Some frequent traveler to the U.S. observations:
"Frequent" is an imprecise term. An individual commuting to a job in the U.S. will, obviously, indeed be a
frequent traveller to the U.S.
But "
frequent traveller" might also apply to an individual who averages two trips to the U.S. a month (over the course of four years the latter would report, after all, nearly a hundred trips to the U.S., if reporting day trips -- and note, current application requires applicants to report day trips).
Detail differences in the individual case are likely to loom large, and CIC's perspective will also depend not just on the frequency of the trips but other factors, with status being a big one, nature and purpose of the travel another, as well as the nature of the individual's other associations or connections to the U.S.
For a PR with close family (other than spouse and dependent children) living relatively nearby in the U.S., and no other ties in the U.S., a hundred day trips in four years may evoke no more than a shrug. In contrast, for a PR with indications of ongoing residency related ties in the U.S. (employment history in the states; immediate family, as in dependents or spouse, living in the U.S.; Green Card status, among others), there is bound to be further if not elevated scrutiny. In a contrast of another sort, the individual with minimal or no apparent ties to the U.S., but who has a history of frequent travel to the U.S., is also likely to draw additional attention and scrutiny. For obvious reasons (or, one might more accurately say, due to obvious questions; declaration embracing weekly shopping trips to the U.S., for example, is as likely to raise questions as it is explain anything).
Generalizations can only intimate the broad range of possibilities.
That said, there are some generalizations which warrant the attention of applicants with frequent U.S. trips.
For example, applicants (other than U.S. citizens) with status to live or work in the U.S., especially those with a U.S. Green Card, are more likely to face elevated scrutiny and probably want to gather documentation to prove dates of travel sooner rather than later.
Applicants with work history in the U.S. (again, other than U.S. citizens), and especially with work history during the relevant time period for assessing residency (presence under new law), this including U.S. citizens, are also at even greater risk for elevated scrutiny and it would be prudent for them to gather documentation affirming dates of travel sooner rather than later.
And overall, the more frequently the PR traveled, the more significant it is to have a good buffer above the minimum presence threshold. (Note, for example, Justice Mactavish recently referred, in
a Federal Court citizenship case decision, to a small margin above the threshold as a specific reason supporting the Citizenship Judge's decision . . . in a case which, by the way, involved a PR living in Windsor who had substantial U.S. ties. By the way, this is another case in which CIC's investigation into the applicant's LinkedIn account resulted in key information undermining the applicant's case.)
As for taking to the test interview the U.S. documentation reporting entries, there are at best mixed reports about the efficacy of doing this. If CIC is questioning U.S. travel in detail at that stage, the formal request for this documentation or even other documentation seems as likely as not even if the applicant brings additional documentation of this sort to the interview. Very few reports indicate additional documents helped . . . there are some such reports, yes, but they are not many and among those it is often not clear the additional documents actually did make a difference. It might be said that there is a chance the U.S. entry records can help and virtually no chance they will hurt, at the test interview, so if they are obtained in time, sure, bring them . . . but be discreet about offering them. The problem is that many times the applicant is not made aware, during the interview, as to what questions or doubts CIC has, so there is often no opportune moment in the interview (which the interviewers generally control and move through very quickly) to bring up and present additional documentation . . . and since even for those with numerous trips reported, there is usually not a problem, in effect interrupting the interviewer to push the presentation of additional documentation actually risks raising questions CIC has not, is not, considering. If, however, the discussion about declared travel or what's reflected in the passport, opens the issue, that would be an opportunity to introduce additional information.
But generally, as with most CIC and CBSA encounters/interviews,
simple, straight-forward answers to the questions posed is the best approach, offering little beyond what is requested, offering explanations only if and when an explanation is requested. (Nonetheless a good idea, for those with elevated risks, to obtain the U.S. data sooner rather than wait. Good to have in hand if the issue comes up, or alternatively good to have readily available if a CIT 0520 or RQ comes after the interview.)
Overall, however: yes, of course, extensive ties abroad, including in the U.S. as indicated by frequent trips to the U.S., elevates the risk of questions, doubts, issues. A large measure of common-sense still applies despite the fact that the applicant for citizenship is dealing with a massive bureaucracy, recognizing that
bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does and that tends to skew things more than a bit.
