Hello all,
I am around 10 days short of meeting RO. PR card will expire in Aug 2026. I will have to stay another 6 months after Aug 2026 to accumulate these 10 days because of the rolling 5 years.
I ordered a travel record, and it's missing one of my exits.
if I forge the date and extend my exit date by 15 days, what are the chances VO will catch it?
Do they ask for all pages of the passport?
However one might characterize a decision to do this, be that as unwise, foolish, or downright stupid, it would be a bad idea,
nowhere near worth the risk. And apart from moral considerations, engaging in overt dishonesty in transactions with IRCC (or CBSA) is, in general, a bad idea, something that can catch up to a person many, many years later even if they are not immediately caught.
But what is behind the admonition "
don't do it," apart from moral considerations (which warrant serious consideration, but I'll leave that discussion for others) warrants explanation (if not for you, for anyone else considering fudging information submitted to IRCC).
What should be obvious (and to clarify the more or less
bad-shit risks others reference)
:
Making misrepresentations in transactions with IRCC (or CBSA) is a serious criminal offence, punishable by a lengthy term of imprisonment, in addition to consequences affecting a person's status in Canada leading to loss of status, deportation, and a ban on travel to Canada for at least five years.
And there is no statute of limitations in regards to misrepresentation and the potential consequences affecting a person's status in Canada. So not only can inadmissibility proceedings be brought many, many years later (I will cite and link a case below in which a PR was issued a Removal Order more than a decade after they made misrepresentations as to travel history in an application for a PR card), if in the meantime the individual has managed to become a Canadian citizen, the misrepresentation can be grounds for revoking citizenship and again the loss of status in Canada, deportation, and a ban on travel to Canada for at least five years.
That said . . .
Even though criminal prosecution is possible, that is unlikely, one might even say highly unlikely (at least absent other factors indicating a degree of culpability warranting criminal prosecution).
Moreover, the odds are probably good that a 15 day misrepresentation of travel history dates, particularly as to a date of exit from Canada 15 days later than the actual date of departure, will not in itself cause the government to pursue inadmissibility for misrepresentation (but they could). That said, even if there are no inadmissibility proceedings for misrepresentation, however, if CBSA or IRCC "
catch it" (as you characterize it), the disparity would likely have a negative influence. How much so and to what effect would depend on other aspects of the PR's situation and history, but at the least it would increase the likelihood of being deemed inadmissible for a breach of the RO.
Leading to, again as you characterize it, what are the odds IRCC would "catch it."
That depends. There are lots of variables and contingencies. Odds will range widely from one individual to another, with innumerable possibilities affecting the odds . . . I have seen one actual case in which IRCC (CIC at the time) caught it because somehow they became aware of information the PR attended a conference outside Canada on a date the PR reported being in Canada (my recall is a bit fuzzy, but I think somehow IRCC came into possession of a flyer for the conference in which the PR was listed among participating speakers).
And yes, in processing a PR card application IRCC can request the PR submit additional documents or information, including a copy of all pages in all passports, and all other travel documents, which could possibly have been used during the five years prior to the date of the application. Or, require the PR to pick-up the PR card in person attendant which the PR can be interviewed and required to present those passports (and any other travel documents) for inspection.
Meanwhile, IRCC can conduct investigatory inquiries attendant verification of RO compliance, or ask CBSA to do that, without the PR even being aware they are being investigated. Will reporting an exit date (even if it is the accurate exit date) that is not reflected in CBSA travel history trigger elevated scrutiny and such investigatory inquiries? I do not know but there is at least a significant chance it does.
So . . . what are the odds?
Again, they will depend. For many, probably for most, the odds are probably good they will, so to say,
get-away-with-it, but damn, damn difficult to quantify even in a ballpark range. However, that would not make it a good bet.
Better odds than playing Russian Roulette? Probably not. (Reminder of the odds playing Russian Roulette, if played with a six-shooter revolver: five to one you hear a click when you pull the trigger rather than not hearing anything because a projectile has smashed through your brain). I have never known anyone stupid enough to play Russian Roulette, despite good odds (again, five to one) it goes OK.
Of course the consequences of losing the bet are not nearly so severe as a bullet to the head. But like playing Russian Roulette, in which all you win is still being alive, in gambling on getting away with a misrepresentation in a PR card application all there is to win is, so to say, getting to keep your marbles. That is, you keep PR status if you don't make the bet, while all there is to gain if you make the bet and win is you get to keep PR status . . . but the possibility of losing the bet will hang over your head for as long as you live, even if you eventually become a Canadian citizen.
Leading to the misrepresentation case I referenced above: Zhao v Canada, 2024 CanLII 135383,
https://canlii.ca/t/k8z1b
The link is to a transcript of an admissibility hearing and decision in
2024 in which a PR was determined to be inadmissible (a decision terminating her PR status, subject to the right of appeal) based on a misrepresentation as to travel history in a PR card application she made in
2011.
When she made the PR card application in 2011 she was just one day short of being in compliance with the RO (she had been outside Canada 1096 days during the period for calculating her RO compliance).
In particular (from the transcript):
This hearing began on June 19th, 2024 and . . . I reserved my decision until today, July 11th, 2024.
The Minister has alleged that you are inadmissible to Canada for misrepresentation, in that you provided false information regarding the number of days you spent outside of Canada when applying to renew your permanent resident card in 2011 which impacted the assessment of your residency obligation as a permanent resident seeking to renew their permanent resident card.
Having considered the evidence and arguments, I find the Minister has established on a balance of probabilities that a misrepresentation of material fact occurred on the Permanent Resident Card renewal application which was relevant to the matter of permanent residency obligation and issuance of a new permanent resident card. As such, ma'am, I will be issuing a removal order against you, in this case, an exclusion order.
This means that during the combined period, the total days absent from Canada was 211, not 206. A small difference of five (5) days, but nevertheless a difference.
According to the Minister's evidence, which again cites the CBSA Travel History Report and stamps in your passport, the omitted dates from your application between 2009 and 2011 combined for a total absence of 1,096 days . . .
While I would not characterize the misrepresentation as egregious in terms of the total number of days absent from Canada, it is nevertheless impactful and material when considering the required period of residency is a two (2)-year presence in Canada out of a five (5) year period. When calculating the numbers, 1,096 days is slightly over three (3) years outside of Canada . . .
There are additional factors in that case which explain why IRCC went after this individual (just one day short of RO compliance more than a decade earlier), including the extent of the discrepancy which was much bigger than just 15 days. But it illustrates what is at stake, noting that between 2011 and 2024 she settled and lived in Canada.
