No passport stamp as proof of reentry.

[mediajunkie]

I drove over to the US to visit a friend on May 7 and came back on May 10. The US customs stamped my passport showing that I exited May 7, but the returning Canadian border guard refused to stamp my passport on my return on May 10 despite me requesting him to.

When it comes time to my PR renewal or citizenship application, how can I prove that I was only away for 4 days? It's not going to be for another year, but I might as well ask while it's still fresh in my memory and have access to documents.

 

[Leon]

Normally they don't ask you for proof. If for some reason they don't believe you when the time comes, there are other ways of proving where you were, for example pay stubs showing how many hours you'd worked that month or a letter from your employer stating the periods you worked vs. when you took vacation or bank or visa card statements showing shopping/withdrawals in Canada. It would not be a bad idea to keep such crucial paystubs / vacation request forms / bank records together as well as airline tickets / boarding cards if you go by plane. You might need it at some point and then it's all there.

 

[Karlshammar]

The Canadians would have recorded your entry, and they share that information with the Americans.

Otherwise, alternative proof as suggested is also a solution.

 

[toby]

Karlshammar:

Even if Canada records entries and exits (although Canada does not stamp passports), CIC does not seem to be able to retrieve those records, since CIC requires the PR to prove time spent in Canada.

So, these supposed computer records serve to keep PRs honest, but the PR must nevertheless provide the documentary proof.

Furthermore, I don't think that Canada can keep these computer records for as long as 5 years. I recall from the horrors of 9/11 2001 that there was a proposal to keep travel records for 5 years (to allow analysis of travel patterns, and incidentally to catch tax evaders). This proposal was abandoned as too invasive into personal privacy. Assuming that this is still the case, the PR's documentary evidence may be the ONLY evidence of time spent in Canada.

And -- while we are on the topic of proof -- short of taking a photo with the days newspaper and date in view, each and every day -- there does not seem to be any indisputable evidence of presence in Canada, unless one is employed and can get a confirming letter from one's employer.

.

 

[Karlshammar]

I don't know how long they keep records. Records are kept by the CBSA, not the CIC, so you'd probably have to ask them for the information if it is still in their system.

I don't think newspapers are very good proof of presence, as people can easily save old newspapers and take photos at a later date. It's also hard to prove that the photo is taken in Canada, unless you are in front of Parliament Hill or something.

An employment letter is good, but there are tons of other things: letters from a doctor or dentist (or other licensed person), show up in person at a gov't office or police station and ask them for a letter that you were there in-person, and so on. I don't know if they would accept letters from people who know you the way they do to verify relationships for immigration.

Karlshammar:

Even if Canada records entries and exits (although Canada does not stamp passports), CIC does not seem to be able to retrieve those records, since CIC requires the PR to prove time spent in Canada.

So, these supposed computer records serve to keep PRs honest, but the PR must nevertheless provide the documentary proof.

Furthermore, I don't think that Canada can keep these computer records for as long as 5 years. I recall from the horrors of 9/11 2001 that there was a proposal to keep travel records for 5 years (to allow analysis of travel patterns, and incidentally to catch tax evaders). This proposal was abandoned as too invasive into personal privacy. Assuming that this is still the case, the PR's documentary evidence may be the ONLY evidence of time spent in Canada.

And -- while we are on the topic of proof -- short of taking a photo with the days newspaper and date in view, each and every day -- there does not seem to be any indisputable evidence of presence in Canada, unless one is employed and can get a confirming letter from one's employer.

.

 

[toby]

Karlshannar said:

I don't think newspapers are very good proof of presence, as people can easily save old newspapers and take photos at a later date. It's also hard to prove that the photo is taken in Canada, unless you are in front of Parliament Hill or something.


That was my best idea!!! But now that I see the problem with it (thanks for pointing out the flaw in logic, I think), I guess I would make a weekly ATM withdrwal, and save those as proof I was in Canada on those days. I guess a really difficult CIC official could ask me for proof of being in Canada on the intervening days (Monday to Saturday, if the ATM withdrawal was on Sunday) , but ultimately one has no real defence against a determinedly suspicious IC offical.

A letter from a trusted professional (e.g. dentist) proves you were in Canada on that day, but nothing else.

 

[Alabaman]

...and what happens if you tell a very close friend of yours to make ATM withdrawals on your behalf??

Karlshannar said:

I don't think newspapers are very good proof of presence, as people can easily save old newspapers and take photos at a later date. It's also hard to prove that the photo is taken in Canada, unless you are in front of Parliament Hill or something.


That was my best idea!!! But now that I see the problem with it (thanks for pointing out the flaw in logic, I think), I guess I would make a weekly ATM withdrwal, and save those as proof I was in Canada on those days. I guess a really difficult CIC official could ask me for proof of being in Canada on the intervening days (Monday to Saturday, if the ATM withdrawal was on Sunday) , but ultimately one has no real defence against a determinedly suspicious IC offical.

A letter from a trusted professional (e.g. dentist) proves you were in Canada on that day, but nothing else.

 

[toby]

...and what happens if you tell a very close friend of yours to make ATM withdrawals on your behalf??

Well, maybe CIC believes that if you have a friend close enough to trust with the keys to your bank account, then perhaps you are a good-karma person -- the type that Canada needs.

But the real point is that there is NO unequivocal proof of being in Canada, and if the burden of proof is on the PR, how can we meet this expectation? I guess the best suggestion is a work record. But where one is not working, what to do?



.

 

[matthewc]

If you drove across the border file a privacy act request with CBSA for all records of your vehicle crossing the border. That will show exits and entries, whether or not they stamped your passport.

 

[toby]

If you drove across the border file a privacy act request with CBSA for all records of your vehicle crossing the border. That will show exits and entries, whether or not they stamped your passport.

Thanks, Matthew:

What concerns me about this need for a PR renewing his/her PR is the dubiousness of the evidences, and this gives a sceptical CIC official a lot of room to deny applications.

Boarding passes show time spent outside Canada, not time IN Canada. Nothing prevents a renewing PR from ignoring a few boarding passes (lengthy trips) to put himself over the 730 day requirement?

ATM receipts, photos with the day's newspaper in view etc as proofs of time IN Canada can be faked (as you have noted).

A letter from an employer would be convincing, but not every PR has employment.

In the post you referenced, the person describing how he obtained border-crossing records noted that these records are not complete:
“One note: I have just reviewed all the data, and it is clearly missing entries that I did using my NEXUS card. I'm going to call them the CBSA ATIP office tomorrow to find out which department handles NEXUS ATIP requests.”

If even these records are incomplete, not to mention deliberately ignored plane trips out of Canada, then there really is no conclusive evidence to prove time spent in Canada, and therefore CIC officers are ultimately free to impose their own subjective conclusions.