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

[dpenabill]

Note: talk about "mea culpa" . . . an important "mea culpa" . . . it is clear that prior to seeing this recent revision I misunderstood the "proof of residency" item in the 2022 version of the checklist. That is, seems very likely that IRCC intended for ALL PR card applicants to include at least two pieces of evidence as proof of meeting the RO.

Did I mention I am NO expert? I think so.

I have excuses. I usually do . . . perhaps due to having lived in the U.S. so long (what was I thinking) and acquiring bad habits, brain damage even (anyone notice all the WTF stuff that goes on down there, especially lately), or perhaps that too is just one more excuse. May take some time but I will address this mistake of mine more fully in a subsequent post . . . I really do have excuses this time, as in looking at what the checklist literally stated.

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).

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.

Maybe that's how it SHOULD have worked. Maybe. But that is NOT what the 2022 version of the checklist instructs.

Maybe that is even how IRCC intended it should work. Similarly to items 4.1 and 4.2 in the PR card application form (both previous and current versions), in regards to address history and work history, respectively. And item 5.5 in the application where the PR reports absences.

All three of those instruct the PR/applicant to provide the information (address, work, and absences, respectively) for "the past five years or since becoming a PR if less than five years ago."

That is NOT what the proof of residency compliance item in the checklist instructs in the 2022 version (nor the current version).

To be clear, reading what it says (not interpreting it based on how it "should" work, but looking at what it actually says), the 2022 version of the checklist instructs the PR card applicant to provide proof "if you were outside of Canada for 1095 days or more in the past five (5) years."

It does NOT instruct the applicant to provide proof "if you were outside of Canada for 1095 days or more in the past five (5) years or since becoming a PR if less than five years ago." It only refers to those outside Canada for 1095 or more days In the Past Five Years.

Again, it might indeed be that the checklist item, despite what it actually instructs, intended to apply to applicants who became PRs less than five years previous only if they were outside Canada for 1095 or more days since becoming a PR. That may have been what was intended. As I discussed above (and a year ago as well), the summer 2022 versions of the forms were poorly composed, including this particular item . . . amply illustrated by how many queries rooted in confusion it generated here over the course of the last year. And, indeed, to make any sense of this item, even, it was necessary to interpret it meant to provide proof of meeting the RO despite that is not what it literally said (see my previous posts for explanation).

However, in the 2022 version, it is also possible, and given the recent revision it seems very likely, that IRCC intended that ALL applicants provide at least two pieces of evidence to show residency in Canada. And that is indeed how many, many understood it, and thus posed queries in this forum about what evidence they needed to submit, what would suffice. (Will comment about this a later post.)

Again, I do NOT KNOW how IRCC will handle your particular application. It is possible the application will be returned as incomplete, although I don't think this is likely. It is possible the application will sail through with no problem and a new PR card approved and issued within the routine processing timeline, and there is probably at least a good chance this will be how it goes. But given the extent to which you are, in regards to RO compliance, cutting-it-close (so far living outside Canada far more than in Canada since becoming a PR, and applying for a new PR card relying on credit for future days, that is without having yet spent 730 days in Canada since landing), even if IRCC takes no note of the fact that 2 pieces of evidence showing residency in Canada were not included, there is at the least an elevated risk of non-routine processing anyway.

To be clear, your PR status is NOT at stake. You are in RO compliance. You should be approved for and issued a new PR card. (Reminder: of course this is contingent on not leaving Canada for a period of time that would result in failing to meet the RO.) This is more about the risk of non-routine processing, be that a request for additional information or a referral to Secondary Review (the latter tends to delay being approved for a new card for many months).

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?!

No. That is not what I was saying.

I was referring to the conditional for triggering the need to provide proof with the PR card application under the 2022 version of the checklist, which is "if you were outside of Canada for 1095 days or more in the past five (5) years."

While Canadian Dreamer @TO is in RO compliance, since he has not been outside Canada more than 1095 days since becoming a PR, for purposes of what the checklist instructs, at least literally, it appears he was in fact outside Canada for more than 1095 days prior to making the PR card application on June 6th. Just counting days during the five years prior to making the application for a PR card.

Additionally, as noted above, I now realize that the 2022 Version Most Likely Intended that All Applicants Provide at Least Two Pieces of Evidence to Show Residency in Canada.

To be addressed (and some comments responding to observations by @armoured) in a later post . . . when I have time.

 

[dpenabill]

Further observations in regards to an important "mea culpa" . . . prior to seeing the recent revision of the checklist it appears I misunderstood the "proof of residency" item in the 2022 version. That is, it seems very likely that IRCC meant, in that version, for ALL PR card applicants to include at least two pieces of evidence as proof of meeting the RO.

I have excuses. As the guilty, caught in the act, are inclined to say, I can explain. With the caveat, which should be rather obvious at this point, I am NOT an expert (which I may have mentioned a time or three).

As noted here, in response to the recent revisions, and noted last summer when the 2022 versions were implemented, the 2022 versions of forms for PR card and PR TD applications were, at the least, problematic. The application form was such a mess that IRCC had to issue a new version in less than two months (replacing the 06-2022 version with the 08-2022 version) . . . and both unsatisfactory, at the least to the extent that new versions have just recently been implemented despite no relevant changes in the law or rules in the meantime. (Regarding which one must wonder why it took so long.)

In particular, as I discussed in posts in this particular thread, above, in regards to the 2022 version of the checklist and the item which could only be reasonably understood to be about providing proof of meeting the RO, it was poorly composed and if interpreted literally did not make sense (see earlier discussion about this). This particular item in the checklist spawned numerous topics in this forum revolving around scores of confused and concerned queries about what it meant, what it required.

Many, if not most of the queries about submitting proof of meeting the RO were based on an understanding that all applicants needed to submit some proof, and the questions were nearly all focused on what proof and how much.

In contrast, I and a number of others here interpreted the conditional in the instruction, the reference to "IF" the PR was outside Canada more than 1095 days, to mean proof only needed to be provided for those who had been outside Canada more than 1095 days, and thus applied to those who needed to submit the documents showing they qualified for one of the credits allowed for time outside Canada, as addressed in detail in the Appendix to the instruction guide.

Given the recent revision, and looking at the 2022 version anew, it seems likely, that IRCC intended that ALL applicants provide at least two pieces of evidence to show residency in Canada. Which, again, is indeed how many, many understood it, and thus they posed queries in this forum about what evidence would suffice. It is likely they were on the right path.

So, talk about mea culpa, and mistakes I have made, examples which amply illustrate I am NO expert, now looking at the 2022 version of the checklist again, with eyes wide open one might say, it is obvious that the first four items listed, including the "proof of residency" item, refer to what ALL PR card and PR TD applicants are instructed to include. It is easy to see now that it was almost certainly an error to interpret the "if outside Canada" conditional to except/exclude some (which is probably most PR card applicants) from the need to provide at least two pieces of evidence showing residency.

Claiming excuses . . . There was plenty of reason to interpret this the way I and more than a few others did (noting though many others interpreted it otherwise, closer to what was probably intended). After all, the item itself very clearly included a condition, it instructed applicants to provide proof IF outside Canada 1095 days or more.

But it appears, and very likely so, that was not what IRCC intended. I, and some others, misunderstood. (I hope few who relied on my interpretation suffered much inconvenience as a result.)

The Excuses . . .

At the top, the literal language of the checklist, listing proof to include IF outside Canada 1095 days or more.

Which made some sense. Distinguishing those outside Canada more than 1095 days made some sense given the more complex elements involved in meeting the RO for those who were outside Canada for more than 1095 days and relying on the RO exceptions allowing credit for days outside Canada in very specific circumstances. (Outside Canada for reasons "A," "B," or "C," as described in the application form.) It made sense that those applicants would be the one's referred to the Appendix and required to provide the supporting documents described there, particularly those documents which would show they qualify for such credits.

Additionally, and a big part of why I accepted the conditional in the 2022 version, on its face, and concurred in the view that supporting documents showing residency were not required unless the PR was outside Canada more than 1095 days, was the 2022 version had a separate item for PR TD applications which simply stated:

[ ] Copies of supporting documents that show you meet the residency obligation. See Residency obligation section of the Instruction Guide (IMM 5529).​

Since PRs abroad without a valid PR card, applying for a PR TD, are PRESUMED to not have valid PR status, a different approach for PR card applicants versus PR TD applicants made sense. That PRs applying for a PR TD would need to submit more proof than PRs IN Canada meeting the RO based on actual presence in Canada (not outside Canada for more than 1095 days) makes sense.

Moreover, why include this item, for PR TD applicants, if the checklist already had an item requiring ALL applicants to provide proof of residency (as described in the Appendix)? If the item listed second in the checklist already required ALL PR card and PR TD applicants to check off they included supporting documents as to proof of RO compliance, it would make no sense, it would be totally redundant, to require PR TD applicants to check this off a second time.

Among the recent revisions, the latter has been removed from the current 04-2023 version of the checklist . . . now there is just the one checklist item for proof of RO compliance, covering both PR card and PR TD applications, stating:

[ ] 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.​

In addition to all that, there was the way the checklist was organized, the structure of boxes and headings, which does not make it all that clear that the first four items prescribe what all applicants must include. As I noted above, in RETROSPECT, it is clear NOW that the first four items listed prescribe what needed to be included in ALL PR card applications. But given the literal "IF" condition in conjunction with the other reasons I reference above, which support the literal interpretation of that "IF" conditional, the organization of the checklist was not enough to make this anywhere near clear then.

All That Said . . . interpreting it the way I did, and more than a few others did as well, was a MISTAKE. Again, mea culpa. I knew the form was poorly composed. I knew that a literal interpretation of this item, in particular, did NOT make sense. I knew, for example, that it was not instructing applicants to submit proof of the "residency requirements" but was asking for proof of MEETING the RO.

And I cannot deny that being asked to include just two pieces of evidence to show residency in Canada made sense, actually made more sense. I had, after all, suggested that applicants include this minimal supporting evidence anyway (and did so acknowledging the conventional wisdom to not include extra items not requested).

MEANWHILE . . . it demands repeating, with emphasis, that this change makes sense, good sense, and that it should NOT pose a problem for the vast majority of PR card applicants. It is clear that to make a complete application (thus one that will be processed, not returned), for PRs who meet the RO based on days present IN Canada, ONLY two pieces of evidence showing residency in Canada needs to be included with the application. That's not a lot. That's not an onerous requirement. There really should be little or NO concern about this for most PRs in compliance with the RO and making a PR card application.

The caveat: most PRs in RO compliance, even most by a substantial margin, does not include all PRs in RO compliance. Not close. I acknowledge the concerns noted by @armoured, that many will still face significant uncertainty about what they should include. That demands further discussion.

 

[dpenabill]

An Overall Observation (with some repetition, for clarity as well as emphasis):

The changes made in the revised forms, including the checklist, MAKE SENSE. They make good sense. The revised versions are considerably better than the 2022 versions.

There are still issues. The checklist is still vague in some respects. I recognize and largely concur in the concerns expressed by @armoured, as to the "uncertainty" many PRs are likely to face regarding what evidence should be included with their application.

HOWEVER, there really should be little or NO concern for most PRs in compliance with the RO and making a PR card application based on actual presence in Canada. All they need to provide with the PR card application, in regards to proof of meeting the RO, is just two pieces of evidence showing residency in Canada. That really is NOT much. That should not be at all difficult for any PR who is living in Canada and who has been living in Canada for at least two years.

"Most PRs in RO compliance," as previously noted, does not include all PRs in RO compliance. Not close. Again, I acknowledge that many will face significant uncertainty about what they should include. But where I disagree a bit with @armoured is that "everyone's going to worry until they see how this plays out." At the least, again for the majority, and I'd suggest a large majority, there should be little or no concern . . . just two pieces of evidence that "show residency" in Canada, and this does not even need to cover an extended period of time, just something to show the PR has had residency in Canada.

In particular, for PRs who are applying for a PR card (in contrast to applying for a PR TD), who are settled and living IN Canada, and continuing to live in Canada after applying (allowing for some travel abroad, but not relocating abroad for an extended time), and who meet the RO based on days actually present in Canada, their application is complete if they provide just two pieces of evidence (a pay stub plus some document showing they rent a residence for example), and there is near zero risk, no practical risk, the PR card application might trigger inadmissibility proceedings. And unless there is something about their case that triggers concerns, the risk of non-routine processing questioning their RO compliance should be LOW, and for many VERY LOW.

SUMMARY . . . for PRs who are living in Canada, who have lived in Canada for more than two years, RELAX. Copy of one pay stub (showing employment in Canada) and one bank statement (showing address and banking activity in Canada) will suffice to make a complete application (as one example), and unless there is something potentially raising questions (cutting-it-close for example; or relocating outside Canada after applying) this should be sufficient for IRCC to routinely process the PR card application, approving the issuance of a new card within the day or a week or two of opening the application.

But yeah . . . for some, it is not all that clear what they should submit . . .

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).

In regards to a significantly large number of PRs applying for a PR card, I largely agree with your observations, and in particular I recognize that some of the language employed is still vague and not all that consistent. You are right to focus on the very broad range the checklist and instructions refer to, noting the huge difference between requiring just 2 pieces of evidence that "can show residency in Canada" during the relevant five years, versus "other documents that prove you met your residency obligation" (in the list of suggested evidence to include), while the checklist itself broadly refers to "Proof showing that you meet the residency obligation."

So how a particular PR should respond, what they should submit with the application, is indeed an individual, personal judgment call, which will vary, and the range is indeed a big one. I fully grasp why some applying for a PR card, probably a large number of PR card applicants, will, as you say, "worry" about what to include.

EXCEPT, the checklist is about what is to be included to make a complete application and the conventional wisdom should still apply: submit what is requested and no more, no more unless there is reason to believe more is needed. And even then, if submitting more than what is specifically requested, keep it as simple and concise as practically feasible.

As I said at the beginning of this post, there really should be little or NO concern for most PRs in compliance with the RO based on actual presence in Canada. All they need to provide with the PR card application, to make a complete application in regards to providing proof of meeting the RO, based on what is described in the instruction guide Appendix, is just two pieces of evidence showing residency in Canada sometime during the relevant period of time. That really is NOT much. That should not be at all difficult for any PR who is living in Canada and who has been living in Canada for at least two years.

For PRs living in Canada when they make a PR card application, meeting the RO based on days actually present in Canada, truthfully reporting their in-and-out-of-Canada history, and including just that minimum amount of evidence showing they have had residency in Canada, there is NO risk, no practical risk anyway, the application will trigger inadmissibility proceedings. Two pieces of evidence showing residency should eliminate any risk the application will be returned as incomplete for failure to include proof of meeting the RO. So for these PRs (which really should be the majority, easily), the only risk is what might trigger non-routine processing and a delay in being issued a new PR card.

Moreover, even for those who do not fit that profile, as long as the information they have submitted purports to show they meet the RO, and they have provided SOME evidence of residency in Canada (and if relying on credit for days outside Canada some evidence to document they qualify for that credit), the application should not be returned as incomplete, and the worst case scenario is non-routine processing during which they will be given an opportunity to provide more proof, sufficient proof, they meet the RO.

Which is to say that any PR who meets the RO, and makes a proper application for a PR card, likewise faces NO practical risk of losing PR status without getting an opportunity to provide additional information.

So the risk is mostly about non-routine processing. For which many of those who do not fit the profile of those I describe above as not needing to worry (not much if at all), they are at elevated risk of that anyway. Certainly those cutting-it-close, those who are not living in Canada, those who do not appear to have settled permanently in Canada, and those who were only visiting Canada long enough to make the PR card application while in Canada, are at elevated risk of non-routine processing anyway.

The number in the latter group seems to be quite large. And for those in this group, and any others who have reason to fear IRCC might question their RO compliance, the application checklist and instruction guide is vague in regards to what they should include with the application. How much evidence should they submit, for example, as "any other documents that prove you met your residency obligation," is a wide open question.

BUT that's a question which needs to be dealt with in the particular situation, relative to personal circumstances. And overall, it is worth repeating and emphasizing, those who have complied with the RO based on days actually spent IN Canada, really should have very little fear they will be subject to inadmissibility proceedings, and even in the worst case scenario they will get an opportunity to more fully make their case. (Note: we see very few cases, only isolated cases where typically there are obvious shadows on the PR's credibility, in which PRs are issued Removal Orders despite claims the PR actually met the RO based on days in Canada.)


CAUTION: This checklist is for both PR card and PR TD applications. PR TD applicants should be far more diligent in making the case they are complying with the RO. Remember, PRs abroad without a valid PR card are PRESUMED to not have valid PR status. Their applications may be denied without a request for or opportunity to submit more information.

Those applying for a PR TD, and especially those for whom there might be any chance that the visa office officials will question or doubt the PR's compliance, would be wise to make sure the fact of their RO compliance is well documented.

 

[armoured]

There are still issues. The checklist is still vague in some respects. I recognize and largely concur in the concerns expressed by @armoured, as to the "uncertainty" many PRs are likely to face regarding what evidence should be included with their application.

HOWEVER, there really should be little or NO concern for most PRs in compliance with the RO and making a PR card application based on actual presence in Canada.
...
In regards to a significantly large number of PRs applying for a PR card, I largely agree with your observations, and in particular I recognize that some of the language employed is still vague and not all that consistent. You are right to focus on the very broad range the checklist and instructions refer to, noting the huge difference between requiring just 2 pieces of evidence that "can show residency in Canada" during the relevant five years, versus "other documents that prove you met your residency obligation" (in the list of suggested evidence to include), while the checklist itself broadly refers to "Proof showing that you meet the residency obligation."

So how a particular PR should respond, what they should submit with the application, is indeed an individual, personal judgment call, which will vary, and the range is indeed a big one. I fully grasp why some applying for a PR card, probably a large number of PR card applicants, will, as you say, "worry" about what to include.

You are right to emphasize that most PRs should not worry in particular, esp in the sense that there should be no reason to think it will end up causing issues with admissibility.

That said: it is inevitable this will worry applicants and cause them to fret - possibly needlessly - because the instructions are not that clear, historically seem to keep changing, and subject to interpretation.

So while your explanations are cogent, it is going to cause worry until such time as a body of experience (shared with others) builds up (or the instructions/requirements clarified and simplified).

 

[medwiz]

One more point to add: if IRCC originally meant for ALL PR card renewal applicants to provide proof of meeting RO, they certainly did not make it clear in the Instruction Guide ( Guide IMM 5445). In the current version of the guide it states under "Step 1: Gather documents":

You must submit these documents....

Proof showing that you meet the residency obligation in the past five (5) years immediately before the application. Please refer to Appendix A: Residency Obligation.

Using the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, here is a snapshot of the Instruction Guide on May 19, 2023:

Additional documents you may need to complete and submit, if they apply:

Proof of residency requirement: if you were outside Canada for 1095 days or more in the past five (5) years, provide supporting documents as they apply to you based on the situations outlined in Appendix A: Residency Obligation.

Anyway we may never know the real reason behind this change or whether it was actually an intentional change or a correction of a mistake...the clear fact now is that everyone has to submit these 2 pieces of documentation showing RO

 

[Ponga]

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?!

No. That is not what I was saying.

I was referring to this post:

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.

Those dates in red would have been before the landing date, which is why I questioned this.

 

[Ponga]

SUMMARY . . . for PRs who are living in Canada, who have lived in Canada for more than two years, RELAX. Copy of one pay stub (showing employment in Canada) and one bank statement (showing address and banking activity in Canada) will suffice to make a complete application (as one example), and unless there is something potentially raising questions (cutting-it-close for example; or relocating outside Canada after applying) this should be sufficient for IRCC to routinely process the PR card application, approving the issuance of a new card within the day or a week or two of opening the application.

At the risk of opening yet another Pandora's box...

So, IRCC is asking for evidence that the PR has complied with the R.O. for the 5 year period prior to submitting the application, of which only 730 days is really needing to be proven, or so it seems.

If a PR only provides a single pay stub and a single bank statement (that should obviously show active evidence (local ATM or merchant activity `in-person', versus a recurring payment for a subscription), how does that differ from the argument that CBSA records do not prove R.O. Compliance? I understand the points that you have shared numerous times, that the entry/exit dates are only a record of activity on those actual dates, which is exactly what the 2 pieces of proof that you've suggested would seem to show.

I DO agree that, for starters, the language on the Document Checklist should be improved upon! While they're at it, perhaps they could clarify it in the Guide as well.

 

[CanadianDreamer@TO]

An Overall Observation (with some repetition, for clarity as well as emphasis):

The changes made in the revised forms, including the checklist, MAKE SENSE. They make good sense. The revised versions are considerably better than the 2022 versions.

There are still issues. The checklist is still vague in some respects. I recognize and largely concur in the concerns expressed by @armoured, as to the "uncertainty" many PRs are likely to face regarding what evidence should be included with their application.

HOWEVER, there really should be little or NO concern for most PRs in compliance with the RO and making a PR card application based on actual presence in Canada. All they need to provide with the PR card application, in regards to proof of meeting the RO, is just two pieces of evidence showing residency in Canada. That really is NOT much. That should not be at all difficult for any PR who is living in Canada and who has been living in Canada for at least two years.

"Most PRs in RO compliance," as previously noted, does not include all PRs in RO compliance. Not close. Again, I acknowledge that many will face significant uncertainty about what they should include. But where I disagree a bit with @armoured is that "everyone's going to worry until they see how this plays out." At the least, again for the majority, and I'd suggest a large majority, there should be little or no concern . . . just two pieces of evidence that "show residency" in Canada, and this does not even need to cover an extended period of time, just something to show the PR has had residency in Canada.

In particular, for PRs who are applying for a PR card (in contrast to applying for a PR TD), who are settled and living IN Canada, and continuing to live in Canada after applying (allowing for some travel abroad, but not relocating abroad for an extended time), and who meet the RO based on days actually present in Canada, their application is complete if they provide just two pieces of evidence (a pay stub plus some document showing they rent a residence for example), and there is near zero risk, no practical risk, the PR card application might trigger inadmissibility proceedings. And unless there is something about their case that triggers concerns, the risk of non-routine processing questioning their RO compliance should be LOW, and for many VERY LOW.

SUMMARY . . . for PRs who are living in Canada, who have lived in Canada for more than two years, RELAX. Copy of one pay stub (showing employment in Canada) and one bank statement (showing address and banking activity in Canada) will suffice to make a complete application (as one example), and unless there is something potentially raising questions (cutting-it-close for example; or relocating outside Canada after applying) this should be sufficient for IRCC to routinely process the PR card application, approving the issuance of a new card within the day or a week or two of opening the application.

But yeah . . . for some, it is not all that clear what they should submit . . .



In regards to a significantly large number of PRs applying for a PR card, I largely agree with your observations, and in particular I recognize that some of the language employed is still vague and not all that consistent. You are right to focus on the very broad range the checklist and instructions refer to, noting the huge difference between requiring just 2 pieces of evidence that "can show residency in Canada" during the relevant five years, versus "other documents that prove you met your residency obligation" (in the list of suggested evidence to include), while the checklist itself broadly refers to "Proof showing that you meet the residency obligation."

So how a particular PR should respond, what they should submit with the application, is indeed an individual, personal judgment call, which will vary, and the range is indeed a big one. I fully grasp why some applying for a PR card, probably a large number of PR card applicants, will, as you say, "worry" about what to include.

EXCEPT, the checklist is about what is to be included to make a complete application and the conventional wisdom should still apply: submit what is requested and no more, no more unless there is reason to believe more is needed. And even then, if submitting more than what is specifically requested, keep it as simple and concise as practically feasible.

As I said at the beginning of this post, there really should be little or NO concern for most PRs in compliance with the RO based on actual presence in Canada. All they need to provide with the PR card application, to make a complete application in regards to providing proof of meeting the RO, based on what is described in the instruction guide Appendix, is just two pieces of evidence showing residency in Canada sometime during the relevant period of time. That really is NOT much. That should not be at all difficult for any PR who is living in Canada and who has been living in Canada for at least two years.

For PRs living in Canada when they make a PR card application, meeting the RO based on days actually present in Canada, truthfully reporting their in-and-out-of-Canada history, and including just that minimum amount of evidence showing they have had residency in Canada, there is NO risk, no practical risk anyway, the application will trigger inadmissibility proceedings. Two pieces of evidence showing residency should eliminate any risk the application will be returned as incomplete for failure to include proof of meeting the RO. So for these PRs (which really should be the majority, easily), the only risk is what might trigger non-routine processing and a delay in being issued a new PR card.

Moreover, even for those who do not fit that profile, as long as the information they have submitted purports to show they meet the RO, and they have provided SOME evidence of residency in Canada (and if relying on credit for days outside Canada some evidence to document they qualify for that credit), the application should not be returned as incomplete, and the worst case scenario is non-routine processing during which they will be given an opportunity to provide more proof, sufficient proof, they meet the RO.

Which is to say that any PR who meets the RO, and makes a proper application for a PR card, likewise faces NO practical risk of losing PR status without getting an opportunity to provide additional information.

So the risk is mostly about non-routine processing. For which many of those who do not fit the profile of those I describe above as not needing to worry (not much if at all), they are at elevated risk of that anyway. Certainly those cutting-it-close, those who are not living in Canada, those who do not appear to have settled permanently in Canada, and those who were only visiting Canada long enough to make the PR card application while in Canada, are at elevated risk of non-routine processing anyway.

The number in the latter group seems to be quite large. And for those in this group, and any others who have reason to fear IRCC might question their RO compliance, the application checklist and instruction guide is vague in regards to what they should include with the application. How much evidence should they submit, for example, as "any other documents that prove you met your residency obligation," is a wide open question.

BUT that's a question which needs to be dealt with in the particular situation, relative to personal circumstances. And overall, it is worth repeating and emphasizing, those who have complied with the RO based on days actually spent IN Canada, really should have very little fear they will be subject to inadmissibility proceedings, and even in the worst case scenario they will get an opportunity to more fully make their case. (Note: we see very few cases, only isolated cases where typically there are obvious shadows on the PR's credibility, in which PRs are issued Removal Orders despite claims the PR actually met the RO based on days in Canada.)


CAUTION: This checklist is for both PR card and PR TD applications. PR TD applicants should be far more diligent in making the case they are complying with the RO. Remember, PRs abroad without a valid PR card are PRESUMED to not have valid PR status. Their applications may be denied without a request for or opportunity to submit more information.

Those applying for a PR TD, and especially those for whom there might be any chance that the visa office officials will question or doubt the PR's compliance, would be wise to make sure the fact of their RO compliance is well documented.

@dpenabill Sould I raise a Web-Form and attach the residency proofs to make sure that the officer looking at my PR Card renewal file can find the documents to confirm that I meet the residency obligation. Of course I am planning to do this once I complete the 730 days within Canada.

 

[dpenabill]

Disclaimer: Lots of Over-Thinking Going Down; My Fault. Proceed at your own risk.
(There's some tangled weeds in these murky waters.)

Sould I raise a Web-Form and attach the residency proofs to make sure that the officer looking at my PR Card renewal file can find the documents to confirm that I meet the residency obligation. Of course I am planning to do this once I complete the 730 days within Canada.

I don't offer personal advice, as in I cannot say what you should do in particular (in contrast to what I will generally say, which is information about what the laws and rules are, how this or that works, as best we know and can figure out, and general things like "follow the instructions" and "be truthful," and such, general guidelines).

But, for this, I will nonetheless say no, at the least probably not. Here's why:

Until they open your application, which apparently is currently taking about three months, you cannot effectively submit additional information or corrections or clarifications. You need the specific file number to connect subsequent submissions to the application file. There is no application file number until the application is opened.

Routine processing of PR card applications happens when the application is opened, right then, right then when the application is opened it is processed to the extent that it is either approved or referred for one sort or another of non-routine processing. So, if the application is approved in the course of routine processing, that is decided that day or within a few days, up to a week or three (longer period probably due to some particular cross-checking or review by a superior). As I noted previously, in regard to your PR card application:

"It is possible the application will sail through with no problem and a new PR card approved and issued within the routine processing timeline, and there is probably at least a good chance this will be how it goes."​

And if that happens, again it will likely be a decision made, to approve the application and issue a new card, the day they open the application or quite soon after that.

So, generally, typically, the decision will be made whether to approve the application, as routine, or refer it for non-routine processing, BEFORE you are able to submit any additional information, clarifications, corrections, or any update. So, trying to send more information is not going to make the difference in whether the application gets routine processing (thus approved right away) or non-routine processing (resulting in a longer processing timeline, and potentially things like requests for additional information).

Since you were in RO compliance as of the date the application was made, there really is not much to do but wait to see . . . to see if your application is approved (again, current processing time for routine application is around three months), or goes into non-routine processing, or if you get a request for additional information. There is a possibility the application will be returned as incomplete, but my sense is the probability of that is quite low.

Unless additional information is requested, there really is no need, and probably nothing to be gained by submitting any additional information (nothing to be gained by an update to say when you meet the RO based on days present, passing the 730 day threshold). @armoured mentioned it seems you are "overthinking," but that is mostly MY FAULT. (I got into the weeds more than a bit.) After all, you are in RO compliance. All that is at risk is non-routine processing that will delay how long it takes to get a new PR card. Whether that happens is largely, perhaps entirely NOW OUTSIDE your control. You are in wait-and-see mode now.

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."

Those dates in red would have been before the landing date, which is why I questioned this.

Yeah, I understood. And I understand how this can be confusing. I hope I resolved the confusion by my further explanation, distinguishing address, work, and travel history, which the application asks for only SINCE landing if the PR landed less than five years ago, WHEREAS the conditional in the 2022 checklist just refers to the past five years (not since landing). So, to count days outside Canada, for the purpose of the checklist proof of residency item, in regards to whether the applicant needed to submit such proof, days outside Canada before landing but also within the previous five years (here that was June 6, 2018 to August 9, 2018) are part of the calculation . . . the FIVE years before the PR card application, after all, being June 6, 2018 to June 6, 2023.

All of which, to be fair, is very, very much, as @armoured noted, OVERTHINKING, and overthinking by a lot. My fault, mostly (IRCC, and its poorly composed forms, made me do it, I protest, even if this excuse is not particularly persuasive).

All of which was part of my overall effort to fully explain the primary reasoning revolving around what I and others understood about the former versions of the PR card application and checklist, what they asked for.

And some clarification about what the current guide and checklist instruct applicants to submit. Including some continued consternation, albeit more from others, including @armoured :

. . . it is inevitable this will worry applicants and cause them to fret - possibly needlessly - because the instructions are not that clear, historically seem to keep changing, and subject to interpretation.

So . . . it is going to cause worry until such time as a body of experience (shared with others) builds up (or the instructions/requirements clarified and simplified).

It can be difficult to separate what causes worry from whether or not there is good cause to worry, from what should or should not cause worry. With why worry? haunting whichever way you look.

Leading to the discussion you and @armoured just had, yesterday, in the topic titled PR Card Renewal-Supporting Documents here: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/pr-card-renewal-supporting-documents.793684/page-2

Some Irony: to some extent both you and @armoured, in some posts, have also slid into the mire of overthinking (confessing I am probably to blame for driving things in that direction), but then in the last post there (just before midnight yesterday) I think @armoured came round to the gist of the CURRENT instructions and checklist:

. . . that's why I referred to the Appendix. Read it. It tells you to provide supporting documents. It says, I repeat: "pieces of evidence that can show residency in Canada" [in the relevant period.]

This part - the evidence you provide - does not address the obligation part (directly, anyway). It supports the residency part. It's not meant to show and meet the 'every day you were here' part.

Or if you prefer: they ask you to provide circumstantial evidence. That's it. Don't overthink it.

It's a little more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it for those PRs who meet the RO based on days actually present IN Canada. (And to my view, understanding this should assuage worries about what such PRs need to submit with the application, at least those living and well settled in Canada.)

But NOT those outside Canada more than 1095 days in the relevant period, those for whom the Appendix specifies the supporting documents that should be submitted to show they qualify for RO credit for days outside Canada.

And as I have otherwise referenced, there is clearly a large number of RO compliant PRs who, however, are not well settled in Canada or otherwise in circumstances suggesting a significant risk of non-routine processing to more thoroughly verify RO compliance, many of whom would like to know what proof of RO compliance they could submit that would reduce the risk of delays in non-routine processing or, at the least, help decrease the extent of non-routine processing delay.

In regard to the latter two groups, that's where I do agree with @armoured's comments about many will still worry.

Meanwhile there is just ONE checklist item referencing supporting documents regarding RO compliance:

[ ] 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.​

And yeah, words like "proof," in the context of what does or does not "prove RO compliance," tends to complicate and confuse things.

To be continued.

 

[nishanj]

Hi, this thread was very helpful since I got confused by the wording in imm5644.
we came as PRs in 2018 and it's expiring this year. do I upload a bank statement from 2018 and then June 2023?
And then my pay stub from 2019 and 2023?
what would need to be submitted for kids? Thank you.

 

[dpenabill]

Hi, this thread was very helpful since I got confused by the wording in imm5644.
we came as PRs in 2018 and it's expiring this year. do I upload a bank statement from 2018 and then June 2023?
And then my pay stub from 2019 and 2023?
what would need to be submitted for kids? Thank you.

There are references and links and quotes from the instruction guide describing what proof of RO compliance a PR needs to submit with the application for a PR card. Here again is the link: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/application/application-forms-guides/guide-5445-applying-permanent-resident-card-card-first-application-replacement-renewal-change-gender-identifier.html

See checklist and instruction guide Appendix.

If you have been physically present IN Canada most of these last five years, just about any two pieces of evidence should easily suffice.

Beyond that . . . Still in the weeds. Plenty of overthinking.

Lions and tigers and bears, oh my. I kid. No tin man necessary. Nonetheless, proceed at one's own risk.

At the risk of opening yet another Pandora's box...

So, IRCC is asking for evidence that the PR has complied with the R.O. for the 5 year period prior to submitting the application, of which only 730 days is really needing to be proven, or so it seems.

If a PR only provides a single pay stub and a single bank statement (that should obviously show active evidence (local ATM or merchant activity `in-person', versus a recurring payment for a subscription), how does that differ from the argument that CBSA records do not prove R.O. Compliance? I understand the points that you have shared numerous times, that the entry/exit dates are only a record of activity on those actual dates, which is exactly what the 2 pieces of proof that you've suggested would seem to show.

I DO agree that, for starters, the language on the Document Checklist should be improved upon! While they're at it, perhaps they could clarify it in the Guide as well.

It's not another Pandora's box . . . a lot of discussions here dance around what to submit, what proves presence, and related matters; and you and I have wrestled with aspects of this off and on, and it is something definitely lurking in this particular subject, if not looming large.

Trying to explain the general scheme, in which a lot of "proof" is not proof (and so gets quite confusing), and the nuances rather often overshadow the rule, can look like cats chasing their own tail. It is typically easier to address particular situations, such as comparing the long, well-settled in Canada PR versus the PR who is cutting-it-close who also has major ongoing ties outside Canada. Or addressing what specifically a PR needs to submit if they are relying on one of the exceptions allowing credit for days outside Canada. Or, like the discussion in the "PR Card Renewal-Supporting Documents" topic regarding a recently landed PR, for which proof . . . or showing . . . is about there being enough days left on the calendar for the PR to meet the RO.

As I noted above, quoting @armoured from that thread as getting the gist of what is requested, regarding supporting documents to check off the item in the checklist for "proof showing that you meet the residency obligation . . . " Turns out not much "proof" needs to be submitted, just two pieces of evidence showing residency. EXCEPT . . . for PR's relying on credit for days accompanying a citizen spouse abroad, for PR's relying on credit for days abroad on temporary assignment by their Canadian employer . . . among other circumstances in which more supporting documents are called for as detailed in the Appendix.

Which can get confusing. And yes, yes indeed, the language of the checklist and in the Appendix leave a lot to be desired in terms of clear instruction.

However, in practical terms most should readily get it, understanding what's being requested. As I noted in the other topic: Context, Common-sense, and enough experience with actual practice to confirm.

And understanding that the Appendix is a "guide" and while the literal language is important when trying to understand it, what it says should not be rigidly interpreted literally, but understood, again, in context, employing common-sense, with much consideration given to what is known about actual practice. PRs need to read the guide with a view to understand it, as best they can, as it applies to them and their situation.

In the other topic I also address the breadth and variability of terms employed by IRCC, and this applies especially to "proof," which means different things in different contexts. In some contexts it refers to items of evidence tending to prove something, while in other contexts it means sufficient evidence to constitute having proven that something. Most proof, one might say, is aspirational, aspiring to indeed be proof, though a lot falls short. What matters in a specific context is what in particular proves what, in that context, considering for what purpose, subject to what might controvert that proof, acknowledging that the submission of proof might or might not actually prove what it is purported to be proof of, and rather often does not. Some proof, a lot of proof, then, falls short and fails to be proof.

Along the way it warrants emphasizing that too much attention given to a particular term tends to be misleading, and can invite dangerously erroneous conclusions.

So, back to this part in particular:

If a PR only provides a single pay stub and a single bank statement (that should obviously show active evidence (local ATM or merchant activity `in-person', versus a recurring payment for a subscription), how does that differ from the argument that CBSA records do not prove R.O. Compliance? I understand the points that you have shared numerous times, that the entry/exit dates are only a record of activity on those actual dates, which is exactly what the 2 pieces of proof that you've suggested would seem to show.​

Note: I am not privy to the particular reasoning IRCC officials engage in when evaluating the RO compliance evidence; I am extrapolating and characterizing here, mapping the terrain based on applying what we know about the rules, policies, practices, and correlating that with what can be learned from scores of actual cases reported in IAD and FC decisions, along with what we can glean from anecdotal reports, considering all this over the course of time I have been following PR and citizenship residency related issues and litigation (very nearly a decade and a half now . . . . I began following this not all that long after I made my application for PR just over 15 years ago).

But, for sure, two pieces of evidence showing "residency" as of particular dates does not come anywhere near close to proving the PR has met the RO. In terms of what that establishes/proves is quantitatively little more, as you note, than the CBSA travel history documenting dates of entry/exit. Moreover, their significance is probably comparable. They corroborate the PR's information (except, in the case of a CBSA travel history showing discrepancies with the PR's report of travel history, it tends to discredit the PR's information).

I do not know for sure, but it seems very likely that IRCC wants two pieces of evidence showing residency (1) to specifically show just that, that the PR has established residency-in-fact in Canada (noting, however, that residency-in-fact is not actually required to meet the RO, as days present, which could all be days visiting Canada, count), and (2), as additional concrete information about the PR to cross-check against all the other information known about the PR. Obviously, for example, this information can and likely will be cross-checked against address, work, and travel history.

And IRCC probably wants this primarily to judge whether the known information indicates any reason to question the PR's account of days present. At the mere application for a status card stage there is little reason for IRCC to want let alone demand full blown proof (proof rising to the level it actually proves RO compliance) . . .

. . . unless there is something in the PR's history, information in the application, or conflicts with other known information (CBSA travel history being the most salient factor here) that triggers concern enough to refer the application to Secondary Review or to a local office for assessment and potentially investigation.

 

[mayple]

I'm not a fan of these changes. It should be the Departments responsibility to verify whether someone was physically present or not in the country for the 730 or more days required. CBSA records should be the go to. There are people who have spent 730 days in 5 years spread sporadically over those years but did not work nor draw benefits from Canada nor have long term leases or mortgages or anything of that sort. How are they going to prove residency? This residency is immigration residency and not tax residency for in many cases NOA is meaningless. Thoughts?

 

[armoured]

There are people who have spent 730 days in 5 years spread sporadically over those years but did not work nor draw benefits from Canada nor have long term leases or mortgages or anything of that sort. How are they going to prove residency?
...
Thoughts?

Government is clear that the goal of having permanent residency programs is to attract people who will reside, work, study and participate in Canadian society. Hint: permanently is a goal.

Therefore, I see no evident harm - given esp the very light requirements for physical residency of 730 days in five years - in government actively preferring / making PR renewals easier* for those who do not just 'live here sporadically nor work nor have a place to live' but actually and actively reside, work, study, etc. Barely meet the 730 because you've only spent a few months a year (40% of the time, that is) and not done much directly connected to Canadian life? yeah, it's going to be harder for you to renew.

Note I said 'make easier' i.e. light touch in renewal for those that can show the above with docs as suggested. I did not say nor imply that government should make it impossible for others to get a renewal. But rather, let's recognize, people who cannot demonstrate they live, reside, work, study or otherwise are in Canada are going to have a harder time ... demonstrating exactly those things.

Or if you prefer: of course it'll be easier for those who can show those thigns to renew. That was the case before these changes anyway.

Caveat that of course my comments only based on what we know so far about these changes, which is actually very little, only some reading between the lines on what the changes mean and related guesses about how they'll be implemented.

 

[superde]

Hello Guys, Just looking for thoughts and opinions on my situation below relating to my PR card renewal. Sorry, this will be a long read.

I have my Citizenship Oath ceremony finally scheduled for Monday 19th June 2023 after waiting for so long to get the Citizenship process done. Meanwhile, because the Citizenship process dragged on for so long and my current PR card is already expired, I had submitted a paper PR card renewal application back on March 13th 2023 to IRCC because I have a trip planned for early August. I have not received an AOR the PR card renewal till now.

So after I received the notification email (on June 13th) for my Oath ceremony, I sent a webform (very late on June 13th) to IRCC requesting for the withdrawal of PR card renewal application on the basis that I will be a citizen from Monday 19th and as such will not need the Card again.

Out of curiosity, yesterday (June 14th) i called IRCC to check the status of the PR card application and to be sure of the next steps now that I am scheduled for Oath. The Agent that I got through to told me that my PR card was just been uploaded on system on June 13th and that it's too late to withdraw or cancel the application and that it can only bee done after I take Citizenship Oath. She advised that I MUST provide all info about the PR card renewal application to the Oath Clerk/officer during the citizenship ceremony registration on the day of my ceremony and let him or her know that I had initially applied for a PR card renewal and that the IRCC (Montreal) local office will have to send an urgent e-mail to Sydney to cancel any PR card renewal application processing after my Oath taking ceremony. In fact, she said if by mistake I get the PR card after my Oath ceremony, I must return it immediately to CIC Sydney in the same receipt envelop unopened.

So, today realizing that I am missing the application number for the PR card renewal (as I will need to give this detail to the Oath clerk on Monday), I decided to call IRCC again today to get that info but to my surprise, the Call Agent I got through to told me that what he's reading from the case Officer's notes ( from 2 days ago) is that my PR card renewal application is marked as "incomplete" and "tagged for return" and that it has not been assigned an application number. I am confused as this is different from what the first Agent i spoke to yesterday told me. Also, I am very sure that I did not miss any document in that application and wondering why they are marking it as incomplete and for return.

I am a bit curious, If they already processed my withdrawal request i sent via Webform (less than 48hrs ago), I expect my file to show as "withdrawn" and not "incomplete". I am very sure i did not missing any document in the application and I was only outside of Canada for less than 365 days in the past 5 years as at when I applied for the renewal on March 13th 2023, so RO can't be an issue. I am 8 years as a PR in Canada but I ha

Wondering can this be related to the "new" mandatory RO documents? I submitted my application (in March 2023) based on 2022 version of PR card renewal application forms and guidelines.

Do you guys think the Case Officer sees on their system that I have been Scheduled for Oath ceremony (actual update on citizenship tracker was June 11th) and decided to halt the PR Card application? I must say that I had included a cover letter in my PR card renewal application that I have my citizenship application ongoing and i need urgent processing to meet my August trip. As when I submitted the PR card renewal application, citizenship application processing was still tagged as 22/23 months.

I just want to be sure this will not conflict with finalizing my Oath taking on Monday. I still plan to let the Oath clerk know during ceremony registration that I still have a pending PR Card renewal application.

What do guys think?

 

[mayple]

Government is clear that the goal of having permanent residency programs is to attract people who will reside, work, study and participate in Canadian society. Hint: permanently is a goal.

Therefore, I see no evident harm - given esp the very light requirements for physical residency of 730 days in five years - in government actively preferring / making PR renewals easier* for those who do not just 'live here sporadically nor work nor have a place to live' but actually and actively reside, work, study, etc. Barely meet the 730 because you've only spent a few months a year (40% of the time, that is) and not done much directly connected to Canadian life? yeah, it's going to be harder for you to renew.

Note I said 'make easier' i.e. light touch in renewal for those that can show the above with docs as suggested. I did not say nor imply that government should make it impossible for others to get a renewal. But rather, let's recognize, people who cannot demonstrate they live, reside, work, study or otherwise are in Canada are going to have a harder time ... demonstrating exactly those things.

Or if you prefer: of course it'll be easier for those who can show those thigns to renew. That was the case before these changes anyway.

Caveat that of course my comments only based on what we know so far about these changes, which is actually very little, only some reading between the lines on what the changes mean and related guesses about how they'll be implemented.

Yeah, no. You clearly have a bias against those not in a position

Government is clear that the goal of having permanent residency programs is to attract people who will reside, work, study and participate in Canadian society. Hint: permanently is a goal.

Therefore, I see no evident harm - given esp the very light requirements for physical residency of 730 days in five years - in government actively preferring / making PR renewals easier* for those who do not just 'live here sporadically nor work nor have a place to live' but actually and actively reside, work, study, etc. Barely meet the 730 because you've only spent a few months a year (40% of the time, that is) and not done much directly connected to Canadian life? yeah, it's going to be harder for you to renew.

Note I said 'make easier' i.e. light touch in renewal for those that can show the above with docs as suggested. I did not say nor imply that government should make it impossible for others to get a renewal. But rather, let's recognize, people who cannot demonstrate they live, reside, work, study or otherwise are in Canada are going to have a harder time ... demonstrating exactly those things.

Or if you prefer: of course it'll be easier for those who can show those thigns to renew. That was the case before these changes anyway.

Caveat that of course my comments only based on what we know so far about these changes, which is actually very little, only some reading between the lines on what the changes mean and related guesses about how they'll be implemented.

Yeah, sounds like a biased perspective. Not everyone with a PR is in a position to "reside, work, study and participate in Canadian society" for any number of reasons. Unless you're unilaterally entitled to change and interpret the law, the text is about number of days spent in the country. End of. By burdening the applicant to "prove" their residency obligation, the system is offloading responsibility they get paid to perform. I don't need to prove I'm in the country. Unless I climbed a wall or a swam through a burgeoning sea, CBSA let me in. Check with them, and figure it out. Either that, or stop taxing the people to pay salary to useless inefficient process runners