How many weeks should I give extra
Do you guys think two or three weeks extra is enough time .
What is CIC rule
The IRCC (formerly CIC)
rule is 1095 days actual presence within the preceding five years. That is the rule.
If IRCC determines (concludes) the applicant meets this rule, this requirement, even if exactly 1095 days (as of the day
before the date the application is signed), that is enough.
But a substantial margin of days over the minimum can often mean the difference between routine processing and non-routine processing, and in more than an occasional instance it can mean the difference between taking the oath and having to re-apply.
How long to wait to apply is a very personal matter and varies greatly from person to person.
The Long Explanation For Why a Buffer Matters:
As many have observed, how many extra days or weeks or months a PR should wait to apply, beyond meeting the minimum 1095 days,
is a personal judgment which should take into consideration the individual's particular facts and circumstances. Some will be safe applying with very little margin over the minimum; for many three or four weeks is quite enough; for others a couple or three months would be a good idea; and for some a huge buffer will not avoid non-routine processing.
IT DEPENDS!
More than a few applicants confuse what they declare with what IRCC will determine (conclude). They are not necessarily the same thing.
Some confuse how many days they were actually in Canada with what IRCC determines. They are not necessarily the same thing . . . and indeed, the only chance there is that IRCC will determine the same number of days as the number actually present in Canada depends on the applicant first getting each and every date of travel precisely right in what the applicant declares.
It is not how many days the individual was actually in Canada (even though this is a critical factor). It is how many days the record documents the applicant was in Canada. And, again, that primarily begins with the information the applicant provides in the presence calculation as corroborated by information in the application and by other information known to IRCC.
Factors to consider:
As most observe, the nature, purpose, frequency, duration, and pattern of travel abroad are all factors which a prospective applicant should consider when deciding how long to wait to apply, how much margin to have. For example, the more frequently the prospective applicant has traveled abroad, the greater the risk there is of making an error in accounting trips. For another example, a pattern of travel indicating potentially working abroad or having a business abroad, or otherwise maintaining extensive ties abroad, increases the risk that IRCC will have concerns about the travel history, concerns which a bigger margin over the minimum may satisfy and thereby help to avoid non-routine processing.
Spoiler alert: There are, however, many other factors which the prospective applicant would be prudent to also consider.
Some factors should be obvious: it would be prudent to apply with a bigger margin if the applicant has significant business ties abroad in conjunction with frequent travel or extended stays abroad. Likewise especially for an applicant with status to work in the U.S. and some history of working in the U.S.
Additionally, for the self-employed applicant, for example, it is prudent to have a bigger margin than, say, someone working on an assembly line at a plant in Canada and employed by a readily recognized Canadian employer like Bombardier. Others who may be wise to consider a bigger buffer include the applicant with extensive periods of unemployment, an applicant employed in a field or for an employer primarily with ties abroad, an applicant whose address history is sketchy (lots of moves, extensive periods of time living with others rather than maintaining one's own household), applicants with a spouse living or working abroad, and applicants who otherwise continue to maintain extensive ties abroad.
These are merely examples, just a sample of other factors to consider.
Particular reasons for a buffer:
-- Error in travel dates --
Many posit that the reason for a buffer or margin, over the minimum, is to accommodate potential errors. That is, to make up for potentially losing some days in the calculation . . . this can happen for a variety of reasons, such as the applicant declares a date of exit based on a passport stamp showing entry into another country when in fact the applicant actually left Canada the day before (red-eye flight to Europe for example) or even two days before (some Trans-Pacific flights). But sometimes (more often than many realize) there is simply a typo error when entering the dates.
-- Omission due to oversight --
Many applicants simply miss a trip or two. This happens more often than many realize. The forum is rife with two very different stories about this.
Some stories, by applicants who had a large enough buffer to accommodate the omission, are positive; when the error is pointed out in the interview, the applicant acknowledges the error and explains (typically just an oversight), the processing agent sees that after deducting the additional trip from the calculation the applicant still has more than enough days over the minimum. No problem, although IRCC is likely to do some further verification, such as more closely examine the applicant's CBSA travel history.
The other kind of story all too often seen in the forum is an account of the trials and travails of those whose errors put the application in jeopardy. If the error appears, with a lot of emphasis on "
appears" to reduce the calculation to even one day less than the minimum, the risk of the application being denied is high -- and if the error clearly indicates just one day less than the minimum, that mandates the application be denied.
A large buffer will
NOT necessarily protect the applicant from non-routine processing and RQ (or PPQ), but it can help and help by a lot. And it can make the difference in whether or not the application becomes a full-blown presence case in which the outcome itself could be in jeopardy. Remember, if IRCC has reason to believe it is possible the applicant did not meet the minimum presence requirement, it is up to the applicant to definitively prove actual presence for the minimum. This can be more tricky than many appreciate. As I have oft discussed before, once IRCC questions the applicant's accounting of days present, there is a risk that IRCC will NOT infer that the applicant was present in Canada on days in between a date of entry and next reported date of exit. That can be a big deal. That can make it rather difficult for some applicants to prove they were in fact present in those days between a date of entry and the next exit. The bigger the margin, the easier it is to persuade a skeptical IRCC the applicant was present at least 1095 days in the relevant five years.
Appearance matters. Perception matters. Impression matters. Ultimately, one overriding reason for a substantial margin is that it makes it easier for a processing agent to be comfortable, confident even, that there is no reason to doubt the requirement has been met.
As I have oft noted, many times waiting an extra month or two to apply can result in taking the oath significantly sooner. Those who rush do so at their own risk.
By the way, this is one issue regarding which I followed my own advice. I waited nearly two years beyond the date I was initially eligible for citizenship. That was based on the particular circumstances in my situation, and the way in which CIC was then handling applications. Again, it is a very personal decision.
