This post is in response to a mix of queries which are not precisely about referrals to Secondary Review. It warrants remembering that not all non-routine PR card application processing is Secondary Review, and on the other hand, that SR is not necessarily focused on the Residency Determination (assessment of compliance with the PR Residency Obligation).
Overall: no need to overthink things!
For purposes of responding to items in the application, and for responding to requests for additional documentation or information, there is no need to overthink things. Use common sense. Respond to the item or request in the way that, to your best grasp and understanding, is responsive to what is being asked, being honest and forthright, trying to genuinely answer what is asked with your best understanding of what a complete and accurate answer is for you in your circumstances.
Sure, sometimes explanations are called for. But it is usually better to keep the explanations to a minimum unless the situation truly demands an explanation.
Keep it simple. As simple as you can. And direct. To the point.
IRCC is mostly looking for the information itself. Not explanations for the information. Not reasons or qualifying commentary.
IRCC will figure things out. Insinuations to the contrary are grossly exaggerated in forum discussions. Sure, IRCC is a bureaucracy and it will get things wrong sometimes . . . but they tend to get things wrong a lot more often when things are complex, convoluted, subject to explanation.
As long as what you submit is truthful, not evasive, not misleading or deceitful, IRCC will assess and apply the rules appropriately (with rare exceptions). If your submission is not precisely what IRCC was looking for, IRCC will still sort it out. The key is that the raw information is there, and is accurate (truthful).
Moreover, NO NEED TO WORRY about the big thing, that is, about losing PR status so long as you are IN CANADA, staying in Canada and are not a lot short of being in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation and have not made any significant material misrepresentations (to CIC, IRCC, or CBSA, ever).
Worst case scenario for the PR settled and living in Canada, even one who has really been cutting-it-close: a delay in getting the PR card.
Not so simple arises if we leave our "home" as such, as in we terminate the lease or sell it or simply move out, and do not promptly establish ourselves in another address which becomes "home."
Not so simple arises if we maintain a "home" but we spend so much time elsewhere, someone might say we are actually living at that elsewhere.
As noted, no need to overthink these things. And no advantage in overplaying the keeping a "home" in Canada card either. IRCC figures out more than many give them credit.
Just be sure to be honest, forthcoming, and between items 19 and 21 honestly let IRCC know where you were when.
Personally I tend to go with address history by the month . . . so if I was staying elsewhere a month or more, that is my address for that month (or however long). If I was boarding somewhere for more than a month but keeping my "home" where my longterm residential address is (a genuine one, not that of a family member or friend), I might add a brief explanation about boarding at such and such an address, from this date to that date, just to be upfront that I was away from home for that lengthy period of time.
Lots and lots of people fudge the home address stuff. NOT a good idea.
In the past it probably did help. For some, it may still help, some, just some. For most, NO, IRCC sorts out the information, enough of it anyway, and those fudging home address information to make it look like they are in Canada more, or have stronger ties to Canada, no, it looks like what it is, like store fronts in a bad American 50s western movie.
In the meantime . . .
"I remember reading as address history to include places where we have been for at least 6 months"
I am not sure what this is about. But to be clear, what IRCC wants to know is where a person was actually living. There is no technical duration of minimum days in this. No need to report every hotel one stayed at. But look at the items in the application, they go from specific day to specific day (YYYY-MM-DD). That's a clue.
Honestly let IRCC know where you were when.
Number of days outside Canada in travel history:
Count the days in-between. Days partially in Canada (date of exit, and date of return) count as in Canada.
So, travel history From date 2-Aug-2012 and TO date 3-Aug-12 gives zero days outside Canada.
Remember: dates of entry into other countries, as stamped in the passport, are NOT a record of date the PR exited Canada. Remember to report actual date of exit (and that means date flight scheduled to depart even if the plane sat on the tarmac well past midnight before leaving).
So, again, no need to overthink these things. Ultimately IRCC is looking to see whether this information verifies you were abroad when you reported your were abroad, and that it does not otherwise indicate being abroad some time when you reported you were in Canada.
Sure, it is OK to briefly provide some clarification, such as that exit on such a date was in route to (name actual destination). But no need to get bogged down in the weeds about these things . . . key is that the information is consistent with your reporting being abroad during that time.
Main thing is to be responsive to what IRCC actually requested.
See my long, long responses to xtreme75 above (in previous posts).
There is a good chance this is merely random quality control screening.
It could be a minimal level inquiry for a more formal Residency Determination.
To what extent you might have cause to worry depends on whether you otherwise have reason to worry . . . and of course you should know whether you have reason to worry.
My impression is that what is quoted is either not complete or precisely accurate. No matter. If you can discern that the request is specifically for a full copy of all passports and other travel documents, and is not a request for "proof of your residency in Canada for the period 2012-02-17 TO 2017-02-22" in addition to that, this is probably no big deal, but is indeed just (1) to verify you are in Canada (so you respond to it promptly), and (2) to scrutinize your passport pages looking for anything inconsistent with what you reported in the application.
If a fair reading of the correspondence is otherwise, that they are indeed asking you for additional "proof of your residency in Canada for the period 2012-02-17 TO 2017-02-22" (in addition to your passport and other travel documents), that would indicate a more robust Residency Determination request . . . albeit this usually comes in a form asking for specific information and particular documents.
In any event, if it is the former (which seems more likely), no big deal so long as you submit the full copies of passport/travel documents, and those have nothing in them which will contradict what you have reported.
Non-routine but relatively normal (one might key). Just be sure to submit what is requested promptly.
Overall: no need to overthink things!
For purposes of responding to items in the application, and for responding to requests for additional documentation or information, there is no need to overthink things. Use common sense. Respond to the item or request in the way that, to your best grasp and understanding, is responsive to what is being asked, being honest and forthright, trying to genuinely answer what is asked with your best understanding of what a complete and accurate answer is for you in your circumstances.
Sure, sometimes explanations are called for. But it is usually better to keep the explanations to a minimum unless the situation truly demands an explanation.
Keep it simple. As simple as you can. And direct. To the point.
IRCC is mostly looking for the information itself. Not explanations for the information. Not reasons or qualifying commentary.
IRCC will figure things out. Insinuations to the contrary are grossly exaggerated in forum discussions. Sure, IRCC is a bureaucracy and it will get things wrong sometimes . . . but they tend to get things wrong a lot more often when things are complex, convoluted, subject to explanation.
As long as what you submit is truthful, not evasive, not misleading or deceitful, IRCC will assess and apply the rules appropriately (with rare exceptions). If your submission is not precisely what IRCC was looking for, IRCC will still sort it out. The key is that the raw information is there, and is accurate (truthful).
Moreover, NO NEED TO WORRY about the big thing, that is, about losing PR status so long as you are IN CANADA, staying in Canada and are not a lot short of being in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation and have not made any significant material misrepresentations (to CIC, IRCC, or CBSA, ever).
Worst case scenario for the PR settled and living in Canada, even one who has really been cutting-it-close: a delay in getting the PR card.
Again, keep it simple . . . unless there really is something not so simple about your situation. Most of us have a "home," at least a primary home (even if, for example, one is in a position to have secondary addresses), and that is our address. Even when we are traveling. A resident of Toronto continues to be a resident of Toronto even when he is spending a week or two in Montreal . . . or in Paris.mats said:
Not so simple arises if we leave our "home" as such, as in we terminate the lease or sell it or simply move out, and do not promptly establish ourselves in another address which becomes "home."
Not so simple arises if we maintain a "home" but we spend so much time elsewhere, someone might say we are actually living at that elsewhere.
As noted, no need to overthink these things. And no advantage in overplaying the keeping a "home" in Canada card either. IRCC figures out more than many give them credit.
Just be sure to be honest, forthcoming, and between items 19 and 21 honestly let IRCC know where you were when.
Personally I tend to go with address history by the month . . . so if I was staying elsewhere a month or more, that is my address for that month (or however long). If I was boarding somewhere for more than a month but keeping my "home" where my longterm residential address is (a genuine one, not that of a family member or friend), I might add a brief explanation about boarding at such and such an address, from this date to that date, just to be upfront that I was away from home for that lengthy period of time.
Lots and lots of people fudge the home address stuff. NOT a good idea.
In the past it probably did help. For some, it may still help, some, just some. For most, NO, IRCC sorts out the information, enough of it anyway, and those fudging home address information to make it look like they are in Canada more, or have stronger ties to Canada, no, it looks like what it is, like store fronts in a bad American 50s western movie.
In the meantime . . .
"I remember reading as address history to include places where we have been for at least 6 months"
I am not sure what this is about. But to be clear, what IRCC wants to know is where a person was actually living. There is no technical duration of minimum days in this. No need to report every hotel one stayed at. But look at the items in the application, they go from specific day to specific day (YYYY-MM-DD). That's a clue.
Honestly let IRCC know where you were when.
Number of days outside Canada in travel history:
Count the days in-between. Days partially in Canada (date of exit, and date of return) count as in Canada.
So, travel history From date 2-Aug-2012 and TO date 3-Aug-12 gives zero days outside Canada.
Remember: dates of entry into other countries, as stamped in the passport, are NOT a record of date the PR exited Canada. Remember to report actual date of exit (and that means date flight scheduled to depart even if the plane sat on the tarmac well past midnight before leaving).
Remember, IRCC is mostly trying to verify information, to identify whether and to what extent the PR's account can be relied upon to be complete and accurate.xtreme75 said:
So, again, no need to overthink these things. Ultimately IRCC is looking to see whether this information verifies you were abroad when you reported your were abroad, and that it does not otherwise indicate being abroad some time when you reported you were in Canada.
Sure, it is OK to briefly provide some clarification, such as that exit on such a date was in route to (name actual destination). But no need to get bogged down in the weeds about these things . . . key is that the information is consistent with your reporting being abroad during that time.
Main thing is to be responsive to what IRCC actually requested.
"Normal?" It is not routine. But even that, in itself, does not mean much.bpjeee said:
See my long, long responses to xtreme75 above (in previous posts).
There is a good chance this is merely random quality control screening.
It could be a minimal level inquiry for a more formal Residency Determination.
To what extent you might have cause to worry depends on whether you otherwise have reason to worry . . . and of course you should know whether you have reason to worry.
My impression is that what is quoted is either not complete or precisely accurate. No matter. If you can discern that the request is specifically for a full copy of all passports and other travel documents, and is not a request for "proof of your residency in Canada for the period 2012-02-17 TO 2017-02-22" in addition to that, this is probably no big deal, but is indeed just (1) to verify you are in Canada (so you respond to it promptly), and (2) to scrutinize your passport pages looking for anything inconsistent with what you reported in the application.
If a fair reading of the correspondence is otherwise, that they are indeed asking you for additional "proof of your residency in Canada for the period 2012-02-17 TO 2017-02-22" (in addition to your passport and other travel documents), that would indicate a more robust Residency Determination request . . . albeit this usually comes in a form asking for specific information and particular documents.
In any event, if it is the former (which seems more likely), no big deal so long as you submit the full copies of passport/travel documents, and those have nothing in them which will contradict what you have reported.
Non-routine but relatively normal (one might key). Just be sure to submit what is requested promptly.
