dudegujrat said:
Yeah same with me but I will follow the dates from i94 dates because there is no way I can remember all my trips from last 4 years it might little wrong but we can do nothing else they will figure it out.
Assuming the application is returned because the presence calculation was not included, when re-submitting the application be sure to acknowledge that your accounting of trips is an estimation . . . and make a concerted effort to estimate as close as possible to the number of actual trips.
Do the homework. Really. Make the effort.
After all, IRCC is well aware of the obvious:
-- the fact that proving compliance with the PR RO and proving presence for citizenship is unquestionably, clearly
on the PR, so no PR has any excuse for not keeping track of travel outside Canada
-- the PR was there, each and every time, so the PR is the one person is the whole world who for certain can accurately account for each and every trip outside Canada
-- the less accurate the PR's account is, the less reliable the PR is as a reporter of the facts; the reason why there were inaccuracies (omissions even worse) is only one aspect,
the mere fact of inaccuracies (again, worse if there are omissions) compromises the PR's credibility
The last of these should be obvious but seems to be overlooked or ignored by many. Since the PR was there each and every time, and is indeed the one person in the world who can certainly give a total and accurate accounting of all trips, if the PR fails to do this by more than a few isolated minor mistakes, that illustrates a either a degree of carelessness or inattention to important details, or an inability to accurately report the facts, or worse, an unwillingness to accurately report, and thus reduces the extent to which the PR's account of facts can be relied upon to be complete and accurate -- this is the definition of compromised credibility.
Make no mistake: second only to actually in fact meeting the qualifications for citizenship, the next most important factor in how things go is the applicant's credibility.
Overall:
there-were-too-many-to-remember has very limited utility . . . it may fly some relative to getting the precise dates wrong for a few trips; but it is not likely to fly well, however, if your accounting of the number of trips is more than two or three short or there are numerous inaccuracies. Again, omissions are worse than being off in the date.
Obviously there are other factors:
IRCC is not going to get the same impression of a PR living in Oshawa or Edmonton or Winnipeg or Kelowna who reports a large number of
day-trips-for-shopping, comparable say to what a cross-border shopper living in Windsor or St. Catherines or Surrey reports.
Context matters. This is one isolated factor. The total stranger bureaucrat at IRCC who is examining and comparing and cross-checking all the details in the application, each and every detail, is looking at and contrasting all the details, looking for incongruities.
Let's be honest: a regular cross-border shopper, for example, will almost certainly have a pattern, and that pattern will have some relationship to other aspects of the individual's life. If there are incongruities, that will invite questions. That is how it works. If a PR who reports regular employment in a job that typically is a Monday to Friday full time job, reports a large number of during the week cross-border shopping trips, that is going to invite questions, and especially so the farther from the border the PR's work or home is.
Unfortunately, even totally innocent incongruities will give a total stranger bureaucrat the impression of an incongruity, and thus invite questions.
To offset this, the best approach is to be as complete and accurate in reporting all details as possible. And remembering that not-remembering tends to not be a good excuse.
