What other documents are necessary for the test?

timoti wrote: I was just planning to say "I am currently unemployed working on my reel to apply to a new company". Because I thought being unemployed doing nothing vs progressing your career should be seen different. Also regarding the residency calculation mistake, should I print out the new calculation with the missing week added and explain it right away? Would you do that? Because as you say I am sure they will see it in my passport if they go through each stamp where I probably only have 8-10 total since I came to Canada.

Just answer the questions directly, honestly, and all should go well in that regards. They are not screening applicants to see if their career is progressing. Should make no difference, for example, if an applicant is on social assistance. They are focused on the qualifications for citizenship and verifying identification.

As canuck25 said: be truthful and concise. Be straightforward. Best to not offer any complex explanations unless specifically asked a question that elicits an explanation.

Regarding the residency calculation mistake: I personally do not know what to say in that regard. I hope you report back here as to how it goes.

Obviously, you should be prepared to acknowledge the error. Beyond that, I do not know.

As canuck25 said in an earlier post, minor omissions are not likely to derail things (so long as the total actual presence in Canada is still > 1095 days). But what is a minor omission, a minor mistake, versus what triggers concerns, is very difficult to identify.

Your real mistake, of course, was not independently keeping record of your travel, and using stamps in your passport only to confirm dates, to double check your records against. Additionally, in the details part of the residency calculator, the "reasons" portion, you are supposed to detail all countries traveled to while abroad on that trip, so your declaration should have noted the trip to Europe and then back to you home country, and so on. My impression is that many, many people do not report their travel in this detail, even though the instructions are pretty clear, so the failure to include such detail should not, in itself, have raised an issue, but in conjunction with overt omissions, that could be a part of the overall matrix of factors considered.

(I would note, for example, the failure to declare travel through countries while in transit can be glaring; the applicant who reported a trip to Pakistan June 5 through June 27, 2012, for example, who did not declare any trips to the UK, but who traveled via the UK and whose passport has UK stamps from June 2012, well, that is likely to catch someone's attention -- I suspect this is often, perhaps usually, shrugged off, where the dates are within a declared date of exit and next entry, but it is nonetheless a discrepancy by omission and if there are a number of other little things not quite right, they can add up to a concern, especially if there is an error amounting to a failure to disclose all absences. No need to be alarmed by this. Again, I agree with the observation by canuck25 about what amounts to minor omissions or errors, as I believe CIC is fairly lenient about these.)

Again, I have little idea about how one week off in the residency calculation declarations might affect things for someone who has, essentially, reached the time of the test without RQ or other concerns being raised in their case, so please do keep us informed as to how this unfolds for you.

I do not know if you should bring it up first or not. I'd be inclined to bring it up, but I do not know. Actually I guess I would be inclined to play it as it goes, deciding at the last minute whether to bring it up, how to bring it up. It is a hard call.

From what I gather, though, you reported the trip itself, you just reported returning to Canada a week earlier than you actually did return, and thus I am assuming there are multiple stamps in your passport (including the one you overlooked) reflecting this, so what it is should be apparent, a mistake, not a deception, so it should not be too much of a problem.

In my somewhat limited experience with transit countries, it is not so much whether or not one leaves the airport, but the way things are handled by that particular airport, country, airline. I tend to agree, if a stop is on a continuing or for a connecting flight, and you do not have to pass through border/immigration control during the stop, and you do not leave the secured part of the airport, no reason to say you visited that country. Some countries do the border/immigration check for such passengers.

For sure, if there is a stamp reflecting a stop-over, that is an entry and exit which should be reflected in the residency calculation declarations -- but, as I also noted, my sense is that more do not do this than the number who do, so I don't think that all by itself it is an issue.

Additionally, though perhaps obviously, a flight that stops in the U.S. for example usually requires at least a transit visa, and so that is a stop that should be noted. Doing so helps the applicant because it clearly describes, in detail, the travel, bolstering the veracity of the declaration.

In any event, you will have to decide for yourself how to handle the mistake. It sounds like a simple mistake, so should be no big deal no matter how you handle it. How CIC perceives things will depend, probably, on how credible you are are, which for most is easy, most appearing to be the honest and credible person they are (which is taking into consideration all of us make mistakes).

Good luck.

timoti wrote: Also when I was reading another recent thread here, someone was saying the officer asked him his source of income, etc. I hope they don't look down on your if you say no income currently. Or if you are on EI, do you have to mention it? I thought these are private matters that no one has the right to ask/inquiry.

Anyone can ask anyone almost anything. Whether you have a right to not answer is a separate question.

Thing is, how one supports himself or herself is one of those credibility factors: it is less credible that a person with no visible means of support is in fact living in Canada.

There is nothing wrong about collecting EI when eligible. Nothing wrong at all.

But, the File Requirements Checklist does indicate that questions about employment/income are part of the interview, so you can anticipate such questions. That said, like going through the questioning at a POE (upon arrival in Canada), the actual questions asked can vary extensively, the individual official choosing what to ask, and asking follow-up questions based on answers given.

If you think these questions might be intrusive into your privacy, take a look at discussions about RQ and at the questions and documents request that entails. You basically have to forget about privacy (for example, they want copies of documentation showing all dates that health care services were utilized in Canada).