Unless the correspondence states that the application has been referred for "Secondary Review" this does NOT appear to be a Secondary Review referral.
This appears (again, absent a statement in the correspondence otherwise) to be either a formal Residency Obligation examination or simply a request for additional documents to facilitate verification of the applicant's information and compliance with the PR Residency Obligation.
My PR is expiring July 2018, I thought I would send for renewal way before time as we know IRCC takes their own sweet time.
So after 2 months I receive an email asking for passport copies and exit/entry record from all countries which in my case is over 10.
I sent the passport copies with some other documents proving my residency and just realized I had used citizenship calculator to calculate number of days coz I also applied for Citizenship the same time.
Does anybody have similar experience like mine? What did IRCC end up doing if there were mistakes in almost all travel dates. No, i am not the one who lands in Canada for 1 month then lives in another country for 1 year.
I live here, this is home and work here. Travel was for work.
Time line:
Received 5th Dec 2017
acknowledging receipt of your application(s) on February 19, 2018
processing your application on February 19, 2018
We sent you correspondence on February 19, 2018.
I have similar timeline for Citizenship application. Will this mistake effect my citizenship application? I have over 3.8 years of physical presence in Canada since becoming PR, so number of days isn't a concern, but to prove it to IRCC it is. Should i just withdraw the PR Renewal app and wait for citizenship or let it continue?
It is not clear to me what your mistake was. In terms of days present in Canada, so long as you did not include any pre-landing time in Canada using the citizenship calculator should have the same result as calculating days present without it. Days exiting and days arriving still count as days in Canada, for both. Days present are days present. Days absent are days absent. Net result should be the same.
Unless your mistake was to give an erroneous calculation of days present and days absent, or you gave inaccurate travel dates, or there were omissions in the reported travel dates, the fact you used the citizenship calculator should not be a serious problem.
It is not uncommon for IRCC to select some applicants for further verification. That is part of their job. What you know about yourself is not what a total stranger bureaucrat knows. They do not have a crystal ball. They need to examine real evidence to determine the facts. They have asked you for additional documents, additional evidence. As long as what you have submitted is honest and accurate, you should have nothing to worry about.
Yes. I can say that in our case, my sons were in school and my wife had a continuous job all of us had over 740 or so days. I would have waited longer before sending PR card renewal appplication had I known that there a process called "secondary review".
ONE YEAR???? FOR PR RENEWAL?
What is wrong with these people? Did you apply with 730 days in the past 5 years?
Anyone applying for a new PR card who has been in Canada less than half the time (less than 900 days)
should probably expect elevated scrutiny and delays in processing. For multiple rather obvious reasons, three looming large:
ONE: The purpose of granting PR status is so the individual can settle and live PERMANENTLY in Canada. Here too, those who have spent more time outside Canada than in Canada may APPEAR (depending on additional factors) to not have settled permanently in Canada. This can easily trigger elevated and perhaps skeptical scrutiny, for obvious reasons, which means additional processing and delays.
TWO: I am not certain, but my strong impression is that Canada has identified a correlation between those
cutting-it-close in their declarations of presence, and instances of abusing the system or outright fraud against the system. So just
cutting-it-close is almost certainly a
RISK INDICATOR for misrepresentation (at some stage in the PR's immigration history not just in the application for a new PR card) or fraud (again, at some stage of in the PR's immigration history not just in the application for a new PR card).
THREE: It is reasonable to infer that someone was where there were most often for any date that is not clearly shown to be in a particular place. Thus, for someone who has been outside Canada more than in Canada, it is reasonable to infer that individual was also outside Canada any date IRCC does not have more or less clear evidence they were in Canada. That is, reasonable inferences tend to weigh against PRs who have been in Canada less than 900 or so days.
All of which adds up to the much higher risk for elevated scrutiny, formal RO examination, or Secondary Review, for those who have spent less than 900 days in Canada during the preceding five years. All of this is rather obvious using mere common sense.
In contrast, scores and scores of PRs approach this from the perspective that just claiming they meet the near-absolute bare minimum requirements for keeping status in Canada should be sufficient to avoid elevated scrutiny. That, in short, is a flawed approach. By a lot.
REMINDER re scope of SR:
While concern about compliance with the PR Residency Obligation is obviously a key factor (risk indicator) triggering SR, the scope of SR is generally much broader. As noted, it is very likely that there is a significant correlation between those
cutting-it-close in their declarations of presence, and instances of abusing the system or outright fraud against the system. It is readily apparent (in large part based on official IAD decisions in actual cases) that the scope of inquiry or investigation includes the PR's full immigration history, revisiting whether there were misrepresentations made going back to the individual's first applications to come to Canada, and inquiries into whether the individual has made misrepresentations to CBSA officers at a Port-of-Entry upon arrivals in Canada, among other background inquiries, which may include overseas security or criminality related inquiries. All of which can take a considerable amount of time.
REMINDER re low priority for PR card processing:
Another factor which probably contributes to the lengthy processing of SR referred PRC applications is that there is a relatively low priority for issuing PRCs.
PRs do NOT need a PRC. They do not need a PR card to live in Canada, work in Canada, travel in Canada, or, for that matter, to travel internationally. International travel is less convenient without a PRC, but PRs abroad can obtain a PR Travel Document for the purpose of boarding flights to Canada, and otherwise the PRC is irrelevant, the PR's travel options dependent on the PR's passport.
So the processing of SR referred PRC applications has a relatively low priority.
Bottom-line: While there are plenty of issues and things-in-need-of-repair in IRCC, those are all well within the range of what can be expected from a large bureaucracy. Beyond that, the answer to the question "What is wrong with these people?" is NOT MUCH, not much more than readily anticipated problems with processing hundreds of thousands of diverse applications (from visitor visas to study permits, PR visas to temporary work permits, citizenship applications, PR TD applications, PRC applications, refugee claims) from a vast array of people from all over the world, among whom several thousand or more are abusing, scamming, or outright defrauding the system.
THUS, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT: It really, really helps to read and follow the instructions, carefully, thoroughly, and to make a concerted effort to get things right. Accuracy looms huge. While IRCC has a long track record of dealing with and accommodating client mistakes, client errors impose a huge burden on the system and not only cause the individual's particular procedure to demand more resources and take longer, but also cause the whole system to be slower. BE CONSIDERATE to your fellow PRs: make a diligent effort to get things right. That will help you and it will help everyone else as well.
And it also helps to not be
cutting-it-so-close as to inherently raise suspicions.
Edit to add: A recently reported Federal Court case may help clarify the potential scope of inquiry once a PR's case is subject to elevated scrutiny. A PR's application for a new PR card triggered some background checks, and while the PR met the PR Residency Obligation at the time of this application, CIC (before the change to IRCC) had the PR's name as listed among former clients of a consultant who had been investigated for fraud. While that was many years previous, it triggered further scrutiny of the PR's history pursuant to which IRCC discovered that a PR card application made some six years previous had been withdrawn. IRCC then further scrutinized that previous PRC application and concluded there were misrepresentations made in that application. Based on this CIC and then IRCC proceeded with inadmissibility proceedings against the PR, to terminate the PR's status for misrepresentation (in the PRC application six plus years previous).
Unfortunately, legitimate PRs who, for whatever reasons, end up
cutting-it-close, or have other risk indicators, are swept up in the effort to interdict those who are abusing or defrauding the system. For some reason, many blame IRCC for this rather than the scores who spoil things for others by attempting to skirt the rules for their own advantage.
