Will providing CRA Notice of Assessment for the previous 5 years be sufficient enough to provide evidence? Because that will be 5 different documents (one Notice of Assessment for each year). Or will I need another kind as well such as bank statements?
@armoured gave a good, brief answer. But that very much depends on the assumption underlying that response: that you meet the Residency Obligation based on spending at least 730 days IN Canada within the relevant time period.
That should probably be sufficient. In fact, providing the first and last years' NOAs should meet what is listed in the instructions.
I'm assuming that you have more than 730 days in Canada and basically well in compliance with the RO, and it sounds like factually resident in Canada.
Yes.
There are, however, in addition to further observations, there are some additional caveats; see below. Which,
@MrJS,
you can probably ignore, and can for sure ignore if you have been settled and living in Canada for most of the last five years and easily meet the minimum presence for RO compliance.
Further Observations:
(most can ignore; this is more meta than the fairly simple query posed in this thread; much of this I am likely to repeat elsewhere)
Meanwhile, I have not seen any reliable or credible source or report that would support the statement by
@canuck78
You need NOA and one other form of record
Note that the instructions say to submit
two pieces of evidence. Not necessarily different kinds of evidence. Evidence as to different time periods may even be better than different kinds of records.
It warrants emphasizing that this evidence is submitted in order to make a complete application. Two pay stubs from different periods of time should clearly suffice
for this purpose. And probably would be better than, say, a pay stub and bank statement for the same month two or three years ago.
In particular, submitting two Notices of Assessment, for different years, or two pay stubs for different periods of time, or two bank statements for different months even, will almost certainly pass the completeness screening.
While I ordinarily steer clear of making recommendations, other than generalities (like "
tell the truth" and "
follow the instructions"), I would recommend submitting two different kinds of evidence, not because that is necessary, not because a PR will "
need" to do that, but because that reduces the risk a total stranger bureaucrat will have questions . . . noting, however, any such RISK will vary widely depending on the particulars. For example:
-- A PR who has been living in Canada for the past three plus years and regularly working in Canada during this time, would have near zero risk that submitting two Notices of Assessment, for different years, would invite any questions whatsoever.
-- In contrast, no advanced degrees in rocket science necessary to map the trajectory of risks if a PR who is cutting-it-close, who is making a PR card application while visiting Canada or having just recently relocated back to Canada from abroad, submits two pay stubs from consecutive weeks from more than two years ago.
For purposes of making a complete application, the latter will suffice. But it is easy to guess this might elevate the risk of non-routine processing and further inquiry into the PR's RO compliance.
Leading to the Caveats . . .
Addressing what suffices to make a complete application, an application that will not be returned to the PR because IRCC deems the application is not complete, is NOT the same as talking about whether IRCC will be satisfied the PR has met the RO and is otherwise entitled to a new PR card.
The latter is a far, far more complicated subject, very much tangled in a wide, wide range of factors and circumstances that vary a lot from one individual to another, one situation compared to another.
The plethora of queries and multitude of separate threads oriented to what a PR needs to submit with the PR card application (and PR TD applications as well, but these warrant noting distinctions related to the presumption the applicant does not have valid PR status), have made it clear there is a need to clearly distinguish, to separately address:
-- what evidence related to meeting the RO needs to be submitted with the PR card application, versus
-- what evidence would be sufficient to persuade IRCC officials the PR meets the Residency Obligation
Again, while the first of these is more or less about the formalities of making the application, literally including those things that warrant checking-off items on a checklist, the latter (evidence sufficient to persuade IRCC of RO compliance) is highly variable and a very broad subject embracing huge, HUGE differences depending on the individual's background, immigration history, travel history, work and address history, ties in Canada, ties outside Canada, and much more.
For now, here, I will just emphasize this difference, and acknowledge there is much that can be said about the latter but also acknowledge it is such a complex and variable subject that, to avoid confusion, is best addressed relative to more specific situations.
For now, here, perhaps it will help to note with emphasis the primary, definitive distinction: PRs who meet the RO based on days actually present in Canada versus those who do not (ranging from those whose RO compliance relies on credit for one of the exceptions, for which the "Residency Obligation" appendix in the guide sets out additional supporting documents that need to be submitted, to those who are relying on H&C relief).
Beyond that, for PRs who meet the RO based on days actually present in Canada, a key difference, perhaps the key difference, is whether or not there is something in the PR's situation that causes IRCC to have questions or concerns about the accuracy or completeness of the PR's reported travel history. When the PR's reported travel history shows RO compliance based on days present IN Canada, what matters is whether there is something in the application, or something IRCC is otherwise aware about (such as, but not limited to a discrepancy between the PR's reported travel history and CBSA records) that raises questions or concerns, is cause for doubt or outright skepticism, or otherwise demands further screening.
Absent circumstances causing concern: for a complete application raising no flags, the primary proof of RO compliance is the travel history, and that is generally sufficient.
In circumstances causing concerns: it gets complicated, but the PR will get an opportunity to submit additional evidence if and when IRCC is not satisfied based on the application as is.
Impact or Influence the Two Pieces of Evidence Has:
I cannot say for sure, but it seems very likely what the PR submits, as two pieces of evidence showing residency, is NOT likely to make a difference in whether IRCC otherwise has questions or concerns that trigger non-routine processing, except in a few, narrow circumstances. This is mostly about how two pieces of evidence are NOT likely to resolve questions or concerns, not likely to persuade IRCC to not proceed with non-routine processing. That is, other facts and circumstances will most likely have far more influence in whether a PR card application is referred to the local office for a more formal investigation of RO compliance, or referred for Secondary Review, than whatever pieces of evidence the PR has included with the application.
That said, just like any other information the PR submits to IRCC, if there is something raising a flag, of course this or that piece of evidence submitted with the application can, itself, invite questions, cause concerns. Especially if the evidence the PR submits is inconsistent with other information in the application or appears to be misleading. Without tangling in nuances, any evidence submitted as showing residency in Canada should, of course, be connected to a period of time the PR was actually, in fact, residing in Canada. A Canadian bank statement showing activity in Canada during a visit to Canada, for example, is probably misleading. Even though the information itself is truthful.
ALL of Which is FAR MORE WEEDY than should be necessary. This is addressing, two sides of what is largely the same coin: overthinking on one side, and parsing for the purpose of obfuscating on the other, to explain why these can be dismissed, ignored.
As I noted, @MrJS could easily go entirely with what @armoured stated and ignore all the rest of this, as can MOST PRs who are living in Canada and who meet the RO based on days IN Canada.
