Again and again, for as long as I have participated in forum discussions about citizenship and the residency or presence requirements for citizenship (about seven years now), the government is challenged to keep exit and entry records and to, in effect, determine presence for itself rather than compelling applicants to prove their presence. It is a futile challenge. Not going to happen. How it is will continue to be how it is for well into the future.
How it is; exit/entry dates are critical, but in-between is also subject to burden of proof.
An effort to explain why IRCC does not simply rely on exit/entry records:
The following is a long post, the content of which is largely the same as I recently posted in a topic specifically about proof of presence, and is in many respects similar to observations posted many, many times over the years. While some of the details in the process have changed over the years, the essential framework in the CIC/IRCC approach to assessing the applicant's qualification based on presence in Canada has been consistent and is almost certainly going to continue as such well into the future. Thus, while the particular duration of presence varies, was a 3/4 rule, currently a 4/6 rule, likely to become a 3/5 rule within a year or two, the approach to evaluating actual presence will continue to be very much as it has been.
One big difference: IRCC now has the capacity, and makes a more concerted effort, to more thoroughly verify an applicants dates of travel. This is a critical element, but only one element.
Even if Canada could implement complete border entry and exit control, even if Trump becomes the U.S. President and builds a wall on the Canadian border, and thus the Canadian authorities have the capacity to reliably capture and store a record of all cross-border travel for everyone, there is no hint that doing so is on the horizon or, for that matter, in any foreseeable future.
Even if Canada did do this, there is no hint that Canada would revise its approach to the naturalized citizenship process to rely on such records to establish presence in Canada.
Yes, Canada is moving toward more thorough border controls. The capture and storage of such records is approaching being nearly complete, and the reliability of such records is increasingly reliable.
Nonetheless, there is NO hint, none at all, that Canada will revise its approach to the naturalized citizenship process to rely on such records to establish a citizenship-applicant's presence in Canada.
It is that simple. Argument that Canada should do otherwise is, at least for the foreseeable future, essentially nonsense, about nothing in the realm of what might happen, might as well be debating what colour the seats should be on tourist flights to the moon.
Canada's approach to assessing the citizenship applicant's presence in Canada:
Canada's approach to assessing the citizenship applicant's presence in Canada is straight-forward:
-- the applicant is required to declare ALL travel abroad, completely AND accurately
-- IRCC will cross-check that declaration with multiple sources of information, looking for omissions, discrepancies, or inconsistencies
-- IRCC will otherwise review the applicant's information and immigration history, and now CRA tax filing history, looking for indicators the applicant might not actually have been in Canada as much as declared, or otherwise might have been outside Canada during time periods the applicant declared he or she was in Canada
-- IRCC may also consider other sources of information, ranging from verifying telephone numbers, residential addresses, employers, and such, including using Canada411, internet searches, online profiles such as in linkedin (perhaps even Facebook or such), among other publicly accessible sources of information; here too, IRCC is looking for indicators the applicant might not actually have been in Canada as much as declared, or otherwise might have been outside Canada during time periods the applicant declared he or she was in Canada
-- then there is the documents check and interview, including an examination of the applicant's passports (looking at stamps to see if they are consistent with the declarations of travel, but also looking for stamps or visas indicating residency or working abroad), and in the interview some questions to assess the credibility of the applicant and the veracity of applicant's information (latter ranges from minimal or perfunctory, if there are no concerns, to more extensive questioning in some cases -- example: applicants asked about where they shopped for groceries, or how they commute to place of employment, or about landmarks in the neighbourhood where their residential address is located, among many variations)
Based on the above, the vast majority of applicants, in effect, pass; IRCC has no concern about the applicant's presence in Canada as declared BY THE APPLICANT (in the residency calculator for pre-June 11, 2015 applications; in the presence calculator for post-June 11, 2015 applications)
If, however, during the course of the above, or in reviewing all the information after the interview and documents check, IRCC identifies a reason-to-question-residency/presence, the applicant is given a request to submit further information and documentation. This can be either:
-- the CIT 0520 request for specific documents, which is designed to address this or that particular concern, anticipating that the particular documents requested should resolve that concern, or
-- a full blown RQ, Residence Questionnaire, or its future equivalent, which then puts the applicant to the task of fully proving presence in Canada
If the applicant is given the CIT 0520 request for specific documents:
-- and the response to the CIT 0520 satisfies any concerns IRCC has, the application proceeds to approval steps.
-- if the response to the CIT 0520 does not satisfy IRCC, typically that would lead to the full blown RQ (or its future equivalent)
Assessment of applications when full blown RQ issued:
This is a big subject. This is where the burden of proving residency/presence really is imposed on an applicant. While in the past this has happened to one in eight applicants overall, and for a year or so (2012) was imposed on a much higher percentage, it appears that the percentage of applicants being RQ'd now is a small minority. The vast majority of applicants never have to deal with this aspect of the process.
And, for those issued RQ, not all RQs are created equal.
Moreover, we do not know what criteria IRCC is currently employing in deciding who gets the full blown version of RQ (or, again, its future equivalent). We can infer that the criteria is consistent with and similar to the criteria we know about from the 2012 version of the File Requirements Checklist that was leaked to the public (and shared on at least one other forum) in conjunction with a large number of internal CIC communications many of us obtained in 2012 and 2013 (via ATI requests), in conjunction with the historical criteria first adopted under Liberal leadership (memorialized in a 2005 Operational Bulletin), but we also know there have been significant modifications to the criteria, both in terms of the specific criteria and in how it is applied. This is confidential information NOT shared with the public.
But the triggering criteria is significant primarily in that (1) it is what causes CIC/IRCC to issue RQ, and (2) once issued RQ that triggers the applicant's obligation to fully prove residency/presence regardless of the particular issue triggering the issuance of the RQ. Sometimes what causes the issuance of RQ is itself a big deal, such as a major discrepancy in the declaration of travel, or the failure to present a relevant travel document, or some other factor specifically suggesting there are unreported absences. But, again, regardless what triggered the RQ, once RQ has been issued the applicant is put to the task of documenting actual presence in Canada for all the time periods the applicant declared he or she was present in Canada, including submission of evidence related to residency ties in general.
Thus, despite the focus of the inquiry being on PRESENCE, the substance of the inquiry includes indicators of RESIDENCY; thus, establishing firm dates of travel is critical, but the applicant also needs to substantively document actual residence sufficient to support the conclusion the applicant was actually living in Canada between dates of entry and next date of exit.
This is it, the crux of it. The details in particular cases are many and complex, the nuances sometimes mind-boggling intricate, and the influence and effect of a wide range of facts and circumstances can be infuriatingly ambiguous if not perplexing, to a large extent unpredictable (this due in no small part to how much of the analysis is done behind closed curtains, based on confidential criteria deliberately kept from public view). Credibility factors loom very large but are often entangled in an enigmatic labyrinth of interrelated antecedents (many of which are oft times not apparent to the applicant).
But it really does come down to establishing the dates of entry and exit as best the applicant can (and if there is any major inconsistency between this and what IRCC perceives, that's a huge, huge problem) AND then documenting a life lived in Canada, the latter a showing that the applicant actually was in Canada in-between identified dates of entry and (declared or alleged) next date of exit.
Again, once RQ'd, the travel dates are mere bookends, and while IRCC will want those bookends to be documented, it is imperative to also show what books there are between each of the bookends.
Just because IRCC could establish the bookends (dates of exit, dates of entry) independently, again what is on the shelves in-between the bookends is a key part of proving actual presence in Canada. The failure to show a life lived in Canada in-between the bookends (dates of exit, dates of entry) leads to the inference the applicant may have been outside Canada during that time, that the applicant somehow traveled abroad more than the known bookends (dates of exit, dates of entry) reveal. IRCC does not need to prove any such travel, but rather the burden is on the applicant to show sufficient evidence of presence in-between known travel dates to establish a basis for inferring the applicant was actually present in Canada during those periods of time.
That is how it is. That is how it is going to be going forward for the foreseeable future.
How it should be is just plain not relevant to any discussion about proving presence or residence.
The good news is that given the expanded and enhanced tools IRCC has, with which it can more readily and, most importantly, more reliably verify the information the applicant submits, the vast majority of applicants can relax and not worry much at all about all this proof of presence stuff.
But for those who get dragged into a residency or presence case, proving presence is still a big deal, a necessary hurdle to overcome, and again that will mean having to show what is in-between the bookends, between the dates of travel, showing a life being lived in Canada.
