Then why does IRCC bother with RQs when there is doubt about physical presence if it can simply see the exits. This topic has been cited many times in federal cases, here is an extract from one of those cases in 2018. By the way I copied and pasted it as is, I did not type "NOT" in all caps.
The judge also failed to consider the citizenship officer’s comments when she issued the following cautions about the reliability of CBSA reports and the information in the passport itself:
. . .
- Note: CBSA report has limitations. Even if the client would have provided a record from CBSA, the exits of Canada are NOTrecorded by CBSA.
As I observed above, which is an observation I have made many times in this forum, all a confirmed date of entry establishes is presence ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY. Likewise, all a confirmed date of exit establishes is presence ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY. (Even though a confirmed exit date establishes leaving Canada that day, it also establishes, proves, presence in Canada that day . . . and NO more than that.)
Proof of actual physical presence requires more, quite a lot more, than just a report of recorded dates of entry and dates of exit. A substantial amount of information/evidence of actual physical presence IN-BETWEEN known entry and exit dates is necessary . . . just to meet the minimum standards for making a complete application, let alone proving actual presence sufficient to grant the application.
If an applicant leaves out so much as one calendar month in the address or employment history, for example, IRCC will not even process the application. Yet this information, the address and employment history, does not directly relate to any qualification for citizenship. It is material, and more than that considered so importantly material that even one month gaps result in rejecting the application (returning it, which in effect denies the application unless the applicant amends and re-submits the application with no gaps in address or work history), because it is considered crucial evidence in assessing the applicant's claims about physical presence.
It is correct that the online presence calculator automatically infers the applicant was present in Canada from a declared date of entry to the next declared date of exit.
BUT this does NOT create a presumption of presence during those in-between days. In particular, the online presence calculation output is DEPENDENT on IRCC being able to verify:
(1) that there is no indication of any unreported cross-border trips --
-- this is the reason why IRCC accesses CBSA travel history, to compare the applicant's declarations, looking for discrepancies or anomalies, and
-- why IRCC wants to examine ALL travel documents, again looking to see if information in passports or other travel documents suggests the possibility the applicant traveled outside Canada other than as declared
(2) that overall information about the applicant supports an inference of actual presence in-between those dates (thus, for example, no information indicating applicant was outside Canada a date the applicant reported being in Canada), and
(3) that otherwise there are no apparent reasons to question the applicant's travel history or accounting of physical presence
That is, the online presence calculator output (its total physical presence calculation), including the inference of presence in Canada from a declared date of entry to the next declared date of exit,
is a CONTINGENT conclusion . . . contingent on the applicant's other information being consistent with and supporting the calculation . . . and thus subject to verification as I just outlined.
The government data, which by the way does, increasingly, include exit data as well as entry data (currently the exit data is not as reliably complete as the entry data, but it is headed that way), should indeed HELP IRCC better and more efficiently assess citizenship applicant presence calculations. BUT as I have oft emphasized, IRCC does NOT use this information, these records, to prove an applicant meets the presence requirement. They use these records to see if there is reason to question the applicant's accounting. The burden of presentation and proof is on the applicant. There is NO hint this will change in the foreseeable future. No matter how thorough and reliable Canada is able to capture and maintain client entry and exit dates.
What is sometimes overlooked is that the travel history data, the reported and known entry and exit dates,
which it is the applicant's burden to provide, to provide these dates completely and accurately, is merely a baseline of information.
IRCC is NOT satisfied the applicant meets the physical presence requirement UNLESS and until the review of ALL other relevant information (including information from government sources, including CBSA records of entry dates, including CBSA access to records like U.S. entry dates which are considered to show exit dates from Canada) CONFIRMS the applicant's reported presence calculation, at least sufficiently well to not raise concerns about meeting the presence requirement (minor errors or even omissions do not ordinarily sabotage the application UNLESS the discrepancy suggests a POSSIBILITY the applicant did not meet the requirements).
IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS NO SURPRISE THAT IRCC CONTINUES TO ISSUE RQ - RELATED REQUESTS . . . notwithstanding the extent to which IRCC can now access extensive (and increasingly comprehensive) government records showing an immigrant's exit and entry dates.
By the way . . .
It helps to provide at least an identifying citation, even better an actual link, when referring to Federal Court decisions. I do not doubt your claim to accurately quoting the Federal Court but obviously you did NOT copy and paste it verbatim . . . a search for "NOTrecorded" (which is what you have "pasted" in your quote) or "notrecorded," results in ZERO hits in the database of Federal Court decisions . . . and indeed in all of CanII there is just one hit for this typo, in the summary for a 2003 Canadian bar document totally unrelated to immigration or citizenship.
Additionally, the date of the decision (such as "2018") is helpful information, BUT especially in presence or residence cases, the date of the application itself is important . . . for example, one of the most recent citizenship application cases decided by the Federal Court relates to an application made in July 2014 . . . see the May 7, 2019 decision by Justice Mosley in the Nada case at
http://canlii.ca/t/j065v . . . a great deal has changed since then, including the requirements for citizenship in MULTIPLE changes to the law, along with many changes in related policies and practices. While that case in particular is a minor/dependent case, it warrants noting that for adult applicants at that time, there was a RESIDENCY requirement, not a PRESENCE requirement, the relevant time period for calculating residency was just FOUR years not five, and the Obama-Harper agreement had not even been entered into yet for much of the relevant time period then, and was well short of being fully implemented even at the end of the relevant time period . . . which is simply to emphasize that a 2018 Federal Court decision does NOT necessarily reflect the nature or status of current data collection practices.
