Future plans..which way to go?

Need help from those with ideas..

I am still months away from applying for citizenship but I have questions I would need help with so as to prepare for the future.

I work offshore of Africa with an oil company, same job I have had prior to relocating to Canada, consequently, I am away offshore for 14 to 28 days every 2 months. No doubt this will impact my accumulation of the required days for citizenship leaving me with 3 alternatives below:

(1) Forgo citizenship and remain a resident - not a preferred option.
(2) Apply for citizenship when the time comes, with whatever number of days I acquire and face the tortuous road of RQ.
(3) Wait an additional 2-3 years to gather up to 1095 days of physical presence (by taking study leave off work - tough for economic reasons or continue to negotiate working from home whenever it is feasible) - no guarantee but an option all the same.

Aside my shuttling, every other thing is in good shape; my family is here with the kids in school and we just moved into our own home. But I must continue shuttling in and out of Canada strictly for work/economic reasons. Can't find job that pays even half of what I currently earns and not prepared to lose all I have worked for since am not qualified for retirement yet.

I would appreciate an analysis of my situation and a critic of my alternatives..

Thanks all.

Here's a case of someone in a very similar situation to yours:

MCI v. Manas

I would recommend that you analyze your situation in light of the 6 factors in Koo, as well as think about how you would rebut the arguments made at para. 8, if they were made in your case.  That should help you make a choice between options 2 and 3.

Largely concur with what has been offered.

In addition to the Koo factors particularly, you may benefit from reviewing section 5 (begins around page 11) in the Operation Manual CP 5 Residence which is the CIC version of their "policy for persons who have absences from Canada."

My observations as to your circumstances:

All anyone can do is highlight some of the more salient factors which may affect how your case is evaluated. Some that I think loom importantly in your situation are as follows:

1. Evidence of "residency" apart from presence:

(actual presence is the one overriding biggest factor, usually, but am talking about assessing a case like yours which poses problems relative to meeting the actual days in Canada test).

1.a. A key factor is how firmly you established residence in Canada -- under close scrutiny (which obviously you are likely to endure) no time even in Canada will count unless and until you have established a permanent residency in Canada, and in your situation, I would say until you have very clearly, conclusively established your residence in Canada.

1.b. In contrast to this, to what extent do you have evidence of "residing elsewhere. Note Emmanuel Manas' case, for example: big factor was that he was a resident in the U.S. for a large segment of the time. There is no formal rule I know of, but there is a general concept that a person cannot be resident in two locations simultaneously. BUT this is especially relevant juxtaposed against establishing residency in Canada -- if there is an indication of continuing residency in a place during the same time frame one purports to be establishing residency in Canada, it can really hurt one's case.

1.c. A significant part of this analysis has to do with your living arrangements while abroad: if you are almost always on-site, living in a barracks/dorm arrangement (sounds like your situation, living on a rig?), or living in an apartment you rent; that is, if you have a residential presence outside Canada in addition to your actual work-site time, that too will hurt.

1.d. All your Canadian ties compared to your out of Canada ties, with location of family looming very large.

2.Ratio of time abroad to time in Canada:

2.a. A crucial element is the actual amount of time in Canada versus the amount of time abroad. If you average 20 days out for every two months, you not only fall short, you fall way, way short . . . more short than Emmanuel Manas did. 28 days out every two months, don't even think about it (that is just about to the "majority rule" line that CIC is almost definite on being a cutoff regardless of other evidence of ties and "centralized" existence).

2.b. Do not overlook the technicalities of counting days. Not every day you are in Canada counts: either the day your arrive or the day you leave does not count (I forget which, but it is one or the other). Extra day in leap year does not count (either way, as out or in). When the exact number of days matter, as it will for you, pay attention to the details.

2.c. Pay attention to the appearance of things: in Manas' case his travel was described in terms of "the frequency and duration of his travels TO Canada" . . . as if he was traveling to Canada in contrast to traveling from Canada. This, like many other aspects, is nothing akin to a rule or directly applicable principle, it is more about the appearance of things, how the applicant comes across, how the applicant's lifestyle is characterized. The applicant with a borderline case really needs to come across as someone whose home really is in Canada, as someone who is really away from home when they are outside Canada.

3. The nature of the job.

3.a. Bohlen's question is a very good one . . . but I think the answer is no (since this is a job you had before coming to Canada); but it would help if the job is with a Canadian company. Time abroad still does not count as time in Canada, but it would really help if it was for a Canadian company. Might help (looking at the Manas situation) if you at least made periodic attempts to find similar work for a Canadian company.

3.b The the permanency of your job hurts: you cannot show the trips are "temporary" because they are actually a regular part of your life; this factor hurt Manas. But the difference for you is that it appears Manas was in effect living and working while in NY, whereas you should be able to present a case showing your "life" is in Canada, even though you work abroad. Big difference between life on a rig offshore and life in NYC.

All that said:

The sooner you apply the more difficult your case, I suspect. The more deeply rooted your life is in Canada, the better your case. The better you can manage that ratio of days out of Canada to days in Canada the better off you are. Hard to guess what it takes (three out of four in Canada makes the formal cutoff), but short of the 1095 day threshhold and with a relatively permanent job abroad, it is likely to take more than it would for someone who is short because of a temporary job abroad. And, frankly, you could be at risk even if you are relatively close.

Thus, some version of your option 3 seems most feasible to me.   

Edited by dpenabill - 18 Dec 2010 at 6:29am

The Alvar Anderson case is indeed a good one to consider. Nice to see a Federal Judge articulate relevant considerations and principles and not wander into esoteric speculations. Nice to a Citizenship Judge who articulated responsive reasons for the decision.

I strongly echo the observations made by timbit_TO in the last paragraph of the preceding post.

For emphasis: technically there should be little or no distinction between beautiful people and the grocery clerk or plumber's assistant. In the routine case I believe that CIC does not distinguish or discriminate between citizenship applicants who are, say, very attractive personalities versus those who are not at all so; they apply the laws, regulations, rules, and policies based on the prescribed criteria. But in borderline or difficult cases, such as where one falls well short of the 1095 threshhold, appearances probably do count and may count a lot, it is what is oft referred to in trial court work as the good, likeable guy versus unpleasant fellow factor. Can make a difference even though there is nothing in the law, regs, rules, or policy that suggests or even condones this.

More technically: the Anderson case illuminates how critical that "establishing" of a residence in Canada is. Anderson had been a resident of Canada for decades. This too is a huge "equities" factor, the what is fair factor. Hard to quantify the weight of such things, but in the Anderson case it was enough to overcome even the "majority" rule (that is Anderson's absences exceeding his days actually present in Canada, which I'm guessing was a core factor underlying CIC's persistent opposition to Anderson's citizenship; possible that Anderson was a bit of a slap to CIC, from the CJ and the FC though probably more likely that given how close a case it was,it was simply how conscientious the CJ and FC Judge were about clearly articulating their decisions and reasoning).

Will the permanency of my job outside of Canada be an issue to deal with even if I can accumulate more than 1095 days eventually . . .?

At the actual, what happens in any given local office level, it is really hard to guess how things go. And, remember, a lot depends on the whole picture, the entirety of your record, so trying to extrapolate from a single factor like this is near impossible.

RQ is not a monster to fear. It means delay, sure. And it can be triggered by a range of factors, some of which a person has little control over (just a coincidence in name and date of birth with someone else can trigger questions leading to RQ).

It is really hard to predict how your case would go . . . but even if RQ if you present your evidence couched in the frame: this is my work temporarily until I find comparable work in Canada, for which I am diligently looking. And be able to back that up some. Very hard to see you not getting citizenship if you have been physically in Canada 1095 days within the four year window.

Must note, though, they can doubt a person's travel disclosures. This looks like it either comes up more than occasionally, or is at least a nagging undercurrent: the CO or CJ's doubts about the applicant's claims for actual time in Canada. If you are meticulous in record keeping and precisely accurate when you do the residency calculation/disclosure, that should really help.

But a lot of guessing here.