CIC had asked for US entries as part of the CIT0520
They can obtain the CBSA report themselves
Anyone received a full RQ CIT 0171 recently?
- Thread starter Kamran2015
- Start date
They can obtain the CBSA report themselves
Yes bro I know that. I meant for your own records or evaluations...Off course we give consent to CIRC to get CBSA report in our application...If I was you I would have ordered already...its upto you any way
You will laugh that although I haven't got any RQ and waiting for test but I did get my CBSA report and provided with my application to make things easy for them
Many candidates do that, so I wont laughYes bro I know that. I meant for your own records or evaluations...Off course we give consent to CIRC to get CBSA report in our application...If I was you I would have ordered already...its upto you any way
You will laugh that although I haven't got any RQ and waiting for test but I did get my CBSA report and provided with my application to make things easy for them
Yes bro I know that. I meant for your own records or evaluations...Off course we give consent to CIRC to get CBSA report in our application...If I was you I would have ordered already...its upto you any way
You will laugh that although I haven't got any RQ and waiting for test but I did get my CBSA report and provided with my application to make things easy for them
Please enlighten me, I read on the CIC website that if you ordered your CBSA report that may delay your application (since you can authorize them to obtain it directly). I'm confused about this issue, because I have done some travels over the years (including road trips to the US) and don't remember getting a re-entry stamp from CBSA.
It warrants noting that these days it appears that the vast majority of applicants have no need to worry about RQ. Nonetheless, anyone can be RQ'd so all applicants should be at least somewhat prepared just in case.
Prospect of RQ:
You are correct to anticipate the prospect of RQ (CIT 0171) or RQ-lite (CIT 0520) given your circumstances. That said, if the processing agent and responsible Citizenship Officer assessing your application do not perceive cause to question your travel history dates, the odds of escaping RQ or RQ-lite are probably fairly good.
The manner in which you refer to having "rigorously verified" the days present in Canada, however, suggests you may not have contemporaneously kept, for yourself, precise records of all travel dates. That is, it appears you have done what you can to be accurate and complete, but you are not necessarily certain. In particular, if you are indeed relying on having reconstructed travel dates going back five years and involving frequent trips, that inherently increases the risk of making errors or omissions. Errors and especially omissions dramatically increase the risk of elevated scrutiny, thus potentially RQ related processing.
Assuming a near perfectly completed application, the most problematic aspect of your situation appears to be the combination of
-- frequent travel abroad (including some for an extended duration it appears)
-- employment history light on employment in Canada (mitigated some to extent you have more recently been at least self-employed in Canada)
-- overall ratio of time in Canada to time abroad (due to which you have a relatively small margin over the minimum requirements)
Any one of these alone is not likely to trigger RQ these days (it could, but these days that appears to be less likely -- there was a time when any period of self-employment automatically triggered RQ, for example, but it is clear that the current triage criteria used is not so strictly applied as that). It is the combination of these factors which is likely to trigger IRCC's need to more thoroughly check and verify your qualifications for citizenship, and in particular your meeting the presence requirement.
If you make any significant mistakes (being off by just three days perhaps) in declaring travel dates, given the combination of these circumstances that would seem to make getting at least RQ-lite almost a certainty. If your travel history is virtually perfect, there is a fair chance you will sail through the process on a routine track.
In other topics I have discussed, in some depth, how it would be prudent for some applicants to have a larger margin over the minimum requirements before they apply. The amount of a margin an applicant will prudently have, before applying, varies considerably. Some should have a much larger margin than others.
In your circumstances, however, the margin itself is not the more salient factor. The ratio of time in Canada to time outside Canada, particularly in conjunction with the extent to which you have had employment ties outside Canada, looms larger and somewhat ominously.
When the Bill C-6 3/5 rule comes into force, which is expected to happen this year, 1095 days within the preceding five years will qualify. No margin is necessary. But of course that only works if and when IRCC concludes that the applicant was actually present 1095 days within the relevant five years. It does NOT work if IRCC has questions, and in response to RQ processing the applicant does not sufficiently prove (prove to IRCC's satisfaction) that he or she was present at least 1095 days.
Which leads to the prospect of RQ and preparing for that.
Preparing for RQ:
.Steve's report of documents requested pursuant to RQ-lite, the CIT 0520, is a good start.
Remember, proof of presence in Canada is a lot like a three-legged stool, and the extent to which one leg is short or weak, alternative evidence tending to show actual presence is needed to hold the stool up.
The three legs:
-- travel history showing dates entering and exiting Canada, adding up to a calculation showing 1095 or more days presumably present in Canada
-- proof of in-fact residency in Canada, including evidence documenting an occupant's interest in a Canadian dwelling place for all periods of time reported to have been resident in Canada (encompassing every month)
-- proof of actual activities in Canada which directly document specific dates the applicant was physically present in Canada (a job in Canada, particularly one employed by a readily identified and recognized Canadian employer, is the more typical, best evidence for this)
Travel History Proof:
This part of an applicant's proof is mostly about verifying travel dates so that no questions or doubts are raised by this aspect of the applicant's case. No matter how thoroughly an applicant proves travel dates, that will not prove presence in Canada in-between a date of entry and next date of exit. Proof of travel dates is, thus, mostly about eliminating potential questions.
For routinely processed applicants, IRCC in effect infers the applicant was present in Canada in-between reported dates of entry and next reported date of exit. In contrast, RQ'd applicants do not benefit from such an inference unless the evidence of residency and activity in Canada is sufficient for IRCC to conclude, beyond a balance of probabilities, that the applicant was indeed likely to have been present in Canada in-between reported dates of entry and next reported date of exit.
Thus, proof of travel dates is an important leg on the stool, but it will not suffice to make the case if the applicant is subject to RQ'd processing.
The documents requested in .Steve's report most relevant to this leg of the stool include the copies of passports held (colour copies of all pages usually) and Records of Movement from other countries (some applicants report being asked for these from a specific country, while others report being asked for these from all countries the applicant traveled to). IRCC can use these documents to verify there are no inaccuracies or omissions in the applicant's accounting of travel dates.
Obviously, if in responding to RQ'd process, an applicant discovers having made any errors or omissions of this sort, the residency calculation should be revised to be as correct as possible, and submitted along with a separate statement acknowledging the error and correction, and explaining it ("due to oversight" for example, if that is true).
Additional documents an applicant might submit if given full blown RQ include documents evidencing actual trips, like airline tickets, boarding passes, emails confirming itinerary, credit or banking records showing airline ticket purchases.
For the applicant anticipating RQ, it might be a good idea to start obtaining a Record of Movement (if available) soon after making the citizenship application. Of course such records could be obtained even sooner, for the applicant who wants further sources of information to verify travel dates to report in the application. But the reason for obtaining the Record of Movement soon after making the citizenship application is so that it clearly covers up to the date of the application, and so that it can be obtained in time to promptly submit it if or when IRCC requests it.
I will address the CBSA Travel History separately, below. For now, there is NO reason to obtain and submit the applicant's own CBSA Travel History unless and until the case is referred to a Citizenship Judge for a presence hearing. In many cases and in all RQ'd cases, IRCC will access and assess the applicant's CBSA Travel History (which will most likely contain information over and above what is sent in response to an applicant's personal request for this).
The reason to obtain and submit this if the case is referred to a Citizenship Judge is to be sure the CBSA history is part of the record the CJ has to consider (and part of the record if an appeal is necessary). While I have not seen any reports indicating that IRCC, under Liberal leadership, has played dirty in this regard, as in itself considering but NOT including the CBSA history in its referral to the CJ, there were numerous such instances reported during the Harper years, including several reported in officially published decisions issued by the Federal Court . . . including instances in which the applicant was not allowed to present the CBSA travel history to the Federal Court, to support his or her case, because it was not part of the official record before the CJ. An applicant whose case is referred to a CJ wants to make sure the CBSA report is included and considered, at the least in the event there is an unintentional failure to include the CBSA report in the referral.
To be continued . . .
. . . continued post referring to . . .
Proof of residency:
If a person is physically present in Canada for a period of time that meets the presence requirement, that person will presumably have created a substantial paper trail of his or her life in Canada. Conversely, if IRCC has reason to question the applicant's declared time in Canada, the absence of a paper trail showing a life lived in Canada tends to evidence the likelihood some or much of that time may not have been spent in Canada.
The core documentation of residency is proof that the applicant had an occupant's interest in a dwelling. For many if not most, this would be proof of renting a place to live. Copy of lease agreement and proof of rent payment will suffice. Alternative documentation may be necessary for some applicants who were living with friends or family, such as the renter or owner's documentation and a statement from that individual as to precise dates, circumstances, and other pertinent information attesting to the applicant living at that address.
Bank and other records, such as showing payment of utilities, purchase of home or auto insurance showing Canadian address, payment for improvements to a dwelling, can be competent evidence tending to prove residency and thereby indirectly be evidence of presence.
Here too, however, proof of having a place to live in Canada does not directly prove the applicant was in Canada. But the absence of such proof will tend to indicate the likelihood some or much of the time the applicant may not have been in Canada.
Proof of activity in Canada:
This can be a bit of a catch-all category of evidence. The more days an applicant can substantively document being engaged in a particular activity at a particular location in Canada, the more that supports the proposition that days around that time were spent in Canada.
Obviously, the best and most comprehensive evidence of activity in Canada is a full-time job working at a facility in a particular place in Canada for a readily identified and recognized Canadian employer. The combination of pay stubs and official T-4 slips, showing presence on the job day in and day out, week after week, is about as solid evidence an applicant can have and submit.
Many, however, do not have that kind of employment. Many work for themselves or a family business. Many have periods of unemployment.
School attendance can offer some proof, but given the paucity of reliable records of actual attendance for many post-High School programs, these will only offer some supporting evidence.
As a personal note, I was (still am) self-employed, all my clientele were (still are) abroad, and I had traveled abroad dozens of times. That is, I exported my services (but fortunately I do not need to work abroad at all to do this, and can export my work product without every leaving Canada myself). I initially met eligibility requirements in 2011 but was well aware of the draconian RQ sweep under Harper's government and elected to wait, and then in 2012 that sweep escalated and timelines in many RQ'd cases approached three and more years. So I waited even longer and did not apply until I had thorough records of physically engaging in my business here in Canada, waiting nearly two years beyond the date I initially was eligible for citizenship. I did not receive RQ and became a citizen in barely eight months at a time when CIC was reporting a routine processing timeline of 18 months (note that overall the reported timelines tend to be around twice as long as the median timeline for legitimate, qualified applicants who do not have any non-routine processing).
Which brings up alternative records of activity in Canada. For the self-employed actually conducting a business in Canada this can be inconvenient but relatively easy: just keeping good business records, from banking to purchasing supplies, maintaining the place where one does business, supported by appropriate CRA tax filings.
Otherwise, an applicant should have at least some records of visits to doctors, dentists, eye-exams, accountants or other professionals. Additionally, proof of community-based activities can help, ranging from a religious leader's statement about attendance in mosque, church, synagogue, temple, or whatever, to participation in other community activities or events. (I kept records of my involvement in a citizen's group zoning challenge, against a rather notorious developer and the city administrators, which I am happy to report we actually won, against fairly difficult odds.)
Bank records and credit statements,
Ultimately, an applicant can also use testimonial letters. Such letters from professionals are best, but even from family, friends, and acquaintances, these can help to fill in some gaps. Caution: precise details can make a big difference. Testimonial letters from other than professionals can be given little weight. In particular, broad generalizations, like "I know J.S.D. was present in Canada for three years" tend to be particularly weak and given very little weight. References to a dozen specific dates and specific activities is far stronger evidence . . . such as "I spent a week with J.S.D. [fishing/hunting/bowling/going to ball games] the summer of 201x and 201y" or "J.S.D. and I went to see a film together twice a month between [date xx/xx and date xx/xx]."
The best evidence documents specific activities on specific dates, at specific locations.
It warrants noting the latter upfront because just making a record of doing this and that will help an individual later recount activities engaged in, in Canada, and help refresh the memory of others if need be for the purpose of writing a testimonial letter.
Some observations about RQ'd cases generally:
There is no reason to panic or even worry all that much.
IRCC does not engage in gotcha games looking for excuses to deny citizenship (except, perhaps, where someone in IRCC has the view the applicant is not legitimate or otherwise attempting to manipulate and abuse the system).
Many RQ-lite cases and even a fair number of full blown RQ'd cases are resolved in a relatively timely manner. IRCC is mostly interested in and pursuing verification that the applicant met the requirements. If the evidence submitted fairly well supports the applicant's case, AND there are no red flags suggesting manipulation or fraud, IRCC is not likely to be confrontational or unfriendly, let alone hostile, but rather quite likely to proceed in a timely, reasonable way to complete the process ultimately leading to the oath ceremony.
Anyone who reads the Federal Court decisions in citizenship application cases should readily recognize that there are usually very strong reasons why an applicant was denied citizenship based on not meeting the requirement to prove physical presence. This is backed up (with some exceptions, from mostly the usual suspects one might say) by the majority of forum reports by applicants who have been denied or persuaded to withdraw their application. A recent forum report, for example, was by an applicant who fell 32 days short of the presence requirement after he and the CJ carefully analyzed all of the information available to show time in Canada. Falling short of the physical presence requirement (applicable to all applications made after June 10, 2015, and going forward) is fatal to the application. IRCC has no discretion to grant citizenship no matter how close the applicant comes to meeting the requirement if the applicant does not actually meet the minimum.
Final Caution:
For any applicant apprehending a high risk for RQ, it is important to be particularly diligent about being truthful, accurate, and complete. This includes declaring foreign addresses and foreign employment activity. Any material omission of an address or work history, including foreign address or work, is a misrepresentation by omission. Failing to disclose a period of brief, incidental work abroad, probably will not cause problems, but technically it could. For the RQ'd applicant, however, a discrepancy of this nature could radically change the perceptions a processing agent or Citizenship Officer has about the applicant.
It may seem to be a bit of a Catch-22, in that if the applicant discloses employment abroad, for example, that in itself is bound to elevate scrutiny and even the level of skepticism, and since it will not support the case why not leave it out, and what are the odds IRCC will discover it. But no, NO. Lots of things can lead to RQ. Very few things will lead to so dramatically compromising the applicant's credibility and undermining the case as will concealing (failing to disclose) this kind of information.
It warrants remembering that IRCC can and sometimes does research so-called open sources to find information about an applicant. That includes social media. One of the most common sources IRCC has used is LinkedIn (researching not just the name of the applicant, but other names similar to the applicant's). One applicant was compromised when CIC (before it became IRCC) obtained a brochure about a conference in Switzerland that indicated the applicant was a participant on behalf of a foreign employer, bank as I recall, the applicant had not disclosed in his work history. A doctor's case was undermined by a LinkedIn account reference to an association with a clinic in the U.S. which the doctor did not disclose. The cases are many.
Continuing discussion about the three legs of proof to establish physical presence in Canada (travel history; residency in Canada; activity in Canada), for applicants who are subjected to RQ processing.
Proof of residency:
If a person is physically present in Canada for a period of time that meets the presence requirement, that person will presumably have created a substantial paper trail of his or her life in Canada. Conversely, if IRCC has reason to question the applicant's declared time in Canada, the absence of a paper trail showing a life lived in Canada tends to evidence the likelihood some or much of that time may not have been spent in Canada.
The core documentation of residency is proof that the applicant had an occupant's interest in a dwelling. For many if not most, this would be proof of renting a place to live. Copy of lease agreement and proof of rent payment will suffice. Alternative documentation may be necessary for some applicants who were living with friends or family, such as the renter or owner's documentation and a statement from that individual as to precise dates, circumstances, and other pertinent information attesting to the applicant living at that address.
Bank and other records, such as showing payment of utilities, purchase of home or auto insurance showing Canadian address, payment for improvements to a dwelling, can be competent evidence tending to prove residency and thereby indirectly be evidence of presence.
Here too, however, proof of having a place to live in Canada does not directly prove the applicant was in Canada. But the absence of such proof will tend to indicate the likelihood some or much of the time the applicant may not have been in Canada.
Proof of activity in Canada:
This can be a bit of a catch-all category of evidence. The more days an applicant can substantively document being engaged in a particular activity at a particular location in Canada, the more that supports the proposition that days around that time were spent in Canada.
Obviously, the best and most comprehensive evidence of activity in Canada is a full-time job working at a facility in a particular place in Canada for a readily identified and recognized Canadian employer. The combination of pay stubs and official T-4 slips, showing presence on the job day in and day out, week after week, is about as solid evidence an applicant can have and submit.
Many, however, do not have that kind of employment. Many work for themselves or a family business. Many have periods of unemployment.
School attendance can offer some proof, but given the paucity of reliable records of actual attendance for many post-High School programs, these will only offer some supporting evidence.
As a personal note, I was (still am) self-employed, all my clientele were (still are) abroad, and I had traveled abroad dozens of times. That is, I exported my services (but fortunately I do not need to work abroad at all to do this, and can export my work product without every leaving Canada myself). I initially met eligibility requirements in 2011 but was well aware of the draconian RQ sweep under Harper's government and elected to wait, and then in 2012 that sweep escalated and timelines in many RQ'd cases approached three and more years. So I waited even longer and did not apply until I had thorough records of physically engaging in my business here in Canada, waiting nearly two years beyond the date I initially was eligible for citizenship. I did not receive RQ and became a citizen in barely eight months at a time when CIC was reporting a routine processing timeline of 18 months (note that overall the reported timelines tend to be around twice as long as the median timeline for legitimate, qualified applicants who do not have any non-routine processing).
Which brings up alternative records of activity in Canada. For the self-employed actually conducting a business in Canada this can be inconvenient but relatively easy: just keeping good business records, from banking to purchasing supplies, maintaining the place where one does business, supported by appropriate CRA tax filings.
Otherwise, an applicant should have at least some records of visits to doctors, dentists, eye-exams, accountants or other professionals. Additionally, proof of community-based activities can help, ranging from a religious leader's statement about attendance in mosque, church, synagogue, temple, or whatever, to participation in other community activities or events. (I kept records of my involvement in a citizen's group zoning challenge, against a rather notorious developer and the city administrators, which I am happy to report we actually won, against fairly difficult odds.)
Bank records and credit statements,
Ultimately, an applicant can also use testimonial letters. Such letters from professionals are best, but even from family, friends, and acquaintances, these can help to fill in some gaps. Caution: precise details can make a big difference. Testimonial letters from other than professionals can be given little weight. In particular, broad generalizations, like "I know J.S.D. was present in Canada for three years" tend to be particularly weak and given very little weight. References to a dozen specific dates and specific activities is far stronger evidence . . . such as "I spent a week with J.S.D. [fishing/hunting/bowling/going to ball games] the summer of 201x and 201y" or "J.S.D. and I went to see a film together twice a month between [date xx/xx and date xx/xx]."
The best evidence documents specific activities on specific dates, at specific locations.
It warrants noting the latter upfront because just making a record of doing this and that will help an individual later recount activities engaged in, in Canada, and help refresh the memory of others if need be for the purpose of writing a testimonial letter.
Some observations about RQ'd cases generally:
There is no reason to panic or even worry all that much.
IRCC does not engage in gotcha games looking for excuses to deny citizenship (except, perhaps, where someone in IRCC has the view the applicant is not legitimate or otherwise attempting to manipulate and abuse the system).
Many RQ-lite cases and even a fair number of full blown RQ'd cases are resolved in a relatively timely manner. IRCC is mostly interested in and pursuing verification that the applicant met the requirements. If the evidence submitted fairly well supports the applicant's case, AND there are no red flags suggesting manipulation or fraud, IRCC is not likely to be confrontational or unfriendly, let alone hostile, but rather quite likely to proceed in a timely, reasonable way to complete the process ultimately leading to the oath ceremony.
Anyone who reads the Federal Court decisions in citizenship application cases should readily recognize that there are usually very strong reasons why an applicant was denied citizenship based on not meeting the requirement to prove physical presence. This is backed up (with some exceptions, from mostly the usual suspects one might say) by the majority of forum reports by applicants who have been denied or persuaded to withdraw their application. A recent forum report, for example, was by an applicant who fell 32 days short of the presence requirement after he and the CJ carefully analyzed all of the information available to show time in Canada. Falling short of the physical presence requirement (applicable to all applications made after June 10, 2015, and going forward) is fatal to the application. IRCC has no discretion to grant citizenship no matter how close the applicant comes to meeting the requirement if the applicant does not actually meet the minimum.
Final Caution:
For any applicant apprehending a high risk for RQ, it is important to be particularly diligent about being truthful, accurate, and complete. This includes declaring foreign addresses and foreign employment activity. Any material omission of an address or work history, including foreign address or work, is a misrepresentation by omission. Failing to disclose a period of brief, incidental work abroad, probably will not cause problems, but technically it could. For the RQ'd applicant, however, a discrepancy of this nature could radically change the perceptions a processing agent or Citizenship Officer has about the applicant.
It may seem to be a bit of a Catch-22, in that if the applicant discloses employment abroad, for example, that in itself is bound to elevate scrutiny and even the level of skepticism, and since it will not support the case why not leave it out, and what are the odds IRCC will discover it. But no, NO. Lots of things can lead to RQ. Very few things will lead to so dramatically compromising the applicant's credibility and undermining the case as will concealing (failing to disclose) this kind of information.
It warrants remembering that IRCC can and sometimes does research so-called open sources to find information about an applicant. That includes social media. One of the most common sources IRCC has used is LinkedIn (researching not just the name of the applicant, but other names similar to the applicant's). One applicant was compromised when CIC (before it became IRCC) obtained a brochure about a conference in Switzerland that indicated the applicant was a participant on behalf of a foreign employer, bank as I recall, the applicant had not disclosed in his work history. A doctor's case was undermined by a LinkedIn account reference to an association with a clinic in the U.S. which the doctor did not disclose. The cases are many.
CBSA Travel History:
Regarding the inclusion of a personal copy of CBSA travel history with the application: No laugh. Just a wince.
Reminder: If in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, yep, follow the instructions.
The instructions in the application form itself specifically request that applicants DO NOT apply for their CBSA travel history.
Many prospective applicants who have made the serious mistake of not keeping precise records of travel, however, are indeed wise to obtain a copy of their CBSA travel history to assist their reconstruction of travel history.
Another reminder: never rely entirely on any particular source of information as to travel dates. Obviously the applicant's own contemporaneously kept records are the best source, recognizing that the applicant is the one and only source in the world who was necessarily present, for each and every border-crossing event, and thus capable of keeping an entirely accurate and complete record. If the prospective applicant foolishly (especially for those who traveled frequently) did not keep such records, it is imperative the prospective applicant make a concerted, diligent effort, utilizing multiple sources, to reconstruct his or her travel history. While the current instructions allow for estimating some dates, and IRCC generally allows some leeway for minor mistakes, it is critically important to be as accurate and complete as possible in reporting travel dates.
Leading to the second, and very important part of this reminder: for legitimate, qualified applicants, suspected inaccurate and especially incomplete travel date disclosures are probably the most common reason for issuing RQ or RQ lite, perhaps second only to failing to follow the instructions.
In any event, it is hard to imagine how it would be a good idea to overtly demonstrate to IRCC a disregard for the instructions. Obtaining one's CBSA Travel History is one thing. Going ahead and blatantly showing one's disregard for the instructions by including a copy of it with the application seems, to me, rather foolish.
There are some anecdotal reports, however, from applicants who obtained their own copy and presented it during the documents-check interview when the interviewer was closely questioning some travel dates and passport stamps. I am a little skeptical about these reports, but they claim this helped their case.
Including additional documents with application generally:
There is no clear evidence that including anything other than what is required will help. There has been clear evidence that in many instances it has not helped (applicants who submitted documentation and got RQ anyway, including some who included the equivalent of a response to full blown RQ nonetheless getting the full blown RQ).
My sense is that the inclusion of additional documentation is not likely to help, no matter what is included.
In contrast, I suspect that the inclusion of some documents could be likely to raise questions. That would include submitting a large number of documents, or submitting documents that blatantly evidence a disregard for following the instructions, or (rather obviously) sending in any documents which will raise a red flag (for example, a document showing the applicant's address different from what the applicant reports in the address history -- obvious but among the kinds of mistake more than a few make) .
I admit, I did include some extra documents, copies of CRA Notices of Assessment. I do not know if they helped. I doubt it helped. However, since my application proceeded smoothly to the oath in less time than many were reporting, at that time (2013/2014), I am sure it did not hurt.
HI. There is no delay in application. Who told you..its a myth circulating around...same like some people saying if you order GCMS notes it delays your application... There is no truth to it...I know people who have ordered CBSA report + GCMS notes etc and there is no delay or anything like that...Why CIC website says not to include this report because they don't want to put burden on themselves and reduce the work load and CBSA report is not required in every applicant's case..its perfectly legal and some thing that is allowed by the Govt under the rules....
ordering CBSA report also confirms that entry dates on your passport matches with that of CBSA record and all data is accurate like your name, date of birth etc...many people reported that there is error in their CBSA report and one or two dates are missing..so its good to have this report to check if every thing is fine..By the way I had ordered my CBSA report back in Jan 2017 and it took 30 days to get it. what they mean by delay is it requires 30 days to get it. but if you have already obtained it before applying how can delay occur ? I had obtained that report in Jan 2017 after my last visit abroad and my last entry to Canada in Dec 2016....I applied for Citizenship in may 2017..Good luck
Last edited:
Hi, may I asked if you have done your oath? I am still waiting after 25 months!