My i-94 report contains all the trips i made to the US, which is good. The one thing missing is the departure record for 7 out of 20 trips i made to the US.
Two questions for those who might have experienced this:
1- is this normal and do the case officers know about it and expect it?
2- Do i need to submit additional evidences to confirm that i was in Canada after the return date i claimed in my physical presence calculator?
I have NO personal experience of this. BUT THE SHORT ANSWER TO THESE QUESTIONS IS EASY.
SHORT ANSWER:
There is NO need to submit such documents with the application. Including such documents is more likely to raise questions that could trigger non-routine processing than it is likely to help. Perhaps considerably so.
But YES, incomplete government travel history records are at least common (I do not know what "normal" means in this context) AND YES IRCC officials are well familiar with appropriately evaluating evidence like U.S. travel history records.
They get it. Like it is said in Farmer's Insurance television advertisements:
they've seen a thing or two.
No one can guarantee whether or not any particular applicant will be issued requests to submit further documents or information to support their case. But, for example, if you receive RQ, yes you will
THEN need to submit the additional evidence requested. There is NO way to guarantee this will not happen (noting it appears not many applicants are getting RQ related requests these days).
Again, there is NO need to submit any evidence or documents other than what the application checklist prescribes . . . again, UNLESS and not until a request for more documentation or information is specifically made.
ALL THAT SAID . . .
PREFACE TO LONGER EXPLANATION; A REMINDER:
The applicant's obligation is to ACCURATELY and COMPLETELY report each and every date the applicant exited Canada and entered Canada, regardless what any other records (government or otherwise) might show. Obviously, the individual applicant not only has access to this information, but since the applicant was the only individual FOR SURE there on each and every occasion, the applicant is actually the ONE and ONLY source who can FOR SURE accurately and completely report this information.
In reviewing an applicant's travel history, IRCC is mostly looking to see if there is any reason to doubt the applicant's reporting.
Whether IRCC is comparing work and address history with the travel history, or comparing other sources of information like the CBSA travel history, or during the interview comparing passport stamps to the applicant's travel history, it is mostly focused on verifying it can rely on the applicant's travel history reported in the presence calculation.
Thus, what is MOST IMPORTANT, most important by far, is to get the dates right, to accurately report all dates of exit and entry. This is the biggest factor, the biggest factor by far, which is likely to HELP make the process go more smoothly and easily. The salient issue, really, is whether or not IRCC believes it can trust the one and best source of information about the applicant's travel history; that is, whether IRCC can trust the applicant's account.
However it is that IRCC might identify or perceive a reason to question or doubt the applicant's account, first it should be recognized that their capacity to discover inconsistencies is at least sufficient to warrant emphasizing the importance of simply reporting all dates accurately. BUT, in any event, if IRCC sees no reason to distrust the completeness or accuracy of the applicant's account, it relies on the applicant's presence calculation. And in this circumstance, IRCC will only RARELY pursue review of additional evidence of presence or absence.
That is, the applicant who gets it precisely right, in reporting travel history dates, has very, very good odds IRCC will not blink or shrug, let alone want to look for further evidence, along the way to verifying the presence requirement has been met. And even a minor mistake or two should not matter, since here too IRCC officials GET IT, they understand, they are far more adept putting things into reasonable perspective than many give them credit.
THE LONGER EXPLANATION:
Again, I have NO personal experience of this.
That acknowledged, it is clear that U.S. and Canadian records of traveler entries or departures are NOT relied upon to be complete. While their respective entry records are increasingly complete, and these days for many it appears they are complete, IRCC still does NOT rely on these records to be complete. Exit records still tend to be incomplete rather often, so of course IRCC does NOT rely on these to be complete.
Note too that U.S. departure records are largely NOT relevant since what matters are the dates the applicant ENTERS CANADA, which IRCC should be able to mostly verify (if this is deemed necessary) in the applicant's CBSA travel history.
In any event, to the extent that IRCC officials are assessing such records, which is to acknowledge a big IF,
IF they are assessing such records, yes they get it, they understand the vagaries of record capturing and reporting.
That big IF,
IF they are assessing such records, demands emphasis and clarification: for the vast majority of citizenship applications, among applicants with travel histories to or from the U.S., IRCC will
NOT request let alone review the U.S. records.
Moreover, when IRCC officials are reviewing either the applicant's Canadian records (CBSA travel history) or U.S. records (in those few cases where they obtain or request U.S. records and review them), they are looking for inconsistencies, anomalies, incongruities . . . they are looking for details that raise questions about what the applicant has reported.
Example: applicant reports GTA address and employment, but the U.S. and Canadian records show numerous border crossings at the Lacolle/Champlain PoE south of Montreal . . . an obvious incongruity which is not in itself a problem but which can trigger further inquiries to seek explanation for why someone claiming to live near the Niagara frontier is often using a PoE far from "home."
I am submitting my citizenship application and iam planning to include a reconciliation of all passport stamps to my physical presence calculator and the i-94 report in additional documents section, for potential easier and smoother processing of my application.
How you approach this is, of course, very much a personal decision, and there are individual circumstances which can suggest reason to deviate from the instructions and norms.
Reminder: when making an application to a bureaucracy it is almost always best to simply follow the instructions. That means the norm is providing NO MORE, NO LESS, than what is requested. Another reminder: your application will be handled by total stranger bureaucrats. Bureaucrats are good dealing with round pegs for round holes, square pegs for square holes; NO odd pieces on the side.
There is no credible information that including any extra documentation or information with the application will facilitate "easier and smoother processing." None at all.
In contrast, there are many sources of information, ranging from anecdotal reports to CIC internal memos (obtained by ATI process, which is different from the ATIP request for personal records), illustrating examples where the inclusion of additional documents did NOT preclude non-routine processing like RQ.
The anecdotal reports tend to be in the pattern "I submitted XYZ with my application but still got RQ." One such anecdotal report (framed more in terms of a rant, obviously by someone who did not understand how bureaucracies work) was from an applicant who had obtained information about what is requested in RQ, before applying, and basically provided a full RQ response with the application. AND then got RQ.
While it was years ago, when CIC processed applications (that is, prior to the name change to IRCC), an internal CIC memo referenced a processing agent's query (via email) to a supervisor about a very similar situation, albeit this was in response to an outside query from a lawyer representing a client who likewise had submitted all the RQ requested documents with the application but then got RQ . . . and the supervisor's response was clear: YES, inform the lawyer the applicant needs to appropriately submit a response to the RQ.
Personal experience caveat: I elected to NOT follow the instructions and I included copies of Notices of Assessments with my application. I had my reasons. I doubt it helped. Given my fast processing time to the oath, clearly did not hurt. That was nearly six years ago. Since then, yeah,
seen a thing or two.
