CBSA travel history timeline

If there are mistakes in CBSA it's bad. I wonder how one can correct them. I know there's record correction procedure for US CBP, but not sure there's one for CBSA.

Wannavote2012: I feel all applicants for citizenship and those getting RQ have to absolutely request CBSA travel report first before giving access to CIC and I haven't read anybody here making this point.... My thinking is this, we all know CBSA report is not the most complete one but I think CIC will take it as the ultimate proof of your travels, so the last thing anyone would want is to give access to CIC to a report they have no idea what it includes... It will be great if all your dates match the CBSA report and even you have more self reported travel dates than the report itself. But if by any bad luck you forget one or dates are mismatched, I am almost certain alarm bells will go off at CIC and your file will be much more scrutinized, the last thing anyone who is honest wants is to have CIC thinking you are lying. Yes, you can always later prove it was an honest mistake but think about how much grueling process most of us are going through for no reason except their own paranoid process and imagine now if CIC have "proof" you are lying on your signed application. Having to prove your honesty is more emotional taxing if you are not a fraudster.

This is a good observation.

Additionally, when an individual requests the CBSA travel report, they can include their automobile identification so that the report reflects those land entries even if the individual's entry was not recorded. This additional information can help individuals corroborate their own records as to travel outside Canada.

Nonetheless, while I tend to agree that the careful approach would be to request one's CBSA travel history prior to submitting the application for citizenship, for most applicants it is probably unnecessary.

The odds of an error on the side of CBSA are very low since almost all entries are electronic, based on client identification number scanned into the system electronically; some chance of error does exist relative to any manually entered data, but again this would afect a very small percentage of CBSA records overall, and one certainly hopes that those entering such information manually rarely make mistakes, so the rate of incidence of this sort of mistake should be near miniscule (moreover: name and client number would not match, except in the case of an extremely rare coincidence, so such an error should be apparent and not populate the wrong individual's records).

Omissions are far more likely for many reasons. These should not be problematic. And, to be clear, when completing the residency calculation, applicants must report all travel abroad (except day trips . . . albeit this is a bit of a sticky issue in my view, that is, whether or not to declare these as well) even if there is nothing in one's passport (or other travel documents), or the CBSA travel history, reflecting the trip.

As I have been trying to emphasize for a few months now, perhaps the biggest issue that CIC is screening applicants for is discrepancies in the residency calculation declarations, for any indication that the applicant failed to report some absence. The question is to what extent do minor errors matter. There is, I believe, no one-rule, one-approach answer to this. Indeed, I truly believe that CIC is not so draconian, for example, as to impose the more severe approach to assessing an applicant's residency just because the applicant made a minor mistake in the residency calculation.

That is, for example, I doubt that CIC elevates its scrutiny just because an applicant fails to accurately report a trip abroad by a day or two. That said, combine that mistake with other concerns about the residency/travel declarations, sure it then looms larger and fuels questions if not doubt, if not outright skepticism, depending on all the details and how those details fit into the whole picture.

I realize that I am among a small minority here who believes that CIC does not engage in a draconian screening of applicants looking for technicalities and minor mistakes, toward imposing the more severe, and lengthy processing, on otherwise well-qualified applicants. But I do, indeed, truly believe that minor mistakes, or small and otherwise inconsequential inconsistencies, are usually no problem depending, however, on context, on the whole picture, how all the parts fit into the whole.

The day-trip but return to Canada ten minutes after midnight scenario, however, poses a somewhat different problem, because it shows up as an omission (assuming the applicant does not report day trips in the residency calculation), not just an error in reporting the date of return, and while I am not sure that "alarm bells will go off" because just one of these appears in the CBSA travel history, it will draw attention and if it is in conjunction with any other incongruities, inconsistencies, small errors, or such, then sure, it is going to loom larger and could be problematic.

Back to day-trips generally: this seems to be a bit of a trap. Not intentionally so. But there is a problem underlying the attempt to strike a balance between keeping the paperwork within reasonable parameters that will facilitate efficient processing, and requiring declarations of sufficient information to fully assess the extent of an applicant's actual presence in Canada (and thereby their residency). Combine this with the fact that those attempting to game the system had exploited gaps in record-gathering facilitated by traveling via the U.S. Additionally, Canada has been used as a bit of stepping-stone for many whose main ambition was to obtain status in the U.S. Moreover, historically many Canadian PRs have also had status to live and work in the U.S. and because of job opportunities have spent extended periods of time in the U.S. but in their effort to obtain a Canadian passport they failed to accurately disclose their time in the U.S.

So, for some applicants, indications of travel to or through the U.S., can raise questions. And for such applicants, even day trips, or border-crossings claimed to be attendant a day-trip, are sometimes examined with an elevated degree of scrutiny.

Whether or not to declare day-trips despite the fact that it is not required?
This is not an easy question to answer. Again, like so many questions, I doubt there is any one-rule, one-approach that is best for all applicants. Obviously, there is no material misrepresentation by omission in not declaring day trips. There should be no disadvantage arising from following the instructions and not declaring day trips.

But, various reports have indicated that some applicants at least appear to have come under elevated scrutiny, or at least have been challenged about, undeclared day trips. And now the RQ actually requires applicants to report day trips, despite no hint whatsoever prior to this year (and still no notice published for the general public, no notification in the CIC web site in particular, that PRs applying for citizenship might be required to report day trips) that a PR applying for citizenship may be requested to declare all day trips and may be requested to do so clear back to the date they first arrived in Canada no matter how many years ago that was.

For anyone who made just a few day trips to the U.S., and has kept record of them, the answer to this question is easy: sure, go ahead and declare them. This cannot hurt. It should foreclose questions unless there is some other reason for CIC to question the applicant's declarations.

For anyone who, however, has made many day trips to the U.S., the answer is problematic. The residency calculation declaration can get messy enough, and be long enough, without including the declaration of a large number of day trips. The day trips can be a big distraction. Many here tend to agree with me (though many do not as well), that when dealing with CIC (like when dealing with most bureaucracies) it is best to give simple, straight-forward information that is specifically in response to what is requested. More can be distracting. More can result in unwanted attention. More can raise questions that otherwise might not have been raised.

In contrast, though, a lot of day trips increases the risk of questions arising from them, and the questions could arise from declaring them, or from not declaring them.

Then there are those for whome a day trip resulted in a notation/stamp in their passport or other travel documents; I think the answer for such applicants is relatively easy: probably better to declare the trip. That said, here too the number of such trips can loom as an issue. Moreover, what does this applicant do if some day trips resulted in a stamp while there are many others that did not, and overall there were a large number of such trips?

So, this can be a difficult question for some prospective applicants. There is, so far as I can see, no clear answer.

Personally, while the application itself and the residency calculation are already complicated enough for a great many applicants, if CIC provided for declaring day-trips separately that would make sense to me. They do not count as day's absent, so they do not really belong in the residency calculation declarations. They are relevant in some respects, at the least, so such information would be helpful. But, CIC is already embroiled in implementing so many changes that this is not at all likely to be implemented, and it could be confusing to a large number of applicants if they are asked to declare cross-border (international) travel in two separate forms.

Quick question:

I had a day trip to the US, got I-94 which I forgot to return when I crossed back to Canada. I was worried that I had to return the I-94 otherwise it would look like I never left the US therefore, I gave it to a CBSA officer after 2 months during a trip to Niagara Falls. I dont remember the officer punching in my Id number in the system. So my guess is in the CBSA travel history report, it s gonna look like I was in the US till the day (2 months after) I returned the I-94 from the Canadian side of Rainbow Bridge in Niagara Fall.

 

I guess all I can do is to explain it in a letter submitted along with the RQ and provide proof of my presence in Canada during those 2 months.

 

Any suggestions? This is becoming a total nightmare.

 

 

I entered with a foreign visa which had aTemporary Resident Visa on it which I m pretty sure wasnt scanned. The officer just looked at it and let me in. Did not enter anything in the computer. That's how it works on the Rainbow Bridge in Niagara Falls. I walked passed the bridge same way with my PR card after becoming a PR.

hi all.