Even in complex cases (i.e. outside of the "when the PR card applicant is in compliance with the RO based on physical presence in Canada" scenario) one may want to submit only the highlights or just the key elements . . .
For sure. "
Key elements" as indicated by the applicable instructions.
For a PR relying on RO credit for days outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse, for example, the "
proof" submitted should be according to the description of supporting documents under the subtitle
Situation B. Accompanying a Canadian citizen outside Canada in the Appendix. (
If in doubt, follow the instructions; otherwise, yep, follow the instructions.)
In my previous post I noted I might follow-up with more observations about complex and high-complex cases, to discuss the parameters for the submission of supporting documents in such cases, noting however that even in the most complex cases a box of documents is more than necessary, way more than necessary and probably not at all a good idea.
Still kicking that can down the road a bit further . . . But for now it warrants noting with emphasis that a PR card application is not adversarial, not disputative, not litigious. No need and not a good idea to approach it like preparing to present a case at trial. Unlike a PR Travel Document application (even though the instructions mostly read the same, a PR TD application is different because there is a status decision on the line), a PR card application cannot, not in itself, result in a negative status decision based on a breach of the RO. Worst-case scenario is that it triggers the commencement of inadmissibility proceedings in which the PR will have an opportunity to more fully present their case, whether that be about presenting evidence documenting presence in Canada, eligibility for credit for days outside Canada, or H&C reasons for allowing them to retain PR status despite a breach of the RO. (And if that happens, if the PR card application triggers inadmissibility proceedings that in turn result in a negative decision, the PR has a right of appeal pursuant to which they get a
de novo opportunity to make their case to the IAD.)
As I also noted in the previous post, I had more to say about the baseline submission of "
proof" . . . here again I apologize for the repetition . . . especially since the conventional wisdom in this forum fully embraces this . . . see, for example, this from a recent conversation:
If you meet the RO, you need two documents. That’s it.
So for example two NOAs. Or one pay slip and one bank statement. Or any other combination.
Yep . . . well, with a clarification: that is as long as the PR meets the RO based on physical presence in Canada.
In any event, to more fully explain the baseline . . .
Baseline RO Supporting Documents (evidence of residence in Canada to be submitted with the application by PRs in RO compliance based on physical presence in Canada) . . .
I think the idea is to cover as many days of that five year period as possible
Not only has
@armoured clearly (and correctly) stated this is not the case . . .
They do NOT ask you to provide accounting for every single day of physical presence. They just ask for two pieces of evidence that you were in Canada
I think it is safe to say that
@abff08f4813c has been persuaded that documenting many days (let alone 730 or more days) in Canada is not "
the idea" when providing supporting documents to show RO compliance . . . at least when . . .
When this is true, when it applies, warrants emphasis and clarification, particularly so because part of the discussion has been about cases in which IRCC might want
more "proof" or otherwise have questions about the PR's presence in Canada suggesting more proof may be helpful or even required.
The instructions clearly set out in detail when a PR is asked to submit
with the application more than just two items showing residence in Canada during the relevant time period as proof (evidence) of RO compliance. In particular,
Appendix A describes circumstances in which more supporting documentation is required. Again, this is about what is submitted
with the application (IRCC can request additional information and documentation in the course of processing the application, or attendant inadmissibility proceedings if that happens). This includes those situations in which RO compliance depends (at least in part) on qualifying for RO credit for days outside Canada (such as credit for days outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen family member), and situations in which the PR is not in compliance as of the date the PR card application is made (requiring submission of supporting documentation for H&C factors to consider).
The other side of that coin, the side this discussion is focused on, is not complicated:
For PRs In RO Compliance Based On Physical Presence In Canada > 730 days . . .
PR card applicants need to submit just two items that show residence in Canada as long as they are in compliance with the RO based on physical presence in Canada for at least 730 days within the relevant time period.
Just two pieces of evidence showing residence in Canada is enough. For most PRs in this scenario, this is enough to get the application approved and a new card issued. Unless IRCC has reason to apprehend the PR is not settled in Canada, or has left Canada after applying for the PR card, the odds are very high the application is approved and a PR card is mailed to the PR's home address in Canada (subject to whatever is being done given the current postal strike).
Potential IRCC Concerns Re RO Compliance (even though the PR declares > 730 days in Canada):
If IRCC has concerns, that takes this back to the comment by
@armoured: "
If your file is so bad you need 250+ pages, you have a credibility problem." Indeed, if IRCC has concerns, meaning IRCC is questioning whether the PR's physical presence in Canada is less than the PR has declared in the application (in an application declaring RO compliance based on physical presence), there is clearly, at least to some extent, a credibility problem.
What can cause IRCC to have concerns leading to doubts about the PR's travel history and RO compliance (again, for a PR claiming presence sufficient to be in compliance) is a huge subject, but most boil down to typical credibility flags, ranging from salient omissions or indications of evasiveness, to perceived incongruities, inconsistencies, or outright discrepancies in the information submitted by the applicant (either within the PR's information or compared to other sources of information).
Some might ask whether including additional evidence of residence or presence
with the application could help avoid IRCC having concerns about RO compliance, and thereby avoid delays in processing. That is, could more evidence of periods of presence in Canada make a difference.
No. Including additional information and evidence in the application will not avoid complex processing.
This has been true for a long time (relative to
non-routine processing before the implementation of automated processing that triages for complexity; also noting that no evidence of residence in Canada was to be included with the application until 2023) but is especially true now that the triage function is mostly automated; either the application will on its face pass the automated screening for approval as a non-complex application or it will go into a queue to be opened and processed as a complex or high complex case.
A question worth considering is whether including additional evidence might be a factor that can send an application into complex processing that might have qualified for automated approval. Easy to guess the odds are that a heavy submission of documents is far more likely to trigger complex processing than it will help to avoid complex processing.
Summary: For almost all PRs declaring presence in Canada sufficient to comply with the RO, any two items from during the relevant time period that show the PR's name plus either an activity in Canada, or the PR's Canadian home address, will suffice. If that will not suffice, it is not likely that including additional evidence will either, at least not without complex case processing.
Exceptions . . . and nuances . . . not to mention "
they doth protest too much" scenarios . . . common-sense . . . plus some, in time . . .
