This is my interview letter

[zoya_99]

Theres nothing rude about anything anyone is saying. Not accepting anytging anyone is saying and getting stuck on the most minute thing is a but much. Sure its stressful but dont get lost in two words. Look at the big picture

I understand but if OP isn't satisfied with the answers so of course she'll ask again & again. It's just that we're not at her place.
She's so polite in her post. I feel she doesn't deserve such rude responses

 

[zoya_99]

The wording of this letter is a little clunky; in fact, I'm somewhat surprised this was written by IRCC. That said, bureaucrats love filler words like "control purposes" -- you see that in many places where it doesn't strictly make the most sense. For what it's worth, my guess is this was actually composed by someone who is a native French speaker, based on the characteristics of the phrasing and word choice. In that case the use of the word "control" makes even more sense, as contrôler simply means "to check" in French (and is often confused when francophones switch to English).

So, in answer to your question, "control" = "check." Nothing more nothing less.

Good luck!

Even if it's written be francophone, shouldn't he/she must have used 'vérifier' instead of contrôler?

 

[schweisy]

Even if it's written be francophone, shouldn't he/she must have used 'vérifier' instead of contrôler?

No, not necessarily. There are different connotations at work there. Contrôler has more of a sense of actively inspecting or examining than simply verifying.

Apart from that minor detail, as I said, bureaucrats love to use phrases like "control purposes" as default filler words, sometimes even precisely because they're so vague and non-specific. Not something to get hung up on reading into either way in this context, as the big picture tells you much more here.

 

[zoya_99]

No, not necessarily. There are different connotations at work there. Contrôler has more of a sense of actively inspecting or examining than simply verifying.

Apart from that minor detail, as I said, bureaucrats love to use phrases like "control purposes" as default filler words, sometimes even precisely because they're so vague and non-specific. Not something to get hung up on reading into either way in this context, as the big picture tells you much more here.

So you mean it's a bad sign for her?

 

[Sharukh khan]

I understand but if OP isn't satisfied with the answers so of course she'll ask again & again. It's just that we're not at her place.
She's so polite in her post. I feel she doesn't deserve such rude responses

Im sorry if i hurt someone’s feelings but my point was just simple and clear just be ready for anything maybe relationship interview or just interview you have to be prepared and if you are satisfied whatever u said in application you will be ok and ready for everything.
Thanks and apologize if they get hurt with my words

 

[schweisy]

So you mean it's a bad sign for her?

Not at all, I think it's mostly just a poorly worded letter. In fact, @tiarachel85, was any part of this actually written originally in French? If so, you might want to post that version instead.

 

[tiarachel85]

Not at all, I think it's mostly just a poorly worded letter. In fact, @tiarachel85, was any part of this actually written originally in French? If so, you might want to post that version instead.

Could you please check your PM

Thanks

 

[tiarachel85]

Im sorry if i hurt someone’s feelings but my point was just simple and clear just be ready for anything maybe relationship interview or just interview you have to be prepared and if you are satisfied whatever u said in application you will be ok and ready for everything.
Thanks and apologize if they get hurt with my words

it’s alright
Thanks a lot

Good luck

 

[tiarachel85]

Not at all, I think it's mostly just a poorly worded letter. In fact, @tiarachel85, was any part of this actually written originally in French? If so, you might want to post that version instead.

Last year, despite being inland, we took our chances and went abroad for 1 month to see spouse’s parents & family.

Should I volunteer this information? Because it might help to prove genuineness of our relationship? We also have photos to prove our meeting

Merci

 

[schweisy]

Last year, despite being inland, we took our chances and went abroad for 1 month to see spouse’s parents & family.

Should I volunteer this information? Because it might help to prove genuineness of our relationship? We also have photos to prove our meeting

Merci

I don't have enough knowledge of either inland applications or relationship interviews to tell you anything, but in general I would always advise to be honest with them. I would imagine they can access information on your/your partner's entries and exits from the country anyway, so it would not be good to omit that information if they ask you about it directly.

Beyond that, I would say perhaps a more knowledgeable member (like @scylla or @canuck_in_uk or @kcward7) could possibly give you more concrete advice on how this affects an inland application and whether to volunteer the information.

 

[canuck78]

Last year, despite being inland, we took our chances and went abroad for 1 month to see spouse’s parents & family.

Should I volunteer this information? Because it might help to prove genuineness of our relationship? We also have photos to prove our meeting

Merci

Last thing you should do is lie but a month long holiday might make you ineligible for inland sponsorship.

 

[tiarachel85]

Last thing you should do is lie but a month long holiday might make you ineligible for inland sponsorship.

Is this mentioned somewhere on their website?

 

[canuck78]

Is this mentioned somewhere on their website?

Inland sponsorship requires people to remain in Canada. Short trips seem to be accepted but 1 month is pretty long.

 

[tiarachel85]

Inland sponsorship requires people to remain in Canada. Short trips seem to be accepted but 1 month is pretty long.

Thanks a lot.
I don’t see anywhere on their website. All I can find there is this:

Can I leave Canada while IRCC processes my application for permanent residence?
Yes. However, if you leave Canada while your application is being processed, you must meet all the admissibility rules before being allowed back into Canada.

If you leave Canada and want to return, you must have all the required documents to enter. This can include:

• a valid passport or other travel documents,
• a valid work permit or study permit, if you need one, and
• a valid visitor visa or an Electronic Travel Authorization (eTA), if you need one.

If you are unable to return to Canada, we could determine that you abandoned your application. In that case, we will not process it.

 

[canuck78]

Thanks a lot.
I don’t see anywhere on their website. All I can find there is this:

Can I leave Canada while IRCC processes my application for permanent residence?
Yes. However, if you leave Canada while your application is being processed, you must meet all the admissibility rules before being allowed back into Canada.

If you leave Canada and want to return, you must have all the required documents to enter. This can include:

• a valid passport or other travel documents,
• a valid work permit or study permit, if you need one, and
• a valid visitor visa or an Electronic Travel Authorization (eTA), if you need one.

If you are unable to return to Canada, we could determine that you abandoned your application. In that case, we will not process it.

This isn't for inland sponsorship.