+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445

ALL SNOW BIRDS BEWARE

S_Govind

Hero Member
Apr 15, 2013
295
35
Toronto
Category........
Visa Office......
CPP-O
NOC Code......
4012
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
App. Filed.......
27-08-2012
Doc's Request.
15-04-2013
Nomination.....
01-11-2012 (Date of PER)
IELTS Request
Enclosed with the application
File Transfer...
01-11-2012 from CIO to CPP-O
Med's Request
23-11-2013 (RPRF requested on 22-11-2013)
Med's Done....
26-11-2013 Med's Received:06-01-2013
Interview........
Waived
Passport Req..
06-01-2014, Decision Made:09-01-2014
VISA ISSUED...
06-01-2014
LANDED..........
21-01-2014
This will potentially aid IRCC in making a timely determination of residency in cases that either involve a PR card renewal, or a grant of Citizenship. I foresee a significant reduction in the number of RQ's issued in cases where residency concerns might arise, as this question will be settled once the exit protocols have been implemented.
 

itsmyid

Champion Member
Jul 26, 2012
2,250
649
This will potentially aid IRCC in making a timely determination of residency in cases that either involve a PR card renewal, or a grant of Citizenship. I foresee a significant reduction in the number of RQ's issued in cases where residency concerns might arise, as this question will be settled once the exit protocols have been implemented.
Don’t worry, IRCC will think of other ways to delay things
 
  • Like
Reactions: JPBless

jc94

Hero Member
Mar 14, 2016
830
163
I thought CBSA got the details of everyone flying out from the airlines providing the manifest after the plane pushes back. I had no idea they didn't currently track when I left. Aside from what I put on my entry customs forms.
 

itsmyid

Champion Member
Jul 26, 2012
2,250
649
I thought CBSA got the details of everyone flying out from the airlines providing the manifest after the plane pushes back. I had no idea they didn't currently track when I left. Aside from what I put on my entry customs forms.
I have nexus card and scan it every time I fly in and out of the country , but apparently it doesn’t matter and they still need to take long time to verify my entry/departure
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,252
3,018
The Star article is mostly an update of information known for a long while. After all, these programs derive from an agreement between then President Obama and then Prime Minister Harper, formalized at a meeting in Hawaii in 2011.

What makes it *current* news is that in late February IRCC updated its Program Delivery Instructions relative to the most recently implemented elements of the programs, including "New Entry/Exit Program Instructions."

The Star article offers little more than what is stated in the IRCC information. Indeed, actually the IRCC PDIs offer more information.


Primary sources:

For Program delivery update: New Entry/Exit Program instructions see
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/updates/2019-entry-exit-new.html

For PDI for Entry/Exit Program see
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/service-delivery/entry-exit.html


Impact on Residency/Presence Assessment:

It warrants emphasizing that PRs will continue to bear the burden of detailing entry and exit dates for purposes of calculating PR Residency Obligation compliance and grant citizenship qualification. AND the burden of PROVING actual presence for these purposes.

CBSA and IRCC increased access to government captured entry and exit information, for individual clients, will NOT replace the current process.

The collection and sharing of entry and exit information of travellers entering and departing from Canada, relative to PRs, will still be primarily about VERIFYING the information provided by the PR. NOT supplanting it let alone replacing it. That is, it will still be primarily used to identify when the PR's accounting of travel dates is NOT reliable.

Another primary use of this information will be to identify non-compliance . . . be that relative to residency/presence requirements to qualify for certain benefits . . . or for identifying PRs in breach of the RO.

As others suggest, yes this is likely to reduce the incidence of RQ related non-routine processing, since it will make it easier for IRCC to identify significant discrepancies in reported travel dates and otherwise better verify accurately reported travel history. In this regard, though, it warrants recognizing that this actually makes it MORE IMPORTANT for PRs to get their travel history right, to be complete and precisely accurate, because discrepancies will be more readily identified. That is, a reduction in the incidence of RQ related non-routine processing is actually dependent on PRs completely and accurately reporting their travel history.
 

S_Govind

Hero Member
Apr 15, 2013
295
35
Toronto
Category........
Visa Office......
CPP-O
NOC Code......
4012
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
App. Filed.......
27-08-2012
Doc's Request.
15-04-2013
Nomination.....
01-11-2012 (Date of PER)
IELTS Request
Enclosed with the application
File Transfer...
01-11-2012 from CIO to CPP-O
Med's Request
23-11-2013 (RPRF requested on 22-11-2013)
Med's Done....
26-11-2013 Med's Received:06-01-2013
Interview........
Waived
Passport Req..
06-01-2014, Decision Made:09-01-2014
VISA ISSUED...
06-01-2014
LANDED..........
21-01-2014
@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 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/
 

itsmyid

Champion Member
Jul 26, 2012
2,250
649
@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 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/
Since when was there ever any “procedural fairness” in IRCC’s work? Lol
 

S_Govind

Hero Member
Apr 15, 2013
295
35
Toronto
Category........
Visa Office......
CPP-O
NOC Code......
4012
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
App. Filed.......
27-08-2012
Doc's Request.
15-04-2013
Nomination.....
01-11-2012 (Date of PER)
IELTS Request
Enclosed with the application
File Transfer...
01-11-2012 from CIO to CPP-O
Med's Request
23-11-2013 (RPRF requested on 22-11-2013)
Med's Done....
26-11-2013 Med's Received:06-01-2013
Interview........
Waived
Passport Req..
06-01-2014, Decision Made:09-01-2014
VISA ISSUED...
06-01-2014
LANDED..........
21-01-2014

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,252
3,018
@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.
 

itsmyid

Champion Member
Jul 26, 2012
2,250
649
As sad as it is, ignorance and naivety is not a good enough reason. Immigration is not that difficult, but for goodness sake do your homework first.
And it’s just for PR, imagine how much more attention they’d need to pay for citizenship application...
 

Seym

Champion Member
Nov 6, 2017
1,457
717
The hate over refugees and brown immigrants in the comments under that article is frightening.
Good luck to that family. There's no reason for them not to receive their PR in due time after they pursue the process everyone follows...