I do have almost 1 year of margin in my application.
. . . .
I provided CBSA history, FOIA history and Passport page copies along with a summary I created for exit and entries in the format the residency calculator requires.
Given the extensive travel record, it will be an onerous talk for the officer to reconcile it though I can say will confidence that pretty much everything can be reconciled provided all that time is spent in doing so.
Given this situation, is there like a 3rd party agency that government honors that I can use to get my entry and exit record verified. That way, the citizenship officer will have to invest less energy and probably would make a determination faster.
Caveats:
-- I am NO expert. For expert advice you need to consult with an experienced lawyer. If you get full-blown RQ or are scheduled for a CJ hearing, you may want to seriously consider obtaining the representation of a good lawyer, and you may want to do that anyway.
-- The actual decision-making mechanics at this stage, in a particular individual's case, cannot be known . . . it would be like trying to read the mind of a judge, after the judge received all the evidence, and without knowing who the judge is.
-- All we know and all we can reasonably estimate, about the decision-making at this stage, are inferences based on how the general rules and policies are typically applied to known fact-patterns. You appear to have a fact pattern tending to raise questions.
Re explicit query:
I do not know of anything like a 3rd party agency that will verify entry and exit records, let alone one that the government would honour or rely on.
In the meantime,
NO one can verify you were not absent additional days, so verification of your travel dates would not dictate a positive outcome anyway. That is, verification of accuracy does not (and cannot) verify completeness. (This warrants further observations below.)
IRCC does not even entirely rely on Canada's CBSA travel history to account for all dates of entry into Canada.
IRCC will consider any and all evidence as to travel history dates. For you, in particular, the U.S. history is probably very important evidence. CBSA entry history will be considered, and given a lot of weight, but again IRCC will NOT rely on it to necessarily show all entry dates.
In a case like yours, my sense is that verification of the dates you have reported largely goes to
credibility more than the precise calculation of days. In particular, even if every date you reported could be verified as accurate, one looming question is whether or not there are any additional absences. When IRCC questions an applicant's account of presence in Canada, IRCC does not necessarily make the inference that the applicant actually remained in Canada from a reported/known date of entry until the next reported/known date of exit.
Otherwise, if there is a substantial amount of available objective evidence that is consistent with your accounting of dates, minimal evidence of discrepancies, my sense is that how it goes will depend on whether the Citizenship Officer
BELIEVES you, finds you credible.
If yes, all is well. If not, that likely means you would be headed to a Citizenship Judge hearing again (probably after a full-blown RQ but perhaps not).
Credibility is the critical element: the more thoroughly your accounting is verified, the more that bolsters your credibility.
As long as what you have submitted substantially documents your account AND otherwise there is no reason for IRCC to doubt your credibility . . . YOU REALLY SHOULD BE OK.
Circumstantial Observations (key elements in the fact pattern):
Your recent post illuminates some salient factors I was not aware of previously:
-- previous application subject to RQ, CJ hearing, and withdrawn
-- employed by foreign employer
-- continuing pattern of extended absences going back and spanning many years
Each of these independently would COMPLICATE things. In combination, they can really complicate things. But of course they are not independent, but rather are connected, which should help a decision-maker sort through what is relevant and what that means, making the decision-making somewhat less complicated.
The other salient circumstantial factor which looms large:
-- more than 300 days margin
The latter means that the decision-maker (probably a Citizenship Officer, at least for now . . . recognizing this application could also end up before a Citizenship Judge later in the process if the Citizenship Officer is not satisfied) does
NOT need to verify each and every entry/exit date. Even if numerous dates are questionable, the margin should cover the difference.
So the more critical element in your case is
CREDIBILITY. This may be the key to how things go. My sense is that
credibility is indeed the
KEY to how things will go for you. I am NO expert, so my guess is only a
for-what-it's-worth guess, but I'd guess that if the interviewer (probably a processing agent, but possibly it was the Citizenship Officer) had a positive impression about your credibility AND the response to the CIT 0520 mostly documents/supports the credibility of the information you provided, ALL is WELL. NO PROBLEM.
So, again, so long as what you have submitted substantially documents your account AND otherwise there is no reason for IRCC to doubt your credibility . . . YOU REALLY SHOULD BE OK.
That is, a lot, a real lot, depends on your credibility.
Leading to observations like this:
if only we had proper entry/exit controls, should just be a simple math exercise - came in, (maybe) went out, sumtotal of present days over the threshold - congrats, you're Canadian. That the government thinks they have the right to cast us into this crime/suspense thriller - it's just wrong!
Actually, a more accurate way to verify days present in Canada would be to require all immigrants wear GPS devices which uploads data to a government database . . . what, every month? week? hour? Depends on how much government oversight you want. But even then, there would be ways to game the system.
Or immigrants could be required to check in at a government office regularly to report their activities and address. Once a week? A month?
And how much money should the Canadian taxpayer spend to establish border controls so tight there is nearly no way to enter or exit Canada without it being for-certain recorded accurately, for each and every traveler? My partner is (tongue-in-cheek) in favour of a
Trump-like wall on the U.S./Canadian border (to keep that S-hole Country out of Canada), which is just part of what would be required to so conclusively establish such border controls . . . and the U.S., with an economy many, many times bigger than Canada's, cannot really afford the cost of building such a wall on its much, much shorter border with Mexico. In contrast, the residents of Stanstead, Que., among many other border towns, appreciate the absence of a Berlin-style-wall between them and their neighbors in Derby Line, Vermont.
THE REALITY is that there is ONE PERSON in the whole world who CAN FOR-SURE VERIFY all the dates that a particular individual enters and exits Canada. And that is the individual himself or herself.
There is one person, and only one person, who was for-sure there each and every time a PR left Canada and entered Canada. And that is the PR himself or herself.
For the vast, vast majority of citizenship applicants, IRCC will RELY on the applicant to provide this information, which again is information only that individual is in a position to for-sure have.
But of course IRCC makes a reasonable effort to check the accuracy of the individual applicant's account. Is the applicant's employment and address history consistent with this account? Are various documents, like the applicant's passport stamps, consistent with this account? Are other sources of information, like CBSA records of dates of entry into Canada, consistent with the applicant's account? And so on.
If the checks on the applicant's information verifies the accuracy of the applicant's information, and IRCC determines the applicant is CREDIBLE, IRCC relies on the applicant's presence calculation AND INFERS PRESENCE IN CANADA the days between reported entry and next reported exit.
If IRCC perceives a need to more thoroughly check the accuracy of the applicant's accounting of days, IRCC can request more information and documentation from the applicant, and also make inquiries or conduct investigations.
But make no mistake, that is less about establishing the applicant's account of presence, BUT RATHER more about verifying there are NO discrepancies, no inconsistencies, NO inaccuracies . . . that is, verifying there is NO REASON to DOUBT the applicant's CREDIBILITY.
If the one person in the whole world who can for-sure report each and every exit and entry can be relied on to do so accurately, IRCC will rely on that. If, in contrast, IRCC determines it cannot rely on that source, the applicant, IRCC gives the applicant an opportunity to more persuasively document actual presence: the full-blown RQ . . . if that is persuasive, citizenship is granted. If not, the applicant still gets an opportunity to appear before a Citizenship Judge and persuade the CJ that the evidence submitted does prove the applicant met the presence requirement.
