I plan to submit bank statements and NOA. Does it mean I need to print and submit all possible bank statements during the five years? There will be too many. Bank statements are monthly.
NO! Just a couple (maybe a couple of years apart), meaning ONE recent NOA and ONE bank statement from a couple of years ago, or longer.I plan to submit bank statements and NOA. Does it mean I need to print and submit all possible bank statements during the five years? There will be too many. Bank statements are monthly.
You provide evidence of residing in Canada, as they ask, and no more. Don't worry about what constitutes proof.@Ponga Thanks a lot for your reply.
Although I landed long time ago, I continuously live in Canada for the recent two years and meet 730 days now. Should I just provide the earliest NOA (for 2021) and ealist bank statement (Jul 2021)? At Appendix A, it says the documents "prove you met your residency obligation. ". I am not sure how one NOA and one bank statement can prove this. Please kindly advise. Thanks.
I agree that the sentence is poorly written, and could be updated.@Ponga Thanks a lot for your reply.
Although I landed long time ago, I continuously live in Canada for the recent two years and meet 730 days now. Should I just provide the earliest NOA (for 2021) and ealist bank statement (Jul 2021)? At Appendix A, it says the documents "prove you met your residency obligation. ". I am not sure how one NOA and one bank statement can prove this. Please kindly advise. Thanks.
For the purpose of making a complete PR card application, for a PR who meets the Residency Obligation based on at least 730 days IN Canada in the relevant time period, the only supporting documents the PR needs to include with the application are two pieces of evidence showing residency in Canada during the relevant five year time period. If IRCC has concerns or questions, it will request more "proof" later.Although I landed long time ago, I continuously live in Canada for the recent two years and meet 730 days now. Should I just provide the earliest NOA (for 2021) and ealist bank statement (Jul 2021)? At Appendix A, it says the documents "prove you met your residency obligation. ". I am not sure how one NOA and one bank statement can prove this. Please kindly advise. Thanks.
Agree, with clarification to not worry about what constitutes proof for purposes of making the PR card application.You provide evidence of residing in Canada, as they ask, and no more. Don't worry about what constitutes proof.
There should be very little confusion about what the instructions specify. Like many, many terms, "proof" has different meanings and is used in different senses depending on the context. There seems to be a tendency among some to interpret or apply the term "proof" inconsistent with its context in IRCC information and instructions.I agree that the sentence is poorly written, and could be updated.
I, too, do not see how simply providing two `pieces' of evidence, translates in being proof that you have met the Residency Obligation, but apparently it (combined with their access to CBSA records), does.
Reminder: apart from providing, with the application, "proof" in the sense of what tends to prove (rather than what is sufficient to prove), PRs may be subject to procedures constituting a formal Residency Determination, pursuant to which "proof" in the sense of what is sufficient to prove the fact of RO compliance may be required.
Short form, if one has to clarify a simply concept with such detail and appeal to different dictionaries, the instructions are not clear, and not well written. On that @Ponga is undoubtedly correct: it IS poorly written. Instructions should not require detailed reading for the simple base case applicant, nor appeals to dictionary definitions (multiple definitions!) to understand them.one might be tempted to say, being a bit cheeky, circumstances in which the PR's "proof" (in the sense of that tending to establish a fact) is not "proof" (in the sense of what suffices to establish a fact).
I disagree. Rather emphatically actually.You are correct that one sense of the word 'proof' is that which tends to prove.
But there are dominant meanings of words, or if you prefer, nuances or implications that are very strongly felt by users of the language.
"Proof" is one of those. My understanding is that, for example, 'waterproof' is now strongly discouraged or even not allowed by the technical bodies that look into such things (at least in some areas, like watches) because ... almost nothing is entirely 'proof' against water (in sufficient pressure, basically). Proof has a very, very strong connotation of being sufficient, sealed against intrusion, unassailable and sufficient and complete, like a logical proof.
Therefore - sorry, but it's not semantics to say that using proof where you mean 'something that contributes to believing something' is actually NOT a good use of the word nor a clear way to write or communicate a requirement. 'Clear' means NOT introducing unnecessary ambiguity of interpretation, particularly where the consequences are potentially significant. The users here reading these different uses of 'proof' as meaning something more than IRCC seems to wish to imply are NOT wrong.
Clearly not easily understood, if it requires so much verbiage to explain it, and if so many do not find this version easily understood.Context matters. Here, in this context, the use of the term "proof" is easily understood.
Make no mistake, the verbiage aside, you got this right in other posts; for example: "You provide evidence of residing in Canada, as they ask, and no more. Don't worry about what constitutes proof."Clearly not easily understood, if it requires so much verbiage to explain it, and if so many do not find this version easily understood.
Which is a sign that it was poorly written.
It's a very recent change so you won't get many answers with exact experience.Not so sure exactly if this is the right thing to do?
Has anyone done the same thing and successfully renewed?