My wife went in first and after an hour and half later, I went in. The judge was a woman named Nancy Siew (who I later found out that is a relatively new comer, appointed sometime in late part of 2014). The conversation started quite normally with she asking simple details like where you are from etc. and making brief comments about her interview with my wife.

Then the real process started. First of all she started off with an implication - from both her body language and her verbal statements - that "you are lying, I know". She asked me why I didnt have any exit or entry stamps on my passport for my trips outside of Canada !!! I was not sure if she asked because she honestly dont know or was she faking it. I responded by saying that when you go outside of Canada - btw my trips were all to US and they were all done by driving - you never touch a Canadian border post. You drive straight to the US side and if you have a US Visa and a valid I-94, no stamps are placed on your passport. And on your way back, you simple come to the Canadian border, present your PR card and they swipe it, ask a few questions and let you in. They never look at your passport unless there is a very pressing and valid need for it. She seems to have trouble believing that !!! Then she went through my tax documentations, my pay stubs etc. and then asked me to describe my absence from Canada in terms of dates. I had them all listed out in a piece of paper and I read it out for her. After noting them all down, she said "I have records to show that you have more absence than you have declared". I said, "show me the dates and I can explain them all to you". And she had a sheet of paper with dates and some other numbers\strings against those dates. I could see that they were entry dates for my PR card. She said you have these many dates of coming in but you haven't declared them. By looking at them I was positive that those were all one day trips I made across the border for various reasons including shopping trips. So I told her the same and also explained the pattern - one trip every month at least once during the first two weeks of every month - and their reasons (I had a low interest loan in US which I took towards downpayment of my home in Canada and I cross over every month to make deposits to my US account. Since I was a bank employee for a US Bank with operations in Canada, I had access to employee specific loan products with rates at prime I made use of it for buying my house in Canada). I also told her that the residency calculator explicitly states that same day trips like those need not be declared. She is not happy with that and I could see that she was desperately trying to poke holes in it often with erroneous results. For example she pointed out that the day I declared as a three day trip, there is no entry stamp  in her records. I pointed out to her that there is actually a record for that date but at the bottom of the sheet. She quickly moved onto the next one without acknowledging her mistake. Then there was another instance where she said that how do I know\believe that all those exit dates you declared are all the correct ones without any documented evidence? She picked one and said how do I know that you left on this date? Fortunately for me, I did have that date stamped on by US Border service on my passport and pointed out. She initially tried to play it down by saying I don't know, its a US stamp, its not Canadian etc. (seriously???) and then finally agreed that she would make a note of it in her notes !!! There were so many other mistakes she been making and she was cherry picking on the dates (like she picks one entry date and then claim that I actually left way before than the number of days I declared in my form), and ignoring every legal documentation - like my payslips, my tax records - and refusing to see the other - like my utility bills and receipts - saying that you can fake them. It was quite evident that she was trying to make a case for refusal but because of the evidence she was not able to. All the while she was claiming that she was trying to be fair !!! She then said its time for my lunch but I would stay to work on your case (which I do appreciate, but is it such a big deal if its her job to do a hearing?). Finally she said that she is not convinced that I was in the country for the said period and she needs a letter from my company stating my employment period in that building in Toronto and also vouching for my job related absences. I immediately pointed it to her that while the company can provide a letter vouching for my employment in the building, its not possible for them to vouch for my business trips because they are conduced under business managers discretion and is not handled by the HR. She said, whatever you can provide should be done and within 10 days. And as I was going out, she asked if you are a US Citizen, why do you wanna apply for Canadian citizenship to which I said, I have family and friends in and around Mississauga and I want to settle down there because that I way I can be closer to them. I immediately called the HR and explained the situation and like I expected, they said while they can get me the letter for my employment location, they can't write anything about my trips. So I immediately picked up the letter from my office and dropped it off at the CIC office in Mississauga.

Finally, today I got a call from this judge and she said I got the letter but it doesn't have the dates of your absence due to business trips. And then went on to say this is not enough, am trying to be fair etc. etc. I told her, I gave all that can be humanely possible and you are putting undue burden on me by cherry picking on them. If you approach a case with a closed mindset that the other person is lying under oath then no matter how much evidence I bring together, you can always say no to it. Honestly I was getting tired of being implied a liar and I just couldn't hold back. This seem to have ticked her off and she started on a tirade of "i sacrificed my lunch hour for you, i feel insulted, etc. etc.". I calmly said to her that I didn't insult her, but conveying to her that this is how she made both of us feel during the interview and we have complied in every way possible from our side to her demands. If you have a broken system thats not properly documenting people travelling between borders, you can't then hold that against somebody and claim that the other person is not telling the truth. She finally said she needs an explanation for the business trips not mentioned in the letter. I said, I will send her that letter and hung up. I typed up the same explanation and signed it and overnighted to the Mississauga office. 

Otherwise yes she will deny you will go to court and the court will believe the judge.

Would there be more interactions with the judge? I think she pretty much seem to have made up her mind. And from what you said seems like court would always prefer the judge's statement over our claims?

1. At the part where she started with my entry stamps, she was like "we know about your trips, there were absences that you didn't declare" and there was a cheeky smile on her face. It was like "we know that you made trips and didnt declare it". It was not a question or inquiry but plain outright statement.

2. When I said, I can show proof of our stay by presenting proof like receipts, utility bill payments, she refused to see them and said "you can get them without staying in this country and I dont have time to go through them". That effectively translates into "you could have obtained without ever staying in this country".

She also didn't ask me to provide letter from employer showing every trip outside USA, but rather business trips. Though it might sound justifiable, the issue here is that since I got the job in Canada through an in-house transfer, my manager and the entire support group are from NYC. They simply allowed me to work from a Canadian office and recruit people I need to run the global support infrastructure. Effectively, I brought jobs into Canada though it was only for two years. So under this process there is zero HR involvement and every trip is paid for and managed by my manager. HR can't vouch for an event\trip organized by a specific group's manager. This is what I explained to her and despite she seem to be nodding to it, she repeated the same question today. If she understood, why keep asking? 

And it does seem like she made up her mind even before seeing us. How can I request another hearing with another judge? This hearing was NOT AT ALL fair and she seem to be more concerned about her lunch break than doing an investigation into my facts. Especially when such decisions can affect one's life in a significant way.

Its unbelievable that a citizenship judge is completely ignorant about border crossings and formalities involved with it. Its also unbelievable that she is manipulating the data to suit her argument. Example is like this.

She presented the entry stamps but they don't contain many trips that I made and declared. So its obvious that she don't have entry stamps for all my trips. But then when I point out this, she is refusing to acknowledge them instead choosing to pick dates from them to project a view that I was absent for more than declared number of days.

She apparently displayed an attitude that whatever evidence I provided could all be fake. She kept saying the burden of proof is on me, but if their system is broken and you are putting undue burden on someone to get practically impossible details, its a clear indication of bias. 

I don't know if there is going to be another hearing, but if it happens I sure will take a lawyer with me. Secondly, if anyone know how to request another hearing with a different judge, how do I move forward with that?

And you will get an RQ, but you will get processed much faster. Just make sure you hire a lawyer to fill out RQ/represent you in court. A lot of these lawyers say they won;t guarantee anything, but I have found in my experience, they too judge each case based on its own merits.

After reading your post in its entirety, I can understand the overall approach of the CJ to find an excuse to deny my application. However, I am still shocked by the approach they are using. They say that the burden of proof is upon you but then proceeds to 1)bring up aspects which are factually incorrect (the mistakes she did in following her own data) 2)use data which they have free and instant access to but for us its either blocked or provided after considerable delay 3) not transparent on what aspects are gonna be challenged so that we can come prepared with relevant documentation some of which would require us to go through two different border agencies of two different countries and most important of all 4) use judges who are not competent in various complex aspects of international border crossing.

I think I was ill prepared and trusted the system too much. I believed that if you are honest and forthcoming things would be easy. I been proven wrong. I do understand that the majority of the blame is on me for not being prepared but am also thinking if you were going to a judge who is 99% convinced that you are faking the data, I am not sure if my data would have made any difference. Remember how she brushed off my pointing of the stamp in the passport by CBP? When she realized that she made a mistake at first she tried to dispute that it was not a Canadian stamp and hence can't be considered relevant and then tried to brush if off as not so important. That alone would have raised the quality of the data she had in her files. But she wanted to sweep it under the rug and move on. 

I am now frantically trying to gather my entry exit records from both US and Canadian side to support my case. It might be too late, but at least am gonna do whatever I can to fight this injustice. If I fail, at least this would serve as a lesson to those who are in similar situation so that they can learn from my mistakes. 

Let me start off by saying that as expected, the judge denied my application. I will present details of this towards the end of my post.

Though the two links about the cases you provided were in French, I was able to get the name of the attorneys from the bottom part. I tried to contact the office of Joseph Daoura but so far no luck yet. Left a couple of messages. I also contacted Green and Spiegel LLP - since they handled my paperwork for my transfer legalities in 2007 I am already familiar with them - and planning to do an initial consultation if I don't hear from the office of Daoura by tomorrow.

Now the more interesting aspects of the letter of denial.

1. She refers to my trips to US -12 undeclared re-entries to Canada is the term she used -which I already explained as day trips. She says there were nothing to prove that they were day trips. You can't prove unless the US CBP provides your entry records as well. This though I tried never granted by CBP. She also says that we didn't provide our US green cards and terms it as a serious oversight. She saw our green cards and made copies of them !!! Also this claim defies logic as the green cards are the only document that would let us back into US. So its quite evident that we had that with us and if we didn't show it to her then we must be first class lunatics.

2. She refers to my 4 self declared re-entries into Canada. Except the last one, the remaining three were actually my leaving Canada dates per my form. She says my explanations were insufficient.

3.  She misrepresented my oral statement - I think she didn't understand what I said despite saying it slow and very clear - that I didn't transfer officially to my job till Nov 2007 as my absence from Canada till Nov 2007. I was in and out of Canada during that time frame for various reasons as clearly explained in my residency calculator.

4.  She refers to lack of Canadian stamps on my re-entry but then keep referring to the one day trips as undeclared absences.

5.  She cites lack of OHIP and school records. I brought school records and when I put them on the table saying "I  have more documents to prove my residency" she said she has no time to go through them as they were too many documents and its way past her lunch time !!! I didnt bring OHIP records, but I had doctors notes and other medical reports. She refused to see them and then claim that I didnt present them.

6. She refers to my DHS request for entry records to US and states I didnt share them while I explained to her that my request was denied.

7. Though she promised, she never mentioned the problem I pointed out with their own records (the US entry stamp in my passport and entry records she brought up).

The document is a mix of mis-representation, fabricated facts and lies (about the US green card for one).  Based your observation I don't know how much this would hold up in court in a federal review but I would know when I do my consultation with the lawyer. I will keep you posted.

1. She has inaccurate\incomplete data and when pointed that out in one instance with clear evidence - US stamp on my passport corresponding to her record of my entry - she quickly wanted to get out of there without acknowledging the mistake. That is clear evidence that her data is not 100% reliable.

2. She keep coming back to a clause that legally excludes me from declaring one-day trips and is asking for proof that requires a lot of prepwork - like contacting CBP for your I-94 records - without prior notice given.

3. "If CIC discerns, from its perspective" - the issue is that this perspective changes from CJ to CJ. From what I have read from this forum and many other forums is that the variations of this perspective is a large spectrum. There are those CJs who approved even with less number of the required minimum days to those who literally threw racial\ethinical biased statements at the applicant. 

This is going to be a huge issue in my case as mistakes made in the decision document can fall into this clause. I am sitting down with the attorney for a phone consultation as am travelling the next two weeks and can't be in Toronto. I might get a slot sometime first half of next week. I will post his response. I am preparing a background dossier for his reference so that he can go through it before talking to me. I am also preparing a set of questionnaire for him. Do you have anything in mind that I should specifically ask him? My questions are gonna be mostly around his background on cases similar to mine and how much of a chance I stand in this case. I will include your reference about sufficient notice given to the applicant before attending the hearing.

So coming back to my point, I think CJ's perspective would matter the most since they have the authority to make a recommendation which CIC would rarely if not ever go against. In the end, you are really at the mercy of politically appointed person who probably have no clue about the complexities involved in immigration and border crossings. 

Using the FPAT to deny the applicant access to all documentation is like the secret evidence act you have in US (may be in Canada too) where you neither have the ability to question the witness nor counter the evidence presented simply because you have no access. This violates the basic principle of a fair trial\process. I think in my case if they use FPAT its gonna seal the fate even before we start.

As for US GC, YES. This is a BIG red flag. Though strictly not illegal - I obtained renewed Canada PR based on my past residency but next renewal will not happen since I dont have enough residency - it does raise questions about my intention to stay in Canada. However, my case was rather unique and there were specific employment situations and probably my greed towards a considerable package compared to what I got from Bay street, made it look like I have fraudulent intentions. Perhaps I should have resigned and took employment in Canada till my citizenship was processed. But its too late to think of that. 

I was not aware of CJ approving CIC appealing. Wonder what that would do the credibility of CJ.

As for the intent of the CIC to put a lot of focus on stay in foreign countries, I am seriously hoping that CIC would adopt a more balanced approach rather than stereotyping. I know of many who falsified their application - become PR, do landing, drive across to US and then fly off from there and after three years get their application in and become citizens - and then there are those who chose to stay for three years enduring the tough times and then moved off to different countries but yet got their citizenship. Large majority of them in fact came back after working on pretty lucrative projects and making enough money to have a good life in Canada. Most of them now run business establishments in and around GTA and BC. CIC should be focusing their efforts on catching the former and let go of the latter.  I wonder if ever Justin Trudeau come to power, would that make a difference.

Second, I am not a US citizen yet. If I choose to, I can become one next year. There is a little bit of background to my story here which could easily answer your questions. There were compelling reasons for me to move back to US and hadn't CIC dragged it so long, I would have been back in Canada in about 18 to 24 months time from my move back to US. If my intention was to obtain a visa free travel passport or other associated privileges, then going for US citizenship would be a much better option. But I want to be closer to my folks in GTA and thats where I plan to settle down in the long run. I explained the whole story multiple times to the CJ and CIC. I even wrote to them requesting them to expedite my processing so that I can process my job transfer. Nothing worked. All these time, I been paying taxes in Canada too as I still kept my home there in the hopes of coming back. I sold it only in 2013 after almost giving up hopes of something ever happening to my application. If you own a home, then you have to pay taxes. My wife was still working part time from Canada and we have our contracting firm running from Toronto. We had all these connections and I explained everything to the CJ, yet she chose to ignore them all. I never wanted two citizenship. All I wanted was to get my Canadian one. But multiple circumstantial factors forced me into this situation. If I wanted I could have obtained US citizenship long ago instead of trying to obtain PR in Canada and then settle down.

I have applied to CBSA twice before appearing for the interview and never got a response. I tried calling to no avail. Even recently my application was processed incorrectly and now am chasing ghosts from CBSA to get it properly done. I did explain this in my notes to the CJ and did provided copies of letters as proof. As for CBP, I wrote, I called and nothing ever got a response. Their current I-94 system goes back only 5 years and that was not available when I submitted my application. That site is https://i94.cbp.dhs.gov/I94/request.html

But like I said, it goes back only 5 years. Its not gonna help me. I have already requested in an email for records going back to 2006. Will wait and see what happens.

As for one day trips neither the residency calculator nor the RQ questionnaire stated that I should specify one day trips. As some of you might have thought, my RQ didn't have something stating "declare ALL travel records". I gave the RQ reference # in my earlier response to dpenabill. The judge didnt have to sit in my shoes to see the picture. It was quite clearly explained to her. She doesn't even know the land crossing procedure and was confusing it with the air travel procedure !!! Its true that I was not prepared for a judge whose intention was solely to somehow discredit my application rather than factually access my situation. As dpenabill stated, with the recent stand on immigration by the conservative govt. and considering the fact that CJs are political appointees, you are likely to face CJs who are 100% skeptical and would be approaching your case with a preconceived notion that you are lying. I was not prepared for that and I wish I had seen this coming. As for the number of days absent, its not how you made the trips or how long you were absent, its how the entry and exit dates mismatched based on passport stamps and how I declared those dates. For example, I declared a trip outside Canada and she has the entry back into Canada on records, but don't have the passport stamp for the exit date as I crossed over to US using a valid I-94. What she would do is, she would count my exit date from one day after my last entry date into Canada or take the latest stamp on my passport before the entry date on the CBSA records. This is why I said she was cherry picking and manipulating the dates. Even there, she erred twice and when pointed out, she wouldn't acknowledge them.

What I realized is that if the CJ want to discredit your application with prejudice, he\she can do it unless you have closed EVERY potential loop hole. Example is a situation where something is legally not possible, yet it can be used as an excuse to undermine your case. When you enter Canada by land, your passport is not stamped, but then it can be used as an omission to discount your claims of entering into Canada. Another example is when you exit from Canada by land to US, if you have a valid I-94, there won't be any stamp on your passport. But it can be used as an excuse to deny your claims of exiting Canada on that specific date. So its not a matter of how much error-proofing you do to your application, but what is the mindset of the CJ at that time, that would determine how your case go. Ofcourse, am not discounting your efforts to foolproof your application, but don't bet on it 100%. If you are looking for lessons from my case, then I would say, get EVERY record from every agency you have to deal with. Even if its outside of Canada. Make sure that every thing is properly recorded - including date, time, place and get the matched to records you obtain from all these agencies. That is the only way you can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that you did you claim you did. But even then, dont think that the CJ would believe you.

In your case it the CJ believed that it was a genuine mistake. In my case the CJ wouldn't even admit her mistake let alone forgiving my mistake !!! Like I said, am gonna give it one last shot and if it doesnt work out, then I will sit down and re-evaluate my options. May be a fresh start or may be drop everything and forget Canada. Have to wait and see.

About the re-evaluation phrase I used, let me type up exactly what the letter states. May be that would make more sense.

I am trying hard to remember the exact term used by the lawyer, but am pretty sure it was re-evaluation. I plan to contact the helpline tomorrow to find out my status and why its not showing up online. So far no communication has been sent to my home in Canada. I hope this whole thing has gone into a blackhole of some sort. What is more concerning is the way the CIC changing their rules and in a rush to close out pending cases they might just throw out my application.

The respondent here is CIC.

This is the order sought by the justice dept.

Looks like you are right about the lawyer. He didn't follow through properly and had I not contacted the Justice department, my case would have simply closed out without ever getting anywhere. This is despite the fact that I did pay him in full and though he offered at one point to reimburse the money I spent in overnighting some documents to him, I decided to handle the cost myself. 

There have been couple of updates on my situation. The first one is that on Dec 7th, I received a note from the CIC office in scarborough asking me to submit some additional evidence. In my rejection letter, the judge made a reference to my attempt to obtain my travel records from the DHS. In 2011, the process to obtain such details was through submitting form G-639 to the records dept. and it was done either via fax or mail. There was no electronic system at that time. So in my RQ records, I did submit the copy of the filled form that I submitted, but since it went through regular mail there was no receipt or anything to indicate it actually was sent by me or received by DHS. I never got a response from DHS and I did indicate that which the judge quoted and said as one of the reasons to reject my case. This new note from CIC was asking me to furnish proof that I did submit this request and wanted any response if I ever got one. Seemed to me like they were playing new tricks to drag this along further. However the timing of this letter seemed a little off to me because I provided the justice department with my signed documents only in Dec 1st. So I immediately contacted the justice department who were equally surprised and promised me that they would look into it immediately. Same day evening I received an email to that effect. Within two days time, I got another email from the justice dept. stating that it was premature and CIC was jumping their guns. They told me to ignore this communication and wait for further updated instructions from CIC. They also said that my case file has been updated to reflect this new details.

The second update is that I received today another notice for hearing before judge. Scheduled for 12th Jan 2016. So now am actively prepping for that interview. I am thinking of taking a lawyer with me. I would like to know what advantage this lawyer can provide compared to me and my wife facing the judge alone? What can they do which we can't? Can the interject if the judge start taking a track that can be deemed biased or discriminatory? It happened with the first judge. Please provide some insights.

On the day of hearing I went in first and the moment we stepped into the judge's office, it was apparent that she is outright hostile. She was quite aggressive towards my lawyer - it was evident from the way she talked to him and asked him to turn off cell phones etc. - and rather obviously to me as well. Per my lawyers advise, I kept a calm face and kept my expression neutral. She started off with the first assumption of this hearing thrown into the trash bin, which was that the first hearing and its outcome will not have an impact on my second hearing. She had the first judge's hearing and our motion against it and its outcome in hear hand and she started from points highlighted in them. She asked me first, why do you think the first judge rejected my case. I answered that she seem to be very unhappy with my travel records to US and thats where she hung up on me. Then she responded that I made claims that I wanted to offer her evidence on health care and school records but the first judge refused to see them and she wanted to know if I have them handy. I said I have the school records but not the health records. She asked me why to which I said I got an impression that the key conflicting factor in my case appeared to be travel records and hence I spent my effort in correcting that situation and didnt pay attention to medical records since that was not an issue last time. She said that is not a satisfactory reply but wanted to know what I have to offer in terms of my travel records. So I gave her a detailed breakdown of my travel records that I compiled with the help of CBSA and CBP with an excel sheet showing matching same day entry and exit records for most of my travel records. This essentially corroborated my story from day one. She went back and forth and did agree that sometimes border agents dont scan your PR cards and I told her that I have experienced it multiple times during my entry into Canada, though such omissions were not noticed in the recent past. She then moved onto my medical records, job history etc. When I tried to show her utility and cell phone records and some financial records that were sent to my home addresses, she rejected them saying that such records are inconclusive and can't be used. My lawyer has been trying to intervene multiple times but she kept up her stand and refused to look at them. She said that the only thing she would consider is credit card statements that show transactions made inside Canada and doctor visit records. I promised that in a weeks time I can have both records sets sent out to her. She seem to be confused at certain things involving my job transfer and remote work facility and my second son's travel history. For example she couldn't understand how I could work from Canada while employed in US. Also, she asked me how I could bring my son to Canada if he didn't have a PR. I tried explaining to her that remote login is a feature which would allow me to work from anywhere in the world so long as I have a broad band connection. That has got nothing to do with where I get paid. To her other point of contention I tried to explain to her that with my son born in the US, he had a US passport and with the US passport he could freely travel to Canada and stay upto a max period of 180 days before he has to return. My lawyer also tried to clarify this point but she seem confused and un-convinced. The next item that came up was the period of time I spent in Canada right after I became the PR until I managed my permanent transfer. During this period there was a lot of travelling back and forth and we didnt have much of a formal record to show her. I explained to her that during that period we were staying with a friend of ours and we didnt have OHIP at that time nor we did have any Canadian credit cards. We used cash for whatever purchases we have to make and they were very minimal. What are you gonna buy when you are staying with your friends? He does all the grocery, pays for cable and hydro and all we may have to do is once in a while purchase of gas or some pharmacy stuff. So this kind of questioning went on for a good 3 hours and finally we came out then my wife went in along with the lawyer. That interview lasted only about 30 minutes and my wife came back and said she didn't ask much to her.

We then sat down with the lawyer and he said looks like my application is gonna be rejected and he agreed that the judge seem to be completely hostile and was somehow trying to justify the first judge's decision. We agreed to wait and see what happens.

After two months the letter came stating that our application was rejected. This time the judge was very careful in her language and focused all her attention on how to discredit my claimed period of stay within Canada. She attack can be narrowed down to one key point. The lack of any credit card, travel or medical history until I got my permanent job transfer. She in bold letters highlighted that the onus is on the applicant to prove residency and  hence it can be argued that I am not truthful about my residency for the said period of time. I immediately contacted my lawyer and he agreed to review the response and get me a reply in a couple of days time. He responded next week stating that there is ample ground to appeal and overturn the judgement and the fee for the entire process is 15k. He recommended that I consult him in person before taking any decision. So I setup a 1 hour session for 115$ to go over the details. 

He said that considering how she approached the case based on the previous hearing data and refused to look at key evidence like utility bills, it can be successfully appealed and her decision overturned. However the issue is that we would be going in circles with this process. The federal court do not have the right to grant citizenship to the defendant. It can rule if CIC decision was valid or not, but nothing more than that. So if I win, my case goes back to CIC and another hearing is set. What if that judge cites something else and rule against you? Another aspect is that with my PR card expiring in 2017, even if you win, most likely your oath wont take place before that date. So at that point CIC could still block you citing expired PR card. I can't renew the PR card now because I don't have enough residency either. So altogether my path forward is only going to be more complicated even though I win the appeal. I might win the battle, but most likely will loose the war. 

He also said that my status as a landed immigrant is not going to change ever. And with my current status I can enter Canada at anytime and then with the landed immigrant status start building my life in Canada towards citizenship again. So in reality its not a dead end. You just have to give up the current fight which is going to be costly and CIC seem to be determined to stop you at any cost, though on unethical grounds. You are fighting an agency with infinite resources and with a system built to favor itself. 

So in the end I decided to drop my fight and postpone my Canadian drams for a few more years. I wish it didnt end up like this. But there are things that I should have done during my early years which obviously I can't go back in time and fix them. But if anyone is reading this, I would like to tell you this. Keep every scrap of paper which can prove your residency. And if you are planning to count any period of time into your residency, make sure that you have some sort of paper trail that can without any doubt support you in a CIC court. If you thought utility bills or cable bills can talk for you, think again. If you have to go by the CIC language, you can simply get service and pay the bill even if you are not there. The clincher is something that requires your presence to really get that paper trail. Think of credit card transactions, doctor visits etc.

For now am gonna continue my life here and most likely would apply for US citizenship soon. I have dropped all my long term transfer plans to Canada through my office and in the process of closing down my consulting business in Milton as well. May be after a few years, I will take another look at a move to Canada, but for the time being being called a Canadian stays a distant dream.

Thank you all, especially dpenabill for the patience and effort you put in responding to my thread. Wish you all the very best in your quest towards the Canadian dream.

Your description of remote working was bang on in my case. The first judge never understood it. The second judge made an attempt to understand it but had no clue when I got into details. She was asking for some sort of formal "letter" allowing me to work remotely to which I explained that most wall street firms give their employees remote access and there is no formal transfer process between work from office and work from home. Just the fact that you are issued a secure token and access code is proof enough that they allow you to work remotely. Apparently that thing flew right above her head and she decided that am just cooking up some fancy story and chose not to believe my story. 

I think that a judge who could understand the nature of an average IT person's job and how the financial meltdown of 2008 affected IT jobs in general would have been more sympathetic to my case. My circumstances were largely dependent on those factors and if you don't understand them then it all appear as a spectacular cock and bull story. Secondly, the judges were pre-disposed towards my case which was confirmed by both my lawyer and another immigration consultant who I spoke with later. The difference between the process explained to me by the CIC prosecutor after the first hearing and what really happened itself explains that the judge instead of following the correct procedure, decided to go after my application with the intent to undermine it. According to the lawyer and the consultant those would have been more than enough to have a federal court throw the decision out. Please note that in my first case, it didnt even take a judge to realize that the decision was completely unreliable. The second was not largely different either. However, in my case the pitfall is the process itself. There is not closure outside of CIC. Had I had an opportunity to take it to the Federal court, I might have done it. But this is a loop where the chances are stacked up against me. Like you said its gamble and in my case an expensive one.

Btw, I did provide the medical records. Fortunately with two schoolgoing children we had to frequent the doctors office a lot more than an average couple would have ;) so with the doctors records, dental visit records, other medical records, bank records and cross checked travel records pretty much made my residency solid between Aug 2007 to Feb 2010. What killed me was the period between Mar 2006 and July 2007. Those were the settling\moving in period where our focus was on settling down and didn't generate much proof of residence. So out of all excuses CIC was using to kill my application, that was the one they finally chose. Interestingly enough neither the first CIC review nor the first judge ever talked about this period. It was almost as if in their scramble to shoot down my application they stumbled upon this and jumped at it. Eitherway, my Canadian dreams are only temporarily postponed. On the plus side I get to have a US passport, which I never thought of until two months ago. So altogether its not so bad.

I don't have any regrets even though the process was a nightmare. Instead I am quite disappointed in the offhand way Citizenship judges are appointed who have serious discretion over peoples lives. Some of these judges are so ignorant, biased and outright stupid, it really angers me to see how they hold sway over people's lives. I was fortunate that I could keep going with some major inconveniences, but what about people who perhaps face a life or death situation at the hand of these judges? That was my only concern.