adzees said:
I had a citizenship test this morning that i passed but while going over the documents, the immigration officer found that i forgot to mention the physical absence from Canada. I have provided with Residence Questionaire to fill out and send it to local CIC within 45 days.
Not sure what should i do? I am hearing all these stories about long delay and possible refusal of the application
adzees said:
I will miss days from the residency requirement for sure.
First came to canada: decemeber 2003
Landed: july 11 2011
Applied for citizenship: august 1, 2013
Local CIC office: Edmonton
In last 4 years preceding my application i was away from Canada for total of 83 days.
You have a problem. It looks like you are short of meeting the 1095 days of actual physical presence test.
But for the failure to declare dates absent, this otherwise appears to be a good case for pursuing it through despite the shortfall, assuming you were also well settled in Canada prior to August 2009. This is because it appears you have a strong case for documenting the centralization of your life in Canada.
But the failure to declare your days absent looms ominously. Of course how ominously depends on the extent of what you failed to declare. For example, if you did not declare any of the 83 days outside Canada, ouch, big ouch. That tips a lot toward a material misrepresentation by omission and if so interpreted by CIC that would constitute a serious problem.
In terms of determining what to do in this situation, there are a number of
it-depends factors, but it is important to at the least gather all the relevant information and documentation to submit in response to the RQ, and submit the RQ response on time.
You may want to seriously reconsider withdrawing the application and re-applying, but my sense is that it is still important, first, to submit an appropriate response to the RQ, a response which in particular
completely and accurately declares all travel outside Canada during the relevant four years. You want to make a concerted effort to show that you are being truthful, and at least indirectly suggesting that any omission in your application was an oversight or misunderstanding. You want to be on the record for giving complete and accurate information before you withdraw the application.
There is no rush to withdraw the application, even if you decide that is the best course to follow. (I suspect it is, but that is a decision for you to make based on your best judgment.) So there is time to submit the response to the RQ. To set the record straight so-to-say.
Consulting with a lawyer is probably a very good idea.
Otherwise, assuming you have remained in Canada since August 1, 2013 (at least most of the time, but for typical holiday or brief business trips), after responding to the RQ you can withdraw and re-apply. A couple months delay in re-applying will not make a big difference.
Some may suggest withdrawing without responding to RQ.
Others may emphasize that even if you withdraw you will most likely encounter RQ again when you re-apply.
Not all RQs are created equal. The extent of delay encountered will vary considerably and a big factor in this is tied to what kinds of questions are at stake, what the issues are. RQ for a shortfall or for an omission of travel dates in the Residency Calculation, let alone for both, is likely to lead to a longer, much longer, processing timeline and increased risk for referral to a CJ for a hearing, which really delays things. RQ because the applicant has previously applied and withdrawn an application, in contrast, can be fairly perfunctory if in the new application any questions are easily resolved and if, in particular, any problem in the earlier application is resolved . . . hence my suggestion to go ahead and respond to the RQ even if you plan to withdraw, so that at the least the record is clear and your submission is accurate.
Since a qualitative test may still be applied, technically you could push forward with this application.
Odds are not good, though, for an applicant relying on pre-landing credit for time in Canada. This is being eliminated once the amended version of section 5(1) of the
Citizenship Act takes effect, reflecting the government's view that time is not a strong enough indicator of permanent ties to Canada. It still counts, technically, for applicants who apply before that amendment takes effect, but succeeding in a shortfall case requires a level of persuasion well above meeting the technicalities -- recognizing, after all, that a shortfall does not meet the technically of having 1095 days of actual presence in Canada during the relevant four years.
The residency calculation itself:
Since you clearly applied relying on credit for time in Canada prior to landing, your statement that you were "away from Canada" for 83 days in the relevant four years, does not clearly indicate the extent of your shortfall. Days away prior to the application date of August 1, 2013 only cost you a half-day's credit (for each day away), while days away after August 1, 2013 actually cost you . . . well that calculation gets a bit complex, but in your situation it would take at least two more days of presence in Canada to make up for a day's absence after August 1, 2011.
It is nonetheless apparent you have a substantial shortfall (well over a month at the very least), given that you applied barely 20 days after the two year anniversary of landing. Thus your total credit for time in Canada, given being away for 83 days, fell well short of the 1095 days of credit for time actually physically present during the relevant four years.
Thus, even without there having been an omission, a failure to declare some travel abroad, the odds of succeeding on this application would be significantly diminished.
Conclusion:
Completely and accurately, responsively, submit the RQ.
See a lawyer, at least for a
consultation.
Probably (your decision ultimately) withdraw and re-apply now that you have sell exceeded the 1095 days of actual presence threshold.
