When we apply we only authorize IRCC to get our information from CBSA and CRA. From there IRCC gets our entry and exit and work history.
We don't provide copies of leases and utility bills. How is IRCC able to verify address history?
Just like the applicant's travel history, IRCC relies on the applicant to completely and accurately provide this information.
Except in some circumstances, which tend to be obvious (like mine, no readily verifiable employer; like applicants with extensive transient histories; among others), the vast majority of qualified applicants who truthfully and completely provided the information requested in the application have no reason to apprehend IRCC will engage in any non-routine probing of them. Some may be questioned a little more thoroughly in a PI (Program Integrity) interview, and little more.
The extent to which IRCC probes other information to verify what the applicant provides depends, largely, on the extent to which something indicates the applicant's information is not complete or in some way not accurate. Of course applicant credibility looms front and center in this approach, and thus internal consistency in the information the applicant provides combined with consistency with other information in the applicant's immigration history helps considerably in making such assessments. Mostly IRCC, at least initially, is just screening the applicant's information looking for any incongruities, inconsistencies, apparent inaccuracies, or circumstances listed in the FRC (File Requirements Checklist) as "
triage criteria," known in previous renditions of operational guidelines as "
reasons to question residency." The latter was available to the public. As of 2012, under the Harper government, this information was made confidential, when it was adopted in the FRC format, and has not been available to the public since then (or even to individuals or their lawyers, not even the Federal Court justices who preside over citizenship cases litigated in appeals). While the only version (a widely shared, leaked version) of the FRC that has been shared in the forums dates back to 2012, most of the criteria itself is more or less easily inferred. So even though the precise criteria, including mostly how the criteria is weighed, has undoubtedly changed some since, the core elements most likely continue. For example, yeah, if IRCC sees information in CBSA travel history that conflicts with the applicant's information, that's a trigger for RQ-related non-routine processing, elevated scrutiny, and depending on the nature and scope of the conflict in information, potentially suspicion or even outright doubt about the applicant's credibility. Otherwise, factors like lengthy periods of unemployment or self-employment, recently issued government identification, incongruities like an applicant whose immediate family lives abroad, probably do not, standing alone, trigger either RQ-related non-routine processing or an investigation into the applicant's physical presence, but are considered in conjunction with other information to determine if there should be a more probing inquiry into the applicant's information, especially as to physical presence.
It warrants noting that even though IRCC could rely more on travel history information available from records captured by CBSA (and many forum participants vehemently advocate it should), so far it appears IRCC primarily uses access to CBSA travel history to see if it indicates any conflicts, inconsistencies, or missing information in what the applicant has submitted. So for the applicant who never left Canada after arriving, all the travel history shows is that it is consistent with the what the applicant has reported, thus supporting the conclusion, yep, it is for sure the applicant was in Canada that day. One day down, 1094 more to go.
Again, the good news is that absent something triggering a cause to question the applicant's information, for the qualified applicant who has completely and accurately given the information requested, the odds are very high there will be no residency investigation and no RQ-related non-routine processing.
In-between, of course IRCC can, and is known to, access a wide range of information sources to cross-check some of the applicant's information. Especially open sources. LinkedIn is one of the sources commonly seen in Federal Court cases (like the doctor whose work history did not include any reported work in the U.S., but whose LinkedIn information reported a period of time employed in the states; yeah, he got investigated and it did not go well). So, obviously, for someone whose work history was mostly working for the RBC Bank, the official assessing the applicant's information can easily look up and cross check the address of the particular location the applicant reports working at. It's not all that complex actually. And yeah, IRCC can use google maps in satellite mode to look at the actual dwelling houses the applicant reported as the addresses where they lived. If its an empty lot or an industrial building, bells ring (not literally of course). Or if it's a big luxury house in a very exclusive neighbourhood, and the applicant's work history is sketchy, populated by sporadic low-paying jobs, might be nothing to cause much concern but, perhaps, worth taking a little more in-depth look. It ain't rocket science. It's more like simple math, looking for things that do not quite add up.
So, at the risk of beating the proverbial dead horse (ouch, what an ugly way to frame it eh), again, the good news is that absent something triggering a cause to question the applicant's information, for the qualified applicant who has completely and accurately given the information requested, the odds are very high there will be no residency investigation and no RQ-related non-routine processing.
So, the more stable and definite the applicant's travel, work, and address history, the more comfortable and confident the applicant can be applying with a smaller buffer. For those with significant transient periods, better to
buffer-up accordingly.
