After the recent changes to the application and the Document Checklist, all applicants for a PR Card must now provide at least two pieces of `proof' that they have met the Residency Requirement...even those that have not left Canada once during the last 5 years.
PR Card Renewal-Supporting Documents
- Thread starter sajjarapu
- Start date
I'm going to get specific on language here because I think it's important - everyone must look at the Appendix A:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/application/application-forms-guides/guide-5445-applying-permanent-resident-card-card-first-application-replacement-renewal-change-gender-identifier.html#appendixA
Where you will find this: "Supporting documents showing that you meet the residency obligation
-You must provide copies of 2 pieces of evidence that can show residency in Canada in the five (5) years immediately before the application, such as: ..."
Note the bolding is mine, for emphasis, and extra emphasis, underlined.
The part I'm underlining: some of the documents they are asking for are EVIDENCE that CAN SHOW residency in Canada.
So I very much dislike IRCC's use of 'proof' here because it is very difficult to 'prove' (for example) one was actually physically resident for all the days you are counting towards residency (eg the days in between arrivals and departures).
But they don't (seem to) actually ask you to prove all those days. They ask you to provide supporting evidence of residency during this period (employment, student records, tax statements, social things like club or gym memberships, etc).
Notably, none of these things directly prove residency. They are supporting, one might even say circumstantial, evidence of residency - the things one might accumulate while ... actually residing in a place.
@Ponga, not disagreeing with what you said, and - repeating - I hate the way they've used 'proof' in these documents. But when you look through, at least some of the evidence is just that - evidence that supports a case of having resided according to the dates one provides elswhere (travel dates).
So I hope people freak out a bit less, and look at what is requested. In particular, it does NOT seem that they are asking for eg full to-the-day employment records, or bank statements from every day in Canada, etc., etc., but ... evidence that supports you were here. Nor do they seem to ask for complete records or evidence covering every day in Canada, just evidence that 'can support' or can show residency in Canada.
My guess or interpretation is that they think for most easy cases this evidence will support and make decision making a bit easier for the officer.
We'll just have to see though.
Totally agree, but it's not so much the word `Proof' that is unclear, rather the words `residency obligation' that appear just before that sentence.
" Supporting documents showing that you meet the residency obligation"
2 documents from a random day in that 5 year period would clearly not address the `Obligation' part, correct?
I repeat - that's why I referred to the Appendix. Read it. It tells you to provide supporting documents. It says, I repeat: "pieces of evidence that can show residency in Canada" [in the relevant period.]
This part - the evidence you provide - does not address the obligation part (directly, anyway). It supports the residency part. It's not meant to show and meet the 'every day you were here' part.
Or if you prefer: they ask you to provide circumstantial evidence. That's it. Don't overthink it.
And if you won't like that answer: well, it's what they ask for. Don't overthink it.
But again...the OBLIGATION is to reside in Canada for a minimum of 730 days prior to submitting the application. Still don't see how a bank statement proves anything more than banking activity for a single month within that 5 year window. It could clearly show residency, but it would NOT confirm meeting the OBLIGATION.
Having said that, I would suspect that, prior to the recent changes to the form and checklist, those that had shown (in their Travel History) that they were in fact residing in Canada for well more than 730 days (meaning nowhere close to being outside Canada for 1095 days) and submitted nothing from Appendix A in terms of `evidence', were probably approved without a second thought.
I don't really have much more to add - this is what they ask for. If you want to know why they want this as opposed to incontrovertible proof, you're going to have to ask them.
I can only surmise, overall, that (as in law) they have different concepts of the level of proof (reasonable doubt, balance of probabilities, etc), and they're sufficiently comfortable that 'this short checklist is enough for 90% and we'll deal with the rest by extended inquiries on our own, thanks.'
But it still comes back to: this is what they've asked for in terms of evidence. Pointless to question whether this is 'proof' (of the type needed), if this is the evidence they want. Provide them with the evidence they want and stop torturing yourself with the idea of what constitutes proof in this instance; you're not David Hume arguing it's illogical to believe the sun will rise tomorrow.
You provide some subset of evidence, acc to instructions, and hopefully that's enough for them.
(yes, I'm not entirely comfortable with it all either, we shall see, etc. I lean to thinking they should just not use the word proof anymore.)
Probably true. If it works for you to believe it, then it's definitely true.
Definitely not torturing myself as I am not questioning the idea of what constitutes proof of RESIDENCY...it's how that minuscule proof validates the OBLIGATION part that is crucial to a successful PR Card renewal. Two different pieces within the same puzzle.
Interesting comment about David Hume, since I've a branch in my tree connected to that surname.
As always, I do appreciate your thoughts.
It does not prove compliance with the obligation. It is circumstantial evidence in support of the obligation, not proof.
Hello all, not sure if I am posting in the right forum as there are quite a lot pertaining to this subject. I needed some assistance with my PR card application (application for first PR).
I obtained my PR status a month ago, May 12th, and have finally settled down in NS about a week or so ago. I couldn’t give the immigration officer at the airport an address and he said I can apply online when I get settled.
Going through online application, the RO section is giving me trouble. It asks if I have been outside of Canada in the past 5 years (which I have). It then prompts me to give a reason for absence but only since May 12th (I have not been absent for this time). Should I just say “no” to the prompt then?
Also, for the supporting documents to show I will be able to meet the minimum 730 days I don’t believe I have enough supporting documents. I am still looking for a job (so no pay stub and employment records). I have no bank statements as I am sharing rent with a couple of roommates (one of them makes the payment every month). Can I just upload any document that has my address on it?
Any help would be appreciated, thank you!
I obtained my PR status a month ago, May 12th, and have finally settled down in NS about a week or so ago. I couldn’t give the immigration officer at the airport an address and he said I can apply online when I get settled.
Going through online application, the RO section is giving me trouble. It asks if I have been outside of Canada in the past 5 years (which I have). It then prompts me to give a reason for absence but only since May 12th (I have not been absent for this time). Should I just say “no” to the prompt then?
Also, for the supporting documents to show I will be able to meet the minimum 730 days I don’t believe I have enough supporting documents. I am still looking for a job (so no pay stub and employment records). I have no bank statements as I am sharing rent with a couple of roommates (one of them makes the payment every month). Can I just upload any document that has my address on it?
Any help would be appreciated, thank you!
In the case of a new PR (congrats!), the previous 5 years do not apply, because you are receiving your very first PR Card.
Before the card expires (usually valid for 5 years), you will need to apply to renew the card, but NOT your PR status; that status does not expire, but can be lost if you do not meet the R.O.. The renewal application is when you will need to provide `some level' of evidence that you have met the Residency Obligation (R.O.) to be eligible to renew your card. For this reason, I suggest that you carefully and accurately keep track of ALL exits/entries from/to Canada, because you will need to disclose each and every one of these in your renewal application!
I am not 100% certain, but would think that you can answer no to the question, because any days prior to May 12th of this year, are meaningless in terms of your R.O. for this first card.
As always, please wait for others to comment.
Last edited:
For a new PR IN Canada and checking "Obtain my first PR card," as the option that applies in item 1.1, whose date of landing (as stated in item 1.4 and readily verified by IRCC in the PR's GCMS records), is less than three years previous (will explain this part more below), the PR card application will easily sail through . . . just answer the questions straight-forwardly. There is a big reason why the processing timeline (as currently posted by IRCC) for applications to obtain the PR's FIRST PR card is just 30 days, compared to the 93 days for applications to renew or replace a card.
That reason, the reason for the difference in processing timelines, is that for PRs applying for their first PR card there is NO question about RO compliance. (With exceptions . . . none related to your situation.) The crux of processing the application is verification of identity, as the person who now has PR status, and address. Simple. Straight-forward.
So, RELAX, this is an easy one.
Further Observations/Explanations:
For any PR making a PR card application BEFORE the third year anniversary of the day they landed, there is NO need to worry about supporting documents that will show they "will be able" to meet the minimum 730 days RO within five years. Date of landing compared to the calendar is all the "proof" necessary. If there are more than 730 days left on the calendar, to the fifth year anniversary, that alone is enough to show the PR is able to meet the RO. That is, regardless how many (how few) days the PR has so far been in Canada, there are enough days left in the first five year time period for the PR to meet the RO.
After the third year anniversary of landing, when there are fewer than 730 days left on the calendar until the fifth year anniversary of landing (that is, the last day in the first five year time period), being able to show the PR is able to meet the RO depends in part on counting days IN Canada so far. As long as the total number of days IN Canada so far, plus number of days left on the calendar until the fifth year anniversary, totals at least 730, that shows the PR is able to meet the RO for the first five years.
The current (recently revised) checklist calls for the PR to submit at least two pieces of evidence that will "show residency" in Canada, as supporting documents. As you suggest, you can submit a copy of something with your address on it and, perhaps, a very short letter from a roommate stating you are sharing a residence with them. Just something so you can check off that item in the checklist. Again, since you are applying for your first PR card, and you have way more than two more years left until the end of your first five years after landing, there really is ZERO issue, NO concern, about RO compliance. OK to submit something that more or less technically allows you to checkoff this item in the checklist, and what it actually is (as long as it is not making any misrepresentation) should not matter.
Note: the timing and nature of your query, here and now, is fortuitous (and thus appreciated) in regards to the discussion between @Ponga and @armoured above, as it helps to illuminate the difference between . . . well, between "proof" and "proof," not all proof being proof, even if it warrants more weight, perhaps, than mere "evidence."
Collateral, Subject of Thread Observations (reflecting on previous posts here):
I am, perhaps, being too cute saying not all proof is proof, referring to the difference between "proof" and "proof." But I do this for a reason. Terms are very often not at all static. What they mean in regards to how they are practically applied can vary, and vary widely. Moreover, it is my strong impression that IRCC often employs, and deliberately so, broad, open-ended, and to some extent fungible terms . . . not to mention the extent to which there is more than a little casual, if not careless use of words as well at all levels, right up to Federal Court justices deciding immigration cases. See, for example, a very experienced FC justice, Justice Richard Mosley, in the 2020, in Arefian v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2020 FC 739, https://canlii.ca/t/j8mk5 decision, ruling on what he refers to as an application to renew a "PR visa" (which generally cannot be renewed) that is, for sure, an application for a PR card not a visa, a mix-up of terms often seen in this forum but given how different a "visa" is compared to a status card, in very important respects, this error illustrates situations in which it would be nonsense, not just dangerous, to quote and apply this FC decision as if it is about a "visa" application.
Example: Proof that a PR was in Canada this and that and another day, is proof of complying with the RO, but it is not proof in the sense it is not proof enough. It is proof. But not proof.
And employing different words (such as referring to "evidence" instead of "proof," reserving "proof" to refer to enough evidence to prove the matter) often fails to resolve the confusion rooted in imprecise, variable, even outright vague language. Note, for example, @armoured expresses dislike for IRCC's use of "proof" in its instructions, with good reasons as discussed, while @Ponga notes how unclear the instructions are in regards to providing "Supporting documents showing that you meet the residency obligation," likewise with good reasons as discussed.
Showing . . .
Proving . . .
A big part of the problem is that the instructions are intended to cover a very, very broad spectrum of circumstances. The language employed has to accommodate PRs in very different factual contexts.
Which brings this back round to the query posed by @reevgaj . . . and the checklist item that instructs the applicant to include:
[ ] Proof showing that you meet the residency obligation in the past five (5) years immediately before the application. Please refer to Appendix A of the instruction guide for a list of the documents required.
If interpreted literally, it might appear the first sentence has no application to a recently landed PR. But that's where what @armoured emphasized comes into play, referring to the Appendix, and emphasizing that the way to respond is more fully explained and instructed in the Appendix. Where it states, for someone who has been "a permanent resident for less than five (5) years . . . you must show that you will be able to meet the minimum of 730 days of physical presence in Canada within five (5) years of the date you became a permanent resident."
I can remember the first time I read this, or something very similar (it was a good long while ago), and much like @reevgaj initially thought wow, how does a PR prove they will "be able" to meet the RO?
No need to parse the language here. There is no doubt that all that means is that if the PR does not yet have RO credit for at least 730 days since landing, there are enough days left before the fifth year anniversary of landing for the PR to still meet the RO. But it sure could be read to be demanding more than that.
Context. Common-sense. And, yeah, confirmation illustrated by actual practice. So it is easier to address these questions relative to the individual situation. What is "proof," some will say, is in the eye of the beholder. It can and it will vary.
Is There a Monkey-wrench III?
To be clear, what the Appendix states in regards to someone who has been a PR for less than 5 years, is not exactly accurate. It states they must meet a "physical presence" RO. That's clearly not correct, or at least not entirely correct given the exceptions allowing credit, in certain circumstances, for days outside Canada.
That's why I referenced "credit" above in saying what the Appendix means: There is no doubt that all that means is that if the PR does not yet have RO credit for at least 730 days since landing, there are enough days left before the fifth year anniversary of landing for the PR to still meet the RO.
So, still, NO need to parse this language. It is easy enough to figure this out based on, again, Context, Common-sense, and enough experience with actual practice to confirm.
Can someone help me with my question on supporting documents for RO:
Supporting documents showing that you meet the residency obligation
I was landed In 2019. How many months of bank statements or CCB should be provided as supporting documents? I am confused as bank statement is on monthly basis. Do I need to show them from the month I landed till the current month?
Thanks in advance.
Supporting documents showing that you meet the residency obligation
- You must provide copies of 2 pieces of evidence that can show residency in Canada in the five (5) years immediately before the application, such as:
- employment records or pay stubs;
- bank statements;
- Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) Notice of Assessment for the five (5) years immediately before the application
- evidence that you received benefits from Canadian government programs;
- rental agreements;
- club memberships;
- or any other documents that prove you met your residency obligation.
I was landed In 2019. How many months of bank statements or CCB should be provided as supporting documents? I am confused as bank statement is on monthly basis. Do I need to show them from the month I landed till the current month?
Thanks in advance.
Literally bank statement from one month is one piece of evidence. It may be slightly better to include some other type of document, from slightly separate time period (eg NOA from Canada Revenue). But no, not every month.
PR since 2019. Applying for PR Renewal. Just completed everything on my online PR Renewal application except the supporting documents for RO. Based on above conversations and my understanding, could anyone help to answer do these satisfy?
SET 1
Evidence 1 : Pay Slip from June 2019
Evidence 2 : NOA 2022
SET 2
Evidence 1 : T4 2019
Evidence 2 : Bank Statement July 2023
Proceed with SET 1 or SET 2 ?
@armoured your thoughts will be really helpful!
SET 1
Evidence 1 : Pay Slip from June 2019
Evidence 2 : NOA 2022
SET 2
Evidence 1 : T4 2019
Evidence 2 : Bank Statement July 2023
Proceed with SET 1 or SET 2 ?
@armoured your thoughts will be really helpful!
Last edited:
I think either should be fine. Or just send the four docs. Up to you.