Records of entry and records of exit
Nainarvet said:
CBSA definitely would have record of all your entries into Canada.
Not necessarily. The more recent the more complete these tend to be, subject to various reasons why they might not be complete . . . including some deliberate reasons, which is something CIC looks for.
In particular, in two recent decisions Madam Justice Gagné, for example, has specifically cited a warning regarding the
lack of reliability of the information contained in the CBSA's ICES. In both the
Salam (2015 FC 427) case, and the
Saad 2 (2015 FC 245) case, Justice Gagné quoted the following:
"Note: CBSA report has limitations. Even if the client would have provided a record from CBSA, the exits of Canada are NOT recorded by CBSA. In addition, the entries are only indicated in the report if a travel document (passport or permanent resident card) has been scanned. Travel documents are not systematically scanned at Canada’s points of entry. Finally, we can’t rely on the passport only since many countries do not stamp the passport when travellers enter and exit a country but rather stamp travel cards for example. This is the case for Lebanon. Also, clients may have more than one passport valid at the same time."
Decision to issue RQ:
bambino said:
I respectfully disagree
The key phrase here is "on the balance of probabilities", meaning is it more likely than not. The evidence before the officer was sufficient to decide that. The CBSA report may help prove almost conclusively that these were the precise return dates, but that is NOT the required standard of proof.
The interview is not a hearing. The interviewer is not making a decision determining whether or not the applicant meets the qualifications for citizenship. The standard of proof (beyond a balance of probabilities) is
NOT relevant to this step in the process.
The interviewer is primarily (1) verifying documents and information in the application, and (2) otherwise gathering information. So far as I have seen in the reports, it appears that the interviewer is often, if not usually,
not the citizenship officer who will decide the case.
In a sense, of course the issuance of RQ is a
decision but it is not a formal decision subject to the reasonableness standard let alone one that must meet the balance of probabilities standard of proof.
ItkExpert said:
When I noticed the missing entry it has been after I have been already slapped with the RQ so there was not point in contacting CBSA. If I had ordered the CBSA report before writing the exam I might have been able to discuss it with officer and avoided RQ (provided she liked me which I don't think was the case).
I have ordered 3 ATIPs already , none of them showing any real signs of progress.
Generally an applicant can do something in the interview which triggers concerns and might cause the issuance of RQ. Giving answers inconsistent with the information in the file, for example, or presenting a passport with stamps inconsistent with declared travel, or failing to present all relevant passports.
But there is little the applicant can do to avoid RQ. There may be some very close calls where what the applicant brings or how the applicant answers questions will avoid the issuance of RQ . . . and, well, there are some situations in which CIC has a specific question or such that when posed to the applicant, the applicant's response can satisfy the concern . . . but generally, the interview is not a hearing, not an opportunity to present additional proof, and not the kind of event in which the applicant has much of an opportunity to fix things.
thecoolguysam said:
What's the reason of not showing the report proactively? Will it affect anything? What are the pros and cons?
This way the person can avoid post test RQ by matching the dates/stamps with FOIA, CBSA record etc and discuss the same with the officer.
I know one good point that if the CIC officer is sure that the person meets the residency requirements regardless of the passport then at that point of time there is no point showing the CBSA/FOIA report.
Please input your thought.
Again: the interview is largely focused on verification of documents submitted and to some extent the information submitted. The interviewer is not assessing residency. The interviewer is assessing the veracity of submitted documentation and otherwise examining the applicant to ascertain whether or not there are reasons to question the application further.
Bringing some additional documentation to the interview may help sometimes, but most reports indicate a minimal opportunity to present much more than what is requested.
screech339 said:
This is purely my thinking. No difference from going to canada border and providing related answers to their question. No more, no less. By showing all the documents upfront sort of shows a "sense of desperation" on your part to the agent. An agent may view your action as overkill when you are providing documentation when they didn't ask for it. It is like "why are you providing all this documentation when I haven't asked for it", "you got something to hide"? That sort of thing.
I would treat the test/interview as if I am approaching the Canada border and only answer what asked. Would not volunteer any more information than asked for. If there was an issue with travel records, I would then bring it up to back yourself up.
I largely agree with this, although many applicants do bring a lot of documentation and apparently make an effort to persuade the interviewer with it. I doubt that hurts much. It seems clear, though, it is not likely to help much. So the risks of being too heavy handed in this are not balanced by much, if any hope, of it making a difference.
It may be worth observing that routine cases are handled routinely; if something pushes the application outside routine case processing, it is NOT going to be handled like a routine case. Presentation of documentation or argumentation at the interview is NOT likely to change how things go.