I didn't read everything, but there must have been some indication in the file itself that they caught immediately. Physical presence verification takes time. Physical presence is updated the last thing on our files, with language skills and prohibitions, after the test. If they could verify it immediately, they should update it the first thing.
Passed the Citizenship test then realize I miscalculate the physical presence
- Thread starter CCCCAAAAA
- Start date
There is no point hoping for them "not to notice". By law, you can't become a Canadian citizen if you don't respect a single one of the citizenship application requirements, and the 1095 days is one of them.
IRCC will verify your physical presence, and will find out that your current report lacks certain vacations. Dunno if the correct numbers end up 1097 or 1093 as you think, but they will try to figure it out, and since it will be awfully close to the cutoff, there's a high chance you get a RQ, with a great chance of big delays if right above the cutoff, and a 100% (yeah, not 99%) chance of big delays followed by a straight no if under it...
If you really applied 2 days short of the 1095 you need, the best (and frankly, only) thing you can do is to withdraw your application, forget you ever sent it, and start the whole process again. You'll have to apply twice anyway in that situation to become a Canadian citizen, so better to do it today that in, say, 2023.
IRCC will verify your physical presence, and will find out that your current report lacks certain vacations. Dunno if the correct numbers end up 1097 or 1093 as you think, but they will try to figure it out, and since it will be awfully close to the cutoff, there's a high chance you get a RQ, with a great chance of big delays if right above the cutoff, and a 100% (yeah, not 99%) chance of big delays followed by a straight no if under it...
If you really applied 2 days short of the 1095 you need, the best (and frankly, only) thing you can do is to withdraw your application, forget you ever sent it, and start the whole process again. You'll have to apply twice anyway in that situation to become a Canadian citizen, so better to do it today that in, say, 2023.
The 2 days you missed is counter balanced by numbers of days you waited before your application was received officially by IRCC. I had a friend who was in the same scenario, the judge told him he was short by number of days but it's all right as they have adjusted date considering he was in Canada before application started officially processing. This was in 2017 so I am not sure if anything has changed now but I don't think you will be impacted.
harirajmohan
VIP Member
- Mar 3, 2015
- 1,663
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Sydney, NS
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 29-May-2015
- Doc's Request.
- 30-Dec-2015 ReminderEmail(PCCs, NewPassport via cse 31-Dec-2015)
- Nomination.....
- SK 22-Apr-2015
- AOR Received.
- 11-Aug-2015
- Med's Request
- 23-Dec-2015
- Med's Done....
- 20-Jan-2016
- Passport Req..
- 26-May-2016 (BGC In Progress 25-May-2016)
- VISA ISSUED...
- PP Reached Ottawa:27-May-2016, Received:10-Jun-2016
- LANDED..........
- PR: 09-Jul-2016, PR Card: 17-Aug-2016
I dont think its misrepresentation. My colleague didnt even mention all day trips from his daily commute but still he got it through. Surely he missed mentioning more than 50-100 trips out of 3 years of daily commute.If someone misses to report a trip or two (assuming the person had enough buffer to cover it), would that be considered misrepresentation? I am sure it is discussed in the forum, but just lazy to search
So thinking that they are mainly checking with the cbsa records to verify the days irrelevant of what we enter in physical presence form.
We need buffer for the full day absence, not for the day trips as they are verifying anyway.
I missed one day trip hence thinking it wont be a big deal. Will see.
No - it won't. Just an error.If someone misses to report a trip or two (assuming the person had enough buffer to cover it), would that be considered misrepresentation? I am sure it is discussed in the forum, but just lazy to search
I actually gave myself some buffer but the trip I missed was a long one. So I am in a limbo of maybe I didn't or maybe I did.
I actually phone CIC office and patiently waited for someone to pick up. The officer told me that my application is still shown as routine application. I got the passport scan request two weeks ago and that;s when I realized I missed that one trip. Although I signed and dated with 1093 days, I actually mailed it out with 1100 days. I dont know if I should withdraw it now given how far I have been through or should just be a bit more patient to see what;s gonna happen next...
The earlier response by @Seym covers the essentials. I will elaborate further.
Probably no harm if, as you say, you are patient and wait a little longer to see how things go . . . but . . .
I am no expert (and according to some a tired old so-and-so) and cannot offer advice. But if you are actually short, even just one day, as of the day the application was made (signed), the appropriate and most prudent action, PROBABLY, is to withdraw the application and re-apply. How you decide to handle this and proceed is your personal decision. There are many things to consider.
The temptation is to consider (as some seem to suggest) whether IRCC will see cause to question the calculation of actual physical presence you have submitted. For the vast majority of grant citizenship applicants IRCC reviews the applicant's information taking into consideration additional sources of information (such as the applicant's CBSA travel history, but other sources of information as well), and relies on the applicant's presence-calculation UNLESS that review reveals cause to question the applicant's presence-calculation. So it is possible IRCC will not doubt what you have submitted and make a decision based on the presence-calculation you submitted. That is, it is POSSIBLE that IRCC will not realize the error, not recognize you are SHORT, and proceed to grant citizenship.
Note, if IRCC concludes (after reviewing the evidence, all the available information) that the applicant is even just ONE day short, the application MUST be DENIED. (Yes, the law in this regard has changed; for applications made prior to June 6, 2015, Citizenship Judges had discretion to grant citizenship to so-called "short" applicants, and many benefitted from this.) But citizenship officers in IRCC do NOT have a crystal ball. Neither do Citizenship Judges. They are not omniscient. Their decision-making (what they conclude) depends on the evidence before them, the evidence in the file and, if things go to a hearing with a Citizenship Judge, the applicant's further statements (testimony) and evidence presented in the hearing. Like any fact-finding procedure, the decision-maker (citizenship officer or Citizenship Judge) weighs the evidence and makes findings of fact. Such decision-making does not always get it right. So sometimes an applicant who is short, in fact (as God knows some may say), but who has submitted an application reporting a presence-calculation of 1095 days or more, will be granted citizenship. And it sometimes goes the other way, applicants reporting they met the requirement, and who in fact met the requirement (again, as God knows some may say), might fail to present sufficient evidence to meet their burden of proof, and be denied.
So it is possible you could, say, slide through.
There are at least a couple big reasons to seriously consider withdrawing and re-applying despite the chance this application might succeed:
(1) Not the least of which is that NOW you know, now that you realize you left out a trip from the calculation, the failure to notify IRCC constitutes MISREPRESENTATION by omission. It was a "mistake" to not report it in the application. Now you know, and you know it makes a difference, to not disclose it is misrepresentation. If IRCC fails to catch this discrepancy in the facts, the odds are very good you could, so to say, get away with it. Not the way I'd roll in this scenario, but I am not giving personal advice. And not even the way I'd roll even though some might say of me that "I am as honest as a gambling man can be" (yeah, that's a borrowed line), with some inclination to take the gamble . . . the latter bringing up the second big reason to simply own up, withdraw, and re-apply.
(2) The odds are fairly high IRCC will catch this discrepancy in the facts, or at least otherwise see cause to question your actual physical presence, and subsequently either identify the omission or otherwise have reason to doubt your proof of meeting the physical presence requirement, resulting in RQ-related non-routine processing . . . from there things get complicated, but for someone even just close to being short, the best scenario is a lengthy delay in getting a decision, and for someone actually short, even by ONE day, there are substantial odds of a negative outcome.
For clarification and emphasis: Again, IRCC has NO authority to grant citizenship to a PR based on Section 5(1) in the Citizenship Act (which is undoubtedly the kind of application you made; that is, the standard adult application for a grant of naturalized citizenship) if as of the date the application was made (based on the signature date) the PR did not meet the actual physical presence requirement. Likewise a Citizenship Judge has NO power to approve a grant of citizenship if the applicant is so much as ONE DAY SHORT. Days in Canada after the application is sent do NOT count. Period.
Comment Regarding Non-Routine Processing:
I interpret this to be about the OP's specific situation, not about non-routine processing generally. But it warrants being clear about this. Not all non-routine processing is created equal. Even some RQ-related non-routine processing would not be a reason to withdraw and re-apply. But in the OP's situation, yes indeed, if the OP is issued any RQ-related requests that seals the deal, time to withdraw and re-apply . . . withdraw with explanation that the applicant realizes a mistake was made in the travel history.
Which brings this to a more extensive discussion of mistakes and what they mean . . . to be continued.
thank you very much for this information. I think the best way is to withdraw and reapply. This makes more sense given I missed the stamp on my passport and recently submitted my passport scan. It is very obvious. I wrote to them via webform and emails regarding my mistakes and being proactive. I hope this would not be treated as mispresentation.
Again. Thank you for your response.
FURTHER OBSERVATIONS REGARDING "MISTAKES"
"Mistakes" are not misrepresentation.
Most mistakes are minor. Most minor mistakes have no impact on whether or not the applicant meets the requirements for a grant of citizenship. IRCC is well aware applicants make mistakes. IRCC does not engage in gotcha-games. Minor mistakes of little or no import will not, not ordinarily, have much if any impact on the application, not even in terms of causing non-routine processing. For example, among mistakes reported in this forum, some have said that during their interview they realized they had left out travel totaling weeks more outside Canada, owned up, acknowledged the oversight in their application, but still having enough days to easily meet the requirements were not even given RQ-lite let alone the more intensive and time-delaying versions of RQ-related non-routine processing.
The OP (@CCCCAAAAA) appears to have made a mistake in the physical presence application, omitting a trip abroad. This is a common mistake, so common that IRCC explicitly recommends PRs wait to apply long enough after they meet the presence requirement that they will likely still meet the requirement even if they made such a mistake. It appears the OP did not wait long enough, did not have a "buffer," as we describe it here, sufficient to cover the mistake. And this makes a huge difference, especially now. It was a "mistake" when the OP sent in the application. Now that the OP knows a trip was left out and recognizes this makes a difference, that this means being short of meeting the presence requirement, the failure to notify IRCC of this is misrepresentation (by omission). It is NOT likely the OP will be alleged to have made a misrepresentation, even if IRCC discovers the discrepancy in the facts; it is likely to still be considered a mere mistake. But how things actually go in such situations will, of course, very much depend on the particular facts in the specific individual's case.
So, you refer to an applicant who "misses" reporting a trip or two. This is a common mistake. No harm, no foul. But in some circumstances it is misrepresentation.
There is another part to this issue, having to do with the impact the omission has. Your query assumes the applicant has enough of a buffer to still meet the requirements. That is NOT the OP's situation. So, assuming a missed trip (or two) was a mistake (not misrepresentation), the main impact is whether or not the revised presence calculation, taking into account the omitted travel history, shows the applicant still meets the presence requirement, or as it appears in the OP's case it means falling short. That is, whether correcting the mistake makes a difference, whether IRCC can still grant citizenship or not. If it results in the applicant being short, there is no authority to grant citizenship based on that application.
HOWEVER . . . just because a mistake does not constitute misrepresentation does not mean its impact is limited to correcting the record. Not all mistakes are created equal. Some mistakes are bigger than others. The bigger the mistake, and the more mistakes made, the more that tends to indicate the applicant is NOT a RELIABLE reporter of the facts.
Second only to the actual facts showing the requirements have been met, the next most important element in making a successful citizenship application is the applicant's credibility. Compromised credibility can very much HURT how things go . . . ranging from causing lengthy processing times attendant non-routine processing, to resulting in a failed application in a close-call case, even though there is NO allegation of misrepresentation.
It is difficult to put anecdotal reports about mistakes made, and their effect, into perspective. Most are minor, of little or no import. But a lot can depend on context. A month mistake may be of no significance in one case whereas a five or ten day error in another can loom large (as appears to be the OP's situation). The anecdotal report about an individual failing to report a large number of day trips, for example, appears to be about many mistakes but might be seen as basically one mistake, the mistake of failing to report day trips. This forum is rife with advice based on individual experiences but that is an almost totally unreliable approach; all individual experiences really show is that it is possible for things to go that way, based on it having gone that way at least that time, and without additional contextual information these do NOT support conclusions about how things are likely to go for someone else, not even close.
It also demands a reminder that the applicant is the ONE best source of information regarding the applicant's travel history. The applicant is the one and only one person in the whole world who was there each and every time the applicant exited and entered Canada, the one BEST SOURCE of this information. If the information examined by IRCC reveals the applicant did not get this information right, that is an indication the one best source of this information is a less-than-reliable source, an indication the applicant fails to be a reliable reporter of the facts.
There are many ways for IRCC to check the information provided by the applicant. The applicant's CBSA travel history, for example, is a key source of information which IRCC often (usually? always? how often is not certain) uses to check what the applicant reports. Isolated one-day deviations are not likely to be a problem. Revelation of omissions may be seen to be minor mistakes or in some cases seen to be serious or even misrepresentation (depends on other factors). But IRCC also compares the applicant's travel history to the applicant's address and work history. In many cases IRCC researches open sources, like social media and other internet sources (LinkedIn is one of most commonly source cited in official decisions about actual cases), and compares that information with what the applicant has provided. If and when IRCC suspects problems in the applicant's presence calculation, IRCC can refer the case to CBSA, which in turn refers it to CBSA's "National Security Screening Division" (NSSD) to conduct an investigation into the applicant's physical presence.
But IRCC goes to the other sources to verify the applicant's information . . . or, more to the practical point, to identify discrepancies in what the applicant reports. Minor discrepancies are typically considered minor mistakes, of little or no import . . . unless, for example, the applicant applied with very little or no buffer. Substantial discrepancies trigger RQ-related non-routine processing, more directly putting the burden on the applicant to prove when the applicant was present in Canada.
NOTE: as I observed above, it is difficult to extrapolate general practices from particular accounts, emphasizing too that not all mistakes are created equal. If and when IRCC comes across information the applicant's report of travel history is not accurate, that is a key factor. How the discrepancy directly affects the calculation, and whether it shows the applicant was short, is the main thing. BUT . . . this may surprise some . . . even if IRCC discovers the applicant might have been IN Canada some days in addition to those reported in the applicant's account of travel history, that too can HURT. Again, this tends to show the applicant cannot be relied upon to be a reliable reporter. It's an older case, but in one officially reported actual case, in which the applicant was denied citizenship and the Federal Court upheld that, a big factor in the decision was evidence the applicant was probably in Canada during a period of time she reported being abroad in her travel history. Back then I reacted to the incongruity of how evidence of more days in Canada could be a reason to conclude she failed to be in Canada as many days as she reported, but over time I came to better understand the decision-making process and that once that applicant was perceived to not have provided accurate information, even information in her favour, that put everything she reported into question unless it was directly supported by other sources, by the documents.
(edited typos)
Many, many citizenship applicants make "mistakes" in the information they provide. Those who are certain they made no mistake are making the huge mistake of overlooking they undoubtedly did make some mistakes.
"Mistakes" are not misrepresentation.
Most mistakes are minor. Most minor mistakes have no impact on whether or not the applicant meets the requirements for a grant of citizenship. IRCC is well aware applicants make mistakes. IRCC does not engage in gotcha-games. Minor mistakes of little or no import will not, not ordinarily, have much if any impact on the application, not even in terms of causing non-routine processing. For example, among mistakes reported in this forum, some have said that during their interview they realized they had left out travel totaling weeks more outside Canada, owned up, acknowledged the oversight in their application, but still having enough days to easily meet the requirements were not even given RQ-lite let alone the more intensive and time-delaying versions of RQ-related non-routine processing.
The OP (@CCCCAAAAA) appears to have made a mistake in the physical presence application, omitting a trip abroad. This is a common mistake, so common that IRCC explicitly recommends PRs wait to apply long enough after they meet the presence requirement that they will likely still meet the requirement even if they made such a mistake. It appears the OP did not wait long enough, did not have a "buffer," as we describe it here, sufficient to cover the mistake. And this makes a huge difference, especially now. It was a "mistake" when the OP sent in the application. Now that the OP knows a trip was left out and recognizes this makes a difference, that this means being short of meeting the presence requirement, the failure to notify IRCC of this is misrepresentation (by omission). It is NOT likely the OP will be alleged to have made a misrepresentation, even if IRCC discovers the discrepancy in the facts; it is likely to still be considered a mere mistake. But how things actually go in such situations will, of course, very much depend on the particular facts in the specific individual's case.
So, you refer to an applicant who "misses" reporting a trip or two. This is a common mistake. No harm, no foul. But in some circumstances it is misrepresentation.
There is another part to this issue, having to do with the impact the omission has. Your query assumes the applicant has enough of a buffer to still meet the requirements. That is NOT the OP's situation. So, assuming a missed trip (or two) was a mistake (not misrepresentation), the main impact is whether or not the revised presence calculation, taking into account the omitted travel history, shows the applicant still meets the presence requirement, or as it appears in the OP's case it means falling short. That is, whether correcting the mistake makes a difference, whether IRCC can still grant citizenship or not. If it results in the applicant being short, there is no authority to grant citizenship based on that application.
HOWEVER . . . just because a mistake does not constitute misrepresentation does not mean its impact is limited to correcting the record. Not all mistakes are created equal. Some mistakes are bigger than others. The bigger the mistake, and the more mistakes made, the more that tends to indicate the applicant is NOT a RELIABLE reporter of the facts.
Second only to the actual facts showing the requirements have been met, the next most important element in making a successful citizenship application is the applicant's credibility. Compromised credibility can very much HURT how things go . . . ranging from causing lengthy processing times attendant non-routine processing, to resulting in a failed application in a close-call case, even though there is NO allegation of misrepresentation.
It is difficult to put anecdotal reports about mistakes made, and their effect, into perspective. Most are minor, of little or no import. But a lot can depend on context. A month mistake may be of no significance in one case whereas a five or ten day error in another can loom large (as appears to be the OP's situation). The anecdotal report about an individual failing to report a large number of day trips, for example, appears to be about many mistakes but might be seen as basically one mistake, the mistake of failing to report day trips. This forum is rife with advice based on individual experiences but that is an almost totally unreliable approach; all individual experiences really show is that it is possible for things to go that way, based on it having gone that way at least that time, and without additional contextual information these do NOT support conclusions about how things are likely to go for someone else, not even close.
It also demands a reminder that the applicant is the ONE best source of information regarding the applicant's travel history. The applicant is the one and only one person in the whole world who was there each and every time the applicant exited and entered Canada, the one BEST SOURCE of this information. If the information examined by IRCC reveals the applicant did not get this information right, that is an indication the one best source of this information is a less-than-reliable source, an indication the applicant fails to be a reliable reporter of the facts.
There are many ways for IRCC to check the information provided by the applicant. The applicant's CBSA travel history, for example, is a key source of information which IRCC often (usually? always? how often is not certain) uses to check what the applicant reports. Isolated one-day deviations are not likely to be a problem. Revelation of omissions may be seen to be minor mistakes or in some cases seen to be serious or even misrepresentation (depends on other factors). But IRCC also compares the applicant's travel history to the applicant's address and work history. In many cases IRCC researches open sources, like social media and other internet sources (LinkedIn is one of most commonly source cited in official decisions about actual cases), and compares that information with what the applicant has provided. If and when IRCC suspects problems in the applicant's presence calculation, IRCC can refer the case to CBSA, which in turn refers it to CBSA's "National Security Screening Division" (NSSD) to conduct an investigation into the applicant's physical presence.
But IRCC goes to the other sources to verify the applicant's information . . . or, more to the practical point, to identify discrepancies in what the applicant reports. Minor discrepancies are typically considered minor mistakes, of little or no import . . . unless, for example, the applicant applied with very little or no buffer. Substantial discrepancies trigger RQ-related non-routine processing, more directly putting the burden on the applicant to prove when the applicant was present in Canada.
NOTE: as I observed above, it is difficult to extrapolate general practices from particular accounts, emphasizing too that not all mistakes are created equal. If and when IRCC comes across information the applicant's report of travel history is not accurate, that is a key factor. How the discrepancy directly affects the calculation, and whether it shows the applicant was short, is the main thing. BUT . . . this may surprise some . . . even if IRCC discovers the applicant might have been IN Canada some days in addition to those reported in the applicant's account of travel history, that too can HURT. Again, this tends to show the applicant cannot be relied upon to be a reliable reporter. It's an older case, but in one officially reported actual case, in which the applicant was denied citizenship and the Federal Court upheld that, a big factor in the decision was evidence the applicant was probably in Canada during a period of time she reported being abroad in her travel history. Back then I reacted to the incongruity of how evidence of more days in Canada could be a reason to conclude she failed to be in Canada as many days as she reported, but over time I came to better understand the decision-making process and that once that applicant was perceived to not have provided accurate information, even information in her favour, that put everything she reported into question unless it was directly supported by other sources, by the documents.
(edited typos)
Last edited:
While I and others have said it with some emphasis, it bears repeating that IRCC is well aware applicants make these kinds of mistakes. It would be extremely unusual for this to have much impact on their perception of your credibility let alone consider it misrepresentation.
And if you have acknowledged the mistake to IRCC, now, that makes it even more unlikely this would be considered misrepresentation. Again, this probably would not be anything other than a MINOR mistake except in your particular circumstance, the hard part of this for you, is that you did not apply with enough buffer to cover the mistake.
Daily commute counts as presence days in Canada. This is different. Their trip was a "long one", with stamps (i.e. proofs) on passports. I would be surprised if this isn't consider misrepresentation, although the short days are few. If you don't have stamps with 100s of daily trips to the US, then maybe the officer can understand. I don't think even withdrawing the application can solve this problem if they already figured this out. In the withdrawal form, they mentioned that they may deny the withdrawal if the file is under investigation. It's all with the officer's discretion now. A waiting game to see what they say.
Thank you very much for your kind words. Last few days have been really frustrated for me. I think I did all I could now (webform, phoned cic and email to officer) and worst comes worst, I have to wait in long lines before I could be granted with citizenship. A life mistake luckily not life threatening one. Lesson learned.
Highly suggest Consult a lawyer. Plus i forgot to tell you that I have another note in my file saying this file needs to be reviewed by a level 2 officer to determine the next step. I dont know what that means.
The physical presence check usually comes after the test. If they then find out that you have not met the requirements, then there might be repercussions because of that. The first symptom is you getting a Residency Questionnaire (RQ).
2 days short is still not meeting the requirements for citizenship.
IF they find out, then the application will likely be refused after a lengthy procedure of the aforementioned RQ submission and review.
If I were in this situation, I would let them know the mistake, apologize for the error and wait for their response. You could also withdraw the application since you know for sure you aren't eligible and apply again. Your BG checks should likely be completed soon if you apply again because your criminality and security clearances would still be valid.