I'm wondering how IRCC verifies the travel history when exits by air are not collected?
Sorry for a lengthy post.
As for "lengthy" posts, many of mine are indeed "lengthy" and this will be one of those. No apologies. This is not twitter. The questions and issues I ordinarily discuss are not FAQs which can be adequately addressed in a sentence or three. HOWEVER, to be clear, I am NOT an expert.
Frankly, it does NOT matter "how IRCC verifies the travel history."
What matters far more is what might trigger IRCC to have concerns or questions about the applicant's physical presence calculation, which obviously would include concerns or questions about the applicant's accounting of travel history (dates-of-exit and dates-of-entry) but goes well beyond that.
There are many, many ways in which IRCC might PERCEIVE there is cause to question the accuracy or completeness of the applicant's version of travel history (dates-of-exit and dates-of-entry), so many that addressing that tends to be a distraction.
What prospective applicants should understand is actually very, very simple: applicants need to make a very concerted effort to submit a near-perfect accounting of their travel history. A perfect (or at least near-perfect) accounting of travel history is the best insurance against RQ-related non-routine processing an applicant can buy. Submitting an actual physical presence calculation which has discrepancies with the applicant's actual (in fact) travel dates, and especially omissions, is among the more obvious circumstances likely to increase the risk of RQ-related non-routine processing.
The equation is relatively simple and straight-forward: get exit & entry dates right, as in accurate AND complete, places the best bet for smooth sailing. Fail to be accurate, or make omissions, increases the risk of non-routine RQ-related processing.
It really is that simple.
And, after all, since the applicant was personally there each and every time the applicant left Canada, and each and every time the applicant entered Canada, this is information the applicant absolutely has (unless the applicant has failed to keep accurate records) . . . and, indeed, there is NO ONE else in the whole world, no government body, no organization, no other person, who has this information FOR SURE . . . the applicant is the ONLY PERSON in the whole world who FOR CERTAIN has this information.
Which is why IRCC relies so extensively on the applicant to ACCURATELY and COMPLETELY provide this information.
So the big question is whether or not IRCC sees something that raises a concern or question, anything that might indicate it is POSSIBLE the applicant failed to ACCURATELY and COMPLETELY provide this information.
Perhaps, however, you really are interested in what IRCC looks at in assessing the accuracy and completeness of the applicant's travel history. That is a huge subject. Much of the answer is NOT public information. IRCC's investigatory methods and means are confidential. Some, however, is obvious. And we know a lot more than the government will acknowledge let alone overtly divulge (some from older leaked documents). And we can reliably extrapolate a good deal from what is public information, including what is revealed in Federal Court decisions ruling on actual cases.
We know enough to easily recognize that when the interviewer examines the citizenship applicant's passport stamps, during the interview, that is but a tiny sliver of the review process. But, yes, for many or most applicants the interviewer will at least glance through the stamped pages in the applicant's travel documents. To be clear, however, this is a process in which IRCC is looking for clues indicating discrepancies more than it is a fact-by-fact, date-by-date verification. Sure, the more complex the applicant's travel history, and more so if there are other reasons elevating the amount of attention given (such as applicants who apply with small margins over the minimum), the more likely the interviewer will be to focus on a fact-by-fact, date-by-date verification. But still mostly looking for discrepancies, for incongruities. For example: looking for any passport stamped with a date during a time period the applicant reported being IN Canada. Looking for stamps suggesting residential status in another country, or stamps suggesting employment abroad. And so on.
BUT again, that is a mere sliver of POTENTIAL inquiries IRCC personnel may conduct in reviewing a citizenship applicant's information for accuracy and completeness.
Note, for example, what has tripped up some applicants has been information posted in social media; problematic LinkedIn account information has popped up more than occasionally in the officially published decisions (including IAD published opinions regarding PRs with Residency Obligation non-compliance cases), like the doctor whose LinkedIn account showed him with experience working for an organization in the U.S. during the eligibility period and which he did not disclose in his employment history or travel history; like the individual for whom a LinkedIn account in a different but similar name appeared to be information about her and similarly contained information about experience with an employer abroad she did not disclose during a time period she reported being IN Canada, where she failed to submit sufficient evidence to prove that LinkedIn account was not hers or that the information was not really about her.
Again, these are but mere examples in individual cases. The range of ways in which IRCC might see something which raises questions is far, far too expansive to attempt enumerating, recognizing again that there is much we are not allowed to know about.
BUT much of this comes around to indications of CREDIBILITY generally. There are many, many ways just cross-checking the information in the application forms themselves can raise concerns or questions about the applicant's credibility. And if IRCC has concerns or questions about the applicant's credibility, that can rather quickly tip the scales toward RQ-related non-routine processing, if not outright skepticism and, in more extreme cases, even difficulty proving the case.
Consider the applicant's work or activity history for example. This does NOT directly relate to any qualification for citizenship. But it is considered important enough by IRCC that any gap in this information will render an application incomplete. That is, to qualify for citizenship an applicant does not need to show he or she worked so much as a single day in Canada. But a failure to provide an account of employment for EVERY month during the eligibility period could lead to the application being outright rejected. IRCC requires and reviews this information for multiple reasons, but a big reason is that it helps put information about dates physically present in Canada in context. It helps to clarify if not verify physical presence.
In that context, for example, if something tickles a processing agent's curiosity buttons, there can be some rather simple inquiries made, such as to verify employment or even so slight as to just verify the existence of a named employer, which for most applicants will not lead to any reason for concern but if something seems incongruous or awry, that can trigger another level of inquiry . . . and so on.
Leading back to putting travel history in context. Leading back to the core issue. Travel history is no more than an outline of dates present. As long as IRCC is satisfied that the applicant's version of the travel history is ACCURATE and COMPLETE, that will support the INFERENCE the applicant was actually physically present all those days in between a known date-of-entry and the next reported date-of-exit. The vast, vast majority of qualified applicants benefit from this inference. And, indeed, that is precisely how the online presence calculator works: it counts the date-of-entry and every day after that until and including the next reported date-of-exit as days IN Canada. BUT that travel history only directly shows just TWO days present in Canada; all the other days, the days in-between, are INFERRED to have been IN Canada.
Of course any direct information that the applicant's travel history dates are inaccurate or incomplete, such as a CBSA travel history showing an entry date the applicant has not reported, or a foreign passport stamp dated during a time period the applicant reported as IN Canada, directly raises questions about the accuracy of the applicant's travel history. BUT it is just as important to understand that if and when IRCC discovers any information which suggests the POSSIBILITY the applicant might not have been actually physically present IN Canada any one of those in-between days, between a known date-of-entry and the next reported date-of-exit, that brings into question the validity of the inference the applicant was in Canada all those in-between days.
The range of sources which might elicit such information is huge. BUT there is little or no likelihood of that if the applicant ACCURATELY and COMPLETELY reported all travel history dates. And, if for some reason a question does nonetheless arise, for the applicant whose presence calculation ACCURATELY and COMPLETELY reported all travel history dates, resolving such a question tends to be a lot easier and take a lot less time.
SUMMARY: Again, the equation is relatively simple and straight-forward: get exit & entry dates right, as in accurate AND complete, places the best bet for smooth sailing. A failure to be accurate, or making omissions, increases the risk of non-routine RQ-related processing.
It really is that simple.
