Risk of PR residency questionnaire?

[orodeshah]

In last 5 years I have been 4 years in Canada (my passport proves it), but I was mostly unemployed , is there any risk of PR residency questionnaire?

 

[dpenabill]

In last 5 years I have been 4 years in Canada (my passport proves it), but I was mostly unemployed , is there any risk of PR residency questionnaire?

Many other factors are in play. For example, were resident tax returns filed?

Since you have RQ pending in your citizenship application, IRCC will consider respective information submitted in the processing of that application. While the residency requirement for citizenship and the residency obligation for PRs are different, much of what information is relevant is the same.

Of most import in this regard are the dates of presence and dates of absence. Obviously IRCC can and likely will compare declarations.

For someone with a citizenship application in process and going through RQ, my sense is that a review of that information will likely influence how the PR card application process unfolds.

For clarification: it is not possible that a passport proves a person has been in Canada. At best it is evidence which can support that person's declarations as to travel and presence. While IRCC often infers that a PR was present in Canada between the last date of entry and the next date of exit, if there is a reason-to-question the residency declarations, that inference no longer applies . . . well, unless and except to the extent there is additional supporting evidence to document living in Canada in between those dates.

 

[kateg]

In last 5 years I have been 4 years in Canada (my passport proves it), but I was mostly unemployed , is there any risk of PR residency questionnaire?

There's always a risk that you will face a residency examination. You would then be asked to demonstrate that you were physically present.

Bank records (including deposits from unemployment) are one form of evidence that can help demonstrate residency.

 

[meyakanor]

While IRCC often infers that a PR was present in Canada between the last date of entry and the next date of exit, if there is a reason-to-question the residency declarations, that inference no longer applies . . . well, unless and except to the extent there is additional supporting evidence to document living in Canada in between those dates.

Can you think of a scenario where such inference would not be true, which does not involve using multiple passports (not an option for citizens of countries which do not accept multiple citizenships)?

Let's say a Chinese, an Indian, or a Japanese citizen PR (or a citizen of any other country which does not permit multiple citizenships) was last recorded to have entered Canada on January 1 2015, and provided solid unambiguous proof that he/she has left Canada on October 1 2015. What could potentially challenge his/her claim to the continuous physical presence between January 1 and October 1?

It's not like they could have just used another visa-exempt passport to 'sneak' into Canada undetected in between January 1 and October 1, since their country of origin would not have permitted that.

 

[dpenabill]

Can you think of a scenario where such inference would not be true, which does not involve using multiple passports (not an option for citizens of countries which do not accept multiple citizenships)?

Let's say a Chinese, an Indian, or a Japanese citizen PR (or a citizen of any other country which does not permit multiple citizenships) was last recorded to have entered Canada on January 1 2015, and provided solid unambiguous proof that he/she has left Canada on October 1 2015. What could potentially challenge his/her claim to the continuous physical presence between January 1 and October 1?

It's not like they could have just used another visa-exempt passport to 'sneak' into Canada undetected in between January 1 and October 1, since their country of origin would not have permitted that.

This was posed regarding the following:

[quote author=dpenabill]While IRCC often infers that a PR was present in Canada between the last date of entry and the next date of exit, if there is a reason-to-question the residency declarations, that inference no longer applies . . . well, unless and except to the extent there is additional supporting evidence to document living in Canada in between those dates.[/quote]

The quote itself answers the query: if IRCC perceives a reason-to-question residency, it will not necessarily infer the PR was present in Canada between last date of entry and next date of exit as declared by the PR even though all passport stamps are consistent with the declaration.

While it may be true that the PR was present in between the last date of entry and next date of exit as reflected in the passport stamps, once the decision-maker requires the PR to prove presence, the PR must prove presence. The PR may argue that it is reasonable to still infer presence based on the passport stamps (especially when supported by the ICES report), but in the past CIC and Citizenship Judges and IAD panels have many times required the PR to submit evidence showing actual presence in Canada in-between those dates.

Note, however, this is far more often at issue regarding PRs applying for citizenship. While in the last three or so years the forums have been populated by more reports of Residency Determinations in cases involving the PR Residency Obligation, there is a far larger number of citizenship cases reported, and far more in-depth reference to facts in residency calculations in officially published decisions arising from appeals in citizenship cases.


A matter of proof.

While I am not going to attempt finding and revisiting the cases, there are indeed multiple officially published decisions in which PRs have made essentially the same argument, that their passport in effect proves they were present between a certain last date of entry and the next exit because they carry a passport which always gets stamped and they have no other Travel Documents. And to some extent this argument has weight, particularly when it is consistent with the ICES report.

But that goes to the evidentiary weight of this evidence. Whether or not that is sufficient to prove beyond a balance of probabilities that the PR was present in Canada during that period of time is a decision made by the respective decision-maker, one to be based on consideration of all the relevant evidence and circumstances. And the Federal Court has upheld multiple decisions in which a Citizenship Judge has (apparently consistent with arguments made by CIC in the referral) determined it was NOT sufficient to prove presence.

Obviously, the PR's argument is that this is unreasonable.

This does not occur in a vacuum. In these cases there is always some reason for CIC and the CJ to question the PR's account of presence in Canada. CIC does not endeavor to prove the PR had some other Travel Document (such as one obtained using another name, or a false document provided by a crooked consultant), or some other means by which to travel without it being recorded in the PR's passport, but rather requires the PR to meet his or her burden of proof to show actual presence in Canada. IRCC looks for the PR to submit documentation showing an audit trail of a life lived in Canada.

To take your example: if the PR has only minimal evidence to show actual presence in Canada between January 1 and October 1, even though the PR's only Travel Document has stamps showing an entry January 1 and no other international travel until an exit October 1, there really is minimal direct evidence of presence in Canada other than on January 1 and October 1 (or September 30). Once IRCC wants proof, they want proof, not mere inferences.

Thus, in the absence of an audit trail of a life being lived in Canada between January 1 and October 1, the inference can be that the PR was outside Canada some or much of this time, and therefore the Travel Document stamps do NOT support an inference the applicant did not travel abroad at some other time during this period.

You might think, given the passport, that the more reasonable inference is that the PR was present between the stamp showing last date of entry and the next stamp showing date of exit.

A Citizenship Judge might, in contrast, be persuaded by IRCC's referral that there are sufficient reasons to question the accuracy or completeness of the PR's declared dates of travel, that given a relative lack of documentation showing the audit trail of a life lived in Canada, the more reasonable inference is that the PR has failed to prove when he or she was actually present.

To be clear: How the PR managed to travel (without it being recorded in his or her passport) does not need to be explained, let alone proven by IRCC. The burden of proof is on the applicant; which is to say it is up to the PR to prove actual presence, and evidence of travel on certain dates does not necessarily exclude the possibility of travel on other, additional dates. In contrast, direct evidence of presence in Canada does prove presence in Canada. Among the best evidence is proof of a job in Canada requiring the PR to be at a job site in Canada regularly. Absent this, the PR who is engaged in a Residency Determination should make a concerted effort to submit objective evidence otherwise directly showing activity in Canada, showing actual physical presence.

 

[kateg]

Can you think of a scenario where such inference would not be true, which does not involve using multiple passports (not an option for citizens of countries which do not accept multiple citizenships)?

Sure. I've entered Canada and the US combined several hundred times in the past few years. Neither ever stamps my passport.

Sometimes, I use a Passport Card (US). This results in them bugging me about residency every time I cross. If I don't want to be bugged, I use my NEXUS card. It still has my work and study permits on it, and they very rarely ask me about residency. If I have commercial goods, I can't use NEXUS, and will use my Passport (with COPR) if I don't want too much hassle. In addition, I have an Enhanced ID coming - with it, I will be able to cross the border without a stamp.

In addition, I hold a CANPASS. This lets me phone in for remote border crossings, and does not result in a stamp. Furthermore, when I get my pilot license, I will be getting a CANPASS AIR, which makes it possible to land by air without getting a stamp in a passport - it requires a flight plan filed in advance, and may or may not result in an inspection at the airport.

People can and do slip across the border, as well. You could be illegally living in the US or Mexico for three years, and their systems would have no way to know.

I am a citizen of one country. Stamps in a passport are not proof.

 

[meyakanor]

I think I must probably have misunderstood the discussion a little. What I meant was not whether or not passport stamps exist, but the fact that, even if passport stamps were not given for particular entries, CBSA would still have records of the entries on their systems.

As a PR, I was NEVER given a passport stamp while entering Canada, even when entering through air, but CBSA has ALL of my entry records (this is evident when I ordered CBSA records which recorded all of my entries to Canada), even though none of them has any corresponding stamp on my passport. Again, what I was wondering was, let's say a particular PR has a last recorded entry (not necessarily a passport stamp, but a recorded entry on the CBSA FOSS), and he/she also has an unambiguous proof that he/she left the country at October 1, which means that he/she was present in the country at October 1.

I understand that passport stamps mean little, but let's say, back to that same example, if the person made an entry on April 1, and again, on June 15, surely CBSA would have recorded entries of these ones as well, with or without corresponding passport stamps. Except maybe if the person digs a tunnel underground to sneak in, or teleports across the border, or, as I mentioned, obtains a second visa-exempt passport under a different name. Or maybe with CANPASS AIR, CBSA would not even record someone's entry onto the country (I'm not familiar with the process)?

 

[kateg]

As a PR, I was NEVER given a passport stamp while entering Canada, even when entering through air, but CBSA has ALL of my entry records (this is evident when I ordered CBSA records which recorded all of my entries to Canada), even though none of them has any corresponding stamp on my passport. Again, what I was wondering was, let's say a particular PR has a last recorded entry (not necessarily a passport stamp, but a recorded entry on the CBSA FOSS), and he/she also has an unambiguous proof that he/she left the country at October 1, which means that he/she was present in the country at October 1.

Information sharing with the US is relatively new (last year) - prior to that, you could have driven.

So, here's an example:

You had a recorded entry on January 1, 2010. January 2, 2010 you drive to the US (which Canada knows nothing about), and fly to China. You come back July 4th, 2014 (sneaking in during the fireworks in Blaine), then you fly out July 5th, 2014. As far as Canada knows, you have an entry record on January 1, and an exit record on July 5th. You have proven you were in the country those two days. Meanwhile, you were only in the country for two days.

You can still do this if you have dual citizenship. Because there is no unique identifier (like a Social Security Number), Canada has no way of knowing if you have a second passport or not. You could use a second passport to go to the US, fly out using your original passport (which the US won't share, as it's not a land border), and re-enter Canada as a "visa waiver" with the second passport. Canada won't know without biometrics, and you can still look like you've been there the whole time.

I understand that passport stamps mean little, but let's say, back to that same example, if the person made an entry on April 1, and again, on June 15, surely CBSA would have recorded entries of these ones as well, with or without corresponding passport stamps. Except maybe if the person digs a tunnel underground to sneak in, or teleports across the border, or, as I mentioned, obtains a second visa-exempt passport under a different name. Or maybe with CANPASS AIR, CBSA would not even record someone's entry onto the country (I'm not familiar with the process)?

The passport can be under the same name. There are many people with the name John Smith. There is little need to dig a tunnel - heck, there are buildings half in Canada, half in the US. You are supposed to check in at Customs, but it's rarely checked. There's also the Hyder-Stewart Border crossing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyder_-_Stewart_Border_Crossing

The US side isn't even staffed, which makes it the only crossing to the US where you may legally enter without inspection. That's not reported anywhere. When you fly out, unless it's a Canadian passport, Canada does not have access to those records.

People cross the border illegally - it's a fact the CBSA has to deal with. As such, the burden falls upon you to prove compliance with the law.

 

[meyakanor]

I see. So the border used to be (or still is?) really porous then. All these scenarios you mentioned (sneaking in during fireworks at Maine or some library at Canusa Avenue), are these still currently practical?

I read some news a while ago that they have started tightening up border control at Stanstead, QC so that no person would be able to cross between the two countries undetected, and I'm assuming this extra enforcement would also be true for some of the border communities where people used to cross relatively easily back then.

 

[dpenabill]

The point really is not whether it is possible to cross the border undetected. That is but a small part of it. And, in any event, it is possible regardless of how practical it is.

Nor is the point limited to other means of crossing the border such that records of the crossing do not attach to the identity of the individual as a PR, although this is probably the more common scenario. (Example: individual carries an additional Travel Document, name spelled slightly different, or other identification data is enough different, that it is not connected to the PR's client number in Canadian immigration system; and of course the PR might choose to not disclose the existence of this other Travel Document to IRCC.)

Overall, yes the technology for recording border crossings, and the policies and practices for more thoroughly and accurately doing so, have been steadily enhanced over the last decade and a half, and continue to be increasingly complete. The records are indeed more and more complete. Canada has more and more capacity to verify border crossings for individuals.

But in Residency Determinations, be that for citizenship or the PR Residency Obligation, the burden of proof remains and will remain, for the foreseeable future, on the PR.

While this may be partially due to the fact that it is still possible for the government's records to not capture every crossing, there is no hint of this changing even though the possibility of unrecorded border crossings is dramatically reduced by enhanced technology and increased enforcement practices.

So far, and it appears likely to continue indefinitely, IRCC (and previously CIC) only used its access to other sources of information for the purpose of verification. IRCC makes little or no effort to reconstruct or recalculate or otherwise establish a PR's travel history. It determines whether the PR has met his or her burden of proof in showing presence.

I only initially noted that it is common for IRCC to infer presence between last reported entry and next exit because that is how IRCC tends to approach routinely processed applications (for citizenship or PR cards), but the point is that once IRCC identifies a reason-to-question the PR's account, that inference no longer applies. The PR is required to prove presence, not merely document the travel the PR has declared.

The point is that the government does not accept even the concurrence of information in all passport stamps and ICES records as sufficient proof of presence in Canada once the government identifies a reason-to-question the PR's account, but rather requests and requires additional evidence to show the PR was indeed present at times between reported entry and next exit.

 

[cnccnc]

That means the PR has to be busy in some activity or has to have a Job specially a job to prove their residency, they cant be sitting idle, living off investments or rental incomes right? because then their chances to prove residency are greatly diminished.

How about allowing an option (who knows make it even mandatory) for such individuals instead to report to a Govt. agency or police every week or few days for attendance, this would create some kind of a stay record and the cost of recording and maintaining such data could be recovered from such individuals by way of fee charged for each recording.

Although some people may have abused the PR and Citizenship residency obligations and the CIC is justified in their stricter reviews but there are many well intentioned immigrant families who also get caught up in this and find themselves at the receiving end, these are well off or wealthy immigrant families who want to lead peaceful lives in Canada or retire in Canada, these families perhaps spend well over 100K annually in goods and services but are under constant threat of their residency status and feel un-welcomed amidst this burden of residency proof.

I guess the system is not friendly for such immigrant families. (Maybe their spending has no effect on the economy)

 

[dpenabill]

That means the PR has to be busy in some activity or has to have a Job specially a job to prove their residency, they cant be sitting idle, living off investments or rental incomes right? because then their chances to prove residency are greatly diminished.

How about allowing an option (who knows make it even mandatory) for such individuals instead to report to a Govt. agency or police every week or few days for attendance, this would create some kind of a stay record and the cost of recording and maintaining such data could be recovered from such individuals by way of fee charged for each recording.

Although some people may have abused the PR and Citizenship residency obligations and the CIC is justified in their stricter reviews but there are many well intentioned immigrant families who also get caught up in this and find themselves at the receiving end, these are well off or wealthy immigrant families who want to lead peaceful lives in Canada or retire in Canada, these families perhaps spend well over 100K annually in goods and services but are under constant threat of their residency status and feel un-welcomed amidst this burden of residency proof.

I guess the system is not friendly for such immigrant families. (Maybe their spending has no effect on the economy)

It warrants remembering that in routine cases IRCC will usually make the inference that the PR was in Canada between the last reported date of entry and next date of exit. Whether it is in applying for a new PR card or for citizenship, yes, a substantial amount of additional information must be submitted, but that information mostly goes to things like where one maintained a place of residence, whether one filed tax returns as a resident of Canada, whether one's children attended school in Canada, enough information for IRCC to discern whether they need to see more than that.

As I have attempted to illuminate, the dynamics change if IRCC perceives a reason-to-question the PR's declarations about residency or presence/travel.

Sure, many immigrants have low impact lifestyles, especially in their first few years in Canada, during which it can be difficult to find regular employment, some living largely on a cash-basis, more or less off the transaction-record-grid so to say. They still need a place to live, and should be able to keep records of what their tenancy interest is where they live (even if it is just the combination of the owner's documentation showing ownership plus a letter from the owner describing and affirming the PR's tenancy). They still need to see doctors or dentists occasionally. They can participate in community activities. There are many, many ways that a person's life in a place can be documented. And, indeed, this is why IRCC can be skeptical, if not outright suspicious, when the PR has minimal documentation to show the life he or she has been living in Canada.

So long as nothing raises IRCC's suspicions, generally there is no problem.

In contrast, if IRCC asks for more documentation, the failure to submit a reasonable amount of evidence showing a life lived in Canada tends to invite, if not support, a negative inference. This is not advanced engineering or rocket science.

There should be little surprise. The PR has long had the burden of proof. I do think the government should be more overt about advising new immigrants as to the importance of keeping good records, but frankly anyone who has completed a PR application should be well familiar with the extent to which the government can and often does demand detailed information about one's life . . . I had to provide detailed information about all employment and places I had lived for four decades when I applied for PR . . . back to the 60s, and as almost anyone who was around back then can attest, detailed memory of those years is a fairly rare commodity. So it came as no surprise at all that I would have to show, for a few years, where I lived and where I worked and so on when it came time to apply for a new PR card or for citizenship.

 

[kateg]

I see. So the border used to be (or still is?) really porous then. All these scenarios you mentioned (sneaking in during fireworks at Maine or some library at Canusa Avenue), are these still currently practical?

Perfectly so. I've used them. I call and report as legally required, but there is generally nobody checking.

I read some news a while ago that they have started tightening up border control at Stanstead, QC so that no person would be able to cross between the two countries undetected, and I'm assuming this extra enforcement would also be true for some of the border communities where people used to cross relatively easily back then.

The US has tightened up a few of those areas, but it's still trivial to cross - it's the world's largest unguarded land border.

Peace Arch is a special case - the inscription upon it reads "may these gates never be closed". It has an entire park dedicated to being able to meet and mingle without restriction, and was built in a time where they didn't even check ID to cross the border if you looked white or black. Closing and locking that down would be politically difficult. I've been there at night to take pictures, or to cross the border when walking. Technically, the park is closed, but the agents wave me through.

I, like others that go there, follow the rules, and they know it.

 

[nekeol]

I see. So the border used to be (or still is?) really porous then. All these scenarios you mentioned (sneaking in during fireworks at Maine or some library at Canusa Avenue), are these still currently practical?

I read some news a while ago that they have started tightening up border control at Stanstead, QC so that no person would be able to cross between the two countries undetected, and I'm assuming this extra enforcement would also be true for some of the border communities where people used to cross relatively easily back then.

 

[nope]

I think that this is a situation where CIC's approach is reasonable; people who have lives in Canada have evidence of those lives. Where something is unreasonable, or suspicious -- for example, my wife's 16 month period with no passport -- a lived life provides offsetting evidence. It is when everything in the PR's life falls out in such a way that they can't prove their presence here, that CIC concludes they weren't present. I've seen a few inquiries about that here on the forum. Someone works for cash . . . they've never been sick . . . no, they don't have a lease, always lived with roommates and paid cash . . . didn't study . . . no, no credit card, of course not, and never go to the library, read everything online . . . It's possible to live that way, I guess, but just accept that your citizenship application is not going to be a ton of fun.

As for the border being porous . . . many of my relatives live on the San Juan Islands in the United States, just a few miles from Victoria. Many of them have boats, and it is common to cross the border. Legally, you're supposed to phone in to the border guards (on either side, they don't require you to visit the office) when you land, but it would be quite simple not to. Once my uncle took some non-American tourists over to Victoria, and the CBSA office there was curious and came out to check on them on the beach in Sydney, but only because they were bored. For myself, it would have been exceedingly simple, while I lived in Victoria, to get someone to come over and pick me up, live a few years in the United States, and then do the same thing in reverse.