CBSA-ICES-Highway Report-Does CIC look in to this?

ICES Traveler History - Highway Passage Report:

Hi dpenabill, rrmaron, PMM, timbit_TO,

Do you happened to know if CIC officer  access all systems within CBSA as a part of reviewing the citizenship file? Pl. share your thoughts if you happened to come across issues similar to my query below.
----------------- X------------------
I applied for Citizenship in March 2011.

I also, applied for CBSA records as some of my USA trips were not marked in my passport. Applied for both
a) CBSA ICES Traveler Passage Report (Individual report)
b) CBSA ICES Traveler History - Highway Passage Report (Vehicle Report)

The Vehicle Report shows vehicle registration #, date/time of entry, port of entry etc along with a column indicating no. of days of stay outside of Canada as:-  "Canadian Traveler"  =  Same day/24Hrs/48Hrs.

For one of my road trips to USA, I entered USA on May 22, 2010 around 7.30am and returned to Canada around 2.45am (early morning). I understand that CBSA systems treat anything beyond midnight as next day. So, in this case, it should be May 23, 2010 and should be marked against "24Hrs" column. However, in the ICES Vehicle report I received, this is marked by the CBSA officer as "48Hrs".

Incidentally, on this trip when I returned to Canada, I brought (750ml X 3 - wine bottles!) and had to pay taxes as I was not away from Canada for more than 48 Hrs. For this, I have a CBSA receipt showing May 23, 2010 2.45am time stamp.

So, I submitted US I-94, US CBP Passport stamp showing the stamp for May 22, 2010 and CBSA receipt for May 23, 2010 to CBSA Privacy office to get my records corrected in their systems, with the belief that this wrong entry might cause issues in my out of Canada absence calculation.

I recently got a reply from CBSA Ottawa Privacy office saying that they got a reply from CBSA Pacific Region (Blaine border crossing) that this "48Hr" entry is made based on the declaration by the Traveler. This is not true as I remember my conversation with the CBSA officer during the border crossing that day, as it was a odd time to cross the border and there was no need for me to pay taxes if I had stayed more than 48 Hrs, as I will be within the allowable limit to bring liquor. So, I guess this is a case of typing error by the CBSA officer at POE.  I am told by CBSA Privacy office that I will have to submit a complaint with Canadian Privacy Commissioner - office that oversees all Privacy offices of all Govt. agencies to pursue this forward.

So, my query is, is it worth pursuing this as I am afraid my constant barging may negatively affect my records and may be flagged in CBSA systems?. If CIC officer reviewing the citizenship file is not going to even look at the "Vehicle Passage Report"?, may be I could ignore this error as I have close to 25 days more than 1095 days required when I applied.

1. When RQs are requested, does CIC ask for CBSA Traveler as well as Vehicle Report?

2. Does FOSS, GCMS or any other systems used by CIC cross references ICES Vehicle Report?

I am not sure if it is worth pursuing a complaint with Privacy Commissioner at this stage. May be, should I wait till I receive RQ (in another 12 months or so during test in Vancouver as Vancouver seems to be one of the slowest offices!) and then pursue this?

Please share your thoughts on this.

Thanks very much.

A one-day discrepancy is very, very unlikely to make or break a case, at any stage. Remote chance that it could come down to 1094 days actual presence credit versus 1095, but even if it is that close that might make the difference only if there are other larger looming issues and questions. No other looming issues, no need to worry. Other looming issues, look after those not the one-day discrepancy.

As for role of such reports in RQ: I don't think a citizenship judge sees these travel reports unless the applicant agrees to obtain and submit them . . . which an applicant will ordinarily do (in RQ if asked, and for many in RQ even if not asked) because it is best for the record to be as complete and accurate as feasible. Nothing to be gained from trying to fudge numbers at the RQ stage. Again, focus should be on more important issues, while the focus on the numbers should simply be an effort to get them as accurately documented as possible -- recognizing, however, again, that one-day discrepancies are not important, not a make or break sort of thing.

I should note the above is based on the assumption that the residency calculation was not based on exactly 1095 days, that there was a margin for error before applying.

It is also worth noting that this discrepancy is not at all likely to be noticed unless there is RQ, as in RQ triggered by other factors; in a sense it could become a factor if there are other discrepancies in the record or other reasons for a CIC officer to suspect the applicant's eligibility or residency calculation, and thus it becomes one item in a general pattern . . . but the real story there would be the existence of the pattern, not this one discrepancy.

Finally, as a general proposition, it is almost always worth asking "what is to be gained?" before embarking on a course of action. What is to be gained by trying to correct this record? Not much, not much at all.

Edited by dpenabill - 23 May 2011 at 3:32am

This really is not significant. Really. The only way it would be significant is if it is part of other, larger issues, and even then those are the issues that would be significant, not this.

So this is way way long relative to what it is worth.


But it may help illuminate some aspects of how evidence and documentation and records may influence things, so it may be worth some more elaboration. I would like to caution, though, that it is important to avoid getting too entangled in nuances and minute details. Some details matter, and matter a great deal in some circumstances, so trying to approach this in a balanced, pragmatic way can be difficult, but the bottomline is that what looms largest beyond the big/key items is how all the details relate to one another, the coherence of the story so to say, whether the applicant and the applicant's information and history and circumstances add up and make sense. If this or that detail is off a bit, that is not significant. If certain details are off and in conflict, it is when such incongruities or inconsistencies add up to casting doubt on one of those big/key items that issues arise.

The big/key items are, again, those like identity and PR status, date actual residence in Canada was in fact established, and then whether or not, first, it has been at least two years since landing, and secondly whether or not in the four years previous to applying the applicant was physically in Canada for more than 1095 days.

Second tier issues, those which tend to be closely related to the big ones, include the details of travel history and direct evidence thereof (residency calculation itself and evidentiary indicators in Travel Documents), as well as other major factors, including especially address and work history.

Beyond that, again, it is how everything comes together and compares, what the whole picture looks like, how the details add up or do not add up.


Thus, at the risk of making things more murky, less clear:

You are talking about a customs declaration report and the length of absence it reflects is a report based on your report/statement to the customs officer.

If it is in error, the error is due to either (1) the officer made a mistake in entering the information, or (2) you made a mistake/error in what you told the officer at the time.

With your additional records you can make the case that it is indeed an error, that is that you were not absent from Canada for 48 hours or more.

But so what?

Is that sufficient to persuade CBSA (whose record this is) that it was not you who made a mistake in what you said to the officer at the time, but rather that the CBSA officer who recorded the statement made the error? (Good luck with that.)

And is it relevant? That is, will they change the record? After all, it is, on its face, a record of what the officer recorded as your statement, not a matter of fact as to how long you were actually absent. How long you were actually absent does not change what was said, or what was recorded about what was said.

What I am trying to illuminate here is that whether the customs declaration is or is not an accurate statement of what you said, it is only a report of what you purportedly said and is not direct evidence of the length of your absence, so even if you did get them to add a notation to the report that corrects how long you were absent, based on your other records and reports, it really has minimal substantive effect and, moreover, again, good luck with getting them to acknowledge that it was the officer who made the error in recording your statement rather than an error in what you stated.

It is worth remembering that this report should include a date as to its entry. That report then is compelling evidence of your entry into Canada on that date regardless of how long you were gone.

How long you were absent to that day depends on the date of your exit.

No Canadian government entity is likely to have any record of your exit. To establish the date you exited Canada (from which it would only be a matter of arithmetic, counting midnights, to determine the days of absence until the documented entry), all you can offer is evidence of when you exited Canada, your own testimony or documentation, and perhaps reports from foreign countries (like the U.S.) evidencing their records of your entry. These are evidentiary, not conclusive. Probably sufficient evidence though. Nonetheless, these are what would document and determine the duration of the absence (if things got down to the level of proving the length of particular absences apart from and in addition to what appears in your residency calculation disclosures and travel documents), and indirect evidence such as a report of what you said to a customs officer (again, whether or not that report is an accurate statement of what you said or not) would be of little or no import.



By the way:

-- importing three 750 ml bottles of wine (totalling 2.25 litres) would have required payment of taxes regardless of how long you were outside Canada. The personal exemption limit is 1.5 litres, for which one has to be outside Canada for 48 hours or more to qualify.

-- 48 hour personal exemption is for $400 Canadian

-- $750 Canadian personal exemption comes into play only if outside Canada for more than seven days

For chart explaining personal exemptions see: CBSA page re cross-border shopping in U.S., scrolling a bit down the page.


Overall note:

Again, this one day discrepancy is insignificant and in itself was not worth the time to speed read the above let alone write it, but this should help to illuminate part of why it is important to avoid getting sidetracked into such nuances. Focus on big ticket items and then on consistency in the details, and if there is an unavoidable inconsistency (we often run into them in life including in immigration and citizenship related matters), add an explanation or be prepared to explain. Do not elevate it to a matter of importance. That is a distraction. A properly qualified, eligible applicant, does not need a CIC officer to be distracted and, actually, it is better if the officer stays focused on the key issues not small details. Moreover, leading an officer to focus on a minute detail like this can inadvertently have a negative effect by putting the applicant's credibility into question.



Edited by dpenabill - 23 May 2011 at 8:41pm

bajava wrote: No offense but one minor mistake. You have two replies; one from timbit_TO and other one in from dpenabill, but you thanked rrmaron and dpenabill. Are you sure you remembered those past timings accurately.

Hi bajava,

Thanks for catching my mistake.

I meant to thank timbit_TO but wrongly entered rrmaron in this thread as I was asking a question to rrmaron in the RQ discussion thread around that time.

Thanks very much timbit_TO. Sorry for the mistake and name confusion.

Thanks
sivan

Thanks very much rrmaron.

So, when the applicant is issued a RQ, should we provide both 1) CBSA Passenger Report (searched on individual's name/dob etc in ICES) as well as 2) CBSA Vehicle Report to CIC.

The reason why I am asking about # (2) is that, # (1) does not contain every trip I made out of the country that I have declared in the application. 3 of my US road trips were not captured in # 1.

So, I had to request #2 to get all my road trips to USA. This does not prove the individual who traveled in the Car (for which the search was made in ICES) was indeed me. I will have to show that during the period of search the vehicle under question was registered in my name by providing the vehicle registration/insurance papers. This seems to be a very round about way to explain to CIC.

Could you please share your experience in this regard - iCBSA record submission (# 1 and #2 ?) for your RQ.

BTW, as you have responded to my query in the RQ discussions thread, my entry in to Canada when I moved to live permanently with my PR card was not captured in # (1) CBSA/ICES Passenger record. I will have to show "my car import record, CBSA stamp in the Goods to bring list"  to prove this critical date (start date of my PR life in Canada). Keeping my fingers crossed on how this is all going to go while in a for a long wait! (App. Recd Date/ March 2011. Acknowl. letter- Apr 2011 --- Vancouver).

Thanks very much for all the help.