Ownership, property tax, NOA, driver license, plate registration, bank statement, credit card statement, utility bill, cell phone bill? Every month with one of the document showing name and address is enough or not?
What kind of document is the best to prove residency for secondary review?
- Thread starter bricksonly
- Start date
keesio
VIP Member
- May 16, 2012
- 396
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- CPP-O
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 09-01-2013
- Doc's Request.
- 09-07-2013
- AOR Received.
- 30-01-2013
- File Transfer...
- 11-02-2013
- Med's Done....
- 02-01-2013
- Interview........
- waived
- Passport Req..
- 12-07-2013
- VISA ISSUED...
- 15-08-2013
- LANDED..........
- 14-10-2013
If you work full-time for a company in Canada - getting a letter from your HR department that you have been employed full-time during the residency period is very helpful. Especially if it is a job that requires actual physical attendance (like working at a hospital as a nurse).
I didn't see doctor and was self employed. And I spent 6 month outside Canada evenly, every two to three months, back and forth. My family lived in Canada working and studying normally and we own a home in Canada. What's your suggestion?
How many days have you actually spent in Canada in the last 5 years?
You will need to show detailed entry and exit records backed up by passport stamps or other official records you can find relating to your travels and crossing the border. You'll need to show any evidence that you can to back up the days you claim you were in Canada. Having utility bills could help, but they don't actually prove that you were in Canada. I can rent an apartment and pay the utilities but never actually live there. Same with a cellphone, though you could perhaps use the call records to show that the phone was on the network during days that you were in Canada; but that still doesn't mean that you were (you could have given your phone to someone in Canada while you were away).
Have a read through this post: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/pr-card-expires-before-the-730-days-required.118357/page-16#post-5937151 by @dpenabill
You need to be able to make the case to IRCC that you were in Canada every day that you say you were.
Thanks. I have no this kind of document to support my stay in Canada. Can I use my wife and kid's record to support as they normally live in Canada? I was self employed and my major clients is not in Canada.
It's very sad that RO check turns to researching your everyday activity in Canada. And RO rules never say this. Even people without records of in-out cannot prove themselves in Canada everyday.
Yesterday, to my surprise, a ex-PR with all his family members Canadian living overseas lost his rights to even visit Canada, because he has to tight TIE with Canada to be a visitor, and too light TIE to be consider a reasonable real settlement to be a PR
But it's impossible to have no trace in Canada if you live here.
Detail cell phone bills and credit card usage. Visit to your doctor, your accountant and other professional services.
I am sure you can find something to proof your day to day physical presence.
Your wife's and children's records only show their lives in Canada. It will not help to proof yours.
Since you really do travel A LOT, I think it's harder to proof your exact number of days inside.
I believe I addressed this or a similar query previously.
No single type of documentation will suffice to prove presence in Canada.
For an applicant referred for Secondary Review, the scope of the examination typically is not focused on PR Residency Obligation compliance, but usually goes beyond that. In particular, few referred to SR appear to get requests for additional information and documentation. Some do, yes, but reports in this forum appear to indicate most face a long wait which suddenly ends, be that six months or a year or so later, and they are mailed a new PR card or notified to appear in person to pick up the PR card. (The latter will involve, at the least, what is called a "counter interview," which is not an extensive or thorough examination but there are questions aimed at verifying some information including as to compliance with the PR RO.)
If IRCC's concern is focused directly on compliance with the PR RO, rather than a referral for SR the applicant is sent a formal, more extensive residency questionnaire, a type of RQ specifically for PRs, or called in for an interview for the purpose of conducting a formal Residency Determination, or both. This is when the PR will need to submit proof of compliance with the PR RO, as in proof of days actually present in Canada.
Such a questionnaire has sometimes been sent to those referred to SR, so it can go that way. But if that happens, the PR gets the advantage of counting days in Canada in the meantime (at least in regards to a risk of losing status for breach of PR RO). And again, this does not appear to be the usual course.
For those sent the formal residency questionnaire: Proof of presence is largely rooted in proof of residency, but proof of residency (including address in Canada, tax filings, Canadian drivers license, membership in Canadian organizations, bank accounts in Canada, and such including evidence of immediate family residing in Canada) tends to be "passive" evidence and thus does not necessarily suffice. Best direct proof tends to be proof of employment involving being at a work site in Canada week in and week out.
BUT, if required (if issued the formal questionnaire) the applicant must provide a broad range of information and supporting documents, and all the information and evidence is weighed relatively, in context, each part in consideration of the other parts. The absence of documentation in one respect can raise questions overshadowing some of the proof provided. Gathering and submitting proof is NOT like collecting points.
Moreover, the PR's credibility looms as perhaps one of the most important factors. The same evidence submitted by one person may easily suffice, if IRCC perceives the PR to be a credible, reliable reporter of facts, BUT fail to be sufficient for another PR who IRCC approaches with skepticism over doubts about the PR's credibility.
It is in the latter regard that some gaps or omissions in the evidence can loom particularly large: if an IRCC processing agent gets the impression that the PR is evasive, such as not providing all relevant information, that can cause a real problem. It can be WAY more problematic to leave out information which is negative than to include the negative information.
In any event, what matters, IF REQUIRED to submit more proof than the documents to be included in the PR card application, is the WHOLE PICTURE, how all the information and evidence fit together. To rely on this or that particular documentation or evidence is a mistake . . . except, again, strong evidence of employment involving work at a particular location in Canada is good proof (unless IRCC has reason to be suspicious as to the accuracy of this information and documentation).
No single type of documentation will suffice to prove presence in Canada.
For an applicant referred for Secondary Review, the scope of the examination typically is not focused on PR Residency Obligation compliance, but usually goes beyond that. In particular, few referred to SR appear to get requests for additional information and documentation. Some do, yes, but reports in this forum appear to indicate most face a long wait which suddenly ends, be that six months or a year or so later, and they are mailed a new PR card or notified to appear in person to pick up the PR card. (The latter will involve, at the least, what is called a "counter interview," which is not an extensive or thorough examination but there are questions aimed at verifying some information including as to compliance with the PR RO.)
If IRCC's concern is focused directly on compliance with the PR RO, rather than a referral for SR the applicant is sent a formal, more extensive residency questionnaire, a type of RQ specifically for PRs, or called in for an interview for the purpose of conducting a formal Residency Determination, or both. This is when the PR will need to submit proof of compliance with the PR RO, as in proof of days actually present in Canada.
Such a questionnaire has sometimes been sent to those referred to SR, so it can go that way. But if that happens, the PR gets the advantage of counting days in Canada in the meantime (at least in regards to a risk of losing status for breach of PR RO). And again, this does not appear to be the usual course.
For those sent the formal residency questionnaire: Proof of presence is largely rooted in proof of residency, but proof of residency (including address in Canada, tax filings, Canadian drivers license, membership in Canadian organizations, bank accounts in Canada, and such including evidence of immediate family residing in Canada) tends to be "passive" evidence and thus does not necessarily suffice. Best direct proof tends to be proof of employment involving being at a work site in Canada week in and week out.
BUT, if required (if issued the formal questionnaire) the applicant must provide a broad range of information and supporting documents, and all the information and evidence is weighed relatively, in context, each part in consideration of the other parts. The absence of documentation in one respect can raise questions overshadowing some of the proof provided. Gathering and submitting proof is NOT like collecting points.
Moreover, the PR's credibility looms as perhaps one of the most important factors. The same evidence submitted by one person may easily suffice, if IRCC perceives the PR to be a credible, reliable reporter of facts, BUT fail to be sufficient for another PR who IRCC approaches with skepticism over doubts about the PR's credibility.
It is in the latter regard that some gaps or omissions in the evidence can loom particularly large: if an IRCC processing agent gets the impression that the PR is evasive, such as not providing all relevant information, that can cause a real problem. It can be WAY more problematic to leave out information which is negative than to include the negative information.
In any event, what matters, IF REQUIRED to submit more proof than the documents to be included in the PR card application, is the WHOLE PICTURE, how all the information and evidence fit together. To rely on this or that particular documentation or evidence is a mistake . . . except, again, strong evidence of employment involving work at a particular location in Canada is good proof (unless IRCC has reason to be suspicious as to the accuracy of this information and documentation).
Any chance your wife is Canadian citizen?
If so, you can just use a bank statement, showing the same address as proof.
It is a little more complicated than that. AND, moreover, the SR process itself is largely behind the curtain, confidential, non-transparent.
What we know about referrals for Secondary Review depends in large part on anecdotal reports compared to what we know about PR rights and obligations, and from reports about other procedures PRs encounter, such as being required to complete a formal questionnaire for purposes of making a Residency Determination (assessing compliance with the PR Residency Obligation).
Reports clearly indicate that PRs who make a PR card application when they are short of complying with the PR RO often are SOON required to complete the formal residency questionnaire. These PRs may be but usually are not referred for SR, but are fairly soon subject to a formal residency determination.
Some reports indicate that some PRs who make a PR card application asserting presence for 730+ days but do so in circumstances raising doubts about that claim are, similarly, SOON required to complete the formal residency questionnaire. Here too these PRs may be but usually are not referred for SR, but are fairly soon subject to a formal residency determination.
Otherwise, questions about compliance with the PR RO appears to be something which can, perhaps often does TRIGGER the referral for SR. And elevated scrutiny of PR RO compliance may be, and perhaps often is a focus of the SR process. Indeed, in the last several months there appears to be an increase in the number of reports from PRs referred for SR who are also being required to either complete a formal residency questionnaire or to at least provide additional information and documentation related to proof of PR RO compliance. A request for Entry/Exit records from other countries appears to be fairly common among those in this group.
It is nonetheless clear that SR often, probably usually, involves inquiry or investigation beyond the scope of merely verifying PR RO compliance. Possible misrepresentation appears to be among the most common aspects of SR inquiries or investigations. This is not merely about possible misrepresentation in the PR card application, but any past misrepresentation for the purpose of obtaining entry or status . . . thus, for example, prior records of representations made to PoE officials related to how much time the PR was abroad may be reviewed. The PR's original application for a PR visa may be reviewed.
Obviously, if the PR asserts (reports) actual presence in Canada for more than 730 days within the relevant five years BUT IRCC has questions or doubts about this, those doubts inherently involve some suspicion of misrepresentation, since IRCC is questioning the truthfulness of the PR's claim to be present 730+ days.
Additionally, in the past, CIC and IRCC often referred a PR card application for SR when it was perceived the PR is or might be living abroad.
Moreover, it is a safe guess that there will be a referral to SR if there are any security concerns about the PR. Thus, for example, if IRCC perceives that the PR has spent time recently in certain world hot spots, that could trigger the SR referral during which there might be an inquiry or investigatory referral to CSIS.
And, obviously, and probably quite often, it is a combination of factors which triggers the referral to SR, in which event there are probably multiple lines of inquiry. All behind closed doors. And presuming, for most PRs, there is no cause to deem the PR inadmissible, eight months to a year or so later the PR is given notice the application for a new card is approved and either in the mail or to be picked up in person.
BUT IF IRCC HAS UPFRONT CONCERNS ABOUT PR RO COMPLIANCE when a PR applies for a new PR card, that will most likely trigger the formal residency questionnaire, including a request for certain documents, such as full copies of all pages of all relevant passports, Entry/Exit records from certain countries, among other documents. My sense this would come SOON because IRCC probably wants to do the full-blown Residency Determination sooner rather than later, to do it without allowing months to pass which could add days to the calculation.