I concur in the recent observation by
newbrunswicker, that there is a tendency to encourage applicants
". . . to request CBSA and FOIA unnecessarily."
Canadiangoose said:
Hello Guys,
I was reviewing all the entry exit stps of my usa trips and noticed that one entry is missing on passport.
During my test, can I present the printout from the following website to the officer??
Yes, you can. But you probably will not need to do this. And doing this probably will not make a difference in the decision made.
If it is apparent that such records are an important aspect of proof, odds are high the case will be non-routine anyway.
If the case is non-routine, strong proof of actual dates of exit and entry will be important,
but far from sufficient. In a non-routine residency/presence case, the applicant will need to also prove actual presence between last reported date of entry and next reported date of travel.
Reminder:
In
routine cases there is an implicit inference the applicant was in Canada from the last reported date of entry until the next reported date of exit. This is how the online presence calculator works, counting days from reported date of entry to next reported date of exit as days in Canada. IRCC relies on this
so long as there is nothing which indicates, to IRCC, it should not be relied upon.
Thus, no additional proof is necessary in the routine case.
If, in contrast, IRCC has concerns, if IRCC perceives a reason to question or doubt the completeness and accuracy of the applicant's reported travel history, records from the U.S. and Canada are not likely to be anywhere near enough. That is, it is not likely presenting the U.S. records at the interview will be enough to overcome questions about the accuracy or completeness of your presence-calculation declarations.
Observations and Analysis; The Longer Explanation:
This is another long, more in-depth post of observations, analysis, and explanation. Many, perhaps most, will find this redundant (much of this has been posted before, as the related issues arise again and again) or otherwise of little interest, and so
should skip past this post.
For those who are concerned about a so-called
missing stamp in their passport, however, I hope the following is informative and illuminating.
In General:
In general, there is
NO missing stamp issue since it is more common that at least some border crossing events do not result in a corresponding stamp in passports. Note, for example, that most applicants, almost all applicants, would be issued RQ if the absence of a stamp for border crossing events was really a significant issue.
There are exceptions, but the exceptions to this almost always involve elevated scrutiny of the applicant arising from (and more influenced by)
other reasons, that is other reasons to question the accuracy or completeness of the applicant's travel history declarations. Even then, usually the so-called
missing stamp has little or no significance, and exceptions to this (in turn) almost certainly involve an applicant otherwise entangled in a
non-routine case being scrutinized as either a
residency/presence case or
possible-residency-fraud case.
Reminder revisited:
Again, in
routine cases there is an implicit inference the applicant was in Canada from the last reported date of entry until the next reported date of exit. This is how the online presence calculator works, counting days from reported date of entry to next reported date of exit as days in Canada.
In a
non-routine case, when IRCC has identified a reason to question the applicant's declaration of travel history, IRCC may tend to give this inference little or even no weight. Depending on the degree of skepticism the examining officer has, regarding the accuracy and completeness of the applicant's declarations, the applicant may be required to objectively prove actual presence in Canada in-between the last reported date of entry and next reported date of exit.
Thus, in the
non-routine case, proof of travel dates can be important, critically important,
BUT are
NOT sufficient proof.
Effect of Records for Travel Dates; Passport Examination; Exceptions Explained:
To be clear: for the vast majority of applicants, the presence-calculation is what counts, and is what IRCC will rely on
so long as IRCC does not see some reason to question or doubt the accuracy and completeness of what the applicant has submitted. While the examination of an applicant's passport can be more thorough and complicated, in the
routine case this examination really is merely to
verify what the applicant has reported, and tends to be perfunctory so long as nothing inconsistent is apparent.
Thus, for qualified applicants who have
no reason to apprehend there is cause for IRCC to handle the application as a
non-routine case, there is no need to go to the test/interview armed with either CBSA or U.S. records showing entry or exit dates.
In contrast, for those who do apprehend some degree of questioning or doubt from IRCC, anticipating some likelihood that IRCC will have concerns about the completeness and accuracy of the travel history as reported,
be aware that presenting CBSA and U.S. records at the interview is NOT likely to change the outcome. There have been a number of sporadic anecdotal reports suggesting otherwise, but these are almost always based on the reporter's perception and, frankly (my strong sense), do not really reflect what actually determined the decision made.
There are probably some exceptions, a very few; that is some occasions when extra documentation brought and presented by the applicant made a difference so that the applicant avoided getting a CIT 0520 (RQ-lite) or CIT 0171 (full blown RQ) in a situation where the applicant might have otherwise been issued one or the other.
While this is undoubtedly unusual, probably rare, it does beg the question: why not, then, bring and make an effort to present CBSA or U.S. records? Just in case it will make such a difference.
Leading to this observation:
tim50 said:
. . . I had CBSA record with me during the interview that had all the entries (including one missing passport entry). Officer denied to look CBSA and said - she will request by herself. Still waiting to get update.
For the applicant who has made the effort to obtain these records (CBSA and/or U.S.), sure, bring them, there is no reason not to bring them. That said, better to keep these, and any other documents not specifically requested,
separate from those the applicant is instructed to bring, so that the requested documents can be easily presented without having to shuffle through a lot of paper.
But I would suggest
NOT attempting to present these extra documents
unless the interviewer asks a specific question for which the documents are clearly relevant.
For example, if the interviewer specifically asks why there is no passport stamp for a particular reported entry into the U.S., or more to the point, if the interviewer specifically asks how the applicant knows or can show a particular date of entry into the U.S. since there is no stamp in the passport showing that entry,
then the applicant can reach for and present the U.S. records and say they show the entry into the U.S. on that date.
Frankly, I seriously doubt that will make a difference. There is a small chance it will. But most of the time the interviewer is not asking that question looking for a definitive answer. Typically such a question is asked in order to see how the applicant responds, looking for indications about the applicant's credibility, using the absence of a stamp to, in effect, test the applicant. More often than not, by a big margin, whether the applicant will be given RQ will not depend on the answer so long as the applicant's response is reasonable and credible (recognizing there are, of course, many ways in which the applicant can answer badly and which in turn will tend to raise concerns or questions, and further in turn could be what tips the interviewer toward issuing RQ).
Leading to an observation about impressions made: what impression is made by an applicant who obtains U.S. records and brings them to the interview, even though there has been no request for those records? Sure, the impression made might be the applicant is cautious and well-prepared. Or, this can make the impression the applicant knows he has reason to worry about how convincing his case is, in turn inviting the interviewer to likewise wonder if there is indeed cause for the applicant to worry and a need to probe further.
The CBSA travel history raises the stakes a bit higher: applicants are instructed, in effect, they should
NOT obtain their CBSA records. So the applicant who comes to the interview and attempts to present her CBSA travel history records is, in effect, telegraphing the interviewer:
I did not follow instructions in addition to the potential impression about potentially having reason to worry.
Obtaining CBSA or U.S. Entry Records: Who and When?
PRs should maintain a complete and accurate record of all international travel. The PR who does this should have
NO need to obtain either CBSA or U.S. records.
The PR who foolishly has failed to keep sufficient records to accurately and completely report all dates of exit and dates of entry in the presence calculator, with a high degree of certainty, will want to obtain such records (including the U.S. if there is any question about trips to the U.S.) to
help, emphasis on merely helping the applicant reconstruct a complete and accurate record of travel dates, as complete and accurate as possible. In this scenario, the applicant should also make a concerted effort to consult and research
other sources to, as well as the applicant can, verify dates of travel. It warrants emphasizing that this demands a concerted, diligent, and extensive effort to track down all information about traveling abroad. For those who do not have a for-certain record of all travel dates, approach this casually at your peril.
As I have oft noted:
the only for-sure complete and accurate source of dates of travel is the applicant himself or herself, because the applicant was there, in person, each and every time the applicant entered Canada, every time the applicant left Canada. No other sources can be relied upon to be complete. U.S. and CBSA records are almost always accurate, but not necessarily complete. IRCC will
not rely on them to be complete (even though for many travelers they are indeed complete).
IRRC sometimes specifically requests these documents, in which case the applicant should obtain and submit them.
And some applicants can anticipate they are more likely than most to get such a request. Obviously these applicants should obtain these records sooner rather than later.
In particular, applicants who have reason to anticipate that IRCC will likely question their accounting of travel dates should probably obtain such records sooner rather than waiting for a request. Presenting the records at the interview might help but probably will not. But, at least the applicant will have these records to promptly submit if requested or to otherwise submit in conjunction with other requested documents, without having to wait for them.
Example: If the applicant has lost or otherwise cannot present a relevant passport or Travel Document, odds are high IRCC will want more proof, and these records could be included and constitute important proof even if they are not specifically requested by IRCC; such an applicant would be prudent to obtain such records sooner rather than later.
Submitting such records for-the-record: Note, for the applicant issued RQ or otherwise scheduled for an additional residency/presence hearing (including a hearing with a Citizenship Officer, but especially so for a hearing with a Citizenship Judge), it can be important to obtain and submit the CBSA travel history . . . either with the RQ submission, or in person at a hearing (politely insisting it be included in the file), despite any instruction or assurance from IRCC that it is not necessary to provide it. While it may no longer be a problem (internal processing is now largely done behind the curtain, outside the public's view), in the past the CBSA travel history was obviously considered by IRCC, even by the CJ, but sometimes not itself made a part of the record . . . so if an applicant has any anticipation of a potential appeal, best for the applicant to himself or herself make sure it is included in the file and part of the record. Actual cases where the absence of the CBSA record on appeal has contributed to a decision against the applicant are few in number, but there are some where, if the CBSA report reflected an entry the applicant argued it did, the records could have made the difference; since IRCC is in control of what gets into the record other than what the applicant overtly submits in paper, the applicant should overtly submit any documents the applicant relies on in proving his or her case, even if IRCC or a CJ says they are not necessary.
General Observations About Passport Examination:
Foremost: for the vast majority of applicants the entire documents-check interview is relatively perfunctory, including the passport examination which, likewise, is typically perfunctory if not cursory. It is not a hearing. It is not an interrogation. It is a formal, in-person screening, and goes a lot quicker and more easily than most apprehend it will. All that is usually expected and required is that the applicant directly and responsively answer the interviewer's questions, which are almost always easy questions (for any qualified applicant who has been living in Canada as reported in the application). While the test really is a test, the interview is not much of a test at all (except, of course, as to language ability . . . remembering that the documentation of official language ability submitted with the application is not conclusive, and the applicant can still be required to demonstrate official language ability in the interview).
Otherwise, and as noted above, there is no longer (and not for quite a long while now) any general
missing stamp issue. Relative to an entry into Canada the absence of a stamp in the passport is very common. Relative to entry into other countries, the absence of a stamp is common enough, except relative to certain countries known for consistently stamping passports, there really is no
missing stamp issue.
Routine passport examinations in interview:
In the
routine case, the documents-check interviewer (rather quickly) examines the applicant's passport(s) --
-- to verify the applicant has presented all relevant Travel Documents (especially passports)
-- to verify identity
-- to verify biographical information
-- to compare information in the passport(s) with other information
The latter warrants a more thorough explanation:
Depending on the particular applicant and interviewer, and to a widely varying degree, the applicant's passports are examined to compare additional information in the passport(s) with information in the file, including the information in the application and in declarations made in the presence calculation, but also other information in IRCC's records (this can include information obtained from third-party sources, such as Internet sites like LinkedIn or Canada411). This aspect of the examination can range from cursory to a thorough cross-checking of details, including passport stamps compared to travel history dates, depending on the interviewer's level of trust or skepticism. The nature and scope of this will mostly depend on whether anything in the file or interview has, so to say, tickled the interviewer's attention or otherwise raised some concern.
Again, this examination is usually perfunctory if not cursory, but yes, this aspect of the examination can be a relatively thorough examination and comparison --
-- looking for discrepancies, inconsistencies, or incongruities in general
-- looking more or less closely at particular stamps, visas, permits, or such on the individual pages, including examining stamps to verify travel history declarations
to the extent there are stamps
This process is mostly about identifying something inconsistent or incongruous with the applicant's representations or other information in the file. That is, it is about looking for indications that IRCC should question the applicant's case and require proof of actual presence beyond the information provided in the application, presence-calculation declarations, and answers to interview questions.
What the interview and documents-check is NOT about:
The interview is
NOT a hearing. While it is an integral part of the applicant's case, an important element in making the case, it is
NOT an opportunity for the applicant to prove the case.
It really is mostly about further screening the applicant, in person, face-to-face, to see if there are reasons to look at the applicant more closely, to see if there is cause for requiring the applicant to actually prove his or her case.
This is why presenting additional documents at the interview are not likely to change the outcome (except, perhaps negatively), since the outcome of the interview is essentially either
--
verification the file shows the applicant meets the qualifications, or
-- identifying reason to require the applicant submit further proof of qualification (noting that in this circumstance, it appears the interviewer will make notes about the nature and extent and reasons for identified concerns)
The first results in being scheduled for the oath (albeit sometimes subject to some further inquiries made by IRCC).
The latter typically means the applicant will be issued CIT 0520 or CIT 0171 (the latter being the full-blown RQ). And, if this happens, that is when the applicant should submit records from CBSA and the U.S. along with other documentation proving qualification for citizenship.
