GCMS notes say 'I do not appear to meet physical presence requirement'. Referred to PS for review/decision. What to do now?

[MichelleL]

Will keep you posted, best of luck with your app!

Just got GCMS note today, indeed it’s the same as yours “
Physical presence: Yes: NPR not verifiable i n GCMS
Does not appear to meet the physical presence requirement. Client previously advised o f this but
application resubmitted and client wishes t o proceed. File being referred t o PS for review/decision.”

 

[MichelleL]

Will keep you posted, best of luck with your app!

Can you please kindly let me know if yours look the same? I cannot tell if mine means NPR verified or not. On the bottom it says “PP: Yes: NPR not verifiable”, then on the top it says “NPR verified”, that’s why I’m confused.

The original notes:
“””
NOTES: 19
Created Date: 2025/07/02
Updated Date: 2025/07/02
Restricted: N
Label: General
Text: [Completeness check]
Case notes: N O AKA
Changed name since PR-no
NPR VERIFIED
A s per Craig MacGillivary
oes not appear t o meet the physical presence requirement. Client previously advised o f this bı
oolication resuomitted and client wishes to proceed. Fle beino reterred to Ps tor review decisio
Physical presence: Yes: NPR not verifiable in GCMS
Notes: A s per Craig MacGillivary
Does not appear to meet the physical presence requirement. Client previously advised o f this but
application resubmitted and client wishes t o proceed. File being referred t o PS for review/decision.”””

 

[menaka_p]

Can you please kindly let me know if yours look the same? I cannot tell if mine means NPR verified or not. On the bottom it says “PP: Yes: NPR not verifiable”, then on the top it says “NPR verified”, that’s why I’m confused.

The original notes:
“””
NOTES: 19
Created Date: 2025/07/02
Updated Date: 2025/07/02
Restricted: N
Label: General
Text: [Completeness check]
Case notes: N O AKA
Changed name since PR-no
NPR VERIFIED
A s per Craig MacGillivary
oes not appear t o meet the physical presence requirement. Client previously advised o f this bı
oolication resuomitted and client wishes to proceed. Fle beino reterred to Ps tor review decisio
Physical presence: Yes: NPR not verifiable in GCMS
Notes: A s per Craig MacGillivary
Does not appear to meet the physical presence requirement. Client previously advised o f this but
application resubmitted and client wishes t o proceed. File being referred t o PS for review/decision.”””

Nope mine doesn’t have a note like this.

 

[MichelleL]

Nope mine doesn’t have a note like this.

Very interesting! What is the due date (under ELIGIBILITY section) listed on your GCMS note? Did the due date change (e.g. delayed) btw your first GCMS and second GCMS? Mine listed 2026/06/27 as the due date, as this point I don't even think the app can be finished before next June.

Happy holidays btw!

 

[canuck78]

Very interesting! What is the due date (under ELIGIBILITY section) listed on your GCMS note? Did the due date change (e.g. delayed) btw your first GCMS and second GCMS? Mine listed 2026/06/27 as the due date, as this point I don't even think the app can be finished before next June.

Happy holidays btw!

Due date is set for internal processing reasons and should be ignored by applicants. Many incorrectly assume that they provide some sort of processing guarantee and that IRCC has to meet this deadline. Fairly common to keep extended due dates.

 

[menaka_p]

Very interesting! What is the due date (under ELIGIBILITY section) listed on your GCMS note? Did the due date change (e.g. delayed) btw your first GCMS and second GCMS? Mine listed 2026/06/27 as the due date, as this point I don't even think the app can be finished before next June.

Happy holidays btw!

Hi, my due date is 2026/3/30 and hasn’t changed in the GCMS notes (I’ve ordered twice at this point). But I know the due date really doesn’t mean anything.

 

[MichelleL]

Hi. I received my test invite on September 26, gave the test of Oct 4 and it was marked completed two days later.

No LPP updates, my GCMS notes say the file is in level 2 review which I believe it because of the NPR days.

Hey any update on LPP? I finally got test invite today..

 

[menaka_p]

Hey any update on LPP? I finally got test invite today..

I got my passport today

Had an interview in feb for physical presence and LPP was marked complete the same day.

 

[MichelleL]

I got my passport today

Had an interview in feb for physical presence and LPP was marked complete the same day.

Congratulations!!! What did they ask in the interview if you still remember?

 

[menaka_p]

Congratulations!!! What did they ask in the interview if you still remember?

It was very straightforward, she checked the TRV stamp on my passport from when I first entered Canada. Took a photocopy and LPP was marked to completed on the same day.

 

[fooqs]

Hi, i was searching for similar scenarios, and came across your profile. My wife has the same situation, she had visitor status, and then extension of record status and then work permit and then PR. We also used her pre-PR days to apply for her citizenship, but since AOR in June and BG passed in Aug, nothing has changed (so 10 months since AOR).


If, like your case, there is an issue with Presence days calculation, they sent you a interview request in Feb 2026 (11 months after AOR) ? Did you receive it as a call or an email, or was there any change in status tracker ?

Did you contact IRCC or get ministerial help to have application moved ?

Thanks.

It was very straightforward, she checked the TRV stamp on my passport from when I first entered Canada. Took a photocopy and LPP was marked to completed on the same day.

 

[menaka_p]

Hi, i was searching for similar scenarios, and came across your profile. My wife has the same situation, she had visitor status, and then extension of record status and then work permit and then PR. We also used her pre-PR days to apply for her citizenship, but since AOR in June and BG passed in Aug, nothing has changed (so 10 months since AOR).


If, like your case, there is an issue with Presence days calculation, they sent you a interview request in Feb 2026 (11 months after AOR) ? Did you receive it as a call or an email, or was there any change in status tracker ?

Did you contact IRCC or get ministerial help to have application moved ?

Thanks.

You get a notification on the tracker that you’ve been scheduled for an interview on a certain date and then details are sent via email around a week before the interview date.

I requested GCMS notes about 2-3 times throughout the process and reached out to the MP twice. I’m not sure if any of these actions were helpful but it doesn’t hurt to try.

Honestly, if you’re sure about your physical presence calculation, it’s only a matter of time that your application will be approved. It’s very good news that your BG is done. Generally long delays happen with applicants that are stuck in third party security screening. I would recommend you get all your proof for pre-PR days in order and also apply for CBSA entry/exit record just to double check that your dates are correct.

 

[armoured]

Honestly, if you’re sure about your physical presence calculation, it’s only a matter of time that your application will be approved.

I agree with this overall with one caveat: in some cases for those using pre-PR days, particularly if there are periods where extensions have been granted (e.g. visitor record), IRCC seems to get stuck on whether their systems reflect that the applicant's status was valid.

And while it seems obvious that these gaps usually reflect a case where someone applied to extend / change status (and the status is considered 'implied' or whatever term of art these days), it's not clear to me that IRCC always consistently handles this gap or discrepancy. And I can't say for certain that it is 'just a matter of time' - i.e. that they always end up agreeing those days count and approving.

It's one reason people on the board recommend having a bit of a buffer in physical presence days and ideally less or no reliance on pre-PR days, and if any gaps are known of, having a buffer that would cover them.

Of course you're right that if there's no discrepancy and/or it's possible to document the physical days as present and valid, yes. But there can be cases where there's an actual dispute.