I am offering some extensive analysis below for the purpose of illuminating how important it is to take into account factors beyond merely meeting the minimum requirements before one makes a citizenship application. I am, in this regard, employing the OP's query and situation for the purpose of illustration, not so much a further response to the OP but rather for the purpose of making general observations which prospective applicants for citizenship might want to consider, especially including in making the decision about when it is the right time to apply.
That is, the observations below are intended to explain why just reaching the minimum threshold of physical presence is only one factor, among others, when determining what is the right time to apply.
There is absolutely no indication that IRCC views or treats every one as frauds. Not at all. Quite the contrary actually: the vast majority of qualified applicants sail through the routine process with minimal delays, little or no non-routine processing.
That said, the burden of presenting sufficient evidence to prove qualification for citizenship is squarely on the applicant. If and when IRCC perceives a reason to question residency or physical presence, that will lead to further scrutiny, inquiry, or even an investigation, going beyond the scope of routine processing.
For the vast majority of applicants, there is no further scrutiny, inquiry, or investigation beyond the scoe of routine processing.
The difference, that is the impact of falling into non-routine processing, can range from minor inconvenience and relatively short delays, to an extensive, intrusive, and difficult process involving lengthy delays or even challenges to the applicant's information, up to the point of IRCC contesting the applicant's qualifications.
Given the potential impact, it is prudent for the qualified applicant to time the application in a way that minimizes the risk of triggering elevated concerns by IRCC.
The longer explanation:
IRCC has a mandate to verify the qualifications of those applying for a grant of citizenship. This is imposed by law.
The vast majority of applicants sail through the process routinely, smoothly, and relatively without delay. (Even with some potential issues in my application, my application took just 8 months from date it arrived in Sydney to date I took the oath; scores and scores of others have had similar timelines, many even shorter timelines.)
If there are reasons to question the applicant's residency or physical presence, obviously IRCC is required, by law, to more thoroughly examine the applicant and make appropriate inquiries. The burden of proving qualification for citizenship is on the individual seeking the grant: that is, the burden of proof is on the applicant.
This is standard, whether it is the procedure for obtaining a drivers license or qualifying for health care coverage, the person seeking the benefit or privilege carries the burden of making the application, presenting sufficient information and documentation as to qualification, and if questioned (which only happens to a small percentage of those who are in fact qualified and have submitted proper information and documentation to that effect), proving the requisite elements of qualification.
For the vast majority of citizenship applicants, the information in the application itself is sufficient for IRCC to infer actual presence between a date of entry into Canada and the next date of exit, as disclosed by the applicant in the physical presence calculation. This is subject to routine modes of verification, ranging from IRCC's examination of the individual's CBSA Travel History to the examination of Travel Documents in a documents-verification interview which is conducted attendant the scheduled knowledge of Canada test. Obviously, IRCC cross-checks and considers all the information in the application, including history of residential addresses and work history, and cross-checking this information against information previously obtained from the applicant, such as what was submitted in the application for PR status or any FOSS notes such as those made by a CBSA officer during a PoE examination of the PR.
There is a specific set of criteria which IRCC employs to identify applications it will subject to further inquiry. Such further inquiry may include requests for additional documentation, which can be either CIT 0520 (sometimes referred to as RQ-lite), which typically requests a few specified documents, or the full-blown RQ, that is CIT 0171, which is indeed a profoundly intrusive request for information and extensive documentation (objective proof of interest in place of residence, employment history, family and social ties in Canada, history of use of health care coverage, and more). The criteria now used are not public information and the last version we have had access to was listed in the 2012 version of the File Requirements Checklist (inadvertently disclosed to an applicant who in turn shared it online).
While we know (from Access to Information request responses) that these criteria have changed some, but not what those changes are in particular, it is likely that they are largely the same but subject to some modification in how the criteria are applied to certain situations or facts.
As one would anticipate, some of the criteria are fairly broad and subject to an examiner's discretionary judgment. What constitutes a "suspect address," for example, undoubtedly varies depending on other circumstances but also on the judgment of the IRCC bureaucrat, a total stranger bureaucrat, assessing the information. That said, there are also key indicators; for example, certain postal codes are probably identified as warranting further inquiry (such as those previously used in known fraud cases). But of course there are many other examples, such as a residential address which is inconsistent or in some way incongruous with the applicant's declared employment history. Different address on a form of identification, compared to address listed in application, for example, is more or less likely to invite questions about the veracity of the applicant's information.
In similar fashion, for example, an application sent from abroad suggests the individual is living abroad, which at the very least raises a question about when and for how long the individual has been living abroad, thus a question about the extent to which the individual actually was living and present in Canada. These are entirely reasonable questions and actually IRCC would be derelict if it did not pursue further inquiry in such circumstances. In particular, in this situation IRCC is required to investigate the facts and circumstances. That will mean the application is no longer routine, and the impact of this can range from short delays attendant some additional inquiries, to full blown RQ and lengthy delays. The actual impact for the particular individual will depend mostly on the specific facts and circumstances for that individual.
Thus, for another example, if there is some reason for IRCC to question residency or physical presence, then the applicant with a minimal margin (such as less than a month), is obviously at greater risk for the more intrusive and lengthy processing than the applicant who was living and present in Canada longer. This is simply common sense.
But of course there are many, many other factors which can have influence on whether or not IRCC perceives a reason to question residency or physical presence, and many, many factors which will influence how it goes if and when IRCC perceives a reason to question residency or physical presence.
A two week margin is probably fine for someone who was working for the government or a well-known employer the full four plus years, and whose residential address is stable and consistent, and there are no other potential causes for concern (spouse and children living in Canada good; spouse living abroad raises questions; and so on). But as I noted in my previous post, a four to five week margin is probably a safe minimum for most.
However, it is also worth recognizing that if IRCC otherwise perceives an overt reason to actually question the applicant's account of where he or she has lived, worked, or the applicant's declaration of travel abroad, the size of the margin will not matter so much. In such situations, a big margin offers little protection.
Why this matters; why I bother to make these observations:
There is a tendency in this and other similar forums to overlook or devalue the extent to which the vast majority of qualified applicants routinely sail through the process. And there is a tendency to overstate the extent to which qualified applicants are dragged into inconvenient and protracted non-routine processing. In conjunction with this, there is also a tendency to understate the actual factors or reasons why qualified applicants might be dragged into non-routine processing. Protests to the contrary are, frankly, at best hyperbolic, but generally are largely unfounded, and often are outright balderdash.
However, there is no way to guarantee a perfect application. Even the most qualified applicant faces some risk of being dragged into non-routine processing.
But there are ways to increase the risk of non-routine processing, and to in effect virtually guarantee having one's residency or physical presence questioned. The prudent applicant will avoid doing this. It can make a big difference. It can be the difference between becoming a citizen in just six months versus the process taking two or even three years (in the not-so-distant past, and there are still a few of these pending, some applicants were bogged down for four plus years).
I make these observations to alert prospective applicants that it is worthwhile to take the time and make the effort to not only be especially diligent, being both careful and complete (especially as to dates of travel, all dates), in making the application, but to also be cognizant of and take into account contextual circumstances. Relative to the latter, timing when to apply is a big factor. As I have otherwise noted, applying as soon as one is eligible can often be so foolish as to be stupid. And the evidence of this permeates many of the topics in this and other similar forums.
Becoming the citizen of another country is a very big deal. Even if the individual himself or herself does not approach it accordingly, they should recognize that this is the way the government approaches it, that it is a very, very big deal. Qualifying for citizenship is not like collecting air-miles or points, not like accumulating credits to earn a degree. It takes more than just being qualified.
Those who apply failing to understand this, that it takes more than just being qualified, tend to be at much greater risk of non-routine processing. Aspects of their stories can be read in many topics here, often couched in derogatory rants about the government's incompetency or even malfeasance.
Thus, ultimately, why this matters is that how the individual approaches the process, from timing when the application is made to how diligently the applicant is in making sure the information submitted is complete and accurate, can make the difference between getting citizenship in less than a year after applying, or ending up litigating one's qualifications in the face of IRCC contesting one's qualifications, such as physical presence.
Finally, in this regard, you might note I have made numerous references to residency almost equally to physical presence. The latter is now the formal requirement: a specified period of physical presence in Canada. There is no residency requirement (for applicants applying after June 11, 2015). But make no mistake, IRCC is very much interested in indications as to the applicant's residency, since evidence of residency is a huge, huge factor in assessing evidence of physical presence.
A key take-away from the last observation is that IRCC does not strictly limit its assessment to specific technical requirements, but can and often will examine a lot of other information which is relevant, which can corroborate or controvert the technical elements. Thus, the absence of convincing evidence showing residency in Canada does not corroborate an applicant's declarations of time physically present in Canada, but on the contrary, at the least, raises some question about whether the applicant has fully disclosed time abroad. Actual indications of residency abroad even more so.
Likewise as to employment. Perhaps the best evidence of physical presence in Canada is consistent and credible evidence of working at a job-location in Canada. Employment is NOT a requirement to qualify for citizenship. But it is a huge, huge factor in IRCC's assessment of the applicant.
Thus, again, there is much more to consider when deciding the right time to apply than just passing a date on the calendar. Much, much more.
That is, the observations below are intended to explain why just reaching the minimum threshold of physical presence is only one factor, among others, when determining what is the right time to apply.
A somewhat short observation:dell said:
There is absolutely no indication that IRCC views or treats every one as frauds. Not at all. Quite the contrary actually: the vast majority of qualified applicants sail through the routine process with minimal delays, little or no non-routine processing.
That said, the burden of presenting sufficient evidence to prove qualification for citizenship is squarely on the applicant. If and when IRCC perceives a reason to question residency or physical presence, that will lead to further scrutiny, inquiry, or even an investigation, going beyond the scope of routine processing.
For the vast majority of applicants, there is no further scrutiny, inquiry, or investigation beyond the scoe of routine processing.
The difference, that is the impact of falling into non-routine processing, can range from minor inconvenience and relatively short delays, to an extensive, intrusive, and difficult process involving lengthy delays or even challenges to the applicant's information, up to the point of IRCC contesting the applicant's qualifications.
Given the potential impact, it is prudent for the qualified applicant to time the application in a way that minimizes the risk of triggering elevated concerns by IRCC.
The longer explanation:
IRCC has a mandate to verify the qualifications of those applying for a grant of citizenship. This is imposed by law.
The vast majority of applicants sail through the process routinely, smoothly, and relatively without delay. (Even with some potential issues in my application, my application took just 8 months from date it arrived in Sydney to date I took the oath; scores and scores of others have had similar timelines, many even shorter timelines.)
If there are reasons to question the applicant's residency or physical presence, obviously IRCC is required, by law, to more thoroughly examine the applicant and make appropriate inquiries. The burden of proving qualification for citizenship is on the individual seeking the grant: that is, the burden of proof is on the applicant.
This is standard, whether it is the procedure for obtaining a drivers license or qualifying for health care coverage, the person seeking the benefit or privilege carries the burden of making the application, presenting sufficient information and documentation as to qualification, and if questioned (which only happens to a small percentage of those who are in fact qualified and have submitted proper information and documentation to that effect), proving the requisite elements of qualification.
For the vast majority of citizenship applicants, the information in the application itself is sufficient for IRCC to infer actual presence between a date of entry into Canada and the next date of exit, as disclosed by the applicant in the physical presence calculation. This is subject to routine modes of verification, ranging from IRCC's examination of the individual's CBSA Travel History to the examination of Travel Documents in a documents-verification interview which is conducted attendant the scheduled knowledge of Canada test. Obviously, IRCC cross-checks and considers all the information in the application, including history of residential addresses and work history, and cross-checking this information against information previously obtained from the applicant, such as what was submitted in the application for PR status or any FOSS notes such as those made by a CBSA officer during a PoE examination of the PR.
There is a specific set of criteria which IRCC employs to identify applications it will subject to further inquiry. Such further inquiry may include requests for additional documentation, which can be either CIT 0520 (sometimes referred to as RQ-lite), which typically requests a few specified documents, or the full-blown RQ, that is CIT 0171, which is indeed a profoundly intrusive request for information and extensive documentation (objective proof of interest in place of residence, employment history, family and social ties in Canada, history of use of health care coverage, and more). The criteria now used are not public information and the last version we have had access to was listed in the 2012 version of the File Requirements Checklist (inadvertently disclosed to an applicant who in turn shared it online).
While we know (from Access to Information request responses) that these criteria have changed some, but not what those changes are in particular, it is likely that they are largely the same but subject to some modification in how the criteria are applied to certain situations or facts.
As one would anticipate, some of the criteria are fairly broad and subject to an examiner's discretionary judgment. What constitutes a "suspect address," for example, undoubtedly varies depending on other circumstances but also on the judgment of the IRCC bureaucrat, a total stranger bureaucrat, assessing the information. That said, there are also key indicators; for example, certain postal codes are probably identified as warranting further inquiry (such as those previously used in known fraud cases). But of course there are many other examples, such as a residential address which is inconsistent or in some way incongruous with the applicant's declared employment history. Different address on a form of identification, compared to address listed in application, for example, is more or less likely to invite questions about the veracity of the applicant's information.
In similar fashion, for example, an application sent from abroad suggests the individual is living abroad, which at the very least raises a question about when and for how long the individual has been living abroad, thus a question about the extent to which the individual actually was living and present in Canada. These are entirely reasonable questions and actually IRCC would be derelict if it did not pursue further inquiry in such circumstances. In particular, in this situation IRCC is required to investigate the facts and circumstances. That will mean the application is no longer routine, and the impact of this can range from short delays attendant some additional inquiries, to full blown RQ and lengthy delays. The actual impact for the particular individual will depend mostly on the specific facts and circumstances for that individual.
Thus, for another example, if there is some reason for IRCC to question residency or physical presence, then the applicant with a minimal margin (such as less than a month), is obviously at greater risk for the more intrusive and lengthy processing than the applicant who was living and present in Canada longer. This is simply common sense.
But of course there are many, many other factors which can have influence on whether or not IRCC perceives a reason to question residency or physical presence, and many, many factors which will influence how it goes if and when IRCC perceives a reason to question residency or physical presence.
A two week margin is probably fine for someone who was working for the government or a well-known employer the full four plus years, and whose residential address is stable and consistent, and there are no other potential causes for concern (spouse and children living in Canada good; spouse living abroad raises questions; and so on). But as I noted in my previous post, a four to five week margin is probably a safe minimum for most.
However, it is also worth recognizing that if IRCC otherwise perceives an overt reason to actually question the applicant's account of where he or she has lived, worked, or the applicant's declaration of travel abroad, the size of the margin will not matter so much. In such situations, a big margin offers little protection.
Why this matters; why I bother to make these observations:
There is a tendency in this and other similar forums to overlook or devalue the extent to which the vast majority of qualified applicants routinely sail through the process. And there is a tendency to overstate the extent to which qualified applicants are dragged into inconvenient and protracted non-routine processing. In conjunction with this, there is also a tendency to understate the actual factors or reasons why qualified applicants might be dragged into non-routine processing. Protests to the contrary are, frankly, at best hyperbolic, but generally are largely unfounded, and often are outright balderdash.
However, there is no way to guarantee a perfect application. Even the most qualified applicant faces some risk of being dragged into non-routine processing.
But there are ways to increase the risk of non-routine processing, and to in effect virtually guarantee having one's residency or physical presence questioned. The prudent applicant will avoid doing this. It can make a big difference. It can be the difference between becoming a citizen in just six months versus the process taking two or even three years (in the not-so-distant past, and there are still a few of these pending, some applicants were bogged down for four plus years).
I make these observations to alert prospective applicants that it is worthwhile to take the time and make the effort to not only be especially diligent, being both careful and complete (especially as to dates of travel, all dates), in making the application, but to also be cognizant of and take into account contextual circumstances. Relative to the latter, timing when to apply is a big factor. As I have otherwise noted, applying as soon as one is eligible can often be so foolish as to be stupid. And the evidence of this permeates many of the topics in this and other similar forums.
Becoming the citizen of another country is a very big deal. Even if the individual himself or herself does not approach it accordingly, they should recognize that this is the way the government approaches it, that it is a very, very big deal. Qualifying for citizenship is not like collecting air-miles or points, not like accumulating credits to earn a degree. It takes more than just being qualified.
Those who apply failing to understand this, that it takes more than just being qualified, tend to be at much greater risk of non-routine processing. Aspects of their stories can be read in many topics here, often couched in derogatory rants about the government's incompetency or even malfeasance.
Thus, ultimately, why this matters is that how the individual approaches the process, from timing when the application is made to how diligently the applicant is in making sure the information submitted is complete and accurate, can make the difference between getting citizenship in less than a year after applying, or ending up litigating one's qualifications in the face of IRCC contesting one's qualifications, such as physical presence.
Finally, in this regard, you might note I have made numerous references to residency almost equally to physical presence. The latter is now the formal requirement: a specified period of physical presence in Canada. There is no residency requirement (for applicants applying after June 11, 2015). But make no mistake, IRCC is very much interested in indications as to the applicant's residency, since evidence of residency is a huge, huge factor in assessing evidence of physical presence.
A key take-away from the last observation is that IRCC does not strictly limit its assessment to specific technical requirements, but can and often will examine a lot of other information which is relevant, which can corroborate or controvert the technical elements. Thus, the absence of convincing evidence showing residency in Canada does not corroborate an applicant's declarations of time physically present in Canada, but on the contrary, at the least, raises some question about whether the applicant has fully disclosed time abroad. Actual indications of residency abroad even more so.
Likewise as to employment. Perhaps the best evidence of physical presence in Canada is consistent and credible evidence of working at a job-location in Canada. Employment is NOT a requirement to qualify for citizenship. But it is a huge, huge factor in IRCC's assessment of the applicant.
Thus, again, there is much more to consider when deciding the right time to apply than just passing a date on the calendar. Much, much more.