Forgot to declare the same-day trip to "US"
- Thread starter naturalca
- Start date
Forgetting to declare one trip won't affect AOR. They do very basic checks like making sure all questions are answered, forms are signed, dated, and all supporting documents are included. This is what generates AOR.
If it's a day-trip, meaning you came back to Canada the same day, it's not a big deal given it doesn't impact your physical presence at all. However, once you get AOR, I would suggest you use the webform and inform them of the mistake.
Link to the form: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/contacts/web-form.asp
Anyone with the same situation? I am thinking about informing IRCC but fear that it will trigger RQ. I remember the old rules do not require declaration of same-day trip and if I bring it up it may cause unnecessary issues.
Generally a small and isolated omission is of no import, close to zero import.
By itself, overlooking a single day trip to the U.S. is essentially NOTHING.
But as always, context matters. If, for example, the information submitted alludes to the possibility that the return to Canada on the date of the day trip could have been a return to Canada after a much longer absence, that could be a different story, one depending on how credible the applicant's version is overall and otherwise.
Reporting small errors after applying? These questions are always for the individual's own judgment, a personal judgment call.
My sense is that there is little or no reason to report a day trip at any stage after applying other than acknowledging it during the interview (my interviewer specifically asked if I traveled outside Canada any time not reported in the residency calculation (pre-Bill C-24 application), and I said yes, there were some day trips (that was before applicants declared day trips upfront). Why draw extra attention to a minor error that is unlikely, on its own, to trigger concerns.
If, on the other hand, the date of return to Canada for that day trip is something IRCC is inclined to look at suspiciously, given other circumstances, other context, that is going to be for other reasons. Other reasons which the supplemental correction are not likely to resolve.
That is to say: if there are some reasons for IRCC to have concerns, a correction as to a single day-trip is not going to settle those concerns.
If there are no concerns otherwise, no big deal, virtually a nothing-at-all-deal.
NOTE: application submitted and then a new application, well that is at least colouring outside the lines a little. To what extent this is likely to elevate attention, who can guess. Some risk of that, that seems likely. Nonetheless, a correction as to a single day, without being asked about it, seems likely to invite more questions than it could possibly resolve.
By itself, overlooking a single day trip to the U.S. is essentially NOTHING.
But as always, context matters. If, for example, the information submitted alludes to the possibility that the return to Canada on the date of the day trip could have been a return to Canada after a much longer absence, that could be a different story, one depending on how credible the applicant's version is overall and otherwise.
Reporting small errors after applying? These questions are always for the individual's own judgment, a personal judgment call.
My sense is that there is little or no reason to report a day trip at any stage after applying other than acknowledging it during the interview (my interviewer specifically asked if I traveled outside Canada any time not reported in the residency calculation (pre-Bill C-24 application), and I said yes, there were some day trips (that was before applicants declared day trips upfront). Why draw extra attention to a minor error that is unlikely, on its own, to trigger concerns.
If, on the other hand, the date of return to Canada for that day trip is something IRCC is inclined to look at suspiciously, given other circumstances, other context, that is going to be for other reasons. Other reasons which the supplemental correction are not likely to resolve.
That is to say: if there are some reasons for IRCC to have concerns, a correction as to a single day-trip is not going to settle those concerns.
If there are no concerns otherwise, no big deal, virtually a nothing-at-all-deal.
NOTE: application submitted and then a new application, well that is at least colouring outside the lines a little. To what extent this is likely to elevate attention, who can guess. Some risk of that, that seems likely. Nonetheless, a correction as to a single day, without being asked about it, seems likely to invite more questions than it could possibly resolve.
Hi dpenabill,
i have three days USA trip and my exit is not reported in I-94 but my return is reported in CBSA record. I have included this trip in the calculator. Missing entry in I-94 will it have any concern during interview?
Thank you in advance!!!
Reminder: not an expert. Not qualified to give personal advice.
I do not understand the question. Or, I suppose, I do not understand why this is a question. What does a I-94 have to do with a citizenship application interview?
Reminder:
To the extent that IRCC accesses and examines other sources of information about an applicant, including information available to IRCC through CBSA databases (which these days may or may not include U.S. entry information), IRCC is primarily focused on identifying conflicting information (inconsistencies, incongruities, discrepancies, omissions), looking for any information which might signal that the applicant has either provided false information (or at least inaccurate information) or has omitted material information.
Just because the information provided by one source is not precisely the same as information provided by another source (just because CBSA information is not precisely the same as what the applicant reports in the presence calculation) does not mean there is conflicting information. Does not mean there is something which signals the possibility the applicant's information is not truthful.
If information from other sources confirms (verifies) information submitted by the applicant, that is mostly what matters. The applicant's account is sufficiently verified to justify relying on the applicant's submission.
If information from other sources fails to confirm (verify) information submitted by the applicant, that is what raises questions and concerns.
Thus, for example, if the CBSA travel history shows a border crossing event the applicant does NOT report, that causes some concern. That indicates the applicant has failed to report some information.
If, in contrast, the applicant's reported travel dates includes a trip that does not show up in the CBSA travel history, that tends to indicate a gap in CBSA history NOT an unreliable report by the applicant . . . with some exceptions, the exceptions being dependent on other factors, such as some circumstances which might suggest the applicant could have been traveling with a Travel Document the applicant has not disclosed.
The latter leads to . . .
Some Broad Observations About Assessing What Matters:
Context is huge. One data point alone is relatively meaningless. It is how a data point fits into the pattern of data points, or does not fit, that matters far more.
Individual details matter, sure, and in some contexts they can matter a lot. But their context is critical. There is a tendency to give way, way too much attention, to give too much importance, to specific facts or details, without recognizing the overriding influence and importance of where in the constellation of other facts that particular fact is located.
I am always hesitant to dismiss the importance of an individual detail, because ultimately this or that detail can be the linchpin . . . but what really matters is indeed how that detail holds together, or on the contrary separates, the parts of the whole.
A hundred applicants can sail through the process even though there is not, say, a particular passport stamp for a particular event . . . while for one applicant, the absence of that stamp can trigger the concerns which lead to non-routine processing, RQ, even an outright challenge to meeting the presence requirement.
So, a hundred forum participants can report that the absence of that stamp does NOT mean anything.
Or, perhaps none of them post anything at all, and the one other one posts: absence of that stamp causes RQ and a CJ hearing.
Such anecdotal reporting does not inform us of much at all. All we learn from most anecdotal reports is that it is POSSIBLE for something to happen given this or that particular circumstance. Could be a one-in-a-hundred possibility. Could be a nine-in-ten possibility. Odds are high, very high, overwhelming in fact, that other factors have a great deal of influence in how it goes, that how that one circumstance influences things is tied to and dependent on its relationship to a whole constellation of other facts and circumstances.
So even when a dozen different forum participants report much the same thing relative to the same factor, that merely suggests a somewhat greater possibility something similar COULD happen for another applicant. It does not illuminate what SHOULD happen, let alone what WILL happen. It just points to something that COULD happen.
A lot of other information is needed to form reliable conclusions about what SHOULD happen, about what is most likely to actually happen. A lot of information about the process, IRCC policy and practice, the rules and the law, is needed just to put into context any information about what happened to one or fifty individuals. And, even with a thorough understanding of policy, practice, rules, regulations, and laws, the range of potentially influential facts and circumstances is huge.
Sure, I Have Taken the Long Way Round to Say Something Simple:
It is impossible to reliably forecast how any particular detail is going to affect the process for someone.
With some obvious exceptions of course:
-- if an applicant applied based on 1098 days presence and failed to include a week long trip to the States in the calculator, the application will very likely be denied, and if IRCC identifies the error, it will almost certainly be denied
-- the bigger the error or discrepancy the more likely it will cause problems
-- more errors tends to increase the risk of a problem
-- omissions tend to loom larger than errors
(There are, of course, lots of other obvious examples.)
Thank you for your reply. Let me rephrase my question;
during interview citizenship officer check passports stamps or during CIC assessment process they check CBSA records for entry/exit. CBSA do not register exit record but exit to USA is on 1-94. May be my question is clear now.
Thank you.
The U.S. I-94 is not the subject of the citizenship application interview. So I still do not understand why you are asking whether it would be a problem, "in the interview," if the I-94 fails to show a date you entered the U.S. (exited Canada), when it is not even discussed or addressed.
By the way, IF IRCC is interested in record of movement from other countries, including the U.S., that means IRCC has already discerned a reason to question the applicant's account of travel dates. Whatever triggered those concerns is far more significant than a single missing entry in another government's records.
Reminder: the interview is NOT a hearing. It is not an opportunity for the applicant to bring and present evidence to make the case. It is a VERIFICATION interview, focused largely on three straight-forward things:
-- verifying the identity of the applicant
-- examining and verifying original supporting documents submitted with the application, passports looming largest in this respect, and
-- making sufficient inquires (asking questions) to verify information in the application (including ability in one of the official languages), which can involve questions about travel dates and comparison to passport stamps
With some exceptions, if IRCC has some doubts, if IRCC wants to examine additional information or records (such as I-94 records from the U.S.), they will be formally requested by IRCC. And, as I tried to illuminate in my previous post, how a particular fact (or a single entry in records) might affect the process depends a lot more on how that particular fact relates to all the other facts and circumstances.
If your question is will this omission in the U.S. records trigger elevated scrutiny or RQ? Not likely. Not likely IRCC will even see this record UNLESS something else has already triggered elevated scrutiny. If something else has already triggered elevated scrutiny, it is possible a single event can become the focus, the "problem" so to say, but that will depend a lot, lot more on all the other facts and circumstances and how this particular event relates to all the rest.
Here is the main thing: if the applicant accurately reports all dates of exit and entry, ALL of them, ALL of them ACCURATELY, the risk of any travel history problem is very small. Sure, there are exceptions; one exception: if IRCC has some reason to be concerned the applicant had another passport or other travel document.
Thank you so much for your detailed explanation which answered my question. In fact I was not fully aware of the citizenship interview philosophy which is enlightened by your detailed post.
There is no concern from IRCC but it was just only my concern for a missing of single entry record.
Thank you and God bless you!!!
There is no concern from IRCC but it was just only my concern for a missing of single entry record.
Thank you and God bless you!!!
Last edited:
Not entirely sure but definitely over 50. Also, I had spent already 9 years in Canada before I applied. I never really saw the need for becoming a citizen before. It was a friend who pushed me to go for it.
I am in a similar situation too. I forgot to include 6 same day trips to the US; however, i have enough buffer (over 300 days). I got AOR and i'm planning on informing IRCC about the 6 six same day trips through webform soon.