I plan to submit bank statements and NOA. Does it mean I need to print and submit all possible bank statements during the five years? There will be too many. Bank statements are monthly.
“Proof showing that you meet the residency obligation…” now mandatory?
- Thread starter Johny Bravo
- Start date
NO! Just a couple (maybe a couple of years apart), meaning ONE recent NOA and ONE bank statement from a couple of years ago, or longer.
@Ponga Thanks a lot for your reply.
Although I landed long time ago, I continuously live in Canada for the recent two years and meet 730 days now. Should I just provide the earliest NOA (for 2021) and ealist bank statement (Jul 2021)? At Appendix A, it says the documents "prove you met your residency obligation. ". I am not sure how one NOA and one bank statement can prove this. Please kindly advise. Thanks.
Although I landed long time ago, I continuously live in Canada for the recent two years and meet 730 days now. Should I just provide the earliest NOA (for 2021) and ealist bank statement (Jul 2021)? At Appendix A, it says the documents "prove you met your residency obligation. ". I am not sure how one NOA and one bank statement can prove this. Please kindly advise. Thanks.
You provide evidence of residing in Canada, as they ask, and no more. Don't worry about what constitutes proof.
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/“proof-showing-that-you-meet-the-residency-obligation…”-now-mandatory.805920/post-10549578
I agree that the sentence is poorly written, and could be updated.
I, too, do not see how simply providing two `pieces' of evidence, translates in being proof that you have met the Residency Obligation, but apparently it (combined with their access to CBSA records), does.
For the purpose of making a complete PR card application, for a PR who meets the Residency Obligation based on at least 730 days IN Canada in the relevant time period, the only supporting documents the PR needs to include with the application are two pieces of evidence showing residency in Canada during the relevant five year time period. If IRCC has concerns or questions, it will request more "proof" later.
Agree, with clarification to not worry about what constitutes proof for purposes of making the PR card application.
PRs should, nonetheless, keep a complete and accurate record of all international travel, and copies of basic documents related to employment, schooling, address, and finances, including tax related documents, all of which can help prove presence in Canada if and when required . . . noting that these records are generally those that should be kept by EVERYONE.
There should be very little confusion about what the instructions specify. Like many, many terms, "proof" has different meanings and is used in different senses depending on the context. There seems to be a tendency among some to interpret or apply the term "proof" inconsistent with its context in IRCC information and instructions.
There is, in particular, a difference between "proof" in the sense of what is sufficient to establish a fact, and "proof" in the sense of what tends to show or establish (rather than what is sufficient to establish) a fact. It warrants being aware that some will deliberately conflate such things. While much of the unnecessary overthinking about this, here, is related to genuine, sincere questions (which, however, can usually be sufficiently answered by just carefully reading the forms and instructions), more than just a little is not. It helps to avoid unnecessarily chasing distractions down rabbit-holes.
Once More, Supporting Documents For PR card Applications; PRs NOT outside Canada more than 1095 days:
Two pieces of evidence showing residency does not constitute "proof" or translate into being proof that a PR has met the RO, in the sense of what is sufficient to prove (establish) the fact of RO compliance. Not close.
The two pieces of evidence showing residency to be included with a PR card application are only SUPPORTING documents, documents which support the rest of the information the PR provides in regards to establishing they comply with the RO. The primary testimonial evidence the PR card applicant must submit is their travel history; since this is the primary proof of RO compliance (in the sense of what tends to prove rather than what is sufficient to prove), the travel history should be as complete and accurate as possible. Additional evidence or proof (again, in the sense of what tends to prove rather than what is sufficient to prove) the PR must submit is a complete and accurate address history and work history, with no gaps.
The checklist item that states "Proof showing that you meet the residency obligation in the past five (5) years immediately before the application" is specifically qualified by the statement "Please refer to Appendix A of the instruction guide for a list of the documents required." While the first sentence in this item, in the checklist, encompasses a broad range of various circumstances, read and understood in conjunction with the reference to the appendix it is straight-forward, not confusing, not poorly written. Note, in particular, some PRs will need to submit significantly more supporting documents with the PR card application in the various "situations" outlined and specifically addressed in the appendix.
There really is no need, no call, to read any more, or less, into this recently added requirement for all PR card applicants, to include two pieces of evidence showing residency in Canada.
What needs to be included depends on whether the PR has been outside Canada more than 1095 days in the relevant five years. For PRs who have not been outside Canada more than 1095 days in the relevant five years, the instructions very clearly state that the only supporting documents needed, as to RO compliance, are just two pieces of evidence showing residency in Canada. This really, really is not complicated or confusing.
PRs who have been outside Canada more than 1095 days in the relevant five years must provide additional supporting documents, whether they are claiming one of the credits for days outside Canada, or relying on H&C relief. Here again, what must be submitted as supporting documents (more "proof" . . . again, proof in the sense of what tends to prove rather than what is sufficient to prove) is quite clearly outlined in the appendix.
Yes, the appendix in the guide is complex. It covers many scenarios and it obviously is intended to serve multiple functions, the main two being (1) an overall guide explaining the PR Residency Obligation, and (2) instruction as to what supporting documents need to be submitted with PR card and PR TD application. While it is complex, it is straight-forward enough when read and understood based on just what it states (without conflating the different meanings of "proof"). Any PR making a PR card application who has concerns, questions, or doubts about what to submit should be able to sort out what they need to know if they simply read these instructions on their face, with due consideration to context, without overthinking things, without trying to second-guess the meaning.
Reminder: apart from providing, with the application, "proof" in the sense of what tends to prove (rather than what is sufficient to prove), PRs may be subject to procedures constituting a formal Residency Determination, pursuant to which "proof" in the sense of what is sufficient to prove the fact of RO compliance may be required.
Summary:
For the PR who submits a complete and accurate travel history showing they were not outside Canada more than 1095 days in the relevant five years, together with a complete work history and address history, and who submits two objective pieces of evidence showing residency in Canada, that will suffice as proof of complying with the PR Residency Obligation . . . UNLESS . . . unless IRCC has cause to question the veracity of what the PR has submitted. If IRCC has cause to question the PR's submission, MORE EVIDENCE, or some will say "more proof" will be requested and must be provided. A significant discrepancy between what the PR reports in travel history and what IRCC discerns (mostly but not exclusively from CBSA travel history) is among the circumstances most likely to trigger such a request, that is, one might be tempted to say, being a bit cheeky, circumstances in which the PR's "proof" (in the sense of that tending to establish a fact) is not "proof" (in the sense of what suffices to establish a fact).
Last edited:
You are correct that one sense of the word 'proof' is that which tends to prove.
But there are dominant meanings of words, or if you prefer, nuances or implications that are very strongly felt by users of the language.
"Proof" is one of those. My understanding is that, for example, 'waterproof' is now strongly discouraged or even not allowed by the technical bodies that look into such things (at least in some areas, like watches) because ... almost nothing is entirely 'proof' against water (in sufficient pressure, basically). Proof has a very, very strong connotation of being sufficient, sealed against intrusion, unassailable and sufficient and complete, like a logical proof.
Therefore - sorry, but it's not semantics to say that using proof where you mean 'something that contributes to believing something' is actually NOT a good use of the word nor a clear way to write or communicate a requirement. 'Clear' means NOT introducing unnecessary ambiguity of interpretation, particularly where the consequences are potentially significant. The users here reading these different uses of 'proof' as meaning something more than IRCC seems to wish to imply are NOT wrong.
Short form, if one has to clarify a simply concept with such detail and appeal to different dictionaries, the instructions are not clear, and not well written. On that @Ponga is undoubtedly correct: it IS poorly written. Instructions should not require detailed reading for the simple base case applicant, nor appeals to dictionary definitions (multiple definitions!) to understand them.
i have a question. i am canadian citizen and my wife is PR card holder.
My wife has 6 months left to complete 1095 days. she has moved with me to USA. So i need to know does she need to come back and complete her 6 months or can she apply based on the reason that her spouse has moved to USA.
any help or advise will be really appreciated.
My wife has 6 months left to complete 1095 days. she has moved with me to USA. So i need to know does she need to come back and complete her 6 months or can she apply based on the reason that her spouse has moved to USA.
any help or advise will be really appreciated.
At the risk of being overbearing . . . a risk I take because in regards to making a PR card application there is far too much noise about proof of RO compliance that is mired in distraction if not distortion. It's NOT complicated for PRs who meet the RO based on days IN Canada. The IRCC information about the RO is not confusing, and not at all in any way confusing in regards to what needs to be submitted to check off the item in the PR card application checklist for proof showing the RO was met by a PR who has not been outside Canada for more than 1095 days in the relevant five years.
This is something that can be and should be kept simple. There is no need for semantics here. If anything, semantics is a distraction.
For those who read and follow the instructions as written, shrug. No matter. No need to wrestle with this. Submit documents as instructed in appendix A in the guide for both the PR card and PR TD application, recognizing that what to submit will vary depending on the PR's situation, noting that it is easy, easy, easy for the PR who meets the RO based on actual presence in Canada: just submit two pieces of evidence showing residency in Canada. That's it. No need to tangle with what "proof" means. Submit as guided in the instructions, and check off that item in the checklist.
For those who read and are influenced, or otherwise distracted or confused, by some of the noise here, in contrast, either disregard the convoluted trip into the what-is-proof weeds and go back to reading and following the instructions, or step back, relax, recognize that "proof" is used in different senses (apart from the term's several other meanings), and that for purposes of the checklist for a PR card or PR TD application, "Proof showing that you meet the residency obligation in the past five (5) years immediately before the application" is about submitting what are considered supporting documents as described in the appendix, and for PRs who have not been outside Canada for more than 1095 days this means just two pieces of evidence showing residency.
But, yeah being a bit cheeky, one can say: Sometimes the proof is not proof. Sometimes (a lot of the time) it's the evidence. Whether it is proof is to be determined.
For purposes of checking off the item for proof of RO compliance, in the checklist, just two pieces of evidence showing residency suffices (except those instructed to include more). But no, no, even though that is proof of RO compliance it is not sufficient proof to establish, as a definite fact, a PR's RO compliance. And there should be nothing at all confusing about this.
In particular, while I have not made the effort to systemically review IRCC forms and instructions generally, in regards to this, it is my strong impression that "proof" is often used, if not predominantly used, in a way that those filling in applications can understand it to be a reference to what items of evidence (what documents or information) need to be submitted, without trying to interpret what evidence will be sufficient to constitute what is (in some regulations and tribunal decisions) referred to as "conclusive proof."
And, in any event, for the way "proof" is used by IRCC, and this is very common in legal settings generally, it is not the case in this usage that "Proof has a very, very strong connotation of being sufficient, sealed against intrusion, unassailable and sufficient and complete, like a logical proof." In particular, in the use of "proof" by IRCC in its forms and guides there is no hint whatsoever that even when it is used in the context of that which establishes a fact, there is no hint that approaches what is "unassailable" like "a logical proof." And if it did, that would be error and subject to being set aside on appeal, since for most facts a PR might need to establish, if and when contested, proof on a balance of probabilities is sufficient.
Thus, no need to quibble over the difference between deductive and inductive logic. This is not about mathematics or formal logic. (No Pythagoras in the house.) Not close.
In any event: Notwithstanding more than a little noise here, an unnecessary distraction, it is very clear that the checklist item beginning "Proof showing that you meet the residency obligation in the past five (5) years immediately before the application" refers to the inclusion of items (as described in the appendix) that will support the claim the PR has met the RO. As you said yourself, there is (for this purpose) NO need to worry about what constitutes proof. Yeah. Spot on. Based on what "proof" clearly means in the context it is used in the checklist here.
So, yeah, I disagree that this checklist item is unclear, confusing, or misleading, or could be seen as referring to proof in the sense of what is required to conclusively establish, or definitely prove, the RO was met. In context it refers to proof in the sense of what constitutes evidence which can support concluding the RO was met. (And, by the way, absolutely does not refer to alcohol content by percentage, so I'll leave references to the proof of my preferred single malt scotch, Glenfiddich, aside; nor does it refer to the proofs that are generated before my compensated work goes to print.)
Context matters. Here, in this context, the use of the term "proof" is easily understood.
I disagree. Rather emphatically actually.
This is something that can be and should be kept simple. There is no need for semantics here. If anything, semantics is a distraction.
For those who read and follow the instructions as written, shrug. No matter. No need to wrestle with this. Submit documents as instructed in appendix A in the guide for both the PR card and PR TD application, recognizing that what to submit will vary depending on the PR's situation, noting that it is easy, easy, easy for the PR who meets the RO based on actual presence in Canada: just submit two pieces of evidence showing residency in Canada. That's it. No need to tangle with what "proof" means. Submit as guided in the instructions, and check off that item in the checklist.
For those who read and are influenced, or otherwise distracted or confused, by some of the noise here, in contrast, either disregard the convoluted trip into the what-is-proof weeds and go back to reading and following the instructions, or step back, relax, recognize that "proof" is used in different senses (apart from the term's several other meanings), and that for purposes of the checklist for a PR card or PR TD application, "Proof showing that you meet the residency obligation in the past five (5) years immediately before the application" is about submitting what are considered supporting documents as described in the appendix, and for PRs who have not been outside Canada for more than 1095 days this means just two pieces of evidence showing residency.
But, yeah being a bit cheeky, one can say: Sometimes the proof is not proof. Sometimes (a lot of the time) it's the evidence. Whether it is proof is to be determined.
For purposes of checking off the item for proof of RO compliance, in the checklist, just two pieces of evidence showing residency suffices (except those instructed to include more). But no, no, even though that is proof of RO compliance it is not sufficient proof to establish, as a definite fact, a PR's RO compliance. And there should be nothing at all confusing about this.
In particular, while I have not made the effort to systemically review IRCC forms and instructions generally, in regards to this, it is my strong impression that "proof" is often used, if not predominantly used, in a way that those filling in applications can understand it to be a reference to what items of evidence (what documents or information) need to be submitted, without trying to interpret what evidence will be sufficient to constitute what is (in some regulations and tribunal decisions) referred to as "conclusive proof."
And, in any event, for the way "proof" is used by IRCC, and this is very common in legal settings generally, it is not the case in this usage that "Proof has a very, very strong connotation of being sufficient, sealed against intrusion, unassailable and sufficient and complete, like a logical proof." In particular, in the use of "proof" by IRCC in its forms and guides there is no hint whatsoever that even when it is used in the context of that which establishes a fact, there is no hint that approaches what is "unassailable" like "a logical proof." And if it did, that would be error and subject to being set aside on appeal, since for most facts a PR might need to establish, if and when contested, proof on a balance of probabilities is sufficient.
Thus, no need to quibble over the difference between deductive and inductive logic. This is not about mathematics or formal logic. (No Pythagoras in the house.) Not close.
In any event: Notwithstanding more than a little noise here, an unnecessary distraction, it is very clear that the checklist item beginning "Proof showing that you meet the residency obligation in the past five (5) years immediately before the application" refers to the inclusion of items (as described in the appendix) that will support the claim the PR has met the RO. As you said yourself, there is (for this purpose) NO need to worry about what constitutes proof. Yeah. Spot on. Based on what "proof" clearly means in the context it is used in the checklist here.
So, yeah, I disagree that this checklist item is unclear, confusing, or misleading, or could be seen as referring to proof in the sense of what is required to conclusively establish, or definitely prove, the RO was met. In context it refers to proof in the sense of what constitutes evidence which can support concluding the RO was met. (And, by the way, absolutely does not refer to alcohol content by percentage, so I'll leave references to the proof of my preferred single malt scotch, Glenfiddich, aside; nor does it refer to the proofs that are generated before my compensated work goes to print.)
Context matters. Here, in this context, the use of the term "proof" is easily understood.
Clearly not easily understood, if it requires so much verbiage to explain it, and if so many do not find this version easily understood.
Which is a sign that it was poorly written.
Make no mistake, the verbiage aside, you got this right in other posts; for example: "You provide evidence of residing in Canada, as they ask, and no more. Don't worry about what constitutes proof."
While what the particular PR needs to include depends on whether the PR has been outside Canada more than 1095 days in the relevant five years, for PRs who have not been outside Canada more than 1095 days in the relevant five years, the only supporting documents needed, as to RO compliance, are just two pieces of evidence showing residency in Canada.
Forum noise aside, there is nothing in how things are stated in the checklist or guide that so much as hints there is any other way to understand this.
The "verbiage" is only needed to push back against the confusion and distraction too often posed in this forum in regards to a PR's obligations to present evidence of RO compliance, which periodically is besieged by distortions as to what proof of RO compliance means, noting that for many, many years, the checklist just referred to "Proof of residency requirements" which literally makes no sense (the residency requirements are prescribed by law), but was reasonably and practically, and easily understood, to mean submitting supporting documents showing the PR meets the RO.
After how many days we get AOR for PR Renewal card online application ? any other place to track it ?
I will be applying online this month for my PR card renewal.
This "Proof showing that you meet the residency obligation"has been bugging me for a long time.
I have been under the impression that all the monthly documents (in my case, pay stubs and bank Statements) for all 5 years must be scanned and attached to the application.
However, this thread makes me think that sending two sets of documents for each from the last month and 5 years ago would be acceptable.
Not so sure exactly if this is the right thing to do?
Has anyone done the same thing and successfully renewed?
This "Proof showing that you meet the residency obligation"has been bugging me for a long time.
I have been under the impression that all the monthly documents (in my case, pay stubs and bank Statements) for all 5 years must be scanned and attached to the application.
However, this thread makes me think that sending two sets of documents for each from the last month and 5 years ago would be acceptable.
Not so sure exactly if this is the right thing to do?
Has anyone done the same thing and successfully renewed?
It's a very recent change so you won't get many answers with exact experience.
You can see from posts here what i think - submit what they ask for, which is a couple pieces of supporting evidence.
While I can see wanting to add a couple more, I think it's a bad idea to provide multiple dozens of docs when they ask for two.
armoured
Thanks for the quick response.
True that sending all monthly bank statements for the past 5 years does not prove that I physically lived in Canada for 5 years.
I will try sending two documents, one from last month and one from 5 years ago and see what happens.
If it helps others, I'll report back here to see what kind of response I get from Immigration.
Thanks for the quick response.
True that sending all monthly bank statements for the past 5 years does not prove that I physically lived in Canada for 5 years.
I will try sending two documents, one from last month and one from 5 years ago and see what happens.
If it helps others, I'll report back here to see what kind of response I get from Immigration.