Canadian citizenship carries significant rights and responsibilities, and as a result it is not granted lightly. Individuals seeking to become Canadian citizens must demonstrate that they meet several eligibility requirements set out in the Citizenship Act. These requirements are designed to ensure that applicants have established a meaningful connection to Canada before being granted citizenship.
One of the most important requirements applies to adult permanent residents who apply for citizenship. To be eligible, applicants must show that they satisfy all of the criteria in subsection 5(1) of the Citizenship Act. These criteria include factors such as holding permanent resident status, meeting language requirements where applicable, filing taxes when required, and passing a citizenship knowledge test.
A key component of eligibility is the residency requirement. Under the Citizenship Act, an applicant must demonstrate that they were physically present in Canada for at least 1,095 days during the five-year period immediately before the date of their citizenship application. In other words, an applicant must have spent at least three years in Canada within the relevant five-year window.
This physical presence requirement is assessed based on the actual number of days that the applicant was in Canada. Applicants are therefore required to carefully track their travel history and provide accurate information about time spent inside and outside Canada. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada reviews this information to confirm that the 1,095-day threshold has been met.
The residency test plays an important role in the citizenship process because it reflects the principle that citizenship should be granted to individuals who have genuinely lived in Canada and developed ties to the country. By requiring applicants to demonstrate a significant period of physical presence, the law seeks to ensure that new citizens have established a real and ongoing connection to Canada before receiving the rights and responsibilities that come with citizenship.
Citizenship Judges
Under the Citizenship Act, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has the initial responsibility for processing and assessing applications for Canadian citizenship. Immigration officers review each application to determine whether the applicant meets the statutory requirements, including the physical presence requirement of at least 1,095 days in Canada during the relevant five-year period.
If the reviewing officer is not satisfied that the applicant meets the minimum physical presence requirement, the application may be referred to a citizenship judge. This authority arises under section 14 of the Citizenship Act. In practice, the referral occurs after a citizenship officer completes a document known as a File Preparation and Analysis Template (FPAT). This document summarizes the officer’s review of the application and is provided to the citizenship judge to assist in making a determination.
Once an application is referred, the citizenship judge must determine whether the applicant meets the requirements for citizenship. The Citizenship Act provides that this determination must be made within 60 days of the referral. Before reaching a decision, the citizenship judge has the discretion to hold a hearing with the applicant if additional clarification or evidence is required.
An important procedural feature of citizenship judge hearings is that the Minister does not participate in the hearing itself. Instead, the citizenship judge independently reviews the materials provided and any evidence presented by the applicant to determine whether the residency requirement and other eligibility criteria have been satisfied.
Although the Minister does not participate in the hearing, the Citizenship Act allows the Minister to challenge a citizenship judge’s decision by applying for judicial review in the Federal Court, with the Court’s permission. This means that while citizenship judges play a key role in resolving disputes about residency requirements, their decisions remain subject to review by the courts where there are concerns about whether the decision was reasonable or consistent with the law.
Jurisprudence
The Federal Court has consistently held that a citizenship applicant must show they meet the physical presence requirement with “clear and convincing evidence.” The term “clear and convincing evidence”
is used in Canadian law in two different ways. In some contexts, it defines a standard of proof that is greater than the balance of probabilities. In other contexts, it simply describes the quality of evidence needed to meet the balance of probabilities. As well, in assessing compliance with the physical presence requirement, a citizenship judge “cannot rely on the applicant’s claims alone,”
but must verify the applicant’s actual presence in Canada. As the Federal Court noted in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Yaghi, 2026 FC 112:
[21] However, the statement in El Falah does not mean that a citizenship judge must invariably insist on corroboration of an applicant’s credible testimony: Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Gouza, 2015 FC 1322 at paras 14–18; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Abdulghafoor, 2015 FC 1020 at para 24. This Court has recognized that it would be extremely unusual (and even “reckless”
) for a citizenship judge to rely solely on the testimony of an applicant to establish residency, with no supporting documentation at all: El Bousserghini at para 19; Pereira at para 31. Indeed, a citizenship judge may in a given case find that an applicant’s testimony is credible but still insufficient to establish residence: Kulemin v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 955 at paras 40–41. However, it is open to a citizenship judge to rely on credible testimony to fill in “gaps”
in the documentary record, and such testimony can be weighed equally with documentary evidence: Abidi at paras 40–41; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Sukkar, 2017 FC 693 at para 20; Gouza at para 14. It is the responsibility of the citizenship judge, taking the context into consideration, to determine the extent and nature of the evidence required to be satisfied that an applicant meets the physical presence requirement: El Bousserghini at para 19; Pereira at para 22; Abdulghafoor at para 24.
[22] In undertaking this responsibility, the jurisprudence establishes that a citizenship judge has an obligation to consider and reasonably analyze the evidence before them, including by making relevant inquiries. A citizenship judge may fail in this responsibility, and thereby render an unreasonable decision, if they, for example, accept a “rather weak and unconceivable explanation”
for a missing passport without inquiring further, or if they “blindly rely on the submissions”
of the citizenship applicant in the absence of corroborative evidence: Pereira at paras 23–24; Baccouche at paras 14–15. Similarly, unexplained assumptions about stays or absences that have no evidentiary basis, or a failure to consider whether omissions and contradictions in the evidence undermine the applicant’s credibility, may render a decision unreasonable: Vijayan at paras 57–58, 65; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Baron, 2011 FC 480 at para 17; Liu at paras 25–31.