As discussed in previous post: it appears there is no actual RO compliance issue. As long as no 44(1) Report has been prepared, days in Canada after the PR card application was made count toward RO compliance. So there should be no real RO issue (even if there were concerns about presence in Canada as of when the application was made).
That said . . . I feel obligated to mention the risk of misrepresentation if the PR card application contained significant factual errors.
So far as we have seen in anecdotal reporting, requests for RO compliance related information (presence here versus absences) are usually (perhaps almost always) about verifying RO compliance. And this can happen for various reasons including, potentially, quality control or random requests.
Cutting-it-close (which to my view means fewer than 900 days RO credit, since that means the PR has been living outside Canada more than in Canada despite claiming, when landing, that their intent was to settle and live permanently in Canada) can invite/trigger RO related questions or requests, particularly in conjunction with factors like having no work or school activities to report.
So if you are confident that the information submitted in the application was factually accurate, no more than a very few minor mistakes, there is probably no need to give these comments about misrepresentation much thought or attention (since in the meantime the PR has stayed here two full years, so there should be no doubts about RO compliance).
A key consideration here is the extent of potential errors/discrepancies in the PR card application, including declarations of travel dates. Thus the question is (as posed in the post above):
What makes a factually erroneous statement misrepresentation rather than merely a mistake?
Misrepresentation is almost never about minor discrepancies. IRCC generally shrugs off minor mistakes, even in applications for citizenship where many applicants make mistakes in their travel history, not just errors in the dates but some overlooking (so failing to report) whole trips. Former PRs (now citizens) have reported leaving out trips for multiple weeks, leading to some questions and a need for clarification of travel history, but no allegations of misrepresentation or even questioned credibility, no real problems.
But there are some flags in your posts which might indicate cause for concern.
In what you shared, IRCC is
not requesting that you (that is, actually, the PR, your spouse) provide a copy of your CBSA travel history records.
This is not asking for CBSA travel history. It is asking for such records from the country in which the PR is a citizen and other countries,
other than Canada, where the PR has resided. Of course you can only provide what you have or what you can obtain (see previous post discussion about responding).
This is where things get cloudy. Apart from the "
lot of travel" aspect (will get to that), even if you do not have a copy of what was submitted, you should have records of those dates since PRs absolutely should be keeping a record of all trips in and out of Canada (even day trips to the states). How else did you verify the dates submitted in the application?
Bottomline: the dates you submitted in the application should correspond to actual dates of travel. And that is something you (well, your spouse) should have verified before submitting the application. If there is much risk the dates in the application were not the actual dates of travel, particularly if more than a couple dates might be off, or any date off by more than a couple days, that could signal a need to be more conscientious and deliberate in how you respond to these requests.
These requests constitute a
Procedural Fairness Letter (PFL). As noted (repeatedly), I am not a Canadian immigration expert or lawyer. So I am not personally familiar with how a PFL about potential misrepresentation as to travel history might be different than a PFL only about verifying RO compliance. I suspect the request for additional information can be both, that is, a PFL putting the PR card applicant on notice there are questions about RO compliance and questions about the accuracy of the travel history submitted. That is, about RO compliance and about clarifying there was no misrepresentation (that any inaccuracy in the application was a mistake, not deliberate).
Note, after all, if the PR reported 750 days presence in Canada during the relevant time period, that is sufficient to establish RO compliance unless IRCC questions (challenges) the accuracy of reported presence.
Clearly IRCC is questioning the accuracy of reported presence. Is this about verifying RO compliance? Or about addressing the reporting of facts that are not true? That is, is it only about the RO? or about the RO and, potentially, misrepresentation?
That leads back to an observation worth repeating: if you are confident there were only a very few, minor errors in the application, probably nothing to worry about. Given the two year stay here, the RO question should be easily resolved, just a responsive submission should readily suffice.
But if you are not near certain that at most there were a very few minor errors, mistakes, the real issue could be satisfying IRCC that whatever inaccuracies there were in the PR card application, they were mistakes.
Which brings this back to the "
lot of travel" aspect. Among other flags. What you share here is that prior to August 2024 this PR had spent just over two months in Canada, and did not travel outside Canada after arriving here in September 2024. That hardly suggests a "
lot of travel" to report in the PR card application. (Reminder: the only "
travel" history reported in the PR card application are dates the PR entered and exited Canada; travel between other countries is only reported to the extent that other countries are listed in addition to the primary location outside Canada during an absence from Canada.)
So . . . if it is likely (perhaps even just possible) there were significant errors/inaccuracies in the PR card application . . . that should be addressed. That noted, however, even assuming that IRCC is primarily concerned about correcting inaccuracies in the application, I cannot begin to guess what the scope of the problem is. Biggest factor is the scope of the inaccuracies. The more or bigger the inaccuracies, the more there could be a problem.
If the mistakes/errors were, at worst, relatively small, it should be OK to just clearly state what the true facts are, clearly identify any guesswork (in what is now submitted and in what was submitted in the application), clearly show > 730 days presence in last five years, and explain that any inaccuracies were mistakes, not deliberate.
If, however, there is a chance that significant mistakes were made in the PR card application, it might be a good idea to discuss all this with a Canadian immigration lawyer, one paid to review your paperwork, personal information, and all relevant details.
Hopefully all this is being overly cautious . . .
