marcus66502 said:
dpenabill
Can you elaborate on why you think it's risky to apply with 1096 days of actual physical presence under PR status? I have to ask because in another post you say that once an applicant meets the threshold of 1095 days of APP then s/he has met the residency requirement and no other test can be applied.
For what it's worth, a CIC Call Centre agent I spoke to told me the same thing: basically that I'm safe to apply on June 3rd with 1096 days of APP. To quote her, she said "apply right away", meaning as soon as you have 1095 days, even though she did say she knew with certainty that the new requirement will not come into force before July 1st.
I don't mind sitting on my application for another two weeks after June 3rd. The reason I want to put the application package in the mail on day 1096 is because I actually don't believe that CIC will give ANY advance notice of when the new residency requirement will come into force. I think they're just going to update the relevant parts of their website for the customer base and that's how everyone will know that the new requirement is in force.
Having said this, I will actually be biting my nails during the two days when my application will be in the delivery process before making it to CIC. They won't care that I mailed the package under the old requirement if they can say that it reached them after the new requirement came into force. So nope, beyond the 1095 day threshold, every day of waiting presents a very high risk for a costly mistake.
Technically, absolutely, 1095 days APP satisfies the residency requirement.
If you are absolutely certain that CIC will not doubt any two days in those 1096 days you declare to have been present, sure, no reason to accumulate any more before making the application.
It is worth remembering, however, that we all make mistakes . . . including POE officers entering data into the CBSA travel history for a client, including ourselves especially. Applying with no margin is relying on no mistakes.
Relying on no mistakes by anyone in any aspect of the process.
The
no-need-for-a-margin versus
better-to-apply-with-a-margin debate has been around since before I started following the process (over six years ago now), and of course it has always been a personal decision, with pros and cons both ways, taking into account a range of risks. I have always leaned toward the
better-to-apply-with-a-margin view and followed my own advice in that regard (waited nearly two years to apply beyond when I initially met the 1095 days APP threshold), but I had a range of personal reasons which helped me make the decision the way I did.
But the topography of citizenship application processing has changed, significantly so.
In particular, it is worth remembering, as well, that neither CIC nor Citizenship Judges have a crystal ball. They cannot determine exactly how many days an applicant has been present. They look at the record, the applicant's submissions, and make
inferences including inferences about the credibility of the applicant's case.
If CIC concludes, and persuades a CJ to do likewise, that an applicant who applied with just 1096 days has not sufficiently proven actual presence for all those days, the applicant is at risk for being denied. That was not so much the case a year ago, and not nearly so much a risk more than a couple years ago. But it appears that CIC is clamping down hard on the minimum threshold as the
very minimum, and the pending implementation of the new rules changes . . . well, I suspect it changes everything.
My sense is that CIC is well aware that thousands of PRs will push to apply sooner in anticipation of beating the deadline for the new residency provisions, and as a result CIC is likely to be examining a large portion of this year's applications more critically if not skeptically. I do not know, not for sure, but my strong guess is that applicants applying in June with virtually no margin over the
minimum are at risk for elevated scrutiny . . . and at the same time, if CIC has doubts about just enough days that leaves the applicant short, I am afraid CIC will be applying the strict test and pushing CJs to do likewise.
There are scores of anecdotal reports of applicants who have run into difficulty applying with less than a week's margin. But of course there are also scores of applicants who applied with very little margin and had no problems. And another group who had problems but eventually were granted citizenship.
The difference to keep in mind is the extent to which CIC is likely to be more skeptical of 2015 applicants (again knowing many will rush to beat the new law) and also more strictly enforcing the actual physical presence test. No great intellectual prowess is necessary to discern that a no-margin application this year will have more risk of failure than in prior years.
Come June 3, the question is about balancing risks: what is the risk that the change will be implemented with no notice and on a random day during the month, versus the risk of a skeptical CIC not being satisfied you actually were in Canada for each and every one of those 1096 days you declared you were.
This is another one of those very personal decisions, a judgment call only the individual can make. No one else, let alone anyone here, can reliably say what is the best course for you.
I absolutely agree there is a significant risk the change will be made with either no notice or insufficient notice to get an application off in time (even with the best, fastest courier service) to reach CIC, Sydney the day before it comes into force.
And there is the risk that day could be virtually any day.
But my personal sense is that the odds are good there will be at least a week's notice. I believe the fee increase without any advance notice last February was a bureaucratic disaster, probably resulting in CIC having to return thousands of applications (expensive and resource consuming, an anathema for this government), and that there was a lesson learned from that. But, sure, this particular Conservative government seems oblivious to lessons, not much inclined to learn from them, and these decisions are made from the top, not the top of CIC but from the PMO.
However, my personal sense is also that the odds are high the date will be the first or last day of a month, not some random day in the middle of the month.
Overall I do not envy any of those in the position of being
on-the-cusp, especially those for whom having a Canadian passport can make a huge difference in business or career opportunities, or convenience of travel to visit family. I really hope this government is compassionate enough to give real notice.
In your situation, for example, if the order is made in May stating that the remaining provisions in Bill C-24 will come into force on July 1st, you and many thousands of others will know where you stand, and be able to make a better, more informed decision about when to actually shoot the application off to CIC. There will still be those for whom the tipping date is in the last week of June, and probably hundreds or even a few thousand for whom the hard decision will be to apply with a shortfall or wait . . . but in the meantime there are literally tens of thousands of PRs for whom the date will make a big difference in what they do.
One last observation about advance notice: this is an election year. The failure to give a reasonable amount of notice is so blatantly unfair that one has to expect the government to take the optics into account, at least a little. This does not mean this government is likely to give a lot of advance notice, that's not what they do, but at least a week to a month's notice seems the most likely scenario to me. But I have no personal
skin-in-the-game (just a month to go to the 1st anniversary of my oath), whereas thousands just like you have something riding on the bet.
Again, I surely hope this government has enough decency to give a reasonable amount of notice. But I can fully understand why many will not trust this government to do so.
made my day.I did not say anything about beliefs.