INTERVIEW: Test-Event - ID/Documents Verification |
Post Reply | Page <1234 8> |
Author | |||
dpenabill
Top Member Joined: 29 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 6407 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Actually I created this thread precisely for the purpose of posting reports about individual experiences in the interview and document check (usually at the test event).
So posts such as that by montrealia should indeed be appreciated. And of course I added some information from other sources and some analysis. One thing I did not do above is specifically detail what documents are checked at the interview. The instructions included in the Notice are quite specific and clear, so for the most part few should have questions about this. However, there is the open-ended supporting documents such as "birth certificate" item, which for most really is not something necessary -- I brought mine but it was not looked at, for example -- my sense is that this is indeed an open-ended item intended to request the presentation of any original document a copy of which was sent with the application, so that it is available if CIC has a question or concern related to it in particular. Remember, for example, some applicants are stateless persons who do not have a passport and so the birth certificate is a key identity document. In any event, in terms of the actual documents, minimum and most important: -- all passports (all relevant travel documents actually) -- Two pieces of identification (preferably the same pieces of identification a copy of which was submitted with the application) -- PR card -- CoPR (confirmation of landing) For passports, remember to bring properly authenticated translations if there is anything in the passport in a language other than English or French. And, for that open-ended "supporting documents" item, probably best to bring the original of any other document a copy of which was included in the application, although this is probably not nearly as critical as the specific documents identified above. |
|||
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 |
|||
montrealia
Junior Member Joined: 24 Mar 2011 Status: Offline Points: 141 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
The purpose of my post here was also to highlight the experience of the CIC officer that took the time to read the pre-test RQ and therefore didn't ask much from the pre-test RQ recipient at the time of the interview.
Because I didn't receive the RQ pre-test (even though my file is linked to my husband's, but he's the one who got it), everything was checked for me, specially stamps in the passports. Regarding documents, let me add that between application time and test time (34 months) we renewed all our IDs, including the PR cards (because of normal expiration). However, it was not an issue that all for the CIC officer that our IDs were newer versions of the ones in the photocopies that we submitted in the application. |
|||
Office: Guess!!!
Received: 25 May 2011 In Process: 26 Jun 2012 pre-test RQ submitted: 03 Aug 2012 PR card renewed: June-Sept 2013, no issues Test: 26 March 2014 Oath: 7 August 2014 |
|||
dpenabill
Top Member Joined: 29 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 6407 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Thanks for your clarification. And of course, yes, drivers licenses and health cards expire and need to be periodically renewed, and this should not in itself cause any concern (and for those whose processing time has been particularly lengthy, this will be more common than not). There is, however, what I would call smooth sailing criteria (informally of course). One obvious example: the PR whose place of residence has remained the same since landing, the same address which appeared on the CoPR. This is not necessary of course. But I suspect it is a small factor which perhaps characterizes a best-case scenario for smooth sailing. As for the identification: in the best-case, best prospect for smooth sailing, exact same identification has virtually no chance of inciting curiosity let alone concern. But what I really meant by saying preferably the "same" identification, is that if a Manitoba drivers license and a Manitoba health card were submitted with the application, definitely preferable to likewise present a Manitoba drivers license and health card, even if it is the renewed version, at the interview. Of course there are many other aspects of note. For example: address on drivers license should, of course, correspond to address of record at CIC, and of course be the individual's actual place of residence. And so on. As I noted early on above, the focus of the examination is for verification purposes, and thus the examiner's concern is about confirmation, which mostly means looking for something awry, for an incongruity (identification from different provinces say), inconsistency (address or signature differs from what CIC has), discrepancy (stamp in passport indicating travel not reported in residency calculation disclosure), or something else which does not fit the picture. Thus, for example, in examining stamps in a passport, the level of scrutiny employed undoubtedly varies from individual to individual, and in particular is probably relative to whether or not the examiner apprehends any reason to be more thorough. |
|||
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)
|
||
This a quote of a post I moved to the Citizenship Timeline topic; I responded there. |
|||
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)
|
||
In particular: Bring proper translations of any information not in English or French I have often repeated how important it is to follow the instructions; indeed, if there is one phrase which illustrates the message I most emphatically and frequently offer, it is: "When in doubt, follow the instructions, otherwise, yep, follow the instructions." I realize that some feel as though this is condescending. Whether it is or not, the admonition to follow the instructions is well-warranted. The failure to follow the instructions is probably the most common cause for applications to incur delays and problems, and my sense is that this may cause delays and problems for more applications than all the other causes combined. To illustrate, I copy part of a post by an applicant with what had been a routine case, who clearly had submitted an application destined for smooth sailing (scheduled for the test and on track for the oath in less than six months from date of application), who would have taken the oath this week but for a failure to follow the instructions:
(Probably, hopefully, this applicant will incur only a minor delay and just some inconvenience, a bit of extra anxiety but not much; but even that can be often be avoided.) Foremost: while the manner in which the instruction is given varies, it is universal: any documents submitted to CIC not in English or French should be accompanied by a proper translation. There may be some exceptions to this, and it is not always applied, and often is not strictly applied, but the instruction to provide proper translations is clearly enough stated, and oft repeated, in CIC informational materials, notices, and other communications, there should be no doubt that if a document includes something in other than English or French, it should be accompanied by a proper translation. For citizenship applications, the Guide itself clearly states that in gathering documents, translations should be obtained. For purposes of the test event - interview, the verification of documents: The only instruction sheet accompanying the notice I have personally seen is the one used by Mississauga; the formal CIC "Notice" form itself does not specify that translations are required (but again, the gather documents instructions do, and again it is virtually a universal instruction), but the instruction sheet which accompanies the notice (at least notices from the Mississauga office . . . which I believe is at least similar to what other offices send) clearly reiterates the instruction to bring proper translations. In particular, the instruction states that among the original documents which the applicant MUST bring are:
I realize that I have stated this in a professorial manner, in the vein of lecturing. Most know to do this and do not need to be lectured. But it is almost always worth a reminder, and for all too many it is an admonition which, if heeded, can save them time and effort, help them to avoid significant inconvenience including delays, if not otherwise help some to avoid more serious delays and problems. So, as I oft say, and will undoubtedly say again: "When in doubt, follow the instructions, otherwise, yep, follow the instructions."
|
|||
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 |
|||
rnvb
Junior Member Joined: 20 Feb 2014 Status: Offline Points: 63 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Point noted.
|
|||
bjones
Average Member Joined: 25 Jul 2013 Status: Offline Points: 219 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Regarding passports, I was/am under the impression that only current passport and old ones that are relevant for the four-year period are requested for the test/interview event. I did not know that this test notice asks for current and all previous passports. What if a passport from 20 years ago was reported lost/stolen and replaced by a new one? I believe the replaced passport will have a note somewhere stating the reasons behind the replacement. Do people here carry all the passports (including those outside the relevant period) to the test/interview event? |
|||
montrealia
Junior Member Joined: 24 Mar 2011 Status: Offline Points: 141 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
No, you don't need the passports from before the 4 year relevant period.
You need the passports that are from the 4 year period and newer up to present date. In my case, the officer only looked at the passports that were relevant for the 4 year period, but she did ask when was my last trip out of Canada and I had my current passport with me (renewed last year) that I offered for her to see, but she was happy just with the photocopy of the first page that I also gave her. |
|||
Office: Guess!!!
Received: 25 May 2011 In Process: 26 Jun 2012 pre-test RQ submitted: 03 Aug 2012 PR card renewed: June-Sept 2013, no issues Test: 26 March 2014 Oath: 7 August 2014 |
|||
bjones
Average Member Joined: 25 Jul 2013 Status: Offline Points: 219 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Thanks! Let me just add that it would not hurt to carry all passports, including those outside the relevant period, if they are available.
|
|||
dpenabill
Top Member Joined: 29 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 6407 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
The instructions say to bring all passports. There is nothing equivocal about the instruction. Practically speaking, CIC is only interested in relevant travel documents. So, a failure to follow the instruction as to a passport which is not relevant to CIC, will not cause a problem. CIC decides for itself what is relevant. For example, I actually have all my passports going back four decades ago. I did not bother to bring any but the most recent two. I should say, I forgot to bring the older passports, as I had intended to carry them, separately. But I was not particularly concerned, and, as I said, did not bother to bring them, forgot to dig them out of storage in time to take to the interview. The older of the two passports I brought with me was issued years before I landed and became a PR, but it was still the one I had when I landed and was still my "current" passport at the time I applied. So I brought that and my current passport. And both were examined; indeed, the interviewer flipped through all the pages in both. (As is well apparent in the reports by others, the extent to which the interviewer looks at the passports, and other documents, varies extensively from person to person; note for example, the interviewer for me did not appear to look at all closely at the stamps in my passport, despite the fact that my residency calculation printout indicated more than a dozen trips outside Canada -- she casually asked if I had declared every trip and I answered "yes, other than day trips.") For most applicants the instructions are overly broad relative to what the CIC interviewer will actually want to examine. I am certain this is intentional, so that if the applicant fails to bring a document CIC wants to see the fault is clearly that of the applicant. Mostly this is about bringing all passports which reflect any information relevant to the time period being assessed. Applicants can make a judgment call regarding what is relevant, but of course the risk is all on the applicant, since the instruction clearly states to bring all (in other words, the "I did not think it was relevant" explanation does not justify the failure to bring an expired passport which CIC wants to examine). Again, it is absolutely clear that the scope and scrutiny of individual interviews varies extensively, so how it went for any particular person is only an indication of one example among many as to how it goes for others. And, actually, translations are a prime example: the reports clearly reflect that many applicants who did not bring a translation do not encounter any issue about that at all, no request for a translation, no delay in being scheduled for the oath. But there are many other reports similar to that by kaladdin, all was in order except for the failure to have a proper translation, resulting in a request for at least a certified translation, some reporting getting full-blown RQ as a result. A particularly telling example reported here last year was by a person whose spouse had non-English/non-French stamps in the passport, no question, but then when this reporter was interviewed (they had applied separately), the failure to bring a translation resulted in RQ (this was last year before CIC resumed the practice of making particular document requests rather than issue the full RQ). And in this regard, actually I had two stamps (relating to one trip abroad) which were not in English or French, but they were clearly dated prior to the date I landed and became a PR, consisted of just a couple words in Spanish (and one of the stamps was not legible anyway, the other barely legible), and I did not worry at all about making the judgment call that my failure to have a translation for these was at little or no risk. But I approached this conscientiously, aware of the instruction, and was confident about the judgment call I was making. In terms of what is advisable, however, as I say again and again, the only sensible advice is to follow the instructions. It is a bit like asking a lawyer if it is OK to drive ten km/hour over the speed limit. No, it is not. But sure, practically speaking there is usually not a problem, little risk of a ticket, for going ten K over the limit, and thus the lawyer saying that it is not OK to go ten km over probably drives at least ten km over the speed limit on many occasions. What about 12 km? 15km? The speed limit is the speed limit. One exceeds the speed limit at their own risk. |
|||
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 <1234 8> |
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 |