INTERVIEW: Test-Event - ID/Documents Verification

@m_r_mtl see my response in the Montreal thread.

dpenabill wrote: Report of additional document request given at interview: tigercarpr wrote: After the interview, officer handled out the form CIT 0520(10-2013E) to provide personal health claim summary and both adults's tax notice of assessment in 45 days and see judge later. What is the sign here? long-haul wait for CJ after supplementing new documents? Part of what I responded to this post: This limited document request is a relatively new procedure, just implemented by CIC in the latter part of 2013. We have very few participants here reporting experience with this, and frankly it is way too soon to draw any inferences about what it means for most. But it is not RQ. And that is important. It may mean some delay but probably not the huge delay incurred by those who get RQ, particularly those who get RQ after the test. Of course, if CIC is not satisfied after getting the documents, RQ could still come. But for now, the more focused request is a good sign that just a little documentation will be sufficient for the case to be referred to the Citizenship Judge in a file review, meaning the oath would be scheduled in the not too distant future. . . . [The applicant] should follow the instructions in the request as best [the applicant] can based on [the applicant's] best understanding of what they mean. A request someone else got may not be the same [as that given in the particular case]. Follow the instructions in the request . . . received as best [one] can.    Another post about bringing additional documents to interview: twocats wrote: RQs have been reviewed and are used as the primary reference doc at the interview. Do not bring anything they've already had. Part of my response: First sentence I agree with. And, actually, that is largely what I elaborate on in some detail in a separate post below. But, it is worth emphasizing that the fact the RQ has been reviewed (examined and considered prior to the test event interview) does not mean that CIC has made a final determination as to whether CIC deems the applicant is qualified. See post following this one for further explanation. However, I do not entirely agree with the second sentence: "Do not bring anything they've already had." Even though the odds are that bringing additional documentation, beyond what the applicant is instructed to bring, will have little or no impact on how things actually go (what decision CIC makes), what to bring is a very individual decision and a decision to be made based on the particular circumstances of the individual case. In particular, there is no harm in having some additional key documents handy, even if just for one's own reference, and even if they are never presented during the course of the interview. The CBSA travel history, for example, is something some applicants like to have with them when they go to the interview, even though now for all RQ'd applicants CIC should either have one submitted by the applicant or a report based on CIC's direct access to the CBSA travel history. (I would carry my own travel records, even though having submitted a full accounting of all travel in response to the RQ, rather than the CBSA records, but others appear to prefer to have the CBSA travel history with them. Others have spreadsheets which can illuminate their travel history in a manner organized for comparison with other information, like passport stamps.) Other examples may be the original of a few key documents copies of which were submitted to CIC. No reason to bring a big box of documents (for most, there is no reason to submit a big box of documents in response to the RQ either). If a few documents are not going to be enough, a big box or even ten boxes of documents will not be either. There may be no opportunity at all to present any additional documents. But it is a bit like having an air bag in the dashboard of your car: good to know it's there even if you never need it, just in case. Additional observations: I previously quoted the following report, but am quoting it again to give context to some other observations I have made. bangloboy wrote: She looked through my passport and ticked off what I had mentioned in the RQ. As she was doing this we had conversations, she asked me what I do - and I explained. I also offered if she needed any documents and she said she was fine. After she verified my exits and entries she went on to ask what work I've been doing over the past 4 years. I told her where I worked and why I changed to my current job etc. One thing interesting I noticed was I had taken vacations to the caribbean a few times and countries like Cuba do not stamp anything so I brought my invoices - she said she understood that and didn't need verification! What she ticked off were places like home country I went to twice and other countries I went to for school related stuff. I will update you all once I hear further good news. All the best I think I have previously posted the following in response to this (not sure where): While CIC-Ccws*, including CIC staff conducting the interviews, are not robots and are not engaged in a merely mechanical exercise in working their way through the particular action they are taking on a citizenship application, including conducting an interview, what they are doing is far more formally structured and driven by defined criteria than it may appear to be in the course of what seems to be casual conversation, even chat. In particular, what appears to be casual conversation, or mere chat, is almost always a part, an integral part actually, of deliberate inquiry, specifically designed to put the applicant at ease for the purpose of obtaining candid information. Personnel in CIC, just like those in CBSA, are specifically trained for conducting interviews using a casual style of exchange. There are many reasons why bureaucratic investigatory interviews are structured this way (in contrast, say, to the more or less law enforcement style of a more formal, authoritative approach -- although, in practice, in many contexts even law enforcement personnel often employ the casual-chat approach in pursuit of obtaining candid information from individuals). *Note: "Ccws" is my acronym for citizenship case workers, meaning anyone at CIC working on a citizenship case regardless of title or position. But it is also worth remembering the more formal criteria aspect of their task. Interviewers may wander off the checklist path, so-to-say, if and when they see an opportunity to obtain the kind of information they are looking for. But mostly they stay focused on specified criteria, the checklist items. If their checklist (probably in practice significantly more extensive than the File Requirements Checklist itself), the list of criteria and tasks they are instructed to be using on that occasion (again, like at a POE, these probably are mostly standardized but in some detail may vary from day-to-day), calls for a comparison of specific information in two particular sources (say the residency calculator declarations and the reported absences in the response to RQ), that is what the interviewer will focus on. REMINDER: Beyond the formal verification of identity and required documents, in many respects (but not entirely) the interviewer is looking for incongruities, inconsistencies, red flags, indications the applicant is or has been evasive or deceptive. Thus, beyond the formal verification of identity and required documents, the interview is NOT so much about confirming the applicant's information as it is looking for holes in the applicant's information, looking for indications of something awry. Thus, there is no convincing the interviewer as such; there is either verification or the identification of a concern. To what extent a concern that is noted or which arises may be addressed by the applicant's responses, or perhaps even by the presentation of some documentation, is an unknown. Most indications suggest minimal opportunity to address concerns, often no opportunity to present additional documents. On a personal note, I brought and offered a photocopy of my new passport, issued since I had applied, and that was accepted. Even though the interviewer did not ask for this, the instructions were to bring such copies.

Ironmat500 wrote: I am December 2013 applicant. In process: Feb 2014. Got RQ May 2014 and responded with complete documentation on June 2014 to Scarborough as instructed in my RQ letter. Got Test from Scarborough (although my local office should be St. Clair) on Mid August. Got 20/20 on test. Interview was very short and she did check my IDs as well as talking re my job and cross check some dates from my application with my passport. I saw my RQ file there but she never touched it. At the end she said that my RQ is not been reviewed yet and they will send my file to St Clair for someone to review my file. She didn't say why i got test before RQ being reviewed and how long would it take for me to get the oat! 1- Is this a new trend/policy to invite for test before reviewing the RQs? 2- Why am I been invited to send my RQ response as well as doing test & interview at Scarborough while my office should be St Clair and now sending my file to St Clair for someone to review RQ??

Foremost, I am NO expert.

Secondly, importantly, things are often in transition, changing, and I am not keeping up with anecdotal reports these days . . . and am not even keeping up with changes in formal sources of information as thoroughly as I was until quite recently. For example, I was not following these matters at all for the ten days previous to today.

So, I do not know for sure that RQ submissions are still being reviewed prior to the applicant's appearance at the test and interview. We knew for sure the RQ response was being reviewed so long as the File Requirements Checklist inclusion of the Pre-interview check step remained the same (or mostly the same) as the FRC version in use in 2012. I believe, and strongly so, that there is still at least a very similar Pre-interview check included, with that to include a review of any submissions in response to RQ or other document requests.

Distinction: Words are often used imprecisely. The word "review" is, in particular, subject to various meanings. Some mean a formal review resulting in an assessment, a decision-making review. The word is also used in more generic contexts, such as in reference to an examination for the purpose of considering the information submitted.

I would be very surprised if an applicant's response to RQ was not, at the very least, examined relative to considering the information, before the test-interview . . . and again, this would be part of the pre-interview check.

On the other hand, the CIC person conducting the pre-interview check is not necessarily a Citizenship Officer, so that person's examination, or in a generic sense a "review" of the RQ submission, is not definitive, not a formal assessment.

Reminder: the interviewer is not a decision-maker; the interviewer's role is to gather information. (It is not the interviewer's role to advise applicants either.)

I cannot say with certainty what specific terms were used with what particular meaning at your interview, but my sense is that when the interviewer said your RQ had not been "reviewed yet" and that "they will send my file to St. Clair for someone to review my file," this was in reference to the more or less formal assessment review, which would be conducted by a Citizenship Officer. In contrast, I would bet a lot that either the interviewer, or someone else, had indeed reviewed (examined) your RQ submission (in a pre-interview check), and that it was considered relative to what deciding what questions you would be asked. As others have reported, the duration and scope of the interview varies from applicant to applicant, and while to some extent this variation arises from how it goes in the questions-and-answers exchange, there is undoubtedly some variation in what questions are planned for particular applicants, based in part on what is in the file, which includes any response to RQ.


RE Local office actually doing processing:

There have been known patterns in how CIC was distributing files in the GTA, but there are additional changes taking place the last few months which are likely to have an impact on how files are distributed beyond what we know, at least for now. There is no reason to worry much about this. What ultimately matters, of course, is what the facts in your case really are and how well you documented your residency in responding to the RQ.

Overall: if you met the residency requirement based on Actual Physical Presence, and documented that in your RQ submission, odds are that all is well and you will be progressing through the process significantly more timely than those RQ'd in the past.

Mississauga99 wrote: I was given a paper at the time of Citizenship Test, it was not RQ but few details were requested like copies of Tax returns, copy of E-Tickets, copy of my business registration. Nothing else was requested. she said to determine residency provide these documents. I had only one passport at the time of the test for 3 years period. Does this also takes long like as regular RQ?

A particular document request not amounting to RQ probably does not result in a timeline as long as that for applicants given RQ. Indeed, this probably does not cause much of a delay for many -- in particular, if your documentation is responsive to the request, and verifies your information, there are reports suggesting that for qualified applicants this does not significantly delay progressing to the oath.

I say and emphasize "probably" because this procedure, the issuance of particular document requests, is relatively new (implemented some time in 2013) and is not explained in any sources of CIC information I have seen or has otherwise been shared here in this forum, so we do not know with certainty or in detail what the procedure is or to what extent it is handled differently than RQ itself. Moreover, while we have seen a fair number of personal reports by applicants who received such requests, the underlying circumstances in those reports vary considerably (for example, some are applicants who had previously received and responded to RQ). Some report progressing to the oath forthwith. Some have not reported a next step. And overall, the number of these reports is too few to support any definitive conclusions as to how these requests affect the timeline.

That said, some of the reports have specifically indicated it sometimes happens that the delay is quite short, some of those reporting indicating being scheduled for the oath in less time than a number of routinely processed applicants have reported.

And, of course how the applicant responds to the request, what documentation is submitted, and how that fits into the applicant's case (as in whether or not, or to what extent, it verifies the information in the applicant's file), will affect what happens next, which of course in part determines how long things will take.

My sense, in the vein of a guess, is that if there were overt concerns about the applicant's residency, RQ would be issued, and thus the request for specific documents is probably more about verification, a double-checking step, and one which might even be randomly issued for quality control purposes.

Just had my test yesterday in Edmonton. Surprisingly, the lady conducting my interview explicitly told me that my documents have not been really reviewed yet and she has not seen them before either. Apart from standard questions (do you rent or own? where do you work?) the interview was more of a id and passport stamp verification event. At the end, she told me that I would be contacted should questions about my docs arise.