“Proof showing that you meet the residency obligation…” now mandatory?

[dpenabill]

This discussion is an important reminder: the IRCC website, including CURRENT guides and forms, should ALWAYS be the primary source consulted in regards to questions about making IRCC applications. And for sure checked again when actually submitting an application. Things change.

Have you guys noticed that the document checklist changed on June 7 and now it looks like everyone needs to include some sort of documents (2 pc) as a proof of meeting residency obligation in the past 5 years? They removed the “…if you were outside Canada for 1095 days or longer”.
this is for renewing your PR card.

am I reading it correctly That now it applies to everyone?

Did not notice. But YES, it is clear that the requirement to provide "copies of 2 pieces of evidence that can show residency in Canada" now applies to all applications for PR card or PR TD.

Your catching this and bringing it to the forum's attention is much appreciated.

Should NOT be a big deal. It just requires two pieces of evidence. A rather minimal requirement. The evidence submitted just needs to "show residency in Canada."

Note, for example, I have previously suggested including two such items with the application despite the checklist, and despite the conventional wisdom (with which I very much agree, but with exceptions, as here) that generally applicants should NOT submit additional, extra information or documents with applications. In particular, I suggested including such evidence even though I, among others, referenced the "if you were outside of Canada for 1095 days or more" condition in the checklist item for "Proof of residency requirements . . . ," in the previous checklist, and noted that meant those PRs whose travel history documented 730 or more days IN Canada did not need to include supporting documents, For example, I posted this in March:

That is: a PR who has spent more than 730 days in Canada within the relevant five years does NOT need to submit proof of residency IN Canada with an application for a PR card (but does with an application for a PR TD) as described in the appendix to the guide.

I have further elaborated what this means.

In retrospect, however, it is probably worth noting, with some emphasis, this is in regards to what is REQUIRED. The PR applying for a PR card might, nonetheless, choose to include "2 pieces of evidence that can show residency in Canada," as described in the appendix to the guide.

I generally agree with the consensus in this forum, and probably the conventional wisdom otherwise: answer what is asked and provide what is requested, no more . . . that is, it is usually better to not volunteer more.

But generalities are always haunted by exceptions. And, frankly, providing the evidence/proof described in the guide's appendix, under the heading "Supporting documents showing that you meet the residency obligation," should be very easy for any PR actually living in Canada. All the guide calls for is just 2 pieces of evidence. It should be easy for a PR to include, with the application, a copy of one Notice of Assessment plus a copy of a single page record from an employer (pay stub or such), for example, with allowances for choosing to include a different item based on the list in the appendix.

KEEP it SIMPLE. And it should be easy to do this, providing just 2 pieces of evidence and keeping it simple.

The checklist has been revised as of April 2023. It now clearly calls for an application for a PR card to include, at the least, the two items described in the Appendix to the Guide, which itself was revised just a couple days ago (June 7, 2023). Note too that the application itself was also revised as of March 2023. Current checklist is IMM 5644 (04-2023). Current PR card and PR TD application is IMM 5444 (03-2023).

How do I know now which documents are the best to use to prove my RO compliance ?

The request is for documents which "show" residency. Just two pieces of evidence. That's not a lot. My understanding of this is that they are asking for something that more or less definitively shows the PR has an actual life in Canada, something to show the PR was working in Canada, or had a place where the PR has been living in Canada, or at least showing the PR engaged in activities (banking, medical care, club participation) here. My sense, for one example, is that for many, perhaps even a majority, just a single pay stub plus rental agreement for any period of time within the five years would suffice.

UNLESS there is reason to question the PR's account of days present in Canada to a degree that would put the application into non-routine processing.

Which is to say that for some, perhaps many or even most PRs, just one pay stub and one bank statement will suffice. Just enough to demonstrably establish the PR has actual, real life ties to a life ("residency") in Canada.

For PRs cutting-it-close, including someone applying without actually having spent, yet, 730 days in Canada since landing, it would be prudent to provide more. A CRA Notice of Assessment (reflecting substantial employment in Canada) plus rental receipt (or property tax assessment) covering a significant period of time, for example, might be enough to avoid a referral to Secondary Review or even non-routine processing altogether.

What any particular PR should submit, what you should submit, is a personal judgment call. What is prudent will vary.

 

[dpenabill]

Observations regarding reason for change:

As to the reason for the change, internal IRCC communications illuminating this could probably be obtained through an ATI application.

But it is a change that makes total sense. There were significant problems with the previous versions of the forms and guide, as I noted last June (in thread titled PR card and PR TD applications -- NEW 2022 forms), when IRCC implemented new versions of the checklist, IMM 5644 (06-2022), and application, IMM 5444 (06-2022), soon replaced by IMM 5444 (08-2022).

And as was amply illustrated by the many queries about including supporting documents to show residency, and discussions about this, it was perplexing that only applicants outside Canada for 1095 or more days would need to provide such evidence.

I will address this more in-depth below.

I can't help but wonder why, unless CBSA records are no longer as important as they once were in supporting R.O. compliance.

Reminder: CBSA records have NEVER been important "in supporting R.O. compliance." They can be, however, very important in questioning claims of RO compliance. I recognize there can be some difficulty understanding the difference here, but the key is IRCC does not use, let alone rely on, CBSA travel history as proof the PR met the RO. It will use CBSA travel history to show the PR did not meet the RO, or to show the PR lacks credibility.

I am fairly sure you participated in conversations last year in which the role of CBSA Travel History was thoroughly discussed, including that CBSA Travel History is NOT a source for "supporting R.O. compliance." It is a source for cross-checking the accuracy and completeness of information the PR submits. Sure, the absence of discrepancies will, to some extent, support a PR's claim of RO compliance, but only to the extent it does not raise questions or concerns about the travel history provided by the PR.

Could this actually be a strategy from them to decrease processing times?

My interpretation - guess only - is that it is to decrease processing times, but from a more simple perspective - they looked at the number of files where they had to ask for additional information (akin to the proof they're asking for here) and hence resulted in big delays (screwing their numbers up), and some related measures (the number of files - let's call them border-line - where having such information / evidence would have made processing somewhat/much faster), and decided that it would indeed make sense.

Fair chance this is, at least partially, what finally motivated IRCC to make the change. My sense is the current version is more or less a correction, probably what was intended but poorly composed in last year's version.

But, again, this is a change that makes total sense. To my view this appears to be little more, if at all more, than a correction, fixing an error in the previous form. What I wonder is why it took so long to make this change.

It warrants noting with some emphasis just how badly worded the previous (June 2022) version of the checklist was. The item in question stated:

[ ] Proof of residency requirements if you were outside of Canada for 1095 days or more in the past five (5) years. Please refer to Appendix A of the instruction guide for a list of the documents required.​

Proof of the residency requirements? A copy of the statute? Would a citation to Section 28 IRPA be sufficient to prove what the residency requirements are? Why would a PR need to prove to IRCC what the residency requirements are? Yeah, I am being a bit snarky. A reasonable understanding of this checklist item, the only reasonable understanding, is that it asks for proof of meeting the residency requirements. But that is NOT what it actually says.

But that is what the April 2023 revised version specifically asks; it states:

[ ] 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.​

That is, it sure looks like the revision is merely correcting the language, to appropriately ask for proof of meeting the RO, and fixing a mistake (deleting the oddly included condition if you were outside of Canada for 1095 days or more).

And yeah, what I wonder is why it took a year to do this.

I submitted my PR application on 6th June just before this change. I am assuming, for me they will still go by old standards.

The Document Checklist was also updated today that corroborates this change.

As noted above, apparently the checklist was revised as of April; current checklist is IMM 5644 (04-2023)

I am not sure when the IRCC website was actually populated with the revised version. Leading to the post by @CanadianDreamer@TO, referring to submitting a PR application June 6 . . . before the change to the instruction guide . . . but not necessarily (not likely) before the change to the checklist. (Noting, as well, as I discuss below, not sure why @CanadianDreamer@TO would not have included proof of residency since, as I understand the situation, he was in fact outside Canada more than 1095 days in the previous five years.)

Wondering, @CanadianDreamer@TO, when you downloaded the checklist. Or, at least when did you last check the IRCC website for the most current form? There is sometimes a lag between the date a revised form is implemented and when the revised form is actually the one accessed at the IRCC website. But usually just days or a week or two, not more than a month. The current checklist was implemented in April, so it should have been the one at the website by the first of June. (I did not notice this change until pointed out by @Johny Bravo yesterday, so I do not know when it was the version on the IRCC website.)

Not much you can do now but wait to see how it goes. Not sure, but it is likely the worst case scenario is a request for additional documents. Which would mean non-routine processing and a delay in getting a new PR card, but given the facts in your situation (applying without having actually spent at least 730 days in Canada since landing) there was a significantly elevated risk of non-routine processing and a longer timeline anyway (as discussed at length in another topic).

Note: the previous understanding that supporting documents as to residency did not need to be submitted unless the PR was outside Canada more than 1095 days in the previous five years was based on wording in the checklist (as discussed above), NOT the instruction guide. So the fact the instruction guide was just revised June 7 is not significant regarding this.

Moreover, in your particular situation, unless I have overlooked something (such as presence in Canada in 2018 before you landed on August 10th), you were outside Canada for more than 1095 days in the past five (5) years . . . that is, as I have understood your situation, between June 6, 2018 and June 6, 2023, the previous five years, you have spent less than 700 days in Canada, so you must have been outside Canada more than 1095 days.

Reminder: most PR card applications are assessed and reviewed and decided right when they are opened, or at least decided within days or a week or so. Otherwise, there is some degree of non-routine processing involved. Which means some delay (or a lot if there is a referral for Secondary Review).

 

[CanadianDreamer@TO]

@dpenabill I have not yet completed the first 5 years since becoming PR and additionally I have not been outside Canada for more than 1095 days. I submitted the PR renewal online and the online checklist did not say about uploading the additional documents to prove residency when I submitted my application on June 6th.

 

[Ponga]

Reminder: CBSA records have NEVER been important "in supporting R.O. compliance." They can be, however, very important in questioning claims of RO compliance. I recognize there can be some difficulty understanding the difference here, but the key is IRCC does not use, let alone rely on, CBSA travel history as proof the PR met the RO. It will use CBSA travel history to show the PR did not meet the RO, or to show the PR lacks credibility.

I am fairly sure you participated in conversations last year in which the role of CBSA Travel History was thoroughly discussed, including that CBSA Travel History is NOT a source for "supporting R.O. compliance." It is a source for cross-checking the accuracy and completeness of information the PR submits. Sure, the absence of discrepancies will, to some extent, support a PR's claim of RO compliance, but only to the extent it does not raise questions or concerns about the travel history provided by the PR.

I do recall those conversations.

Prior to the recent change, the Guide said something along the lines of "If you have been in Canada for 1095 days or more in the past 5 years, you appear to have met the Residency Obligation.". Since no supporting documents were required, the only `evidence' that a PR was providing was their Travel History and perhaps consent for IRCC to cross check with CBSA. If that was really all that IRCC `needed', how was that data not highly valuable in approving the application for PR Card renewal?

 

[Johny Bravo]

Observations regarding reason for change:

As to the reason for the change, internal IRCC communications illuminating this could probably be obtained through an ATI application.

But it is a change that makes total sense. There were significant problems with the previous versions of the forms and guide, as I noted last June (in thread titled PR card and PR TD applications -- NEW 2022 forms), when IRCC implemented new versions of the checklist, IMM 5644 (06-2022), and application, IMM 5444 (06-2022), soon replaced by IMM 5444 (08-2022).

And as was amply illustrated by the many queries about including supporting documents to show residency, and discussions about this, it was perplexing that only applicants outside Canada for 1095 or more days would need to provide such evidence.

I will address this more in-depth below.



Reminder: CBSA records have NEVER been important "in supporting R.O. compliance." They can be, however, very important in questioning claims of RO compliance. I recognize there can be some difficulty understanding the difference here, but the key is IRCC does not use, let alone rely on, CBSA travel history as proof the PR met the RO. It will use CBSA travel history to show the PR did not meet the RO, or to show the PR lacks credibility.

I am fairly sure you participated in conversations last year in which the role of CBSA Travel History was thoroughly discussed, including that CBSA Travel History is NOT a source for "supporting R.O. compliance." It is a source for cross-checking the accuracy and completeness of information the PR submits. Sure, the absence of discrepancies will, to some extent, support a PR's claim of RO compliance, but only to the extent it does not raise questions or concerns about the travel history provided by the PR.





Fair chance this is, at least partially, what finally motivated IRCC to make the change. My sense is the current version is more or less a correction, probably what was intended but poorly composed in last year's version.

But, again, this is a change that makes total sense. To my view this appears to be little more, if at all more, than a correction, fixing an error in the previous form. What I wonder is why it took so long to make this change.

It warrants noting with some emphasis just how badly worded the previous (June 2022) version of the checklist was. The item in question stated:

[ ] Proof of residency requirements if you were outside of Canada for 1095 days or more in the past five (5) years. Please refer to Appendix A of the instruction guide for a list of the documents required.​

Proof of the residency requirements? A copy of the statute? Would a citation to Section 28 IRPA be sufficient to prove what the residency requirements are? Why would a PR need to prove to IRCC what the residency requirements are? Yeah, I am being a bit snarky. A reasonable understanding of this checklist item, the only reasonable understanding, is that it asks for proof of meeting the residency requirements. But that is NOT what it actually says.

But that is what the April 2023 revised version specifically asks; it states:

[ ] 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.​

That is, it sure looks like the revision is merely correcting the language, to appropriately ask for proof of meeting the RO, and fixing a mistake (deleting the oddly included condition if you were outside of Canada for 1095 days or more).

And yeah, what I wonder is why it took a year to do this.





As noted above, apparently the checklist was revised as of April; current checklist is IMM 5644 (04-2023)

I am not sure when the IRCC website was actually populated with the revised version. Leading to the post by @CanadianDreamer@TO, referring to submitting a PR application June 6 . . . before the change to the instruction guide . . . but not necessarily (not likely) before the change to the checklist. (Noting, as well, as I discuss below, not sure why @CanadianDreamer@TO would not have included proof of residency since, as I understand the situation, he was in fact outside Canada more than 1095 days in the previous five years.)

Wondering, @CanadianDreamer@TO, when you downloaded the checklist. Or, at least when did you last check the IRCC website for the most current form? There is sometimes a lag between the date a revised form is implemented and when the revised form is actually the one accessed at the IRCC website. But usually just days or a week or two, not more than a month. The current checklist was implemented in April, so it should have been the one at the website by the first of June. (I did not notice this change until pointed out by @Johny Bravo yesterday, so I do not know when it was the version on the IRCC website.)

Not much you can do now but wait to see how it goes. Not sure, but it is likely the worst case scenario is a request for additional documents. Which would mean non-routine processing and a delay in getting a new PR card, but given the facts in your situation (applying without having actually spent at least 730 days in Canada since landing) there was a significantly elevated risk of non-routine processing and a longer timeline anyway (as discussed at length in another topic).

Note: the previous understanding that supporting documents as to residency did not need to be submitted unless the PR was outside Canada more than 1095 days in the previous five years was based on wording in the checklist (as discussed above), NOT the instruction guide. So the fact the instruction guide was just revised June 7 is not significant regarding this.

Moreover, in your particular situation, unless I have overlooked something (such as presence in Canada in 2018 before you landed on August 10th), you were outside Canada for more than 1095 days in the past five (5) years . . . that is, as I have understood your situation, between June 6, 2018 and June 6, 2023, the previous five years, you have spent less than 700 days in Canada, so you must have been outside Canada more than 1095 days.

Reminder: most PR card applications are assessed and reviewed and decided right when they are opened, or at least decided within days or a week or so. Otherwise, there is some degree of non-routine processing involved. Which means some delay (or a lot if there is a referral for Secondary Review).

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I have 275 days of absence in the past 5 years (family matter back home), but I worked in Canada the entire 5 years for one company (I was allowed to work remotely during the few months back home).
I’m thinking of submitting my employment letter and rental agreement. Should I mail the whole rental contract? There is maybe 15 pages in total. What’s your opinion?

 

[Ponga]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I have 275 days of absence in the past 5 years (family matter back home), but I worked in Canada the entire 5 years for one company (I was allowed to work remotely during the few months back home).
I’m thinking of submitting my employment letter and rental agreement. Should I mail the whole rental contract? There is maybe 15 pages in total. What’s your opinion?

Although the ask is for evidence of the 5 years prior to submitting the application, that you have met the Residency Requirement, you may only need to show 2 years of evidence, in terms of your proposed documents, since you need proof of 730 days or more, not 1825 days.

 

[medwiz]

Thank you @dpenabill as always for your very detailed thoughts and comments... crazy to think that the only reason for this change was an overdue correction in the wording of the checklist
..we love you IRCC

I recently sent out my paper application for PR card renewal on May 4, 2023 (just after the strike was over) and I can say for certain that at that time the older version of the checklist was the current one on Thier website...I was checking before I sent out the application and I even had a couple of looks after I mailed it just to be safe......So for me personally it's a bit annoying to see the revised date of April on the checklist..but it's dosnt matter essentially we all know IRCC can request any documents at any time anyways...I comfortably meet the RO and can prove it anytime they want..

 

[dpenabill]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I have 275 days of absence in the past 5 years (family matter back home), but I worked in Canada the entire 5 years for one company (I was allowed to work remotely during the few months back home).
I’m thinking of submitting my employment letter and rental agreement. Should I mail the whole rental contract? There is maybe 15 pages in total. What’s your opinion?

I am not qualified to offer personal advice. But given what you describe, I can see no cause to sweat this at all. One Notice of Assessment or, as you suggest a letter from the employer as to your employment, plus a rent receipt or one bank statement.

Not all PR card applicants are equal.

Although the ask is for evidence of the 5 years prior to submitting the application, that you have met the Residency Requirement, you may only need to show 2 years of evidence, in terms of your proposed documents, since you need proof of 730 days or more, not 1825 days.

It warrants distinguishing what is sufficient for properly making the application versus what might be required if IRCC questions the PR's calculation of compliance.

Many, perhaps most PRs who are not cutting-it-close, are probably fine submitting just two pieces of evidence that will "show residency" in Canada. Not a lot necessary. Way less than what will directly support two years of presence. Rather, what is sufficient to show the PR was in fact residing in Canada during (as in sometime during) the relevant five years.

Note, in particular, the checklist does NOT ask for evidence of presence or residency FOR five years, but evidence the PR meets the RO in (during) the past five years. But what IRCC wants, in this regard (as the checklist references) is more specifically described in the appendix, and again that refers to providing just "copies of 2 pieces of evidence that can show residency in Canada" during the previous five years (more required for PRs relying on credit for days outside Canada).

So, a PR who has spent well over 1100 or 1200 days in Canada, for example, and who has been regularly employed in Canada, should be comfortable just submitting copies of two pieces of evidence, something to show they had a job in Canada, and one more to show where they lived or that they engaged in activity in Canada typical of someone residing in Canada . . . no need to submit proof covering any particular period of time, let alone extended periods of time, just enough to show a residency-tie in Canada.

Some will likely want to provide more than that. For some, in particular those cutting-it-close, among others who have reason to anticipate (if they can look at their case objectively) IRCC might have concerns about the number of days they report being in Canada, it would obviously be prudent to provide more than that. Someone in circumstances akin to those in the situation for @CanadianDreamer@TO, for example, will likely want to do more than what meets the minimum to make a complete application, submitting stronger evidence with the hope they submit enough to assuage any concerns IRCC might have that could trigger RQ-related non-routine processing.

RQ Proof in contrast:

IRCC can ask for more information, and in some cases it will make a request for more proof the PR met the RO. Even these are not equivalent. Many times a request for more information is about specifically verifying certain information. And in response, the PR needs to provide what IRCC specifically asks for. No more.

But if and when IRCC is questioning, more or less overtly challenging, the PR's account of days in Canada, and thus IRCC makes a more or less full blown RQ request, that is effectively requiring the PR prove their presence in Canada. This sometimes happens when a PR card application is referred to a local office to investigate RO compliance, and the local office sends some version of RQ to the PR; it is also what the PR needs to present if an internal IRCC office prepares a 44(1) Report for inadmissibility based on RO non-compliance.

NOTE: in these cases, the PR will need to submit proof covering ALL the time they claimed (in their travel history) to have been in Canada. Proof covering 730 days may NOT be enough if IRCC concludes the gap between claimed presence and the presence the PR's evidence purportedly proves so compromises the PR's credibility that what evidence of presence for 730 days the PR has submitted is not sufficient to meet the PR's burden to prove compliance.

I do recall those conversations.

Prior to the recent change, the Guide said something along the lines of "If you have been in Canada for 1095 days or more in the past 5 years, you appear to have met the Residency Obligation.". Since no supporting documents were required, the only `evidence' that a PR was providing was their Travel History and perhaps consent for IRCC to cross check with CBSA. If that was really all that IRCC `needed', how was that data not highly valuable in approving the application for PR Card renewal?

Like the current version IMM (03-2023), the previous version of the PR card application, IMM 5444 (08-2022) calculated days outside Canada based on the travel history populated by the applicant, and totals the time spent outside Canada, and the time spent outside Canada for one of the reasons pursuant to which credit toward the RO applies. Both include a note in this part of the application stating "If your total time spent outside Canada is less than 1095 days, you appear to meet the residency requirements." And also state "If your total time spent outside Canada (excluding [reasons for which RO credit applies]), you may not meet the residency requirements."

I do not recall the language you reference in the guide, even if you meant to say "in Canada for 730 or more days," or "outside Canada for less than 1095 days," as I suspect you meant (reference to "in Canada for 1095 days" makes little sense outside citizenship application context). And I suspect you are recalling the language I reference above in the application form itself.

In any event, the note I reference in the application is based on the applicant's reported travel history. It is clear that the reference to it "appears" here is contingent on the accuracy and completeness of the information the PR has put in the travel history. And, indeed, if the PR's information is accurate and complete, and it shows either 730 days in Canada or less than 1095 days outside Canada, the PR is in fact in RO compliance.

" . . . the only `evidence' that a PR was providing was their Travel History and perhaps consent for IRCC to cross check with CBSA. If that was really all that IRCC `needed', how was that data not highly valuable in approving the application for PR Card renewal?"​

That's not all IRCC needed. Not close. But the applicant's reported travel history as cross-checked against CBSA travel history, to identify omissions and inaccuracies in what the PR reported, is indeed a lot. If the CBSA travel history is fully consistent with the PR's reported travel history, that gives the PR's accounting a great deal of weight. In contrast, if there are discrepancies or omissions, depending on what they are, and how many there are, that's when red flags fly.

Remember, the PR's information is submitted essentially equivalent to statements made under oath, with severe consequences for misrepresentation, and potentially criminal consequences. So it alone is entitled to substantial weight as proof. But the travel history itself, even if there are no discrepancies based on the CBSA records, is not enough for it to be accepted and relied on . . . not EVEN for just the purpose of making a proper application. After all the PR must submit a complete address and work history, covering not just the periods of time IN Canada, but the full relevant five years (or at least since landing). All of which is plenty of information for IRCC to assess whether it needs more information to evaluate the credibility of the PR and the accuracy of the PR's travel history.

So yes, of course, the CBSA travel history data is "highly valuable in approving the application for PR Card renewal," to the extent it does not reveal omissions or inaccuracies in what the PR reports. It is not used as direct evidence of presence. It is used to identify reason to question or doubt the PR's travel history. As I said before (and many times, in many threads), CBSA records are a source for cross-checking the accuracy and completeness of information the PR submits (along with whatever other cross-checks IRCC does, including comparing information in address and work history).

The significance of this distinction shows up more prominently if and when RQ-related non-routine processing is involved. CBSA records are not like an employer's records showing a PR showed up at a workplace in Ontario for 100 plus weeks, which would be positive, direct evidence of presence, that is supporting evidence to prove the PR was present a certain period of time, showing RO compliance. That's not how it is used.

 

[dpenabill]

@dpenabill I have not yet completed the first 5 years since becoming PR and additionally I have not been outside Canada for more than 1095 days. I submitted the PR renewal online and the online checklist did not say about uploading the additional documents to prove residency when I submitted my application on June 6th.

Even if the checklist for the online application was still the previous version (implemented in June 2022), it stated:

[ ] Proof of residency requirements if you were outside of Canada for 1095 days or more in the past five (5) years. Please refer to Appendix A of the instruction guide for a list of the documents required.​

Applying this to your situation:

"I have not been outside Canada for more than 1095 days."​

I am going to be picky. You are an adult. You just obtained PR status in 2018. I am very certain you have indeed been outside Canada for far, far more than 1095 days.

But the question is whether or not you have been outside Canada for more than 1095 days in the past five years, that is between June 6, 2018 and June 6, 2023 (day PR card application was made).

You have clearly indicated that since your landing (Aug 10, 2018) you have been in Canada fewer than 700 days, so unless you were in Canada more than 30 days between June 6, 2018 and August 9, 2018, enough more to add up to a total of 730 or more days in Canada between June 6, 2018 and June 6, 2023, I do not follow why you say you "have not been outside Canada for more than 1095 days."

I understand that you have not been outside Canada more than 1095 days since the date of your landing. That means you are in compliance with the RO. But the checklist references the past five years. It does NOT refer to just days outside Canada since landing.

I do not know, and indeed I cannot even guess, if your application might not be accepted for being incomplete, or if there will be a request for additional documents. My best guess, just a guess, worst case scenario is a request for additional information or a referral to Secondary Review, or both; either of which are non-routine processing which will delay getting a new card. As I previously noted, not much you can do now but wait to see how it goes.

 

[Ponga]

You have clearly indicated that since your landing (Aug 10, 2018) you have been in Canada fewer than 700 days, so unless you were in Canada more than 30 days between June 6, 2018 and August 9, 2018, enough more to add up to a total of 730 or more days in Canada between June 6, 2018 and June 6, 2023, I do not follow why you say you "have not been outside Canada for more than 1095 days."

So, you're saying that days spent in Canada, before landing as a PR would count towards the R.O., or have I confused myself yet again?!

 

[armoured]

are probably fine submitting just two pieces of evidence that will "show residency" in Canada. Not a lot necessary. Way less than what will directly support two years of presence. Rather, what is sufficient to show the PR was in fact residing in Canada during (as in sometime during) the relevant five years.

I think this is the crux of what applicants will face - uncertainty in understanding whether they are supposed to provide (i) evidence they did reside in Canada during the period in question, some of the time, and necessarily only evidence of some subset; vs.,

(ii) evidence (or 'proof') that they resided for all the dates during that period in which they were physically present (with start and end dates and the days in between).

I take your argument and agree with you that (i) is likely what is meant, but it's going to drive applicants batty until there's enough experience to believe/know that it really is just that.

(ii) is so much more challenging and will be hard for most to do. I mean, it'd be hard to do that for people who actually are in full time residence with no travel.

It makes sense to me. (ii) is basically not practical. But man, eveyrone's going to worry until they see how this plays out.

 

[CanadianDreamer@TO]

So, you're saying that days spent in Canada, before landing as a PR would count towards the R.O., or have I confused myself yet again?!

I visited Canada for the first time as a landed PR on Aug 10th 2018. I could not have spent any time in Canada between June 6, 2018 and August 9, 2018 since I did not have any any kind of Canada Visa (PR, Visitor or any other).

 

[armoured]

I visited Canada for the first time as a landed PR on Aug 10th 2018. I could not have spent any time in Canada between June 6, 2018 and August 9, 2018 since I did not have any any kind of Canada Visa (PR, Visitor or any other).

It's really not clear to me what question you're asking.

If you submitted before the change in form, their wont' be any problem. They know about this. (I believe they usually allow some 'overlap' about people using old forms as it seems to take time for their own servers to propagate the new forms).

Of course you don't have to show you were resident in Canada before your first landing. You account for only the period since you landed. Yes, the forms are rather unclear about this. I believe the assumption is that most will be applying for a new card only after the first five years have passed - a mistaken assumption but you can understand why. They'd frankly kind-of sort-of prefer that PR renewals weren't really necessary (the proverbial PITA because all this checking needs to be done) and not super-incentivized to make it much easier or smoother (plus the law puts certain requirements they can't get around).

I mean really - they kind of want everyone to settle permanently and apply for and get citizenship in the first five years. Not that that is entirely realistic, but if you consider that their 'model' of how things should work - and what it's optimized for - then it starts to make a bit more sense that it doesn't address other scenarios quite so well.

Anyway: it seems to me you're overthinking. Of course you don't need to prove residency before your day of landing. Of course a file submitted acc to instructions-in-force at the time is fine.

 

[CanadianDreamer@TO]

It's really not clear to me what question you're asking.

If you submitted before the change in form, their wont' be any problem. They know about this. (I believe they usually allow some 'overlap' about people using old forms as it seems to take time for their own servers to propagate the new forms).

Of course you don't have to show you were resident in Canada before your first landing. You account for only the period since you landed. Yes, the forms are rather unclear about this. I believe the assumption is that most will be applying for a new card only after the first five years have passed - a mistaken assumption but you can understand why. They'd frankly kind-of sort-of prefer that PR renewals weren't really necessary (the proverbial PITA because all this checking needs to be done) and not super-incentivized to make it much easier or smoother (plus the law puts certain requirements they can't get around).

I mean really - they kind of want everyone to settle permanently and apply for and get citizenship in the first five years. Not that that is entirely realistic, but if you consider that their 'model' of how things should work - and what it's optimized for - then it starts to make a bit more sense that it doesn't address other scenarios quite so well.

Anyway: it seems to me you're overthinking. Of course you don't need to prove residency before your day of landing. Of course a file submitted acc to instructions-in-force at the time is fine.

sorry my reply was to @dpenabill. What I mean to say is that past 5 years should not be applicable to me since I became a PR less than five years ago.

 

[armoured]

sorry my reply was to @dpenabill. What I mean to say is that past 5 years should not be applicable to me since I became a PR less than five years ago.

Ah, mea culpa.