I'm living in my husband's property, he supports my living; I stay home all the time to take care of my kid whenever I'm here.
Many, many successful citizenship applicants have had very similar circumstances. Home and child care taker is readily recognized as a common reality for many immigrants. Relationship to owner or lessor of the residence is sufficient to document occupant interest in the address where the applicant reports living.
Note, for example, children's Canadian school records can readily corroborate the children's presence in Canada (assuming the children are in Canada of course), and thus support the parent's declarations as to presence in Canada.
And . . . The vast majority of applicants are NOT subject to any of the non-routine requests for additional information or documents.
Somewhat ironically, the Secondary Review of you PR card application may actually facilitate your citizenship application because IRCC has already scrutinized your residency history.
Of course I don't know the details of this case but it seems to me that when IRCC is not "happy", I mean red flag from application. Even though the days of physical present is accurate, they can just say there's no proof of residency and then deduct that certain period, make the applicant doesn't have enough days of physical present then application rejected.
IRCC is NOT engaged in a GOTCHA game. IRCC is not looking for reasons to deny qualified applicants. Yes, if IRCC perceives a
reason-to-question-presence that can dramatically elevate the level of scrutiny and degree of skepticism, BUT this does not happen randomly or haphazardly or otherwise without actual reason. Screening citizenship applicants is FACT-BASED, CRITERIA-DRIVEN.
Red-flags do not pop up out of nowhere.
Qualified PRs who have actually been living and settled and present in Canada, who follow the instructions and accurately complete the application, will only rarely run into issues UNLESS there is indeed something about their case which causes concern or suspicion.
There are plenty who push the limits. Many more who fail to follow the instructions. Many who make more than some minor errors in their application. More than a few who have not kept accurate records of their travel abroad (and thus make significant mistakes in the presence calculator). And more than a few fudging the facts. Thus this forum is rife with tales of woe and stories steeped in problems, and there are plenty of issues for participants like me to discuss in depth.
BUT THAT HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH THE VAST MAJORITY OF QUALIFIED APPLICANTS, the vast majority who apply, get AOR, get notice to attend the test and interview, and then the oath; the vast majority who can focus on preparing for the test and watching for notice from IRCC; the vast majority who will NOT BE REQUIRED to respond to any requests for additional information or documents.
THE MAJORITY OF QUALIFIED APPLICANTS HAVE LITTLE OR NO REASON TO WORRY.
I'm going to apply exit/entry record from my home country and submit together with the application and one from CBSA for reference
If you have some doubts about the accuracy and completeness of your own records, then yes, obtaining these is a good idea. Remember, however, YOU are the one best source of information about your travel history, since you were the one source in the whole world who was for-sure there each and every time, the one source in the whole world who for-sure can have a complete and accurate record of all border-crossing dates. (Which is why IRCC depends on the applicant to provide this information, and why it becomes so problematic if IRCC perceives a possibility the applicant has NOT provided a complete and accurate accounting of travel dates, the one most reliable source of the information thus shown to NOT be credible.)
However, generally there is little or NOTHING to be gained by submitting a copy of these with the application itself. Including these records, in particular, could be perceived in a way that invites questions rather than foreclosing questions. Including the CBSA record, for example, will signal you have done precisely what IRCC asks you to NOT do: applicants are advised, in the instructions, to "
Please do not contact the CBSA to request your history of travel." (It is nonetheless OK to do so, for a prospective applicant who is not sure enough of travel dates and is doing so to verify dates, that is to verify as best such records can recognizing that such records do NOT purport to be complete and are not relied upon to be complete.)
If you need and request these records, home country movement history and CBSA records, that is OK. Better to NOT submit these with the application. Better to keep these. You can carry them with you to the interview. Do not present them unless the questions asked present a suitable opportunity to present them. Keep them to submit if asked for them.
Is it better for me to use a lawyer to prepare my application in this case, so that if anything happen I can look for assistance?
Very few citizenship applicants need the assistance of a lawyer. BUT of course citizenship applicants are entitled to assistance from a legal professional. And some applicants are not as comfortable or competent dealing with bureaucratic forms and procedures as most others. So, if you feel you need a lawyer, YES, obtain the assistance of a lawyer. Or, be prepared to obtain the assistance of a lawyer if later in the process you are issued RQ (which is not likely if you are indeed qualified and report your travel history accurately and otherwise complete the application fully and accurately).
Again, the qualified applicant who can and does provide an almost perfect accounting of travel dates
has little or NO reason to worry. If you can get that part down near perfect, and answer all the other items following the instructions, the main thing will be showing up for and passing the test and interview.
CAVEATS:
Foremost, I am no expert. Just offering my best understanding of how this goes based on following residency/presence-case issues for nearly a decade now.
Otherwise, what I describe about NO-CAUSE-FOR-WORRY is, of course, for prospective applicants who do not have some known cause for worry.
There are way, way, way too many variables to attempt enumerating factors which can knock the applicant outside the routine-applicant track, most of which however will not be problematic alone but will increase the risk of problems in some contexts, such as, in particular, if there are multiple such factors.
Some somewhat representative examples:
-- applicant with a spouse who lives or work abroad (especially in conjunction with certain other circumstances tending to raise doubts about the extent to which the applicant actually is well-settled in Canada)
-- applicant who has given birth to children while abroad since becoming a PR and during the eligibility period
-- applicant with pattern of travel suggesting continuing, strong residential ties abroad
-- applicant with dependent children living or predominantly staying abroad
-- applicant's travel history has significant errors or omissions (any omission of a week or more is significant, but this is a relative factor and thus even bigger mistakes have NOT triggered problems for applicants who otherwise have a strong case)
Again, this is just a very, very small sample. Not particularly representative. Prospective applicants who make an effort to objectively assess their own case should fairly easily recognize if there are facts or circumstances in their life which are prone to raising any questions about the extent to which they are fully settled and living their life in Canada.
