Travel records
- Thread starter Dana.D
- Start date
There are various sources an individual can consider in attempting to reconstruct or fill gaps in the records a PR keeps (or should keep).
No outside or government source of an individual's travel history can be relied upon to be complete. The CBSA travel history is about as accurate as ENTRY records can be. And they are usually complete, but there is no guarantee of this. (And IRCC will not rely on them to be complete.)
U.S. records can fill in some gaps for those who made trips to or via the U.S. Likewise, no guarantee they are complete.
Personal banking and credit records can help. For those whose travel was work related there should be business records that can help. Telephone records can help.
The main thing is to be as ACCURATE and COMPLETE as possible. This is important.
IRCC does not generally make an effort to do its own travel history. Rather, it screens the applicant's travel history and compares that information to various sources of information to identify whether there are any "reasons-to-question-residency" (which is actually about presence now), which means any cause to doubt the information provided by the applicant. That is, IRCC is mostly looking for any information that is inconsistent with the applicant's travel history.
Obviously, there is only ONE best source of the applicant's travel history. The PR himself or herself. The one person in the whole world who was there each and every time the PR left Canada, every time the PR entered Canada. The one person in the whole world who could keep a for-certain accurate and complete record.
So, if the one best source of this information fails to provide an accurate and complete record of travel history, yeah, that can muck things up a bit.
Impact of errors or omissions can depend on various factors, including the nature and extent of the discrepancies or omissions, factors related to the strength of the case otherwise, and perceptions about the PR-applicant's general reliability (credibility) as a reporter of facts. Contrary to some recklessly negative characterizations of IRCC personnel otherwise, generally IRCC officials recognize and make allowances for what some might describe are "innocent" mistakes.
But, since the burden of proof is on the applicant, if IRCC perceives significant discrepancies or omissions, that can trigger full blown RQ, putting the burden on the applicant to affirmatively prove actual presence. If this happens, the applicant may not benefit from the inference a person was IN Canada between a known date of entry and the next reported or known date of exit (the online presence calculator operates based on this inference), and thus be put to the task of proving his or her actual presence IN Canada all those in-between days.
Best insurance: a near-perfect travel history plus a good margin over the minimum.
Reminder: IRCC is focused on whether it can verify the accuracy and completeness of the information provided by the applicant. So, even information that might indicate the applicant was IN Canada MORE than the applicant reports CAN HURT because it shows the applicant cannot be relied upon to be an accurate reporter of the facts. The fact the burden of proof is on the applicant has real, actual effect, which tends to be underestimated.
siddharthbala
Hero Member
- Jan 12, 2016
- 474
- Visa Office......
- CPC-Ottawa
- NOC Code......
- 5241
- App. Filed.......
- 08-07-2016
- Doc's Request.
- 28-12-2016
- AOR Received.
- 10-12-2016
- Med's Request
- 06-12-2016
- Med's Done....
- 14-12-2016
- Interview........
- N/A
- Passport Req..
- 12-04-2017
- VISA ISSUED...
- 28-04-2017
- LANDED..........
- 14-09-2017
Depending on how you've travelled, I found that a combination of:
a) Combing my Email inbox for ticket itineraries
b) Looking and matching passport entry and exit stamps
was a good way of reconstructing all my travel. I also aggressively (and pointlessly) collect points, so almost all my travel history is associated with some airline's points system (Etihad, Flying Blue, etc.) and that helps some.
For land travel records, funnily enough, I use Google Timeline, which while being 100% creepy, is also quite accurate at tracking your movements, so it's able to give you the exact days you decided to hop the border south for some cross-border shopping. Since it also goes through your photos as well to recreate the timeline and even (ugh) groups them by travel destination (e.g. Mexico 2018, for example), it's easy to actually reconstruct timelines now.
For everything else, @dpenabill is spot on, though.
a) Combing my Email inbox for ticket itineraries
b) Looking and matching passport entry and exit stamps
was a good way of reconstructing all my travel. I also aggressively (and pointlessly) collect points, so almost all my travel history is associated with some airline's points system (Etihad, Flying Blue, etc.) and that helps some.
For land travel records, funnily enough, I use Google Timeline, which while being 100% creepy, is also quite accurate at tracking your movements, so it's able to give you the exact days you decided to hop the border south for some cross-border shopping. Since it also goes through your photos as well to recreate the timeline and even (ugh) groups them by travel destination (e.g. Mexico 2018, for example), it's easy to actually reconstruct timelines now.
For everything else, @dpenabill is spot on, though.
Thanks, so I assume physical presence document is first compared with CBSA report. If there are discrepancies between the entries listed in CBSA report and physical presence calculator then it would lead to RQ. Also considering other factors too!
Last edited:
Since 2012 the manner and means of screening a grant citizenship applicant's information has been "confidential," which means secret. Even the criteria itself, the "reasons-to-question-residency," or the "triage" factors, are closely guarded secrets.
It is not clear, far from certain, that IRCC accesses a copy of every applicant's CBSA travel history. But it seems likely.
It is even less clear WHEN in the process IRCC does this, assuming it is done.
For the vast majority of applicants, for all but a small number (as best we can discern), IRCC relies on the applicant's accounting of travel history and applies the inference that the applicant was IN Canada all days from the date of reported entry to the next reported exit date. As previously noted, this is the inference underlying how the online presence calculator counts days present in Canada.
But of course there is a great deal of information which can be reviewed and which can offer clues either in concert with the travel history reported or clues tending to raise questions about the ACCURACY or COMPLETENESS of the applicant's travel history.
The last leaked version of "triage" criteria, which was in the original OB-407 issued (but not publicly) in April 2012, included very specific parameters for issuing RQ based on discovering discrepancies in an applicant's travel history. Without digging into my archive of old information, I do not recall those parameters specifically, other than to recall it did not take much. Since then, however, various sources of information reveal that IRCC has subsequently adopted far less strict criteria. We know, for example, that some applicants sailed through routine processing despite learning, during their interview, they left out WEEKS of international travel in their presence calculation travel history. They were asked about it. Acknowledged it, acknowledging it was a "mistake," an oversight, but since they were otherwise credible, their information otherwise perceived to be reliable, and they had a good margin over the minimum requirement, it did not cause problems, not even a minimal version of RQ-related non-routine processing.
In contrast, others who report learning (during the interview) that IRCC identified a trip or two missing in the applicant's travel history, even just day-trips to the U.S., subsequently ran into RQ-related non-routine processing, some running into full blown RQ, and some headed for a hearing with a Citizenship Judge with the likelihood their application will be denied (the latter are mostly applicants who applied with little margin over the minimum and for whom the discrepancies indicate they might have fallen short . . . remembering that under the actual presence test, which has applied to applications made since June 2015, falling short even by just ONE day dictates denying the application).
Some actual case examples of information tripping up applications:
-- the school attendance records for an applicant's children showed the children attending school, in Canada, during a period the applicant reported being outside Canada (and her children with her) . . . even though this could have been interpreted to mean the applicant might have been in Canada MORE days than reported, it was interpreted to mean the applicant's account of when she was in Canada and out of Canada was NOT reliable, and the rest of the information she provided in response to RQ failed to meet the burden of proving presence in Canada for enough days
-- Canadian doctor's LinkedIn information indicated employment in the U.S. during a period of time he reported living and working in Canada
-- CIC/IRCC somehow obtained a flyer for a conference in Switzerland which listed the applicant as a participant; not only was that during a period of time the applicant reported being in Canada, the flier indicated he was there as an employee/representative of a foreign company the applicant did not list in his work history
-- information indicated applicant was actually living at an address other than that reported in the applicant's address history (there are many instances of this, most of which relate back to CIC discovering that numerous applicants had used the same address or telephone number, and an investigation revealed they were using an address provided by a consultant . . . in some of these case the claim was this was done on the consultant's recommendation because it was believed applications were processed faster in the local office for the address used in contrast to the local office for where the applicant actually lived; nice try but no cigar)
It should be emphasized that very FEW applicants run into serious RQ-related problems. More than a few may get RQ-related requests significantly less intrusive than the full blown RQ. Appears that many of those with extensive U.S. travel history, for example, are asked to obtain and submit U.S. records. Employment history in some ME countries seems to trigger requests for record-of-movement records from those countries, for at least some applicants anyway. But even the number of applicants running into the lesser-versions of RQ-related requests seems to be quite small these days. And we are seeing very few full blown RQ cases . . . and those we see, tend to involve individuals who simply applied too soon.
BUT THE OVERRIDING FACTOR is submitting a travel history that is as near to perfect as practically possible. We all make mistakes. IRCC recognizes this and allows for it. Within practical reason.
And even though it is never mentioned in IRCC generated information or even in the Federal Court decisions (that I have seen), the fact that the ONE-BEST source of travel history information is the PR/applicant himself or herself, looms large. If it appears evidence is missing or incomplete or otherwise not reliable, that tends to make things more difficult for the party with the burden of proof. Applicants bear the burden of proving actual presence.
Again: best insurance is getting the information right AND applying with a good margin over the minimum.
The main reason i wanna get CBSA records is just to make sure their records match my actual travel history so I know for sure that if the information i provide would match what CIC would be looking at as a reference. I wanna get this off my mind. I have my travel history and it is all accurate and i still have my boarding passes for each time i traveled but the thing is i wanna avoid any complications that might arise if CBSA records were not exactly right and know about it before things move to RQ.
If the focus of your question is about the mechanics of obtaining a copy of the CBSA travel history records for you, see:
https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency-agence/reports-rapports/pia-efvp/atip-aiprp/thr-rav-eng.html
and https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency-agence/reports-rapports/pia-efvp/atip-aiprp/req-dem-info-eng.html
That information is so readily available I did not think that is what you were asking for when you posed the question:
"How can i get my travel records so i can make sure i fill the right dates in the presence calculator for citizenship application?"
I have not been addressing basic, more or less mechanical or logistical questions for quite a long while, letting others here fulfill that role. Instead, for a few years now, I have focused on more complicated aspects of the process which tend to involve complex nuances, lurking pitfalls, or issues prone to misunderstanding or misinformation or dispute.
In particular, I apparently misunderstood what you meant when you referred to "my travel records." Other than what records the individual PR keeps, NO one, including any government body, keeps an individual's personal travel records.
Thus, the CBSA copy of an individual's "Travel History" is limited to information collected as described at the first page of information I linked above. Which includes a significant amount of exit data BUT largely limited to the last year plus some or so. (As noted previously, with rare exceptions the CBSA information is ACCURATE but NOT guaranteed to be complete . . . the Canadian government is well aware there are scores of ways individuals might exit or enter Canada without it being properly captured in CBSA records.)
Unfortunately, in what appears to be an effort to dissuade prospective citizenship applicants from burdening the system with unnecessary requests, the CBSA web page overstates things some, stating (in reference to citizenship applications) "requesting the report directly from the CBSA will cause a significant delay to your application process." I am not absolutely certain, but am very confident, this applies ONLY to applicants who do not check the option in the application form allowing IRCC to "collect the report" on the applicant's behalf. That is, I am very confident that personally requesting a copy of the CBSA Travel History will have NO impact on how IRCC processes a citizenship application . . . so long as the applicant nonetheless checks the box giving IRCC permission to obtain this information from CBSA.
The main thing to keep in mind is that IRCC engages in a verification process, meaning the focus of its inquiries is about comparing the applicant's information with other sources of information to discern if there is cause to question the applicant's account. Which means IRCC is looking at a lot more than comparing entry and exit dates, and thus a lot more than just comparing the applicant's presence calculation travel history with the CBSA travel history. Which means IRCC can, and probably often does review a wide range of information looking for any indication the applicant was NOT in Canada during a time period the applicant reports being in Canada, or even indications the applicant was IN Canada during a time period the applicant reports being outside Canada.
What type of information do they actually look for? Does that include employment records or what is it exactly?
I discussed some of this in a post above.
But I also stated, and it warrants some emphasis: "For the vast majority of applicants, for all but a small number (as best we can discern), IRCC relies on the applicant's accounting of travel history and applies the inference that the applicant was IN Canada all days from the date of reported entry to the next reported exit date."
Obviously, at the least a processing agent compares the applicant's information in the address history and work history with the applicant's reported travel history. Probably cross-checks particular details like how the applicant completes the section for reporting compliance with tax filing rules. And of course periodic cross-checking with the client's GCMS records. (Last internal information about processing I have had access to indicated that processing agents and officers were REQUIRED to do a GCMS records check every time ANY ACTION was taken on a citizenship application.)
And as always, as in every transaction between IRCC and clients, the usual screening for indications in regard to the applicant's credibility. Beyond that, no particular expertise in bureaucratic processing necessary to recognize the triage process taking place, not that dissimilar from how a PoE examination proceeds. For many, probably most, probably the vast majority of applicants, no significant questions, let alone concerns or doubts, are indicated, and so how it goes will depend on the interview, which can be as much about observing the applicant's demeanor and body language as it is about the content of the applicant's responses to questions.
Again, for most, for the vast majority, in the course of the usual (the "routine") process no concerns arise, no questions or doubts or suspicions, no significant discrepancies or incongruities apparent.
For some, this or that can trigger a question. If that question is easily resolved, back to the routine flow. But some questions will trigger more questions.
As I noted before, the manner and means of these inquiries have been confidential, that is secret, for many years now. Glimpses of the process occasionally emerge from the Federal Court decisions but these have been few and far between in recent years.
Here again, though, no particular expertise in bureaucratic processing, or advanced degrees in political science necessary, to recognize that the extent to which any particular applicant may be scrutinized or even formally investigated almost certainly varies widely DEPENDING on the nature of the questions or concerns that arise, and what information is uncovered in the process. We know, for example, that at least in the recent past that IRCC has screened individuals (not just citizenship applicants, and perhaps visa applicants even more so) in various "open sources," including so-called social media, "LinkedIn" being one of the more frequently mentioned sources in IAD and Federal Court decisions. Canada411 is sometimes referenced.
For most applicants, again probably the vast majority, there are no investigatory telephone calls to employers. But sometimes there are.
Investigatory procedures can range from minimal to extensive . . . again most likely following the triage model. The vast, vast majority of applicants are (my sense) not subject to any non-routine degree of investigation, but if and when questions arise, the nature and extent of what can be investigated is extensive.
All of which comes back around to repeating what is the best insurance: being accurate and complete in the information provided, including travel history details in the presence calculation, AND applying with a good margin over the minimum.
I have read some of your detailed posts. I have appreciated the details you have provided in them. Thank you!
One of the concerns that might not have been discussed here is the evidence to support the applicant. Such as immigration entries to foreign countries. For example, an entry stamp to Italy shows no details since the dates are blurry. Another example if there is no entry stamp available but only an exit stamp. Or what usually happens in the Arabian Gulf countries where they use the Arabic Calendar.
How can the IRCC look into these details? If the work completed by the applicant is as good, what can be done to prevent mistakes that are committed by neither the applicant nor CBSA?
The application takes into account only the last 5 years for physical presence requirements from the date you sign it.
For me going 5 years back, my starting date for physical presence would be 2015-11-15. I was 'not' in Canada on that day - I was in the US. And the date I actually left Canada was couple of months before that 2015-09-27 (I had work in the US).
What should I put for 'Date left Canada' for my 'oldest absence row' entry for the 5 years under consideration for physical presence?
* If I put 2015-09-27, then that takes into consideration days which are beyond past 5 years, messing up the calculation (and we have to enter days count on the form by subtracting start, end dates for each 'absence' row)
* If I put 2015-11-15, then although the calculation looks correct in this case but that wasn't the 'actual' date I left Canada.
Thanks for your help.
For me going 5 years back, my starting date for physical presence would be 2015-11-15. I was 'not' in Canada on that day - I was in the US. And the date I actually left Canada was couple of months before that 2015-09-27 (I had work in the US).
What should I put for 'Date left Canada' for my 'oldest absence row' entry for the 5 years under consideration for physical presence?
* If I put 2015-09-27, then that takes into consideration days which are beyond past 5 years, messing up the calculation (and we have to enter days count on the form by subtracting start, end dates for each 'absence' row)
* If I put 2015-11-15, then although the calculation looks correct in this case but that wasn't the 'actual' date I left Canada.
Thanks for your help.
You should put 2015-11-15. They just wanted to know where were you in last 5 years.
REMINDER: The role of passport stamps in processing either PR Residency Obligation compliance cases, or in evaluating a grant citizenship applicant's actual physical presence, has greatly DIMINISHED over the years. Passport stamps do not play anywhere near so important a role as they previously did.
Passport stamp questions tend to be about searching for a problem. Or overthinking things.
In regards to PR RO compliance cases, the PR's Travel History is RARELY a contested issue (the vast, vast majority of RO compliance cases are about whether the PR should be allowed to keep status DESPITE failing to comply with the RO), and in those few cases where counting the days is a focal issue, how it goes will depend far more on other factors and circumstances. After all, in the modern world not only do we ordinarily generate a significant paper trail showing where we live and work, we are now also generating a remarkably extensive (to some extent scary) digital trail. It would take a deliberate effort to avoid leaving a trail for there to be significant gaps in periods of time for which absence from or presence in Canada is not readily determined.
The outcome of a PR RO compliance case is NOT going to depend on whether a government official can read a blurry passport stamp entered by another country.
And likewise for grant citizenship applications. Though a little more needs to be said in this regard.
And as for Arabic entries in passports, remember the PR is required to provide a properly authenticated translation of the contents of any document presented to IRCC attendant MOST transactions with IRCC, but specifically including a proper translation of passports to present during the PI Interview (ordinarily conducted attendant test events).
Passport Stamps and Grant Citizenship Applicants; Evidence of Travel History for Purposes of Evaluating Actual Physical Presence:
As I noted, IRCC is NOT going to make a grant citizenship decision depending on whether a government official can read a blurry passport stamp entered by another country.
But it warrants further noting, and remembering, that IRCC does NOT even examine the applicant's passport beyond the biological pages (in the copy submitted with the application) UNTIL the PI Interview (again, usually attendant the test event). For the vast, vast majority of applicants, IRCC has already assessed the applicant's actual physical presence BEFORE the applicant is sitting across from a processing agent conducting the interview. BEFORE a processing agent lays eyes on any of the stamps in the applicant's passport.
Of course that preliminary assessment is subject to what IRCC learns or perceives in the course of the interview, and in the course of reviewing the applicant's original documents, including the applicant's passport and entries in the passport. But the nature and scope of the interviewer's examination of the passport is largely dependent on whether something in the case has already triggered reason to elevate scrutiny. Which in the vast majority of cases there is NOT any such reason. So the interviewer casually scans the contents of the passport just enough to identify if there is something amiss, some inconsistency or incongruity, something triggering cause to look closer.
An isolated blurry stamp is not going to trigger elevated scrutiny (let alone become the focus of a challenge) UNLESS there are already OTHER factors or circumstances suggesting reason for concern, cause for doubt or suspicion.
Note, for example, that even though the instructions are clear, that any document containing information that is not in an official language MUST be accompanied by a proper translation, despite this instruction, scores of applicants show up for the interview without a proper translation of their passport stamps AND encounter NO issues, NO concerns, NOT even a question. (Personally been there, done that, no problem, no request for a translation, not even a question about the stamp in my passport that had information not in English or French.) IRCC is not engaged in Gotcha-Games. IRCC does not perceive a problem, generally, unless they have actual reason to see a problem.
That is, for the vast majority of applicants, it is NOT as if passports stamps are a significant factor.
CAVEAT/CAUTION: This is NOT to understate the importance of presenting passports, and is NOT intended to minimize the importance of passport stamps which might become the focus of inquiry. And especially so if IRCC has already identified cause for concerns about the applicant's travel history or presence in Canada as reported. Way, way, way too many variables and examples to go chasing illustrations down that rabbit-hole.
But I will offer two examples:
(1) If the processing agent examining the passport sees an entry in the passport indicating the applicant entered or exited another country during a period of time the applicant declared being present IN Canada, obviously that would be a red flag triggering questions, potentially RQ-related non-routine processing.
(2) If the processing agent examining the passport sees an entry in the passport indicating the applicant had a work permit issued by another country during a period of time the applicant reported living and working in Canada, that quite likely raises the risk of more focused scrutiny. And, if the applicant did not disclose having such status in the other country in the citizenship application, that is even more likely to result in further inquiry (which might be easily answered "oh, overlooked including information about that visa because I never took advantage of it, never went there to work," or in contrast that might trigger far more intensive scrutiny or even investigation if other information suggests the applicant failed to disclose information about going to and working in that country).