I have been outside country three times in the last 2 years. All my travels were through major airports. Does the tickets purchased as a proof is enough as I dont have boarding passes. I also wanted to know how to apply for CBSA and US Border security for landing and exit records.
Proof of time spent in Canada for citizenship
- Thread starter rdecartus
- Start date
Do you have credit card statements showing expenses in Canada? And are you short on days or do you just make it? Because if you have given yourself about 10 days of buffer on the required physical presence, credit card statements showing *regular* expenses in Canada during the said period should typically be sufficient. When such is the case, you might not even need the American border records or anything like that. That's usually the first thing they request with an RQ as well, which means they tend to rely on those for the most part.
Proof enough of what? At best, tickets, even boarding passes, are only evidence of that particular leg of a trip. While the tickets should be sufficient to make a prima facie showing, in conjunction with the applicant's affirmative statement, that that trip was made, that in itself does not prove much of anything.cec4111 said:I have been outside country three times in the last 2 years. All my travels were through major airports. Does the tickets purchased as a proof is enough as I dont have boarding passes. I also wanted to know how to apply for CBSA and US Border security for landing and exit records.
See my previous post.
I suppose what I left out is that IRCC will likely accept the applicant's submissions showing particular dates of travel as sufficient to conclude the applicant traveled on those dates. Unless there is specific reason for IRCC to doubt that evidence or to doubt that the particular trip was made.
That is not the typical problem in a residency case. The typical problem in a residency case is that IRCC suspects or outright believes there were additional trips, additional time abroad.
All proof of a trip accomplishes is proof of that trip. The residency case applicant needs to prove days in-between, that he or she was present in Canada all the days between last reported entry and next reported exit.
Again, many people tend to put way too much emphasis on documenting trips, documenting particular dates, when the heart of a persuasive case is in showing where one lived, where one worked, where one worshiped, where one played ball or engaged in other recreation, where one went to the doctor or dentist, covering the whole span of time claimed to have been in Canada. Gaps yawn wide and tend to suck up all the attention.
All evidence of particular trips do is put a bookend on the shelf. For those issued RQ, IRCC wants to see what books are on the shelf in-between those bookends.
By the way, proof of paying rent plus proof of full time employment for a regular Canadian employer, at a location in Canada of course, is far, far, far more important than collateral, passive evidence like credit card statements. Credit card statements, or other evidence of engaging in transactions in Canada, can help fill in some weak spots in primary proof, but proof of owning a home or paying rent, and of going to a job in Canada, are much more important.
IRCC can want evidence like U.S. border records. Others here are more familiar with the process for obtaining those than I am. (I tried to get mine before I applied for citizenship. I did ultimately receive them, about three months after I took the oath.)
CBSA records can be obtained using form at the CBSA website. No need to get these as long as you can accurately report all the dates you actually traveled. IRCC will check and confirm against the CBSA records.
I am feeling offended by knowing that all those "evidences" can be fabricated by those who offer that service. Personally know 5 cases where people faked their RQs documents and all of them are Canadians now.
God knows how many were using this weak spot of CIC before the 4/6 rule.
CIC were not using the data from the other federal agencies but were giving the importance on what was written in those fake documents due to the "The burden is on the applicants to prove"
Perfect scenario for the scammers to continue taking Canadian citizenship.
It's just like CIC is saying we know that you are NOT eligible, but we are giving the outcome of your "Prove" that you are eligible.
Really pathetic.
God knows how many were using this weak spot of CIC before the 4/6 rule.
CIC were not using the data from the other federal agencies but were giving the importance on what was written in those fake documents due to the "The burden is on the applicants to prove"
Perfect scenario for the scammers to continue taking Canadian citizenship.
It's just like CIC is saying we know that you are NOT eligible, but we are giving the outcome of your "Prove" that you are eligible.
Really pathetic.
CIC was indeed slow to catch on to the scammers. By the time CIC identified an applicant was the 50th or so applicant to have used the same telephone number and address, and that address was in an office complex not a residential address at all, obviously scores and scores had used the particular consultant involved in that case to slip through the system.Politren said:I am feeling offended by knowing that all those "evidences" can be fabricated by those who offer that service. Personally know 5 cases where people faked their RQs documents and all of them are Canadians now.
God knows how many were using this weak spot of CIC before the 4/6 rule.
CIC were not using the data from the other federal agencies but were giving the importance on what was written in those fake documents due to the "The burden is on the applicants to prove"
Perfect scenario for the scammers to continue taking Canadian citizenship.
It's just like CIC is saying we know that you are NOT eligible, but we are giving the outcome of your "Prove" that you are eligible.
Really pathetic.
That was back in 2008/2009.
They have far more tools to ferret out the scams now. At the least it appears they have software to compare telephone numbers, addresses, and employers. (These were the main three fabricated elements in a pattern of fraud which apparently involved at least hundreds, maybe a few thousand.)
And they check the applicant's declared travel against other sources, including ICES in particular.
A few years ago they nabbed a guy on the basis of finding a flyer showing he was a paid participant at a conference in Europe when he had claimed to be unemployed (perhaps retired, I do not recall specifically) and in Canada; recently they have nabbed a few based on conflicting information posted at linkedin (including a doctor).
Sure, some are still getting away with scamming the system. That happens. Hard to guess the percentages, but I'd guess it is very, very small. In the meantime, sure, there are more than a few who believe they are in process to get citizenship without really having met the qualifications. Most of them, I suspect, will be disappointed.
But yeah, CIC let the fraud problem get way out of hand about ten years ago. Not so much these days.
The cases of fabricated RQ documents are from the last 18months.dpenabill said:CIC was indeed slow to catch on to the scammers. By the time CIC identified an applicant was the 50th or so applicant to have used the same telephone number and address, and that address was in an office complex not a residential address at all, obviously scores and scores had used the particular consultant involved in that case to slip through the system.
That was back in 2008/2009.
They have far more tools to ferret out the scams now. At the least it appears they have software to compare telephone numbers, addresses, and employers. (These were the main three fabricated elements in a pattern of fraud which apparently involved at least hundreds, maybe a few thousand.)
And they check the applicant's declared travel against other sources, including ICES in particular.
A few years ago they nabbed a guy on the basis of finding a flyer showing he was a paid participant at a conference in Europe when he had claimed to be unemployed (perhaps retired, I do not recall specifically) and in Canada; recently they have nabbed a few based on conflicting information posted at linkedin (including a doctor).
Sure, some are still getting away with scamming the system. That happens. Hard to guess the percentages, but I'd guess it is very, very small. In the meantime, sure, there are more than a few who believe they are in process to get citizenship without really having met the qualifications. Most of them, I suspect, will be disappointed.
But yeah, CIC let the fraud problem get way out of hand about ten years ago. Not so much these days.
The Employment and the residence are the easiest to be faked. There are a lot of job agencies who can create a fake payroll which is declared to CRA as real and the applicant who is faking the payroll have to pay a fee to that agency and if any taxes from the report.
So he/she ends up with a full employment prove for the desired period.
Rental agreements are also easy to be faked because they are different for every landlord, hence no standard by which to adjust the reals from fakes.
All that was shared by these guys.
So CIC had no other option but to give citizenship to those who continue to use these services.
This is ongoing problem. CIC just cant realize how they create a Perfect opportunity with those RQs to those people.
None of these things alone compel CIC to grant citizenship.Politren said:The cases of fabricated RQ documents are from the last 18months.
The Employment and the residence are the easiest to be faked. There are a lot of job agencies who can create a fake payroll which is declared to CRA as real and the applicant who is faking the payroll have to pay a fee to that agency and if any taxes from the report.
So he/she ends up with a full employment prove for the desired period.
Rental agreements are also easy to be faked because they are different for every landlord, hence no standard by which to adjust the reals from fakes.
All that was shared by these guys.
So CIC had no other option but to give citizenship to those who continue to use these services.
This is ongoing problem. CIC just cant realize how they create a Perfect opportunity with those RQs to those people.
Actually, the successful fraud cases are mostly only those where none of this stuff is used because CIC did not identify a reason to question residency. They slip through in routine processing.
If RQ is issued, the submission of fraudulent documents is very likely to be recognized and cause far bigger problems. Sure, maybe you have some association of some sort with some of those who are more sophisticated and have gotten away with it.
But such instances are almost certainly an isolated few, a very tiny, tiny percentage of cases. (And again, the overwhelming majority of successful frauds are those who slipped through routine processing without being issued RQ.)
But for those applicants involved in fraud and dragged into RQ, the odds are far greater a fraud will be exposed, with serious consequences.
Methinks you are really trying to debate the efficacy of a border control model for calculating presence. Waste of time. Not on the horizon. Not a chance.
How can we as a general public be sure that most of these guys are denied and prosecuted from the whole number of those who got citizenship in that fraudulent way. The burden is on the applicant to prove was a gateway wide open for the scammers before the 4/6 rule.
I keep on seeing that CIC is sleeping in order to get the majority of the fake RQs busted, moreover it gives them a chance to be approved because to have a reason to question residency there is some kind of homework done before the RQ stage.
There must be something extra in the tools which IRCC uses now for the last 9 months in order to explain why there are no RQs reported by 4/6 applicants. I guess that they finally understood that the RQs were not working efficiently to stop the fraudulent applicants.
I keep on seeing that CIC is sleeping in order to get the majority of the fake RQs busted, moreover it gives them a chance to be approved because to have a reason to question residency there is some kind of homework done before the RQ stage.
There must be something extra in the tools which IRCC uses now for the last 9 months in order to explain why there are no RQs reported by 4/6 applicants. I guess that they finally understood that the RQs were not working efficiently to stop the fraudulent applicants.
I find it pretty compelling that the sole purpose of triage criteria was to deliberately slow the Canadian citizenship program at the program delivery level so that later Harper's people could come up with an alleged fix to the backlog (C-24) and sell it to the public.Politren said:How can we as a general public be sure that most of these guys are denied and prosecuted from the whole number of those who got citizenship in that fraudulent way. The burden is on the applicant to prove was a gateway wide open for the scammers before the 4/6 rule.
I keep on seeing that CIC is sleeping in order to get the majority of the fake RQs busted, moreover it gives them a chance to be approved because to have a reason to question residency there is some kind of homework done before the RQ stage.
There must be something extra in the tools which IRCC uses now for the last 9 months in order to explain why there are no RQs reported by 4/6 applicants. I guess that they finally understood that the RQs were not working efficiently to stop the fraudulent applicants.
The number of new applicants itself is way, way down from norms, simply due to the arithmetic given the sudden increase in the minimum requirement: increased by a year at least, and by up to two years for those who were living in Canada prior to becoming a PR. So the number of RQs will be way less just due to this factor alone.
By the way, again there are many, many new tools being used to ferret out fraud.
The GCMS background screening, for example, is not limited to queries run against the individual applying. Queries are now run to check for GCMS or FOSS records regarding listed employers, listed addresses, identified family members.
As soon as a front-employer, or front-address, is identified, there is a record in the system so when another person uses that same employer or address, there is a red flag. Probably no where near bullet-proof, but anyone using a fraudulent employer-front has many ways of being caught.
It also appears they have been using typical internet search engines to search for verifying or controverting indicators. They definitely look up telephone numbers using the internet. They do sometimes make phone calls.
The system is not nearly the sieve it was before 2010. As I noted, perhaps you have some association with some particularly sophisticated criminals with a strong motivation to obtain Canadian citizenship, so you are aware of some particular instances (in which case you really should be providing information about this to IRCC as soon as possible, or the RCMP). The vast majority of the fraud the system has dealt with, in contrast, has been relatively rudimentary if not crude, the majority of it perpetrated by a relatively small number of crooked consultants who were in it to make money, which was limited by how much their clientele was willing to pay. The enhanced interdiction has largely pushed costs beyond returns. Not the problem it was just six or eight years ago. But sure, it never fully goes away. There will always be some trying to game the system, and some of those will be sophisticated enough to get away with it. If you know of some, and particularly if you are bothered by that (which of course you should be), time to make the call to the TIP line, at the least.
And, by the way, more than a couple of the consultants who provided fraudulent services are currently incarcerated, and some have exited Canada to avoid prosecution.
Also note, there have been some citizenship revocation cases reported which clearly indicate that once CIC identified consultants facilitating fraud, CIC re-examined the files of those who had employed that consultant. For anyone who is using a consultant to facilitate fraud (including, for example, those who provide bogus or front employers or such), be aware that once one person in that scheme is caught, the RCMP will make an effort to work back up the chain to identify the consultant, and then back down the chain to identify all those who used that consultant. Using any of these services ties an individual to a big, big net, which can drag the individual into the prosecution of fraud side of the system anytime. (One of the recent revocation cases involved a family who had become citizens many years ago . . . their consultant got caught about five years ago . . . and the process took its time, but they are now no longer citizens, lucky to not be in jail.)
But the backlog was already huge before that. Due in significant part to the current discussion, the problem of fraud and a big bureaucracy which for too long operated in the dark oblivious to how much fraud was being perpetrated. (But note, even given the highest estimates of fraud by the fear-mongering, alarmist Conservatives, it was still a rather tiny percentage . . . at the most a few thousand over the course of many years during which more than a million immigrants became citizens.)
And the triage criteria itself was mostly a revised version of what had been employed as reasons-to-question-residence under the previous Liberal leadership . . . albeit, broadened considerably and applied in a way that swept huge numbers of qualified applicants into the residency case mire.
By the way, again there are many, many new tools being used to ferret out fraud.
The GCMS background screening, for example, is not limited to queries run against the individual applying. Queries are now run to check for GCMS or FOSS records regarding listed employers, listed addresses, identified family members.
As soon as a front-employer, or front-address, is identified, there is a record in the system so when another person uses that same employer or address, there is a red flag. Probably no where near bullet-proof, but anyone using a fraudulent employer-front has many ways of being caught.
It also appears they have been using typical internet search engines to search for verifying or controverting indicators. They definitely look up telephone numbers using the internet. They do sometimes make phone calls.
The system is not nearly the sieve it was before 2010. As I noted, perhaps you have some association with some particularly sophisticated criminals with a strong motivation to obtain Canadian citizenship, so you are aware of some particular instances (in which case you really should be providing information about this to IRCC as soon as possible, or the RCMP). The vast majority of the fraud the system has dealt with, in contrast, has been relatively rudimentary if not crude, the majority of it perpetrated by a relatively small number of crooked consultants who were in it to make money, which was limited by how much their clientele was willing to pay. The enhanced interdiction has largely pushed costs beyond returns. Not the problem it was just six or eight years ago. But sure, it never fully goes away. There will always be some trying to game the system, and some of those will be sophisticated enough to get away with it. If you know of some, and particularly if you are bothered by that (which of course you should be), time to make the call to the TIP line, at the least.
And, by the way, more than a couple of the consultants who provided fraudulent services are currently incarcerated, and some have exited Canada to avoid prosecution.
Also note, there have been some citizenship revocation cases reported which clearly indicate that once CIC identified consultants facilitating fraud, CIC re-examined the files of those who had employed that consultant. For anyone who is using a consultant to facilitate fraud (including, for example, those who provide bogus or front employers or such), be aware that once one person in that scheme is caught, the RCMP will make an effort to work back up the chain to identify the consultant, and then back down the chain to identify all those who used that consultant. Using any of these services ties an individual to a big, big net, which can drag the individual into the prosecution of fraud side of the system anytime. (One of the recent revocation cases involved a family who had become citizens many years ago . . . their consultant got caught about five years ago . . . and the process took its time, but they are now no longer citizens, lucky to not be in jail.)
I have nothing good to say about Jason Kenney's OB 407 and the disaster it wrought, the injustice it imposed on literally tens of thousands of qualified PRs legitimately seeking citizenship.Diplomatru said:I find it pretty compelling that the sole purpose of triage criteria was to deliberately slow the Canadian citizenship program at the program delivery level so that later Harper's people could come up with an alleged fix to the backlog (C-24) and sell it to the public.
But the backlog was already huge before that. Due in significant part to the current discussion, the problem of fraud and a big bureaucracy which for too long operated in the dark oblivious to how much fraud was being perpetrated. (But note, even given the highest estimates of fraud by the fear-mongering, alarmist Conservatives, it was still a rather tiny percentage . . . at the most a few thousand over the course of many years during which more than a million immigrants became citizens.)
And the triage criteria itself was mostly a revised version of what had been employed as reasons-to-question-residence under the previous Liberal leadership . . . albeit, broadened considerably and applied in a way that swept huge numbers of qualified applicants into the residency case mire.
I also believe that the whole idea was to use all that RQ story for political benefits right before the election.Diplomatru said:I find it pretty compelling that the sole purpose of triage criteria was to deliberately slow the Canadian citizenship program at the program delivery level so that later Harper's people could come up with an alleged fix to the backlog (C-24) and sell it to the public.
On the other hand that RQ environment was the best to pass through with fake RQ documents. They were fighting against the fraud by leaving the gate wide open for fraud.
The biggest losers were the genuine applicants just to end up being at the Oath with whose who had fake documents for their RQs.
This is also what I suspect is happening post June last year. Finally IRCC realized that need to pay much closer attention to what the other federal agencies has as a records.dpenabill said:By the way, again there are many, many new tools being used to ferret out fraud.
The GCMS background screening, for example, is not limited to queries run against the individual applying. Queries are now run to check for GCMS or FOSS records regarding listed employers, listed addresses, identified family members.
...
The Burden of prove is on the applicant was not working at all.
You can see from the data below that the grant backlog was somewhat reduced in 2007, and then JK assumed office at the helm of CIC in 2008 and it immediately went into an upward trend. http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=832329 Additionally, this genius closed down nineteen (!!!!) CIC domestic offices. Moreover, the CIC budget was cut by $29.8 million in 2012-13, which increased to a cumulative $65 million in 2013-14, and $85 million in 2014-15. I am not surprised that with such policy making, the backlog increased more than twofold by the time Chris came "to the rescue" of the citizenship program with C-24.dpenabill said:I have nothing good to say about Jason Kenney's OB 407 and the disaster it wrought, the injustice it imposed on literally tens of thousands of qualified PRs legitimately seeking citizenship.
But the backlog was already huge before that. Due in significant part to the current discussion, the problem of fraud and a big bureaucracy which for too long operated in the dark oblivious to how much fraud was being perpetrated. (But note, even given the highest estimates of fraud by the fear-mongering, alarmist Conservatives, it was still a rather tiny percentage . . . at the most a few thousand over the course of many years during which more than a million immigrants became citizens.)
And the triage criteria itself was mostly a revised version of what had been employed as reasons-to-question-residence under the previous Liberal leadership . . . albeit, broadened considerably and applied in a way that swept huge numbers of qualified applicants into the residency case mire.
2006/07 179,141
2007/08 168,466
2008/09 230,919
2009/10 254,243
2010/11 274,697
2011/12 270,242
2012/13 324,662
2013/14 387,600
But fixing (partially, because 12 months is still outrageous compared to U.S. or Australia timelines for citizenship grants) processing times was part of an omnibus SCCA that came with a wholesale package of intent to reside, stripping of citizenship, preclusion of pre-PR time and other clauses that created unprecedented barriers to citizenship. So, to conclude, it appears that what they had in mind from the very beginning was not fighting fraud, but rather getting rid of the 1977 citizenship law. I call this an example of extremely dirty politics.
Completely agree with you.Diplomatru said:You can see from the data below that the grant backlog was somewhat reduced in 2007, and then JK assumed office at the helm of CIC in 2008 and it immediately went into an upward trend. http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=832329 Additionally, this genius closed down nineteen (!!!!) CIC domestic offices. Moreover, the CIC budget was cut by $29.8 million in 2012-13, which increased to a cumulative $65 million in 2013-14, and $85 million in 2014-15. I am not surprised that with such policy making, the backlog increased more than twofold by the time Chris came "to the rescue" of the citizenship program with C-24.
2006/07 179,141
2007/08 168,466
2008/09 230,919
2009/10 254,243
2010/11 274,697
2011/12 270,242
2012/13 324,662
2013/14 387,600
But fixing (partially, because 12 months is still outrageous compared to U.S. or Australia timelines for citizenship grants) processing times was part of an omnibus SCCA that came with a wholesale package of intent to reside, stripping of citizenship, preclusion of pre-PR time and other clauses that created unprecedented barriers to citizenship. So, to conclude, it appears that what they had in mind from the very beginning was not fighting fraud, but rather getting rid of the 1977 citizenship law. I call this an example of extremely dirty politics.
Especially with the fiasco of the so called RQ the Conservatives created a flourish environment for all the scammers.
And of course all the genuine applicants had to pay again the price for the benefit of the criminals who also in big majority got their citizenship granted.
In regards to the expanded scope of cross-checking, verification, and investigation by CIC/IRCC in processing citizenship applications:
While this has long been the process, Bill C-24 further implemented specific provisions which authorize the Minister to terminate or deny applications if the applicant fails to provide requested information.
In a previous post above I referenced, for example, the very recent Jinsheng Zhao decision, which like scores and scores of decisions clearly states that the onus falls on an applicant to establish having met the requirements of the Citizenship Act in order to be granted citizenship.
Verification procedures or methods should NOT be confused with Burden of Proof:
What has changed a great deal in the wake of discovering (2008/2009) the scope of fraud facilitated by consultants, is that CIC, and now IRCC, expanded and enhanced measures to screen and verify the applicant's information.
IRCC does not dig for information which will help the applicant establish having met the requirements.
It has been a number of years, and I do not recall the name of the case, but there was a Federal Court decision which illustrated this rather pointedly. CIC had identified information tending to show the applicant was in Canada during a time period the applicant reported being abroad. This did NOT result in that time being added to the applicant's calculation. Indeed, this information was identified among other information as reason to discount the applicant's residency declaration (indicated her reporting was unreliable). In other words, even though on its face the information tended to show the applicant was in Canada more, not less, it did not count in her favour and actually was used against her. Citizenship denied.
It appears to me that you are still trying to bootstrap an argument advocating a border control model for determining presence in Canada. And again, there is absolutely NO hint Canada is going to move in that direction for the foreseeable future.
As I noted in a post above, while the dates of exit and entry are critical, all they really show is where the applicant was on those particular days and what direction the applicant was headed on those particular days.
Again: All evidence of particular trips do is put bookends on the shelf. For those issued RQ, IRCC wants to see what books are on the shelf in-between those bookends.
When a reason to question the applicant's accounting of presence in Canada is identified by IRCC, the applicant will need to prove where he or she was in between the dates of travel. This is typically done by showing place of abode (rent payments for example), employment in Canada, other activity in Canada, and so on.
And, to be clear, there are many things which can trigger elevated concern, and thus in turn elevated scrutiny, including a request for additional information and documentation in order to fully prove presence in Canada as declared. For example, indications a family had been enjoying a life style in Canada above that which the income and finances of the applicant would support, was sufficient in one case to not only trigger elevated scrutiny and RQ, it was a salient factor supporting an inference the applicant must have been abroad, working abroad, more than disclosed.
The capacity of IRCC to use various sources of information to compare with what the applicant submits has expanded significantly, including access to information from other government entities. This should discourage fraud, but will not totally preclude it. Anyone with information about fraud being committed should report that to IRCC, CBSA, or the RCMP.
To be clear, the procedure is still solidly based on the applicant having the burden of proof. Moreover, this includes the burden of presentation.Politren said:This is also what I suspect is happening post June last year. Finally IRCC realized that need to pay much closer attention to what the other federal agencies has as a records.
The Burden of prove is on the applicant was not working at all.
While this has long been the process, Bill C-24 further implemented specific provisions which authorize the Minister to terminate or deny applications if the applicant fails to provide requested information.
In a previous post above I referenced, for example, the very recent Jinsheng Zhao decision, which like scores and scores of decisions clearly states that the onus falls on an applicant to establish having met the requirements of the Citizenship Act in order to be granted citizenship.
dpenabill said:More to the point, the Jinsheng Zhao decision illustrates that the burden of proof is on the applicant and that, for example, submission of passport plus ICES report (detailing entry dates into Canada) is NOT sufficient. If requested, the applicant must provide additional information and documentation, and a failure to do so justifies terminating the application.
Verification procedures or methods should NOT be confused with Burden of Proof:
What has changed a great deal in the wake of discovering (2008/2009) the scope of fraud facilitated by consultants, is that CIC, and now IRCC, expanded and enhanced measures to screen and verify the applicant's information.
IRCC does not dig for information which will help the applicant establish having met the requirements.
It has been a number of years, and I do not recall the name of the case, but there was a Federal Court decision which illustrated this rather pointedly. CIC had identified information tending to show the applicant was in Canada during a time period the applicant reported being abroad. This did NOT result in that time being added to the applicant's calculation. Indeed, this information was identified among other information as reason to discount the applicant's residency declaration (indicated her reporting was unreliable). In other words, even though on its face the information tended to show the applicant was in Canada more, not less, it did not count in her favour and actually was used against her. Citizenship denied.
It appears to me that you are still trying to bootstrap an argument advocating a border control model for determining presence in Canada. And again, there is absolutely NO hint Canada is going to move in that direction for the foreseeable future.
As I noted in a post above, while the dates of exit and entry are critical, all they really show is where the applicant was on those particular days and what direction the applicant was headed on those particular days.
Again: All evidence of particular trips do is put bookends on the shelf. For those issued RQ, IRCC wants to see what books are on the shelf in-between those bookends.
When a reason to question the applicant's accounting of presence in Canada is identified by IRCC, the applicant will need to prove where he or she was in between the dates of travel. This is typically done by showing place of abode (rent payments for example), employment in Canada, other activity in Canada, and so on.
And, to be clear, there are many things which can trigger elevated concern, and thus in turn elevated scrutiny, including a request for additional information and documentation in order to fully prove presence in Canada as declared. For example, indications a family had been enjoying a life style in Canada above that which the income and finances of the applicant would support, was sufficient in one case to not only trigger elevated scrutiny and RQ, it was a salient factor supporting an inference the applicant must have been abroad, working abroad, more than disclosed.
The capacity of IRCC to use various sources of information to compare with what the applicant submits has expanded significantly, including access to information from other government entities. This should discourage fraud, but will not totally preclude it. Anyone with information about fraud being committed should report that to IRCC, CBSA, or the RCMP.
The biggest advantage for the scammers is because of the fact that CIC was requesting pretty much the same documents years after years. The result from all that was that the scammers became more aware how to get huge advantage if CIC issues RQ.
They got enough knowledge now how to present really good strong present cases with fabricated documents for the RQs.
There is a small number of those who have been busted, but my impression from these well working networks of scammers is that the majority of the scammers are still granted with citizenship.
Some of these cases in which took the Oath with fake RQs documents actually admitted that they were hoping to get RQ, because they can fabricate very solid cases.
That was a very big Loophole and weak spot in the operations of CIC, because it seem like they didn't verified the information provided.
The people who pay to use this service say that the network is located in Asia, because they receive all the fabricated solid looking "prove" my regular mail. They just submit all the ready content from the envelope and send it right away to CIC. After that they just wait for their Oath with all the genuine applicants.
It looks like very efficiently and well organized scam group located in Asia.
CIC was getting the deserved by this extremely stupid "The burden is on the applicant to prove " approach.
They got enough knowledge now how to present really good strong present cases with fabricated documents for the RQs.
There is a small number of those who have been busted, but my impression from these well working networks of scammers is that the majority of the scammers are still granted with citizenship.
Some of these cases in which took the Oath with fake RQs documents actually admitted that they were hoping to get RQ, because they can fabricate very solid cases.
That was a very big Loophole and weak spot in the operations of CIC, because it seem like they didn't verified the information provided.
The people who pay to use this service say that the network is located in Asia, because they receive all the fabricated solid looking "prove" my regular mail. They just submit all the ready content from the envelope and send it right away to CIC. After that they just wait for their Oath with all the genuine applicants.
It looks like very efficiently and well organized scam group located in Asia.
CIC was getting the deserved by this extremely stupid "The burden is on the applicant to prove " approach.