INTERVIEW: Test-Event - ID/Documents Verification |
Post Reply | Page <1 678 |
Author | ||||||||
dpenabill
Top Member Joined: 29 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 6407 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||
For reference:
This is a 2012 version of the FRQ, and it probably has been modified in the course of OB 407 B, OB 407 C, and OB 407 D (assuming "D" is the last so far). But the modifications are most likely in the details, not the form, not the general outline approach, and probably more detail not less. Reminder: Part A of the FRQ is the completeness check and the Triage Criteria. Obviously there is little likelihood of "follow-up" required for items in the completeness check, so the references to follow-up in Part A are clearly to follow-up any risk indicator items identified by Sydney in the level one screening. This would obviously include examination of the RQ submission. But how thorough the examination (review) of the entirety of what was submitted in response to RQ is not so clear. Probably has varied from local office to local office. And it may depend on what risk indicators are checked and to be followed-up on. My sense: when a response to RQ is being given a thorough going-over, that is probably a sign that someone at CIC has some elevated concerns if not suspicions, and is looking for details damaging to the applicant's case, not details favouring the applicant. I am quite confident that if the applicant's case is not relatively made in the key information and key documents, which can be examined fairly quickly, that's when things are more likely to go off the rails and into the realm of longer delays.
I responded:
|
||||||||
Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does, or When in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, follow the instructions.
BTW: Not an expert, not a Can. lawyer, never worked in immigration |
||||||||
dpenabill
Top Member Joined: 29 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 6407 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||
Among the notable differences in some interviews, one observes the interviewer checking T4s and comparing them to reported employment history, while the other says the interviewer "Didn't look at T4 that much" but asked general questions about what the applicant had been doing and "chatted" about work. While these may seem minor differences, the point is this illustrates that for each applicant, individually, based on that applicant's situation and history, what CIC focuses on will vary and in many respects be dependent on (relative to) the individual himself or herself. I would further note, though, that just like at a POE, there are probably questions-for-the-day (or week or month), all staff instructed on a particular topic of query and a stock of questions to pose relative to that query, CIC (again like CBSA at a POE) being given, in effect, marching orders for the day (week, month, whatever period) to focus on certain issues and facts. These could easily, and probably are, geared to groups of applicants . . . it being quite apparent that at least some test events involve groups of applicants with somewhat similar situations. Main thing, though, is that the actual exchanges in the interview will vary, and could vary substantially. Another key indication: The employment history can be a big factor. bangloboy had clearly submitted both the CRA Notices of Assessment and T4s in response to the RQ. While this will not always make the difference, make the case successful, the failure to do this is almost certainly a red flag if not an outright invitation to elevated scrutiny and a longer process. Second only to submitting copies of all relevant and potentially relevant Travel Documents, the submission of these key documents (CRA Notices of Assessment plus source of income tax documents) is probably the next most important documents to submit in responding to RQ. There is a report (don't have the quote) by chipmunk_montreal regarding an inquiry, in the interview, as to how long in the U.S., job, and so on, including since applying; this report warrants taking note of in particular. Most reports tend to indicate the focus is predominantly on applicants' activity and location during the relevant four years, but reports like this illuminate that CIC is taking note of and looking at some aspects of post-application activity and location. My best guess is that this is elevated for those given RQ, and not so much so for routine cases unless there is a particularly salient red flag waving during the interview. It is also worth noting that the observations by bangloboy about the interviewer's lack of interest in seeing invoices reflecting travel comports with some observations by pretestRQ based on overhearing interviews with other applicants. The point about the interviewer's lack of interest in seeing what an applicant has (with him or her) to verify information (usually about dates and destinations of travel) warrants more elaboration, but for now it suffices to emphasize that beyond the verifications done in the documents check (primarily focused on identity and the presentation of all Travel Documents) the interview appears to be very much verification of identity and documents oriented, and beyond that is more or less about looking for incongruities, inconsistencies, outright discrepancies, red flags (such as indications the applicant is or has been evasive or deceptive, or has otherwise failed to disclose material information), and NOT much interested in what the applicant has to verify information the applicant already has provided. (Note distinction between verification of identity and required documents, versus assessment or verification of applicant information generally - again, relative to this, my strong sense is that it is limited to looking for red flags, not for corroborating or verifying information otherwise -- except, of course, checking travel documents to be sure stamps and such are consistent with reported travel/absences.) Thus, it appears that the point of bringing any additional documents (beyond those requested) is not so much about the applicant affirmatively presenting a supporting case, but more about having the documents available if they are specifically relevant to an inquiry made by the interviewer, that is, if they provide a direct response to a question by the interviewer, and the interviewer is interested, then, in considering the document. This means that usually the additional documents will be no more than excess baggage, but if and when there is a chance they could be presented, it may indeed be worth having them. As I have oft said, I would stick to the more essential, key documents for this, and not be surprised if there is no opportunity at all to present them. Reminder: what the interviewer asks, and what the interviewer is interested in seeing, is likely to vary considerably from case to case, individual to individual. The latter is further illustrated by yet another good report of the interview by incanada. This report also warrants more extensive commentary, but for now a couple things warrant emphasis: reference to the checklist and the inquiry regarding visas (U.S. and UK). The report illuminates aspects of the process in this regard which should help others anticipate the scope of potential questions, beyond the perfunctory ones. Another eavesdropping observation of much interest is in the report by incanada, having to do with the contrast between questions posed to an applicant who, apparently, did not provide some key documentation in response to the RQ, like CRA Notices of Assessment, and other questions directly related to the RQ, versus minimal questions directly related to the RQ response in the interview for incanada's RQ'd partner. Back to the observations by pretestRQ, highlights include the observations about the applicant who failed to present an expired passport. Huge, huge mistake. Anyone who needs to renew or replace an older passport and is not absolutely certain the older passport will be returned, should do their best to make a complete copy and have that copy verified as complete as of a particular date. While obviously a certified copy would be best, that may be impractical or even impossible to obtain. I made a complete, dated copy of every page of my old passport before sending it off to be replaced by a new passport. I did not go the extra step of having the copy independently verified. (I was in a rush, we had some vacation plans abroad coming up, and my home country does return the old passport.) For those who can anticipate the likelihood their old passport will not be returned to them, more precautions are probably a good idea, some independent, dated verification that the copy is a true, correct, and complete copy as of the particular date. The equivalent of a notary, for example, should be able to compare the original and the copy and at least verify that the copy is a complete and accurate copy of the original as of that date. While obviously the impact of failing to have the older passport will vary depending on all the circumstances, including in particular the extent to which the applicant can submit reliable, objective documentation showing actual presence in Canada, failure to present an old passport can be a huge problem and is one of the issues that arises in numerous Federal Court cases as a key factor underlying a denial of approval for citizenship. In this regard, there is mention in the Federal Court decisions that a copy of the passport should make a big difference. Another observation worth highlighting is an interviewer's comment about what to submit in response to a request for additional information and documents:
|
||||||||
Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does, or When in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, follow the instructions.
BTW: Not an expert, not a Can. lawyer, never worked in immigration |
||||||||
dpenabill
Top Member Joined: 29 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 6407 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does, or When in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, follow the instructions.
BTW: Not an expert, not a Can. lawyer, never worked in immigration |
||||||||
dpenabill
Top Member Joined: 29 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 6407 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||
link to posts by Spellbound and bangloboy:
|
||||||||
Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does, or When in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, follow the instructions.
BTW: Not an expert, not a Can. lawyer, never worked in immigration |
||||||||
dpenabill
Top Member Joined: 29 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 6407 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does, or When in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, follow the instructions.
BTW: Not an expert, not a Can. lawyer, never worked in immigration |
||||||||
dpenabill
Top Member Joined: 29 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 6407 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||
I have been meaning to start a sticky topic for posting reports about the test-event interview experience. Every adult applicant for a grant of citizenship will have to attend such an interview. For those who will be taking the knowledge of Canada test, the interview takes place in conjunction with that event. For those of us who are exempt from taking the knowledge of Canada test, the interview usually (perhaps always) takes place attendant a scheduled test-event. This topic is thus specifically here for participants to share their interview experience, including observations, and for commentary about the interview process itself. I am making it a sticky topic because it is a common experience for all adult applicants, so these reports should be of interest to almost everyone who visits this particular forum regarding applications for a grant of citizenship (PRs seeking naturalized citizenship). I am going to make a number of posts in which I will paste posts previously made in the forum by others, in various topics. This will be far from exhaustive but should offer a good sampling of what has previously been posted about the interview experience. For many I will also link to the page where the original post was, but I do not have the links for every post (I began preparing to create this topic awhile ago, but was sporadic in compiling the information from other posts; sorry). I undoubtedly leave out some very good reports. Please feel free to link or copy here other reports about the interview experience, particularly those I have overlooked. This is part of an effort by me to do some of the things I had intended to do here, much of which I do not expect to accomplish now that my own journey has abruptly reached its conclusion much sooner than I had been anticipating. I have long been spending way, way too much time at this site. And it will be, or perhaps already is, time for me to be moving on to other projects, other venues. So I will try to get at least a bit done, like getting this topic started. I also apologize for some redundancy in the following posts, and some of this is fragmented. As I indicated, I had been planning to establish a topic in which more organized information about the interview itself could be shared, and I had hoped to approach this more deliberately, more organized, than I now have time to do. (Also note, in this regard, the forum has been under an escalated attack from spam the last two weeks as well, which has disrupted this effort and also consumed more time than I will have going forward.) |
||||||||
Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does, or When in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, follow the instructions.
BTW: Not an expert, not a Can. lawyer, never worked in immigration |
||||||||
Post Reply | Page <1 678 |
Tweet |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |