Hi,
Not that I committed this error, but just out of curiosity what can/does happen if one were to miss accounting for some trip(s) on the physical presence calculator, but they still have enough buffer days to satisfy the 1095 days physical presence requirement.
Does the application get refused due to mis-representation ? OR they're are lenient and let it slide ?
Hoping someone with experience will chime in.
Thanks
I do not have personal experience. I have, however, read scores of Federal Court decisions about actual cases in which the focus of attention was questions related to errors or omissions in the travel history reported by the applicant.
There is no one answer which fits all situations. To a large extent (but not exclusively) what looms largest is whether or not, or to what extent, the error or omission gives IRCC reason to question the applicant's account of travel history. A big factor, too, is whether the circumstances suggest an innocent mistake or an overt effort to deceive or conceal.
Significant errors or omissions, including IRCC perceiving the
possibility of an error or omission, will at least, generally, result in elevated scrutiny, such that the other facts and circumstances in the applicant's case are more closely examined, possibly triggering further inquiries (such as research into open sources, referrals to other government agencies such as CBSA or CRA, or others, or outright investigations perhaps including a referral to the RCMP). Thus, for example, IRCC may pursue inquiries to verify the applicant's work history, or address history, ranging from contacting employers to more involved investigatory methods.
Obviously, if IRCC suspects a deliberate effort to deceive or conceal, that will dramatically escalate the amount and degree of scrutiny. At the least, RQ will likely be issued. At the more extreme end of the spectrum, the applicant's case can be deemed a
presence-fraud-case, which could not only lead to the application being denied for misrepresentation (which results in a five year prohibition) but to criminal prosecution as well.
But there are many, many variations in how these cases can go. Again, a lot depends on what IRCC perceives about the applicant's credibility. My impression has been (in following these specific issues for many years now -- residency and presence issues have been my main interest, my hobby so to say) that IRCC typically does not rush to judgment (with obvious exceptions if overt fraud is apparent), but will issue the applicant RQ and it is how the applicant responds to the RQ which determines how the case goes from there.
I have discussed these matters at length and in-depth in scores of topics, going back many years, and including more extensive coverage of related issues in other similar forums (noting, though, the older discussions are complicated by the impact of the residency rule which governed pre-June-2015 applications).
While there is minimal overt discussion about the inference that a person was in Canada the days between the last reported entry into Canada and the next reported date of exit, to a large extent this is the key. For routinely processed applications, that is how it works, IRCC sees enough supporting information to accept the applicant's travel history (with some very minor deviations allowed) and based on that
INFERS that the applicant was present in Canada from the date of last entry to the date of next exit, and as long as those add up to meeting the requirements, all is well.
If there are "
risk indicators," or "
triage criteria," or indications which suggest the applicant was
possibly not in Canada all the days between reported entry and next reported exit, the extent to which IRCC will continue to infer the applicant was present in Canada from the date of last entry to the date of next exit will depend on the extent to which the information and documentation directly support such an inference. Obviously, a significant error or omission in reported travel history is very much a
risk indicator, and opens the door to questioning whether or not the information and evidence sufficiently supports an inference of presence in between entry and next exit. For the whole span of times claimed to have been in Canada (not just the time period in which an issue arose).
But how skeptically IRCC then scrutinizes the applicant's case varies greatly, depending on how the processing agent and/or Citizenship Officer perceives what is in the record.
Bottom-line: IRCC does not need to affirmatively conclude the applicant fell short of the 1095 day requirement to deny a grant of citizenship. If IRCC concludes the applicant's submissions fail to affirmatively prove the applicant was in fact present at least 1095 days, IRCC will prepare a referral to a Citizenship Judge, and in that referral state reasons for concern, and the applicant will be scheduled for a CJ hearing. The CJ will then hear the applicant's side and decide whether the applicant has met the burden of proving at least 1095 days of presence. If not, the CJ will deny approval. There is no right of appeal, but the applicant can ask the Federal Court for leave to have judicial review.
If the CJ decides the applicant has met the burden of proof, the CJ will approve the application. That decision will be sent to IRCC which will either proceed to grant citizenship (schedule the applicant for the oath) or appeal the CJ's decision (IRCC does have a right of appeal).
If IRCC has questions about an applicant's actual presence, this is where work and address history loom large. These are positive indications of where a person was for the respective period of time. These help to fill in the gaps between a date of entry and the next date of exit. Without an inference of presence between the last known date of entry and next known date of exit, the applicant can be required to document actual presence for all those days. And failing to do so means failing to meet the burden of proof. No inference or assumption of absence during those periods is necessary for the case to go against the applicant, since it is the applicant's burden to affirmatively prove actual presence.
