One more Travel History for PR Renewal thread...why not?

[Ponga]

Riddle me this:

In completing IMM5444...
Section 19. Address History Inside and Outside of Canada-
Instructions state that entries are to be in chronological order from the oldest to the most recent.

Section 20. Work and Educational History Inside and Outside of Canada-
Instructions state that entries are to be in chronological order from the oldest to the most recent

However...
Section 21. Travel History-
Does not specify that entries are to be in chronological order from oldest to most recent; it doesn't state how entries are to be entered, only to include ALL absences.
I know...you're probably screaming out "don't be stupid and just assume that they should also be in order, per 19 and 20"...but, that same language was/is intentionally not included in 21, right?

So, the obvious question is whether or not entering trips outside of Canada that are entered in reverse order to 19 and 20, would instantly cause a fatal error with the form, or the IRCC person that processes the application. Since sections 19 and 20 (in my case) would only have Canadian addresses listed, whereas section 21, if `yes' is selected...by default, does obviously require travel information for trips outside of Canada (duh). If my last entry into Canada was in Nov 2019 (for example), wouldn't listing that at the top, sort of like `cutting to the chase' then listing trips/absences back to 5 years from the date of the renewal application, based upon my best guess, per se for land crossings...clearly show that I have met the R.O.? That first entry alone, simply based on that being the last entry record that CBSA clearly has, especially since it was an inbound International flight.

The reason for this madness:
For some of us, we may not have kept the best travel history [but certainly will going forward] and thought that CBSA would easily have that data available; even says so (sort of) when ticking the box in IMM5444 allowing IRCC to retrieve travel history from CBSA directly to 'help' determine R.O. compliance. Prior exits/entries by air or sea is very easy to find, but those land crossings...not nearly as easy to recall; a not-so-small problem when living so close to the border!

It would stand to reason then that, if within as few line entries as needed in section 21, the PR can show travel history when `doing the math' that would clearly show R.O. compliance (IRCC would likely still seek CBSA's assistance to verify) would be a good thing. Wouldn't it be better to show that R.O. has been met with as few lines as are needed in section 21, Saving precious time for the IRCC human? LOL!

 

[SecularFirst]

Riddle me this:

In completing IMM5444...
Section 19. Address History Inside and Outside of Canada-
Instructions state that entries are to be in chronological order from the oldest to the most recent.

Section 20. Work and Educational History Inside and Outside of Canada-
Instructions state that entries are to be in chronological order from the oldest to the most recent

However...
Section 21. Travel History-
Does not specify that entries are to be in chronological order from oldest to most recent; it doesn't state how entries are to be entered, only to include ALL absences.
I know...you're probably screaming out "don't be stupid and just assume that they should also be in order, per 19 and 20"...but, that same language was/is intentionally not included in 21, right?

So, the obvious question is whether or not entering trips outside of Canada that are entered in reverse order to 19 and 20, would instantly cause a fatal error with the form, or the IRCC person that processes the application. Since sections 19 and 20 (in my case) would only have Canadian addresses listed, whereas section 21, if `yes' is selected...by default, does obviously require travel information for trips outside of Canada (duh). If my last entry into Canada was in Nov 2019 (for example), wouldn't listing that at the top, sort of like `cutting to the chase' then listing trips/absences back to 5 years from the date of the renewal application, based upon my best guess, per se for land crossings...clearly show that I have met the R.O.? That first entry alone, simply based on that being the last entry record that CBSA clearly has, especially since it was an inbound International flight.

The reason for this madness:
For some of us, we may not have kept the best travel history [but certainly will going forward] and thought that CBSA would easily have that data available; even says so (sort of) when ticking the box in IMM5444 allowing IRCC to retrieve travel history from CBSA directly to 'help' determine R.O. compliance. Prior exits/entries by air or sea is very easy to find, but those land crossings...not nearly as easy to recall; a not-so-small problem when living so close to the border!

It would stand to reason then that, if within as few line entries as needed in section 21, the PR can show travel history when `doing the math' that would clearly show R.O. compliance (IRCC would likely still seek CBSA's assistance to verify) would be a good thing. Wouldn't it be better to show that R.O. has been met with as few lines as are needed in section 21, Saving precious time for the IRCC human? LOL!

The new form has some confusing questions. I was frustrated as well when I was about to send application. I just waited to finish 730 continues days inside Canada without any absences and sent the application on 733rd day. Also included a letter telling them about it. Although I had a little over 750 days in the preceding 5 years but just waited to finish 730 continues since last entry to make it easier for IRCC human.

 

[dpenabill]

In completing IMM5444...
Section 19. Address History Inside and Outside of Canada-
Instructions state that entries are to be in chronological order from the oldest to the most recent.

Section 20. Work and Educational History Inside and Outside of Canada-
Instructions state that entries are to be in chronological order from the oldest to the most recent

Appears you are looking at an out-of-date form.

See and use current form IMM 5444 dated 8-2022 or more recent. Replaces the 06-2022 version (which is still more recent than the one you reference). Yeah, this is in flux.

All three, Address history (question 4.1), Work and Educational History (question 4.2) and Time Spent Outside Canada (question 5.5) instruct the applicant to "list" . . . "from the most recent to the oldest."

The current form section titled "Consent and Declaration" (item or question 8) is very detailed, and in effect requires the applicant to check boxes certifying the accuracy of the information submitted three times, including one that specifies the applicant is specifically verifying absences as of the date the form is "initiated," and then says "Please confirm those dates now by reviewing the Residency Obligation section." An additional declaration the applicant must make is "I further understand that the information provided by me may be verified and hereby consent to such verification activities." The latter is in addition to the consent required in item/question 7 (which, in regards to travel history, only refers to CBSA history of entries into Canada) and obviously constitutes a very broad consent to be investigated. Not that such consent is actually required by the law.

One gets the impression they've got a bug about less than complete or accurate applications.

Note: the form has undergone dramatic changes. The earlier version 06-2022 was rife with issues. The more recent version, the current version 08-2022, still has issues, and *the instructions continue to lack specificity (see edit note)*. Appears to still be a work in progress (although the webpage has dropped the caution to that effect).


Note about the Calculation:

Otherwise you continue to reference calculation of days in Canada which very much relies on an inference that the PR was IN Canada from a known date of entry through to the next known or reported date of exit. That inference depends on a COMPLETE and ACCURATE travel history. Which it is the PR's burden to provide.

If and when there is any reason to question either the completeness or accuracy of the applicant's travel history, that weakens the strength or weight of that inference, and depending on the scope of concerns and questions, can eliminate the inference altogether, so that IRCC concludes only those days more demonstrably shown to have been in Canada get credit.

Generally (although in practice, in actual cases, what happens varies) IRCC does NOT revise the PR's travel history based on other information, including the CBSA record of entries. If other information, including CBSA records (but it can include things like finding an open source showing the PR was abroad when the PR reported being in Canada; LinkedIn being one of the more commonly sources cited), indicate a discrepancy, what it ordinarily comes down to is whether the discrepancy:

-- indicates the PR is in breach of the RO, or​

-- indicates the PR's information is so far off as to compromise the PR's credibility (and if so, how skeptical IRCC will then be varies depending on details), or​

-- indicates the PR is deceptive, and if so whether there is cause to proceed with a misrepresentation prosecution​

. . . to be followed by the appropriate action depending on what is indicated. Minor omissions and inaccuracies, typically no big deal.

Edit to Add: I also note that you have previously referred to the 06-2022 form, which is structured much like the current version 08-2022 (same question numbers for address, work, and travel history for example). Must emphasize revisiting the IRCC website, instructions, and forms very close to when an application is made.

And to revise statement that the instructions still lack specificity . . . there are actually two sets of instructions, those in the "instruction guide" (lacks specificity in many regards) and those that are linked on the webpage where the application can be download, which provide a lot more specificity.

 

[Ponga]

Appears you are looking at an out-of-date form.

Clearly!

See and use current form IMM 5444 dated 8-2022 or more recent. Replaces the 06-2022 version (which is still more recent than the one you reference). Yeah, this is in flux.

All three, Address history (question 4.1), Work and Educational History (question 4.2) and Time Spent Outside Canada (question 5.5) instruct the applicant to "list" . . . "from the most recent to the oldest."

True, but the online instructions (Aug 2022) still show this under 5.5, which is not most recent to oldest. Perhaps yet another conflict with what the actual form shows:

For example: John Doe travelled from Canada to United Kingdom, France and Italy in the past five years and for his time in Italy he was accompanying his Canadian spouse. This is how he would input his travel history.

From	To	Your location(s) (city, country/territory)	Reason for absence	If “Other” please add Reason	Days
2018/01/01	2018/01/15	London, United Kingdom	Other	Vacation	12
2020/01/01	2020/01/15	Paris, France	Other	Vacation	12
2020/01/15	2021/01/15	Rome, Italy	B		364

The current form section titled "Consent and Declaration" (item or question 8) is very detailed, and in effect requires the applicant to check boxes certifying the accuracy of the information submitted three times, including one that specifies the applicant is specifically verifying absences as of the date the form is "initiated," and then says "Please confirm those dates now by reviewing the Residency Obligation section." An additional declaration the applicant must make is "I further understand that the information provided by me may be verified and hereby consent to such verification activities." The latter is in addition to the consent required in item/question 7 (which, in regards to travel history, only refers to CBSA history of entries into Canada) and obviously constitutes a very broad consent to be investigated. Not that such consent is actually required by the law.

One gets the impression they've got a bug about less than complete or accurate applications.

Agreed!

Note about the Calculation:

Otherwise you continue to reference calculation of days in Canada which very much relies on an inference that the PR was IN Canada from a known date of entry through to the next known or reported date of exit. That inference depends on a COMPLETE and ACCURATE travel history. Which it is the PR's burden to provide.

If and when there is any reason to question either the completeness or accuracy of the applicant's travel history, that weakens the strength or weight of that inference, and depending on the scope of concerns and questions, can eliminate the inference altogether, so that IRCC concludes only those days more demonstrably shown to have been in Canada get credit.

Would certainly add credence to any documents, bank statements, debit/credit card receipts, (photos/text messages still stored on the device), etc., that are during the time periods when the PR is `claiming' to have been in Canada. LOL!

 

[dpenabill]

Probably no need for this comment, but for-the-record one might say . . .

All three, Address history (question 4.1), Work and Educational History (question 4.2) and Time Spent Outside Canada (question 5.5) instruct the applicant to "list" . . . "from the most recent to the oldest."​

True, but the online instructions (Aug 2022) still show this under 5.5, which is not most recent to oldest. Perhaps yet another conflict with what the actual form shows:

[example with travel history listed from oldest to most recent]

As I had already noted:

The more recent version, the current version 08-2022, still has issues . . . Appears to still be a work in progress . . .

The instructions themselves, as to order in which to populate travel history, are nonetheless consistent, both in regards to what is indicated in the form itself and in the linked instructions, and in regards to how address and work history need to be listed. Which is also consistent with the typical approach for reporting this kind of information.

Aberrant, stuff-happens stuff does happen, including bureaucratic bungling. The objective is to sort things out focused on how best to navigate the system. This one should not cause much confusion . . . and even if the PR does populate the travel history in the reverse order, the odds of that causing a problem are minimal.

It warrants emphasizing, so repeating, that unless there is something about the PR more or less shouting "I'm suspicious" (acknowledging, however, quite a few fall into that camp), the PR who is settled and living in Canada and who is not in breach of the RO, has near zero to worry about making a PR card application.

 

[Ponga]

Regarding discussions where the authority to share information between CBSA and IRCC has been debated...and in the quest to help other U.S. citizens needing to request Travel history...

Source: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/service-delivery/entry-exit.html

Purpose
IRCC will obtain accurate and objective entry and exit information from the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) to support the administration of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the Citizenship Act and the Canadian Passport Order.

Who can access entry and exit information

The Customs Act allows the CBSA to collect entry and exit data on all travellers for all modes of travel, excluding marine and rail exits. Under the IRCC–CBSA memorandum of understanding (MOU), information sharing between both departments for the administration and enforcement of IRPA is considered consistent use, as per paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act. Client consent is not required in order to query traveller entry and exit information.
[This means that even if a PR ticks `no' in the section on IMM5444 allowing consent, the travel history is still available to IRCC]

Where entry and exit information has been deemed relevant to an IRCC officer’s decision in relation to a specific program (outlined in these PDIs), access is granted by way of system-user roles; only roles that allow a user to render a decision on an application in GCMS have access to the “Entry/Exit” tab.


GCMS users with the following roles can manually create and submit an Entry/Exit request


• manager or team lead
• visa officer
• designated immigration officer
• non-immigrant case analyst
• assistant
• immigration program officer
• CBSA assistant
• CBSA Case Review
• CBSA Hearings
• CBSA management
• CBSA Minister’s delegate
• CBSA officer
• migration integrity officer
• in-Canada assistant
• local citizenship officer
• case processing centre service delivery clerk
• local office clerk
• case processing centre agent or officer


Entry and exit data can be used to outline the periods of time spent in and outside Canada for people applying for permanent residence status determination (PR Cards and PR Travel Documents). This will provide a full picture of whether or not residence has been maintained.

With the passing of Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Customs Act, data on all travellers (including Canadian and U.S. citizens) has begun to accumulate as of July 11, 2019, for travel by land. On June 25, 2020, the CBSA began collecting pre-departure exit information and exit records directly from commercial air carriers. Commercial air carriers will have until November 2022 to comply.
---

Seems to me that they do in fact have permission to share anything related to a PR's Exit/Entry details.

 

[SecularFirst]

Then why dont they just pull travel history from cbsa? If they don’t trust people to put it accurately in the form, why make them fill in the form. Why not just pull it from cbsa.

 

[dpenabill]

Seems to me that they do in fact have permission to share anything related to a PR's Exit/Entry details.

Which means they CAN . . . and that in turn means applicants should make a very concerted effort to completely and accurately report their travel history, because to the extent what the applicant reports is not complete or is inaccurate, odds are high that IRCC officials will notice. While minor omissions and errors generally are not problematic, any discrepancies can damage the PR's credibility, and significant discrepancies risk real problems.

Then why dont they just pull travel history from cbsa? If they don’t trust people to put it accurately in the form, why make them fill in the form. Why not just pull it from cbsa

Actually IRCC not only trusts PRs to accurately complete PR card and citizenship application forms, including as to travel history, IRCC relies on it.

And this is what makes it so problematic for PRs if and when IRCC identifies reason to question or doubt the information provided by the PR. It can no longer fully rely on the information used to assess a PR's eligibility.

Note that no record-capturing system for cross-border travel, for a country that has such a huge and porous border as Canada, can be certain to capture all trips. In contrast, the individual PR is in a position to completely and accurately capture this information; the individual PR is the ONE and ONLY person in the world who FOR SURE is in such a position for each and every cross border trip.

That is, the best evidence of a PR's travel history is a PR's own records.

Over the years, CBSA has developed and implemented more and better tools for capturing such information, and in conjunction with information sharing arrangements, this facilitates both CBSA and IRCC verification of information provided by PRs and FNs. Read the information @Ponga linked: it is about using information for the purpose of VERIFICATION. It is captured, stored, and accessed to CHECK the completeness and accuracy of information provided by PRs (and others). Not to replace or supplant a PR's information.

Note too that verification is a multi-faceted operation, aimed not merely at just verifying the particular details in the information being verified, but also used to cross-check and assess an individual's credibility more broadly. If you travel internationally much you have undoubtedly been asked, many times, questions for which the border control official already knows the answer . . . among the more common, an officer holding the traveler's passport in hand yet asking "what's your nationality?" It is not a test but it is testing, the officer interested in not just the particular answer but also in screening the traveler's demeanor, inflection of voice, facial expressions, body language, assessing the traveler's credibility. In the PR card and citizenship application context, without the in-person observations (unless there is an in-person interview), that kind of screening is a function of cross-checking a wide range of detailed information. Note, for example, there is no employment/work requirement to keep PR status or to qualify for a grant of citizenship, but the PR's work history, for each and every month in the relevant time period, is considered so important that any gap in that information will generally result in the application being deemed incomplete, returned and not processed.

In any event, PRs making PR card or citizenship applications should be aware that if and when IRCC sees reason to question the completeness and accuracy of the travel history information provided by the applicant, that signals the BEST EVIDENCE of travel history is not reliable. When the BEST EVIDENCE is not reliable, depending on the nature and extent to which it is perceived to be less than reliable, the total-stranger bureaucrat processing the application is prone to questioning a lot more than just the particular discrepancy showing that the BEST EVIDENCE is not accurate.

There may be changes to the process in the future. If and when, that's a tough call. Not currently on the horizon. So, sorry, PRs will still need to keep their own records, and as much as the government can check and verify them, no, there is no current plan for the government to do this for you.

 

[Ponga]

In any event, PRs making PR card or citizenship applications should be aware that if and when IRCC sees reason to question the completeness and accuracy of the travel history information provided by the applicant, that signals the BEST EVIDENCE of travel history is not reliable. When the BEST EVIDENCE is not reliable, depending on the nature and extent to which it is perceived to be less than reliable, the total-stranger bureaucrat processing the application is prone to questioning a lot more than just the particular discrepancy showing that the BEST EVIDENCE is not accurate.

There may be changes to the process in the future. If and when, that's a tough call. Not currently on the horizon. So, sorry, PRs will still need to keep their own records, and as much as the government can check and verify them, no, there is no current plan for the government to do this for you.

So, IRCC states this:

IRCC will obtain accurate and objective entry and exit information from the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) to support the administration of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the Citizenship Act and the Canadian Passport Order.


Which may lead a PR to this question:

If for whatever reason the PR has travel that was not seen by IRCC and possibly even CBSA...does that imply that the PR `snuck in/out of the country, if there is no Exit/Entry record? What if the PR's travel history does not exactly match whatever information IRCC gets/sees from CBSA, via GCMS? A good example would be if the PR took a cruise from Vancouver to [anywhere], since according to the Exit/Entry details, this travel would not have been captured by CBSA:

Types of entries and exits not yet available
marine/(including cruise ships) rail

Which means they CAN . . . and that in turn means applicants should make a very concerted effort to completely and accurately report their travel history, because to the extent what the applicant reports is not complete or is inaccurate, odds are high that IRCC officials will notice. While minor omissions and errors generally are not problematic, any discrepancies can damage the PR's credibility, and significant discrepancies risk real problems.

Yup, the certainly can...
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/service-delivery/entry-exit.html

'Entry and exit data can be used to outline the periods of time spent in and outside Canada for people applying for permanent residence status determination (PR Cards and PR Travel Documents). This will provide a full picture of whether or not residence has been maintained.'

So if they have the authority to obtain the data from CBSA, to assess the R.O. of a PR...why wouldn't they do that? Why shouldn't they do that, especially if it will provide a full picture? It seems like a very fast process, at least according to this claim:

`When performing an E/E query through GCMS, the results are received automatically, and they take between 30 seconds to 2 minutes to transmit from CBSA’s systems to IRCC’s. As soon as CBSA enters the data into their systems, the information immediately becomes available to be queried through GCMS.'

So, yes...they can query the PR's travel history...because it WILL provide a full picture of whether or not R.O. has been met. IMHO, can should be replaced with shall.

That is, the best evidence of a PR's travel history is a PR's own records.

Agreed, yet if there is a discrepancy between what the PR is reporting and whatever CBSA has, I can't imagine that IRCC would just take the PR's word for it. Since a U.S. citizen's exits from Canada were not captured, collected, or otherwise documented...at least not until July 2019 (if BtB Phase III really was/is in place)... it could make it difficult to prove, requiring the PR have`something' to validate their request for a correction. Normally a copy of an outbound ticket from a commercial carrier would be helpful, but not if a person exited Canada via a land PoE...at least not a U.S. citizen.



Again, this is really just a discussion regarding how a U.S. citizen who is a PR of Canada may have difficulty obtaining accurate...or even close to being accurate Travel History from CBSA. It would seem that any similar request from CBP would be pointless, since they do not track U.S. citizens exiting the U.S.

 

[dpenabill]

Sorry, it appears you are largely spinning your wheels in loose sand.

Short version: if and when the travel history reported by the PR is not reliable, it's about evidence of actual presence throughout the periods of time the PR reports being in Canada.

Long version:

Yup, the certainly can...
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/service-delivery/entry-exit.html

Caution: If your objective is to better understand how things actually work, better to avoid reading Canadian government information like an American journalist with a slant, aiming to arm a polemical view; rather, focus on understanding what it means, which demands both a careful and critical reading, but doing so in context with many other sources. You reference a "service delivery" guideline, for example. Service delivery guidelines for IRCC tend to be more aspirational than descriptive of actual practices, and they likewise need to be approached in context; for example, see discussions, in multiple sources, about service delivery guidelines for IRCC processing times, taking note of the distinction between those which are "guidelines" versus those which are "standards" (and no, these are not different words for the same thing), and even the latter, the service delivery "standards" (where IRCC has them), have rather limited force, while service delivery "guidelines" tend to fall somewhere between a wish and an objective . . . and in regards to processing times for citizenship applications, for some time now it is more like somewhere between a wish and a prayer.

Reminder 1: Operational guidelines and Program Delivery Instructions (PDIs) are NOT law, not regulations, not even rules. They are NOT official. They are NOT binding. They are internal statements of policy and procedure, providing "guidance" for CBSA and IRCC personnel. So they are typically informative; the source is, after all, authoritative. But more like a recipe than instructions.

Good example, even though it requires a fair amount of reading to navigate, is illustrated by the sometimes stark differences between what the applicable operational guidelines say about giving RO credit to a PR "ordinarily residing" with a Canadian citizen spouse abroad, in contrast to not only the very different approach visa officers have taken, but different IAD panels, and especially the lawyers arguing on behalf of the Minister in appeals . . . spoiler alert: the operational manual specifically says "In the case of a permanent resident outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen, it is not necessary to determine who is accompanying whom." A significant number of PRs, nonetheless, have lost PR status, credit denied based on an analysis concluding it was the citizen accompanying the PR, not the PR accompanying the citizen abroad; and it warrants noting that in many more cases, where the IAD allowed the PR to retain status, the Minister's lawyer was arguing that RO credit should be denied based on a who-accompanied-whom analysis . . . there is thread here devoted to precisely this subject.​

Reminder 2: This particular information, the linked Entry/Exit Program, is still largely aspirational, meaning to a large extent it does NOT reflect currently implemented practices or systems. Or even capabilities. Note the use of the word "will" pervades the entire document, and the context is in reference to when, sometime in the future, it is implemented. Note, historically such programs warrant couching in terms of IF, IF they are implemented (at all, not just fully; the difference here is significant elements of this one have been implemented, including a substantial amount of the underlying capabilities . . . sufficiently so PRs/clients should be aware that the travel history they report CAN be verified, or at least to a large extent can be verified, enough to put clients on notice, including PRs, that if they submit inaccurate or incomplete travel history, there are odds it will be noticed).


Regarding: the best evidence of a PR's travel history is a PR's own records.

Agreed, yet if there is a discrepancy between what the PR is reporting and whatever CBSA has, I can't imagine that IRCC would just take the PR's word for it.

In regards to impact on Residency Determinations (setting aside efforts to correct CBSA records, which is rarely necessary):

I have rather often suggested reading some of the actual cases as reported in officially published IAD and Federal Court decisions. It is amply illuminated: no, if discrepancies in the PR's information as to travel history are identified or even suspected, IRCC will NOT just take a "PR's word for it."

Where things go from there depends on many, many factors, not the least of which is how the identified or suspected omissions or inaccuracies affect the case. In this regard, huge difference (as I have repeatedly noted) between PR card applications (more like horseshoes, where close counts) and applications for citizenship (the 1095 day minimum at time application was made is a hard and fast, absolute cutoff).

Without revisiting all the nuances in evidence, proof, and what tips the scales one way or another, regarding all of which I have written and posted volumes of essay-like explanations . . . if IRCC has cause to question the PR's account, that means the best source of evidence, the best source of the PR's travel history, CANNOT be relied upon.

If and when that happens, the fact-finding operation focuses more on proof of presence. Travel history does not suffice.

I have previously pointed out that for the vast majority of PRs, there is an inference of presence between a known date of entry and the next reported date of exit. This inference plays a huge, huge role. Without it, PRs would need evidence to document their location all the other days.

Reason to question the PR's travel history means IRCC cannot rely on an inference of presence between the PR's known dates of entry and next reported date of exit. Reason to question the PR's travel history means IRCC can and to a varying degree typically will require the PR's evidence show presence IN Canada during the days following a known date of entry. More so for citizenship applicants.

IRCC does not throw that inference entirely out the window just because it identifies some omissions or inaccuracies in the PR's reported travel history, but the more IRCC sees reason to question the PR's travel history, the more IRCC will focus on the nature, extent, and credibility of evidence showing presence in Canada following known dates of entry. More evidence of dates of exit and entry, like airline tickets, only goes to travel history. Once the best evidence of travel history is seen as insufficient, evidence of actually being IN Canada the other days comes into play. Again, how much so varies. Much higher hurdle for the citizenship applicant than a PR card applicant.

For PR card applications, as long as the PR is relatively in the ballpark of being in RO compliance, the big difference, the tipping point, is the PR's credibility. Incidental mistakes, generally no problem. If there are substantial deviations indicating poor record keeping, but no reason to believe the PR is overtly evasive or deceptive, one might say it depends on the grenade-standard, albeit this is a situation in which it tends to go a whole lot better if the PR appears to be well settled and living in Canada.

Where it tends to get difficult, and proof of presence in Canada is really at issue, is where:

-- it is perceived (not necessarily confirmed, just perceived tends to open inquiry) the omissions and inaccuracies are substantial, and it appears the PR's days in Canada might not be close, and this is especially so if the PR appears to not be settled permanently in Canada, or​

-- it is perceived (here too, emphasis on what officials perceive) there is cause to believe the PR is deceptive or deliberately evasive​

When and where it gets difficult, the focus is a lot more on objective documentation showing the PR's physical location on as many days as the PR can show such evidence. For the PR in this situation, a regular job working for a readily known employer and attending the job at a readily identified location in Canada on a regular schedule, can make things a lot easier.

Again, if and when the travel history reported by the PR cannot be relied on, it's about evidence of actual presence throughout the periods of time the PR reports being in Canada.

Concluding Note: The vast majority of PRs, including those applying for citizenship, do not need to worry about this level of detail in documenting presence or in regards to the fact-finding aspect of the process. It is typically not that close a call.

 

[Ponga]

Sorry, it appears you are largely spinning your wheels in loose sand.

Could be worse; could be crawling through kitty litter, instead of driving through sand. LOL!

Reminder 1: Operational guidelines and Program Delivery Instructions (PDIs) are NOT law, not regulations, not even rules. They are NOT official. They are NOT binding. They are internal statements of policy and procedure, providing "guidance" for CBSA and IRCC personnel. So they are typically informative; the source is, after all, authoritative. But more like a recipe than instructions.

So, you are saying that an Enforcement Manual (ENF 23, for example) is not official, or even binding? Why does it even exist if it is not a manual to enforce?

When is outlines, for example, how a PR is to be examined at a PoE, is that just hyperbole, or just a suggestion of how the PR should (or even can) be assessed? I've often felt that a lot of the times a person truly is at the mercy of not only the CBSA officer that is conducting the examination, but worse still...the person that processes the initial PR application to not be in a really bad mood; taking it out, in part, on the PR applicant or PR now standing before a CBSA officer.

Reminder 2: This particular information, the linked Entry/Exit Program, is still largely aspirational, meaning to a large extent it does NOT reflect currently implemented practices or systems. Or even capabilities. Note the use of the word "will" pervades the entire document, and the context is in reference to when, sometime in the future, it is implemented.

But, it is a currently implemented system. How is it `aspirational' if it has been in place since June, 2019 (land) and June, 2020 (air)?


I also, respectfully, offer a contrasting `opinion' with the use of the word `Will' that you reference. If I said to you that "this key on my key ring `will' unlock my front door"...would that be in any way a passive statement, implying that it would NOT unlock the door right now?

Concluding Note: The vast majority of PRs, including those applying for citizenship, do not need to worry about this level of detail in documenting presence or in regards to the fact-finding aspect of the process. It is typically not that close a call.

Yes, but it is now more of a question as to how IRCC would heavily scrutinize travel history that would really be irrelevant. Once the PR has shown, via stated travel history plus supporting documentation, a substantial surplus of days needed to maintain R.O., while not recalling some/a few, trips across the land border that would have occurred > 3 years ago...that `Misrepresentation' concern would be looming large. It would, however, seem plausible that a letter of explanation (often confused for a letter of excuse) may be all that is needed to thwart such an outcome.

 

[armoured]

So, you are saying that an Enforcement Manual (ENF 23, for example) is not official, or even binding? Why does it even exist if it is not a manual to enforce?

Do we really need to explain that something can be official but not binding? That an enforcement manual can be about enforcement, that doesn't mean that every line of that manual itself is enforceable?

Please, you are spinning wheels that exist only in your mind. In the sand.

Once the PR has shown, via stated travel history plus supporting documentation, a substantial surplus of days needed to maintain R.O., while not recalling some/a few, trips across the land border
...that `Misrepresentation' concern would be looming large. It would, however, seem plausible that a letter of explanation (often confused for a letter of excuse) may be all that is needed to thwart such an outcome.

If you mean, in this case, could one get 'in trouble' for misrepresentation, under the exact circumstances you describe? Basically no - misrepresentation must be material. (No, I'm not going to describe the concept of materiality... beyond saying it has to 'matter.')

But I'm mostly done with this thread, your questions are just missing the point. Sit down, fill out your app, and send it in.

If you're still concerned, you're now at the point where you should hire a lawyer to discuss this with you. Perhaps paying the bill for someone to 'get it' for you will focus the mind.

 

[Ponga]

Do we really need to explain that something can be official but not binding? That an enforcement manual can be about enforcement, that doesn't mean that every line of that manual itself is enforceable?

Please, you are spinning wheels that exist only in your mind. In the sand.



If you mean, in this case, could one get 'in trouble' for misrepresentation, under the exact circumstances you describe? Basically no - misrepresentation must be material. (No, I'm not going to describe the concept of materiality... beyond saying it has to 'matter.')

But I'm mostly done with this thread, your questions are just missing the point. Sit down, fill out your app, and send it in.

If you're still concerned, you're now at the point where you should hire a lawyer to discuss this with you. Perhaps paying the bill for someone to 'get it' for you will focus the mind.

Feel free to refrain from replying to any additional posts from any thread
Clearly, your comments are more than justified. I never could have imagined how stressful this would be; it has to be one of those `in combination with' other stressors that have amplified this particular task.

My plan now, is to order my CBSA travel history via an ATIP request, just to see what more, if anything, I can add to my own cryptic data. I've been harping about the BtB Action Plan for so long, it's time to see what I can find for myself. I'll likely be ready to submit my renewal app sometime next month. I will travel with a completed draft of the app, showing compliance has been met, just for kicks.

Thanks for your ongoing opinions.

 

[armoured]

Clearly, your comments are more than justified. I never could have imagined how stressful this would be; it has to be one of those `in combination with' other stressors that have amplified this particular task.

My plan now, is to order my CBSA travel history via an ATIP request, just to see what more, if anything, I can add to my own cryptic data. I've been harping about the BtB Action Plan for so long, it's time to see what I can find for myself. I'll likely be ready to submit my renewal app sometime next month. I will travel with a completed draft of the app, showing compliance has been met, just for kicks.

Sorry if my response seemed ... abrupt.

Good luck. I suspect you'll have no troubles once you get the app in.

 

[Ponga]

Sorry if my response seemed ... abrupt.

Good luck. I suspect you'll have no troubles once you get the app in.

It was actually a good swift kick in the [you know where]. Between you and @dpenabill , it's difficult to sit down...for any length of time. LOL!