How is suggesting a bank statement, showing local activity, a distraction? Does it not at least show that it has more credence than a phone bill?
Again, the 'Residency Obligation' part of IRCC's inconsistent messaging leads me, personally, to suggest a single document (i.e. aforementioned bank statement) that not only shows a name and residential address (which a bank statement clearly would), but that also shows the person is actually `active' in the community, meaning they must be residing there.
The requirement for submitting supporting documents for a PR card application, by a PR who has not been outside Canada for more than 1095 days (since landing or, if after fifth year anniversary, within the previous five years) is simple and straight-forward. Even more so in the context here, a PR who meets the RO just based on the landing date and the calendar.
If you cannot see how challenging the use of a telephone bill in this scenario is a distraction, and how parsing the relative strength or weight or persuasiveness of different items of evidence showing the PR has been residing in Canada is overkill, review some of the other discussions about overthinking this requirement and, in particular, explanations for dismissing the need to worry about what will
PROVE Residency Obligation compliance, since all that is required is a couple items of evidence
SHOWING residency.
I get there is a tangent in this forum that insists on complicating the "
proof" aspect in regards to satisfying IRCC they meet the RO. UNFORTUNATELY. But only if IRCC or CBSA is questioning (challenging) the PR's report of travel history is there any need to even get close to navigating the weeds in regards to what is sufficient evidence, or "
proof," to meet the PR's burden of proving RO compliance on a balance of probabilities. Otherwise, the "proof" tangent is a distraction, and as too often addressed here misleading in a way that tends to cause totally unnecessary worry.
By the way, the language may be "
inconsistent" but absent overthinking it is nonetheless easily understood (but for too much overthinking diversion from forum participants who, frankly should know better). It is less inconsistent, for example, than that used for many years prior to 2022, when it referred to providing proof of the "
residency requirements."
In any event, to focus on the topic of this thread, and the inquiry posed here, @a nervous applicant really has NO need to be nervous about what is submitted as RO compliance supporting documents. Just about anything showing the address of their residence will easily suffice. No need to make this any more complicated than that.