Also, for the supporting documents to show I will be able to meet the minimum 730 days I don’t believe I have enough supporting documents. I am still looking for a job (so no pay stub and employment records). I have no bank statements as I am sharing rent with a couple of roommates (one of them makes the payment every month). Can I just upload any document that has my address on it?
For a new PR IN Canada and checking "Obtain my first PR card," as the option that applies in item 1.1, whose date of landing (as stated in item 1.4 and readily verified by IRCC in the PR's GCMS records),
is less than three years previous (will explain this part more below),
the PR card application will easily sail through . . . just answer the questions straight-forwardly. There is a big reason why the processing timeline (as currently posted by IRCC) for applications to obtain the PR's FIRST PR card is just 30 days, compared to the 93 days for applications to renew or replace a card.
That reason, the reason for the difference in processing timelines, is that for PRs applying for their first PR card there is NO question about RO compliance. (With exceptions . . . none related to your situation.) The crux of processing the application is verification of identity, as the person who now has PR status, and address. Simple. Straight-forward.
So, RELAX, this is an easy one.
Further Observations/Explanations:
For any PR making a PR card application
BEFORE the third year anniversary of the day they landed, there is NO need to worry about supporting documents that will show they "
will be able" to meet the minimum 730 days RO within five years. Date of landing compared to the calendar is all the "
proof" necessary. If there are more than 730 days left on the calendar, to the fifth year anniversary, that alone is enough to show the PR is able to meet the RO. That is, regardless how many (how few) days the PR has so far been in Canada, there are enough days left in the first five year time period for the PR to meet the RO.
After the third year anniversary of landing, when there are fewer than 730 days left on the calendar until the fifth year anniversary of landing (that is, the last day in the first five year time period), being able to show the PR is able to meet the RO depends in part on counting days IN Canada so far. As long as the total number of days IN Canada so far, plus number of days left on the calendar until the fifth year anniversary, totals at least 730, that shows the PR is able to meet the RO for the first five years.
The current (recently revised) checklist calls for the PR to submit at least two pieces of evidence that will "
show residency" in Canada, as supporting documents. As you suggest, you can submit a copy of something with your address on it and, perhaps, a very short letter from a roommate stating you are sharing a residence with them. Just something so you can check off that item in the checklist. Again, since you are applying for your first PR card, and you have way more than two more years left until the end of your first five years after landing, there really is ZERO issue, NO concern, about RO compliance. OK to submit something that more or less technically allows you to checkoff this item in the checklist, and what it actually is (as long as it is not making any misrepresentation) should not matter.
Note: the timing and nature of your query, here and now, is fortuitous (and thus appreciated) in regards to the discussion between
@Ponga and
@armoured above, as it helps to illuminate the difference between . . . well, between "
proof" and "
proof," not all proof being proof, even if it warrants more weight, perhaps, than mere "
evidence."
Collateral, Subject of Thread Observations (reflecting on previous posts here)
:
I am, perhaps, being too cute saying not all proof is proof, referring to the difference between "
proof" and "
proof." But I do this for a reason. Terms are very often not at all static. What they mean in regards to how they are practically applied can vary, and vary widely. Moreover, it is my strong impression that IRCC often employs, and deliberately so, broad, open-ended, and to some extent fungible terms . . . not to mention the extent to which there is more than a little casual, if not careless use of words as well at all levels, right up to Federal Court justices deciding immigration cases. See, for example, a very experienced FC justice, Justice Richard Mosley, in the 2020, in Arefian v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2020 FC 739,
https://canlii.ca/t/j8mk5 decision, ruling on what he refers to as an application to renew a "PR
visa" (which generally cannot be renewed) that is, for sure, an application for a PR card not a visa, a mix-up of terms often seen in this forum but given how different a "
visa" is compared to a status card, in very important respects, this error illustrates situations in which it would be nonsense, not just dangerous, to quote and apply this FC decision as if it is about a "
visa" application.
Example: Proof that a PR was in Canada this and that and another day, is proof of complying with the RO, but it is not proof in the sense it is not proof enough. It is proof. But not proof.
And employing different words (such as referring to "
evidence" instead of "
proof," reserving "
proof" to refer to enough evidence to prove the matter) often fails to resolve the confusion rooted in imprecise, variable, even outright vague language. Note, for example,
@armoured expresses dislike for IRCC's use of "
proof" in its instructions, with good reasons as discussed, while
@Ponga notes how unclear the instructions are in regards to providing "
Supporting documents showing that you meet the residency obligation," likewise with good reasons as discussed.
Showing . . .
Proving . . .
A big part of the problem is that the instructions are intended to cover a very, very broad spectrum of circumstances. The language employed has to accommodate PRs in very different factual contexts.
Which brings this back round to the query posed by
@reevgaj . . . and the checklist item that instructs the applicant to include:
[ ] 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.
If interpreted literally, it might appear the first sentence has no application to a recently landed PR. But that's where what
@armoured emphasized comes into play, referring to the Appendix, and emphasizing that the way to respond is more fully explained and instructed in the Appendix. Where it states, for someone who has been "
a permanent resident for less than five (5) years . . . you must show that you will be able to meet the minimum of 730 days of physical presence in Canada within five (5) years of the date you became a permanent resident."
I can remember the first time I read this, or something very similar (it was a good long while ago), and much like
@reevgaj initially thought wow, how does a PR prove they will "
be able" to meet the RO?
No need to parse the language here. There is no doubt that all that means is that if the PR does not yet have RO credit for at least 730 days since landing, there are enough days left before the fifth year anniversary of landing for the PR to still meet the RO. But it sure could be read to be demanding more than that.
Context. Common-sense. And, yeah, confirmation illustrated by actual practice. So it is easier to address these questions relative to the individual situation. What is "
proof," some will say, is in the eye of the beholder. It can and it will vary.
Is There a Monkey-wrench III?
To be clear, what the Appendix states in regards to someone who has been a PR for less than 5 years, is not exactly accurate. It states they must meet a "
physical presence" RO. That's clearly not correct, or at least not entirely correct given the exceptions allowing credit, in certain circumstances, for days outside Canada.
That's why I referenced "
credit" above in saying what the Appendix means: There is no doubt that all that means is that if the PR
does not yet have RO credit for at least 730 days since landing, there are enough days left before the fifth year anniversary of landing for the PR to still meet the RO.
So, still, NO need to parse this language. It is easy enough to figure this out based on, again,
Context,
Common-sense, and enough experience with actual practice to confirm.