I have a question about proof of residency. I crossed the border by road near Vancouver to go to Seattle and came back a couple of days after. When entering into Canada, I just showed my PR card and I was allowed to enter. Now my concern is that my passport shows entry stamp by US officials but does not show entry stamp into Canada. I am concerned that I do not have any proof of exact date of entry. What can I do in this case?
Proof of time spent in Canada for citizenship
- Thread starter rdecartus
- Start date
Canadiandesi2006
Champion Member
- Mar 6, 2014
- 41
- Visa Office......
- Scarborough, Toronto
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- Oct 2015 (Re-applied)
Despite knowing very well that US home land security does not stamp exit date on traveler's passport, CIC still insist or rather use thisrdecartus said:
a pretext to make things difficult for candidates. Many candidates faces this situation with CIC officers and the CIC judges too.
I think US Home land security maintains traveler's entry and exit records. Request it from US Home Land Security your cross border travel records. Its very helpful for Canadian Citizenship application especially who made cross border trips.
If you are a PR, your passport never gets stamped at the border. The only exception is the very day you land as a PR. Only on that day will you get an I-Stamp in your passport. So not having entry stamps into Canada is normal.
Every time you enter the United States, the US shares with CBSA that you left Canada. Every time you enter Canada, CBSA shares with US border control that you left the US. That's why there is no exit control or exit stamps or anything.
If you want, you can check your US border record online here:
https://i94.cbp.dhs.gov/
(I'm not sure if this only works for Visa Waiver country passports)
If the records show that you left the US, that means that CBSA told the US so (how else should the US know that?), so of course they know that you entered Canada.
Every time you enter the United States, the US shares with CBSA that you left Canada. Every time you enter Canada, CBSA shares with US border control that you left the US. That's why there is no exit control or exit stamps or anything.
If you want, you can check your US border record online here:
https://i94.cbp.dhs.gov/
(I'm not sure if this only works for Visa Waiver country passports)
If the records show that you left the US, that means that CBSA told the US so (how else should the US know that?), so of course they know that you entered Canada.
I checked my I-94 history. It only shows history until 2014 so it does not have record of my recent border entry/exit by road.
I have requested my travel history under right to information act to CBSA. It takes up to 30 days to get this information as per the website. This will confirm whether CBSA has record of my travel history.
Any other sources I can get this information? If CBSA does not have record of my entry into Canada then what options do I have?
I have requested my travel history under right to information act to CBSA. It takes up to 30 days to get this information as per the website. This will confirm whether CBSA has record of my travel history.
Any other sources I can get this information? If CBSA does not have record of my entry into Canada then what options do I have?
Canadiandesi2006
Champion Member
- Mar 6, 2014
- 41
- Visa Office......
- Scarborough, Toronto
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- Oct 2015 (Re-applied)
Even though the passport are NOT stamped but once scanned or through car number, US home land security electronically maintains record of movement. You are right neither US nor Canadian border security officers checks for the EXIT stamps.rdecartus said:
Many candidates tried unsuccessfully to convince the CIC that USA Homeland security stamps only Entry date and NOT the EXIT. It is common knowledge but CIC CONSIDER days between two ENTRY dates to USA as days the candidate was NOT in Canada, its wrong.
Bottom line, the proof of burden is entirely on candidate that he/she was in Canada, many candidates felt frustrated due to this rule. Yet, the CIC is using this pretext to give hard time to most, unless you have some documents to prove them WRONG. :
The common problem at the land border. Sometimes the US officer can stamp the passport without any electronic entry into the system so the person has a stamp without anything in the system to prove it.
Sometimes no stamp and no electronic record and similar scenarios on both sides US and Canada.
Sometimes no stamp and no electronic record and similar scenarios on both sides US and Canada.
I live near the border and so travel across it VERY regularly. I requested my travel info from CBSA and matched it with my I-95 record and it was totally accurate, for every time I entered the US I have a matching record for when I returned back into Canada. From 2009 to October 2015 every trip I made was recorded both coming and going, whether I stayed an hour or a week, no different. Also from 2013 CBSA also had a record of all my exits across the border. I only got US stamps in my passport on the occasions that I needed to renew my I-95 and never got Canadian stamps. IMO going across the border by land is not an issue when it comes to citizenship, it's only a problem if there is some other reason for them to red flag you and so they look closely into it then.Canadiandesi2006 said:
Canadiandesi2006
Champion Member
- Mar 6, 2014
- 41
- Visa Office......
- Scarborough, Toronto
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- Oct 2015 (Re-applied)
I completely understand, assuming there is'nt anything beside cross-border trips concerns, its better to request the movement details from US Home land security and CBSA to be submitted in case if that concern is raised by CIC.Shortie said:
And one such reason for a red flag would be that CBP or CBSA did not scan anything when you crossed the border. This probably didn't happen much at big highway crossing, but before 2013 there was often no record made on smaller roads.Shortie said:
Why not use statements from debit card with all transactions showing Canadian merchant charges during last 3 years? Transaction will tell that you spent every month certain money on Canadian Tire and this store does not exist elsewhere so CIC should consider debit card/credit card statements as a proof of residency.links18 said:
Canadiandesi2006
Champion Member
- Mar 6, 2014
- 41
- Visa Office......
- Scarborough, Toronto
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- Oct 2015 (Re-applied)
Agree with you, last year I landed in the same situation. I carried all previous T4, medical records, rental agreement for 9 years, utility bills and credit card statements, kids school doc etc.CANADAPATRIOT said:
Shockingly the CJ told, I dont have time to review your doc's, just withdraw and re-apply. Also added, even if he approves the CIC would object and it will prolong my case. Honestly, I lost confidence in CJ's hearing process, in most of the cases they support CIC only.
I was totally devastated and forced to withdraw and re-apply rather than wasting another 3 years without any guarantee of justice.
Dont mean to scare or discourage anybody, each case is different.
Questions about proof of residence or presence have arisen in several topics recently. This is a very long post regarding this issue, using the OP's query here more or less as a springboard to address the broader questions and issues arising in multiple discussions.
Beyond that, only if IRCC identifies a reason-to-question-presence will proof of residency become a sticky issue. If they do identify or perceive a reason-to-question-presence, the reason itself if not necessarily the issue. (Obviously sometimes it will be: lost passport for example, or serious error in declared travel, but even then the main burden for the applicant is fully proving residency/presence; for this see more below.)
Many tend to put too much focus on the dates of exit and entry. These dates are critical. Yes. They are fundamental to the calculation, indeed. But either they are relatively close to what IRCC can verify, in which case again the below discussion as to proof comes into play, or they are way off, in which case the application is in serious trouble. If they are close, the arithmetic can matter. But otherwise the issue is, again, about comprehensive proof of presence over the relevant period of time.
Proof of Presence Part I:
The question of proving physical presence (or residency) has been a focus of discussion in multiple topics recently.
While exit and entry dates tend to be a dominant, if not controlling factor, in assessing residency and presence, proof of presence goes well, well beyond identifying dates of exit and dates of entry. This aspect, documenting travel dates, tends to get far more attention than it deserves.
What many would describe as more focused on proof of residence, rather than presence, is typically the bigger concern in sufficiently meeting the applicant's burden of proof.
The dynamics of this are complex. Bottom-line, however, is that the real fulcrum in most cases where the applicant's declaration of presence is questioned is proof of residency: place where the applicant has been living, working, going to school, engaging in other activities, and so on.
There is no prospect, for the foreseeable future, that Canada will rely on government records of exit and entry to populate the presence calculator. Even if it can, it will not. IRCC will use government records to verify the applicant's declarations. The primary and necessary source of dates of travel will continue to come from the applicant. And IRCC will examine the applicant's declarations looking for indications of omissions or inaccuracies, using its other sources of information to do this screening.
Most applicants do not need to prove presence. Their travel declarations will be accepted. It is when IRCC perceives there is a reason-to-question-residency or reason-to-question-presence that issues of proving presence arise. And if this happens, when this happens, again the real fulcrum will be proof of residency: place where the applicant has been living, working, going to school, engaging in other activities, and so on.
Overview of proving a life lived in Canada:
In general, for applicants issued RQ (or its future equivalent), proof of a life being lived in Canada will need to be submitted, following the instructions in the request, including information and documentation to show where the applicant was living, work or school, proof of filing tax returns, involvement in community or other activities (doctor/dentist visits for example), and certain information regarding what are considered typical residency-ties (place of residence for immediate family members for example). To the extent primary documents are unavailable or have gaps, other evidence may be submitted, ranging from utility bills to statements reflecting financial transactions, even letters attesting to place of residence, this or that activity, or such. This issue can get complicated in the particular case, but for the typical applicant who has a substantial paperwork trail evidencing a life lived in Canada, that should easily suffice.
It gets particularly complicated if CIC/IRCC perceives reason to suspect the applicant's credibility. This is why it is so important to be as accurate and complete as possible in declaring all dates of travel. If IRCC identifies any omissions or inaccuracies, depending on how big the discrepancy is, things can get rather dicey for any applicant IRCC perceives to not be a reliable reporter of the facts (especially if perceived to be due to deception or evasiveness, but also if due to significant mistakes as well).
It gets particularly complicated if there are missing Travel Documents, or CIC/IRCC for some reason suspects the applicant has undisclosed Travel Documents.
When it gets complicated, both the quality and the quantity of the applicant's proof needs to be on the more positive end of the spectrum. When it gets complicated, gaps loom large and really need to be covered by alternative proof. For example, the applicant who submits proof of being employed at a facility requiring physical presence at the job site for five days a week, week in and week out for all of, say, 2012, does not need to worry much about submitting additional proof for 2012. If, however, he was unemployed and was not renting for a three month time period in late 2011, he should make a concerted effort to submit additional/alternative evidencing documenting his presence in Canada for those three months. In other words, covering all the gaps is far more important than piling up evidence for periods already well documented.
Proof of Presence Part II:
Since the question of proving physical presence (or residency) has been a focus of discussion in multiple topics recently, without attempting to revisit the whole cloth, some further observations:
This is a subject I am rather well acquainted with and which I have previously addressed in some depth in this forum, and in another forum I did so in a great deal of depth in real time covering years of Federal Court decisions and considering scores of anecdotal reports in multiple forums over that time period. Indeed, the Residency Case has been the primary focus of my interest in naturalized citizenship for many years (genesis of which was my own anticipation of being RQ'd, going back to even before I landed and became a PR). I have, for example, read nearly every Federal Court decision published in the last six plus years that in any way discusses residency issues in citizenship applications. (For years I have been scanning all newly published decisions at least two or three times a month; while perhaps this or that one escaped my perusal, I am sure I have read all but a very few.)
While the older discussions are tangled with shortfall residency issues (under the old law), even shortfall cases typically involved proof of physical presence to some degree. Since the physical presence test has been the primary test for at least six to eight years, however, that research and those discussions wrestle with the proof of presence issue in much detail, covering many, many tangents.
I do not intend to revisit all that I have researched, digested, analyzed, and discussed regarding this topic. There are many, many threads to the issue of proof. The factors are many, some complicated, many (as is typical) extensively interrelated, and almost all of them involve, to some degree, elements of credibility (which is, itself, a very involved and complex issue).
And as almost always, there is wide, wide variability in how these issues affect this or that particular applicant.
But there is one overriding aspect: misunderstanding the role and significance of exit and entry dates.
On one hand, the exit and entry dates tend to be the dominant, if not controlling factor. For the vast majority of applicants, the residency calculation, or the physical presence calculation, is it; CIC/IRCC reviews it and if satisfied with it, that determines the applicant's physical presence.
In effect, in these routine cases, CIC/IRCC accepts the declared dates and infers the applicant was present in Canada all days between the last date of entry and next date of exit.
If this was universal, all those who put so much emphasis on the government's records as to exits in addition to entries, who advocate that the government completely collect both, they would be correct to conclude this would settle the proof of presence issue.
In other words: if government collects a record of every time a PR exits and enters Canada, plugs that into the calculator, that determines the applicant's physical presence.
BUT: Does NOT Work That Way. Will Not Work That Way.
And all the gnashing of teeth and protestations that it SHOULD work that way are of little or no avail. It is not going to work that way for the foreseeable future. No matter how thorough and reliable the collection of exit and entry records becomes, it is not going to work this way.
That it could (assuming it could) work that way is not relevant. It does not. There is no hint at all that it will in any foreseeable future.
It is, thus, a total waste of time to wrangle over the minute details of record gathering and keeping for purposes of how CIC/IRCC assess an applicant's physical presence. The government is getting better at knowing all these dates, can more easily identify an applicant's omissions or inaccuracies, but that is not going to change the substantive approach IRCC takes in assessing residency or presence.
Reminder: There is one person in the world who for sure has access to all the precise dates a PR exits and enters Canada. That is the PR himself or herself. Even if the government keeps no records, an applicant for citizenship has the power to accurately and completely declare every trip. The PR was there every time.
And there is no doubt: it is indeed the PR's obligation, when applying for citizenship, to report the precise dates for all travel abroad.
One of the things the government continues to fail to do is to adequately advise new PRs that they should keep exact records of all international travel. A running log works (so long as it is indeed maintained).
Note: the applicant who accurately reports the precise dates of all travel abroad dramatically reduces the risk of getting bogged down in a residency case. No guarantee. Some still get RQ'd and even run into severely elevated scrutiny (example, anyone who cannot present all relevant Travel Documents). But overall, one of the better insurance policies the PR can buy, to insure against the risk of RQ problems, is to make sure to accurately declare all travel abroad.
In any event: There is no chance, for the foreseeable future, that the government is going to primarily rely on its records in assessing an applicant's physical presence.
What is on the horizon, however, is the government's ability to spot omissions or errors in the applicant's declarations.
In a way, sure, this will give the government more confidence in assessing the applicant's presence based on the applicant's declarations. So long as the government does not identify an error or omission, given its capacity to more thoroughly identify errors or omissions a much higher percentage of applications (at least among those not containing any errors or omissions) are likely to be promptly, efficiently, routinely processed.
This is already true, already how it works for the vast majority of applicants.
This has been mostly true for more than a decade, except during the initial rollout of OB 407, when the criteria for issuing RQ was way overbroad and dragged a huge number of qualified applicants into the mire of backlogged RQ cases, which in turn bogged down the whole system for those who applied between 2010 and early 2013, some of them still bogged down even today.
In any event, for the vast majority of applicants, CIC/IRCC reviews the applicant's declarations as to dates exiting and dates entering Canada, and to a certain extent verifies those dates (mostly by not identifying anything in the passport or, in CBSA's travel history for the applicant if an ICES report is reviewed, that indicates any omission or discrepancy). If verified, CIC/IRCC accepts the declaration and based on it concludes how many days the applicant was physically present.
Again, that essentially means CIC/IRCC infers the applicant was present in Canada all days between each reported entry date and the next exit date.
If, however, there is a reason-to-question-residency, that changes everything; it is then a different ball game.
reasons-to-question-residency
or, now reasons-to-question-presence
Back in 2005, under Liberal leadership, CIC rolled out an Operational Bulletin which detailed reasons-to-question-residency, which in turn was merged into the then governing Operational Manual CP 5 "Residence." This has subsequently been supplanted (in 2012) by OB 407 (in which reasons-to-question-residency became triage criteria) and more recently by the current PDIs (plus whatever internal instructions are not open to the public, which now includes whatever triage criteria or reasons-to-question-residency are being employed today).
While the particular mechanics of the process have varied since 2005, the gist of it has been fairly consistent and is actually quite simple: if CIC identified a reason-to-question-residency, there was no longer a general acceptance of the applicant's travel declarations for purposes of assessing physical presence.
Again, the old law complicated things some because the issue was not merely physical presence but also residency, since an applicant could be deemed to have met the residency requirement based on residency factors despite having less than 1095 days physical presence.
Skirting the more complex qualitative tests for residency, and what constituted proof of, for example, having centralized one's life in Canada, the key core issue still revolved around how many days the applicant was present in Canada.
And going forward, be that under the 4/6 rule or if adopted a 3/5 rule, the issue is precisely that, as in how many days the applicant was physically present in Canada.
The burden of proof is on the applicant.
Unequivocally, the burden of proof is on the applicant.
As noted, once IRCC identifies a reason-to-question-residency, the game changes. In general terms the change is that the applicant is put to the task of actually proving when he or she was present. In more or less practical terms this means:
-- documenting dates of exit and dates of entry (to the extent possible)
-- proving presence in-between last date of entry and next date of exit
Dates of exit/entry: The first of these is critical, that is establishing the dates, but is no where near sufficient.
And to some extent it is not necessarily imperative this be complete. Most travel dates should be corroborated, and most can be between ICES reports and passport stamps. Beyond that, however, travel records from other countries can be difficult to timely obtain, sometimes impossible to obtain. While less so these days, even the CBSA or U.S. records can be incomplete. Moreover, proving the precise date of a trip can be offset or overcome by other proof of presence, such as proof of being in Canada before the trip and proof of activity in Canada after the trip.
Proving presence in-between last date of entry and next date of exit:
Once a reason-to-question-residency has been identified, and the applicant is issued RQ, proving presence generally becomes the dominant focus of inquiry and assessment.
Again, I have previously delved very deeply into this in other topics here, and much, much more in depth in the forum at the immigration.ca website. (Including scores of references, citations, and links to numerous Federal Court decisions detailing actual cases.)
Additionally two recent Federal Court decisions highlight the importance of proving more than just dates of travel, but proving presence in between as well.
While missing Travel Documents was the key issue in the JACEK MAS decision, the absence of residence documents and other evidence of a life being lived in Canada ("lack of documentation regarding residence" and a "failure to address gaps in [the applicant's] residency evidence") looms large.
More to the point, the Jinsheng Zhao decision illustrates that the burden of proof is on the applicant and that, for example, submission of passport plus ICES report (detailing entry dates into Canada) is NOT sufficient. If requested, the applicant must provide additional information and documentation, and a failure to do so justifies terminating the application.
This latter case appears to have been something of a test case or the applicant is a particularly recalcitrant sort ideologically opposed to giving the government information. Jinsheng Zhao deliberately submitted minimal documentation in response to CIC's requests and then filed a mandamus application seeking to compel CIC to decide his application based on the information and documentation submitted. Not only did that application fail, CIC in turn deemed the refusal to provide additional information and documentation an abandonment of the application, which is the subject of this case (linked here), and which Jinsheng Zhao loses.
Thus, the ongoing importance of proving residence in order to prove presence:
Some might think I am speculating here, given that there are no Federal Court decisions as yet regarding the 4/6 rule and a strictly physical presence requirement, nor even, as yet, any reports of RQ issued to an applicant applying after June 11, 2015. But I am very confident that whether it continues to be labelled "RQ," a "Residence Questionnaire," or is named something else, such as a "Physical Presence Questionnaire," going forward there are bound to still be cases in which IRCC identifies a reason-to-question-residency and issues a comprehensive request for information and documentation, that is, "RQ" or its comparable replacement.
It will almost certainly contain many items focused on information and documentation tending to show residency in Canada and residency-ties in Canada. The reason should be obvious: evidence of residing in Canada directly supports the proposition the applicant was present in Canada; in contrast, a lack of evidence of residing in Canada covering a period of time suggests the possibility the individual was absent from Canada during that period of time. Likewise as to residency-ties: more ties supports presence; few or minimal ties suggests possibility of absence.
Key is to have accurately and completely declared ALL dates of travel. If you did that (do that if you have not yet applied), the odds of a problem with the dates themselves are low.rdecartus said:
Beyond that, only if IRCC identifies a reason-to-question-presence will proof of residency become a sticky issue. If they do identify or perceive a reason-to-question-presence, the reason itself if not necessarily the issue. (Obviously sometimes it will be: lost passport for example, or serious error in declared travel, but even then the main burden for the applicant is fully proving residency/presence; for this see more below.)
Many tend to put too much focus on the dates of exit and entry. These dates are critical. Yes. They are fundamental to the calculation, indeed. But either they are relatively close to what IRCC can verify, in which case again the below discussion as to proof comes into play, or they are way off, in which case the application is in serious trouble. If they are close, the arithmetic can matter. But otherwise the issue is, again, about comprehensive proof of presence over the relevant period of time.
Proof of Presence Part I:
The question of proving physical presence (or residency) has been a focus of discussion in multiple topics recently.
While exit and entry dates tend to be a dominant, if not controlling factor, in assessing residency and presence, proof of presence goes well, well beyond identifying dates of exit and dates of entry. This aspect, documenting travel dates, tends to get far more attention than it deserves.
What many would describe as more focused on proof of residence, rather than presence, is typically the bigger concern in sufficiently meeting the applicant's burden of proof.
The dynamics of this are complex. Bottom-line, however, is that the real fulcrum in most cases where the applicant's declaration of presence is questioned is proof of residency: place where the applicant has been living, working, going to school, engaging in other activities, and so on.
There is no prospect, for the foreseeable future, that Canada will rely on government records of exit and entry to populate the presence calculator. Even if it can, it will not. IRCC will use government records to verify the applicant's declarations. The primary and necessary source of dates of travel will continue to come from the applicant. And IRCC will examine the applicant's declarations looking for indications of omissions or inaccuracies, using its other sources of information to do this screening.
Most applicants do not need to prove presence. Their travel declarations will be accepted. It is when IRCC perceives there is a reason-to-question-residency or reason-to-question-presence that issues of proving presence arise. And if this happens, when this happens, again the real fulcrum will be proof of residency: place where the applicant has been living, working, going to school, engaging in other activities, and so on.
Overview of proving a life lived in Canada:
In general, for applicants issued RQ (or its future equivalent), proof of a life being lived in Canada will need to be submitted, following the instructions in the request, including information and documentation to show where the applicant was living, work or school, proof of filing tax returns, involvement in community or other activities (doctor/dentist visits for example), and certain information regarding what are considered typical residency-ties (place of residence for immediate family members for example). To the extent primary documents are unavailable or have gaps, other evidence may be submitted, ranging from utility bills to statements reflecting financial transactions, even letters attesting to place of residence, this or that activity, or such. This issue can get complicated in the particular case, but for the typical applicant who has a substantial paperwork trail evidencing a life lived in Canada, that should easily suffice.
It gets particularly complicated if CIC/IRCC perceives reason to suspect the applicant's credibility. This is why it is so important to be as accurate and complete as possible in declaring all dates of travel. If IRCC identifies any omissions or inaccuracies, depending on how big the discrepancy is, things can get rather dicey for any applicant IRCC perceives to not be a reliable reporter of the facts (especially if perceived to be due to deception or evasiveness, but also if due to significant mistakes as well).
It gets particularly complicated if there are missing Travel Documents, or CIC/IRCC for some reason suspects the applicant has undisclosed Travel Documents.
When it gets complicated, both the quality and the quantity of the applicant's proof needs to be on the more positive end of the spectrum. When it gets complicated, gaps loom large and really need to be covered by alternative proof. For example, the applicant who submits proof of being employed at a facility requiring physical presence at the job site for five days a week, week in and week out for all of, say, 2012, does not need to worry much about submitting additional proof for 2012. If, however, he was unemployed and was not renting for a three month time period in late 2011, he should make a concerted effort to submit additional/alternative evidencing documenting his presence in Canada for those three months. In other words, covering all the gaps is far more important than piling up evidence for periods already well documented.
Proof of Presence Part II:
Since the question of proving physical presence (or residency) has been a focus of discussion in multiple topics recently, without attempting to revisit the whole cloth, some further observations:
This is a subject I am rather well acquainted with and which I have previously addressed in some depth in this forum, and in another forum I did so in a great deal of depth in real time covering years of Federal Court decisions and considering scores of anecdotal reports in multiple forums over that time period. Indeed, the Residency Case has been the primary focus of my interest in naturalized citizenship for many years (genesis of which was my own anticipation of being RQ'd, going back to even before I landed and became a PR). I have, for example, read nearly every Federal Court decision published in the last six plus years that in any way discusses residency issues in citizenship applications. (For years I have been scanning all newly published decisions at least two or three times a month; while perhaps this or that one escaped my perusal, I am sure I have read all but a very few.)
While the older discussions are tangled with shortfall residency issues (under the old law), even shortfall cases typically involved proof of physical presence to some degree. Since the physical presence test has been the primary test for at least six to eight years, however, that research and those discussions wrestle with the proof of presence issue in much detail, covering many, many tangents.
I do not intend to revisit all that I have researched, digested, analyzed, and discussed regarding this topic. There are many, many threads to the issue of proof. The factors are many, some complicated, many (as is typical) extensively interrelated, and almost all of them involve, to some degree, elements of credibility (which is, itself, a very involved and complex issue).
And as almost always, there is wide, wide variability in how these issues affect this or that particular applicant.
But there is one overriding aspect: misunderstanding the role and significance of exit and entry dates.
On one hand, the exit and entry dates tend to be the dominant, if not controlling factor. For the vast majority of applicants, the residency calculation, or the physical presence calculation, is it; CIC/IRCC reviews it and if satisfied with it, that determines the applicant's physical presence.
In effect, in these routine cases, CIC/IRCC accepts the declared dates and infers the applicant was present in Canada all days between the last date of entry and next date of exit.
If this was universal, all those who put so much emphasis on the government's records as to exits in addition to entries, who advocate that the government completely collect both, they would be correct to conclude this would settle the proof of presence issue.
In other words: if government collects a record of every time a PR exits and enters Canada, plugs that into the calculator, that determines the applicant's physical presence.
BUT: Does NOT Work That Way. Will Not Work That Way.
And all the gnashing of teeth and protestations that it SHOULD work that way are of little or no avail. It is not going to work that way for the foreseeable future. No matter how thorough and reliable the collection of exit and entry records becomes, it is not going to work this way.
That it could (assuming it could) work that way is not relevant. It does not. There is no hint at all that it will in any foreseeable future.
It is, thus, a total waste of time to wrangle over the minute details of record gathering and keeping for purposes of how CIC/IRCC assess an applicant's physical presence. The government is getting better at knowing all these dates, can more easily identify an applicant's omissions or inaccuracies, but that is not going to change the substantive approach IRCC takes in assessing residency or presence.
Reminder: There is one person in the world who for sure has access to all the precise dates a PR exits and enters Canada. That is the PR himself or herself. Even if the government keeps no records, an applicant for citizenship has the power to accurately and completely declare every trip. The PR was there every time.
And there is no doubt: it is indeed the PR's obligation, when applying for citizenship, to report the precise dates for all travel abroad.
One of the things the government continues to fail to do is to adequately advise new PRs that they should keep exact records of all international travel. A running log works (so long as it is indeed maintained).
Note: the applicant who accurately reports the precise dates of all travel abroad dramatically reduces the risk of getting bogged down in a residency case. No guarantee. Some still get RQ'd and even run into severely elevated scrutiny (example, anyone who cannot present all relevant Travel Documents). But overall, one of the better insurance policies the PR can buy, to insure against the risk of RQ problems, is to make sure to accurately declare all travel abroad.
In any event: There is no chance, for the foreseeable future, that the government is going to primarily rely on its records in assessing an applicant's physical presence.
What is on the horizon, however, is the government's ability to spot omissions or errors in the applicant's declarations.
In a way, sure, this will give the government more confidence in assessing the applicant's presence based on the applicant's declarations. So long as the government does not identify an error or omission, given its capacity to more thoroughly identify errors or omissions a much higher percentage of applications (at least among those not containing any errors or omissions) are likely to be promptly, efficiently, routinely processed.
This is already true, already how it works for the vast majority of applicants.
This has been mostly true for more than a decade, except during the initial rollout of OB 407, when the criteria for issuing RQ was way overbroad and dragged a huge number of qualified applicants into the mire of backlogged RQ cases, which in turn bogged down the whole system for those who applied between 2010 and early 2013, some of them still bogged down even today.
In any event, for the vast majority of applicants, CIC/IRCC reviews the applicant's declarations as to dates exiting and dates entering Canada, and to a certain extent verifies those dates (mostly by not identifying anything in the passport or, in CBSA's travel history for the applicant if an ICES report is reviewed, that indicates any omission or discrepancy). If verified, CIC/IRCC accepts the declaration and based on it concludes how many days the applicant was physically present.
Again, that essentially means CIC/IRCC infers the applicant was present in Canada all days between each reported entry date and the next exit date.
If, however, there is a reason-to-question-residency, that changes everything; it is then a different ball game.
reasons-to-question-residency
or, now reasons-to-question-presence
Back in 2005, under Liberal leadership, CIC rolled out an Operational Bulletin which detailed reasons-to-question-residency, which in turn was merged into the then governing Operational Manual CP 5 "Residence." This has subsequently been supplanted (in 2012) by OB 407 (in which reasons-to-question-residency became triage criteria) and more recently by the current PDIs (plus whatever internal instructions are not open to the public, which now includes whatever triage criteria or reasons-to-question-residency are being employed today).
While the particular mechanics of the process have varied since 2005, the gist of it has been fairly consistent and is actually quite simple: if CIC identified a reason-to-question-residency, there was no longer a general acceptance of the applicant's travel declarations for purposes of assessing physical presence.
Again, the old law complicated things some because the issue was not merely physical presence but also residency, since an applicant could be deemed to have met the residency requirement based on residency factors despite having less than 1095 days physical presence.
Skirting the more complex qualitative tests for residency, and what constituted proof of, for example, having centralized one's life in Canada, the key core issue still revolved around how many days the applicant was present in Canada.
And going forward, be that under the 4/6 rule or if adopted a 3/5 rule, the issue is precisely that, as in how many days the applicant was physically present in Canada.
The burden of proof is on the applicant.
Unequivocally, the burden of proof is on the applicant.
As noted, once IRCC identifies a reason-to-question-residency, the game changes. In general terms the change is that the applicant is put to the task of actually proving when he or she was present. In more or less practical terms this means:
-- documenting dates of exit and dates of entry (to the extent possible)
-- proving presence in-between last date of entry and next date of exit
Dates of exit/entry: The first of these is critical, that is establishing the dates, but is no where near sufficient.
And to some extent it is not necessarily imperative this be complete. Most travel dates should be corroborated, and most can be between ICES reports and passport stamps. Beyond that, however, travel records from other countries can be difficult to timely obtain, sometimes impossible to obtain. While less so these days, even the CBSA or U.S. records can be incomplete. Moreover, proving the precise date of a trip can be offset or overcome by other proof of presence, such as proof of being in Canada before the trip and proof of activity in Canada after the trip.
Proving presence in-between last date of entry and next date of exit:
Once a reason-to-question-residency has been identified, and the applicant is issued RQ, proving presence generally becomes the dominant focus of inquiry and assessment.
Again, I have previously delved very deeply into this in other topics here, and much, much more in depth in the forum at the immigration.ca website. (Including scores of references, citations, and links to numerous Federal Court decisions detailing actual cases.)
Additionally two recent Federal Court decisions highlight the importance of proving more than just dates of travel, but proving presence in between as well.
While missing Travel Documents was the key issue in the JACEK MAS decision, the absence of residence documents and other evidence of a life being lived in Canada ("lack of documentation regarding residence" and a "failure to address gaps in [the applicant's] residency evidence") looms large.
More to the point, the Jinsheng Zhao decision illustrates that the burden of proof is on the applicant and that, for example, submission of passport plus ICES report (detailing entry dates into Canada) is NOT sufficient. If requested, the applicant must provide additional information and documentation, and a failure to do so justifies terminating the application.
This latter case appears to have been something of a test case or the applicant is a particularly recalcitrant sort ideologically opposed to giving the government information. Jinsheng Zhao deliberately submitted minimal documentation in response to CIC's requests and then filed a mandamus application seeking to compel CIC to decide his application based on the information and documentation submitted. Not only did that application fail, CIC in turn deemed the refusal to provide additional information and documentation an abandonment of the application, which is the subject of this case (linked here), and which Jinsheng Zhao loses.
Thus, the ongoing importance of proving residence in order to prove presence:
Some might think I am speculating here, given that there are no Federal Court decisions as yet regarding the 4/6 rule and a strictly physical presence requirement, nor even, as yet, any reports of RQ issued to an applicant applying after June 11, 2015. But I am very confident that whether it continues to be labelled "RQ," a "Residence Questionnaire," or is named something else, such as a "Physical Presence Questionnaire," going forward there are bound to still be cases in which IRCC identifies a reason-to-question-residency and issues a comprehensive request for information and documentation, that is, "RQ" or its comparable replacement.
It will almost certainly contain many items focused on information and documentation tending to show residency in Canada and residency-ties in Canada. The reason should be obvious: evidence of residing in Canada directly supports the proposition the applicant was present in Canada; in contrast, a lack of evidence of residing in Canada covering a period of time suggests the possibility the individual was absent from Canada during that period of time. Likewise as to residency-ties: more ties supports presence; few or minimal ties suggests possibility of absence.