I am not sure of the context for this query. However, it alludes to the larger issue of how residency is assessed, including the mechanics of proving residency.
As I discuss below in this long post of related observations, for purposes of assessing or establishing residency, two elements loom very large:
(1) It is the applicant's job to completely and accurately report all dates of international travel; PRs who do not keep records sufficient to do this, or sufficient to document this if issued RQ, are at a serious disadvantage since the burden of proof is solidly on the applicant.
(2) Dates of entry and exit are important, critical, but they are only part of the residency equation; proof of place of abode and employment and other activity, and typical residency ties, is just as important if an applicant is issued RQ. Much more about this below.
CanadianCountry said:
In the case of international travel, if there are no stamps in the passport, AND, there is no mention of travel in the CBSA travel history reports, what is the evidence of travel?
Best records of travel are those kept by the person traveling.
A PR cannot rely on any other record to necessarily be complete.
The U.S. entry record, and the CBSA entry records, can almost always be relied upon to be accurate, so far as the border crossing event was captured. But while these records are increasingly complete, they still cannot be relied upon to be entirely complete. Accurate but not complete. That is, dates reflected in these records are almost always correct as to date and POE, that is accurate, but they do not necessarily reflect every time an individual goes through a POE.
The older the time period involved, the less complete the records tend to be.
That said, for many, these records appear to be complete now going back to around 2010 or so.
For the individual who did not keep records . . .
First, a reminder, relative to both the PR Residency Obligation and the residency requirement,
the burden of proof is on the applicant. There is no question, PRs should be keeping at least some records relative to all international travel, and for sure as to the dates of exit and entry.
In a residency case, if there is no documentation to prove dates of travel, CIC can make inferences based on whatever other evidence, or more to the point, lack of evidence there is. That is, the burden of bringing forward evidence is on the applicant. The failure to bring forth evidence, if requested, hurts the applicant's case.
All that said, for the individual who did not keep records, so long as the declaration is
complete (all travel declared) and
accurate, the odds of an issue about travel dates are relatively low.
CIC looks to records like the CBSA travel history for
verification purposes. CIC is looking more to find discrepancies or omissions than it is make a case on behalf of an applicant. It is up to the applicant to make his case. CIC does very little, if anything, to find information, records, or evidence that will support the applicant's case, since, again, that is up to the applicant.
Caution: While, as I said, CBSA records are not relied upon to be entirely complete, if there is a known date of entry into Canada and there is no CBSA record of that entry, that can raise questions about whether or not the PR was using some other, undisclosed Travel Documents. An isolated instance of an incomplete CBSA entry record, in the absence of any other indications leading CIC to have concerns, is probably not at all problematic. But, if CIC perceives a PR has potentially been using an alternative, undisclosed Travel Document, when going through a POE, the level of scrutiny and potentially skepticism can rise dramatically, depending of course on all the other facts and circumstances in the case.
Ultimately, travel dates are only a part of the equation . . .
Ultimately, travel dates are only a part of the equation. In cases where CIC has elected to scrutinize residency, declared travel dates will be compared to all the other evidence of residency.
In particular, while generally there is a presumption that between the date of an entry into Canada and the next date of exit, the PR was
in Canada between those two dates, this presumption evaporates if CIC issues RQ or otherwise engages in a residency examination. Once residency is in issue, the date of entry and next date of exit are important,
but it is just as important for the applicant to document place of abode, place of employment, other activity, typical residency ties, and so on, between those dates. Without proof of actual residency and activity in Canada between a date of entry and next date of exit, CIC might infer there was an unreported absence during that period of time.
Overall, "proof" is not something that exists in the abstract. Proof is dependent on how all facts and circumstances relate to one another. What constitutes proof of a given fact is a judgment made by the decision-maker.
"Evidence" itself is just that, "evidence," be that testimonial or documentation, it is information and items tending to show the existence or non-existence of this or that fact. Some evidence is much stronger than other evidence. Some evidence is considered more credible. Some more reliable. As noted, CBSA travel history reflecting dates of entry into Canada are considered to be highly reliable as to what dates are specifically reflected. In contrast, though, the CBSA history is not considered to necessarily confirm there were no other trips (especially if CIC perceives the possibility alternative, undisclosed Travel Documents were sometimes used).
And in many cases, there can be conflicting evidence. When there is conflicting evidence, it is up to the decision-maker to determine which is more credible, more reliable. And it is up to the decision-maker what inferences (so long as the inferences are
reasonable) are to be made based on the evidence.
And, as already noted, the absence of evidence tends to go against the applicant, since again the burden of proof, the burden to bring sufficient evidence forward to prove residency, is on the applicant.
What the latter means is that CIC does not have to conclude an applicant did not meet the residency requirement in order to deny the application. All CIC has to conclude is that the applicant failed to prove having met the residency requirement. For some reason this seems to be often overlooked, applicants surprised that an applicant who in fact, in reality, met the residency requirement can be and sometimes is denied. What is overlooked is that an applicant must
both have actually met the residency requirement, and
have submitted sufficient proof of having met the residency requirement. In other words, even if an applicant in fact, in reality met the residency requirement, CIC is obligated to deny citizenship if that applicant fails to submit sufficient proof of residency when requested (to be clear, CIC does not use a crystal ball).
