Some along the way commentary; first an essay of sorts on evidence:
Caveat: If I was to write an autobiography, "failing to practice what I preach" might be the subtitle, and yeah, it would go long, very long.
Something even a lot of trial lawyers overlook is the extent to which a
mountain of evidence can distract if not outright bury the evidence that really matters. Quality of evidence almost always carries way more weight than quantity. And there is a real risk that too much quantity will obscure if not conceal the evidence that will win the day.
Ohhh, yeah, there are plenty of "
there's a mountain of evidence" arguments vehemently made as if that must dictate the outcome, but that is typically either a tactical error or, more often, a deliberate effort to obfuscate the absence of key, strong evidence.
Been decades (actually three decades plus some now) since my stint as a practicing litigator (personal history I typically try to leave out of the conversation), but if anything my sense is that focused presentation, both evidentiary and argument presentation, is more important today than ever. We now live in the age of abbreviation and acronyms, texting and twitter illustrating if not defining the parameters of most discourse, short and still shrinking attention spans. The abridged version tends to be too long these days. This undoubtedly spills into workplaces including bureaucracies, into any and every venue of human discourse, into the nooks and crannies of even the most formal decision-making processes.
Short and sweet. That's the play these days. More tends to be less, as if we are stuck in a Kafkaesque song composed by Bob Dylan.
Nonetheless, in many of the more important transactions in life that involve
making-the-case to a decision-maker, it can be very difficult to recognize the tipping point, where more tends to be less. In the adding weight to one side of the scales analogy, there is a tipping point at which too much on one side does not effectively tip the scales any further in one's favour, but tips the scales over altogether, spilling it all, so that the decision-maker has to pick up and sort through what's been spilled, at the risk of what really makes the difference being overlooked, misplaced, or lost.
Which is not to overlook how adding something that might not have real probative value but an emotional hook can be important.
There's a reason the good trial lawyer (most lawyers are not trial lawyers, and remarkably few lawyers who do trials are all that good) is high priced and hard to come by.
So, putting the
smoking gun in the other guy's hands, if that is possible, tends to be more persuasive than a truckload or three of cumulative evidence.
All that said, and yeah been there done that as well, rather often back in the day, sometimes the litigator is compelled to deliver evidence and argument by the truckload, working the art of obfuscation when the tools of persuasion are not at hand. But of course the litigator, and in other venues the politician, will pound the podium about the "
mountain of evidence" that demands an outcome going their way. Even though . . .
. . . no shortage of claims that what matters is something other than what matters.
So, as for practicing or not practicing what I preach: take the citizenship application for example, I will generally say, and this is what I actually believe, that it is best to follow the instructions and the checklist, and not submit more than what is asked . . . but I did, myself. In my defense, the additional documents were few, my NoA, which I included because I was self-employed . . . and I was well aware that adding more than what is asked can easily be interpreted to signal an effort to dodge cause for questioning.
That said, for a PR who actually needs the RO credit for days abroad accompanying-a-Canadian-citizen-spouse, there can be questions about whether days traveling together get the credit. It can depend. This can be a complex subject in a small, narrow range of circumstances. For a PR who was living in Canada with their Canadian citizen spouse prior to travel abroad, and who has been ordinarily living with the PR otherwise, in and outside Canada, yeah, the credit is readily allowed. Not complicated. There are, however, scenarios where it can be and does get complicated, which have been discussed in depth in other topics here.
BUT for most PRs with a Canadian citizen spouse, just regularly coming and going from Canada is likely to readily give a green light for a PR card application. Not an application that is at all likely to trigger IRCC getting out the magnifying glass, let alone a microscope.
That said . . .
From what you have described, the odds of an issue seem remote. That said, as a general proposition the PR should be "
trying to recall" all trips abroad, including day or overnight trips to the U.S., at least within practical reason. To the extent the PR recognizes there are likely omissions, especially if more than a few, probably a good idea to somehow acknowledge that clearly in what is submitted. Maybe no more is needed than a statement to the effect: "
my Canadian citizen spouse and I also made ["some," or "many," or "numerous;" whatever term is most appropriate for YOUR facts]
day and overnight trips across the U.S. border, for which I do not have a record."
The prospect of omissions triggering elevated scrutiny and non-routine processing, or overt skepticism, is far greater than not identifying the U.S. (or any particular country visited or transited) for a given trip. As I said:
The essential information in travel history is the date of exit and date of entry.
IRCC recognizes people make mistakes, including omissions. IRCC does not engage in the
gotcha-game. List and get nearly all of the entry and exit dates right, allowing some (a few) are not perfectly accurate, allowing a small number of short trip omissions, should not trigger any problems at all.
But it should be obvious, the more that is inaccurate and especially the more that is missing, signals the PR did not keep good records and/or is not all that reliable as a reporter of facts. Credibility is about how much someone can rely on what you report. Indications of deception, yeah, that knocks the PR's credibility down badly, but even entirely innocent inaccuracy and omission indicates the individual cannot be relied on for a full and accurate accounting of the facts. Even if the case is like yours,
where it is unlikely there will be concerns, getting it as close to complete and accurate is a good idea, and it is also probably a good idea to acknowledge upfront the nature and extent to which the information being provided may be incomplete or potentially inaccurate.
