Dear all,
I unintentionally missed few entry and exits - indicated by stamps on my passport - when filling out the citizenship application form. I still fulfill the days required to stay in Canada even after those missing trips were accounted for.
Someone said the interviewer will check the stamps against the records reported in the application. If this is the case, they will spot the trips are not reported. What is the best response to this problem?
My test and interview are coming up in the next few weeks. I am getting more and more nervous......
Many thanks for your help!
As a general matter, I concur in the observations posted by
@ZingyDNA,
@Joshua1, and
@keesio, and . . .
. . . particularly so for
MINOR errors and omissions in the presence calculation.
BUT a "few" omissions in the presence calculation suggests a SUBSTANTIAL discrepancy.
Even for a substantial error, but at the less serious end of the spectrum, the observations offered by
@ZingyDNA,
@Joshua1, and
@keesio cover it.
That said, the more substantial the mistake the more that pushes for an affirmative correction, perhaps sooner rather than later, or at least preparation of a corrected travel history to submit during the interview.
And, in any case, as suggested by others the applicant should prepare to acknowledge and explain the mistakes during the interview.
Again, however, the reference to a "few" omissions is vague, but suggests at least three trips were omitted, and the fact that the trips are evidenced by stamps in a passport suggests these may not merely have been brief trips to the U.S. but rather more extensive than that.
What constitutes a substantial omission which warrants further attention and more decisive action than suggested in other posts is a complicated question. Three omissions, in itself, probably passes the threshold for what is substantial unless they were very brief trips (each less than three or five nights abroad). AND they may still be at the lesser end of the spectrum, and no big deal, none at all, unless the total amount of additional days absent from Canada adds up to more than a month plus some, or reduces the margin over the minimum threshold by more than the difference (obviously there is no definitive ratio which is likely to invite increased scrutiny and a risk of non-routine requests and processing, but as
@keesio alluded, while it is critical that the difference does not result in being short, in which case the applicant is ineligible, if the revised calculation takes it relatively close to the minimum that is more likely to elevate the level of concern).
I do not know if these omissions were substantial, or even if substantial were significantly so. I do not know whether the OP needs to give this more attention or be more proactive.
Nonetheless,
IF these errors are minor or at least at the relatively minor end of the spectrum, at the worst the OP may need to affirmatively correct the presence calculation and, potentially, be requested to provide some additional information or documents (such as Entry/Exit records from certain countries). No big deal.
If, however, the mistakes add up to more than a month plus, or otherwise constitute a big portion of the applicant's margin over the minimum presence requirement, it would be prudent to submit a correction sooner rather than later, and be better well-prepared to deal with this at the interview, such as having a NEW, REVISED travel history to present in the interview.
What if these were even bigger mistakes?
NO CAUSE to PANIC even if the mistakes are big mistakes. The bigger the mistakes, the more the applicant probably needs to proactively address the situation, and potentially be prepared for non-routine processing, possibly including RQ and having to provide documentation showing where the applicant lived, documenting the applicant's work history, and such. That is, even if this is about some very BIG mistakes (such as multiple month or longer trips omitted), as long as the applicant comes forward acknowledging the mistakes, and FULLY, ACCURATELY corrects the travel history, and the calculation still meets the minimum requirements, things should go OK . . . and at worst result in RQ related requests and processing. So, again,
NO REASON to PANIC.
BUT a CAUTION is warranted:
Of course, passport stamps are indeed a source of information which IRCC typically compares to the residency calculation submitted by the applicant.
BUT that is NOT the only additional information IRCC considers in the process of verifying the applicant's travel history. Recognizing you have made some rather obvious errors,
it would be prudent to thoroughly review all your records and the deep recesses of your memory and any other sources of information you have, to CAREFULLY and THOROUGHLY go through and verify ALL dates of travel outside Canada during the eligibility period. These errors are enough, for example, for IRCC to pull and examine your CBSA travel history, to compare your CBSA travel history to your accounting, and while the CBSA records might not for sure capture every time you entered Canada, for most it does or at least comes very, very close. And of course, again, IRCC has additional sources and means to otherwise discover any discrepancy between the applicant's information and other information. Which is to say, if there are any other errors or omissions, the risk is high IRCC will discover them. (IRCC for sure does NOT rely on passport stamps alone.)
That is, the error made here, in failing to report at least three trips, is significant enough to warrant totally revisiting your travel history to make sure there are NOT any other omissions or errors. Three is enough to make it likely that IRCC will, at the least, more closely examine your travel history in which event it is important for your account to be as close to totally complete and accurate as you can make it. Time to get it right.
This is particularly so given that these mistakes are blatantly obvious, suggesting there is indeed a risk you made others which are not reflected in passport stamps.
NOTE re unintentional mistakes:
Not all mistakes are created equal and, for sure, all mistakes are certainly NOT treated equal. The OP references a huge distinction, for example, in reporting that the mistakes here were "unintentional." This is the most obvious key factor. Intentionally failing to disclose all trips abroad is a material misrepresentation which would have rather negative consequences and potentially rather severe consequences.
But not all unintentional mistakes get a pass. Here too the OP references a huge distinction: notwithstanding the mistake, the OP still met the minimum presence requirement. Otherwise, if the mistake left the applicant short, the applicant would be ineligible and IRCC would necessarily have to deny the application.
But even if they do not affect eligibility itself, unintentional mistakes affect the applicant's credibility, and they compromise the extent to which IRCC will rely on the applicant's presence calculation. The failure to accurately report the facts is what it is: the failure to be an accurate reporter of the facts. Here too, no matter how innocent the mistakes are, more and bigger mistakes will have a more negative impact on the applicant's credibility.
That is, there are differences in how many and how big, and those differences can matter EVEN though the mistakes are unintentional and innocent.
OVERALL:
What others have observed probably covers it.
Except, noticing these mistakes suggests a real risk there were, possibly, additional mistakes. So it is probably time to revisit the whole travel history, TIME TO GET IT RIGHT.
These mistakes are probably no big deal, none at all . . . but best to make sure these mistakes are it; best to do the work necessary to buy insurance, so to say, there are no more.
