Do I need to get passport entry/exit stamps translated for interview?

[Michelle00]

Hi Everyone,

For those of you who have taken the citizenship test, I'm wondering if the immigration officer asked to see the translation of your passport entry/exit stamps during the interview? I'm not sure if I need to get them translated.

Thank you

 

[allawy86]

Hi Everyone,

For those of you who have taken the citizenship test, I'm wondering if the immigration officer asked to see the translation of your passport entry/exit stamps during the interview? I'm not sure if I need to get them translated.

Thank you

Yes, you do need to translate them just incase.

 

[Michelle00]

Yes, you do need to translate them just incase.

Thank you Allawy, Do you know if i should translate the ones after i became a PR or everything?

 

[allawy86]

Thank you Allawy, Do you know if i should translate the ones after i became a PR or everything?

Personally, I did translate all the stamps on my passport even before I became PR. On both my expired and new passport.

 

[screech339]

Thank you Allawy, Do you know if i should translate the ones after i became a PR or everything?

You only need to translate the related stamps in the previous 6 years prior to submitting application, including any stamps after submitting application as well.

 

[Michelle00]

Thank you both for your reply.

Is there a requirement for translator? I live in Calgary and by looking at the ATIA website, there's certified members and associate members, does it make a difference?

 

[dpenabill]

Hi Everyone,

For those of you who have taken the citizenship test, I'm wondering if the immigration officer asked to see the translation of your passport entry/exit stamps during the interview? I'm not sure if I need to get them translated.

Thank you

The short and simple answer is follow the instructions, which means YES, anything in any document presented to IRCC which is not in one of the official languages (French or English) should be translated.

The answer to this question is clearly stated in the Guide for Citizenship Applications:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/guides/CIT0002ETOC.asp#CIT0002E4

The particular requirements (as to who can do the translation, when certification is required, and so on) are listed under a heading "Translation of documents," near the end of Step 1. "Gather Documents" (easy way to get there is to go to Step 2. "Complete the Application" and scroll back a little).

Recent revisions to the Guide have added specific instructions regarding translations throughout the "Gather Documents" section.



Actual examination of documents oft times casual:

In practice, the requirement to provide translations as prescribed is not uniformly enforced. Many report no problem even though they did not provide proper translations during a documents-verification interview (typically contemporaneous with the test). Indeed, I did not bother to get or provide translations for a couple stamps in my passport, and I encountered no problem. But I recognized there was some risk, which I felt was an acceptable risk even though some terms in the stamps were not in English or French; I recognized some risk because I was not following instructions, which call for translations regardless of the fact that the import of the stamps, and the fact they were not relevant to my residency calculation, was readily apparent (though the latter is what made me feel comfortable taking the risk, trusting that CIC would not have a problem just because of a more or less technicality).

I disagree with the suggestion by screech339, that it is OK to not provide translations for stamps dated outside the relevant time period, since the approach IRCC takes is that what is requested is, by definition, relevant, and it is for IRCC to decide to what extent it is probative and whether or not it is material. It is always a mistake to not provide information to IRCC based on the individual's own judgment that the information is not relevant: again, if IRCC asks for it, it is by definition relevant. It is for IRCC to determine to what extent it is relevant.

But, yes, of course, most of us will find it is OK to use some common sense and a reasonable exercise of discretion. IRCC is not out to reject qualified applicants based on technicalities (other than, of course, the minimal technical requirements to be qualified).



Scope of necessity to follow the instructions:

In another forum similarly about immigration and citizenship, my signature is: "If in doubt, follow the instructions, otherwise, yep, follow the instructions."

Many perceive my repetitive admonition to follow the instructions to be condescending and overly cautious (some describe it as anal), but the reality is that the most common reason qualified applicants run into problems in the processing of their application is, at least in part, due to not following the instructions.

But as I noted above, I myself did not entirely follow the instructions (and I had been using that signature long before I applied for citizenship). And, indeed, the above example is just one example among others. For another example, I submitted additional documents with my application. I also left some boxes in the application blank.

I also made some mistakes in my application.

And my timeline from application to oath was barely eight months, back when scores and scores of applicants were bogged down for years, when the CIC site stated the routine timeline (I forget the exact statement) was more than a year and a half.

So, yes, I acknowledge and use, myself, some common sense and a reasonable exercise of discretion, with due recognition of the risks, when it comes to following the instructions. When I drive on the 401, for example, I am rarely going less than 110k (except in slow traffic), let alone the speed limit of 100k. But, I know the risks. Indeed, I was recently stopped (on a different highway) driving 24k over the 90k limit, and I fully expected to be ticketed, but was just given a warning. In no way does this suggest it is OK to drive 15k, or even 10k over the limit.



As I say, "If in doubt, follow the instructions, otherwise, yep, follow the instructions."

See the Guide: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/guides/CIT0002ETOC.asp#CIT0002E4
and follow the instructions for providing translations.

 

[allawy86]

The short and simple answer is follow the instructions, which means YES, anything in any document presented to IRCC which is not in one of the official languages (French or English) should be translated.

The answer to this question is clearly stated in the Guide for Citizenship Applications:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/guides/CIT0002ETOC.asp#CIT0002E4

The particular requirements (as to who can do the translation, when certification is required, and so on) are listed under a heading "Translation of documents," near the end of Step 1. "Gather Documents" (easy way to get there is to go to Step 2. "Complete the Application" and scroll back a little).

Recent revisions to the Guide have added specific instructions regarding translations throughout the "Gather Documents" section.



Actual examination of documents oft times casual:

In practice, the requirement to provide translations as prescribed is not uniformly enforced. Many report no problem even though they did not provide proper translations during a documents-verification interview (typically contemporaneous with the test). Indeed, I did not bother to get or provide translations for a couple stamps in my passport, and I encountered no problem. But I recognized there was some risk, which I felt was an acceptable risk even though some terms in the stamps were not in English or French; I recognized some risk because I was not following instructions, which call for translations regardless of the fact that the import of the stamps, and the fact they were not relevant to my residency calculation, was readily apparent (though the latter is what made me feel comfortable taking the risk, trusting that CIC would not have a problem just because of a more or less technicality).

I disagree with the suggestion by screech339, that it is OK to not provide translations for stamps dated outside the relevant time period, since the approach IRCC takes is that what is requested is, by definition, relevant, and it is for IRCC to decide to what extent it is probative and whether or not it is material. It is always a mistake to not provide information to IRCC based on the individual's own judgment that the information is not relevant: again, if IRCC asks for it, it is by definition relevant. It is for IRCC to determine to what extent it is relevant.

But, yes, of course, most of us will find it is OK to use some common sense and a reasonable exercise of discretion. IRCC is not out to reject qualified applicants based on technicalities (other than, of course, the minimal technical requirements to be qualified).



Scope of necessity to follow the instructions:

In another forum similarly about immigration and citizenship, my signature is: "If in doubt, follow the instructions, otherwise, yep, follow the instructions."

Many perceive my repetitive admonition to follow the instructions to be condescending and overly cautious (some describe it as anal), but the reality is that the most common reason qualified applicants run into problems in the processing of their application is, at least in part, due to not following the instructions.

But as I noted above, I myself did not entirely follow the instructions (and I had been using that signature long before I applied for citizenship). And, indeed, the above example is just one example among others. For another example, I submitted additional documents with my application. I also left some boxes in the application blank.

I also made some mistakes in my application.

And my timeline from application to oath was barely eight months, back when scores and scores of applicants were bogged down for years, when the CIC site stated the routine timeline (I forget the exact statement) was more than a year and a half.

So, yes, I acknowledge and use, myself, some common sense and a reasonable exercise of discretion, with due recognition of the risks, when it comes to following the instructions. When I drive on the 401, for example, I am rarely going less than 110k (except in slow traffic), let alone the speed limit of 100k. But, I know the risks. Indeed, I was recently stopped (on a different highway) driving 24k over the 90k limit, and I fully expected to be ticketed, but was just given a warning. In no way does this suggest it is OK to drive 15k, or even 10k over the limit.



As I say, "If in doubt, follow the instructions, otherwise, yep, follow the instructions."

See the Guide: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/guides/CIT0002ETOC.asp#CIT0002E4
and follow the instructions for providing translations.

Dpenabill, I hope you are doing good. I have question. Once the officer tells you during the interview you are approved and we will send you invitation for the ceremony etc..why it takes them long to send the letter? Also by saying approved. Does mean now everything is ok and don't have to worry just wait for the letter? In addition, Ecas status changed to DM 3 days after the test

 

[dpenabill]

Dpenabill, I hope you are doing good. I have question. Once the officer tells you during the interview you are approved and we will send you invitation for the ceremony etc..why it takes them long to send the letter? Also by saying approved. Does mean now everything is ok and don't have to worry just wait for the letter? In addition, Ecas status changed to DM 3 days after the test

Will PM a response since this is off-topic. But, probably (without any guarantee) no reason to worry at all. Just watch for notice of oath.

 

[screech339]

The short and simple answer is follow the instructions, which means YES, anything in any document presented to IRCC which is not in one of the official languages (French or English) should be translated.

The answer to this question is clearly stated in the Guide for Citizenship Applications:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/guides/CIT0002ETOC.asp#CIT0002E4

The particular requirements (as to who can do the translation, when certification is required, and so on) are listed under a heading "Translation of documents," near the end of Step 1. "Gather Documents" (easy way to get there is to go to Step 2. "Complete the Application" and scroll back a little).

Recent revisions to the Guide have added specific instructions regarding translations throughout the "Gather Documents" section.



Actual examination of documents oft times casual:

In practice, the requirement to provide translations as prescribed is not uniformly enforced. Many report no problem even though they did not provide proper translations during a documents-verification interview (typically contemporaneous with the test). Indeed, I did not bother to get or provide translations for a couple stamps in my passport, and I encountered no problem. But I recognized there was some risk, which I felt was an acceptable risk even though some terms in the stamps were not in English or French; I recognized some risk because I was not following instructions, which call for translations regardless of the fact that the import of the stamps, and the fact they were not relevant to my residency calculation, was readily apparent (though the latter is what made me feel comfortable taking the risk, trusting that CIC would not have a problem just because of a more or less technicality).

I disagree with the suggestion by screech339, that it is OK to not provide translations for stamps dated outside the relevant time period, since the approach IRCC takes is that what is requested is, by definition, relevant, and it is for IRCC to decide to what extent it is probative and whether or not it is material. It is always a mistake to not provide information to IRCC based on the individual's own judgment that the information is not relevant: again, if IRCC asks for it, it is by definition relevant. It is for IRCC to determine to what extent it is relevant.

But, yes, of course, most of us will find it is OK to use some common sense and a reasonable exercise of discretion. IRCC is not out to reject qualified applicants based on technicalities (other than, of course, the minimal technical requirements to be qualified).



Scope of necessity to follow the instructions:

In another forum similarly about immigration and citizenship, my signature is: "If in doubt, follow the instructions, otherwise, yep, follow the instructions."

Many perceive my repetitive admonition to follow the instructions to be condescending and overly cautious (some describe it as anal), but the reality is that the most common reason qualified applicants run into problems in the processing of their application is, at least in part, due to not following the instructions.

But as I noted above, I myself did not entirely follow the instructions (and I had been using that signature long before I applied for citizenship). And, indeed, the above example is just one example among others. For another example, I submitted additional documents with my application. I also left some boxes in the application blank.

I also made some mistakes in my application.

And my timeline from application to oath was barely eight months, back when scores and scores of applicants were bogged down for years, when the CIC site stated the routine timeline (I forget the exact statement) was more than a year and a half.

So, yes, I acknowledge and use, myself, some common sense and a reasonable exercise of discretion, with due recognition of the risks, when it comes to following the instructions. When I drive on the 401, for example, I am rarely going less than 110k (except in slow traffic), let alone the speed limit of 100k. But, I know the risks. Indeed, I was recently stopped (on a different highway) driving 24k over the 90k limit, and I fully expected to be ticketed, but was just given a warning. In no way does this suggest it is OK to drive 15k, or even 10k over the limit.



As I say, "If in doubt, follow the instructions, otherwise, yep, follow the instructions."

See the Guide: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/guides/CIT0002ETOC.asp#CIT0002E4
and follow the instructions for providing translations.

While you disagree with my post, anything outside the 6 year window prior to submitting application is completely irrelevant. The citizenship application is based on the past 6 years. Not past 7, or 8 or 9 years prior to application date.

 

[Michelle00]

Thanks everyone for your input here! I found a certified translator on the ATIA website and she charges by document, not by the number of stamps, LOL, so I will get everything translated.

 

[elie72]

The short and simple answer is follow the instructions, which means YES, anything in any document presented to IRCC which is not in one of the official languages (French or English) should be translated.

The answer to this question is clearly stated in the Guide for Citizenship Applications:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/guides/CIT0002ETOC.asp#CIT0002E4

The particular requirements (as to who can do the translation, when certification is required, and so on) are listed under a heading "Translation of documents," near the end of Step 1. "Gather Documents" (easy way to get there is to go to Step 2. "Complete the Application" and scroll back a little).

Recent revisions to the Guide have added specific instructions regarding translations throughout the "Gather Documents" section.



Actual examination of documents oft times casual:

In practice, the requirement to provide translations as prescribed is not uniformly enforced. Many report no problem even though they did not provide proper translations during a documents-verification interview (typically contemporaneous with the test). Indeed, I did not bother to get or provide translations for a couple stamps in my passport, and I encountered no problem. But I recognized there was some risk, which I felt was an acceptable risk even though some terms in the stamps were not in English or French; I recognized some risk because I was not following instructions, which call for translations regardless of the fact that the import of the stamps, and the fact they were not relevant to my residency calculation, was readily apparent (though the latter is what made me feel comfortable taking the risk, trusting that CIC would not have a problem just because of a more or less technicality).

I disagree with the suggestion by screech339, that it is OK to not provide translations for stamps dated outside the relevant time period, since the approach IRCC takes is that what is requested is, by definition, relevant, and it is for IRCC to decide to what extent it is probative and whether or not it is material. It is always a mistake to not provide information to IRCC based on the individual's own judgment that the information is not relevant: again, if IRCC asks for it, it is by definition relevant. It is for IRCC to determine to what extent it is relevant.

But, yes, of course, most of us will find it is OK to use some common sense and a reasonable exercise of discretion. IRCC is not out to reject qualified applicants based on technicalities (other than, of course, the minimal technical requirements to be qualified).



Scope of necessity to follow the instructions:

In another forum similarly about immigration and citizenship, my signature is: "If in doubt, follow the instructions, otherwise, yep, follow the instructions."

Many perceive my repetitive admonition to follow the instructions to be condescending and overly cautious (some describe it as anal), but the reality is that the most common reason qualified applicants run into problems in the processing of their application is, at least in part, due to not following the instructions.

But as I noted above, I myself did not entirely follow the instructions (and I had been using that signature long before I applied for citizenship). And, indeed, the above example is just one example among others. For another example, I submitted additional documents with my application. I also left some boxes in the application blank.

I also made some mistakes in my application.

And my timeline from application to oath was barely eight months, back when scores and scores of applicants were bogged down for years, when the CIC site stated the routine timeline (I forget the exact statement) was more than a year and a half.

So, yes, I acknowledge and use, myself, some common sense and a reasonable exercise of discretion, with due recognition of the risks, when it comes to following the instructions. When I drive on the 401, for example, I am rarely going less than 110k (except in slow traffic), let alone the speed limit of 100k. But, I know the risks. Indeed, I was recently stopped (on a different highway) driving 24k over the 90k limit, and I fully expected to be ticketed, but was just given a warning. In no way does this suggest it is OK to drive 15k, or even 10k over the limit.



As I say, "If in doubt, follow the instructions, otherwise, yep, follow the instructions."

See the Guide: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/guides/CIT0002ETOC.asp#CIT0002E4
and follow the instructions for providing translations.

Hi dpenabill,

You have mentioned in your reply that you have sent along with your application some additional documents. Is it ok to send some additional documents which are not requested , in order to add proof to our physical presence?
Thanks for your answer.

 

[ajithpl]

If it is not in English, how do IRCC officials know if the date is before 6 years or after? Non-english stamps of some countries can have numerals quite different from the conventional ones.

While you disagree with my post, anything outside the 6 year window prior to submitting application is completely irrelevant. The citizenship application is based on the past 6 years. Not past 7, or 8 or 9 years prior to application date.

 

[foodie69]

Just don't think too much..only do what they ask for, 6 years back as stated above.

 

[dpenabill]

Just don't think too much..only do what they ask for, 6 years back as stated above.

I agree with approaching these things without overthinking them. Follow the instructions.


A key thing to consider, for issues like this, is the risk of causing further inquiries or delays.

Following the instructions is not merely about complying with technicalities, not merely about what is essentially required to establish eligibility and qualification, but as much about facilitating IRCC's process and, for most of us anyway, thereby avoiding (to the extent possible) problems, delays, elevated scrutiny, or additional processing.

Again, it is OK to use common sense and reasonably exercise discretion, at one's own risk of course.

In any event, the instructions clearly state that anything in a document to be submitted, which is not in one of the official languages, needs to be translated.

If the document itself is required, the instructions to provide a proper translation do not exempt, in any way, parts which the applicant thinks are not relevant information.

Note: older passports or travel documents, if cancelled or expired prior to the date the presence-time-period begins, and thus clearly a travel document which had no validity and could have been used during the time period for assessing presence, do NOT need to be submitted. In contrast, if the travel document needs to be submitted, it is by definition relevant, so all the information in it falls within the scope of what is requested, what is by definition relevant, and if not in an official language to be translated . . . noting, as I have, that this is not necessarily strictly enforced.

Hi dpenabill,

You have mentioned in your reply that you have sent along with your application some additional documents. Is it ok to send some additional documents which are not requested , in order to add proof to our physical presence?
Thanks for your answer.

I responded in the topic where you initially made a similar query:

The short and easy answer to your question is yes, it is OK to send additional, non-requested documents with the citizenship application.

Including extra documents is not prohibited . . . but . . . Frankly, despite what I did, my inclination is against including additional documents . . .