November 2024 - Citizenship Applications

[USProgrammer]

Just spoke to IRCC. They said my wife's application is not on hold despite the note. According to the IRCC rep, "Verification means verifying everything in the application".
My application does not have similar notes apparently.

He advised that I could split my application from my wife's application so that it gets processed separately. Else we won't get a decision until both applications have completed processing.
Is this a good idea? Would it have any negative impact (or positive impact) on application processing?

If you're living permanently in Canada, and you don't have an urgent need for a Canadian passport for visa-free travel, I'd probably keep them together so you can celebrate in a ceremony together.

We submitted separately about 11 days apart, but our ceremonies were 4 months apart. We are currently residing in the US though, and one of being a citizen meant the other continued getting PR days by living with a citizen spouse. We also had to make separate trips to Canada (I went for both, she only went for hers) for the oath, but again, if you're living there, this wouldn't matter.

It's really up to you. What would being a citizen mean for you right now if your wife wasn't one?

 

[dpak88]

We are in the same boat. We are living in Ohio at the moment. That's why I am tempted to separate the applications so that one of us can get the citizenship and if worst case the application keeps getting delayed for 4 years at least both of us won't lose our PR. We intend to return back at the end of next year to Canada; but I want to play it safe.

 

[USProgrammer]

We are in the same boat. We are living in Ohio at the moment. That's why I am tempted to separate the applications so that one of us can get the citizenship and if worst case the application keeps getting delayed for 4 years at least both of us won't lose our PR. We intend to return back at the end of next year to Canada; but I want to play it safe.

We also intend to return, but it might be a few years. It sounds like you have a good reason to separate. You might want to double check the PR days thing with a competent legal source.

I read something the other day that made me question what I thought. It was someone who was a PR, moved away for a long time, failed their RO days, but hadn't entered Canada to have a case filed against them by CBSA. They then married a Canadian. They thought they began accruing PR days again and could regain 730 days before entering Canada.

It was said that you must have been married or residing with the Canadian spouse/partner already, and left with them. Not merely acquiring a Canadian spouse after leaving.

I don't know if this applies to us or not. We have been married a long time, but I became Canadian after we were already non-resident, but we also never dropped out of RO days at that time. So, to be honest, I'm actually not sure now if you becoming Canadian restarts PR day acquisition again.

Edit: You also might want to still separate, even if she might not get PR days. At least if you're a citizen, you can sponsor her back in as a PR (and eventual citizen).

 

[armoured]

It was said that you must have been married or residing with the Canadian spouse/partner already, and left with them. Not merely acquiring a Canadian spouse after leaving.

I don't know if this applies to us or not. We have been married a long time, but I became Canadian after we were already non-resident, but we also never dropped out of RO days at that time. So, to be honest, I'm actually not sure now if you becoming Canadian restarts PR day acquisition again.

I do not have the answer to this, it's a question of what IRCC chooses to do (historically and going forward), and also court decisions (to extent there are any - and to be careful, I'm not sure that all decisions eg of IRCC tribunals are considered precedent).

But the law provides only a broad term, PRs 'accompanying a citizen-spouse' abroad. I would be skeptical about any interpretation that attempts to definitively state what counts as 'accompanying', esp if the basic nexus of the spouses leaving to reside abroad - together - is not obvious, and yes, to me, one of the two becoming a citizen would also legitimately be a question.

Will IRCC care enough to interpret this differently (and institute procedures to check / challenge such cases)? I don't know. But internal changes or political changes could certainly influence it.

I'd instead say that any citizenship applicants should plan upon remaining compliant with the residency obligation until they get citizenship.

 

[USProgrammer]

But the law provides only a broad term, PRs 'accompanying a citizen-spouse' abroad.

[...]

I'd instead say that any citizenship applicants should plan upon remaining compliant with the residency obligation until they get citizenship.

I would say the easiest, safest thing to do would be to separate the applications, get your citizenship, hopefully soon. Do a day trip with her once you are a citizen. She has then left Canada, "accompanying a citizen-spouse". You would think by the "letter of the law" she accrues PR days from the on at least.

Regarding the RO until citizenship, this also allows you to make sure you're compliant since your citizenship would get processed now (you think), and then like I said before, worst-case, you could sponsor her as a PR back again when you move back. She'd probably have to renounce her PR first for that to work. So honestly at that point, you'd probably have to enter, hope no CBSA case is opened/referred, and if it is, work with a lawyer on H&C and/or the "accompanying a citizen-spouse", since you're obviously just going to sponsor her again and you're a citizen.

 

[MJSPARV]

We are in the same boat. We are living in Ohio at the moment. That's why I am tempted to separate the applications so that one of us can get the citizenship and if worst case the application keeps getting delayed for 4 years at least both of us won't lose our PR. We intend to return back at the end of next year to Canada; but I want to play it safe.

You’ve already applied, right? So the RO clock was effectively stopped when you submitted the application. They look the RO based on the day you submitted. I might be missing something but I’m not sure why you’re confused about RO compliance and considering splitting the applications to be safe

 

[USProgrammer]

You’ve already applied, right? So the RO clock was effectively stopped when you submitted the application. They look the RO based on the day you submitted. I might be missing something but I’m not sure why you’re confused about RO compliance and considering splitting the applications to be safe

You have to be a PR and maintain your RO until you take the oath. Same thing with your prohibitions, etc. The clock doesn't stop.

 

[AKC1989]

Hey Guys,

I still have not received any updates for my application since May 3rd. Wating on background check and prohibitions. I was hoping to have my Canadian Passport by now.

I am having to renew my home country passport as i am going to be travelling for vacation soon. My question is, Do i have to inform IRCC of my new passport once i receive it??

Thank you.

 

[armoured]

You would think by the "letter of the law" she accrues PR days from the on at least.

I think this is over-interpreting and would not at all be reliable - but more importantly it's several degrees of separation from reality, at present.

I mean: you could find a lawyer willing to take your money to argue that. But the counter-argument is obvious, from a common law, substantive sense: if the individual was residing outside of Canada before this return/departure trip, clearly not within the sense of the act.

Who'd win? I don't know. I wouldn't want to bet money on it. This is too much a 'lawyerly' argument to convince me.

Regarding the RO until citizenship, this also allows you to make sure you're compliant since your citizenship would get processed now (you think)

You’ve already applied, right? So the RO clock was effectively stopped when you submitted the application. They look the RO based on the day you submitted. I might be missing something but I’m not sure why you’re confused about RO compliance and considering splitting the applications to be safe

To be clear: I am referring here to the residency obligation which applies to permanent residents, i.e. two years of the last five (or less than 1095 days ABROAD in the last five years).

This is distinct and separate from the physical presence requirement, which applies only as of the day you apply.

Why do I bring this up? I believe most skip over this, but the citizenship requirements are (amongst others) 1) fulfillment of the physical presence requirement as of the date of applying for citizenship, AND 2) remaining compliant with the PR residency obligation.

For most applicants, not an issue: if you remain in Canada it's basically redundant (you had 1095 days before, right?). It's also a low bar for anyone who's been in Canada two years straight before applying for citizenship.

But, for someone who leaves Canada after applying - you MIGHT start losing days from the beginning of your five year period (for applying for citizenship), which MIGHT mean you'd fall out of compliance wiht the RO as soon as one year after applying.

I think I've done the arithmetic right here. At any rate: again, it's a low bar, and really only an issue for those whose applications might go over one year AND are no longer residing in Canada, etc. This is a small number of applicants.

Caveat: this is my understanding. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

 

[armoured]

You have to be a PR and maintain your RO until you take the oath. Same thing with your prohibitions, etc. The clock doesn't stop.

You put this far more succinctly than I did.

I'll only add for clarity, the 1095 days physical presence 'clock' does stop as of the day you apply.

 

[USProgrammer]

This is distinct and separate from the physical presence requirement, which applies only as of the day you apply.

Why do I bring this up? I believe most skip over this, but the citizenship requirements are (amongst others) 1) fulfillment of the physical presence requirement as of the date of applying for citizenship, AND remaining compliant with the PR residency obligation.

That's a good point. I was referring to the clock not stopping on PR RO days, and you do have to be a PR at the time of the citizenship oath.

You're also probably right on the lawyerly argument of "accompanying", but it's still probably safest that he acquire citizenship "now" with a non-routine spouse application, so that he can at least sponsor her back in if necessary.

 

[armoured]

You're also probably right on the lawyerly argument of "accompanying", but it's still probably safest that he acquire citizenship "now" with a non-routine spouse application, so that he can at least sponsor her back in if necessary.

I agree with your advice/conclusion here, may as well split it if they're both abroad.

I was mainly underlining the point from above, that no-one knows precisely how IRCC approaches 'accompanying', and it seems to have moved some over the years - and could easily be more strictly applied in future. While some cases of 'accompanying' are fairly clear and unlikely to raise questions, more ... ahem, aggressive interpretations might not be so clear.

 

[dpak88]

Thanks everyone. This might sound like a dumb question. But what reason should I state for wanting to split the application as I suspect saying "I want my application processed faster" is likely not going to be accepted.

With regards to spouse accompanying as a PR, one of my friends, living and working in Dubai, is a Canadian citizen while his wife isn't. She got her PR by following the path that USProgrammer advised, i.e. she visits Canada with him once every couple of years and any time she spends abroad still counts towards her PR. And since she is married to a Canadian she gets to renew her PR without having to spend time inside Canada.

 

[USProgrammer]

Thanks everyone. This might sound like a dumb question. But what reason should I state for wanting to split the application as I suspect saying "I want my application processed faster" is likely not going to be accepted.

I thought you said you were advised by IRCC they could split the applications already per your request. I didn't know you had to give a reason. I also don't know where you're from, but I know a lot on this board are Indian. Is there somewhere you need to travel that is visa-free for Canada but not for India? We applied separately for this possible eventuality, so I never had to split them.

... one of my friends, living and working in Dubai, is a Canadian citizen while his wife isn't. She got her PR [...] she visits Canada with him once every couple of years and any time she spends abroad still counts towards her PR. And since she is married to a Canadian she gets to renew her PR without having to spend time inside Canada.

Did she get PR and were they married while he was already a citizen? If so that would be different from your situation.

 

[dpak88]

I thought you said you were advised by IRCC they could split the applications already per your request. I didn't know you had to give a reason. I also don't know where you're from, but I know a lot on this board are Indian. Is there somewhere you need to travel that is visa-free for Canada but not for India? We applied separately for this possible eventuality, so I never had to split them.



Did she get PR and were they married while he was already a citizen? If so that would be different from your situation.

IRCC rep said this is a route I can take but in the email he sent, one of the points is "Reason why application should be processed separately". I am originally from India; I don't have to travel yet but may have to travel next year to a country where Canadians can travel visa-free.

With regards to my friend and his wife, they got married when he was already a citizen and then she got her PR. Now I see why that is different.