The observations and references offered by
@21Goose are overly broad relative to the IRCC process of assessing/verifying a citizenship applicant's travel history and presence calculation. The role of CSIS (as to citizenship applicants), for example, is to screen for SECURITY concerns (which can include criminal activity or associations), not to verify the citizenship applicant's travel history.
I have a friend who recently got citizenship interview, the interviewer went through his entry stamps of foreign countries to verify his exits out of Canada.
but my question is, nowadays some countries use electronic entry without stamping the passport(Australia, for example), thus leaving no traces on passport. How can the interviewer verify it in this case? or they just estimate?? this sounds kind of loose to me.
The response offered by
@spyfy covers what an applicant needs to know. Yes, passport entries are examined and compared to information submitted by the applicant. If the information is consistent, generally all is well. Fact there is no stamp or passport entry for some, or many, or for some of us even all reported border crossing history, is common. Not a problem.
My perception is that your question is broader than that. And it is a question many ask. Mostly out of curiosity, I'd venture. Though some are clearly wondering to what extent, and HOW, IRCC knows if and when an applicant has provided erroneous information, especially omitted travel outside Canada. Whether this is because they are worried they overlooked and failed to report a trip, or otherwise made an error, or whether they are wondering to what extent might fudging or estimating travel (without disclosing the fact it is an estimation) be OK, or even if they can outright get away with not disclosing a trip, the reason for asking undoubtedly varies from the innocent to the not-quite-innocent. But many do ask.
They ask: "
How does IRCC verify or check or know whether the applicant's travel history is complete and accurate?"
You referenced one source IRCC can and often accesses (always? we do not know): the PR's CBSA travel history. Even though this is increasingly a complete history of the individual's ENTRIES into Canada, it is still not relied on to be complete. There is also possible access to database records which do show some or many EXITS from Canada, which data is populated in part based on land crossing entry into the U.S. data that is shared between the U.S. and Canada, and in part by other sources of information in different databases or databanks, including what the Canadian government calls Personal Information Banks (PIBs). So far, access to the CBSA travel history of ENTRIES into Canada is clearly routine. Access to and consideration of EXIT data does not yet appear to be routine.
In its consideration of the CBSA information, IRCC is primarily looking for inconsistencies in the applicant's travel history.
For the vast majority of qualified applicants who completely and properly provide the information and documents requested, IRCC will (in effect) INFER the applicant was physically present in Canada from the date of a reported ENTRY and subsequent days until the next reported date of EXIT. Indeed, this is precisely HOW THE ONLINE PRESENCE CALCULATOR WORKS. The calculator counts all days of entry and exit, and all days between an entry and the next exit, as days IN Canada.
BUT OF COURSE IRCC does not blindly accept this as for-sure complete and accurate. So additional information is considered. The CBSA information, for example, may be considered. If it is entirely consistent with the applicant's information, corroborating the applicant's dates of travel, that allows IRCC to rely more on the applicant's account. Then the applicant's passport is examined in the interview, again looking for inconsistencies, for any information which might suggest there is what CIC formally referred to, in past operational guidelines, as
reasons-to-question-residency. Likewise the applicant's responses to casual questions, which might include questions about where the applicant currently works or lives or shops . . . the interviewer is (in addition to verifying applicant's ability in an official language) probing to see if there are inconsistencies or incongruities, anything suspicious, anything which, again, might be a
reason-to-question-residency.
Moreover, IRCC does not evaluate this information in a vacuum. Information sources are not considered, let alone relied upon, in silos. Probably the most pervasive tool used by CBSA and IRCC officials is comparison and cross-checking. Again, for incongruities or anomalies as well as overt inconsistencies. The details in the applicant's work history, address history, and travel history are compared and cross-checked, and these in turn can be compared with and cross-checked against other information from various sources. Including cross-checking information in other PIBs maintained by IRCC. And here again, looking for anything which might be a
reason-to-question-residency.
IRCC can also, and sometimes does, access outside information sources, including open sources (telephone directories, public information about a business the applicant reports being employed by, among many other sources), including Internet open sources (for example, LinkedIn pops up in more than a few IRCC cases as a source of information triggering suspicions about a client).
As I noted, the interviewer, or the Citizenship Officer responsible for making decisions on the application, can access the applicant's information in other immigration related data maintained by IRCC, and compare and cross-check that information with all the other information the interviewer or officer is reviewing. My GUESS is that this is a triage process. For most applicants, nothing tickles or triggers concerns, and the official will not likely go on a fishing expedition
UNLESS there is something which suggests a reason to engage in further cross-checks. There are numerous PIBs containing immigration client information; which particular PIBs are relevant to a particular PR applying for citizenship will depend, for example, on that individual's immigration history. Thus, for example, there is a particular PIB for "Permanent Economic Residents," and a separate one for resettlement refugees, and another for both the sponsors and sponsored PR. And so on.
See a list with descriptions of IRCC PIBs here:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/transparency/access-information-privacy/info-source/personal-information-banks.html
Bottom-line: IRCC goes with the online presence calculation, including its inherent inference of presence between a reported date of entry until the next reported date of exit . . . UNLESS and UNTIL it identifies reason to question the veracity of the applicant's information. IRCC considers a lot of information in this process. If no reason to doubt the applicant's account is discovered, which is how it goes in the vast majority of cases, IRCC concludes the presence requirement is satisfied.
Edit to add, to be clear: If in its evaluation of all the available information IRCC concludes there is no reason to doubt the applicant's accounting of travel and thus the applicant's output from the online presence calculator, and it shows 1095 or more days present, IRCC is satisfied the presence requirement is met. IN CONTRAST, if IRCC does identify or perceive some reason to question or doubt the applicant's information, depending on the nature and scope of concern IRCC may note the concern but be satisfied anyway given the information sufficiently shows the requirement was met notwithstanding that concern . . . which may, for example, include asking the applicant about the concern in the Interview. Applicants report, for example, overlooking trips for as much as three weeks, being asked about, acknowledging the oversight, but given a buffer large enough to easily accommodate the mistake, NO problem.
In contrast, if IRCC identifies a
reason-to-question-residency (presence), and the concern is not readily resolved, that typically triggers a
residency-case, or
presence-case (whatever language is now in use), and there is a request the applicant provide further information and documentation to establish presence. For this process see discussions about RQ and related procedures.
