+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445

harryp

Star Member
Jun 22, 2014
125
10
On the PR renewal checklist IMM5644E form the second point is for Proof of Residency requirement if you were outside Canada 1095 days or more in last 5 years. If this does not apply to me should I leave it unchecked or still check it ? I have seen previous versions of the same form and this question was not in the include the following items with your application which makes me believe if it is mandatory to check this box but not provide any proof since its not applicable to me ?
 
On the PR renewal checklist IMM5644E form the second point is for Proof of Residency requirement if you were outside Canada 1095 days or more in last 5 years. If this does not apply to me should I leave it unchecked or still check it ? I have seen previous versions of the same form and this question was not in the include the following items with your application which makes me believe if it is mandatory to check this box but not provide any proof since its not applicable to me ?


Read this it explains it in Appendix A

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...acement-renewal-change-gender-identifier.html
 

This link explains what are the required documents to prove residency requirement. But the Checklist only asks for proof of residency if you were outside Canada for more than 1095 days. Since, thats not applicable to me im wondering if I should Check that box or leave it blank.

Also, I dont think I need to send any proof of Residency if I meet 730 days requirement in Canada
 
  • Like
Reactions: YVR123
This link explains what are the required documents to prove residency requirement. But the Checklist only asks for proof of residency if you were outside Canada for more than 1095 days. Since, thats not applicable to me im wondering if I should Check that box or leave it blank.

Also, I dont think I need to send any proof of Residency if I meet 730 days requirement in Canada

Exactly so you answered your own question the answer is obviously no.