Further commentary is probably unnecessary given how extensively the instructions for including supporting documents with a PR card application have been addressed. And given there really is no controversy or conflict regarding what the instructions require from PRs in RO compliance based on being present in Canada.
In particular, other than an occasional revival of efforts to complicate if not obfuscate things, and despite the back-and-forth in these extensive discussions,
there is no controversy, but rather a solid consensus, about what the PR card application checklist and instructions require for PRs who are in RO compliance based on presence in Canada. In terms of supporting documents, just two documents which are evidence of residency in Canada is sufficient for the PR to honestly mark as submitted the checklist item:
[ ] 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.
NOT difficult for anyone who has actually spent two years in Canada.
So, an overall reminder, in an effort to keep focus on the essential information even while wrestling in the weeds some more . . .
OVERALL, A REMINDER (for PRs meeting the RO based on presence in Canada)
:
What will satisfy IRCC, in processing a PR card application, that a PR claiming RO compliance based on presence is eligible for a new PR card, mostly depends on how confident IRCC is about the veracity of the PR's travel history, address history, and work history, as reported in the application, and that this information shows RO compliance. As of earlier this year IRCC revised the application instructions and checklist to also ask the PR for a little more, two pieces of evidence showing residency, to aid its evaluation of what the applicant has submitted.
Of course IRCC can and will assess the information against other sources, like CBSA travel history, to help it verify whether what the applicant has submitted is accurate enough to rely on.
For most PR card applications this processing is done attendant opening the application, or very soon after that. AOR and Decision-Made the same day is common, and for most PRs, the AOR and Decision-Made are no more than a week or three apart.
If, in contrast, that assessment leaves open some question about the PR's RO compliance, IRCC will ask for more. What needs to be submitted to satisfy IRCC if the PR's information is questioned or challenged is a different subject, far more complicated and variable given that a lot depends on the particular facts and circumstances in the individual case, and the nature and scope of questions or concerns involved.
The rest of this is largely a sidebar . . .
But you do have an opinion - you defended the way it was written, and effectively claimed that it was lack of comprehension on the part of applicants.
Sure, I have an opinion, many opinions.
Apart from the effort to keep my opinions out of it, however, NO, definitely not, I do not have an opinion as to how the instructions or checklist should be written. I was not lying or being disingenuous; again, how the instructions should be written is not something I bother thinking much about. Again, my focus is on interpreting instructions, as best we can, and figuring out how to apply them, how to best navigate these aspects of PR card applications.
I have expressed an opinion, concurring with many others, including you, that despite improvement in the recent revisions, there are "
still issues" and the "
checklist is still vague in some respects." In fact, in regards to the question about what the instructions require a PR to provide, I posted:
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.
And I have made similar observations many times. Indeed, again and again I have referenced unclear, uncertain, and vague instructions and questions, many times in between that post (in mid-June) and the post you just responded to above in which I again reiterate that I get it that these instructions are unclear enough that, quote, "
I get it" when someone stumbles over questions in the application, "
I get it when someone asks for clarification about what they need to submit, by way of supporting documents with their PR card application."
Here, for example, is a quote from another post of mine:
And yes, yes indeed, the language of the checklist and in the Appendix leave a lot to be desired in terms of clear instruction.
So no, I have not "
defended the way it was written."
In contrast, I have propounded an interpretation. And vigorously defended that interpretation. Perhaps more argumentatively than explanatory at times, but as I have reiterated several times, regardless some confusion oriented to particular terms ("
proof" being the primary term of concern), what the instructions require a PR to do, to submit, is clear enough there should be little or no dispute what is required from the PR who meets the RO based on presence in Canada. And I don't think there is much dispute about what is required.
It is not as if I am the author or sole advocate for this interpretation. Almost everyone who is paying attention and focused on helping those with questions navigate the process, and who have addressed this, likewise see the revised instructions as simply adding the requirement to include two pieces of evidence showing residency in Canada (again is for PRs who meet the RO based on presence).
Moreover, it warrants remembering that requiring PRs to submit two pieces of evidence showing residency in Canada, had been implemented for those making a PR Travel Document application back in the summer of 2022. For the better part of a year the only question about the 2022 revisions was whether providing this evidence also applied to PR card applicants.
Proof versus Proof; What Proves . . .
I do not mean to revisit the meaning of "
proof" . . . generally, in the checklist, in Appendix A, or what its predominant meaning is, or otherwise.
But I suspect you interpreted my explanation (verbiage included) that sometimes the word "
proof" is used in reference to the items of evidence that can be used to prove something, not necessarily the sum or totality of what constitutes conclusive proof, as defending the use of the term in the checklist and instructions. It is not defending its use to explain how or why a term like "
proof," as it appears in the checklist qualified by reference to the appendix, does not conflict with or controvert or undermine what most agree on, and what I think we both agree is the appropriate interpretation of what is required . . . what I am very confident is intended.
For another example of what I have said in this regard, here specifically referencing the checklist:
And yeah, words like "proof," in the context of what does or does not "prove RO compliance," tends to complicate and confuse things.
The problem, and what I have pushed back against, is not in what applicants have asked, but in forum commentary that leverages confusion about the term "
proof" in the checklist into suggesting this is about requiring proof to conclusively establish, or definitively prove, the RO was met, arguing that this term makes it is uncertain what IRCC is asking for, that this makes the checklist item altogether unclear, confusing, or misleading.
No, what is required is clear, clear enough anyway there should be little or no dispute what is required, DESPITE how unclear or confusing one or more of its terms are. Clear enough, that is, for those here are trying to help others to confidently describe what is asked for, just two pieces of evidence showing residency.
As I have also noted:
. . . the language may be "inconsistent" but absent overthinking it is nonetheless easily understood (but for too much overthinking diversion from forum participants who, frankly, should know better).
By the way, the latter was not alluding to you. Not at all. As I have quoted, you have many, many times responded to questions about what needs to be submitted with the simple, straight-forward observation that (for PRs in compliance based on presence) just two pieces of evidence showing residency is all that is asked.
The problem is not rooted in the question. The difficulty is not due to applicants asking. The latter leading to a bigger burr in my saddle . . .
