PR Card Renewal-Supporting Documents
- Thread starter sajjarapu
- Start date
@Ponga,Hello I am looking for info regarding PR card renewal for my situation below. Requesting your suggestion. thank you!
I did my soft landing in Apr 2019 and then came back to Canada in Feb 2022 and staying in Canada till now. I will be completing 730 days in month of Feb 2024. I am planning to Apply for renewal in Feb 2024. On IRCC website they ask for 2 evidence to prove we have stayed in Canada for 730 days. I am staying with my Family in rental aparatment, First evidence i can share the Rental aggreement which have all our family member names(4 members). Second Evidence I have home rental insurance or Bank account statement for myself.
But for wife i dont have any other evidence of stay, and also my kids as they have not started school that time. Requesting suggestion for second evidence that I can be submited for Wife and kids. Thank you! for help!
I did my soft landing in Apr 2019 and then came back to Canada in Feb 2022 and staying in Canada till now. I will be completing 730 days in month of Feb 2024. I am planning to Apply for renewal in Feb 2024. On IRCC website they ask for 2 evidence to prove we have stayed in Canada for 730 days. I am staying with my Family in rental aparatment, First evidence i can share the Rental aggreement which have all our family member names(4 members). Second Evidence I have home rental insurance or Bank account statement for myself.
But for wife i dont have any other evidence of stay, and also my kids as they have not started school that time. Requesting suggestion for second evidence that I can be submited for Wife and kids. Thank you! for help!
What is the bottom line? All PR renewal applicants now, irrespective of how many days they were outside Canada (even zero) have to submit 2 documents mentioned in Appendix A?
You need to provide evidence. Different from proof only in that they don't expect you to prove you have lived in Canada 730 days, only a few pieces of evidence that you resided in Canada (ie some of the time).
Go by the instructions: they give examples of things, provide a few of those. They do NOT need to 'prove' inconclusively that you have 730 days total (primary source for that will be your travel/days count and checks they can run). Again: go by the instructions.
If they want more evidence, they'll ask for it.
Last edited:
'Bottom line' is that you answered your own question. Yes, all PR renewals require at least 2 pieces of evidence of residency.
Yes. Emphasis on copies of just "two pieces of "evidence" . . . and emphasis on that is evidence of "residency," meaning not necessarily constituting proof of how many days were spent in Canada, let alone enough to show the PR meets the residency obligation, but "supporting documents" to show the PR meets the RO because those documents corroborate presence by also showing the PR was in fact residing in Canada, as shown by evidence of residency, recognizing the PR's travel history is the primary proof of RO compliance for the PR whose total time outside Canada is LESS than 1095 days, as shown in the completed (accurately completed) chart for question 5.5 in the PR card application.
Some Further Observations Re This Topic Generally (RO Supporting Documents):
By the way: The two-pieces-of-evidence to submit is about what is necessary to make a complete application. Any two legitimate pieces of evidence showing residency will suffice. That will allow the PR to check off the respective checklist item, and allow IRCC to proceed with processing the application, and UNLESS there is something raising concerns, some reason-to-question-residency, will most likely be enough for IRCC to approve the application and issue a new card. (Noting that this minimal, two pieces of evidence showing residency, is limited to PRs who meet the RO based on actual physical presence in Canada.)
Frankly, if IRCC identifies or perceives some reason-to-question-residency, non-routine processing is highly likely no matter what evidence the PR submitted with the application itself. While the outcome of that non-routine processing might be influenced by the documents submitted with the application, other information and factors will most likely have far more influence -- recognizing that other information influencing the outcome might very well be the results of IRCC or CBSA inquiry into the accuracy of any and all documents submitted by the PR.
Leading to . . .
Reminder: The obligation to provide honest information means it must be accurate, of course, but this is also about NOT submitting misleading information. Accurate information can be misleading. When a PR submits a document, not only are they in effect vouching for the validity and veracity of that document, itself, but representing the document, that evidence, is consistent with the purpose for which it is submitted.
A document purporting to "show" residency in Canada during a period of time the PR was living/residing outside Canada will pass the completeness screening. Meanwhile, the PR knows, of course, whether or not it shows residency in fact, at that address, for that month; that is, the PR knows whether they were actually residing at that address that month, or residing elsewhere. Outside Canada, or even elsewhere IN Canada. Submitting a document that on its face shows residency at a location at a time the PR was not actually residing at that location is, at best, misleading, potentially outright misrepresentation.
While there is a lot of leeway in how individuals can and do report residency related information, IRCC officials (and now, I suspect, the algorithms being increasingly used, derived from advanced analytics) are more savvy and discriminating (in a legitimate screening context) than many apprehend. No reason to worry that IRCC will approach this with a gotcha-agenda, they don't. There is no sign, as yet, that IRCC is cracking down on the extent to which residency-related information is so often fudged by clients (outright misrepresentation or deception is different). But if and when incongruities, let alone inconsistencies, are identified in the information submitted by PRs, whether within the application and supporting documents (remembering that the comparison of information within an application has long been IRCC's main screening tool) or in comparison with other information, should be no surprise: at the least some non-routine processing and elevated scrutiny looms likely.
Note: "fudged" is a legal, highly technical term (just kidding). I deliberately use this rather vague term because reporting this information to IRCC is more about being honest than it is about technical criteria governing legal residency. The parameters of reporting residency is a big subject (especially as soon as one includes consideration of often widely different criteria employed in different contexts; residency for tax filing purposes frequently mentioned here for example), and I do not mean to go on a wild-chase down that rabbit-hole. Not perfectly, but IRCC can generally glean fraud compared to a bit of fudging; while much of the latter appears tolerated, if spotted, a bit of fudging can trigger increased scrutiny.
Hint: Be sure every supporting document submitted as evidence of residency is related to a period of time the PR was actually residing at the location indicated in the document. Even though it would satisfy what needs to be submitted, don't use a club membership for November 2022 unless actually residing in that area in November 2022.
Good succinct response for the question, as usual . . . but hoping you forgive a mischievous smile, sensing a keyboard slip, no "need to 'prove' inconclusively" . . . inconclusively eh?
By the way, a reminder, even if a PR's account of days in Canada is challenged, and there is a formal hearing on a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility (the procedure in cases where IRCC officials processing a PR card application identify the PR to be inadmissible due to a failure to comply with the RO), even then there is NO need for the PR to prove conclusively the number of days present IN Canada was at least 730. Proof on a balance of probabilities is enough. Sounds nerdy, perhaps weedy, reeking like technicalities, but in practice this makes a difference.
That is, even if pushed to fully prove RO compliance, well beyond what is necessary to make a complete application, the PR's burden of proof is met if there is sufficient evidence to persuade the decision-matter that it is more likely than not, another way of saying beyond a balance of probabilities, the PR meets the RO.
For illustration: Similarly in any Residency Determination, including cases in which the PR needs to provide proof of days entitled to credit for days accompanying a citizen spouse outside Canada. I mention this because I was just recently looking at an IAD case, in which the PR's submissions to the visa office, in support of an application for a PRTD, failed to persuade the visa office to issue a PRTD, which is one of those cases in which the fact-finder, the decision-maker (the IAD Panel), actually enumerates evidence and explains how they concluded the PR met their burden of proof. That discussion, in the IAD's explanation of its findings, is a good illustration of applying the PR's burden of proof.
In particular, in ruling the visa office refusal to issue a PRTD was not valid in law, in Badra c Canada, 2020 CanLII 75258, https://canlii.ca/t/jb1fg the Panel described the evidence presented (including testimony of family members) and then stated:
I find the additional evidence, oral and documentary, clarifies the points of concern raised in the Minister’s written submission and establishes on a balance of probabilities the declared travels of the Appellant and her family.
After considering the arguments and evidence before me, I find it more likely than not that the Appellant and her Canadian citizen husband were ordinarily residing together . . . [for a period more than sufficient to meet the 730 days obligation]
Oops, typo/brainfart - that should have been incontrovertibly. Although conclusively also works.
Yes, the level of proof required at either stage is not incontrovertible proof, nor beyond a reasonable doubt; I was indeed overstating it here to make clear that 'proof' required at the PR renewal application stage is even lower than that: simple evidence of some residence in Canada, far lower than what most might think is meant when they hear 'proof.'
Thanks for clarification. I sent only two pieces of evidence of residency. I hope it is sufficient enough .
what did you send as proof of residency ?
did you send it for all the past 5 years ?
You've already received an answer. Please now be courteous and READ the other threads on the matter, including this one.
You only need to provide a couple of pieces of evidence. You can choose which months - it's unlikely that has a lot of bearing. You will see that others have done this (since the requirement to include two pieces of evidence) without any trouble. Since you've been in residence 4.5 years of the last five, you should not expect any trouble.
I'd suggest that including two different pieces of evidence, eg a bank statement and, say, a tax NOA or one of the other types, might be better than just two bank statements, but it's only a guess.
Beyond these general statements and what you can READ abnd discern in these threads, you're just going to have to use your best judgment.
When in doubt, follow the instructions; otherwise, yep, follow the instructions.
The instructions are set out in Appendix A in the Guide for making a PR card application. That is here: 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#appendixA
The instructions are straightforward, not at all complex, for PRs who meet the Residency Obligation based on actual presence in Canada (those for whom the total number of days outside Canada is fewer than 1095, as calculated in the chart in question 5.5 in the application, when fully and accurately completed). Like you, like any PR who has been physically present in Canada more than 730 days within the preceding five years and since becoming a PR, all IRCC is asking for is a measly bit of evidence, just two items of evidence, that show the PR was residing (had "residency") in Canada during the relevant five year period of time.
In particular, those instructions state:
Supporting documents showing that you meet the residency obligation
You must provide copies of 2 pieces of evidence that can show residency in Canada in the five (5) years immediately before the application, such as: [then listing examples, which includes bank statements]
This is information previously posted multiple times in this thread alone, and scores and scores of times throughout the PR RO related threads.
Example:
Again, such information is posted multiple times in this thread alone. And I concur with @armoured here:
The last of that statement is important, and warrants emphasis. In addition to reading and following the instructions, the PR absolutely needs to use their own "best judgment" in what information and supporting documents they provide in a PR card application (any application to IRCC).
What is asked for is rather minimal (but this was just added this year; that is, it is more than what was needed before earlier this year). It is merely a request for "supporting" documents, not a full blown RQ (Residency Questionnaire). Just something, two somethings, that "show" the PR had "residency" in Canada. And it makes total sense for PRs who meet the RO based on actual presence in Canada (others will need to submit several more supporting documents, as described in the instructions), since the primary proof they meet the RO is set out in the question 5.5 chart, their travel history, which IRCC can readily crosscheck for indications of inaccuracy or omissions in the client's CBSA travel history.
Another way of referring to "supporting" documents is "corroborating" evidence, something that strengthens the case. In this context, anyone who has spent at least two years (730 days) in Canada should be able to easily provide evidence of their actual, in fact residency in Canada, thereby corroborating their work, address, and travel history as set out in the application, supporting the information that shows they met the RO.
Of course NOT all evidence that on its face appears to show residency in Canada is actually evidence of residency in Canada during a particular period of time. A bank statement showing the PR's address in Ontario but for a month the PR was not actually residing in Ontario will work as an item of evidence sufficient to make a complete application, even if it is not in actual fact evidence of the PR's residency in Ontario for that month because the PR was not actually residing there, in Ontario and at that address, that month.
So, yeah, best judgment would be to submit an item of evidence that not only shows the PR's name and address in Canada, relevant to a particular period of time, but to be sure it is IN FACT evidence of residency in Canada during that period of time. By submitting it as evidence of residency, the PR is representing it is IN FACT evidence of residency. (PRs should easily anticipate that IRCC can and usually will crosscheck information in the application and supporting documents; not good if evidence of residency in Canada is for a period of time it appears the PR was working and living outside Canada; did someone mention using one's own best judgment?)
Some Further, Editorial Observations:
As many have criticized and complained, more than a few have found these instructions to be confusing, largely because the corresponding checklist item refers to "Proof showing that you meet the residency obligation . . . " but also because the subheading refers to "documents showing that you meet the residency obligation," which many have interpreted to mean the PR card applicant needs to submit documents that prove their presence in Canada for at least 730 days within the relevant five years. While I understand the confusion, to my view it derives from interpreting what IRCC wants rather than trying to simply read and understand what the instructions specifically state.
This is very common but, perhaps ironically, in this context it is the opposite of the more common misunderstandings which tend to interpret IRCC information and instructions in a way that underestimates requirements or requests for information. Common example, albeit in reference to requirements, is how often many believe that just the fact they are an employee of a business formed in Canada means that days working abroad for that business will qualify for the working-abroad-for-Canadian-business RO credit, largely based on IRCC information that such time "may" count toward meeting the RO, totally glossing over (or perhaps just plain ignoring) the fact that "may" means it can but not necessary it will, which means there are additional factors to consider, additional criteria that must be met, to qualify for this credit.
In some contexts it can help to read more into instructions than what they explicitly state. BUT NOT USUALLY. If the instructions can be read and understood literally, it is almost always OK to literally follow those instructions. Kind of how language employed in formal contexts is supposed to work.
Here the instructions explicitly state that the PR "must provide copies of 2 pieces of evidence that can show residency"(for PRs who meet RO based on actual presence). That's it. So, again, "when in doubt, follow the instructions; otherwise, yep, follow the instructions."
Hi there,
I am submitting a PR renewal application and it seems as thought the requirements have changed... is now mandatory for all applicants to provide copies of two pieces of evidence that proof of residency, regardless of whether you have been outside Canada for more than 1095 days? Previously, only those who did not meet the minimum residency requirements needed to provide this, but in the current form it is mandatory for all applicants. Can anyone confirm this? I have not been outside of Canada for more that 1095 days.
If I must provide these documents, what kind of documents can I provide? The appendix lists:
Thanks so much for any input and support with this!!
I am submitting a PR renewal application and it seems as thought the requirements have changed... is now mandatory for all applicants to provide copies of two pieces of evidence that proof of residency, regardless of whether you have been outside Canada for more than 1095 days? Previously, only those who did not meet the minimum residency requirements needed to provide this, but in the current form it is mandatory for all applicants. Can anyone confirm this? I have not been outside of Canada for more that 1095 days.
If I must provide these documents, what kind of documents can I provide? The appendix lists:
- You must provide copies of 2 pieces of evidence that can show residency in Canada in the five (5) years immediately before the application, such as:
- employment records or pay stubs;
- bank statements;
- Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) Notice of Assessment for the five (5) years immediately before the application
- evidence that you received benefits from Canadian government programs;
- rental agreements;
- club memberships;
- or any other documents that prove you met your residency obligation.
Thanks so much for any input and support with this!!