I had the same situation. I filled out all trips in the physical presence calculator. For example ,
June 1st to July 8th .. country A ;
July 8th to July 14th .. country B ;
July 15th to July 21st .. country C;
July 22nd to July 28th .. country A;
so on and on. My application was in September 2018.
As a result, when I turned in my application, physical presence calculator showed I had 1111 days. But when I got my ATIPs, Sydney Office détermined that i had only 1106 physical presence days which I believed it was probably due to overlapping days while putting data entry in the same trip. It looked like the Sydney office used the whole period out of Canada as one trip. I had no problem during the interview with entry/exit stamps.
Anyway, I got RQ lite CIT0520. But decision made 2 weeks ago.
Send the copies of entries/exits’ stamps along with the application.
For
@mikek27 there is NO reason to "
Send the copies of entries/exits’ stamps along with the application."
@mike27 should simply FOLLOW the INSTRUCTIONS and submit what the instructions specify to submit.
Moreover, there is NO indication that
@mikek27's situation or circumstances are comparable, let alone the same as yours.
And, nonetheless, it is highly unlikely that even in your situation, the fact of including "
copies of entries/exits’ stamps along with the application," would have avoided being issued the CIT 0520. After all, you were not issued RQ-related requests until AFTER the interview.
What might have made the difference, and avoided CIT 0520, could have been waiting long enough to apply to have a real margin over the minimum (if practical; recognizing that for some waiting to apply does not always build a bigger margin or is otherwise not an option); that is, a bigger margin may have been your best chance of avoiding RQ-related non-routine processing. At least you applied with some margin, even if minimal, but enough to avoid falling below the minimum notwithstanding IRCC's questions about some of your days (and thus congratulations on reaching the Decision Made step).
I do not know that a bigger margin would have avoided CIT 0520 for you. My strong sense, however, is there are good odds it could have (as long as the discrepancy in the calculation was IRCC's mistake, not yours). How much of a margin to have is a very personal decision and there is no precise formula.
But many here tend to focus on a margin which will make sure they qualify even if they made mistakes. Which is important. In contrast, however, given how much focus there is on how long the process will take, for qualified applicants the
size-of-margin question is more about having enough of a margin to make IRCC personnel comfortable about the presence calculation, confident enough the applicant met the requirements . . . not only even if the applicant made mistakes, but even if IRCC personnel make some mistakes. Which they sometimes do. That is, to apply with enough of a margin IRCC does not see a need to engage in RQ-related inquiries, and thus avoid delays.
But of course that is merely a would-have, could-have, perhaps should-have discussion, Monday morning quarterbacking. And now the finish line is in sight, Decision-Made, only harm was perhaps some inconvenience and a longer timeline.
Now it is time to attend the oath and celebrate.
BUT along the way it is worth clearly distinguishing the quirks in your presence calculation from the @mikek27 stamp question.
The big difference is that you returned to Canada,
or at least you submitted a presence calculation indicating you returned to Canada, for overnight some times, and on one occasion leaving Canada again the very same day you returned to Canada. That's unusual (except for some individuals traveling back and forth to the U.S. regularly, which is yet an entirely different scenario . . . in contrast you reference trips to at least three different countries, A, B, and C, so obviously at least two others not the U.S.).
For
@mikek27 the UK entry stamp raising concern is about returning to the UK during a trip abroad, arriving in the UK a second time during one trip, and arriving from some other country.
This is very common, at least for travel into and out of countries still routinely stamping passports (many are not). There is no reason for IRCC to be the least confused. Example: say PR took approximately 2 week trip abroad. In the From date PR enters July 3, 2018; in the To date, the PR enters July 19, 2018. PR lists destination as London, UK. In the reasons box PR enters "also visited Ireland and Spain." As long as all the passport stamps for these countries are dated between July 3 and July 19, this not only makes sense and amply confirms what the PR reported in the presence calculation, but this is precisely how the instructions say to report such travel. There really is NO reason for
@mikek27 to be at all worried about how the interviewer will perceive these stamps.
I am assuming your example is indeed merely an example, not actual dates. But the key quirky aspect of your example is that these trips are back to back. One indicating you left Canada the very same day you returned to Canada:
June 1st to July 8th .. country A ;
July 8th to July 14th .. country B ;
July 15th to July 21st .. country C;
July 22nd to July 28th .. country A;
Since you return to Canada in-between each of these trips, you are entitled to credit for the days during which you spent even just part of a day in Canada. So yes, July 8th counts as a day in Canada, and likewise July 14th and 15th, and July 21st and July 22nd.
Why IRCC might have made an error regarding these five days I cannot guess; how IRCC concluded, for whatever reason, you did not actually return to Canada those days, I cannot say. Perhaps your CBSA entry history failed to record your entry into Canada July 8, 14, and 15.
In any event, it is easy enough to see that this travel pattern is rather unusual, and given the rather small margin over the minimum you applied with, it is not surprising there were RQ-related questions.
Of course I wonder if it was you who made a mistake and just reported separate trips from one country to another as separate trips From Canada, as if you were returning to Canada in-between the trips to the other countries when you did not actually return to Canada. If that was what happened, that means you really were claiming credit for five days you were not actually IN Canada, and with a margin of barely more than two weeks, yeah no surprise at all there would be RQ-related requests in order to verify your physical presence.
Either way, that is a totally different scenario than
@mikek27 . . .
