PR card and PR TD applications -- NEW 2022 forms

[dpenabill]

As of this month, June 2022, IRCC has implemented a new interactive pdf form to use when applying for EITHER a PR card or a PR Travel Document. Thus, to apply for either a PR card or for a PR TD, the same pdf form is used. The content of the form being completed will vary depending on how various questions are answered. Note, for example and in particular, the content of the application being completed will be different if in response to question 1.1 the applicant checks the appropriate boxes for making a PR card application or those for making a PR TD application.

There are additional parts of the form for which the content will be different depending on answers to particular questions; for another example, there is no chart for travel history if the applicant checks [No] in response to question 5.1.

The instructions are separate from the form. The trick (of sorts) is that the instructions for a PR card application are found in an expandable section on the webpage for downloading the pdf form, as reached from links for getting the application package for a PR card application. There is a similar link to the SAME FORM, but found on webpage for getting a PR TD application package, which has very generic instructions for a PR TD application.
See instructions for PR card application here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/application/application-forms-guides/imm5444.html (again, go to expandable section containing instructions)

There is, of course, a new Guide as well. Caution: Last I looked this was still in the process of being updated, and is likely to change (well, it is so far off in some respects it will necessarily need changes). For the guide, at least for now, see https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/application/application-forms-guides/guide-5529-applying-permanent-resident-travel-document.html Frankly, if practical and possible, for some it may be prudent to wait for at least a few more days to apply, to be sure to follow an updated guide, and to be sure any wrinkles in the forms, instructions, or guide have been ironed out. This guide, for example, is titled "Applying for a Permanent Resident Travel Document (IMM 5529)" but in its opening paragraph notes the new application form is IMM 5444 and is an "Application for a Permanent Resident Card or Permanent Resident Travel Document" and notes that IRCC is working on updating the guide to reflect the form updates and will post these changes as soon as possible.

For example, note that the new checklist refers to parts of the instruction guide that as of a little bit ago do not exist.


Early Observations:

I hesitate trying to infer policy changes based on changes to forms and instructions, unless the changes represent a clear change in policy (like around ten years ago when CIC abruptly began requiring citizenship applicants to include proof of ability in an official language with the application).

On the other hand, I feel it would be remiss to ignore the possibility that some of the more significant changes could indicate some shift in policies or practices.

PR's location IN or OUTSIDE Canada:

The new form requires, for example, a declaration as to current location in or outside Canada. If the PR checks the box for "I am outside Canada," there is no option to apply for a PR card (options are to apply to renounce status or "I am choosing to apply for a PRTD"). It warrants reminding PRs that they will need to affirm the truthfulness of the information being provided.

I cannot say that the volume of PR card applications made by PRs outside Canada influenced the implementation of this, but there is that distinct possibility. It is worth noting that despite IRCC instructions stating that presence IN Canada was an eligibility requirement, that "requirement" was not based on nor supported by the law itself. Thus, for example, IRCC could not deny or reject a PR card application based on the PR's location outside Canada at the time the application was made. (So, many PRs abroad would submit an application using the address of a friend or family in Canada.) Now the PR must affirmatively declare presence in Canada in order to have the proper application to complete. While not being present in Canada is not grounds to deny the application, misrepresentation is grounds to deny the application and may be a basis for determining the PR is inadmissible, supporting the issuance of a Removal Order terminating status (in fact the new form requires the applicant affirm they understand this).

Consent to Obtain Travel History Information From CBSA:

The form of this consent has changed some. For example, it merges the consent regarding obtaining tax information from CRA. I mention it here to emphasize that this explicitly refers to "history of entries into Canada," and does not mention history of exits from Canada. In this forum there has been some extended discussion about CBSA collecting or having access to history of exits. For now, this only refers to "history of entries."

Additional Changes:

(Quite likely overlooking some.)

Affirmation details significantly expanded; including an essentially redundant affirmation that "I understand" consequences for giving false information following the "I certify" affirmation as to the truthfulness of the information.

An affirmation that the reported absences have been REVIEWED and verified at the time the form is signed, virtually a double affirmation as to the truthfulness of the reported travel history. Cannot say for sure, but this smells an awful lot like IRCC might be trending toward stricter scrutiny and potentially enforcement of the RO.

For PRs relying on H&C relief, this is something that now needs to be affirmatively addressed by the PR in the application. This is question 5.7 in the new form.

Added details and more emphasis in new form that if the PR is applying to replace a lost, stolen, or damaged card, the PR will destroy the original IMMEDIATELY if possession of the original is regained. And there is a separate affirmation to "solemnly declare" the information is true. Probably no policy change implicated, but at least suggesting increased scrutiny of these applications.

Additional details regarding immigration history, including questions as to any previous RO enforcement actions. PR must also disclose if they have ever been issued a PR TD. It is worth noting that IRCC's records should have the answer to all the particular questions asked in Question 3. So why do they ask? some may in turn wonder. Have I ever mentioned anything about cross-checking? Yep. A lot. Let me note this: as I often say, IRCC does not play gotcha-games, but they do engage in screening clients for breaches, violations, and especially misrepresentation.

The PR is also asked if they have ever been issued a "Travel Document." This was the subject of one of the queries already asked. Note: the PR card is NOT a Travel Document. This may be primarily for protected persons who are issued a Travel Document by Canada; however, for now probably best to answer affirmatively if EVER issued a Travel Document by any country.

 

[Ponga]

Deleted my previous reply, since it was posted BEFORE I actually read the expandable section revealing the instructions.

 

[dpenabill]

As noted elsewhere. Repeating here due to further queries regarding technical problems encountered in making PR card application.

As of weekend of June 18/19 2022:

CAUTION: IRCC has just implemented NEW forms, and has done so prematurely, apparently, as the instructions and guide are woefully incomplete and inconsistent with the new forms. It does not appear that IRCC is ready to fully implement the new forms. If feasible, if practical, the prudent PR should seriously consider waiting a little while longer before proceeding with a PR card application, waiting for IRCC to resolve things.

That said: For many elements in the application and process, things are simple, and for many PRs their situation is simple, so some PRs may be comfortable proceeding without waiting. But for those running into issues or problems, BEST to WAIT at least a few more days.

 

[dpenabill]

Not sure how long it has been in play, but the problem-riddled IMM 5444 06-2022 version has been replaced with a still somewhat problematic IMM 5444 08-2022 version. (Drops form identifying information; still does not include any certification the applicant will notify IRCC of any changes, which is standard in almost all applications of this sort, among other small matters.)

One of the bigger revisions is the opening section, which now has only two options, the PR declaring they are either IN Canada or outside Canada; if in Canada, the form is to apply for a PR card; if outside Canada is checked, the form is to apply for a PR TD. (Eliminates the option for a PR IN Canada to apply for a PR TD if they checked that they are "in Canada but may be traveling soon," which is not included in the 08-2022 version.)

Similar to, and appearing to continue the focus of revisions implemented in the 06-2022 version, it is readily apparent that a couple things are looming large for IRCC:

Making sure the PR is IN Canada when a PR card application is made, and​

​

An almost oppressive emphasis on the PR certifying the completeness and accuracy of the information, especially as to travel history. (Except, again, no certification of agreement to notify IRCC of changes; a big omission for a the standard form.)​

 

[Ponga]

Not sure how long it has been in play, but the problem-riddled IMM 5444 06-2022 version has been replaced with a still somewhat problematic IMM 5444 08-2022 version. (Drops form identifying information; still does not include any certification the applicant will notify IRCC of any changes, which is standard in almost all applications of this sort, among other small matters.)

One of the bigger revisions is the opening section, which now has only two options, the PR declaring they are either IN Canada or outside Canada; if in Canada, the form is to apply for a PR card; if outside Canada is checked, the form is to apply for a PR TD. (Eliminates the option for a PR IN Canada to apply for a PR TD if they checked that they are "in Canada but may be traveling soon," which is not included in the 08-2022 version.)

Similar to, and appearing to continue the focus of revisions implemented in the 06-2022 version, it is readily apparent that a couple things are looming large for IRCC:

Making sure the PR is IN Canada when a PR card application is made, and​

​

An almost oppressive emphasis on the PR certifying the completeness and accuracy of the information, especially as to travel history. (Except, again, no certification of agreement to notify IRCC of changes; a big omission for a the standard form.)​

I still can't understand why IRCC `needs' to have such extensive and accurate details of when a PR has been absent from Canada, if they have not indicated in the residential history section that ever lived outside Canada within the previous 5 year period.

If said PR has provided information in their Travel History that shows at least 730 days in Canada have been recorded by the PR on the form, that should be all that's really needed. Once that all important threshold has been shown to have been met (and travel dates that establish that have already been provided)...why should they `need' anything more, since it's moot, in terms of satisfying the R.O.?

 

[armoured]

I still can't understand why IRCC `needs' to have such extensive and accurate details of when a PR has been absent from Canada, if they have not indicated in the residential history section that ever lived outside Canada within the previous 5 year period.

If said PR has provided information in their Travel History that shows at least 730 days in Canada have been recorded by the PR on the form, that should be all that's really needed. Once that all important threshold has been shown to have been met (and travel dates that establish that have already been provided)...why should they `need' anything more, since it's moot, in terms of satisfying the R.O.?

I don't think you've really thought this through, chief. Read the bolded part again. Or at least I don't understand what you're arguing.

What it really comes down to is this: if you left travel outside of Canada out of your form, then you could be below that number.

They don't have a system that shows "I was in Canada from [date] to [date]" on which they could base your "hit at least 730 days" magic. (Because there could have been travel between those dates)

You provide the dates you were out of Canada, you do the math, and they check- to the extent they want or need to - whether the dates you put outside of Canada seem to match.

But maybe I don't get your point. What details are they asking for that you're objecting to?

 

[dpenabill]

I still can't understand why IRCC `needs' to have such extensive and accurate details of when a PR has been absent from Canada, if they have not indicated in the residential history section that ever lived outside Canada within the previous 5 year period.

If said PR has provided information in their Travel History that shows at least 730 days in Canada have been recorded by the PR on the form, that should be all that's really needed. Once that all important threshold has been shown to have been met (and travel dates that establish that have already been provided)...why should they `need' anything more, since it's moot, in terms of satisfying the R.O.?

I do not wrestle much with what the law/rules/procedure *should* be . . . difficult and complicated enough to keep up with what it is. Except as to fundamentals, like consistency, coherency, and clarity, matters which directly implicate procedural fairness and justice. Noting the politician and the jurist approach the law/rules from very different directions.

I would note, with some emphasis, in their enforcement of the Residency Obligation the indicators still very much continue to suggest that IRCC (and CBSA) tend to be rather lenient, and many may argue quite lax. No gotcha-games.
My impression is that the emphasis in the form on providing complete and accurate information is to clearly communicate the importance of doing that, to give PRs plenty of notice that what they report matters. To avoid it becoming a gotcha-game.

As I have previously suggested, read some of the loss-of-PR status IAD decisions. While IRCC makes a major (and here an almost oppressive) effort to emphasize how important it is for PRs to provide complete and accurate information, this is clearly about putting PRs on notice of their obligation. In actual enforcement (again, as illustrated in actual cases as reported in the official IAD decisions), there is no sign that IRCC is anywhere near strict.

Contextual information is a key aspect in assessing credibility. And what is requested is not really all that extensive, but rather straightforward: address history, work history, and travel history for the five relevant years. It is clear that IRCC attempts to employ basically a one-step decision-making process for most PR card applications: open, assess, and decide in one step, and this step is probably allocated less than an hour total. So indicators of PR-applicant credibility is a key if not critical element. (I often remind that in processing applications like those for citizenship and PR cards, that the importance of credibility looms very large; of course the most important, first, is actually meeting the requirements, and then second, properly completing and following through with the application, but then it's the applicant's credibility, the extent to which a processing agent or officer concludes they can rely on the information the PR has provided.)

Meanwhile, just consider the portion of anecdotal reports in this forum, which clearly at most represents a very small slice of the total numbers, of PRs who even after five years (or close to that) are applying for PR cards when they have been outside Canada more than in Canada. The 730/5 RO is the statutory MINIMUM. In contrast, the purpose of the grant of PR, and a necessary element in qualifying for the grant of a PR visa, and in qualifying to actually land and become a PR, an element which the rules specify is to be established as part of the landing procedure, is that the individual is coming to Canada to settle and live PERMANENTLY in Canada. Yet, five years later, despite representing that was what they were going to do, scores are applying for a PR card relying on meeting the minimum RO, ranging from somewhat to way shy of circumstances tending to confirm they were truthful in the process of becoming a PR.

Which is OK. Meeting the minimum RO is good enough.

Good enough to keep PR status. Maybe not good enough to be convincing they should be trusted to be fully honest in reporting information. The latter will require providing sufficient contextual information to corroborate the facts underlying requisite elements.

It often seems I am a lone voice here in regards to such factors, especially the significance of at least appearing to be settled and living permanently in Canada, that is, to be following through and acting consistent with both the clear purpose of the grant of PR and with what an individual represented to be their purpose, their intent. Credibility factors can be slippery, almost ethereal, and are perhaps the most difficult to catalog let alone quantify, prone to subjective vagaries. And sure, in reading the IAD decisions many times one has to read between the lines and recognize the shadows cast by credibility concerns that are not explicitly articulated, but which, I'd suggest, can be readily recognized in the case nonetheless.

My strong impression is that despite all the emphasis on complete and accurate information, IRCC personnel do not take a negative view, let alone negative action, unless they see cause to believe there are serious discrepancies between the facts and what the PR reports, unless there is a clear indication the PR is deceptive, intentionally evasive, or otherwise overtly fails to be an accurate reporter beyond just making incidental errors.

 

[Ponga]

I don't think you've really thought this through, chief. Read the bolded part again. Or at least I don't understand what you're arguing.

What it really comes down to is this: if you left travel outside of Canada out of your form, then you could be below that number.

They don't have a system that shows "I was in Canada from [date] to [date]" on which they could base your "hit at least 730 days" magic. (Because there could have been travel between those dates)

First of all, I am not a chief, but my great grandfather was.

All indications seem to indicate that they DO have access to this information from CBSA if the PR ticks the box allowing them to access entry/exit records from CBSA. Are you saying that confirmation of the last entry record that CBSA has, would not be solid evidence that the PR did in fact enter Canada on that date...and that if there is no exit record, combined with supllemental documentation showing PR's `daily' types of activity in Canada since that date (bank, credit card activity, other proofs), that would not be enough?

You provide the dates you were out of Canada, you do the math, and they check- to the extent they want or need to - whether the dates you put outside of Canada seem to match.

But maybe I don't get your point. What details are they asking for that you're objecting to?

My point is simple. Once a PR has provided travel history that, when going back from the day that the renewal application is being submitted (today for example), shows travel history that would at least indicate that the PR is declaring that they have been in Canada for more than 730 days and has supplemental evidence to corroborate that (other documents, statements, DL, Provincial health card, blah blah blah, showing activities that have occurred in Canada since that last entry date until now)...the `need' for additional travel history beyond that last entry date, really is unwarranted...or do you not agree?

For example, If the very first (most recent) dates on my Travel History is for a 2 week vacation from Late October 2019, returning to Canada early November 2019, that trip alone shows that I would be declaring that I was in and have remained in Canada for nearly three years, substantially longer than the 730 days that are required to comply with the R.O. - full stop. Obviously, under the current rules, I would still have to report any and all trips within this 5-year window, even though they are not really needed to determine my R.O. has been met.

Obviously IRCC is not likely to change anything, so perhaps my logic is simply falling on deaf ears; guess I should abandon the idea of that change.org petition idea. LOL!

 

[armoured]

All indications seem to indicate that they DO have access to this information from CBSA if the PR ticks the box allowing them to access entry/exit records from CBSA.

Are you saying that confirmation of the last entry record that CBSA has, would not be solid evidence that the PR did in fact enter Canada on that date...and that if there is no exit record,

The issue always comes down to: they do not have perfect exit records, and without having that, they cannot be certain that any entry was not followed by an exit the next day.

Therefore, the onus is upon the PR to provide a detailed record.

combined with supllemental documentation showing PR's `daily' types of activity in Canada since that date (bank, credit card activity, other proofs), that would not be enough?

They generally do not use any such supplemental documentation unless there is some reason to do so i.e. they did not believe the other info. (See above for whose onus it is to provide that)

My point is simple. Once a PR has provided travel history that, when going back from the day that the renewal application is being submitted (today for example), shows travel history that would at least indicate that the PR is declaring that they have been in Canada for more than 730 days

Still requires PR to provide all travel: see above, they do not/cannot rely on exit records.

the `need' for additional travel history beyond that last entry date, really is unwarranted...or do you not agree?

Not really, no. I suppose they could ask for eg 'travel in last [up to five years] that totals more than 730 days in Canada', with those [brackets] being a variable rather than fixed five years.

But that's LESS generous and would ultimately be more confusing and problematic for most.

It's not that difficult: provide your travel dates.

Oh wait, you didn't do that. Even though when you landed you were (or should have been) told to ... do that.

Seems to me that you're looking in the wrong place.

For example, If the very first (most recent) dates on my Travel History is for a 2 week vacation from Late October 2019, returning to Canada early November 2019, that trip alone shows that I would be declaring that I was in and have remained in Canada for nearly three years, substantially longer than the 730 days that are required to comply with the R.O. - full stop. Obviously, under the current rules, I would still have to report any and all trips within this 5-year window, even though they are not really needed to determine my R.O. has been met.

I think others have suggested multiple times: if you have confidence in this, and that three years is well over 730 days (or even better over 1095), apply for PR/citizenship, document whatever you can and note that you're not as sure about the trips before October 2019 but ahve tried to be complete but certain about [time period.]

 

[Ponga]

It's not that difficult: provide your travel dates.

Oh wait, you didn't do that. Even though when you landed you were (or should have been) told to ... do that.

Seems to me that you're looking in the wrong place.

Ding, ding ding! That's exactly right. I should have been told, but was NOT. The landing officer was very funny and personable, but never even mentioned that a PR should keep a very accurate travel journal. I understood why it was needed in assessing my PR application, but never imagined the same rigor would be required when applying for a renewed card. I suspect that I am/was not alone.

As I have mentioned in other threads/post, I do now understand that those of us that just assumed that CBSA has all the info needed (no matter how THEY captured/received in information)...including U.S. citizens, would be an easy thing to obtain for the requirement. Seems like, at least when I landed, the officer had no idea that we were not tracked when leaving Canada. At the very least, there should be some sort of 'Welcome to Canada - here's your handbook of what you really need to do" that is given to a PR when they land.

[EDIT]
To clarify, I was aware that a PR needs to meet the R.O. to maintain status and renew their PR card.I understood that I would need to show that I have >729 days living in Canada when renewing my card. What I was NOT aware of, was that the Travel History would be just as intense as it was in the original sponsorship application. Certainly understandable how only having to prove 730 days out of ~1825 in a 5 year period seemed like it was going to be easy...then. Ha!

 

[armoured]

Ding, ding ding! That's exactly right. I should have been told, but was NOT.

Ignorance of the bureaucratic requirements is not a defence )).

Certainly understandable how only having to prove 730 days out of ~1825 in a 5 year period seemed like it was going to be easy...then. Ha!

I still think you're overthinking this, and believe you've been told so many times - you're trying to rely on the 'system' having data when it doesn't, and wasting your time thinking of petitions. Apply, do your best, since you've basically been in Canada three years straight and clearly settled here, it'll probably all go through fairly quickly. I don't think they're trying to catch you (or play 'gotcha'), and entirely possible if they do see your almost three straight years in Canada they'll just tick that box and move on.

 

[Ponga]

I still think you're overthinking this, and believe you've been told so many times - you're trying to rely on the 'system' having data when it doesn't, and wasting your time thinking of petitions.

You can't honestly say that you believed the comment about a petition! LOL!

 

[armoured]

You can't honestly say that you believed the comment about a petition! LOL!

Okay, you got me.

 

[Ponga]

Okay, you got me.

I always appreciate your opinions. Thanks.

 

[dpenabill]

Sober-side reminders:

While the manner and prominence has varied over the years, since I have paid attention to CIC/IRCC information about Permanent Residents and their obligations, that is for the last decade and a half, they have consistently made it very clear that:

-- there is a Residency Obligation​

-- the RO is based on the number of DAYS the PR is present in Canada​

-- the burden of showing compliance is on the PR​

And even though the prominence of this messaging has varied some, it has always been prominent enough to be well apparent to anyone paying any attention to the information provided for new immigrants. From links in bold on general information pages to FAQs, and well highlighted in information about eligibility for a PR card and in instructions for PR card and PR TD applications, the RO has always been well-publicized.

Sure, the messaging has not always been clear as to certain details, like the working-abroad-for-a-Canadian-business credit, but the basics of the RO, that it is the PR's obligation, the PR's burden to show/prove, and that it is based on counting days present (not periods of "residency" as such, but actual presence), has been continually clear.

And the information IRCC has published, in print and online, has never suggested that PRs could, let alone should, rely on government sources of information to report their personal travel history.

News about advances in border crossing record capturing and maintenance has never (at least not from reliable sources) so much as suggested the government's records would replace individual information reporting; if anything, not only the government sources but reliable media sources couched this information in the context that the increased capture and access to such records would facilitate verification . . . more or less signaling that individuals should expect what they report to be screened against such records to verify them . . . NO hint, none at all, that it would replace personal record-keeping or reporting.

To suggest otherwise would be akin to expecting Canada Revenue or the U.S. IRS to fill in the income information in taxpayers' tax returns because of the records and data submitted to the government in, for example, mandatory filing (with the respective taxing agency, by sources of income) of T-4s (Canadian) or 1099s (U.S.) specifying prescribed information for individuals (and such forms also distributed to the respective individual). If in doubt of this, spoiler alert, it gets messy (potentially a big understatement) if an individual fails to properly and accurately provide that information in their personal returns, and yeah, even though the government already has it.

So those who knew about the enhancements and expansion of border crossing record collection should be among those who were even more aware of the importance of keeping complete and accurate records . . . frankly, a claim otherwise seems disingenuous.