Nexus Card and Stamps

[Stef.]

Just out of curiosity: I travel regularly on my Nexus card, particularly when I enter Canada. Therefore, I do not get stamps in my passport.

I assume they can check my absences online? When it comes to the interview, I assume there are no issues?

Any thoughts?
Stef.

 

[links18]

Don't assume anything. Do you always use Nexus or just frequently? It all depends on how the officer runs the entry/exit report as to what comes back. Most of the time they are complete, but not always and sometimes reports vary for the same person depending on how they were run.

 

[spyfy]

I don't even have a nexus card but most times I cross the border back into Canada (no matter if air or land) they don't stamp my passport anymore. particularly when you use the automated border gates at the airport there is no opportunity for them to stamp it.

However as long as they electronically read any of your travel documents, your entry into Canada is recorded. Same for your entry into the US which adds to your exit record from Canada (but only at the land border).

So technically even without stamps your electronic record should be complete. The emphasis is on "should". As the previous commenter pointed out they are sometimes missing entries.

If you want to be extra sure, ask for your ATIP data and you get the full report.

 

[HamiltonApplicant]

Just out of curiosity: I travel regularly on my Nexus card, particularly when I enter Canada. Therefore, I do not get stamps in my passport.

I assume they can check my absences online? When it comes to the interview, I assume there are no issues?

Any thoughts?
Stef.

Yes, CIC can pull records from CBSA database to check your absences. Unfortunately, the records are not 100% reliable! There was some discrepancy between the physical presence calculation I submitted and what they pulled out of CBSA database.

All you can do is to use the online physical presence calculation tool and provide accurate information! I hope you recorded all your absences accurately....

 

[dpenabill]

Reminder: regardless what records IRCC has access to, it is the applicant's responsibility to accurately report all dates that the PR exited and entered Canada.

IRCC utilizes access to records like CBSA travel history primarily for the purpose of verifying what the applicant reports. Significant discrepancies, and especially any omissions, can be problematic. The impact can range from non-routine processing, RQ, and even up to a rejection of the application for citizenship in some cases.

IRCC will make no effort to fill in the gaps, other than to the extent that would show the applicant has failed to accurately report all travel or has otherwise failed to meet the burden of proving presence. In this regard, make no mistake: if IRCC finds information that might be construed to indicate an applicant was in Canada more than what the applicant reported (that is, if IRCC comes across information, for example, that indicates the applicant was in Canada during a time the applicant reported being outside Canada) this will HURT the applicant's case. It is a discrepancy. It indicates the applicant's account cannot be relied upon to be complete and accurate.

In other words, no PR should look to government records to make their case for them. The applicant must make his or her case for himself, herself.

PRs need to keep perfect records of their international travel. Anything less risks having problems.

 

[spyfy]

In other words, no PR should look to government records to make their case for them. The applicant must make his or her case for himself, herself.

Of course you should also keep track yourself. However even though I keep track myself I still ordered my ATIP data just to check if maybe those records include a trip that I missed in my own list.

 

[Stef.]

I did put every exit of the country in to the best of my knowledge. I was just wondering how this works. Thanks for your replies.

 

[Whocares]

Of course you should also keep track yourself. However even though I keep track myself I still ordered my ATIP data just to check if maybe those records include a trip that I missed in my own list.

I applied for PR card renewal last week so is it ok if I apply for it now?. What documents do I need to scan and attach in the online request? It is not clear. I already wrote all the information needed in the Detail Request Box.

Thanks

 

[spyfy]

I applied for PR card renewal last week so is it ok if I apply for it now?. What documents do I need to scan and attach in the online request? It is not clear. I already wrote all the information needed in the Detail Request Box.

Thanks

It doesn't matter when and if your travel document(s) expired. Just make sure that you list ALL travel documents you ever used to enter Canada, no matter if they are passports, nexus cards, PR cards or whatever. And no matter if they are expired or not. This ATIP request has nothing to do with IRCC applications at all. You merely ask for info out of their database.

Yes, the form for the ATIP request is not super clear. But no worries just fill out whatever you think is appropriate and they'll figure it out. There is a human at the other end. And it's not like an IRCC application where they scrutinize everything. You are really just asking the government what data they have about you.

 

[Natan]

It doesn't matter when and if your travel document(s) expired. Just make sure that you list ALL travel documents you ever used to enter Canada, no matter if they are passports, nexus cards, PR cards or whatever...

Correction: All travel documents that you have possessed since you first "Landed" in Canada, whether they are valid or expired, whether you used them to enter Canada or not.

 

[spyfy]

Correction: All travel documents that you have possessed since you first "Landed" in Canada, whether they are valid or expired, whether you used them to enter Canada or not.

I respectfully disagree with both corrections:

There is no point in providing info on travel documents that you haven't used to enter Canada. They'll have no record of it. For example, I have a European ID card that can be used to enter any EU country but can't be used to enter Canada. I didn't provide that info in my ATIP request and it would be pretty pointless to do so.

You should also not restrict to the documents since your "Landing" as a PR. My ATIP also included all info of crossings before I was a PR (when I came to Canada either as a visitor or on a temporary resident visa). So clearly I want to have the info on that, too. Soon, if C-6 passes, time spent in Canada before becoming a PR will be relevant again and therefore that info is important.

 

[Natan]

I respectfully disagree with both corrections:

There is no point in providing info on travel documents that you haven't used to enter Canada. They'll have no record of it. For example, I have a European ID card that can be used to enter any EU country but can't be used to enter Canada. I didn't provide that info in my ATIP request and it would be pretty pointless to do so.

You should also not restrict to the documents since your "Landing" as a PR. My ATIP also included all info of crossings before I was a PR (when I came to Canada either as a visitor or on a temporary resident visa). So clearly I want to have the info on that, too. Soon, if C-6 passes, time spent in Canada before becoming a PR will be relevant again and therefore that info is important.

At the time of my citizenship interview, I had six travel documents (including an expired passport), only three of which could be used to enter Canada. I only presented the three travel documents I had used to travel to/from Canada during my citizenship interview, as instructed by my attorney. The woman interviewing me specifically asked if I had more passports (she was expecting me to have more based on my application), which I then gave her. She was very clear that she needed to examine and copy ALL travel documents that I had possessed since becoming a permanent resident, whether valid or expired. (The day I landed was my first day in Canada for over a quarter century, so I was not required to present travel documents that expired before I landed.)

My advice is to arrive for the citizenship interview with all travel documents that you possessed for the relevant period, whether valid for travel to Canada or not.

 

[dpenabill]

I respectfully disagree with both corrections:

There is no point in providing info on travel documents that you haven't used to enter Canada.

As I suspected, Natan was referring to travel documents which need to be included with a citizenship application (and then presented at the interview), rather than in making unnecessary ATIP requests looking for information the PR should already have.

And for now that would indeed be any and all travel documents which the PR has possessed within the relevant time period, which is since landing or during the previous six years (if landing was more than six years prior to making the application), including expired or cancelled travel documents (if they could have been, in any way, used during the relevant time period). And whether or not the individual used the travel document. The required submission is for any travel document the applicant might have been able to use, not just those the applicant did use, and thus it is irrelevant whether the travel document was used to enter Canada or not.

The OP's query, after all, is whether the absence of stamps in the passport might cause concerns during the documents-interview check.

Note, otherwise, that beyond wasting taxpayer money, obtaining travel history or records of exits and entries from the government can NOT be relied upon to be complete. They are almost always accurate, as to those border events identified, but not necessarily complete.

While the government records are increasingly complete, again they cannot be relied upon to be complete. There is NO reliable substitute for PRs keeping complete, contemporaneous records of all international travel, including day trips to the U.S. There is only one person in the world who can reliably record each and every trip a person makes abroad, and that is the person himself or herself. He or she was there, in person, each and every time.

And it is easy to guess who pays the price for any discrepancies or omissions in the travel declaration. No matter what sources the applicant used to populate the exit and entry dates. No matter what excuses might be available. The applicant pays the price for errors and omissions.

Thus, for example, all citizenship applicants should be aware that if they obtain the CBSA travel history, any other Canadian records of entry to or exit from Canada, and perhaps all U.S. records of entry into the U.S. as well, just because a trip does not show up in those records it would be a mistake, indeed a misrepresentation, to not declare the trip.

Remember, IRCC can research and investigate a wide range of sources (and on more than a few occasions has), looking for any information which might controvert an applicant's declarations. Among the more noteworthy examples (from official decisions regarding actual cases) is a case in which CIC (before the change to IRCC) considered a conference flyer which indicated the applicant was among presenters at a conference in Switzerland during a time the applicant declared he was in Canada. Did not go well (it was not the only discrepancy in that individual's case; nothing in the decision indicated how CIC obtained the conference flyer). In another case, CIC relied on LinkedIn account information showing the applicant to be employed abroad during a time the applicant declared to be in Canada -- in this case, the name on the LinkedIn account was not the applicant's name, but was a name CIC had determined the applicant sometimes used (note, there are several cases in which CIC/IRCC has researched and used LinkedIn account information against applicants). And of course, documentation submitted by the applicant can be scrutinized for inconsistencies (more than a few cases have focused on location of credit card transactions, including transactions apparently in Canada when the applicant reported being abroad, and the converse), and remember inconsistencies which potentially indicate presence in Canada during a period the applicant reported being outside can also be used against the applicant, despite the fact that such information superficially indicates additional presence in Canada (among Federal Court decisions illustrating this was the case where an applicant submitted school attendance records for her children, which included dates of attendance, in Canada, during a period the applicant said she and her children were abroad . . . she was denied citizenship, and this was big factor against her).

(to be continued)

 

[dpenabill]

Why this is relevant to the OP's query (or why this stuff matters):

Just out of curiosity: I travel regularly on my Nexus card, particularly when I enter Canada. Therefore, I do not get stamps in my passport.

I assume they can check my absences online? When it comes to the interview, I assume there are no issues?

Any thoughts?
Stef.

Foremost, this situation should NOT pose any issues for the OP (Stef.) so long as, of course, the OP accurately and completely declared all dates of travel (an isolated, minor error, even the omission of a very brief U.S. trip, should not cause problems, but obviously the risk of problems escalates the bigger the error).

Apart from that, however, since most Nexus card users are at least regular if not frequent travelers across the border, obviously the nature and extent of ties in the U.S. can be a consideration which could lead to questions or, depending on the particular circumstances, to concerns.

But assuming there is no issue there, that for example it is not as if the OP is employed in the U.S. or the OP's immediate family is living in the U.S. (for example, a citizenship applicant whose spouse is living and working in the U.S. is more likely to encounter further probing and elevated scrutiny, since it is reasonable to infer spouses at least spend a lot of time together in the same place), the mere fact that the OP's passport does not have stamps for some or even many, or even all the times the OP entered Canada (since becoming a PR), should not cause concerns let alone problems.



Background for queries like this:

There are two salient aspects to this query, even though only one is explicitly raised.

Missing stamps:

The explicit aspect has to do with whether or not there is any impact during the documents-check interview due to the absence of stamps reflecting entries into Canada. Years ago this was a far greater concern, and indeed forums like this often had numerous topics addressing the oft-called missing stamps issue.

For many years now, for many PRs the border crossing routine has not resulted in stamping PR passports upon entry, and more recently this appears to apply to most PRs most of the time. So the absence of a stamp often, if not usually, does not indicate there was no entry on a date the applicant declares he or she entered Canada.

It was not always so, and particularly not for PRs traveling on a non-visa exempt passport. And indeed, if the CIC interviewer (this was well before the change to IRCC) could not correlate an entry date to a stamp in the passport, that appears to have often led to at least some questions about the so-called missing stamp.

Generally there does not appear to be much if any missing stamp issue these days. Thus the OP should have no cause to worry about this, at least not from this angle (recognizing again that the nature and scope of ties indicated by the travel, depending on the particular circumstances in the individual case, could lead to questions or concerns). There are exceptions. These include missing stamps for other countries, particularly those who the interviewer might expect to be in the passport, given knowledge about that country's standard practices; such missing stamps could raise the question whether, perhaps, the applicant had been using a different Travel Document, particularly one not disclosed in the documents submitted with the application. The latter is a big concern, since it is one of the more common ways individuals have, historically, been able to conceal or mask time abroad.

Note: there was a period of time during the Harper-era crackdown on those suspected of seeking a passport-of-convenience or otherwise perceived to have applied-on-the-way-to-the-airport, when it appeared some applicants perceived to be of this sort ran into protracted residency case processing which included exaggerated challenges based on so-called missing-stamps. In a somewhat different context, in another topic, links18 and I recently discussed the prospect that excuses or a pretext might be employed to justify negative decision-making, and I should admit (reminded by revisiting the missing-stamps issues) that in this particular context, in that particular period of time, there were indeed cases in which CIC's challenges based on so-called missing-stamps were, at the least, not well-founded (as to the significance of the so-called missing stamp) and perhaps were examples of a pretext. Since such challenges were referenced in many anecdotal reports, not just the official Federal Court decisions, it appears this was commonly done at the citizenship officer level and not just by those advocating the Minister's case in appeals (in the other discussion related to this, I strongly suggested that the more draconian challenges during the Harper-era were top-down driven).

Nonetheless, even among the forum anecdotal reports, and emphatically so for those cases reflected in appeal decisions, there was obvious cause for questioning residency in those cases (I refer to "residency" since those were all 3/4 residency rule applications), with the perception of having applied-on-the-way-to-the-airport looming as just part of what raised suspicions. And, as already noted here, currently there is little or no indication that IRCC has concerns about or challenges the absence of passport stamps reflecting dates of entry into Canada, since it is so common for passports to not be stamped.

(to be continued)

 

[dpenabill]

(last part)

Travel declarations; totality and accuracy:

The other aspect of the OP's query is unstated but looming, as evidenced by some of the subsequent comments, and that has to do with IRCC verifying that the applicant's travel declarations are complete AND accurate. I have addressed this aspect in part already, emphasizing how important it is for applicants to keep records and accurately report their travel history.

And indeed, what prospective applicants need to know is that it is important to keep good travel records, complete and contemporaneous records, so that they can, for sure, completely AND accurately report all dates of travel when they apply for citizenship (and if need be, prior to becoming a citizen, when applying for a new PR card).

Sure, scores and scores of people have made errors of varying degrees and still had a successful application resulting in taking the oath and becoming a citizen. In the official cases, there are success stories even for some who failed to declare absences during which they were abroad for weeks, even months. Make no mistake, however, these are reported decisions because those cases became residency/presence cases, involving RQ and all the inconvenience that imposes, not the least of which is the profound intrusion into the applicant's privacy. Those applicants encountered lengthy delays, a hearing with a Citizenship Judge, and then an appeal.

But yes, there is a far larger number of applicants who made substantial errors, including significant omissions, and were eventually granted citizenship without a CJ hearing. Many if not most (this is an extrapolation) nonetheless encountered some degree of non-routine processing and a longer timeline. At the very least, they all had a substantially elevated risk of non-routine and delayed processing, skeptical scrutiny, and delays.


Leading to the rub (as some say the Bard would say): the majority of applicants encounter no travel date related issues. This is because they accurately and completely report all travel dates, and they properly present all relevant Travel Documents. The other information in their application is consistent with this since, after all, the dates are complete and accurate, and thus consistent with the rest of the applicant's information.

These days it appears likely that someone in the processing sequence compares the reported travel dates to the applicant's CBSA travel history. If there is consistency, all is well, and for almost all who reported travel dates completely and accurately, there will be consistency.

This is the scenario in which (barring some incongruity or risk indicator in some other aspect of the application or the applicant's history) IRCC will usually simply infer the applicant was present in Canada from the last reported date of entry to the next reported date of exit. Many applicants take this inference for granted. But it is a critical one. It is NOT an automatic or necessary one, even though it is the default.

The calculations made by the online presence calculator depend on this inference; the inference is, in effect, built into the calculator. It is the default. But that is NO guarantee that IRCC will give the applicant the benefit of this inference.

In particular, residency and presence cases are mostly about, first, whether IRCC can rely on the applicant's declarations to be complete and accurate, and secondly whether there is a possibility the applicant traveled outside Canada in-between a reported entry date and the next reported exit date. There is more to it than that, particularly for cases that go the route of being adjudicated, but those are the dominant elements of a residency or presence case.

All of which means that applicants who are aiming for smooth sailing without delay, trying to minimize their risk of problems, should make a concerted effort to keep a complete and accurate record of all trips across the border. There is no good substitute for doing this. And those who do this will rarely have any problems in the process related to their travel history.