Email from CIC that PR card renewal needs secondary review
- Thread starter Pual Newman
- Start date
Hello,
For the entry/exit report from other countries. Do they usually put the destination of the exit or entry from Canada or if you travel through a transient airport they put that country as travel destination.
Because it will cause a lot of confusion if a the entry/exit report which issued from other country mention the transient airport country as a destination.
for example if you travel from Toronto to Moscow and took two flights one from Toronto to Paris and one from Paris to Moscow. when you ask for entry/exit report from Russia and they issued one with the same date of your flight but the destination of arrival is from Paris not Canada.
does this cause any problem when you submit this report.
any experience with that.
tahnks
For the entry/exit report from other countries. Do they usually put the destination of the exit or entry from Canada or if you travel through a transient airport they put that country as travel destination.
Because it will cause a lot of confusion if a the entry/exit report which issued from other country mention the transient airport country as a destination.
for example if you travel from Toronto to Moscow and took two flights one from Toronto to Paris and one from Paris to Moscow. when you ask for entry/exit report from Russia and they issued one with the same date of your flight but the destination of arrival is from Paris not Canada.
does this cause any problem when you submit this report.
any experience with that.
tahnks
khalid h
Hero Member
- Jan 21, 2010
- 33
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Islamabad.....UK
- NOC Code......
- 7213
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 09 July 09
- Doc's Request.
- 11 Sep 09
- Nomination.....
- 05 Jan 2010
- AOR Received.
- 20th Jan 2010
- IELTS Request
- 7 sent with docs
- File Transfer...
- 30th June 2010
- Med's Request
- 1st May 2012
- Med's Done....
- 21st May 2012
- Interview........
- No please
- Passport Req..
- PPR1-18th July, PPR2- 17th August
- VISA ISSUED...
- 5th Sept 2012
- LANDED..........
- 17th October 2012 inshAllah
Hi Travel Dream
How did you get the Russian exit/entry record ? I have travelled sevaral times to Russia and I am not a Russian National. Any advise how can I get this.
I have not applied for PR card renewal but thinking to attach the record if possible from first application to avoid delays.
Thanks
They asked for exit/entry record and all pages of passport and whatever evidence i have to support my residency. I have all documents except the exit entry record which it takes time and they ask for 30 days only to submit the documents.
My question: is the exit /entry report shows the final destination of flight or it shows the transit airport country as a destination.
Thanks
Thanks
In general:
IRCC processing agents tend to be familiar with the kind of documents IRCC requests from clients. And they tend to be far, far more competent in appropriately weighing the information than many in forums like this give them credit.
Yes, IAD and FC decisions sometimes reflect instances in which IRCC has made an unwarranted conclusion from this or that information. Stuff Happens. But what usually happens, what actually happens by a big margin, is that IRCC gets it right.
The vast majority of IRCC clients (all of us immigrants) have little or no reason to worry that IRCC will jump to an erroneous conclusion based on documents obtained in the course of processing a PRC or PR TD or citizenship application.
Sure, I realize that there are more than a few discontent participants in this forum who are inclined to urge or argue otherwise. And sure, for PRs who are in a cutting-it-close situation, the harsh light of elevated scrutiny can seem to unfairly tip the scales against them. But, the truth is that IRCC usually gets it right, and to the extent that IRCC does not get it precisely right, those outcomes tend to favour clients more than going against clients.
In particular, the details included in a record-of-movement vary from country to country.
Thus, in the abstract, without reference to a specific country, there is no answer for this question.
And since such things are always subject to change, anecdotal information in this regard will not be a reliable indicator of what will be shown in another person's record-of-movement from even the same country.
Basically, the way to know what is in a record-of-movement from a particular country is to actually obtain one.
Reminder: For all documents submitted to IRCC, any information which is not in one of the official languages must be properly translated.
Also note: if IRCC requests a record-of-movement, it would be misrepresentation by omission to withhold a record-of-movement one has obtained. It would be an overt misrepresentation to report to IRCC one cannot obtain a record-of-movement if one can be obtained, let alone if one has been obtained. While jail time would be unusual, possible but unusual, the other consequences for misrepresentation should be severe enough to discourage any temptation to play games in this regard.
How will IRCC interpret the record-of-movement? What inferences or conclusions might IRCC reach based on such records?
IRCC will not interpret the information. A record-of-movement should consist of factual details and thus need no interpretation.
IRCC will compare those factual details with facts reported by the PR. No rocket science necessary to figure out that this is mostly to look for any information which contradicts or is otherwise inconsistent with information the PR has reported.
Beyond that, in terms of how IRCC processing agents analyze or think about the data or information, it is largely impossible for those of us in the public to know that.
That said, it is relatively easy to discern probable highlights. In particular, IRCC will almost certainly focus on any information or data which indicates the PR was outside Canada on a date the PR reported being in Canada.
Example: PR reported being in Canada 1 April, 2015 to November 30, 2015, and there is data in the record-of-movement indicating travel abroad between those dates. DUH! No advanced equations in astro-physics necessary to identify the inconsistency.
Thus, for example, if the record-of-movement from country XYZ shows an exit from that country April 21, 2015, that would be contrary to the PR's report of presence 1 April, 2015 to November 30, 2015, and thus would discredit the PR's account of presence during that time period. If destination information is included in the record-of-movement that is of little or no import. The PR was clearly abroad during a period of time the PR reported being in Canada.
What inferences will IRCC make based on this example?
Again, we cannot really know the mental machinations of an IRCC processing agent. But also again, based on what we do know and understand about how IRCC has approached others when there are such discrepancies, it is likely that IRCC will at least doubt ALL the PR's reported time in Canada except to time that is affirmatively documented by objective evidence. That is, the PR's credibility is compromised, so IRCC will not rely on what the PR reports unless, and then only to the extent, reported facts are supported by separate evidence deemed credible.
From what can be discerned based on published IAD and FC decisions, IRCC rarely recalculates or reconstructs presence-calculations based on information it obtains during processing, except to the extent that doing so might definitively show the PR (including citizenship applicants) did not meet a presence requirement. More often, much more often, IRCC merely concludes that if a PR's report is materially inconsistent with information IRCC has obtained, the PR's report of dates present fails to meet the requisite burden of proving presence for the prescribed period of time, again unless the PR submits sufficient objective evidence to otherwise prove presence as required.
Big versus little discrepancies.
Contrary to the protests of some, IRCC tends to be rather liberal if not lenient when it assesses cases in which some discrepancies have been identified. Minor errors are almost always deemed minor mistakes.
Many, many PRs have failed to report a whole week of absence, and many even longer absences, without IRCC so much as hinting there was misrepresentation, even though obviously ordinary reason suggests such lapses are at least in the realm of should-have-known (the "forgot" excuse for unreported absences of a week or more is rather weak if not simply unbelievable), which makes the omission at least constructively willful, therefore a material misrepresentation. Yet, again, IRCC has taken such lapses by clients in stride, with minimal effect except to deduct that time from the calculation of days present.
The tables are turned, however, if there are blatant and substantial discrepancies and particularly if those are of a size which will likely affect whether the PR meets the respective requirement.
The tables are also turned, against the client, if IRCC otherwise perceives reason to question the PR's credibility. This can happen due to many, many variable circumstances. But among the more salient examples is if there is cause for IRCC to perceive the PR has deliberately attempted to mislead. This is just one reason why the appearance of playing games (and for lots of PRs cutting-it-close there is, rather often, the appearance they are playing games) is a bad, bad idea. A bit like playing five card stud but letting the other side have two extra cards. Or putting two more bullets in the gun when playing Russian Roulette. Which hardly abates the criticisms flung at IRCC when the odds do not play out favourably.
IRCC processing agents tend to be familiar with the kind of documents IRCC requests from clients. And they tend to be far, far more competent in appropriately weighing the information than many in forums like this give them credit.
Yes, IAD and FC decisions sometimes reflect instances in which IRCC has made an unwarranted conclusion from this or that information. Stuff Happens. But what usually happens, what actually happens by a big margin, is that IRCC gets it right.
The vast majority of IRCC clients (all of us immigrants) have little or no reason to worry that IRCC will jump to an erroneous conclusion based on documents obtained in the course of processing a PRC or PR TD or citizenship application.
Sure, I realize that there are more than a few discontent participants in this forum who are inclined to urge or argue otherwise. And sure, for PRs who are in a cutting-it-close situation, the harsh light of elevated scrutiny can seem to unfairly tip the scales against them. But, the truth is that IRCC usually gets it right, and to the extent that IRCC does not get it precisely right, those outcomes tend to favour clients more than going against clients.
What a record-of-movement or exit/entry report shows depends on the specific country from which it is obtained. Many countries will not provide any such records. Canada's CBSA travel history, for example, will not show exits dates and thus show nothing about about destination (except perhaps exits to the U.S.; I am not clear about the status of U.S. and Canada entry record sharing, records of entry to one reflecting exit from the other).
In particular, the details included in a record-of-movement vary from country to country.
Thus, in the abstract, without reference to a specific country, there is no answer for this question.
And since such things are always subject to change, anecdotal information in this regard will not be a reliable indicator of what will be shown in another person's record-of-movement from even the same country.
Basically, the way to know what is in a record-of-movement from a particular country is to actually obtain one.
Reminder: For all documents submitted to IRCC, any information which is not in one of the official languages must be properly translated.
Also note: if IRCC requests a record-of-movement, it would be misrepresentation by omission to withhold a record-of-movement one has obtained. It would be an overt misrepresentation to report to IRCC one cannot obtain a record-of-movement if one can be obtained, let alone if one has been obtained. While jail time would be unusual, possible but unusual, the other consequences for misrepresentation should be severe enough to discourage any temptation to play games in this regard.
How will IRCC interpret the record-of-movement? What inferences or conclusions might IRCC reach based on such records?
IRCC will not interpret the information. A record-of-movement should consist of factual details and thus need no interpretation.
IRCC will compare those factual details with facts reported by the PR. No rocket science necessary to figure out that this is mostly to look for any information which contradicts or is otherwise inconsistent with information the PR has reported.
Beyond that, in terms of how IRCC processing agents analyze or think about the data or information, it is largely impossible for those of us in the public to know that.
That said, it is relatively easy to discern probable highlights. In particular, IRCC will almost certainly focus on any information or data which indicates the PR was outside Canada on a date the PR reported being in Canada.
Example: PR reported being in Canada 1 April, 2015 to November 30, 2015, and there is data in the record-of-movement indicating travel abroad between those dates. DUH! No advanced equations in astro-physics necessary to identify the inconsistency.
Thus, for example, if the record-of-movement from country XYZ shows an exit from that country April 21, 2015, that would be contrary to the PR's report of presence 1 April, 2015 to November 30, 2015, and thus would discredit the PR's account of presence during that time period. If destination information is included in the record-of-movement that is of little or no import. The PR was clearly abroad during a period of time the PR reported being in Canada.
What inferences will IRCC make based on this example?
Again, we cannot really know the mental machinations of an IRCC processing agent. But also again, based on what we do know and understand about how IRCC has approached others when there are such discrepancies, it is likely that IRCC will at least doubt ALL the PR's reported time in Canada except to time that is affirmatively documented by objective evidence. That is, the PR's credibility is compromised, so IRCC will not rely on what the PR reports unless, and then only to the extent, reported facts are supported by separate evidence deemed credible.
From what can be discerned based on published IAD and FC decisions, IRCC rarely recalculates or reconstructs presence-calculations based on information it obtains during processing, except to the extent that doing so might definitively show the PR (including citizenship applicants) did not meet a presence requirement. More often, much more often, IRCC merely concludes that if a PR's report is materially inconsistent with information IRCC has obtained, the PR's report of dates present fails to meet the requisite burden of proving presence for the prescribed period of time, again unless the PR submits sufficient objective evidence to otherwise prove presence as required.
Big versus little discrepancies.
Contrary to the protests of some, IRCC tends to be rather liberal if not lenient when it assesses cases in which some discrepancies have been identified. Minor errors are almost always deemed minor mistakes.
Many, many PRs have failed to report a whole week of absence, and many even longer absences, without IRCC so much as hinting there was misrepresentation, even though obviously ordinary reason suggests such lapses are at least in the realm of should-have-known (the "forgot" excuse for unreported absences of a week or more is rather weak if not simply unbelievable), which makes the omission at least constructively willful, therefore a material misrepresentation. Yet, again, IRCC has taken such lapses by clients in stride, with minimal effect except to deduct that time from the calculation of days present.
The tables are turned, however, if there are blatant and substantial discrepancies and particularly if those are of a size which will likely affect whether the PR meets the respective requirement.
The tables are also turned, against the client, if IRCC otherwise perceives reason to question the PR's credibility. This can happen due to many, many variable circumstances. But among the more salient examples is if there is cause for IRCC to perceive the PR has deliberately attempted to mislead. This is just one reason why the appearance of playing games (and for lots of PRs cutting-it-close there is, rather often, the appearance they are playing games) is a bad, bad idea. A bit like playing five card stud but letting the other side have two extra cards. Or putting two more bullets in the gun when playing Russian Roulette. Which hardly abates the criticisms flung at IRCC when the odds do not play out favourably.
whats your timeline ? when did the application go into the secondary review ? when did they ask for additional docs ? did they inform u about file moving to local office ?
hello
my application is also in secondary review but they have not asked for any additional documents yet .
can u please share your timeline . when did they start processing ? when did they inform about secondary review ? when did they ask for any additional docs. ot any other info . thankyou
Hello everyone, I'm new here but I've been watching this thread for a while now. I am still completing my 730 days but I know I will for sure go to secondary review when I apply for renewal.
So for now this is my first question - is 6 months validity of a foreign passport a requirement upon arriving back to Canada as a PR?
Thanks in advance!
So for now this is my first question - is 6 months validity of a foreign passport a requirement upon arriving back to Canada as a PR?
Thanks in advance!
A PR is entitled to enter Canada. Passport is needed to board a flight to Canada (passport plus valid PR card or PR TD) and then upon arrival in Canada it is needed primarily to establish identity at the PoE. As long as it is valid, it will suffice at the PoE.
Whether the airlines might deny boarding to a PR whose passport is only valid for less than six months, notwithstanding presenting a PR card or PR TD, I do not know. Canadian government rules allow the airline to permit such a traveler to board a flight to Canada, but the airlines are sometimes a bit wonky about passports with short-term validity.
Note, if you are not in Canada, and you are short of complying with the PR Residency Obligation, there is a substantial risk, if not likelihood, you could be reported for being inadmissible upon your arrival in Canada (even if you have a currently valid PR card). You would still be allowed to enter Canada, despite being issued a Departure Order. You would need to appeal that within 30 days, and win that appeal, in order to keep your PR status.
Thanks dpenabill very much for your time to explain in such details.
we will submit the record once we get it but it takes more than 30 days. I asked my question here to see if other countries issue the exit/entry record using the transient airport as a destination because my back home country put the transient airport as a destination. most of the trips were not direct flight ( direct flight are expensive). the exit/entry record will have the same dates as I submitted in the application but the arrival and departure corresponding to those dates will be to the country of the transit airport not Canada. ( by the way, i cannot get out from the transient airport because it need visa for the citizens of my back home and we do not have any visa in the passport except the expired immigrant visa to Canada).
But as you said the dates are the most important thing in the exit/entry record and we do not have any problem with that.
I receive this letter by email. Nothing came to me by mail.
you can also check your status online . it will show if they send a letter to you or not.
Last edited:
Thank you, dpenabill! I should have included a little bit of my background not to confuse you. So here goes -
May 2011 - Landed in Canada. Left 3 months after to finish my degree.
October 2015 - Returned to Canada a month after my graduation, and has not left since.
December 2016 - PR card expired. So right now I am still waiting for October 2017 to complete my 730 days here in Canada.
I have been following this thread for quite a while now and see that even when PRs complete the 730 days, they still get referred to secondary review. I met with an immigration consultant here in Calgary and she advised that when I send my PR Renewal application, I should send all documents that will prove that I have lived here for 2 years and have settled in Canada to avoid any issues.
I need to go back to Manila in March 2018, just for 3 weeks and I know I will have to consider getting PRTD in Manila because I have low chances of not being referred to secondary review. What do you guys think?