Fuchun Peng

I asked a similar question before but still want to ask again since the
answers I got were not consistent.

I came to Canada in 1999 and became a landed immigrant in May 2nd, 2002. By
today (May 1st), I have accumulated exactly 2 years toward citizenship. I
will move to US for a postdoc soon and I want to maintain my residence and
count the days I live in US toward citizenship. I asked the question that
whether the days I live in US could be counted and got negative answers.
However, today I went to the office of citizenship and immigration Canada
and asked the same question. The lady told me that the days COULD be counted
if I can maintain my ties to Canada, such as paying income tax, keeping bank
account and driver license, storing furnitures while away, coming back to
Canada often, etc. So based on this information, my understanding is that I
can apply citizenship in May 2nd 2004 if I follow those suggestions. I want
to get some confirmation from the lawyers here.

Thanks very much!

Fuchun

Pmm

Hi Fuchun

"Fuchun Peng" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > I asked a similar question before but still want to ask again since the
    > answers I got were not consistent.
    > I came to Canada in 1999 and became a landed immigrant in May 2nd, 2002.
By
    > today (May 1st), I have accumulated exactly 2 years toward citizenship. I
    > will move to US for a postdoc soon and I want to maintain my residence and
    > count the days I live in US toward citizenship. I asked the question that
    > whether the days I live in US could be counted and got negative answers.
    > However, today I went to the office of citizenship and immigration Canada
    > and asked the same question. The lady told me that the days COULD be
counted
    > if I can maintain my ties to Canada, such as paying income tax, keeping
bank
    > account and driver license, storing furnitures while away, coming back to
    > Canada often, etc. So based on this information, my understanding is that
I
    > can apply citizenship in May 2nd 2004 if I follow those suggestions. I
want
    > to get some confirmation from the lawyers here.
    > Thanks very much!
    > Fuchun

Sorry, but it is physical presence in Canada, not ties to Canada for
Citizenship. The information was more in the line of maintaining permanent
residence under the previous Immigration Act, rather than citizenship.

PMM

Rich Wales

Regarding whether Canadian "residence" for citizenship application
purposes requires a full three years (1,095 days) of physical presence
in Canada -- as opposed to just having "ties" to Canada -- see the
following which I posted last week on this subject:



Rich Wales [email protected] http://www.richw.org
*NOTE: I've lived in both Canada and the US and have dual citizenship.
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant,
or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and
are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice.

Jaj

Rich
If someone has good reasons for being outside Canada, AND they are
confident their PR status is secure, AND there is no chance they will
meet the 1095 day requirement in the next year, then it might be worth
an application to CIC for citizenship and seeing how things go.

It would be worth hiring an expert to assist with this application
too. Otherwise, it's best to wait until the 1095 day requirement is
met and apply then.

Although the new Bill does impose a stricter test of physical
presence, it widens the window to 6 years rather than 4 which will
help many people in this position.

Jeremy

    >On Sat, 3 May 2003 04:33:54 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Rich Wales) wrote:
    >Nevertheless, it seems to me that the extra time, expense, and stress
    >involved in applying based on the court rulings, being turned down by
    >CIC, and mounting a (possibly successful) court battle isn't worth it.
    >Simply waiting a little longer before filing the application would
    >probably, I'd imagine, be a far more efficient and speedy course of
    >action in most cases.
    >Rich Wales [email protected] http://www.richw.org
    >*NOTE: I've lived in both Canada and the US and have dual citizenship.
    >*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant,
    > or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and
    > are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice.

This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction

pkjmet

[email protected] (Rich Wales) wrote in message news:...
    > Regarding whether Canadian "residence" for citizenship application
    > purposes requires a full three years (1,095 days) of physical presence
    > in Canada -- as opposed to just having "ties" to Canada -- see the
    > following which I posted last week on this subject:
    >
    >
    >
    > Rich Wales [email protected] http://www.richw.org
    > *NOTE: I've lived in both Canada and the US and have dual citizenship.
    > *DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant,
    > or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and
    > are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice.

You may also want to look at the Federal Court of Canada website.
www.gc.ca and check out recent court decisions. There are precedents
there. Inwould say you got good advice fronm the Citizenship office.
UNder the present law it is not physical presence.

Jim Metcalfe

Pmm

Hi Jim

wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > [email protected] (Rich Wales) wrote in message
news:...
    > > Regarding whether Canadian "residence" for citizenship application
    > > purposes requires a full three years (1,095 days) of physical presence
    > > in Canada -- as opposed to just having "ties" to Canada -- see the
    > > following which I posted last week on this subject:
    > >
    > >

    > >
    > > Rich Wales [email protected] http://www.richw.org
    > > *NOTE: I've lived in both Canada and the US and have dual citizenship.
    > > *DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant,
    > > or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and
    > > are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice.
    > You may also want to look at the Federal Court of Canada website.
    > www.gc.ca and check out recent court decisions. There are precedents
    > there. Inwould say you got good advice fronm the Citizenship office.
    > UNder the present law it is not physical presence.
    > Jim Metcalfe

The Federal court lately has been pretty standard on the physical presence
for 1095 days, especially on the "centralizing mode of living in Canada"

See: http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/ and search for citizenship
decisions.

PMM

Ashley Watson

[email protected] wrote in message news:...
    > [email protected] (Rich Wales) wrote in message news:...
    > > Regarding whether Canadian "residence" for citizenship application
    > > purposes requires a full three years (1,095 days) of physical presence
    > > in Canada -- as opposed to just having "ties" to Canada -- see the
    > > following which I posted last week on this subject:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Rich Wales [email protected] http://www.richw.org
    > > *NOTE: I've lived in both Canada and the US and have dual citizenship.
    > > *DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant,
    > > or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and
    > > are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice.
    >
    > You may also want to look at the Federal Court of Canada website.
    > www.gc.ca and check out recent court decisions. There are precedents
    > there. Inwould say you got good advice fronm the Citizenship office.
    > UNder the present law it is not physical presence.
    >
    > Jim Metcalfe

Just to give you a helping hand, try this link which shows decicions
rendered. Some are very similar to what you are asking and explain
quite clearly that your studying outside Canada will not count towards
your citizenship.

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/sino/s...ll&database=en

Ashley Watson

Jaj

The problem is that if you want to remove all scope for discretion on
physical presence, the window needs to be wider than 3/4 as otherwise
some people working quite legitimately for Canadian businesses that
require them to travel a lot may have real difficulty getting
citizenship.

FWIW Australia has a 2/5 requirement for citizenship, but there is an
additional requirement for 12 months in the 2 years preceding
application. They usually demand days physically present, there is
some scope for discretion, but not very much. The system seems to
work well.

Only time will tell if the IRPA is more successful than the previous
legislation in selecting migrants whose skills and experience fit
easily into the Canadian labour market. IMO part of the reason there
are so many Canadian PRs in the US can be traced to inappropriate
selection criteria to begin with.

There is still a requirement to live in Canada for three years to
obtain citizenship. Usually the best approach for a migrant is to get
citizenship first and then, if he still really wants to, think about
the US whether on TN or H1-B status, and the widening of the window to
6 years rather than 4 doesn't really make much difference to this.

As with the rules for maintaining PR, those who really want to live in
the US will still get caught out, while those who want to be in Canada
will have more flexibility than previously. Just my 2c worth.

Jeremy

    >On Sat, 03 May 2003 14:42:01 GMT, S B wrote:
    >JAJ wrote:
    >> Although the new Bill does impose a stricter test of physical
    >> presence, it widens the window to 6 years rather than 4 which will
    >> help many people in this position.
    >>
    >> Jeremy
    >Oh great ... more opportunities for people to keep CDN get PR and
    >citizenship while going to the US on H1Bs etc. Just one of the things
    >that was supposed to be reduced with the new laws.

This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction

Rich Wales

Ashley Watson wrote:

> Just to give you a helping hand, try this link which shows
> decisions rendered. Some are very similar to what you are
> asking and explain quite clearly that your studying outside
> Canada will not count towards your citizenship.

I tried the link Ashley gave, and while it was difficult to find cit-
izenship cases amidst what were mostly immigration and refugee cases,
I did manage to find the following:

Ali v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 54.

Guindo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2002 FCT 65.

In both of the above cases, the appellants' requests to have denials
of their citizenship applications overturned were refused. However,
in each case, the court recognized that (based on earlier rulings)
it was indeed possible for an applicant for citizenship to establish
residence in Canada, sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the
Citizenship Act, without having to spend a full 1,095 days of literal,
physical presence on Canadian soil.

I'm sure there are other, similar cases to be found. However, just
to make sure there is no misunderstanding, I am =not= suggesting that
people routinely ought to ignore CIC's position and apply for citi-
zenship without a full 1,095 days of literal, physical presence in
Canada, simply because the statute and the courts seem to say it's OK.

To be sure, CIC's interpretation of the current law's "three years of
residence in Canada" as generally demanding 1,095 days of physical
presence does appear (in my "layman's view") to go beyond what the
text of the law says -- and to favour instead what the government
would clearly like the law to say -- defying numerous court rulings
to the contrary.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that the extra time, expense, and stress
involved in applying based on the court rulings, being turned down by
CIC, and mounting a (possibly successful) court battle isn't worth it.
Simply waiting a little longer before filing the application would
probably, I'd imagine, be a far more efficient and speedy course of
action in most cases.

Rich Wales [email protected] http://www.richw.org
*NOTE: I've lived in both Canada and the US and have dual citizenship.
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant,
or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and
are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice.

S B

JAJ wrote:

    > Although the new Bill does impose a stricter test of physical
    > presence, it widens the window to 6 years rather than 4 which will
    > help many people in this position.
    >
    > Jeremy

Oh great ... more opportunities for people to keep CDN get PR and
citizenship while going to the US on H1Bs etc. Just one of the things
that was supposed to be reduced with the new laws.

Northernligths25

Stuart can't win. What a loser.

    >Subject: Re: maintain residence for citizenship
    >From: S B [email protected]
    >Date: 5/3/03 11:42 AM Atlantic Daylight Time
    >Message-id:
    >JAJ wrote:
    >> Although the new Bill does impose a stricter test of physical
    >> presence, it widens the window to 6 years rather than 4 which will
    >> help many people in this position.
    >>
    >> Jeremy
    >Oh great ... more opportunities for people to keep CDN get PR and
    >citizenship while going to the US on H1Bs etc. Just one of the things
    >that was supposed to be reduced with the new laws.