, if it is clear that the 4/6 provision will come into force August 1st, 2015, thus giving prasamp another sixty days to add to the calculation of days APP, it will of course be best for prasamp to wait until passing the 1095 day threshold. But when the end of May next year approaches, and there is still no clear indication as to when the remaining provisions in Bill C-24 will take effect, it will be tough to decide how much longer to wait before applying.
And the decision will get even tougher if the end of June arrives, and prasamp is still just five days short of 1095 APP. Try waiting a few more days to reach that 1095 day mark? At the risk that the Governor in Council will, with no advance notice, order the provisions to take effect July 1st?
I suspect there will be many, many suffering some anxiety as next summer arrives and they are trying to determine how much longer to wait, or whether to make a shortfall application in order to be sure to avoid being subject to the 4/6 requirement.
Such applications are commonly referred to shortfall applications. As others have indicated, these days the odds are not good for shortfall applicants, but as I discuss some below (and contrary to some comments above) there is still some chance that a shortfall applicant might be approved and granted citizenship. Current law does not absolutely require a minimum of 1095 days APP.
I offer my observations below with the caveat that they are about general principles and practices, about applying what is known to facts generally, and should not be taken as personal advice. For specific, personal advice about how to best proceed in a specific case, it would be better to at least obtain a consultation with a lawyer, a licensed, reputable, experienced Canadian immigration and citizenship lawyer.
The overriding observation, of course, is that it appears CIC is strictly enforcing an actual physical presence standard in most, if not nearly all but a few exceptional cases. While some assert there is an absolute requirement to have 1095 days APP, it is not an absolute requirement. Indeed, there have been a couple recent cases in which the Federal Court granted an appeal because the Citizenship Judge did not consider a qualitative test (oft called the Koo test). But, it does appear that CIC mostly applies the strict physical presence test (requiring physical presence for at least 1095 days), and encourages CJs to do likewise, and as a result it also appears that many if not most CJs are following CIC's lead in this. Moreover, most Federal Court judges are allowing this, some emphatically, some ruling this is the only correct interpretation and application of the law.
So the odds are probably less than 50-50, and perhaps significantly less than 50-50. But they are not zero. And the situation, the circumstances, will thus matter a great deal.
One more upfront observation: while Citizenship Judges have been taken out of routine case decision making, for now applicants will not be denied based on residency unless a Citizenship Judge, after a hearing, denies approval (allowing, however, that even if the CJ grants approval, CIC can still appeal that rather than forthwith grant citizenship). That is, if CIC is not satisfied the applicant met the residency requirement, CIC does not summarily deny a grant of citizenship; rather, the case will still be referred to a Citizenship Judge for a hearing.
My impression is that you have identified many if not most of the key elements which will influence how a fact-finder assesses your case.prasamp said:
The risks you are taking include:
-- virtual certainty of being issued RQ
-- likely delay over processing times for routine cases (but probably not the protracted residency case timelines suffered by so many these last three-five years)
-- substantial prospect of denial, thus wasted time and money
Given the substantial odds of CIC's opposition, if not an outright denial by a Citizenship Judge, there is little point in pursuing this without making a concerted effort to do it right, to make the best case you can. Practically that means you should obtain the assistance of a legal professional, preferrably from the beginning (as in including in preparing the application itself). This increases both the amount of money and effort you will need to invest to pursue this. (Otherwise it is a mere gamble with very poor odds.)
Make no mistake, there probably are many, many thousands of PRs in a similar position, on the cusp, facing the prospect of having to wait well more than an additional year if the new provision takes effect before they make their application. As the date when the new law takes effect approaches, thousands will probably, likewise, make the decision to go ahead and make a shortfall application.
In the meantime, CIC will be bogged down in adapting to a whole lot of new law, policy, and practice, and being a big bureaucracy it will not likely be a smooth transition. It could get rather messy. So those with issues may find their cases at low priority, not well-handled, and perhaps subject to the longer range of delays.
So, given the expense, the extent of effort involved, and the not-so-great odds, for the conscientious PR it will not be an easy decision.
As I suggested, though, the particular facts and circumstances in the individual's case are likely to make a big difference; some shortfall applicants will have better odds than other shortfall applicants, and some will have near zero odds even though not absolutely zero.
But it is difficult to outline what factors loom largest in making up one's mind about whether to pursue the shortfall application or not.
One of the giggest factors, of course, is the extent of the shortfall. The larger the shortfall, the worse the odds. Three years ago, a shortfall of less than a hundred days did not have such daunting odds. Federal Court cases the last several months, reflecting CJ decisions made in 2013, seem to indicate that a shortfall of 35 days poses a high hurdle, the odds not too good.
PRs for less than four years.
A factor that I cannot say is derived from specific statements in the Federal Court cases (I have read at least 45 of the last 50 Federal Court citizenship case decisions, and many more from before that), but which I perceive to nonetheless be a considerable factor, is whether or not the PR has had his or her life centralized in Canada for more than four years. Reminder, this is about shortfall cases, not about applicants who meet the 1095+ APP test (meeting the 1095 days APP test definitively constitutes meeting the residency requirement). And, it seems to me, there is in particular a disadvantage for such applicants relying on credit for time present in Canada before becoming a landed PR (again, this is in reference to a shortfall applicant). There is no doubt, up to when the new provisions take effect, credit for time spent living in Canada prior to landing as a PR, but still within the relevant four years, counts toward meeting the residency requirement (half-day credit), and thus for an applicant who met the 1095 day APP (actual physical presence) threshold there should be no problem relying on such credit.
But since the shortfall applicant is essentially asking a Citizenship Judge to find that his life has been sufficiently centralized in Canada to find he has met the residency requirement despite the extent of his absences, my strong sense is that someone who has not been a PR for at least three years, closer to four, is likely to have difficulty convincing a stranger bureaucrat that his life was centralized in Canada during a time period the individual only had temporary status to be in Canada (that is, during any period prior to landing as a PR).
Again, however, there is no indication this is an overt or explicit policy. Thus there is no sure rule about this.
The real issue: timing the making of the application
prasamp's query is premised on making the application the end of May, 2015, and being 35 days short as of then.prasamp further postulates that "waiting for another 35 days will put me under new law."
We do not know that. Some are speculating that the new law will not come into force until later in the summer of 2015, perhaps not until September or later even. The only indication the government has given suggested "about a year" from the date of Royal Assent, which would suggest a date in June 2015. On the other hand, there is no bar to the Governor in Council ordering the provisions to come into force sooner than that, perhaps quite a lot sooner.
We just plain do not know when the new residency requirements will take effect.
And for PRs like prasamp and nadeem55, like many thousands of PRs who landed and became PRs between late 2011 and into 2012 (depending on the extent of their travels abroad) the actual date the 4/6 provisions take effect is a big deal.
If, for example, the 4/6 provision takes effect July 1st, an applicant who reached the 1095 days within the previous four years threshold before June 30th and who got his application delivered to CIC by June 30th, meets the residency qualification. If, however, he does not reach the threshold until July 1st, or otherwise fails to get the application made and delivered to CIC before July 1st, that individual will probably have to wait a minimum of another full year before he will be qualified.
Whatever the cutoff date actually is, it will similarly affect all those who are close. The number affected is sure to be many thousands (recognizing that in a typical month 20,000 or more new immigrants land in Canada).
If the public is informed in advance of the date the 4/6 provisions will take effect, these PRs on the cusp can make appropriate plans, one way or the other. Unfortunately, the amount of notice is likely to be short, and there is the possibility of little or no notice at all.
Thus, taking prasamp's situation as an example, if it is clear that the 4/6 provision will come into force August 1st, 2015, thus giving prasamp another sixty days to add to the calculation of days APP, it will of course be best for prasamp to wait until passing the 1095 day threshold. But when the end of May next year approaches, and there is still no clear indication as to when the remaining provisions in Bill C-24 will take effect, it will be tough to decide how much longer to wait before applying.
And the decision will get even tougher if the end of June arrives, and prasamp is still just five days short of 1095 APP. Try waiting a few more days to reach that 1095 day mark? At the risk that the Governor in Council will, with no advance notice, order the provisions to take effect July 1st?
I suspect there will be many, many suffering some anxiety as next summer arrives and they are trying to determine how much longer to wait, or whether to make a shortfall application in order to be sure to avoid being subject to the 4/6 requirement.
If she is a PR then she must be in Canada in order to sponsor you. If she is a citizen she can sponsor you from outside of Candaa - however she will need to provide proof with the sponsorship application that you plan to move to Canada and live there once your application is approved. If you have no plans on moving to Canada and can't provide this kind of proof, then there's an excellent chance the application will be refused. So it may make a lot more sense to wait until you actually plan to move to Canada before applying.billy85 said:
Proof one or both of you have employment waiting for you in Canada, proof of property owned in Canada, etc.
This might be a tricky clause to rely on as, on the one hand it indeed falls under the category of OPTION 1. Accompanying a Canadian citizen outside Canada. On the other hand, however they may argue, if his wife would not be working and sitting home whilst abroad, that it was her accompanying him and not the other way round. In a nut shell, no sence to apply even for pr unless/until moving to live in Canada.aries9811 said:
aries9811
Hero Member
- Jun 6, 2009
- 8
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Buffalo-NY
- NOC Code......
- ................
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- Jan 27, 2010
- Doc's Request.
- March 17,2010 --> Documents Recieved @VO April 2,2010
- Nomination.....
- Not Applicable
- AOR Received.
- Second AOR 1st May 2010
- IELTS Request
- March 17,2010
- File Transfer...
- Nov 2, 2011
- Med's Request
- Jan 26,2012
- Med's Done....
- Received @Ottawa Feb 17,2012
- Interview........
- Waived
- Passport Req..
- May 10, 2012
- VISA ISSUED...
- June 2012
- LANDED..........
- August 2012
Rule doesn't say that your Accompanying Spouse should be working abroad ?
It's optional...they could be working or could be staying. As logically, it's not necessary a Canadian Citizen is eligible to any country around the world. They might have to obtain a work visa abroad...so it depends.
It's jus tthey should be staying together ...so that the person not having Citizenship can maintain their PR Status abroad. Thats it!!!!
It's optional...they could be working or could be staying. As logically, it's not necessary a Canadian Citizen is eligible to any country around the world. They might have to obtain a work visa abroad...so it depends.
It's jus tthey should be staying together ...so that the person not having Citizenship can maintain their PR Status abroad. Thats it!!!!
living abroad with your spouse who is a canadian citizen can add days to your PR residency requirement.
For citizenship here is the answer:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?q=370&t=5
For PR here is the answer:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?q=727&t=4
For citizenship here is the answer:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?q=370&t=5
For PR here is the answer:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?q=727&t=4
The issue is now black or white, it is not anymore gray.prasamp said:
The officers are currently rejecting cases short on physical requirements, when the law will come into force, it won't have 2 processes, it will have one only that will be based on that law, and thus you will be rejected.. but hey, since you will have to wait another year on the other side, nothing keeps you from trying to submit, if you will be rejected, it will be for sure within a few month at the start of processing.
- Jan 30, 2012
- 9
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- New Delhi
- NOC Code......
- N/A
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 19-Apr-2013 (In Process from 15th Oct 2013)
- Doc's Request.
- CSQ - 9th October 2013
- Nomination.....
- 15th May 2013 (Sponsor Approval)
- AOR Received.
- 03-May-2013
- IELTS Request
- N/A
- File Transfer...
- 15-May-2013
- Med's Request
- Upfront
- Med's Done....
- March 2013
- Passport Req..
- 13-June-2013
- VISA ISSUED...
- waiting
- LANDED..........
- waiting
You nailed it well. I cannot agree more. but after reading responses here and also like you going through different cases of applications with CJ.. i felt waiting to fulfill 1460 days sounds a better option. All i was thinking was to lose out on the border. Though mind agree with changes to the act..heart is finding it hard to accept as we all slowly getting used to canadian way and when we reach the time thinking we are there we get a hurdle saying sorry you got to wait more time. After paying taxes for 5-6 years i kinda of felt why this change.. but looking at the bigger picture i take it with pinch of salt. Waiting is better than playing with the system.dpenabill said: