@dpenabill
Would it be fair to presume that once the exit protocols are implemented, IRCC will be at liberty to make a straightforward negative determination regarding residency (by not going down either the secondary processing or RQ route) when it becomes clear on a perusal of the exit records that the PA might have misquoted the dates either on a PRC renewal application, or a citizenship grant application ? Would this go against the principle of "procedural fairness" ?
I am not sure what it is you are presuming.
The entry/exit data collection and sharing programs do NOT affect grant citizenship requirements, and do NOT directly affect grant citizenship application processing procedures. They will constitute a source of information which IRCC can use in processing grant citizenship applications . . . similar to (and largely an extension of) how IRCC has been using the CBSA travel history. Remember, most of this information has already been being collected for persons other than U.S. and Canadian citizens, subject to access and sharing rules.
I also am not clear what you mean when referencing "
a straightforward negative determination regarding residency (by not going down either the secondary processing or RQ route)" . . . unless you are referring to some sort of summary disposition. Regarding which there is no summary disposition procedure applicable to Residency or Presence Determinations . . . but yes, of course such determinations are indeed subject to procedural fairness requirements (as prescribed by both statutory and regulatory provisions as well as extensive case law articulated in judicial decisions).
For grant citizenship processing the procedural fairness imposed by law is robust, providing that IRCC does NOT have authority to even make a negative presence determination; if IRCC is not satisfied that the applicant has met the burden of proving presence IRCC cannot deny the application on that ground but rather must refer the case to an independent Citizenship Judge.
In contrast, however, there is little or no procedural fairness applicable to a decision to issue RQ-related requests, or even the decision to refer the matter to a Citizenship Judge. IRCC does not need to have grounds to issue RQ. IRCC does not need to explain why it has issued RQ. If there is a referral to a Citizenship Judge internal policy specifies how that is done and what information must be provided in the referral (last we know this is still done using a File Preparation Template), but other than IRCC's own internal policy there is no particular justification necessary to make the referral.
That said, IRCC is of course prohibited from making such decisions based on prohibited discrimination reasons.
I am aware that CIC back in 2012 had some leeway in dealing with applicants that reported their travel dates incorrectly by choosing to ignore the inconsistencies if and only if either the exit or the entry dates were within 5 days of the actual exit or entry as reported by the CBSA travel records.
This was my source for the aforementioned information:
https://residencequestionnaire.wordpress.com/cic-documents/
I infer you are referencing the 2012 OB 407 triage criteria. Which we know for sure has gone through multiple amendments. That was merely the then applicable guidelines . . . the policy and practice of CIC at that time . . . for identifying
reasons-to-question-residency . . . or
reasons-to-question-presence (once a
presence requirement was implemented in place of the previous
residency requirement). That is, the triage criteria was employed to identify which applicants were issued RQ.
As I have noted, there are NO procedural fairness restrictions governing who can be issued RQ. And, indeed, there have often been indications that sometimes RQ is issued randomly.
In contrast, however, CIC and now IRCC have some criteria for identifying applicants (for PR cards or citizenship) who should be required to provide additional information or documents in order to better verify the PR's account of travel history and presence in Canada. Until 2012 the criteria was known as
reasons-to-question-residency. OB 407 implemented a more formal list referred to as the triage criteria. Initially it was a rather strictly applied list of precise criteria: everyone reporting periods of unemployment or self-employment, for example, were being issued a pre-test RQ. Anyone submitting a form of identification issued within the previous . . . I forget the precise period of time but at least three months . . . was issued a pre-test RQ. The criteria were so broad that for a period of time one in three applicants was being issued RQ and it nearly brought processing citizenship applications to a standstill.
And sure, while I forget the precise parameters, those triage criteria did not automatically trigger RQ for discrepancies in reported exit or entry dates unless there were multiple such errors or the total number of days off was more than a certain number . . . which indeed might have been five. More or larger discrepancies AUTOMATICALLY resulted in RQ.
We do not know what the current criteria is. My sense is that the criteria is much the same but applied with more flexibility. Self-employment, for example, does NOT automatically trigger RQ these days, but depending on the context and other information it is probably still a significant consideration in IRCC decision-making about who will be issued RQ-related requests.
It warrants noting that just the transition to a presence requirement, rather than the previous residency requirement, just that alone resulted in a dramatic reduction in the number of RQ'd applicants.
And as long as applicants are largely submitting complete and accurate information about their travel history, with a reasonable margin over the minimum, the fact that IRCC has increased access to a PR's exit and entry history should indeed further reduce the incidence of RQ.