Physical residence less than 1095 and non routin procedure

[amazingTOO]

1.you are right,as long as for those who has an option to wait a short time to meet the requirement.
2.only citizenship judge can refuse our case.
3.most citizenship judge are idiots, even some of them are nice.always remember everyone can be a citizenship judge,don't treat them as a god
4.the best way to do is keep in mind what can you do to do the judicial reviews in the begining, like procedure fairness.
5.have a witness either your lawyer or your translator(even you speak perfect official languages).
6.pray Liberal will send nicer CJs.
7.always remember you have the right to change your CJ in the hearing with good grounds which can be well prepared by researching their open CVs in website, and other places they are officially showing off. it's not difficult due to you don't have lots of potential CJs in your city.
7.hope more people on the same boat share the experience with CJs here to let us unofficially know how is our CJ, and give the names.
8.most decisions in federal court mentioned the CJs name before 2012, and some did it after that but you can still guess who is that.
9.citizenship ceremonies posted on youtube is also a good way to know about your idiot CJ.
10. the only thing CJ care about is if his decision(approval in reality,in theory approval or denial) can be judicial reviewed by CIC minister's(delegate), you have your way to let him care about you a little bit more
11. be honest is always good. we already show in the begining we have no reason to lie anything.

 

[Bigudi]

I do love a good happy ending, but I really struggle to understand why a person would apply for citizenship with less then minimum required days.

Someone mentioned illness. I do not understand. Is the person going to be less or more ill if he/she applies for citizenship?
Work travelling is not really a good excuse.
So, what gives? What am I missing here?

 

[amazingTOO]

when bill-c24 wasn't a problem, apply with basic residence make good sense in following scenario:
a.Tom left Canada in total more than 365 days in the last two years in the relevant period, he should choose wait for two more years?
b.Stephen is going to give up the PR anyway, so why not try the luck to apply the citizenship by "honest way"?

when bill-c24 become a problem,apply with basic residence make good sense in following scenarios:
a. Elizebath became a pr after ie. may 11 2013, before she studied and worked in Canada for more than 2 years, he had some short trip abroad in total 40 days, after june 11,2015, he will have wait for two more years to apply the citizenship, should he bet?
b. Justin became a PR ie. on may 12 2013, but had some trips more than 2 months in total, maybe wait one more year?well not that bad.
c. Sophie became a PR on Oct 1 2011, and went to Europe as an exchange student around 9 months in 2013, she come back in on Jan 1, and going to stay in Canada until she qualifies the citizenship by physical requirements which means in July 2015, then a dude introduced Bill C24. By new act, all the time she lived before 2014 won't be counted due to she didn't live in Canada for 183 days in 2014. She should wait until 2018?

when bill-c24 is in force, nothing to do with basic residence...

Only Stephen case played with the system,but there are even some dishonest Stephens who lie about their residency. This really hurt all of us, and that's why lots of people even stayed enough time and got RQs.

 

[ifeedly]

So, as I understand this discussion concludes with these two points:
1) There is no logic in applying for citizenship early if you do not meet residence requirement yet but are able to meet requirements later (saves you from stress and saves you time).
2) If there isn't any other option available for you because of mitigating circumstances and you can prove that you have made Canada your permanent home, go ahead and apply, because this way or that way you have to fight your battle in court and timeline matters little to you.

Am I reading this correct??

 

[amazingTOO]

i think so,I hope i didnt miss anything, are you also on the same boat?
hope this post will be the place we shared the experience, indeed there are not so many people like us.
this boat is not sinkable, but most people are likely to die eventually, and tory was the storm:-\ :-[

 

[dpenabill]

So, as I understand this discussion concludes with these two points:
1) There is no logic in applying for citizenship early if you do not meet residence requirement yet but are able to meet requirements later (saves you from stress and saves you time).
2) If there isn't any other option available for you because of mitigating circumstances and you can prove that you have made Canada your permanent home, go ahead and apply, because this way or that way you have to fight your battle in court and timeline matters little to you.

Am I reading this correct??

Not really.

The discussion about shortfall cases is only applicable to applications already made, and has no relevance for anyone now assessing when to apply.

That is, as of now, there is no logic at all in making an application with fewer days than the physical presence requirements. Any such application will be forthwith rejected. If the applicant declares presence meeting the physical presence requirements but it is later determined, in processing the application, that the number is less than the requirements, the application will then be denied even if only one day short. It will be denied even if one day short because there is no provision in the current law which allows such persons to be granted citizenship.


Extent to which shortfall applications are relevant:

There are some people who have already applied for citizenship, did so prior to June 11, 2015, and applied with fewer than the threshold for the physical presence test of residency (1095 days APP). Some will succeed, as has amazing21. Many will not.

Whether they made their application based on good reasons or not is now irrelevant. Whatever their logic, that is of no significance.

What matters now, for these applicants, is whether or not CIC is satisfied they nonetheless met the requirement to be resident in Canada for three out of four years, or if CIC is not so satisfied, whether a CJ may be persuaded the applicant nonetheless met the requirement to be resident in Canada for three out of four years based on a qualitative test. The outcome will be based on multiple factors, having centralized their life in Canada being a huge one, but also subject to simply who makes the decision. Some CJs will simply apply the strict APP test and that's it; for those whose case is decided by a CJ who will only apply the strict APP test, any shortfall will result in approval being denied.

I go into this detail to emphasize, to avoid any misunderstanding: there is, now, absolutely NO logic in making a shortfall application.

Whatever logic may have supported doing so in the past, there is none now.

While we may see a roll back in some of the more strict elements of the Citizenship Act implemented per Bill C-24, under the Liberal government, it seems more likely that a strict physical presence requirement (rather than a residency requirement) will be kept. So it is not likely there will be changes which would re-introduce scenarios in which there could be some logic to applying with a shortfall.

 

[amazingTOO]

Yes, and Citizenship judge will be symbolic due to citizenship officers will be the decision makers since everything is physical requirement, lots of the citizenship judge will lose the jobs, and liberal will bring their own judges. :-*

 

[dpenabill]

There were three new decisions in citizenship application appeals published within the last week. CIC won all three. In two CIC appealed decisions approving applicants, and again CIC won these. In the third, an applicant appealed and lost.

As to the potential for approval of an applicant with a shortfall (less than 1095 days actual physical presence), the Khoreva decision is another example of an applicant falling short of the 1095 day threshold by just a very few days (just three days in this case) and CIC appealing the CJ's approval, and CIC winning the appeal.

The CJ did indeed make an error. The CJ purported to apply the Re Pourghasemi actual physical presence test even though it was clear the applicant mistakenly failed to report a trip, reducing her presence from 1096 to 1092. Once the calculation fell below the 1095 days APP threshold, the applicant could only be approved based on residency not presence, and that would require a decision based on a qualitative test.

This case may illustrate how things could soon be different under the leadership of John McCallum. This seems to be a case which CIC might easily decline to appeal. It may even be a case which upon being sent back to CIC, that CIC now might even go ahead and grant citizenship. No counting on that of course.

The take-away lesson:

Well, there is the obvious, the one articulated by the applicant herself, and that is if she had not overlooked the four day trip she would have simply waited another week to apply. Margin, margin, margin.

But this case also illustrates the difference being represented by legal counsel might easily have had. A lawyer should readily recognize the problem once the additional four-day trip was identified, that the CJ could not apply the Re Pourghasemi actual physical presence test and approve the applicant for citizenship based on it . . . that is, that the CJ would have to apply a qualitative test. That is all the CJ would have had to do, that is, to apply a qualitative test and concluded the applicant had centralized her life in Canada, and thus was resident-in-Canada for three years despite periods of absence during that time.

It is not easy for individuals to formulate and persuasively make such a case, particularly since it requires, in a sense, in effect, instructing the CJ how to make his or her decision. Decision-makers tend to bristle when someone attempts to instruct them about how to make their decision. Lawyers, competent and good lawyers anyway, are skilled in how to approach decision-makers in this regard.

This particular applicant also failed to be represented at the appeal. Probably would not have made a difference at that stage, since the CJ had clearly applied the Re Pourghasemi APP test and the applicant's facts did not meet that test.


The other case in which CIC appealed, the Chinnappan decision, and won, also involved an applicant who was not represented either at the CJ hearing or in the appeal. The facts disclosed are sketchy so it is difficult to second-guess why this went down the way it did at the CJ hearing or how it could have gone differently but nonetheless favourably for the applicant. Lost passports are always a problem. Combine a lost passport with CIC having records taken from a passport in an earlier transaction (a family sponsorship application) reflecting substantial discrepancies with travel declarations, that is a big problem. Thus, not much to glean from this case beyond the obvious, that lost passports are a problem, and that the failure to disclose all travel is a big problem. Whether these could have been better dealt with through representation by a lawyer cannot be discerned.

The third recent decision, in the Djeddou case, is noteworthy to me only in that for this individual, he had been twice before denied approval, and twice had his case reconsidered, and thus this was the third time a CJ denied him approval. He lost.

It appears that the first two times he must have appealed and CIC consented to set aside the CJ's denials and have the matter decided again. But this is a decision in French and my French is not so good, and the electronic translations are not particularly trustworthy, so I am not certain that he was the one appealing both the earlier CJ decisions.

 

[amazingTOO]

good point, and interesting thing to aware that the JR was lunched months ago, and court hearing was a week before crime alexander officially step down, the decision days was days after the hearing.
will be good to read the decisions for this week.
if i was those lawyers I would have tried to delay the court hearing by all means.

 

[amazingTOO]

The third recent decision, in the Djeddou case, is noteworthy to me only in that for this individual, he had been twice before denied approval, and twice had his case reconsidered, and thus this was the third time a CJ denied him approval. He lost.

It appears that the first two times he must have appealed and CIC consented to set aside the CJ's denials and have the matter decided again. But this is a decision in French and my French is not so good, and the electronic translations are not particularly trustworthy, so I am not certain that he was the one appealing both the earlier CJ decisions.

and by seeing his timeline, assuming he stayed in Canada all the time after submission the application, he still qualify to apply the citizenship now, especially by 4/6 rules, and it's exact our situation, we have nothing to lose by applying before jun 11,2015
hopefully they will recognized what we did claim in our first application, and we just need to prove the remaining residence time in the next application.(at least the period we meet in the federal court) ;D
and we will offer an opportunity to give a "speech" in federal court, and the words won't be patiently heard by CJs, by paying only 50 dollars.
previous govt delayed lots of cases by all means,even you stayed 1095 days, especially CIC didn't know what kind of person you are.
by this fight with CIC they will know at least you are an honest person,and all your "speech" on federal court will be against Tories :'( this will make the emotional distance closer to the new CIC, if it's handled well.
anyway,wish we all good luck