Citizenship with 177 days physical presence

[septimius]

This is a case where CIC tried to appeal the judge's decision but was unsuccessful. Really makes a person wonder why maintain the exact days if all it takes is just prove your centralized mode of living is in Canada. I think this may have been at the time when cases where decided directly by judges, but still how did it pass the initial line?!

a medical doctor who has been living and working in the United States in an attempt to obtain the necessary credentials to be able to work as a doctor in Canada. As result, when applying for Canadian citizenship, he declared only 177 days of physical presence, which represents a shortfall of 918 days from the required 1095 days. The Judge applied the centralized test for residence set out in Re Papadogiorgakis, 1978 CanLII 2001 (FC), [1978] 2 FC 208, 88 DLR (3d) 243 [FCTD] [Papadogiorgakis]. She found that, despite living in the United States, Mr. xxx had maintained his centralized mode of living in Canada; his application for citizenship was thus approved.

 

[dpenabill]

This is a case where CIC tried to appeal the judge's decision but was unsuccessful. Really makes a person wonder why maintain the exact days if all it takes is just prove your centralized mode of living is in Canada. I think this may have been at the time when cases where decided directly by judges, but still how did it pass the initial line?!

This case was decided under the rules applicable to applications made prior to June 11, 2015. Has NO relevance to applications made since. Will have no relevance going forward after Bill C-6 rules come into force.

This has been discussed in depth. Partial quote:

[Continuing prior post:]

For clarification; some further observations about shortfall applications:

(Again, this is only about applications made prior to June 11, 2015.)

There were three quite recent Federal Court decisions in shortfall cases:
-- in one, the shortfall was quite small but the CJ applied the strict physical presence test; while leave to obtain judical review was allowed, the Federal Court upheld the CJ and explicitly ruled that a CJ can apply the strict test without even considering a qualitative test, without any explanation or reason for choosing to apply the strict test (sorry, I do not have the cite or a link handy for this case)
-- the other two involved very substantial shortfalls, but in both cases the CJ granted approval and IRCC appealed. Justice Shore granted one appeal. Justice Elliott denied the appeal in the other.

see http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/fr/item/233859/index.do for the Aman case (decision by Justice Shore, Minister's appeal granted and case to go back to another CJ for reconsideration; in this case, applicant present a mere 420 days, a shortfall of 675 less than the 1095 day threshold)

see http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/233847/index.do for the Saddique case (decision by Justice Elliott upholding CJ's approval, shortfall applicant to become a citizen; this applicant, who should be a citizen by now, was only present for 177 days)

These two cases are reminescent of the pre-Harper days, when there were scores of shortfall applications, many succeeding despite falling way short of 1095 days actual presence. Even well into Harper's terms, until 2011 or so, a shortfall applicant could be granted citizenship without being referred to a CJ hearing unless the days physically present were less than 900 days. (CJ approval was still required, and by 2010 the odds of a CJ hearing were high for virtually any shortfall, even though the formal policy (internal policy, as revealed through ATI applications) did not mandate a hearing unless the applicant had less than 900 days.)

Note, the short explanation is that under the rules for applications made prior to June 2015, there was a RESIDENCY requirement. Since June 2015 a PHYSICAL PRESENCE requirement applies.

Pursuant to different tests for RESIDENCY, a Citizenship Judge could apply a qualitative test. Many applied a strict physical presence test. But CJs were not bound to any particular test.

Now (for applications made after June 11, 2015) only the physical presence standard applies.

All this is explained in some depth in the topic from which the quote above is taken.

 

[septimius]

This case was decided under the rules applicable to applications made prior to June 11, 2015. Has NO relevance to applications made since. Will have no relevance going forward after Bill C-6 rules come into force.

This has been discussed in depth. Partial quote:




Note, the short explanation is that under the rules for applications made prior to June 2015, there was a RESIDENCY requirement. Since June 2015 a PHYSICAL PRESENCE requirement applies.

Pursuant to different tests for RESIDENCY, a Citizenship Judge could apply a qualitative test. Many applied a strict physical presence test. But CJs were not bound to any particular test.

Now only the physical presence standard applies.

All this is explained in some depth in the topic from which the quote above is taken.

Thanks dpenabill. I was really baffled when I saw it.