In passing, overall observation regarding cross-border commuter applications:
The OP appears to be about cross-border commuting; at the least, five-days-per-week fits the commuter pattern. Historically CIC, and I assume IRCC now similarly, have approached commuter-applicants with elevated skepticism. Obvious reasons (rooted in extent of ties abroad).
Direction of commute probably makes a difference (commuting from Canada probably a somewhat easier case than commuting to Canada) but either way the pattern indicates a high probability that either the applicant's employment is abroad, or the applicant has an established residence abroad. Either of these tends to increase the possibility, if not probability, of more absence from Canada than reported. Which, in turn, demands IRCC do due diligence and more stringently scrutinize the applicant and application.
Not sure if every commuter case is approached as suspicious. I do not think the skepticism always rises to that level.
If there is only a request for record of U.S. entries (which Canada can get for itself if the applicant gives permission, unless the applicant is a U.S. citizen), for example, that signals a degree of scrutiny less severe than suspicion. Which is good news for the affected applicant. Full blown RQ (CIT 0171), in contrast, would signal overt suspicion and an elevated risk of being referred for a hearing with a Citizenship Judge.
In the past, some commuter cases have fallen victim to a failure-to-prove-all-days-of-actual-physical-presence, which does NOT require CIC/IRCC, or a CJ, to actually find that the applicant was short of the actual presence requirement (remember that the burden of proof is on the applicant; it is not what you know, it is what you can prove) . . . and in such cases the denial is based on the applicant's failure to prove days present sufficient to meet the minimum. In particular, it seems that in many of these cases IRCC will be inclined to NOT rely much on the applicant's account of absences. Which can make proving presence significantly more difficult.
That said: NO REASON to PANIC for any applicant who is clearly well-settled in Canada and who can well document the time in Canada. There is NO indication IRCC goes dredging through the weeds in search of an excuse to deny the commuter-applicant citizenship (while there have been some much older cases in which the denial appears, on its face, to be based on an excuse, it is apparent in those cases that CIC and the respective CJ had severe reservations about the applicant's credibility beyond just the fact the applicant was a cross-border commuter). There are in fact occasional reports of successful applications by cross-border commuters.
But most cross-border commuters can anticipate elevated scrutiny, some non-routine processing, and a longer processing timeline. And of course should be prepared to fully document their physical presence if IRCC imposes a full blown RQ.
The OP appears to be about cross-border commuting; at the least, five-days-per-week fits the commuter pattern. Historically CIC, and I assume IRCC now similarly, have approached commuter-applicants with elevated skepticism. Obvious reasons (rooted in extent of ties abroad).
Direction of commute probably makes a difference (commuting from Canada probably a somewhat easier case than commuting to Canada) but either way the pattern indicates a high probability that either the applicant's employment is abroad, or the applicant has an established residence abroad. Either of these tends to increase the possibility, if not probability, of more absence from Canada than reported. Which, in turn, demands IRCC do due diligence and more stringently scrutinize the applicant and application.
Not sure if every commuter case is approached as suspicious. I do not think the skepticism always rises to that level.
If there is only a request for record of U.S. entries (which Canada can get for itself if the applicant gives permission, unless the applicant is a U.S. citizen), for example, that signals a degree of scrutiny less severe than suspicion. Which is good news for the affected applicant. Full blown RQ (CIT 0171), in contrast, would signal overt suspicion and an elevated risk of being referred for a hearing with a Citizenship Judge.
In the past, some commuter cases have fallen victim to a failure-to-prove-all-days-of-actual-physical-presence, which does NOT require CIC/IRCC, or a CJ, to actually find that the applicant was short of the actual presence requirement (remember that the burden of proof is on the applicant; it is not what you know, it is what you can prove) . . . and in such cases the denial is based on the applicant's failure to prove days present sufficient to meet the minimum. In particular, it seems that in many of these cases IRCC will be inclined to NOT rely much on the applicant's account of absences. Which can make proving presence significantly more difficult.
That said: NO REASON to PANIC for any applicant who is clearly well-settled in Canada and who can well document the time in Canada. There is NO indication IRCC goes dredging through the weeds in search of an excuse to deny the commuter-applicant citizenship (while there have been some much older cases in which the denial appears, on its face, to be based on an excuse, it is apparent in those cases that CIC and the respective CJ had severe reservations about the applicant's credibility beyond just the fact the applicant was a cross-border commuter). There are in fact occasional reports of successful applications by cross-border commuters.
But most cross-border commuters can anticipate elevated scrutiny, some non-routine processing, and a longer processing timeline. And of course should be prepared to fully document their physical presence if IRCC imposes a full blown RQ.
