- Hello everybody
I'm planing to apply for citizenship and There is one thing that makes me feel a bit nervous so I wanted to share it with you and see if someone can help me.
I came to Canada in 2013 and during these years I have had 2 work permits. I am PR since 2017. I was in implied status twice, the first time I applied to extend my work permit but the application was refused (after waiting for 4 months). The second time I applied for restoration as I was waiting for my bc pnp application to get approved. My application got rejected and I had to go back home and apply for a new work permit after the pnp got approved.
I have been told that the implied status can only be counted if the application you are applying to is accepted so not too sure about my case.
I would like to know if someone has experienced a.simillar situation. if I can actually use those months towards my Physical Presence Calculator - Also should I include a letter explaining my situation with my application?
- Thank you very much for your time, any information would be very appreciated
Implied status and citizenship
- Thread starter rimi1
- Start date
To my understanding, by definition, the implied status is a legal status of stay. So if you returned immediately on refusal of stay, you can technically claim 50% for the implied status period as temporary resident also. An explanation letter will help in your case for sure.
Last edited:
Might be worth it to just wait it out and gather more days just to avoid any potential issues.
Since being in Implied status does not affect your actual status, meaning you continue to study/work during that period, all your days are counted fully. I was in implied status for my work permit before I got my PR, and all my days were counted with no problem.
Mind you I am not an expert, it's always better to call IRCC and verify.
I emphatically concur with @r1ley . . .
That is, build a margin exceeding the number of days for which there could be any question at all. And since those days which might possibly be questioned are only worth a half-day credit, the wait should not be inordinately long. Better than rushing the application and in two years still be here wondering why your application has taken a year longer than many others.
That said, @trk1 is technically correct. If you had implied status, you had status that allows those days in Canada to be counted. And of course an applicant should accurately report their status and declare days in Canada accordingly.
But most applicants do not want to rush applying just to have their application go into non-routine processing or otherwise get bogged down in questions or concerns. There is no point rushing to apply if that means the overall timeline to becoming a citizen ends up being longer (and the longer the process goes, for many that also means the more stressful the process is).
Reminder: how much margin over the minimum a prospective applicant should wait to have before applying is a very personal decision. For many prospective applicants the presence calculation poses virtually no questions, no concerns, so they can apply with a smaller margin, though prudence suggests a margin large enough to make the total stranger bureaucrat, who is deciding the applicant's case, comfortable concluding the applicant met the minimum without having to engage in further inquiry. Beyond that there are many, many things which can influence how strong the applicant's presence case is. So how long it is prudent to wait varies a great deal from person to person.
Just a week ago or so, as I recall, you reported not even being invited to the test yet. How is it you now know all your days were counted with no problem? when it appears you have not even been interviewed yet let alone have a decision made?
Applying for Restoration does not grant any form of status. As the Restoration app was refused, you were out of status the entire time it was being processed, from the date of the original refusal.
Yes. That is my understanding too. Restoration request after "refusal" is only request to reconsider refusal. Any stay after original refusal date will become "not approved stay" if restoration request is refused.
The tricky part is "refusal date" determination. It can be the date on the refusal letter; or the date the decision was received by the applicant. For our physical presence calculation purposes, I would opt to use the refusal letter date for sure!
Last edited:
I called IRCC and asked, they confirmed that any day under implied status is still considered.
The following observations are NOT meant to be critical. Rather, they are meant to highlight a distinction which for SOME prospective applicants, those wrestling with WHEN it is time to make the application, could be an important distinction.
Which is to acknowledge that the contrast in your two recent posts is appreciated because focusing on them respectively helps illuminate what can be, for many, an important distinction. These are the kinds of reporting and discussion which should help all of us better understand the way things work. (So please do not feel as if I am criticizing you; you really have offered an excellent opportunity to better illuminate the distinction.)
I am referencing the following posts:
An IRCC help centre call agent's statement that days with implied status count merely restates the rule. It is not a decision in an individual case. Not a determination as to any individual's claim to credit for implied status.
(Slight tangent: Which also illustrates another significant clarification which often warrants a reminder: the help centre call agents are NOT authorized to evaluate or judge the facts in an individual case, let alone offer conclusive decisions. Their primary role is to state the applicable rules, with what is "applicable" being as best they can discern depending on how well the caller states the relevant question. To a very limited extent the call centre agents can also access an individual applicant's GCMS file and report SOME details about what is in the file, but beyond general level observations, like "the application is in process," they rarely offer useful information and often give default answers that are at best cryptic, like "the application is waiting for background clearances," which in some respects is almost always a truthful statement given that until there is a Decision Made the status of background clearance is usually outstanding EVEN though meanwhile the application is actually in queue for this or that particular next step.
Again, the help centre agents are NOT authorized to offer any advice let alone any judgments about an individual's case. Their role is predominantly about providing a telephonic version of answers to FAQs.)
In any event . . .
In any event, "I called IRCC and asked, they confirmed that any day under implied status is still considered" DOES NOT support the statement: "I was in implied status for my work permit before I got my PR, and all my days were counted with no problem."
Unless and until you have been interviewed it is NOT likely (not at all likely) there has been a definitive verification of your presence calculation. It is premature, prior to the interview (and still at least somewhat premature any time prior to there being a positive Decision Made), to conclude what "days were counted with no problem."
That is NOT to suggest a problem is at all likely. Probably NOT. Probably NO problem. Indeed, I have NO doubt you will in fact get credit for the days you had implied status, but to be clear that is assuming you correctly declared such days. Again, that is the rule, how it works.
When applying for citizenship, however, and in particular when deciding it is time to apply, which is the context for the discussion here, there can be (depending on individual circumstances) a big difference between what days to include in the presence calculation as days to be given credit toward the physical presence requirement VERSUS when it is prudent to apply based on days the prospective applicant CONFIDENTLY KNOWS he or she can RELY on those days actually being counted.
One example of a potential issue, and it is just ONE example among many relative to this, is the above discussion about an application to restore status. In particular, @canuck_in_uk and @trk1 both offer important clarifications about applications to RESTORE status, which is specifically relevant to the OP's query here. Which is an aspect of the OP's query I did not address even though it is, in the context of the OP's query, an important aspect: Time in Canada during which an application to restore status is pending does NOT constitute time in Canada with implied status (and may not even if the application is granted).
But it nonetheless points to the broader issue, a concern which lurks in any case relying on credit for time in Canada the applicant had implied status . . . which, more to the point, is about time in Canada the prospective applicant BELIEVES he or she had implied status.
In many situations it is EASY to confidently know that, during this or that period of time, an individual actually did have implied status. Prospective applicants can ordinarily rely on such days counting, and they may comfortably decide it is OK to make the application even though their margin over the minimum does not fully cover those days . . . but my impression is that any such period of time will ordinarily be a rather short period of time, significantly shorter in time than the number of days the individual had formal, explicit status evidenced by the dates in a visa, permit, or visitor's record. So, even in these situations the prudent PR may elect to wait longer and build a margin covering any such implied status days. (The underlying reason for this has to do with what "implied" status is about, it being IMPLIED and NOT formally stated in any records.)
BUT in many other situations it is just as EASY to conclude one had implied status during a period of time that IRCC records might NOT verify the individual had implied status. Here the emphasis really is focused directly on what "implied" status is about, it being IMPLIED and NOT formally stated in any records. When someone was in Canada during a time they had "implied" status, typically there is NO direct record of their status during that time. To determine if in fact the individual had implied status requires examining various records and INFERRING, from the details in those records, the individual had implied status.
It appears more than a few prospective applicants, and some applicants with applications in process, make mistakes in what they INFER (since there are no direct records to confirm) when they had implied status.
The discussion here illustrates one: potentially inferring one had implied status during the time an application to restore status was pending. An application relying on implied status for time an application to restore status was pending is likely to fail UNLESS the individual applied with a margin large enough to cover that period, large enough to have a number of days over 1095 after deducting the days for which the applicant mistakenly thought he or she had implied status.
It warrants noting that AOR does NOT guarantee the applicant's accounting of days present will be determined to actually meet the presence requirement; recognizing that in some circumstances applications have been returned as incomplete apparently because IRCC records do not confirm claims for this or that pre-PR time. (The most common example of this appears to involve applicants who were in Canada as a visitor, which is status that SHOULD count, but there is no formal documentation as to that because the individual was simply waived into Canada upon presenting a visa-exempt passport.) Since the burden of proof is on the applicant, the validity of the applicant's declarations, including as to having implied status, can be and ordinarily will be assessed later in the course of processing the application in the local office.
In any event, the underlying problem is rooted in the lack of a formal record documenting implied status. If implied status is readily inferred from the client's GCMS records, OK, NO problem. And this will often if not usually be the case. BUT since there is no direct record documenting the dates of implied status, how much a prospective applicant might RELY on those days is something prospective applicants should consider very carefully . . . of course in the presence calculation all days IN Canada the applicant knows he or she was IN Canada AND had status, including implied status, should be reported. These observations are about deciding WHEN to apply, what days to RELY on (not just report) as counting, which is about how much of a margin to have before making the application.
And another aspect of this should NOT be underestimated let alone overlooked, which is one referenced by @trk1 in particular, and in addition to determining if one actually had implied status, determining the precise dates on had that status. @trk1 addresses this in the context of an application to restore status, but it is a relevant consideration for any situation a prospective applicant is including days in Canada with implied status.
Which is to acknowledge that the contrast in your two recent posts is appreciated because focusing on them respectively helps illuminate what can be, for many, an important distinction. These are the kinds of reporting and discussion which should help all of us better understand the way things work. (So please do not feel as if I am criticizing you; you really have offered an excellent opportunity to better illuminate the distinction.)
I am referencing the following posts:
For purposes of this particular discussion, recognizing I know nothing about the details in your situation (other than what you have been reporting, including no test invite yet even though it is approaching two years), confirmation that "days in Canada with implied status count toward meeting the physical presence requirement for grant citizenship" is NOT the same as a determination confirming any individual applicant's presence calculation.
An IRCC help centre call agent's statement that days with implied status count merely restates the rule. It is not a decision in an individual case. Not a determination as to any individual's claim to credit for implied status.
(Slight tangent: Which also illustrates another significant clarification which often warrants a reminder: the help centre call agents are NOT authorized to evaluate or judge the facts in an individual case, let alone offer conclusive decisions. Their primary role is to state the applicable rules, with what is "applicable" being as best they can discern depending on how well the caller states the relevant question. To a very limited extent the call centre agents can also access an individual applicant's GCMS file and report SOME details about what is in the file, but beyond general level observations, like "the application is in process," they rarely offer useful information and often give default answers that are at best cryptic, like "the application is waiting for background clearances," which in some respects is almost always a truthful statement given that until there is a Decision Made the status of background clearance is usually outstanding EVEN though meanwhile the application is actually in queue for this or that particular next step.
Again, the help centre agents are NOT authorized to offer any advice let alone any judgments about an individual's case. Their role is predominantly about providing a telephonic version of answers to FAQs.)
In any event . . .
In any event, "I called IRCC and asked, they confirmed that any day under implied status is still considered" DOES NOT support the statement: "I was in implied status for my work permit before I got my PR, and all my days were counted with no problem."
Unless and until you have been interviewed it is NOT likely (not at all likely) there has been a definitive verification of your presence calculation. It is premature, prior to the interview (and still at least somewhat premature any time prior to there being a positive Decision Made), to conclude what "days were counted with no problem."
That is NOT to suggest a problem is at all likely. Probably NOT. Probably NO problem. Indeed, I have NO doubt you will in fact get credit for the days you had implied status, but to be clear that is assuming you correctly declared such days. Again, that is the rule, how it works.
When applying for citizenship, however, and in particular when deciding it is time to apply, which is the context for the discussion here, there can be (depending on individual circumstances) a big difference between what days to include in the presence calculation as days to be given credit toward the physical presence requirement VERSUS when it is prudent to apply based on days the prospective applicant CONFIDENTLY KNOWS he or she can RELY on those days actually being counted.
One example of a potential issue, and it is just ONE example among many relative to this, is the above discussion about an application to restore status. In particular, @canuck_in_uk and @trk1 both offer important clarifications about applications to RESTORE status, which is specifically relevant to the OP's query here. Which is an aspect of the OP's query I did not address even though it is, in the context of the OP's query, an important aspect: Time in Canada during which an application to restore status is pending does NOT constitute time in Canada with implied status (and may not even if the application is granted).
But it nonetheless points to the broader issue, a concern which lurks in any case relying on credit for time in Canada the applicant had implied status . . . which, more to the point, is about time in Canada the prospective applicant BELIEVES he or she had implied status.
In many situations it is EASY to confidently know that, during this or that period of time, an individual actually did have implied status. Prospective applicants can ordinarily rely on such days counting, and they may comfortably decide it is OK to make the application even though their margin over the minimum does not fully cover those days . . . but my impression is that any such period of time will ordinarily be a rather short period of time, significantly shorter in time than the number of days the individual had formal, explicit status evidenced by the dates in a visa, permit, or visitor's record. So, even in these situations the prudent PR may elect to wait longer and build a margin covering any such implied status days. (The underlying reason for this has to do with what "implied" status is about, it being IMPLIED and NOT formally stated in any records.)
BUT in many other situations it is just as EASY to conclude one had implied status during a period of time that IRCC records might NOT verify the individual had implied status. Here the emphasis really is focused directly on what "implied" status is about, it being IMPLIED and NOT formally stated in any records. When someone was in Canada during a time they had "implied" status, typically there is NO direct record of their status during that time. To determine if in fact the individual had implied status requires examining various records and INFERRING, from the details in those records, the individual had implied status.
It appears more than a few prospective applicants, and some applicants with applications in process, make mistakes in what they INFER (since there are no direct records to confirm) when they had implied status.
The discussion here illustrates one: potentially inferring one had implied status during the time an application to restore status was pending. An application relying on implied status for time an application to restore status was pending is likely to fail UNLESS the individual applied with a margin large enough to cover that period, large enough to have a number of days over 1095 after deducting the days for which the applicant mistakenly thought he or she had implied status.
It warrants noting that AOR does NOT guarantee the applicant's accounting of days present will be determined to actually meet the presence requirement; recognizing that in some circumstances applications have been returned as incomplete apparently because IRCC records do not confirm claims for this or that pre-PR time. (The most common example of this appears to involve applicants who were in Canada as a visitor, which is status that SHOULD count, but there is no formal documentation as to that because the individual was simply waived into Canada upon presenting a visa-exempt passport.) Since the burden of proof is on the applicant, the validity of the applicant's declarations, including as to having implied status, can be and ordinarily will be assessed later in the course of processing the application in the local office.
In any event, the underlying problem is rooted in the lack of a formal record documenting implied status. If implied status is readily inferred from the client's GCMS records, OK, NO problem. And this will often if not usually be the case. BUT since there is no direct record documenting the dates of implied status, how much a prospective applicant might RELY on those days is something prospective applicants should consider very carefully . . . of course in the presence calculation all days IN Canada the applicant knows he or she was IN Canada AND had status, including implied status, should be reported. These observations are about deciding WHEN to apply, what days to RELY on (not just report) as counting, which is about how much of a margin to have before making the application.
And another aspect of this should NOT be underestimated let alone overlooked, which is one referenced by @trk1 in particular, and in addition to determining if one actually had implied status, determining the precise dates on had that status. @trk1 addresses this in the context of an application to restore status, but it is a relevant consideration for any situation a prospective applicant is including days in Canada with implied status.
Last edited: