One day trips to USA too much

[Natan]

You keep repeating this, but it doesn't make it any less sanctimonious the more times you say it. There are many reasons why a PR might not have a 100 percent correct and accurate accounting of their trips outside of Canada--starting with the fact that IRCC/CIC has historically instructed citizenship applicants to estimate trips to the US if they don't remember the exact dates. These instructions give the impression that estimating is perfectly fine and legitimate and that therefore a totally anal obsessive reporting of trips across the border is not necessary. Of course, this wont stop them from holding an applicant to a different standard once the application has been submitted, so best to keep as an accurate a record as possible.

It is <b>not</b> sanctimonious to state the facts. The law is <b>very</b> clear, to wit, the burden of proof, as regards evidence that citizenship requirements have been met, falls <b>solely</b> on the citizenship applicant. Period, end of story.

Citizenship and permanent residence both have residency requirement components. Any and all trips out of the country, regardless of duration, should be accounted for and supported, as much as possible, by independent, third party verifiable documentation. Failure to do so is an invitation to have one's application scrutinized.

"Anal obsessive" accounting is not only appropriate when dealing with governments, it is the recommended course of action. Information is a weapon. One who is armed with information, and practiced in wielding it, is likely to overcome or circumvent just about any obstacles governments put in one's way. Those who come prepared, and armed with adequate information, to do bureaucratic battle with government are bound to triumph in their purpose.

 

[dpenabill]

Overall: the overriding importance of an applicant's credibility cannot be overstated or over-estimated. It is huge. Inaccuracies or omissions indicate a failure to be an accurate reporter of the facts. That is a virtual definition of compromised credibility. (Credibility is about a lot more than honesty; it is mostly about being an accurate reporter of facts.)

As I often emphasize, because it is so important: 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.

To what extent inaccuracies or omissions compromise a citizenship applicant's credibility is very individual-case specific. Isolated and minor errors are relatively insignificant. The more the errors or the more significant the error, the more negative impact there is on the applicant's credibility. And this is more so for omissions.

While a small amount of acknowleged estimating probably does not invite elevated scrutiny or skepticism, it will not take much to make an unfavourable impression. Impressions matter. Appearances matter. Especially relative to credibility.

The critical importance of credibility derives from the fact that the burden of proof is squarely on the applicant. The less credibility an applicant has, the weaker the case is.

You keep repeating this, but it doesn't make it any less sanctimonious the more times you say it. There are many reasons why a PR might not have a 100 percent correct and accurate accounting of their trips outside of Canada--starting with the fact that IRCC/CIC has historically instructed citizenship applicants to estimate trips to the US if they don't remember the exact dates. These instructions give the impression that estimating is perfectly fine and legitimate and that therefore a totally anal obsessive reporting of trips across the border is not necessary. Of course, this wont stop them from holding an applicant to a different standard once the application has been submitted, so best to keep as an accurate a record as possible.

There is nothing hypocritical or pious (thus nothing sanctimonious) about this observation:

-- 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

Moreover, it is not true that historically CIC instructed applicants "to estimate trips to the U.S. if they don't remember the exact dates." I do not recall precisely when this was added to the instructions, but it has only been relatively recent (at most, added not much more than a year ago if that recent). Indeed, in the past, scores and scores of RQ'd applicants were surprised, and oft times dismayed, when the RQ demanded disclosure of all day trips to the U.S. whereas the Residency Calculator (in use until just last year) overtly instructed applicants they did not need to disclose day trips. Leaving out the unless issued RQ part.

In contrast, what CIC has done historically (IRCC is too new to infer much in the vein of "historical" practices) is understate the importance of some instructions . . . noting, however, this is inherent in the bureaucratic approach which is to state things directly without nuance or value or weight. That is, CIC has indeed historically left out the significance of a rule or instruction; this was especially true of CIC's grossly understated (so much so as to be virtually misleading) cautions about applying for citizenship based on meeting basic residency eligibility without meeting the actual physical presence test, under the old 3/4 rule.

Which leads to the instructions about estimating, estimating IF the applicant cannot report the exact dates. Unfortunately, obviously, far too many misinterpret this as a license to estimate, or as you say, a suggestion that "estimating is perfectly fine and legitimate and that therefore a totally anal obsessive reporting of trips across the border is not necessary."

There is an important reason for the instruction, which does not just say to estimate, but to also explicitly acknowledge there is an estimation. It is to acknowledge that the submitted disclosure may be inaccurate or incomplete or both. Perhaps the most important aspect of this is to distinguish between acknowledged inaccuracies or omissions due to poor record-keeping, versus inaccuracies or omissions constituting misrepresentation.

Which is why I repeat the well-warranted caution, referencing what has been affirmatively and emphatically repeated fifty or a hundred times in the Federal Court decisions: proving compliance with the PR RO and proving presence for citizenship is unquestionably, clearly on the PR. (Again, this is a practical observation, about what works, no hint of religion or hypocrisy in this, thus no hint it is sanctimonious to caution and remind prospective applicants how absolutely important this is.)

This is important for prospective applicants whether preparing to make an application soon or some years from now. There is no need to be anal: just keep an ongoing log recording all travel outside Canada.



But if the prospective applicant did not keep an ongoing log:

Again, there is no one else to blame for that. The PR was there each and every time. There is no one else in the world charged with the responsibility for keeping track of a PR's travels.

This is not much different than keeping total, absolute track of all income and properly reporting all income accurately to Canada Revenue. To be clear, "I can't remember so many receipts" will not fly if Canada Revenue conducts an audit. And while a few, minor gaffes in reporting travel should have no more than a minimal negative impact, at least for otherwise qualified citizenship applicants, "can't remember so many trips" is not going to excuse a significant failure to report all travel relatively accurately.

While a failure to follow the instructions is probably the most frequent reason why a qualified applicant's application goes off the rails, into non-routine processing, errors (especially omissions) in the disclosure of travel dates is probably a very close second, and is probably the main reason for a qualified applicant encountering problematic processing. Just peruse the anecdotal reports, taking into context discussions in the Federal Court decisions, it clearly does not take many inconsistencies or discrepancies in the travel disclosure to drag an otherwise qualified applicant into problematic processing.


Note, there were numerous new Federal Court decisions in just the last two weeks, in which applicants did rather poorly. Those seeking judicial review of a CJ's decision denying approval losing, while in contrast the Minister won most appeals of CJ approvals (two approvals upheld compared to many more set aside). The accounting of travel dates loomed large in almost all these decisions.

Again, the importance of being as accurate and complete as possible, in disclosing travel dates, cannot be overstated. There is nothing sanctimonious about repeating this caution. There is nothing hypocritical or pious about emphasizing it would be foolish to approach the travel disclosures cavalierly based on interpreting an instruction which informs applicants about estimations, if necessary, to suggest "that estimating is perfectly fine and legitimate and that therefore a totally anal obsessive reporting of trips across the border is not necessary."

For clarity: Those who must estimate, yes, they need to estimate. Absolutely do not simply omit trips or enter estimated dates without acknowledging they are an estimation. And of course, depending on the extent to which the applicant is estimating, and the extent to which the applicant's disclosures plus estimations deviate from what IRCC can discern, the impact will vary from perhaps IRCC merely taking a closer look at things like the ICES report to issuing full-blown RQ. The very last thing an applicant wants to do is to make an impression any worse than suggesting merely a relatively innocent failure to keep complete and accurate records.

It is not sanctimonious to state the facts. The law is very clear, to wit, the burden of proof, as regards evidence that citizenship requirements have been met, falls solely on the citizenship applicant.

"Anal obsessive" accounting is not only appropriate when dealing with governments, it is the recommended course of action.

Obviously I concur in the post itself.

I feel compelled to say something more about the dismissive characterization of accurately keeping a record of international travel as "anal obsessive." This is nonsense.

While the term "accounting" is generally used in reference to financial information, it aptly describes the rather simple record keeping and communicating of information involved in reporting cross-border travel history for the presence calculation in a citizenship application. What is involved in accounting typically demands detail, accurate and complete detail. This is simply about a systematic process of identifying, recording, measuring, and communicating some basic information. It is neither anal nor obsessive.

By the way, many or even most Americans living in Canada are obligated to keep ongoing records, and disclose, all travel to the States, and report this every year in their U.S. tax returns if they are taking a deduction for living abroad (to avoid paying double taxes). Sure, this is onerous and after awhile it does feel excessive. But that is how that works, and those who fail to comply do so at their peril.


Again, I go into this so much because it is incredibly important. The forums are rife with citizenship applicants, and PRs applying for a new PR card, complaining about being dragged into non-routine processing and some even facing an uncertain outcome. Inaccuracies or omissions in reporting travel history is way up the list of causes for this, if not the number one cause (although simply cutting-it-close tends to be a particularly frequent factor in PR card Secondary Review processing).

Keep those records. Report all trips, and report the dates as accurately as possible.

 

[Optimist22222]

My husband missed one single day trip to the US and this resulted in RQ. Certainly not saying this happens to everyone - but this was our experience.

Copied/pasted from another post. Worked perfectly for me. If you travelled on more than one passports, enter dara separately for each one. You will retrieve details of all your visits even if it is one day only:

"US CBP has launched a new site to get travel history record for last 5 years. Very helpful for Canadian citizenship application.

Here is the URL:
http://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/i-94-instructions

1. I-94 arrival/departure record number
2. five-year travel history by entering your name, date of birth, and passport information.

Clicking on “Get Travel History” will return a five-year travel history based on the I-94 records, which you also can print.

Clicking on “Get Most Recent I-94” will return the I-94 number, most recent date of entry, class of admission and admit-until date.

Please note that the system does not reflect changes of status, extension of stay or adjustments of status granted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. You then have the option to print the record."


Thank you

 

[Natan]

By the way, many or even most Americans living in Canada are obligated to keep ongoing records, and disclose, all travel to the States, and report this every year in their U.S. tax returns if they are taking a deduction for living abroad (to avoid paying double taxes). Sure, this is onerous and after awhile it does feel excessive. But that is how that works, and those who fail to comply do so at their peril.

Anyone who spends at least 28 days per year "abroad", regardless of where they travel or where they are domiciled, should keep meticulous records of their travel, and support their records, as much as possible, with independent, third party verifiable documentation. A simple spreadsheet detailing date of departure, date of return, travel destination(s), purpose of travel (e.g., business, pleasure), days absent from country of residence, and days present in country(ies) of destination; along with travel itineraries, tickets, receipts, passport stamps and visas. (Please note that days absent from a country and days present in a country should be counted based on each country's rules of counting absence/presence.)

Some of the reasons such accounting may prove necessary:

1. To establish actual presence in a country for immigration purposes. (Many countries have strict rules that require immigrants spend at least a specified number of days in-country in order to maintain residency status and/or apply for citizenship, e.g., Canada.)

2. To establish primary residence for tax purposes. (Most countries use presence inside the country, actual and virtual, to determine tax status, e.g., Canada, U.S.A.)

3. To establish eligibility for social benefits purposes. (Receiving social benefits without having an established domicile and meeting actual presence minimums can result in fines and imprisonment in some countries, e.g., Canada.)

4. To establish tax exemption eligibility for tax purposes. (Some countries provide some tax exemptions to expatriates. The U.S.A., for example, has some tax exemptions that are lost if a U.S. tax person accumulates 30 days of actual presence during the year. Presence includes any day present in the U.S.A., regardless of duration of stay.)

5. To establish voter eligibility in elections. (Some countries limit a citizen's voting rights depending on length of stay abroad, e.g., Canada, U.K., Israel; some base voting constituencies based on last in-country place of residence, e.g., Canada, U.S.A.; and some base voting rights on virtual or actual presence in country of a designated number of days/months.)

Sometimes, a government just wants to screw with you. You may be targeted for political, economic or personal reasons, or just because it was your random luck of the draw. Accumulating data about one's travels and residences (along with adequate support documentation), can be of invaluable assistance, should a government ever turn its beady eyes your way.

Constructive paranoia (hoping for the best and planning for the worst) should be a way of life for any immigrant, expatriate or frequent traveler.

 

[allawy86]

Anyone who spends at least 28 days per year "abroad", regardless of where they travel or where they are domiciled, should keep meticulous records of their travel, and support their records, as much as possible, with independent, third party verifiable documentation. A simple spreadsheet detailing date of departure, date of return, travel destination(s), purpose of travel (e.g., business, pleasure), days absent from country of residence, and days present in country(ies) of destination; along with travel itineraries, tickets, receipts, passport stamps and visas. (Please note that days absent from a country and days present in a country should be counted based on each country's rules of counting absence/presence.)

Some of the reasons such accounting may prove necessary:

1. To establish actual presence in a country for immigration purposes. (Many countries have strict rules that require immigrants spend at least a specified number of days in-country in order to maintain residency status and/or apply for citizenship, e.g., Canada.)

2. To establish primary residence for tax purposes. (Most countries use presence inside the country, actual and virtual, to determine tax status, e.g., Canada, U.S.A.)

3. To establish eligibility for social benefits purposes. (Receiving social benefits without having an established domicile and meeting actual presence minimums can result in fines and imprisonment in some countries, e.g., Canada.)

4. To establish tax exemption eligibility for tax purposes. (Some countries provide some tax exemptions to expatriates. The U.S.A., for example, has some tax exemptions that are lost if a U.S. tax person accumulates 30 days of actual presence during the year. Presence includes any day present in the U.S.A., regardless of duration of stay.)

5. To establish voter eligibility in elections. (Some countries limit a citizen's voting rights depending on length of stay abroad, e.g., Canada, U.K., Israel; some base voting constituencies based on last in-country place of residence, e.g., Canada, U.S.A.; and some base voting rights on virtual or actual presence in country of a designated number of days/months.)

Sometimes, a government just wants to screw with you. You may be targeted for political, economic or personal reasons, or just because it was your random luck of the draw. Accumulating data about one's travels and residences (along with adequate support documentation), can be of invaluable assistance, should a government ever turn its beady eyes your way.

Constructive paranoia (hoping for the best and planning for the worst) should be a way of life for any immigrant, expatriate or frequent traveler.

will tickets help? and i94? i left the country 4 times only twice to the states one trip for 3 days and the other for 6 days. the other 2 trips to Dubai for 2 weeks only so in total i left the country for 29 days in 4 years

 

[Natan]

will tickets help? and i94? i left the country 4 times only twice to the states one trip for 3 days and the other for 6 days. the other 2 trips to Dubai for 2 weeks only so in total i left the country for 29 days in 4 years

Yes, tickets & I-94 are useful. Writing down the dates of your travel (e.g., in a spreadsheet) is highly recommended. If you can get a FOIA (USA) report and an ATIP (Canada) report, that is also helpful (see my post on page 1 of this thread to find the address for these reports).

Can Dubai provide you with any government report documenting your trips there? (There are several threads regarding Dubai and UAE in this forum, you may want to review them.)

 

[allawy86]

Yes, tickets & I-94 are useful. Writing down the dates of your travel (e.g., in a spreadsheet) is highly recommended. If you can get a FOIA (USA) report and an ATIP (Canada) report, that is also helpful (see my post on page 1 of this thread to find the address for these reports).

Can Dubai provide you with any government report documenting your trips there? (There are several threads regarding Dubai and UAE in this forum, you may want to review them.)

Yes my relative got me the EXIT/ENTRY Report today for all my trips to Dubai. It has only 2 trips each one 2 weeks. They will send it to me tomorrow by DHL and will take it to transelate it to english

 

[Natan]

Yes my relative got me the EXIT/ENTRY Report today for all my trips to Dubai. It has only 2 trips each one 2 weeks. They will send it to me tomorrow by DHL and will take it to transelate it to english

As a visitor of Dubai, it is probably not a bad idea to prepare yourself for an RQ. You should get both the RQ forms (there are two Residence Questionnaires, a long and a short one) and start preparing your answers and supporting documentation early. Keep reviewing your answers and your documentation, remembering that a total stranger who is already suspicious about your eligibility shall be reviewing your answers and documents. How can you improve your answers? What documents can you bring to bear to establish your credibility? Are there any time periods or activities that a suspicious stranger might question? What <b>simple</b> explanations and <b>unambiguous</b> documents can you provide to address these concerns? Remember, the suspicious stranger is paid to be suspicious and doubtful of your application, they are commended for weeding out ineligible applicants. Use facts and documents that support your eligibility to convince them otherwise.

See my post above for things to include in your supporting documentation. Receipts for purchases made in Canada right before you left on each of your trips, and right after you returned, will help establish your actual presence in Canada. Receipts for daily purchases in Canada can also help establish your credibility (e.g., include bank and credit card statements that show lots of daily purchases at markets, restaurants, stores, coffee shops, dry cleaners, pet stores, gas stations, bridge tolls, parking, etc.) Even parking violations establish your presence in Canada (at least on the day you got the ticket).

 

[allawy86]

As a visitor of Dubai, it is probably not a bad idea to prepare yourself for an RQ. You should get both the RQ forms (there are two Residence Questionnaires, a long and a short one) and start preparing your answers and supporting documentation early. Keep reviewing your answers and your documentation, remembering that a total stranger who is already suspicious about your eligibility shall be reviewing your answers and documents. How can you improve your answers? What documents can you bring to bear to establish your credibility? Are there any time periods or activities that a suspicious stranger might question? What <b>simple</b> explanations and <b>unambiguous</b> documents can you provide to address these concerns? Remember, the suspicious stranger is paid to be suspicious and doubtful of your application, they are commended for weeding out ineligible applicants. Use facts and documents that support your eligibility to convince them otherwise.

See my post above for things to include in your supporting documentation. Receipts for purchases made in Canada right before you left on each of your trips, and right after you returned, will help establish your actual presence in Canada. Receipts for daily purchases in Canada can also help establish your credibility (e.g., include bank and credit card statements that show lots of daily purchases at markets, restaurants, stores, coffee shops, dry cleaners, pet stores, gas stations, bridge tolls, parking, etc.) Even parking violations establish your presence in Canada (at least on the day you got the ticket).

Even if i studied, graduated, worked here also owning 2 cars like basically my life is here! and i have full time job

 

[Natan]

Even if i studied, graduated, worked here also owning 2 cars like basically my life is here! and i have full time job

Those are facts that contribute to establishing your credibility. But if you receive an RQ, it is because someone (a complete stranger) is not convinced of your eligibility and is giving you this opportunity to convince them. Simply studying, graduating and owning 2 cars in Canada does not <b>establish</b> that you meet the requirements of citizenship. What other documents can you provide to establish your eligibility? If there is a question of your meeting the residency requirements, how can you prove you've actually been present in Canada for the required number of days? Can your school provide attendance records? Do you have receipts for gas purchases? When you bring your car in for maintenance, do they note mileage on the speedometer, and is the mileage consistent with someone who lives and works in Canada? Can you provide pay stubs that show the number of hours worked in each pay period? In short, can you produce "evidence" of all the days you were present in Canada, almost all the days, many of the days?

Playing devil's advocate, it is completely possible for someone to have studied and graduated in Canada; have a full time job, own 2 cars, and have a life centred in Canada, but still fail to meet the residency requirements of citizenship. How does this hypothetical someone prove to a stranger, who is already suspicious, that they meet the residency requirements? Even providing tax returns, leases and utility bills, is not <b>conclusive</b> proof of actual presence in Canada. The more evidence provided, the more days one can prove actual presence, the more credible the case becomes. Remember, it's all about credibility: how accurate, complete, and believable are the submissions?

The sooner you prepare your documents, the more time you spend studying your documents, the more energy you spend thinking how a total stranger will view your documents, the better your RQ submission will be. Perhaps you won't receive an RQ; but if you do, isn't it better to submit an airtight package that establishes your eligibility and credibility?

 

[allawy86]

Those are facts that contribute to establishing your credibility. But if you receive an RQ, it is because someone (a complete stranger) is not convinced of your eligibility and is giving you this opportunity to convince them. Simply studying, graduating and owning 2 cars in Canada does not <b>establish</b> that you meet the requirements of citizenship. What other documents can you provide to establish your eligibility? If there is a question of your meeting the residency requirements, how can you prove you've actually been present in Canada for the required number of days? Can your school provide attendance records? Do you have receipts for gas purchases? When you bring your car in for maintenance, do they note mileage on the speedometer, and is the mileage consistent with someone who lives and works in Canada? Can you provide pay stubs that show the number of hours worked in each pay period? In short, can you produce "evidence" of all the days you were present in Canada, almost all the days, many of the days?

Playing devil's advocate, it is completely possible for someone to have studied and graduated in Canada; have a full time job, own 2 cars, and have a life centred in Canada, but still fail to meet the residency requirements of citizenship. How does this hypothetical someone prove to a stranger, who is already suspicious, that they meet the residency requirements? Even providing tax returns, leases and utility bills, is not <b>conclusive</b> proof of actual presence in Canada. The more evidence provided, the more days one can prove actual presence, the more credible the case becomes. Remember, it's all about credibility: how accurate, complete, and believable are the submissions?

The sooner you prepare your documents, the more time you spend studying your documents, the more energy you spend thinking how a total stranger will view your documents, the better your RQ submission will be. Perhaps you won't receive an RQ; but if you do, isn't it better to submit an airtight package that establishes your eligibility and credibility?

thank you for taking the time to reply for my concerns. However, I already got test invite this month. But I am just bit nervous from it.

 

[Natan]

thank you for taking the time to reply for my concerns. However, I already got test invite this month. But I am just bit nervous from it.

I received a test invite, passed the test with flying colours, and was even assured by the nice lady that I would be taking the oath within six months. Seven months later, instead of an oath invite, I received an RQ. I had only 45 days from the date the request was dated (not the date we received it) to respond. Fortunately, I was prepared to prove actual presence in Canada for 95% of the required days. And believe me when I tell you, I was very worried about that remaining 5%. Thankfully, a record of consistent, accurately documented behaviour established me as a credible, albeit unusual, applicant; and I was invited some months later (it seemed like years!) to take the oath of citizenship.

 

[allawy86]

I received a test invite, passed the test with flying colours, and was even assured by the nice lady that I would be taking the oath within six months. Seven months later, instead of an oath invite, I received an RQ. I had only 45 days from the date the request was dated (not the date we received it) to respond. Fortunately, I was prepared to prove actual presence in Canada for 95% of the required days. And believe me when I tell you, I was very worried about that remaining 5%. Thankfully, a record of consistent, accurately documented behaviour established me as a credible, albeit unusual, applicant; and I was invited some months later (it seemed like years!) to take the oath of citizenship.

where I can prepare the RQ and how? do I have to go to a lawyer or immigration office to prepare it?

 

[Natan]

where I can prepare the RQ and how? do I have to go to a lawyer or immigration office to prepare it?

The most important thing about preparing for the RQ, is "proving" you were physically present for as many days as you can. Providing documentation for as many days as possible is the hardest and most time consuming part. Start collecting your documents. If you have attendance records from school, then those days are covered. If your pay stubs include the number of hours you worked every pay period, then those days are covered. Did you use a debit/credit card? Any day you used your cards in Canada establishes your presence for that day. Did you visit the doctor or dentist? How about the auto mechanic? Did you get any driving or parking tickets? Did you pay any tolls? You probably won't have proof for every day, but if you can find proof for every week, and for every several days, then you've gone a long way in establishing your eligibility with credible evidence.

If you are RQ'ed, you should probably get an attorney to assist you. Make sure they have experience in RQs and have experience handling the specifics of your case (e.g., applicants from Dubai). An attorney cannot make up for your lack of documentation, so it's on you to provide the proof. The attorney will sift through your documents and decide which are the best ones to submit and provide a cover letter that explains how the documents support your case.

 

[Natan]

I received a CIT0171 RQ:

https://residencequestionnaire.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/cit-0171-10-2013.pdf