arambi said:
Did you apply with shortfall... there is little hope...
Read this Final Court Decision
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/127720/index.do?r=AAAAAQAvY2l0aXplbnNoaXAgYXBwbGljYXRpb24gcmVzaWRlbmNlIHF1ZXN0aW9ubmFpcmUB
arambi said:
Application with 23 days shortfall was sent to CJ (under old rules).
CJ applied Qualitative test (not quantitative test) and approved application.
Minister appealed CJ decision.
Appeal Court uphold CJ decision and dismissed Minister's appeal. This is FINAL.
The case you cite and link was
NOT a shorfall case, and in fact the applicant declared 1326 days actual presence and CIC recalculated the applicant's declaration to be
1298 days actual presence.
The Citizenship Judge applied the actual physical presence test.
Qualitative test for residency played no part in the case.
This was a credibility and insufficient proof case.
Moreover, the decision is
NOT final, but is "referred to a different decision-maker for re-determination."
arambi said:
No hope for shortfall under new rule.
This part is correct, as applicable to applications made after June 11, 2015.
Cited and linked case not relevant to this however.
Overall: Shortfall applications under old law may still be successful.
Overall, there have been a number of decisions in the last several months reinforcing the potential success of some shortall applications made under the requirements applicable before June 11, 2015. I have cited and linked some of these in other topics here.
Additionally there have been occasional anecdotal reports of being scheduled for the oath by some who applied with a shortfall.
There have been cases in which a CJ's approval has been set aside and the decision is apparently final, but this is an
exception not the rule. Generally, if the Minister's appeal is granted, the matter is sent back for another decision-maker to re-determine the application. Example of case where the decision was final, citizenship denied despite a CJ's approval, is where there was a clear shortfall and the applicant's evidence did not establish a definite date by which the applicant had established actual residence in Canada sufficient to support a finding of three years resident in Canada
after the date of establishing actual residence in Canada.
Again, for applications filed prior to June 11, 2015, there are still some shortfall applications which are resulting in the grant of citizenship. It is impossible to estimate what the chances are of being successful. A lot depends on the particular facts of the individual case, the extent of the shortfall, the extent to which the applicant documented when actual residence was established, and the extent to which it is clear the applicant's life was centralized in Canada for more than three years.
We have even seen one report of an applicant being scheduled for the oath despite a shortfall and relying on prelanding credit -- this is a scenario in which it appeared the odds of success were almost certainly none-existent. As I recall, however, the one case of this involved a minor mistake in the residency calculation resulting in a shortfall of just a few days.
This is not to suggest that any applicant with a significant shortfall, who applied under the old law, has good odds. We really do not know the odds. For example, any with a significant shortfall probably have very poor odds.