physical presence calculation - Including pre-PR time as a visa-exempt visitor?

[fisherpriced]

Hello all - I wasn't able to find much information specific to my situation, so I wanted to get some recommendations as I am working on my citizenship application right now.

For background: As of today, I have calculated 1085 presence days post-PR landing, and potentially 50 days pre-PR as a visitor.
I am a US citizen, and landed as a PR on 4/18/22. In the year prior to becoming a PR (2021-2022), I calculated that I was in Canada as a visitor for 100 days (during that "visitor" time I lived in Canada with my common-law partner, but worked in the US, and was frequently in and out of Canada). I know that time spent as an "authorized temporary resident" counts as 1/2 a day towards the physical presence calculation, and that my time as a visitor in Canada SHOULD be considered as being a temporary resident, and thus count as 50 days towards physical presence calculations. However after reading a few threads here (pasted below), I'm not certain I have enough evidence to satisfy CIC about whether or not those pre-PR days count?

First question: What kind of proof does CIC need to show I was an "authorized temporary resident", if I don't have any formal documentation of this?
As I am visa-exempt as a visitor and just drove across the border, I have no visa, passport stamps or visitor record to prove my presence in Canada during that time. The records/proof I'd have would be: my traveler history report from CBSA (as well as a similar document from US CBP), which just show my border crossing entrances and exits from Canada, as well as toll records from driving across the bridges. I also have apartment lease records (I rented an apartment with my common-law partner in Canada during that time; and CIC deemed us common-law for my PR application), and I'd also probably have proof of some purchases made in Canada if I looked back.
Does anyone have any experience in situations like this?

These were threads I found that seemed related, but didn't quite answer my questions.

S

Thread 'Citizenship Appl. Returned (physical presence)'

Apr 18, 2019

Hello everyone,
I applied for citizenship in Nov. 2018, my application was returned Feb. 2019 stating that:

"Some or all of the time reported on the calculator could not be verified in our records"

I entered Canada as a visitor on Nov 26th 2014, I made a PR application (family sponsorship) on January 29th 2015. I went to Seattle for a day trip on January 30th. I was then advised to extend my stay which I did and I was granted a work permit on October 15th 2015 and I later received my PR on June 6th 2016.
I left Canada for a vacation from may 9th to July 26th 2018.

When I enter these...

• SNF2015
• Replies: 8
• Forum: Citizenship

J

Thread 'Physical presence calculation'

Sep 22, 2020

Hi,
Going through and looking at the Physical Presence Calculator and reading all about what counts and not. Am I correct in thinking that even me coming for a visit for the first time, can count towards the number of days needed before applying for Citizenship?

For example with a timeline like this I would be able to count days in Canada.

2017-10-01 - 2017-10-14 - Visited my Spouse on a tourist visa (ETA) -- This would count as 7 days?
2017-12-01 - 2018-01-30 - Again visiting my spouse -- Counts as half days?
... and so on until the inland PR app being sent in 2019.

Then PR approval in...

• Jerry74
• Replies: 8
• Forum: Citizenship

Second question: If it seems like I've got enough proof to satisfy CIC, how would I enter this information into the application under the physical presence calculator section of the application? The question asks "During your 5-year eligibility period, did you have a valid temporary resident status before becoming a permanent resident?". I assume I check "yes", and then add in a new entry for each period of time that I was in Canada as a visitor? (ie if I was in Canada for a week and then went to the US to work, I'd put the dates for that week; then enter a new one for the next period I was in Canada?).

Thanks for your help, and let me know if you have any questions!

 

[dpenabill]

In the year prior to becoming a PR (2021-2022), I calculated that I was in Canada as a visitor for 100 days (during that "visitor" time I lived in Canada with my common-law partner, but worked in the US, and was frequently in and out of Canada) . . . SHOULD be considered as being a temporary resident, and thus count as 50 days towards physical presence calculations . . .

Short Answer:

Short answer, repeating what I have often posted, including in the threads you reference:

Wait to apply not relying on credit for pre-PR days that are not formally documented. Wait to have another 30 days credit (a buffer) over the minimum. Then apply, including those days in the physical presence calculation.

Note: this may not be necessary to get the grant of citizenship. It should, however, avoid having the application returned as incomplete based on insufficient presence, and it should considerably lower the risk the application is subject to non-routine processing that could add many months or even years to how long it takes to take the oath.

Explanation; the Long Read:

In one of the threads you quote I offered a fairly comprehensive response which is still the safer approach. That was posted nearly five years ago.

In key part:

I cannot offer personal advice. I am no expert. But it is fairly easy to see that the safe approach for the prospective citizenship applicant who was in Canada as a visitor, but not issued a formal visa, is to WAIT to apply so it does not matter whether he or she is given credit for that period of time. To my view, best to WAIT long enough to have a good margin over the minimum (a month or MORE, depending on individual circumstances) PLUS long enough to fully cover any period for which the applicant did not have a formally issued visa (including periods of implied status).

The easy way to calculate WHEN to apply, taking this into consideration, is to do ROUGH drafts of the presence calculation simply NOT including any potentially questionable period of time, and WHEN that calculation shows at least 1125 or so, or MORE days credit (1095 plus a margin of at least a month), then it is SAFE to apply.

THEN do the formal, to be submitted version of the presence calculation, including a totally, precisely accurate and complete accounting of ALL dates of entry into Canada and dates of exit from Canada for the full five year "eligibility period." Including the visitor days.

For dates of status, again those are the dates on the formally issued visas. For periods of time in Canada as a visitor without any formally issued visa, the dates of Temporary Resident status would be limited to the dates of actual presence, so each such period in Canada as a visitor will need to be entered separately. (A Foreign National who has not been issued a formal visa and is outside Canada does not have Temporary Resident status in Canada. So only days actually IN Canada are days the FN can be said to have Temporary Resident status.)

The issue:

Ostensibly the main issue is whether or not such visitor days are counted toward meeting the physical presence requirement. They SHOULD. And if the applicant meets their burden of proof, and if proof is requested they provide, in particular, proof of both status and presence, they most likely will get the credit.

For an application in which meeting the physical presence requirement depends on credit for such days, the more practical issues are:

(1) Will the application pass completeness screening and go into process, or will it be returned as incomplete because GCMS records do not verify temporary resident status for some days?​

​

(2) If processed (not returned as incomplete), will the application be subject to additional review, additional inquiries or investigation, which could add months or as much as two years to the processing time?​

At the time of the posts referenced above there were numerous anecdotal reports from PRs whose application were returned as incomplete because, according to the notice received, the application did not show they met the physical presence requirement. There were more than enough of these reports to clearly identify a frequent problem: in doing the completeness screening IRCC was not counting some pre-PR days correlating to periods of time in which the applicant's pre-PR status was not formally documented.

In the meantime, in the last year plus or so, there have been significantly fewer anecdotal reports here of applications being returned as incomplete in these scenarios (applications relying on credit for what amounts to undocumented temporary resident status). The reason for this is not apparent. IRCC may have revised its completeness screening criteria to allow processing of such applications. Or it may be all but a tiny few are applying with sufficient margins (buffer) over the minimum requirement and otherwise the forum is simply not getting posts from affected applicants (remember, the number of citizenship applicants participating here is a miniscule percentage of applicants).

So, in terms of what is at stake, it is possible that such applications are no longer being returned as incomplete.

There are good procedural fairness reasons why IRCC should accept and process such applications. So a change in policy to do so would make sense.

But even if IRCC is no longer categorically returning such applications as incomplete, the other practical issue is still a factor:

If processed, will the application be subject to additional review, additional inquiries or investigation, which could add months or as much as two years to the processing time?​

Leading to your particular questions:

First question: What kind of proof does CIC need to show I was an "authorized temporary resident", if I don't have any formal documentation of this?

. . .

Second question: If it seems like I've got enough proof to satisfy CIC, how would I enter this information into the application under the physical presence calculator section of the application?

If CBSA travel history shows the dates of entry as a visa-exempt visitor, that in itself is probably sufficient to document temporary resident status, probably enough so to meet the beyond a balance of probabilities standard of proof. So, as long as the application passes the completeness screening, IRCC should be able to verify status in the course of its assessing physical presence.

That depends on the application passing completeness screening. Best approach, the more safe approach to pass the completeness screening, again, is to wait to apply without needing the credit for these days.

It may be possible to include additional information or even supporting documents with the application that will get an application to pass completeness screening it would not have passed otherwise. Unless absolutely necessary (as it may be for some), however, the vast majority of qualified applicants will want to avoid doing this. If additional information or proof is needed, that will very likely make the application complex if not highly complex. That will likely add months, probably many months, if not YEARS to the processing time.

For most applicants waiting longer to apply to make the odds good they take the oath sooner makes good sense; in particular, for most waiting three to six months longer to apply is preferable to having the application stuck in process for that much longer plus some, at the risk of plus a lot longer, a period of waiting during which the applicant gets rather little information about what is happening, no information about how much longer it might be.

Bottom-line: for most waiting to apply is better than trying to include proof with the application.

By the way, this includes CBSA travel history. IRCC does not need, and it very much appears that IRCC does not want, applicants' copies of CBSA travel history. If IRCC considers the CBSA travel history, it will access that information directly.

 

[fisherpriced]

Short Answer:

Short answer, repeating what I have often posted, including in the threads you reference:

Wait to apply not relying on credit for pre-PR days that are not formally documented. Wait to have another 30 days credit (a buffer) over the minimum. Then apply, including those days in the physical presence calculation.

Note: this may not be necessary to get the grant of citizenship. It should, however, avoid having the application returned as incomplete based on insufficient presence, and it should considerably lower the risk the application is subject to non-routine processing that could add many months or even years to how long it takes to take the oath.

Explanation; the Long Read:

In one of the threads you quote I offered a fairly comprehensive response which is still the safer approach. That was posted nearly five years ago.

In key part:



The issue:

Ostensibly the main issue is whether or not such visitor days are counted toward meeting the physical presence requirement. They SHOULD. And if the applicant meets their burden of proof, and if proof is requested they provide, in particular, proof of both status and presence, they most likely will get the credit.

For an application in which meeting the physical presence requirement depends on credit for such days, the more practical issues are:

(1) Will the application pass completeness screening and go into process, or will it be returned as incomplete because GCMS records do not verify temporary resident status for some days?​

​

(2) If processed (not returned as incomplete), will the application be subject to additional review, additional inquiries or investigation, which could add months or as much as two years to the processing time?​

At the time of the posts referenced above there were numerous anecdotal reports from PRs whose application were returned as incomplete because, according to the notice received, the application did not show they met the physical presence requirement. There were more than enough of these reports to clearly identify a frequent problem: in doing the completeness screening IRCC was not counting some pre-PR days correlating to periods of time in which the applicant's pre-PR status was not formally documented.

In the meantime, in the last year plus or so, there have been significantly fewer anecdotal reports here of applications being returned as incomplete in these scenarios (applications relying on credit for what amounts to undocumented temporary resident status). The reason for this is not apparent. IRCC may have revised its completeness screening criteria to allow processing of such applications. Or it may be all but a tiny few are applying with sufficient margins (buffer) over the minimum requirement and otherwise the forum is simply not getting posts from affected applicants (remember, the number of citizenship applicants participating here is a miniscule percentage of applicants).

So, in terms of what is at stake, it is possible that such applications are no longer being returned as incomplete.

There are good procedural fairness reasons why IRCC should accept and process such applications. So a change in policy to do so would make sense.

But even if IRCC is no longer categorically returning such applications as incomplete, the other practical issue is still a factor:

If processed, will the application be subject to additional review, additional inquiries or investigation, which could add months or as much as two years to the processing time?​

Leading to your particular questions:


If CBSA travel history shows the dates of entry as a visa-exempt visitor, that in itself is probably sufficient to document temporary resident status, probably enough so to meet the beyond a balance of probabilities standard of proof. So, as long as the application passes the completeness screening, IRCC should be able to verify status in the course of its assessing physical presence.

That depends on the application passing completeness screening. Best approach, the more safe approach to pass the completeness screening, again, is to wait to apply without needing the credit for these days.

It may be possible to include additional information or even supporting documents with the application that will get an application to pass completeness screening it would not have passed otherwise. Unless absolutely necessary (as it may be for some), however, the vast majority of qualified applicants will want to avoid doing this. If additional information or proof is needed, that will very likely make the application complex if not highly complex. That will likely add months, probably many months, if not YEARS to the processing time.

For most applicants waiting longer to apply to make the odds good they take the oath sooner makes good sense; in particular, for most waiting three to six months longer to apply is preferable to having the application stuck in process for that much longer plus some, at the risk of plus a lot longer, a period of waiting during which the applicant gets rather little information about what is happening, no information about how much longer it might be.

Bottom-line: for most waiting to apply is better than trying to include proof with the application.

By the way, this includes CBSA travel history. IRCC does not need, and it very much appears that IRCC does not want, applicants' copies of CBSA travel history. If IRCC considers the CBSA travel history, it will access that information directly.

Thank you so much for your help - it's probably safest to give it some more time before I submit!