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

[dpenabill]

A Primer in Proof of Physical Presence:

Addressing an off-topic query in "PRTD documents check list - supporting documents for residency obligation - while i was in Canada last 5 years"

Acknowledging this has been explained . . . and here giving it one more shot . . . in THREE parts.

PART I . . . CBSA travel history is NOT much evidence of presence:

Remember, the primary source of "real evidence" of presence, and which is what is submitted with a PR card, PR TD, or citizenship application, is the PR's testimonial report that the PR was present IN Canada all the days between a reported date of entry and the next reported date of exit -- the PR's reported travel history is a statement to the effect: "I entered Canada on such-and-such date and was present in Canada until I left on such-and-such date."

If Appendix A does not apply to PR that is in Canada, has not been outside of Canada for more than 1095...and is applying for a new PR card having provided travel info that they are declaring meeting, or exceeding 730 days in Canada, one could deduce that the exit/entry Travel History is really all that is needed for those PRs; no need to add anything in terms of supporting documents.

However...

What credence do most supporting documents really give? A PR's DL would show their address, but how does that guarantee that the PR was even in Canada? A DL is usually valid for 5 years, but that doesn't, in and of itself, guarantee that the person will remain in Canada for 5 years, right?

Same could be said for most of the other types of documents, even banking statements, especially if there is no activity shown other than online activity (i.e. no ATM withdrawals near their Canadian residential address, or anywhere in Canada).

Yes, I realize that I will be accused of `over analyzing', or hypothesizing, but because the only real evidence that would show that the PR was in fact IN Canada, in terms of meeting the R.O., would seem to be...travel history that CBSA has access to and shares with IRCC. Otherwise, why would Appendix A (supporting documents) not be a requirement for a PR card renewal inside Canada?

Your query and related discussion is NOT "over-analyzing," but rather is actually, if anything, under-analyzing. More likely misunderstanding.

You state::

". . . the only real evidence that would show that the PR was in fact IN Canada, in terms of meeting the R.O., would seem to be...travel history that CBSA has access to and shares with IRCC."​

NO. And this warrants repeating: NO, the CBSA travel history is NOT the only real evidence to show when a PR "was in fact IN Canada," and indeed, the CBSA travel history offers very little evidence of presence in Canada at all, let alone much evidence, let alone "the only real evidence."

To try to explain this I considered using your example in which John Doe reports three trips:

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

But calculations of days are off. And the concurrence of the "To" date for the Paris trip and "From" date for the Rome trip is unrealistic. Remember, "To" is date arriving in Canada; "From" is the date of exit from Canada.

So, slightly modified version:

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	13
2020/01/01	2020/01/15	Paris, France	Other	Vacation	13
2020/03/15	2021/03/15	Rome, Italy	Other	Caring for ill parent	364

John Doe is reporting three trips totaling 390 days absent from Canada. If that is accurate, and IRCC accepts it as such, that means John Doe was present in Canada 1436 days (includes counting leap year day) in the relevant five years.

Small word here, "if," but big, big implications. Two big, important premises here:

-- IF John Doe's reported travel history is accurate, and​

-- IF IRCC accepts it as accurate​

Note that IRCC's consideration of CBSA travel history is to see if that indicates any reason to question or doubt the PR's reporting, to see if that history shows any omission or inaccuracy in what the PR reported . . . to assess whether to accept and rely on the PR's account.

If there are only, at worst, minimal discrepancies between the PR's and the CBSA travel history, and there is no other indication the PR's account is suspect, IRCC will still accept the PR's travel history as accurate (except for a citizenship application with minimal or no margin above the requirement threshold, where a precise counting of days may be required).

Again, the "real evidence" of presence here is the PR's testimonial report that the PR was present IN Canada all the days between a reported date of entry and the next reported date of exit -- the PR's reported travel history is a statement to the effect: "I entered Canada on such-and-such date and was present in Canada until I left on such-and-such date."

In contrast, the CBSA travel history routinely accessed by IRCC, showing dates the PR entered Canada, is minimal evidence. In particular, in this example, the CBSA travel history accessed by IRCC will be real or direct evidence of just THREE days presence in Canada:

2018/01/15​

2020/01/15​

2021/03/15​

That is it. The CBAS travel history will ONLY evidence those three days as present in Canada.

If IRCC expands its consideration of travel history information to include CBSA information as to exit dates, in addition to entry dates, the CBSA travel history will then be direct evidence of just SIX days presence in Canada:

2018/01/01 (date of exit, so present in Canada that day)​

2018/01/15 (date of entry, so present in Canada that day)​

2020/01/01 (date of exit . . . )​

2020/01/15 (date of entry . . . )​

2020/03/15 (date of exit . . . )​

2021/03/15 (date of entry . . . )​

There is NO real or direct evidence in that history to show that John Doe was present in Canada any other days. Real evidence of actual presence for just six days falls rather short, way, way short, of showing the PR was in Canada at least 730 days (let alone 1095 days for a citizenship application). The real importance of this CBSA travel history is whether or not it is consistent with and supports what the PR has reported in the application.

Again, the primary, REAL evidence of presence in Canada, is the PR's reporting which, again, is in effect a testimonial statement they were IN Canada from a reported date of entry to the next reported date of exit.

IRCC does not blindly rely on this. For PR card and citizenship applications PRs are required to provide their address and work history for the full five years (even though there are no work-related requirements), so that IRCC can compare that information with the travel history. For a PR Travel Document application PRs are also required to submit two items, two pieces of evidence, showing their residency in Canada.***

And that usually suffices. For PR card applications that is usually enough to immediately approve the application and issue a new PR card.

Beyond that, if and when there are questions or concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the PR's account . . . Leading to PART II . . . Residency Case Proof of Presence

***Note: One difference for a PR Travel Document application versus a PR card application is that a PR abroad without a valid PR card (thus in need of a PR TD to return to Canada) is PRESUMED to NOT have valid PR status. See Section 31(2)(b) IRPA here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-5.html#h-274660 . . . that said, the additional "supporting" evidence required with the PR TD application is relatively minimal, just two things to show the PR had a residential address in Canada during the relevant five years.

 

[dpenabill]

PART II . . . Proof of Presence in the Residency Case:

Part I addressed how limited, minimal evidence of actual presence in Canada is provided by a CBSA travel history, even when it includes dates of exit in addition to dates of arrival. The CBSA travel history will generally NOT offer much evidence or proof of presence in Canada at all.

The evidentiary fulcrum in calculating presence in Canada is whether or not the PR's account is accepted and relied on. If not, that's when and where how-things-go will depend on real evidence of presence, beyond the PR's own assertion of presence.

Beyond that, if and when there are questions or concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the PR's account (triggered by discrepancy with CBSA records or triggered by some other inconsistent information), and those questions or concerns lead to non-routine processing requests for additional proof of presence, that then is a different deal . . . what has historically been referred to as a "residency case," meaning the PR is required to more fully prove actual presence in Canada for particular periods of time.

In particular, when the IRCC official handling the PR card application has any concerns or reservations, or otherwise wants to take a closer look, the nature and scope of further scrutiny varies considerably depending on the nature and scope of the concerns or questions. Since the investigatory aspect of processing is confidential, behind the curtain and not publicly disclosed, we only have partial information about the particular scrutiny employed . . . but we do know (from sources like IAD and FC decisions, and responses to ATI requests) some of what is done, like cross-referencing information in GCMS (such as for listed employers, addresses, telephone numbers, family members) as well as researching so-called "open sources" (this would include Internet sites like LinkedIn). This can include formal investigatory referrals, such as to CBSA and its NSSD (and yes, they may physically contact individuals, such as listed employers for example, to make inquiries about the PR's employment). This is in addition to considering what the CBSA travel history shows.

But it still comes back around to whether or not IRCC accepts and relies on the PR's claim to be IN Canada all those days between dates of entry and next reported dates of exit. If that information, the primary "real" evidence of presence, is questionable, IRCC can request the PR provide further "real evidence" of actual presence AND also provide "supporting evidence" that corroborates the PR's claims about days present in Canada.

Among the best "real evidence" of presence, is objective evidence showing the PR was employed working for a readily verified employer at a readily verified physical location IN Canada on certain dates. For example, documentation that John Doe was working on an assembly line at an auto parts manufacturing facility in Guelph, Ontario, and was usually present working Monday to Friday, over a particular period of time, that's damn good, real evidence of presence in Canada over that period of time.

PRs can document other particular days present, such as a history of dates for which the PR obtained medical services, which will show particular dates the PR was IN Canada and provided a medical service (PRs can usually obtain copy of records that show dates of medical service without disclosing nature or type of service, to reduce the extent to which providing such records reveals private information). Documentation from professions as to in person appointments with those professionals, including dentists as well as lawyers and accountants, among others, is generally accepted as not just real but strong evidence of presence in Canada those respective dates.

In contrast, a lease agreement and receipts for payment of rent for a period of months is supporting evidence. It does not directly evidence actual presence but is consistent with a claim the individual was present in Canada during that time, and when considered in conjunction with other information and evidence, supports an inference of presence during those periods of time.

There is NO expectation that a PR will be able to provide objective "real" evidence of presence for every day the PR was present in Canada. The PR's obligation, if requested, is to accurately declare how many days they were present, and if requested, to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate "on a balance of probabilities," through "sufficient, consistent and credible evidence," they met the respective presence obligation (PR RO) or presence requirement (to be eligible for a grant of citizenship). This is a very typical formal decision-making process and standard of proof, employed by bureaucrats, quasi-judicial and administrative judges, and trial judges in provincial and federal courts, including IRCC officers deciding if and when to approve the issuance of a new PR card, a PR TD, or to approve a grant of citizenship.


What Is Oft Overlooked About This Process:

What is oft overlooked about this process is how much difference it makes if and when, and why, IRCC has questions and concerns, and wants more evidence.

While in actual practice for real PRs making applications there can be innumerable incrementally different degrees of need-to-prove the case, there is a huge difference between the no-significant-residency-concerns case, and the need-to-prove-presence case, a big shift when there are questions, let alone challenges, regarding the PR's account of days present in Canada. That is, it makes a big difference if an application crosses the threshold from a no-significant-residency-concerns case to one in which IRCC requires additional proof.

For the vast majority of qualified PRs applying for a PR card or citizenship, it is a no-significant-residency-concerns case -- and for PR card applications, this includes many who are cutting-it-close, who might see some delay in processing their PR card application but no substantial questions or concerns, no residency-case-and-need-to-prove-presence processing. The PR's declaration of physical presence, as presented in the PR's travel history, is accepted and relied on. No residency-case problems. No complicated evidentiary requests or analysis.

So most of what I discuss in these last three posts is mostly of LITTLE or NO IMPORT for the vast majority of PRs.

Leading to what triggers a need-to-prove-presence case. Noting that in a general sense that is simple: something causing IRCC to have substantive questions about the accuracy or completeness of the PR's declarations, not just travel history (though this looms very large), but other information as well, including in particular address and work history.

Leading to Part III . . .

 

[dpenabill]

PART III . . . What Triggers a need-to-prove-presence Case:

Most PRs do not need to wrestle with the nuances of proving actual presence. Most are never asked for any additional evidence of presence. Even many who are asked for additional evidence, are typically only asked to provide a few specific documents, the sort of records most people keep anyway, and there is no problem.

But yeah, sometimes IRCC has concerns and questions that lead to more extensive and intrusive requests for evidence to support the PR's claims about days actually present IN Canada.

So, again, leading to what triggers a need-to-prove-presence case. And, again, in a general sense that is simple: something causing IRCC to have substantive questions about the accuracy or completeness of the PR's declarations, not just travel history (though this looms very large), but other information as well, including in particular address and work history.

Examples:

-- IRCC encounters information the PR was employed by a non-Canadian business and that employment was not disclosed in the application​

-- IRCC encounters information the PR was EITHER outside Canada during a period of time the PR declared presence in Canada, OR information the PR was IN Canada during a period of time the PR declared they were outside Canada​

-- IRCC identifies an address or telephone number or employer which is connected to some other immigration fraud case (it appears these can now be readily cross-referenced in GCMS searches)​

-- IRCC has other reasons to doubt the validity or accuracy of the PR's declarations as to address, work, or travel history​

-- IRCC otherwise is aware of information specifically raising suspicions about the PR's travel history​

This is a sample, not an exhaustive list. Note that discrepancy with CBSA travel history is just ONE example.

Back to John Doe, for illustration . . .

Again, a slightly modified version of the example @Ponga presented above:

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	13
2020/01/01	2020/01/15	Paris, France	Other	Vacation	13
2020/03/15	2021/03/15	Rome, Italy	Other	Caring for ill parent	364

For a PR card application, given that this is a declaration of 1436 days present in Canada, almost twice as many days as needed to comply with the RO, UNLESS it appears this is way off, such as some indication of misrepresentation, some overt fraud, or otherwise extensive and big discrepancies in the travel history, the odds are this application will still be a no-significant-residency-concerns case and there will be NO problems.

For a citizenship application, there tends to be more scrutiny of the applicant and the travel history, and a significantly lower threshold for what will trigger RQ-related non-routine processing potentially challenging the PR-applicant's claims about presence. So, for illustration purposes, consider John Doe's example in the context of a citizenship application.

If John Doe is accurately reporting travel history, IRCC will likely confirm he entered Canada the following days: 2018/01/15, 2020/01/15, and
2021/03/15. Assuming there are no contrary indicators for other information in the application, including address and work history, this is a no-significant-residency-concerns case.

If, however, the CBSA travel history does not show a date of entry for, say, 2021/03/15, but shows a date of entry for, say, 2021/03/16, despite the discrepancy (indicating a one day error in reporting return to Canada) it is still likely there is no concern; still likely to be a no-significant-residency-concerns case.

If, however, the CBSA travel history also shows a date of entry for, say, 2019/07/09, for which there is no corresponding exit date listed, that's likely to trigger questions during the interview. Depending on many other circumstances, and how the PR answers the questions, it could still be a no concerns, shrug, all OK case . . . for example, an answer during the interview, ohhh, yeah, forgot, we went to the states for a week that summer, totally forgot that. (Forum participants, with substantial buffer-margins, have reported forgetting to include trips for up to three weeks without it triggering RQ.)

If there are more such omissions, say there are three trips abroad left out, not just one, how IRCC responds can still vary, depending on how well the PR-applicant's responses during the interview satisfy IRCC there were just a few mistakes and they do not add up to enough to be concerned the PR-applicant was short of days. But of course how this goes will depend on a lot of other factors, including just how many and how big the mistakes were, the examining official's perception of the PR's credibility, and how all this compares to other information.

Consider, for example, not John Doe's example, but another applicant's, one whose reported travel history includes more than three dozen short trips to the U.S., and by mistake the applicant left out a half dozen trips and got the dates wrong for a few others. Still probably NO big deal (as long as, similar to John Doe, there is a good margin over the minimum).

Hard to say . . . very hard to say when mistakes and omissions will trigger something more than some questions during the interview, and more than a RQ-lite request for a few particular documents. Hard to say what will trigger a challenging need-to-provide-substantial-proof-of-presence residency case.

BUT if and when the questions pass that threshold, that is when a PR may be required to more thoroughly provide documentary evidence of actual presence in Canada for enough days, over sufficiently lengthy periods of time and in a pattern sufficient to support the conclusion they have met the balance of probabilities standard for proving actual presence. This is when travel history tends to not carry much weight, not much at all. Proof of presence in between entry and exit dates is what is important. That is, what one might say is actually "real evidence of presence."

One More Example (still using the John Doe travel history):

What if the CBSA travel history shows an entry date of 2020/07/23 . . . that is, a return to Canada date during the period of time John Doe reported being on a trip to Rome, Italy?

When I first began following and researching and analyzing residency cases, well over a decade ago, I overlooked the real significance of a discrepancy like this. Back then (and there is an actual case lurking in the dusty archives) this seemed to be evidence the applicant was IN Canada even more than the applicant had reported. But when CIC (before the name change to IRCC) took note of evidence the applicant was IN Canada during a period of time they reported being outside Canada, rather than inferring the applicant might be entitled to credit for more days in Canada, this information triggered questioning the applicant's information generally, resulting in full blown RQ and then a residency-case hearing before a Citizenship Judge, who ruled that this applicant failed to submit sufficient evidence of actual presence in Canada and denied the citizenship application.

To put that more bluntly: evidence of additional days IN Canada justified questioning presence and ultimately denying citizenship.

So, the real significance of a discrepancy like this is that it indicates the PR is not a reliable reporter, justifying doubts about the PR's reported presence in Canada.

And more broadly it illustrates the role of CBSA travel history . . . as I have so often tried to illuminate . . . the CBSA travel history is just a tool for testing the reliability of the PR's reporting. It is not "real evidence" of presence (except as to those particular dates).

 

[armoured]

PART I . . . CBSA travel history is NOT much evidence of presence:

Remember, the primary source of "real evidence" of presence, and which is what is submitted with a PR card, PR TD, or citizenship application, is the PR's testimonial report that the PR was present IN Canada all the days between a reported date of entry and the next reported date of exit -- the PR's reported travel history is a statement to the effect: "I entered Canada on such-and-such date and was present in Canada until I left on such-and-such date."
...
That is it. The CBAS travel history will ONLY evidence those three days as present in Canada.

At the risk of over-simplifying three long posts with quite a lot of detail and advice, I think these points above can be boiled down to a few simple statements:

- Applicants (PRs) have a tendency to believe that IRCC/CBSA entry-exit data is 'complete', and that therefore, that is 'proof' that the PR was in Canada for all intervening periods.

-IRCC/CBSA do not make this assumption, that the entry/exit records are complete and free of errors - at least not in the sense that matters for an applicant. (No sense arguing with that except to note that historically it has not been true, even if the completeness has improved substantially and perhaps in future will be considered more complete than treated now).

-Those entry-exit records are, basically, prima facie evidence - evidence at first sight, without further examination. (Whether you consider this 'not much evidence' or good basic evidence - probably depends on circumstances.)

-The onus is on the applicant to show residence - primarily by showing their travel history and basic evidence of residing in Canada. (It is hard, ultimately, to 'prove' physical presence). You sign documents saying that info is true.

This is the part I'm sort-of restating above. Applicants believe the entry-exit records are basically 'proof', and IRCC does not. (Whether that's because they believe everyone leaves on furtive night forays across the St Clair river or via St Pierre and Miquelon / Port Edward, OR that their own records are just bad, whatever - the assumption is that they do not fully control all potential border crossings administratively.) Or possibly they just want applicants to take legal responsibility by signing.

-For easy cases, that travel history plus basic evidence (passport with stamps that correspond to travel dates, employment, access to CRA records, whatever) per the application requirements is enough.

-When that documentation is simple and straightforward and well in excess of days required, simple checks by IRCC will likely support and be considered 'sufficient' evidence. Small errors by applicant or inconsistencies with cbsa records (which are known to be imperfect) will probably be ignored. Some of this may be algorithmic (sample tests), some may be 'feel' of the officer looking at the file.

-At some threshold of being to-close to minimum and/or errors in the file leading to credibilty issues and/or some other issue with the file, more analysis and delays happen, and possibly requests for more info/evidence to support the application.

 

[SecularFirst]

At the risk of over-simplifying three long posts with quite a lot of detail and advice, I think these points above can be boiled down to a few simple statements:

- Applicants (PRs) have a tendency to believe that IRCC/CBSA entry-exit data is 'complete', and that therefore, that is 'proof' that the PR was in Canada for all intervening periods.

-IRCC/CBSA do not make this assumption, that the entry/exit records are complete and free of errors - at least not in the sense that matters for an applicant. (No sense arguing with that except to note that historically it has not been true, even if the completeness has improved substantially and perhaps in future will be considered more complete than treated now).

-Those entry-exit records are, basically, prima facie evidence - evidence at first sight, without further examination. (Whether you consider this 'not much evidence' or good basic evidence - probably depends on circumstances.)

-The onus is on the applicant to show residence - primarily by showing their travel history and basic evidence of residing in Canada. (It is hard, ultimately, to 'prove' physical presence). You sign documents saying that info is true.

This is the part I'm sort-of restating above. Applicants believe the entry-exit records are basically 'proof', and IRCC does not. (Whether that's because they believe everyone leaves on furtive night forays across the St Clair river or via St Pierre and Miquelon / Port Edward, OR that their own records are just bad, whatever - the assumption is that they do not fully control all potential border crossings administratively.) Or possibly they just want applicants to take legal responsibility by signing.

-For easy cases, that travel history plus basic evidence (passport with stamps that correspond to travel dates, employment, access to CRA records, whatever) per the application requirements is enough.

-When that documentation is simple and straightforward and well in excess of days required, simple checks by IRCC will likely support and be considered 'sufficient' evidence. Small errors by applicant or inconsistencies with cbsa records (which are known to be imperfect) will probably be ignored. Some of this may be algorithmic (sample tests), some may be 'feel' of the officer looking at the file.

-At some threshold of being to-close to minimum and/or errors in the file leading to credibilty issues and/or some other issue with the file, more analysis and delays happen, and possibly requests for more info/evidence to support the application.

So does that mean that If someone submit the citizenship application at day 1097 of physical presence inside Canada, their application will be delayed and questioned? What if they never stepped out of the country for those 1097 days. I dont get the concept of cutting it close. It’s whether you meet the physical presence or not, why do you need more “buffer days”.
My plan is to spend 1095 days inside and send my citizenship application after couple of days and exit the country. I dont think I am doing anything wrong in it. Why would someone need buffer days? Can they refuse my application on basis of my intent to not live in Canada? Can they delay it so much (over 3 years) so that I would go out of compliance on my PR RO and then refuse? I dont think ircc is in gotcha game.
Is someone has an accurate record of enough days of physical presence, why do they need buffer days? If ircc and cbsa are not accurately tracking and applicant is confident 100% on the accuracy of days spent inside, do they still need buffer?

 

[armoured]

So does that mean that If someone submit the citizenship application at day 1097 of physical presence inside Canada, their application will be delayed and questioned?

I believe I said it raises the risk of it being delayed and analyzed more closely, possibly looking for more evidence.

As to the rest, depends on specifics.

Is someone has an accurate record of enough days of physical presence, why do they need buffer days? If ircc and cbsa are not accurately tracking and applicant is confident 100% on the accuracy of days spent inside, do they still need buffer?

Again, the issue (IMO) is that IRCC/CBSA do not assume that they have a perfect record. And then the question becomes how do you demonstrate, sufficiently, that your record is correct and accurate and truthful. That may be more or less easy depending on circumstances.

I think the rest of your questions are really for the citizenship forum.

 

[prashantgupta8055]

Hi All - I am applying for PR card renewal. However, I need some advise on filling form.

Became PR on 14-Aug-2017 and left Canada on 17-Aug-2017
From17-Aug-2017, I was outside Canada for 2 years and returned on 1-July-2019


I am filling PR card renewal form today and my period to be assessed would be 17-Oct-2017 to 17-Oct-2022.

Now, in this case how should I be filling absences from Canada? As I was outside of Canada from 17-Aug-2017 to 1-July-2019,

- What should I be entering in my absences from Canada? Should it be first day of period to be assessed, even though it was not my actual travel date ?
- As I was outside of Canada for initial period of period to be assessed. does it create any problem ?

Kind help..

Thanks !

 

[Ponga]

-Those entry-exit records are, basically, prima facie evidence - evidence at first sight, without further examination. (Whether you consider this 'not much evidence' or good basic evidence - probably depends on circumstances.)

-The onus is on the applicant to show residence - primarily by showing their travel history and basic evidence of residing in Canada. (It is hard, ultimately, to 'prove' physical presence). You sign documents saying that info is true.

So again...why is it not a requirement for a PR card renewal to include anything from Appendix A, that would be basic evidence?

Without abusing my keyboard with an over abundance of keystrokes (and I type reallllly slow, to boot...wpm = <half of a school zone speed limit), I just don't understand why CBSA records are [apparently] not all that important in proving that a PR, that is affirming the information in the application, including but not limited to travel history, is truthful and accurate. If travel history is not the main factor in approving a PR card renewal, why would IRCC not want to see some of the supporting documentation that has been mentioned in previous posts, here?

Among the best "real evidence" of presence, is objective evidence showing the PR was employed working for a readily verified employer at a readily verified physical location IN Canada on certain dates. For example, documentation that John Doe was working on an assembly line at an auto parts manufacturing facility in Guelph, Ontario, and was usually present working Monday to Friday, over a particular period of time, that's damn good, real evidence of presence in Canada over that period of time.

For a person in Canada that is in fact working on an assembly line, as per your example, that would in fact support their claim of having satisfied their R.O. for renewal. But, what about a person that is working remotely from their home in Canada, for a company or individual abroad? Their Canadian residence is their physical `location' where they work, but they don't `punch in/out' to prove that they were there.

Again, the "real evidence" of presence here is the PR's testimonial report that the PR was present IN Canada all the days between a reported date of entry and the next reported date of exit -- the PR's reported travel history is a statement to the effect: "I entered Canada on such-and-such date and was present in Canada until I left on such-and-such date."

In contrast, the CBSA travel history routinely accessed by IRCC, showing dates the PR entered Canada, is minimal evidence. In particular, in this example, the CBSA travel history accessed by IRCC will be real or direct evidence of just THREE days presence in Canada:
2018/01/152020/01/152021/03/15
That is it. The CBAS travel history will ONLY evidence those three days as present in Canada.

Correct.

If IRCC expands its consideration of travel history information to include CBSA information as to exit dates, in addition to entry dates, the CBSA travel history will then be direct evidence of just SIX days presence in Canada:
2018/01/01 (date of exit, so present in Canada that day)2018/01/15 (date of entry, so present in Canada that day)2020/01/01 (date of exit . . . )2020/01/15 (date of entry . . . )2020/03/15 (date of exit . . . )2021/03/15 (date of entry . . . )
There is NO real or direct evidence in that history to show that John Doe was present in Canada any other days. Real evidence of actual presence for just six days falls rather short, way, way short, of showing the PR was in Canada at least 730 days (let alone 1095 days for a citizenship application). The real importance of this CBSA travel history is whether or not it is consistent with and supports what the PR has reported in the application.

This is where I think IRCC does need to obtain exit data, since it is now available for all travelers (including Canadian and U.S. citizens) leaving Canada (via entry records into another country). Why does a PR need to prove that they haven't left Canada when it would certainly seem to be the border officer's job to know that? They are, in essence, the bouncers that determine who can/can't enter and...on what day they can/cannot enter.

Again, the primary, REAL evidence of presence in Canada, is the PR's reporting which, again, is in effect a testimonial statement they were IN Canada from a reported date of entry to the next reported date of exit.

Yes!


If a PR declares that they last entered Canada more than two years ago (late 2019 for example) and there is no other border activity (exit.entry data that CBSA has, or has access to) since that time, it would seem that if the PR can provide any evidence of being on Canadian soil for that time, that would suffice if IRCC had a reason to believe otherwise. Maybe something as simple as a couple of ATM receipts, doctor visits, oh...and a renewed DL showing the date that the person's DL was renewed (day the photo was taken) that are snapshots of time between the 2019 entry and the date the PR renewal is submitted.


It is but my opinion that IRCC seems to elude to the fact that, unless a PR has been absent from Canada for more than 1095 days, simply consenting to CBSA sharing exit/entry records with them is usually enough to satisfy the R.O. requirement, providing CBSA does not have vastly different data than the PR shows. I suspect that more than a few PRs have opted not to include any supporting evidence, since it is not required for those in Canada that have not been away for >1095 days...assuming that the CBSA `stuff' is all that's really needed in their case.

 

[armoured]

So again...why is it not a requirement for a PR card renewal to include anything from Appendix A, that would be basic evidence?

Because most cases are pretty simple and the extra evidence wouldn't provide much more.

I just don't understand why CBSA records are [apparently] not all that important in proving that a PR, that is affirming the information in the application, including but not limited to travel history, is truthful and accurate.

I think they are pretty important - good prima facie evidence, no contradictory evidence, and a travel history that corresponds is probably enough in a lot of cases.

Why does a PR need to prove that they haven't left Canada when it would certainly seem to be the border officer's job to know that? They are, in essence, the bouncers that determine who can/can't enter and...on what day they can/cannot enter.

For the reasons I laid out: they still think it's quite easy to cross borders without this, and they don't trust their own reecords.

It is but my opinion that IRCC seems to elude to the fact that, unless a PR has been absent from Canada for more than 1095 days, simply consenting to CBSA sharing exit/entry records with them is usually enough to satisfy the R.O. requirement, providing CBSA does not have vastly different data than the PR shows. I suspect that more than a few PRs have opted not to include any supporting evidence, since it is not required for those in Canada that have not been away for >1095 days...assuming that the CBSA `stuff' is all that's really needed in their case.

That simplified case probably does apply to most who actually live here with modest travel over the course of the relevant time period.

But that doesn't mean that the base assumption of what is considered sufficient by IRCC is different than what many PRs seem to think (like yourself), that CBSA records are complete and totally accurate. IRCC seems not to assume that.

Should it be different? Sure. If you wish. So what?

 

[Ponga]

https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/LegislativeSummaries/421C21E


2.1 Collection of Information About Persons and Goods
2.1.1 Persons Who Are Leaving or Who Have Left Canada (Clause 2)

Clause 2 sets out the legislative framework authorizing the CBSA to collect biographic information on any person who is leaving or who has left Canada. Under new section 92(1) of the Customs Act, the biographic information in question is as follows:

• the person’s surname, first and middle names, date of birth, citizenship or nationality and sex;
• the type of travel document that identifies the person, the name of the country or organization that issued the travel document and travel document number; and
• the date, time and place of the person’s departure from Canada and, if the person arrives in the United States, the date, time and place of arrival.

It should be noted that the powers granted by section 92(1) are not mandatory. The CBSA has a discretionary authority; that is, it “may” collect this information if it wishes to do so, but it is not required to do so.

And here's the updated language in the Customs Act [92(1)] (as of 2022-09-22):
Persons Leaving Canada

Information

• 92 (1) In relation to any person who is leaving Canada or who has left Canada, the Agency may collect, from a prescribed source, in the prescribed circumstances, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, the following information:
  • (a) the surname, first name and middle names, the date of birth, the citizenship or nationality and the sex of the person;
  • (b) the type of travel document that identifies the person, the name of the country or organization that issued the travel document and the travel document number; and
  • (c) the date, time and place of the person’s departure from Canada and, if the person arrives in the United States, the date, time and place of their arrival.

And therein lies the rub. CBSA has discretionary authority, even though (for example) a commercial carrier must comply with providing outbound passenger manifests to CBSA. This would mean that they may have it...somewhere. LOL!

 

[Ponga]

To try to explain this I considered using your example in which John Doe reports three trips:

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

But calculations of days are off. And the concurrence of the "To" date for the Paris trip and "From" date for the Rome trip is unrealistic. Remember, "To" is date arriving in Canada; "From" is the date of exit from Canada.

FWIW, I am not the creator of that information. It's taken directly from the Guide, so perhaps IRCC should correct that.

Would the correct way to document John's travels have simply been one single line entry for time in London, followed by one line entry for time in Paris and Rome, showing dates of: From 2020/01/01 To 2021/01/15, combining both destinations in section 'Your locations(s)...'?

 

[dpenabill]

So does that mean that If someone submit the citizenship application at day 1097 of physical presence inside Canada . . .

In the Citizenship part of this site there are several topics responsive to your query, including how-much-buffer-is-prudent; and there is, in particular, extensive discussion regarding leaving Canada after applying (with lots of contrary views expressed); generally the nature of logistical and procedural risks (yes, there are some additional risks) are outlined and discussed there.

FWIW, I am not the creator of that information. It's taken directly from the Guide, so perhaps IRCC should correct that.

It's an example and a poor example. Lists trips in the wrong order in addition to the calculation errors, in addition to the unrealistic scenario of a trip from Paris to Canada followed by another trip beginning that same day, exiting Canada to travel to Rome. It illustrates that caution is warranted, even for authoritative sources like IRCC information, and that any source needs to be read in context and in conjunction with other sources.

In the meantime, the application for a PR card or a PR TD automatically counts the days outside Canada based on the From and To dates, which minimizes the risk of a calculation error. Thus, for example, entering 2018-01-01 in the "From" field, and 2018-01-15 in the "To" field, automatically populates the "Days" column with 13. Why IRCC's guide gets this wrong, it's a bureaucracy and yeah, there are more than a few flaws in IRCC's information. Stuff happens. Always best to cross-reference multiple sources, including multiple instances of what IRCC shares online.

At the risk of over-simplifying three long posts with quite a lot of detail and advice, I think these points above can be boiled down to a few simple statements:

- Applicants (PRs) have a tendency to believe that IRCC/CBSA entry-exit data is 'complete', and that therefore, that is 'proof' that the PR was in Canada for all intervening periods.

-IRCC/CBSA do not make this assumption, that the entry/exit records are complete and free of errors - at least not in the sense that matters for an applicant. (No sense arguing with that except to note that historically it has not been true, even if the completeness has improved substantially and perhaps in future will be considered more complete than treated now).

-Those entry-exit records are, basically, prima facie evidence - evidence at first sight, without further examination. (Whether you consider this 'not much evidence' or good basic evidence - probably depends on circumstances.)

-The onus is on the applicant to show residence - primarily by showing their travel history and basic evidence of residing in Canada. (It is hard, ultimately, to 'prove' physical presence). You sign documents saying that info is true.

My "primer" was a wordy dive into the weeds, NOT for everyone, NOT for most by a big margin, and to a large extent was an effort to more fully illustrate and explain the informational infrastructure underlying a recognition that CBSA travel history does not constitute substantial evidence of presence, let alone proof. Once again highlighting (albeit looks like I buried this) that for IRCC, the CBSA travel history is primarily a tool for testing the reliability of the PR's reporting. It is not "real evidence" of presence except as to particular dates.

That's the short and to the point summary and take-away for all three lengthy parts of the "primer." So, I am going to repeat it: for IRCC, the CBSA travel history is primarily a tool for testing the reliability of the PR's reporting. It is not "real evidence" of presence except as to particular dates.

There is no suggestion, not even a hint, that IRCC considers the CBSA travel history "prima facie" evidence of presence (except, of course, it does show presence for the specific dates of entry and exit).

@Ponga tends to ask "why" questions (which I in turn try to dodge), and perhaps you could add to that list "why isn't CBSA travel history considered prima facie evidence of presence for the time period between entry and exit date records?"

And perhaps this question, or the argument that it should be, could be posed to the decision-maker in a residency case, and raised in an appeal.

And perhaps in the coming years IRCC will revise procedures and practices to rely more on the CBSA history, not just for checking the accuracy and completeness of what the PR has reported, but as substantive evidence supporting an inference of presence for those days following a date of entry. Maybe soon. But, also, maybe not for a long while.

I was not trying to address any of those aspects, but trying to more fully illuminate how CBSA travel history is in practice used, and again, it is used to check the accuracy and completeness of what the PR has reported. In the particular case, in particular circumstances, this or that detail in the CBSA travel history may play a bigger role, but generally the CBSA travel history is, so far, NOT prima facie evidence of presence for any other days than the particular dates of entry and exit. In particular, in respect to the CBSA records there is NO indication they evidence anything other than an entry or exit those respective dates; this is the way it works EVEN if many think it would be appropriate to "believe," "assume," or "infer," an individual was present the days in-between dates of entry and exit in the CBSA travel history.

At the very least, in any of the contexts where the calculation of a PR's physical presence in Canada is a necessary element, such as in a PR Residency Determination, or in a citizenship application, to make out a prima facie case of presence the PR needs to attest to presence specifically identifying the dates of presence (by disclosing all trips outside Canada, specifically referencing the from and to dates) and provide supporting information including address and employment history. In some contexts more is required, such as the additional information including compliance with tax filing obligations required to make a citizenship application, and such as including two pieces of evidence showing an address in Canada when applying for a PR TD, along with copies of all pages of passports used in the relevant period.

I get the argument that the CBSA travel history should mean more, be relied on to show more, at least where there is nothing to indicate otherwise. But there is no sign how things work is headed in that direction anytime soon.

 

[dpenabill]

Addendum: There is not much discussion in the IAD or FC decisions about what constitutes "prima facie" evidence of a PR's physical presence in Canada. But there is one particular example: Godo v Canada, 2016 CanLII 104856, https://canlii.ca/t/h47zh

The PR in that case applied for a PR TD on May 15, 2014. Due to missing pages in her passport, and a gap between her passports, the visa office denied the application. (And apparently did so very quickly . . . after the PR TD was denied she somehow traveled to Canada on May 17, 2014.)

There are some details in that case which, well, are off . . . the PR claimed presence for 2,270 days in the previous five years (note that there are only 1826 days total in the entire five year period prior to her application May 15, 2014; and yeah, forms were different then) . . . and that is the only reference to the number of days she was in Canada except the visa office determination she failed to meet the RO of 730 days.

In regards to CBSA traveler history (in particular records from the Integrated Customs Enforcement System), they were referenced as showing only two entry dates, one early 2007, and the other the May 17, 2014 return to Canada (after the PR TD was denied), and while there was no specific explanation as what consideration or how much weight that information was given, in conjunction with the PR's criminal history in Canada, court records showing she had been arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced on various criminal offences, throughout 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 (IAD hearing was not until 2016), the Minister and the IAD agreed that constituted prima facie evidence of her physical presence in Canada, which in the absence of evidence to the contrary was considered sufficient to show she had "met her residency obligation."

Not the sort of evidence of presence I would recommend acquiring, but it worked. She did not lose her PR status. She did not need to even show up for the IAD hearing.

 

[armoured]

the CBSA travel history is primarily a tool for testing the reliability of the PR's reporting. It is not "real evidence" of presence except as to particular dates.
...
There is no suggestion, not even a hint, that IRCC considers the CBSA travel history "prima facie" evidence of presence (except, of course, it does show presence for the specific dates of entry and exit).

I'm going to have to disagree with you here:
-first, a "tool" for testing reliability of reporting is one component of prima facie evidence. (Reminder that this is exaclty what prima facie evidence means - at first sight, on the face of it; in contrast, no, it is actually very solid evidence - not quite 'proof' perhaps but evidence that would have to be refuted as to presence on the day of arrival)

-As noted repeatedly, historically Canada did not have exit records that could be considered reliable or complete, because Canada has no exit controls. We know however that - more recently - exit 'records' are obtainable/maintained by getting passenger manifest information and entry information to Cda/USA land border crossings. Yes, these records are NOT complete - either going back in time for the full periods relevant to PRs, nor fully complete in the sense of catching all potential exits (legal or otherwise).

-But they do capture a very large number of exits. To the extent that IRCC does check these records when completing citizenship/PR renewal cases, and actually looks at them "as a tool for testing the reliability of the PR's reporting", then it is being used as prima facie evidence of presence in Canada between those dates.

Now, to the the extent this is considered 'sufficient' by an IRCC officer/manager actually approving things - I am not claiming that, and we have no direct evidence. But as you noted: a submitted travel history, that appears to be complete and accurate, and checks precisely against what entry/exit information is available to IRCC from CBSA and other agencies, and basic other info (CRA and employment info etc) checks out, and number of days in Canada is not too close to the minimum - and possibly other factors we do not know about - that accuracy and completeness is likely to contribute to the perceived credibility of the applicant. And yes, that exit/entry info and the (somewhat) simplistic inference that dates between entries and exits are (increasingly) likely to represent days in Canada will have contributed to that impression.

Proof? No. Evidence - prima facie or however one would wish to name it - that can be used as a tool (for benefit of IRCC) to check? Absolutely.

Now I doubt IRCC will ever use this term prima facie evidence (in part because possibly legal implications). But it is all recent enough (the exit information being more complete) that we will not have seen IAD decisions yet that reflect this use of exit data in particular and the inferences that can reasonably be made, that will take some years.

Otherwise though, agree with your overall point that the expectation of PRs that 'well they have this data why don't they just look it up and tell us how many days' is incorrect. It remains their responsibility to present travel records, as complete and accurately as they can.

 

[armoured]

I'm going to have to disagree with you here:
-first, a "tool" for testing reliability of reporting is one component of prima facie evidence.

I should note, of course, that I'm not sure that the distinction of whether entry/exit info is prima facie evidence via inference of presence in Canada or just evidence of presence on that day is a pretty minor distinction.

Still comes down to (IMO): applicants hoping that they can just rely on entry/exit info to solve everything have misplaced expectations.