Ultimately is your decision , if you are fine with a week then go with that, other people are more comfortable with a few months if they have travelled during the 5 years and adding a few more months is no big deal. It’s a personal choice not a forum choice . Sometimes when claiming the one yearmade up from half days before becoming a PR that is where becomes useful to have a buffer.
How much buffer time do you keep?
- Thread starter riasat.abir
- Start date
You're the ultimate source of truth.
After all, you've been with yourself all the time.
Your buffer is yours to decide.
I understand that. My question is about what is the ultimate source of truth for an IRCC agent. Is it the CBSA records? Ultimately, there has to be one source of truth which takes into account all the plane leaving the tarmac and custom delays, etc.
Well, I cant be the source of truth if you take @dpenabill example about custom delays. I.e. I return to Canada at 10pm, but border agent decides to wait until 1am the next day to record my entry.
You're the ultimate source of truth regarding knowing where you've been and when you came or left Canada. It's why you have to keep notes of your travels, and use those notes for your travel history.
CBSA records are a tool for IRCC to assess whether you've been in Canada long enough, not the information you need to fetch in advance and put back in your application.
Yes, I have recorded everything too and I ask for CBSA records just to verify my own recordings. So far they have matched perfectly. In case they all match up perfectly when I am going to apply, what is the need for any buffer is what I am asking. Is there a 3rd source of information for an IRCC agent which will cast doubt on my eligibility?
There is NO "one source of truth." No crystal ball. No Kafkaesque inner sanctum of for-certain records to consult.
There is a BEST source of INFORMATION as to a PR's travel history: the one person in the whole world who was FOR SURE there each and every time.
There are many other sources of information which can be considered in a fact-finding process. Some more direct than others. For the citizenship applicant's presence calculation, which involves the PR's travel history, more direct sources include the CBSA travel history, which is a direct accounting of an individual's entries into Canada based on information collected by CBSA officials at the PoE.
Less direct sources include the applicant's address and employment history. There are many other possible sources of what can be relevant information.
The main reason IRCC looks at sources other than the One Best source is that it is all-too-common for the One Best Source to NOT be a reliable reporter of facts. For many reasons, ranging from the fact that we all make mistakes to the fact that some deliberately misrepresent the facts.
Easy to recognize this is a more or less triage process, first looking to see if other information suggests the applicant's account might be inaccurate, and if so, to then pursue another level of verification to identify the nature and extent of POSSIBLE inaccuracies. And if there are concerns or questions, that leads to RQ-related processing which is a separate subject addressed at length in other topics.
It is correct that YOU cannot be the "source of truth" . . . you are merely a witness, who happens to be the One Best Source witness. But of course IRCC will compare your account of the facts with other information and reach some conclusions about the extent to which you are a reliable reporter of the facts. Note: in the vast majority of cases, IRCC relies on the applicant's presence calculation.
As for a discrepancy between what the returning PR can report about the date of return to Canada and what CBSA records might show, no recollection or records are god-verified truth. On the contrary, any source of information can involve errors. (Side-note: Even the ATM almost all of us use, and rely on, can make mistakes -- been there, dealt with that, a bit of a shock at the time, having used an ATM a thousand or more times with no hint of possible error, suddenly getting a receipt with a big error . . . stuff happens.)
That said, it appears that CBSA entry records are very, very rarely inaccurate. They are NOT necessarily complete . . . completeness and accuracy are not the same thing.
I cannot explain a particular instance in which someone claims the CBSA record is inaccurate. I can say that a one day difference for a single entry falls within the range of not-at-all-a-concern UNLESS there are other aspects of the PR's case inviting questions or concerns.
But apart from that, the scenario where the arrival is before midnight yet the CBSA records show it after midnight, that is usually the PR's mistake. A traveler has not actually returned to Canada until the traveler has formally cleared the PoE screening procedures. Travelers know when they have been cleared and get to walk out of the secured PoE area into areas open to the public at large. If that happens after midnight, even if that is five or eight hours after the traveler got off the plane, the date of entry is the date AFTER midnight.
Which is NOT to challenge a report about clearing the PoE before midnight and potentially getting a CBSA report showing that did not happen until after midnight. That is possible. Not likely but possible. Errors in records are possible. It happens. But again, this alone would NOT trigger a wrinkled eye-brow let alone concern; even during the Harper-era draconian RQ-sweep, one or two instances of such a discrepancy was officially not-a-concern (as I recall, the triage trigger was set at more than two instances of a discrepancy or any discrepancies adding up to three or more days difference).
What if the applicant applied with exactly 1095 days? Trying to forecast the outcome for such a case, where it turns out the CBSA report shows the PR arriving one day later than the PR claims, is not a productive endeavor. Let's be clear, applying with exactly 1095 days is so obviously foolish the odds are high this is not the only concern IRCC will likely perceive in such an applicant's case, so problems are easy to forecast. But perhaps the applicant otherwise presents herself rather well and there is no problem. Outcome is going to depend on a lot of other factors, with a looming RISK that IRCC is not persuaded the applicant has met the burden of proof.
Which leads to the buffer question.
There are potentially scores of other sources of information which could cast doubt on an applicant's eligibility IF THERE IS ACTUAL REASON FOR QUESTIONING the applicant's eligibility. Qualified applicants who properly provided information should have little or NO reason to worry.
As noted: of course the applicant's work and address history is screened and evaluated in considering the veracity of the applicant's presence calculation and travel history. There is no work requirement. This information is requested in large part because it helps to paint a more complete picture of the applicant's life.
So, for just one isolated example of an alternative source of information IRCC processing agents might consult, there is LinkedIn (among other online "open-source" information). We know of specific instances where applicants' cases went off the rails after IRCC discovered an entry in a LinkedIn account suggesting the applicant had employment outside Canada that was not reported in their application.
BUT THE QUALIFIED APPLICANT who properly, completely, and accurately (allowing for the range of errors we are all prone to make) filled out the application and follows through with the process, has a very low risk running into problems. For those with fairly simple cases, a rather SMALL MARGIN (30 days or so) over the minimum should EASILY have rather LOW RISK of even minor RQ-related non-routine processing, let alone encounter any significant problems.
Many of us had cases involving this or that complication. I was self-employed selling services exclusively to clients abroad, so I waited a lot, lot longer to apply (more than a year past when I met the requirements).
It is up to each individual to judge for herself, or himself, WHEN is the best time to apply. For most, 30 or so days (which is hardly much of a wait at all) easily does the trick. There are many in this forum who advocate 10 days is plenty.
Edit to Add: Remember, the travel history itself does not fully prove actual presence for all those days in-between a known date of entry and the next reported date of exit. That is why work history can be important. It is corroborating evidence of ACTUAL presence during all those days in-between a known date of entry and the next reported date of exit. If the information IRCC has about an applicant suggests the POSSIBILITY the applicant MIGHT not have been IN Canada all the days reported, IRCC does not spend much time or resources trying to determine omitted travel dates. The burden is on the applicant to prove actual presence, and that includes all those days in-between a known date of entry and the next reported date of exit. Travel history is just one element in the overall equation.
Last edited:
Thanks for the comprehensive and excellent reply! In the application form for work history, there is only the address of the place with no contact person. Also there are complications like - I was self employed for a short time with a Canadian client and the startup I worked for was acquired (and I prefer not to include it as a separate work ex in LinkedIn to avoid the impression of job hopping to recruiters). Do I explain all this in a cover letter?
Do you suggest including documents supporting these complications in the application or will this be considered too much information? Sorry if this is going off topic.
I cannot offer personal advice. This is for many practical reasons apart from any formal reasons. I wince when I see others here giving advice. This is not an appropriate venue for getting personal advice.
Information that can be helpful in making decisions for oneself, yes, many here (me included) make a concerted effort to offer helpful information.
You appear to recognize the competing considerations. Yeah, simple is better. But sometimes a clarification can make a difference. For work history all I can suggest is that it is OK to have overlapping work history (two or more activities covering the same time period or partially covering the same time periods), and direct information that sufficiently identifies the nature and primary location of the activity should, usually, be enough.
For some of us it is not so simple. Which leads to what is on topic: factors influencing how much buffer to apply with.
There is no one size fits all answer to the buffer question. Most of us can look over the entirety of our application, including travel history and presence calculation, including work and address history, and take into consideration any other information that may influence how things go assuming IRCC has that information (even if they don't), and make a reasonable judgment about whether the totality of information tends to paint the picture of an individual actually living and staying in Canada, or whether a total stranger bureaucrat might be inclined to have questions. The latter would be prudent to wait longer and apply with a bigger margin. BUT the vast majority of qualified applicants can safely apply with a relatively small margin and be confident things will go well.
In any event, I did not mean to put too much emphasis on getting the work history details nailed to perfection. Honestly provided information is more important than technically correct details. An honest accounting covering all months (no gaps) is the main thing. No glaring discrepancies with other sources of information is probably important as well.
Work history that illuminates where and roughly what, for who, should usually be enough.
Unless there is no way to enter the information without causing significant confusion, probably better to not invite confusion by elaborating in a separate supplemental submission. But again, how you do it is up to you, to your best judgment.