Citizenship interviews - Tips, Recent experiencess and impressions

[dpenabill]

For reference, there are PDI guidelines for IRCC staff (which of course includes citizenship processing agents and citizenship officers, which in turn I assume includes interviewers) prescribing "the policies and procedures necessary to conduct effective interviews."

See these at http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/interview/applicant/conduct.asp

As for general purposes of interviews, see http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/interview/applicant/index.asp

As anyone who has been through a CIC or IRCC interview (which I am guessing would be nearly all of us at this site), obviously most interviews only follow the guidelines in part. That makes sense, since the guidelines are intended to cover all sorts of interviews for many various processes or applications, in contrast to the specific interview in practice which is done for a particular application, such as the document check or program integrity interview of citizenship applicants.

The overriding observation about the citizenship interview is that it varies a great deal from person to person, even within the same event let alone same local office, let alone a different local office. For many, the interview is very brief and perfunctory, done remarkably quickly. For most, even if it is somewhat more probing it is nonetheless still relatively perfunctory. But for others, for some, the interview can go into a wide range of inquiries about the applicant, the applicant's life, the applicant's work, the applicant's family, and including, of course, probing questions about the applicant's travels. In particular, how the interview goes for one applicant offers minimal information about how it will go for another.



Nomenclature notes:

IRCC information employs various terms for the same things these days. The interview done attendant the scheduled test (including those applicants exempt from the test, thus not tested but just interviewed at the event) is referred to variously as simply "the interview," a "documents check" interview, or a "program integrity" interview.

Relative to IRCC staff involved in the processing of a citizenship application, recently I have seen reference to "processing agents," as in there are Citizenship Officers (who have significant delegated Ministerial powers, including the authority to grant or in some cases deny citizenship), and other IRCC staff handling particular steps in the process are "processing agents." In the past we have seen references to "interviewers," "case workers," and "case officers," among other terms.

Most interviewers (for the routine interview) would merely be a processing agent, not a Citizenship Officer. But, sometimes the interview is conducted by the Citizenship Officer.

Apart from the routine interview, for applicants whose application is contested or challenged, there may also be a more formal interview, more or less a hearing (albeit done in an interview format) which is specifically done with a Citizenship Officer. And those applicants for whom IRCC is not satisfied as to presence, there may be the hearing or interview with a Citizenship Judge.

 

[HamiltonApplicant]

For reference, there are PDI guidelines for IRCC staff (which of course includes citizenship processing agents and citizenship officers, which in turn I assume includes interviewers) prescribing "the policies and procedures necessary to conduct effective interviews."

See these at http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/interview/applicant/conduct.asp

As for general purposes of interviews, see http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/interview/applicant/index.asp

As anyone who has been through a CIC or IRCC interview (which I am guessing would be nearly all of us at this site), obviously most interviews only follow the guidelines in part. That makes sense, since the guidelines are intended to cover all sorts of interviews for many various processes or applications, in contrast to the specific interview in practice which is done for a particular application, such as the document check or program integrity interview of citizenship applicants.

The overriding observation about the citizenship interview is that it varies a great deal from person to person, even within the same event let alone same local office, let alone a different local office. For many, the interview is very brief and perfunctory, done remarkably quickly. For most, even if it is somewhat more probing it is nonetheless still relatively perfunctory. But for others, for some, the interview can go into a wide range of inquiries about the applicant, the applicant's life, the applicant's work, the applicant's family, and including, of course, probing questions about the applicant's travels. In particular, how the interview goes for one applicant offers minimal information about how it will go for another.



Nomenclature notes:

IRCC information employs various terms for the same things these days. The interview done attendant the scheduled test (including those applicants exempt from the test, thus not tested but just interviewed at the event) is referred to variously as simply "the interview," a "documents check" interview, or a "program integrity" interview.

Relative to IRCC staff involved in the processing of a citizenship application, recently I have seen reference to "processing agents," as in there are Citizenship Officers (who have significant delegated Ministerial powers, including the authority to grant or in some cases deny citizenship), and other IRCC staff handling particular steps in the process are "processing agents." In the past we have seen references to "interviewers," "case workers," and "case officers," among other terms.

Most interviewers (for the routine interview) would merely be a processing agent, not a Citizenship Officer. But, sometimes the interview is conducted by the Citizenship Officer.

Apart from the routine interview, for applicants whose application is contested or challenged, there may also be a more formal interview, more or less a hearing (albeit done in an interview format) which is specifically done with a Citizenship Officer. And those applicants for whom IRCC is not satisfied as to presence, there may be the hearing or interview with a Citizenship Judge.

Thanks for the links! My interview went well, but wish I saw this link before it was my turn. IRCC is very transparent when it comes to procedure, I would say that after reading the material you shared....

 

[subha_1962]

Do they ask about trips you have done after you submit the application at the interview and for what purpose etc?

 

[layla_]

Do they ask about trips you have done after you submit the application at the interview and for what purpose etc?

Nope - they are only looking at stamps that fall between the dates on the application.

My application was February... and in May & June I traveled overseas. I mentioned this to the agent when I was called up and said that there were a few more stamps in my passport since I submitted the application and he told me it was not an issue as they only look for the stamps between the dates noted on the application.

They are just checking that the dates you noted as out of the country on your application actually match the stamps in your passport.. and that you haven't skimmed over dates to met physical presence days.

Hope that helps!

 

[dpenabill]

The scope of the interview varies from one applicant to another:

Anecdotal reports about the citizenship interview provide limited information, mostly limited to what some applicants have experienced, virtually no information about how broad the scope can be for a different applicant. IRCC can and sometimes will, for example, examine every entry in an applicant's passport, regardless the date of that entry. Note for example, in particular, IRCC will typically examine, at least cursorily, passports issued after the date the applicant applied.



But there is little or no reason for the qualified applicant to worry about the scope of the interview or the interviewer's examination of documents, including passports.

The vast majority of qualified applicants, almost all qualified applicants, have little or no reason to worry about the citizenship interview, so long as, of course, they are sufficiently fluent in one of the official languages. (It is often overlooked that one of purposes of the interview is to verify the applicant meets the language requirement.)

Applicants who completely and accurately reported all dates of exit and entry in their presence calculation likewise, in particular, have little or no reason to worry.

Sure, before the interview it is a good idea to compare passport stamps to travel dates reported, and make sure the stamps are consistent with presence calculation disclosures. If there are any apparent incongruities or, especially, inconsistencies, the applicant should refresh his or her memory (best use reliable records), verify what is correct, and be prepared to affirmatively inform the interviewer what is correct IF the interviewer asks a relevant question in effect soliciting such a response. Of course, if there were any significant errors made in the calculator dates, the applicant should be proactive in acknowledging and correcting these at the interview.

Beyond that, applicants should be aware that the interviewer may make inquiries into almost any aspect of the applicant's life, the applicant's history, the applicant's entire history even though mostly history during the relevant time period, but including the applicant's recent and current circumstances as well.

For example, almost everyone is asked a question which in one way or another is intended to elicit some information about the applicant's current employment status, not just about employment during the relevant time period.

Thus, even though usually there is not much of an examination of stamps showing travel outside the relevant time period for establishing presence in Canada, the odds are an interviewer will at least notice there are post-application date stamps (if any). Whether or not the interviewer pays much or even any attention to those will depend on the particular applicant and specifics of the individual case. For the vast majority of applicants, any post-application-date stamps will be of zero concern. That does NOT mean they will be totally ignored for all applicants.

Do they ask about trips you have done after you submit the application at the interview and for what purpose etc?

Nope - they are only looking at stamps that fall between the dates on the application.

They are just checking that the dates you noted as out of the country on your application actually match the stamps in your passport.. and that you haven't skimmed over dates to met physical presence days.

Clarification/caution:

The precise questions asked in a citizenship interview vary from applicant to applicant. The scope of the interviewer's inquiry varies widely.

What one applicant is asked or not asked does not say much at all about what another applicant will be asked or not asked. Sure, there are basic questions and matters addressed in almost all citizenship interviews (do you work? or where do you work? for example), but for many applicants the interview goes beyond those, and for some applicants it goes well beyond that.

For many, if not most applicants, the interviewer will look at every page in a passport, every page including even the blank pages let alone those bearing stamps entered after the date of the application. How much attention particular pages are given, what kind of attention, will vary widely from applicant to applicant.

In particular, what an interviewer will focus on varies a lot, and depends in large part on many specific factors in a particular individual's case. The interviewer's focus and questions depend, foremost, on whether there are any concerns (for the vast majority of applicants there are none, and the interviewer perfunctorily does due diligence to verify the most important aspects of the case).

Even when there are concerns, or overt questions, the interviewer will more often approach related matters somewhat coyly, probing particular related facts rather than soliciting the applicant's explanation or answer for the concern.

For the vast majority of applicants the interview is perfunctory, the interviewer mostly focused on quickly, methodically verifying documents and certain information in the application.

In contrast, for a small percentage of applicants the interviewer may be engaged in investigator-mode.


Overall regarding stamps: While it is likely that the interviewer usually, or perhaps most of the time by a big margin, examines only passport stamps for dates within the relevant time period, this does NOT necessarily mean an interviewer will be blind to or totally ignore stamps showing travel while the application was pending.



General observation:

One of the most common errors repeated in this forum is reaching broad conclusions based on particular experiences.

The person who interviewed me was a woman. That does not mean the person who interviews some other applicant will also be a woman. Sure, this is an easy one to recognize and acknowledge. It nonetheless illustrates the ill-logic of inferring that other interviews will be the same as that experienced by any particular applicant.

To be clear, the person who interviewed me at least glanced at every passport page, including pages in a recently issued passport (issued after I applied) and in which there were no stamps at all.

The person who interviewed me asked nothing about the neighbourhood where I live, nothing about where I shop for groceries. From officially published FC decisions about actual cases, we know that some applicants are asked such questions and that, indeed, some applicants have ended up in a full blown residency/presence case in significant part arising from suspicions about the applicant due to vague answers about the applicant's neighbourhood and where the applicant shopped for groceries. Most are not asked such questions. Some are.




So what if there are passport stamps showing post-application travel:

This is where, as some may say, the-rubber-meets-the-road.

For the vast majority of applicants with stamps in their passport showing travel abroad after applying, SHRUG, no big deal, no little deal even.

Travel after applying is not relevant to the calculation of days present. Period. It is not relevant for the purpose of counting how many day the applicant was present during the six years (will be five sometime this fall) preceding the date the application was made.

Thus, if and when an interviewer notices stamps dated after the application-date, the interviewer will ordinarily, almost always, pay those no attention. (Contrary to some anecdotal reports, which assert that the interviewer did not even look at post-application date stamps, I am quite confident the interviewer sees and notices them, usually, but pays them no attention.)


But time abroad after applying can be relevant in multiple ways.

Time abroad after applying can be relevant in multiple ways, even though, again, it is NOT relevant to the calculation of days present. It can be relevant particularly if it appears the applicant has been abroad for an extended period of time after applying. This has been discussed in-depth in multiple topics, especially those specifically about the risks associated with living abroad after applying. No need to revisit those in-depth here. One other aspect of relevance warrants some mention, however, and that is the prohibition for convictions or charges abroad; obviously, the longer an applicant has been abroad, the more risk there is that IRCC may want to verify the applicant has no convictions, no charges abroad. (No serious delay likely, but for some perhaps it will involve a more extensive security/criminal background check before the oath is scheduled.)

To be clear about the potential relevance of time abroad after applying, a recent passport stamp indicating the applicant has been abroad for an extended time and only recently returned to Canada apparently in time to attend an interview or test event, was a formal reason to question residency/presence for a long time, going back to an OB issued in 2005 (when there was a Liberal government), subject to various renditions or versions of the criteria employed to identify risk indicators since then. It is very likely that, at least to some extent, in some manner, this is still a risk indicator.

While there is no reason to think the vast majority of applicants are subject to any extra scrutiny because they traveled abroad after applying, it would be a mistake to assume that holds true for an applicant who blatantly applied-on-the-way-to-the-airport (as at least one Federal Court justice has described applicants who move abroad after applying). Again, this is about the prospect of encountering extra scrutiny. Time abroad after applying is not factored into the presence calculation, no matter how much the applicant is abroad after applying.

 

[HamiltonApplicant]

The scope of the interview varies from one applicant to another:

Anecdotal reports about the citizenship interview provide limited information, mostly limited to what some applicants have experienced, virtually no information about how broad the scope can be for a different applicant. IRCC can and sometimes will, for example, examine every entry in an applicant's passport, regardless the date of that entry. Note for example, in particular, IRCC will typically examine, at least cursorily, passports issued after the date the applicant applied.



But there is little or no reason for the qualified applicant to worry about the scope of the interview or the interviewer's examination of documents, including passports.

The vast majority of qualified applicants, almost all qualified applicants, have little or no reason to worry about the citizenship interview, so long as, of course, they are sufficiently fluent in one of the official languages. (It is often overlooked that one of purposes of the interview is to verify the applicant meets the language requirement.)

Applicants who completely and accurately reported all dates of exit and entry in their presence calculation likewise, in particular, have little or no reason to worry.

Sure, before the interview it is a good idea to compare passport stamps to travel dates reported, and make sure the stamps are consistent with presence calculation disclosures. If there are any apparent incongruities or, especially, inconsistencies, the applicant should refresh his or her memory (best use reliable records), verify what is correct, and be prepared to affirmatively inform the interviewer what is correct IF the interviewer asks a relevant question in effect soliciting such a response. Of course, if there were any significant errors made in the calculator dates, the applicant should be proactive in acknowledging and correcting these at the interview.

Beyond that, applicants should be aware that the interviewer may make inquiries into almost any aspect of the applicant's life, the applicant's history, the applicant's entire history even though mostly history during the relevant time period, but including the applicant's recent and current circumstances as well.

For example, almost everyone is asked a question which in one way or another is intended to elicit some information about the applicant's current employment status, not just about employment during the relevant time period.

Thus, even though usually there is not much of an examination of stamps showing travel outside the relevant time period for establishing presence in Canada, the odds are an interviewer will at least notice there are post-application date stamps (if any). Whether or not the interviewer pays much or even any attention to those will depend on the particular applicant and specifics of the individual case. For the vast majority of applicants, any post-application-date stamps will be of zero concern. That does NOT mean they will be totally ignored for all applicants.






Clarification/caution:

The precise questions asked in a citizenship interview vary from applicant to applicant. The scope of the interviewer's inquiry varies widely.

What one applicant is asked or not asked does not say much at all about what another applicant will be asked or not asked. Sure, there are basic questions and matters addressed in almost all citizenship interviews (do you work? or where do you work? for example), but for many applicants the interview goes beyond those, and for some applicants it goes well beyond that.

For many, if not most applicants, the interviewer will look at every page in a passport, every page including even the blank pages let alone those bearing stamps entered after the date of the application. How much attention particular pages are given, what kind of attention, will vary widely from applicant to applicant.

In particular, what an interviewer will focus on varies a lot, and depends in large part on many specific factors in a particular individual's case. The interviewer's focus and questions depend, foremost, on whether there are any concerns (for the vast majority of applicants there are none, and the interviewer perfunctorily does due diligence to verify the most important aspects of the case).

Even when there are concerns, or overt questions, the interviewer will more often approach related matters somewhat coyly, probing particular related facts rather than soliciting the applicant's explanation or answer for the concern.

For the vast majority of applicants the interview is perfunctory, the interviewer mostly focused on quickly, methodically verifying documents and certain information in the application.

In contrast, for a small percentage of applicants the interviewer may be engaged in investigator-mode.


Overall regarding stamps: While it is likely that the interviewer usually, or perhaps most of the time by a big margin, examines only passport stamps for dates within the relevant time period, this does NOT necessarily mean an interviewer will be blind to or totally ignore stamps showing travel while the application was pending.



General observation:

One of the most common errors repeated in this forum is reaching broad conclusions based on particular experiences.

The person who interviewed me was a woman. That does not mean the person who interviews some other applicant will also be a woman. Sure, this is an easy one to recognize and acknowledge. It nonetheless illustrates the ill-logic of inferring that other interviews will be the same as that experienced by any particular applicant.

To be clear, the person who interviewed me at least glanced at every passport page, including pages in a recently issued passport (issued after I applied) and in which there were no stamps at all.

The person who interviewed me asked nothing about the neighbourhood where I live, nothing about where I shop for groceries. From officially published FC decisions about actual cases, we know that some applicants are asked such questions and that, indeed, some applicants have ended up in a full blown residency/presence case in significant part arising from suspicions about the applicant due to vague answers about the applicant's neighbourhood and where the applicant shopped for groceries. Most are not asked such questions. Some are.




So what if there are passport stamps showing post-application travel:

This is where, as some may say, the-rubber-meets-the-road.

For the vast majority of applicants with stamps in their passport showing travel abroad after applying, SHRUG, no big deal, no little deal even.

Travel after applying is not relevant to the calculation of days present. Period. It is not relevant for the purpose of counting how many day the applicant was present during the six years (will be five sometime this fall) preceding the date the application was made.

Thus, if and when an interviewer notices stamps dated after the application-date, the interviewer will ordinarily, almost always, pay those no attention. (Contrary to some anecdotal reports, which assert that the interviewer did not even look at post-application date stamps, I am quite confident the interviewer sees and notices them, usually, but pays them no attention.)


But time abroad after applying can be relevant in multiple ways.

Time abroad after applying can be relevant in multiple ways, even though, again, it is NOT relevant to the calculation of days present. It can be relevant particularly if it appears the applicant has been abroad for an extended period of time after applying. This has been discussed in-depth in multiple topics, especially those specifically about the risks associated with living abroad after applying. No need to revisit those in-depth here. One other aspect of relevance warrants some mention, however, and that is the prohibition for convictions or charges abroad; obviously, the longer an applicant has been abroad, the more risk there is that IRCC may want to verify the applicant has no convictions, no charges abroad. (No serious delay likely, but for some perhaps it will involve a more extensive security/criminal background check before the oath is scheduled.)

To be clear about the potential relevance of time abroad after applying, a recent passport stamp indicating the applicant has been abroad for an extended time and only recently returned to Canada apparently in time to attend an interview or test event, was a formal reason to question residency/presence for a long time, going back to an OB issued in 2005 (when there was a Liberal government), subject to various renditions or versions of the criteria employed to identify risk indicators since then. It is very likely that, at least to some extent, in some manner, this is still a risk indicator.

While there is no reason to think the vast majority of applicants are subject to any extra scrutiny because they traveled abroad after applying, it would be a mistake to assume that holds true for an applicant who blatantly applied-on-the-way-to-the-airport (as at least one Federal Court justice has described applicants who move abroad after applying). Again, this is about the prospect of encountering extra scrutiny. Time abroad after applying is not factored into the presence calculation, no matter how much the applicant is abroad after applying.

I think most applicants worry about possible RQ, not the outcome of citizenship application itself.

 

[HamiltonApplicant]

The scope of the interview varies from one applicant to another:

Anecdotal reports about the citizenship interview provide limited information, mostly limited to what some applicants have experienced, virtually no information about how broad the scope can be for a different applicant. IRCC can and sometimes will, for example, examine every entry in an applicant's passport, regardless the date of that entry. Note for example, in particular, IRCC will typically examine, at least cursorily, passports issued after the date the applicant applied.



But there is little or no reason for the qualified applicant to worry about the scope of the interview or the interviewer's examination of documents, including passports.

The vast majority of qualified applicants, almost all qualified applicants, have little or no reason to worry about the citizenship interview, so long as, of course, they are sufficiently fluent in one of the official languages. (It is often overlooked that one of purposes of the interview is to verify the applicant meets the language requirement.)

Applicants who completely and accurately reported all dates of exit and entry in their presence calculation likewise, in particular, have little or no reason to worry.

Sure, before the interview it is a good idea to compare passport stamps to travel dates reported, and make sure the stamps are consistent with presence calculation disclosures. If there are any apparent incongruities or, especially, inconsistencies, the applicant should refresh his or her memory (best use reliable records), verify what is correct, and be prepared to affirmatively inform the interviewer what is correct IF the interviewer asks a relevant question in effect soliciting such a response. Of course, if there were any significant errors made in the calculator dates, the applicant should be proactive in acknowledging and correcting these at the interview.

Beyond that, applicants should be aware that the interviewer may make inquiries into almost any aspect of the applicant's life, the applicant's history, the applicant's entire history even though mostly history during the relevant time period, but including the applicant's recent and current circumstances as well.

For example, almost everyone is asked a question which in one way or another is intended to elicit some information about the applicant's current employment status, not just about employment during the relevant time period.

Thus, even though usually there is not much of an examination of stamps showing travel outside the relevant time period for establishing presence in Canada, the odds are an interviewer will at least notice there are post-application date stamps (if any). Whether or not the interviewer pays much or even any attention to those will depend on the particular applicant and specifics of the individual case. For the vast majority of applicants, any post-application-date stamps will be of zero concern. That does NOT mean they will be totally ignored for all applicants.






Clarification/caution:

The precise questions asked in a citizenship interview vary from applicant to applicant. The scope of the interviewer's inquiry varies widely.

What one applicant is asked or not asked does not say much at all about what another applicant will be asked or not asked. Sure, there are basic questions and matters addressed in almost all citizenship interviews (do you work? or where do you work? for example), but for many applicants the interview goes beyond those, and for some applicants it goes well beyond that.

For many, if not most applicants, the interviewer will look at every page in a passport, every page including even the blank pages let alone those bearing stamps entered after the date of the application. How much attention particular pages are given, what kind of attention, will vary widely from applicant to applicant.

In particular, what an interviewer will focus on varies a lot, and depends in large part on many specific factors in a particular individual's case. The interviewer's focus and questions depend, foremost, on whether there are any concerns (for the vast majority of applicants there are none, and the interviewer perfunctorily does due diligence to verify the most important aspects of the case).

Even when there are concerns, or overt questions, the interviewer will more often approach related matters somewhat coyly, probing particular related facts rather than soliciting the applicant's explanation or answer for the concern.

For the vast majority of applicants the interview is perfunctory, the interviewer mostly focused on quickly, methodically verifying documents and certain information in the application.

In contrast, for a small percentage of applicants the interviewer may be engaged in investigator-mode.


Overall regarding stamps: While it is likely that the interviewer usually, or perhaps most of the time by a big margin, examines only passport stamps for dates within the relevant time period, this does NOT necessarily mean an interviewer will be blind to or totally ignore stamps showing travel while the application was pending.



General observation:

One of the most common errors repeated in this forum is reaching broad conclusions based on particular experiences.

The person who interviewed me was a woman. That does not mean the person who interviews some other applicant will also be a woman. Sure, this is an easy one to recognize and acknowledge. It nonetheless illustrates the ill-logic of inferring that other interviews will be the same as that experienced by any particular applicant.

To be clear, the person who interviewed me at least glanced at every passport page, including pages in a recently issued passport (issued after I applied) and in which there were no stamps at all.

The person who interviewed me asked nothing about the neighbourhood where I live, nothing about where I shop for groceries. From officially published FC decisions about actual cases, we know that some applicants are asked such questions and that, indeed, some applicants have ended up in a full blown residency/presence case in significant part arising from suspicions about the applicant due to vague answers about the applicant's neighbourhood and where the applicant shopped for groceries. Most are not asked such questions. Some are.




So what if there are passport stamps showing post-application travel:

This is where, as some may say, the-rubber-meets-the-road.

For the vast majority of applicants with stamps in their passport showing travel abroad after applying, SHRUG, no big deal, no little deal even.

Travel after applying is not relevant to the calculation of days present. Period. It is not relevant for the purpose of counting how many day the applicant was present during the six years (will be five sometime this fall) preceding the date the application was made.

Thus, if and when an interviewer notices stamps dated after the application-date, the interviewer will ordinarily, almost always, pay those no attention. (Contrary to some anecdotal reports, which assert that the interviewer did not even look at post-application date stamps, I am quite confident the interviewer sees and notices them, usually, but pays them no attention.)


But time abroad after applying can be relevant in multiple ways.

Time abroad after applying can be relevant in multiple ways, even though, again, it is NOT relevant to the calculation of days present. It can be relevant particularly if it appears the applicant has been abroad for an extended period of time after applying. This has been discussed in-depth in multiple topics, especially those specifically about the risks associated with living abroad after applying. No need to revisit those in-depth here. One other aspect of relevance warrants some mention, however, and that is the prohibition for convictions or charges abroad; obviously, the longer an applicant has been abroad, the more risk there is that IRCC may want to verify the applicant has no convictions, no charges abroad. (No serious delay likely, but for some perhaps it will involve a more extensive security/criminal background check before the oath is scheduled.)

To be clear about the potential relevance of time abroad after applying, a recent passport stamp indicating the applicant has been abroad for an extended time and only recently returned to Canada apparently in time to attend an interview or test event, was a formal reason to question residency/presence for a long time, going back to an OB issued in 2005 (when there was a Liberal government), subject to various renditions or versions of the criteria employed to identify risk indicators since then. It is very likely that, at least to some extent, in some manner, this is still a risk indicator.

While there is no reason to think the vast majority of applicants are subject to any extra scrutiny because they traveled abroad after applying, it would be a mistake to assume that holds true for an applicant who blatantly applied-on-the-way-to-the-airport (as at least one Federal Court justice has described applicants who move abroad after applying). Again, this is about the prospect of encountering extra scrutiny. Time abroad after applying is not factored into the presence calculation, no matter how much the applicant is abroad after applying.

I think most applicants worry about potential RQ, not the outcome of citizenship application itself. I was 99 percent sure that my application will be successful, but did indeed dread the RQ! Months, if not years, of waiting plus 100s of dollars! Interview preparation and tips help to lower RQ possibility by few percentage points....

 

[bonaddictus]

The scope of the interview varies from one applicant to another:

Anecdotal reports about the citizenship interview provide limited information, mostly limited to what some applicants have experienced, virtually no information about how broad the scope can be for a different applicant. IRCC can and sometimes will, for example, examine every entry in an applicant's passport, regardless the date of that entry. Note for example, in particular, IRCC will typically examine, at least cursorily, passports issued after the date the applicant applied.



But there is little or no reason for the qualified applicant to worry about the scope of the interview or the interviewer's examination of documents, including passports.

The vast majority of qualified applicants, almost all qualified applicants, have little or no reason to worry about the citizenship interview, so long as, of course, they are sufficiently fluent in one of the official languages. (It is often overlooked that one of purposes of the interview is to verify the applicant meets the language requirement.)

Applicants who completely and accurately reported all dates of exit and entry in their presence calculation likewise, in particular, have little or no reason to worry.

Sure, before the interview it is a good idea to compare passport stamps to travel dates reported, and make sure the stamps are consistent with presence calculation disclosures. If there are any apparent incongruities or, especially, inconsistencies, the applicant should refresh his or her memory (best use reliable records), verify what is correct, and be prepared to affirmatively inform the interviewer what is correct IF the interviewer asks a relevant question in effect soliciting such a response. Of course, if there were any significant errors made in the calculator dates, the applicant should be proactive in acknowledging and correcting these at the interview.

Beyond that, applicants should be aware that the interviewer may make inquiries into almost any aspect of the applicant's life, the applicant's history, the applicant's entire history even though mostly history during the relevant time period, but including the applicant's recent and current circumstances as well.

For example, almost everyone is asked a question which in one way or another is intended to elicit some information about the applicant's current employment status, not just about employment during the relevant time period.

Thus, even though usually there is not much of an examination of stamps showing travel outside the relevant time period for establishing presence in Canada, the odds are an interviewer will at least notice there are post-application date stamps (if any). Whether or not the interviewer pays much or even any attention to those will depend on the particular applicant and specifics of the individual case. For the vast majority of applicants, any post-application-date stamps will be of zero concern. That does NOT mean they will be totally ignored for all applicants.






Clarification/caution:

The precise questions asked in a citizenship interview vary from applicant to applicant. The scope of the interviewer's inquiry varies widely.

What one applicant is asked or not asked does not say much at all about what another applicant will be asked or not asked. Sure, there are basic questions and matters addressed in almost all citizenship interviews (do you work? or where do you work? for example), but for many applicants the interview goes beyond those, and for some applicants it goes well beyond that.

For many, if not most applicants, the interviewer will look at every page in a passport, every page including even the blank pages let alone those bearing stamps entered after the date of the application. How much attention particular pages are given, what kind of attention, will vary widely from applicant to applicant.

In particular, what an interviewer will focus on varies a lot, and depends in large part on many specific factors in a particular individual's case. The interviewer's focus and questions depend, foremost, on whether there are any concerns (for the vast majority of applicants there are none, and the interviewer perfunctorily does due diligence to verify the most important aspects of the case).

Even when there are concerns, or overt questions, the interviewer will more often approach related matters somewhat coyly, probing particular related facts rather than soliciting the applicant's explanation or answer for the concern.

For the vast majority of applicants the interview is perfunctory, the interviewer mostly focused on quickly, methodically verifying documents and certain information in the application.

In contrast, for a small percentage of applicants the interviewer may be engaged in investigator-mode.


Overall regarding stamps: While it is likely that the interviewer usually, or perhaps most of the time by a big margin, examines only passport stamps for dates within the relevant time period, this does NOT necessarily mean an interviewer will be blind to or totally ignore stamps showing travel while the application was pending.



General observation:

One of the most common errors repeated in this forum is reaching broad conclusions based on particular experiences.

The person who interviewed me was a woman. That does not mean the person who interviews some other applicant will also be a woman. Sure, this is an easy one to recognize and acknowledge. It nonetheless illustrates the ill-logic of inferring that other interviews will be the same as that experienced by any particular applicant.

To be clear, the person who interviewed me at least glanced at every passport page, including pages in a recently issued passport (issued after I applied) and in which there were no stamps at all.

The person who interviewed me asked nothing about the neighbourhood where I live, nothing about where I shop for groceries. From officially published FC decisions about actual cases, we know that some applicants are asked such questions and that, indeed, some applicants have ended up in a full blown residency/presence case in significant part arising from suspicions about the applicant due to vague answers about the applicant's neighbourhood and where the applicant shopped for groceries. Most are not asked such questions. Some are.




So what if there are passport stamps showing post-application travel:

This is where, as some may say, the-rubber-meets-the-road.

For the vast majority of applicants with stamps in their passport showing travel abroad after applying, SHRUG, no big deal, no little deal even.

Travel after applying is not relevant to the calculation of days present. Period. It is not relevant for the purpose of counting how many day the applicant was present during the six years (will be five sometime this fall) preceding the date the application was made.

Thus, if and when an interviewer notices stamps dated after the application-date, the interviewer will ordinarily, almost always, pay those no attention. (Contrary to some anecdotal reports, which assert that the interviewer did not even look at post-application date stamps, I am quite confident the interviewer sees and notices them, usually, but pays them no attention.)


But time abroad after applying can be relevant in multiple ways.

Time abroad after applying can be relevant in multiple ways, even though, again, it is NOT relevant to the calculation of days present. It can be relevant particularly if it appears the applicant has been abroad for an extended period of time after applying. This has been discussed in-depth in multiple topics, especially those specifically about the risks associated with living abroad after applying. No need to revisit those in-depth here. One other aspect of relevance warrants some mention, however, and that is the prohibition for convictions or charges abroad; obviously, the longer an applicant has been abroad, the more risk there is that IRCC may want to verify the applicant has no convictions, no charges abroad. (No serious delay likely, but for some perhaps it will involve a more extensive security/criminal background check before the oath is scheduled.)

To be clear about the potential relevance of time abroad after applying, a recent passport stamp indicating the applicant has been abroad for an extended time and only recently returned to Canada apparently in time to attend an interview or test event, was a formal reason to question residency/presence for a long time, going back to an OB issued in 2005 (when there was a Liberal government), subject to various renditions or versions of the criteria employed to identify risk indicators since then. It is very likely that, at least to some extent, in some manner, this is still a risk indicator.

While there is no reason to think the vast majority of applicants are subject to any extra scrutiny because they traveled abroad after applying, it would be a mistake to assume that holds true for an applicant who blatantly applied-on-the-way-to-the-airport (as at least one Federal Court justice has described applicants who move abroad after applying). Again, this is about the prospect of encountering extra scrutiny. Time abroad after applying is not factored into the presence calculation, no matter how much the applicant is abroad after applying.

Will they care about an applicant just returning for the oath with extended stay abroad?

 

[dpenabill]

I think most applicants worry about potential RQ, not the outcome of citizenship application itself.

I emphatically agree that to the extent there is some worry, qualified applicants will rarely have any need to worry about the outcome, but may nonetheless harbour some worry about possible inconvenience and delay from non-routine processing, with the full blown RQ (CIT 0171) looming as the most disruptive, inconvenient, and lengthy possibility.

For the vast, vast majority of qualified applicants, there is no reason to worry about triggering non-routine processing in the interview. The best interview preparation, beyond gathering and organizing documents, would be to get a good night's rest and try to be as relaxed as possible (but not too casual of course, as this is an important event), with some refreshing of one's memory as to details if there is some complicated aspect in one's circumstances (applicant with extensive travel history, for example, probably should review that history some).

The formatting for organization and emphasis in my previous post was lost, and it was a very long post. This probably obscured the extent to which I tried to emphasize NO worry really means NO worry in terms of how the interview will go, how the interview might affect the process.

The routine interview is perfunctory. There are no trick questions. The interviewer does not engage in gotcha games. The qualified applicant who has truthfully reported information in the application really has virtually no reason at all to worry about the interview triggering non-routine processing.

I am quite confident that whether or not the applicant will be subject to non-routine processing is mostly determined by what is already in the record or in information the applicant has no control over (such as stamps in a passport inconsistent with what the applicant reported in the application), that the interview will have minimal influence except perhaps in an unusual close case.

I am also quite confident, even though I know many protest to the contrary, that almost everyone who has a close case, let alone a questionable case, knows this for himself or herself, and at least somewhat knows why.

Again: For the vast, vast majority of qualified applicants, the interview is perfunctory, merely a quick, methodical verification
-- of the required documents (including PR card and ID)
-- of who the applicant is, and
-- that the applicant's travel documents are consistent with information in the application and presence calculation

For verification of who the applicant is, that includes who the applicant is in terms of Identity in the formal client identity sense, and in terms of who the applicant appears to be as reflected in the record, including the application but also including the applicant's GCMS records . . . if an applicant whose file shows him to be a high school English teacher appears to be struggling with the English language, for example, the interviewer will take note. A less obvious example might be the applicant who is a mill worker (welder perhaps), who reports a number of lengthy "holidays" abroad; mill workers do not ordinarily get multiple lengthy holidays (it is remarkable how many applicants will refer to two months or even more abroad as being for "holidays," even though most people in Canada do not get such long holidays), so that would be an incongruity which, if noticed (emphasis on if), may lead an interviewer to ask somewhat more probing questions about the applicant's employment; the applicant's answers may, in turn, abate any concerns or they may invite more substantial concerns.

Qualified applicants who truthfully reported information in the application should NOT need to anticipate such questions. Their natural and honest, spontaneous responses should easily suffice. Again, the best preparation would be to get a good night's rest and try to be as relaxed as possible (but not too casual of course, as this is an important event), with minimal refreshing of one's memory as to details if there is some complicated aspect in one's circumstances (again, an applicant with extensive travel history, for example, probably should review that history).

Will they care about an applicant just returning for the oath with extended stay abroad?

I understand what you mean when you use the word "care," but it is worth clarifying that there is little or no emotion involved. Processing agents are total-stranger-bureaucrats. Many Canadian bureaucrats appear to be more concerned, to care more about the client, than many bureaucrats in the world. That's not what is operative in what an interviewer does, however, in how an interviewer assesses the applicant.

While some reports suggest interviews taking fifteen to twenty minutes, more reports indicate most interviews tend to be barely half that long. That includes mine. And I suspect the longer interviews may be dominated by applicants with more stamps in their passports, which if examined closely will take more time.

In other words, as noted before, the vast majority of interviews are perfunctory, methodical, and brief.

What the interviewer will care about is whether any information emerges in the interview which causes the interviewer to have concerns about
-- any potential discrepancy between what the applicant has reported and what the facts are (especially as to travel history during the relevant time period)
-- any indication the applicant is otherwise being evasive or untruthful
-- whether there is any information in the record which is inconsistent with other information in the record, or with what the applicant is reporting in the interview
-- whether there is any possibility the applicant does not meet the qualifications (for example, as to presence requirements, prohibitions, PR status)

There is no recent reporting that interviewers have focused on or gone looking for or asked questions about stamps indicating travel abroad after applying. But, the vast majority of reports come from applicants who were not, in effect, living abroad while the application was pending.

As I previously posted, passport stamps suggesting an applicant has returned from abroad just in time to attend the interview was a formal, overt reason-to-question-presence (residency) since being listed in an OB in 2005. However, reasons-to-question-presence, or risk indicators, have evolved extensively over time, and since 2012 CIC and IRCC have designated this information as confidential. So we no longer know precisely what triage criteria or reasons-to-question-presence, or risk indicators, are being employed by IRCC today. That noted, odds are that today's risk indicators are not a lot different from what they have long been, even if the level of concern for this or that one has changed some, up or down.

So no one, and certainly not me, can say for sure if an interviewer will even take note of a stamp indicating a return to Canada in time to attend the interview, let alone precisely how IRCC will approach an applicant in this situation. Contrary to some reports, I am fairly confident that interviewers usually at least glance at all stamps, and will at least sometimes take note of such a post-application stamp.

Even at the peak of the Harper-era crackdown (2012 to 2015) on those suspected of applying-for-a-passport-of-convenience, such as indicated in particular by those applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport, many applicants temporarily living abroad (such as for a particular graduate degree program, or temporarily assigned abroad by a Canadian employer) encountered NO problem, no non-routine processing even though it was readily apparent they were abroad for an extended period of time.

But, many applicants who had apparently moved abroad while the application was pending did not fare that well.

So it is very difficult to forecast how it will go for a particular individual. And it is currently not clear how this government is approaching this issue.

As I referenced in my previous post, the risks and pitfalls of going abroad for an extended time pending application processing has been discussed in-depth and at length in multiple other topics.

 

[rrajendra]

Might be interesting!

 

[kg_bang]

Hi There,

Any helpful links for test preparation?

Thanks!

Kg

 

[spyfy]

Hi There,

Any helpful links for test preparation?

Thanks!

Kg

Google "Canada Citizenship Test"

 

[Mancity]

've successfully passed the test on October 12, 2017 @SCARBOROUGH and still no DM yet... whoever says that the test is easy, do not want to help you out... I haven't seen a trickyest test so far as the one i saw there... This is more language test than knowledge of Canada....Also the interviewer was so ruthless about any details....She even asked me some additionals docs that i did not carry with me that day...Afterwards she said to me to wait for the oath within the 12 months that i've applied (meaning from April 2017 to April 2018)...

 

[razerblade]

've successfully passed the test on October 12, 2017 @SCARBOROUGH and still no DM yet... whoever says that the test is easy, do not want to help you out... I haven't seen a trickyest test so far as the one i saw there... This is more language test than knowledge of Canada....Also the interviewer was so ruthless about any details....She even asked me some additionals docs that i did not carry with me that day...Afterwards she said to me to wait for the oath within the 12 months that i've applied (meaning from April 2017 to April 2018)...

Can you share what additional documents were requested ?

 

[Mancity]

Sorry for my case, i left my income tax at home as was asked that... it's all depend on the interviewer..... Also a travel document that i;ve used when my passport expired as i'd lost that......