Use of interviews
Selection standards are objective, clearly defined and can be assessed in straightforward cases
through the information provided on the application for permanent residence and the
accompanying supporting documents.
In most cases, officers should be able to make selection decisions—either to approve or refuse
applications—from the documentation provided. However, in some cases, an interview may be
necessary.
Any concerns officers have regarding the accuracy or authenticity of information or documentation
should be communicated to the applicant, whether these concerns are raised as the result of site
visits, telephone checks or other means. Concerns can be communicated to the applicant in
writing or at interview.
Officers may conduct interviews with applicants to:
• ensure that information submitted on the application is truthful and complete;
• detect and deter fraudulent information and documents;
• clarify specific information;
• conduct quality assurance.
Officers may not conduct interviews to:
• assess language abilities;
• determine personal suitability (as this factor no longer exists).
Note: Visa offices will be expected to undertake both targeted and random verifications to detect and
deter fraud. The number and percentage of cases subjected to verification should be high enough to
act as a meaningful disincentive to those who would attempt such practices. A40 makes material
misrepresentation a grounds for inadmissibility in its own right and prescribes a two-year ban on those
both directly and indirectly involved in such practices.
Interviews, site visits and telephone checks have proven to be the most effective ways to detect
and to combat fraud. The information gained at interviews where fraud is detected will help
officers to identify current trends and patterns and to refine their profiles for ongoing use.
Selection standards are objective, clearly defined and can be assessed in straightforward cases
through the information provided on the application for permanent residence and the
accompanying supporting documents.
In most cases, officers should be able to make selection decisions—either to approve or refuse
applications—from the documentation provided. However, in some cases, an interview may be
necessary.
Any concerns officers have regarding the accuracy or authenticity of information or documentation
should be communicated to the applicant, whether these concerns are raised as the result of site
visits, telephone checks or other means. Concerns can be communicated to the applicant in
writing or at interview.
Officers may conduct interviews with applicants to:
• ensure that information submitted on the application is truthful and complete;
• detect and deter fraudulent information and documents;
• clarify specific information;
• conduct quality assurance.
Officers may not conduct interviews to:
• assess language abilities;
• determine personal suitability (as this factor no longer exists).
Note: Visa offices will be expected to undertake both targeted and random verifications to detect and
deter fraud. The number and percentage of cases subjected to verification should be high enough to
act as a meaningful disincentive to those who would attempt such practices. A40 makes material
misrepresentation a grounds for inadmissibility in its own right and prescribes a two-year ban on those
both directly and indirectly involved in such practices.
Interviews, site visits and telephone checks have proven to be the most effective ways to detect
and to combat fraud. The information gained at interviews where fraud is detected will help
officers to identify current trends and patterns and to refine their profiles for ongoing use.