To input the info of resident address when apply for PR renewal, which address I can give?
I'm wondering which one is better to prove my residency if there's a secondary review is needed.
In some scenarios the "
address question" can be complicated. For most it is not. Frankly it probably is not all that complicated for you. If you have a primary residential address in Canada, the address of the dwelling where you actually live, that's the address you give. If you do not have a primary residential address in Canada, you cannot apply for a PR card using the forms IRCC provides.
Does not affect your status as a PR if you do not have a PR card.
Yeah, I know, it would be a lot more convenient to have a valid PR card. And as a PR you probably believe you are entitled to a PR card. IRCC clearly has a different view, and imposes additional requirements to be eligible for a PR card. There is likely a way to challenge IRCC's policy and its recently adopted practices reflected by the structure of new form for a PR card application. Whether it would be worthwhile to pursue that I dare not guess.
In any event, how to answer questions in an IRCC application is almost never about what "
can" the applicant put, but about giving the most accurate, honest answer. Yeah, some fudge. And some of those get away with it too. And outright prosecutions for misrepresentation seem to be few. But the best approach, the one that works the best the most often, is the no-fudge, just the facts, the honest and accurate approach.
Address information, it seems, has been the exception. Caution, looks like "
the times they are a'changing . . ."
But lots of people just give a friend's address and received the card to my experience. I cannot say it's legal or not, that's the reality though . . .
The PR card application form is new as of last month. Among the bigger changes is the extent to which it requires the applicant to explicitly declare they are IN Canada in order to even complete an application for a PR card. It also instructs, in a way that is commanding, that the applicant verify the accuracy of travel history right up to the date the application is submitted. This version adds stronger, more definitive verifications, requiring the applicant to not just verify the accuracy of the information submitted but verify the applicant understands the consequences for misrepresentations and for omissions of material information. Looks like IRCC is sending a message.
There's a lot of clues that how easily PRs have fudged address information in the past will not be how things go from here forward. The "
I did XXX and it was OK" statements about what works, rather often really meaning "
I got away with XXX and it was OK," was never a reliable guide. Even less reliable now, and perhaps outright really bad advice.
All clues point towards the importance of giving a truthful response about addresses based on where the PR actually lives.
I now understand what does primary residence address means. A normal people take normal life in Canada must have a normal way to live. It's for most people to give a actual residence, and for me nowhere there is a primary residence in Canada. It's my home in US...But to apply PR renewal, any foreign address is not acceptable, make it a big question.
Not really a big question. The structure of the new forms makes it clear that IRCC policy is to provide PRs IN Canada a PR card and for PRs outside Canada a PR Travel Document. This is not a change in policy. The change in the forms is something of a change in practice, toward more fully implementing the policy IRCC has had for quite a long while, which again is to provide PRs settled and residing IN Canada a PR card, and provide those living outside Canada a PR TD as needed for travel to Canada.
Basically IRCC is saying you do not need a PR card. You can get a PR TD as needed.
No advanced degrees in molecular biology or neurological chemistry necessary to understand why PRs prefer to have a PR card rather than having to apply for a PR TD when they want to travel to Canada, or even for the PR in the U.S. within driving distance of the Canadian border who does not need a PR card or PR TD (as they can just drive to the border and be allowed into Canada). Traveling to Canada with a PR card tends to more convenient, and for PRs
cutting-it-close potentially a lot more convenient, as a visa office might take significantly longer processing a PR TD application and otherwise arriving at the border without a PR card, and
cutting-it-close, risks elevated questioning in Secondary, and potentially needing to prove RO compliance. (And of course the risks and inconvenience are worse for
in-RO-breach scenarios.)
Does not change IRCC's perspective: for PRs living abroad or otherwise not settled in Canada, those PRs should rely on obtaining a PR TD as needed (noting some will be issued multiple entry PR TDs good for as long as the PR's passport is valid, up to five years).
So no "big question." If you are not so settled in Canada as to have a primary residence here, you probably are not eligible for a PR card (per IRCC policy). Get a PR TD as needed.
And again, this really is not a new policy. To now it was a rather easy to work-a-round policy. IRCC is now making that more difficult. And the new form appears to be putting PRs on notice that IRCC is paying more attention to address details and is at least brandishing the prosecution of misrepresentation sword.
CAUTION: what you have described of your situation suggests you may indeed have good reason to apprehend not just some kind of non-routine processing, like Secondary Review, but (my sense) more likely a referral to a local office for a formal RO compliance assessment. It is one thing to be
cutting-it-close around the end of the first five years after becoming a PR. It is another to still clearly be outside Canada more than in Canada many years later.
It is my impression that some PRs mistakenly overlook that notwithstanding the open flexibility of the 2/5 Residency Obligation, the purpose for granting PR status is so the individual can settle and live PERMANENTLY in Canada, and this purpose is a major factor in how IRCC interprets and applies the rules, and it appears it likely factors into how it assesses facts and applies the rules in individual cases. And it has been an express factor in how IAD panels decide appeals.
The 2/5 rule is not intended to facilitate border-straddling lifestyles. It is specifically intended (as articulated by the IAD and FCs) to allow PRs sufficient flexibility to deal with exceptional circumstances without having to justify their absence to government officials.
I cannot gauge how much negative influence it has when IRCC or CBSA officials discern a PR's actions are inconsistent with the law and its purposes. It is clear that as long as the PR can meet the PR's burden of proving enough days IN Canada to meet the 2/5 rule, that will allow the PR to keep PR status. The question is to what extent the PR will need to prove actual presence. And especially how difficult it could be if IRCC does not give the PR the benefit of inferring that days between a known date of entry and next reported date of exit were all in Canada. Proving presence for the days in-between can be more difficult than some might anticipate.
And that brings this here:
If you're worried about secondary review, triple-check your application and give it another 30-60- days before applying.
I fully understand your extension of my RO days however I cannot add the days up anymore because my had stayed in Canada in 2018 for several month, after beginning of 2013, every day I spent in Canada won't add any more days, because the day in 2018 will lose as well.
Generally it would be worth noting that even if staying longer does not add more days to the RO compliance calculation, the more recent the days in Canada are, at least appearing to be attendant staying in Canada, the more positive impression they probably have. So for most
@armoured's suggestion, about waiting longer to make a PR card application, is worth much consideration . . . again, if it amounts to adding days present in the RO calculation, that's good, and even if it doesn't, the longer the more recent stay and the more it appears to be attendant settling in Canada the better.
But, you are probably correct to dismiss the value that sort of positive impression is likely to have for you, given the longer history more or less obviously showing you are not settling in Canada, not here to stay. As noted, you probably already have a substantial risk of encountering non-routine processing requiring proof of your presence in Canada. And even if not that, probably a substantial risk of Secondary Review anyway (which could delay getting a new card for many months to a year or so).
In any event, the situation does not actually raise any complicated address issues. It is more about the consequences that follow from not having a primary residence in Canada. And that is what it is.
