INTERVIEW: Test-Event - ID/Documents Verification

Following Instructions in Bringing Documents

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:

kaladdin wrote: My local office is Mississauga. I passed the test with 20/20. Before the test started, the CO responsible for the test said that those who pass the test could attend the ceremony next week. So, I was really excited, but during my interview the Officer asked for the translations of my passport stamps. I had not translated my passports so she handed me this CIT 0520 form with the check box next to the passports ticked. She told me that there is nothing to be worried of as their office is quite fast in processing applications and that they have ceremonies everyday, mornings and afternoons.

(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:

Passports (current and all previous) and certified translations if any stamps/visas are not in English/French

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."

Note: I am winding down the extent to which I participate in responding to posts in the forum. That is, but for occasional issues I may continue to discuss some, generally I will not be responding to most posts, including inquiries directed to me. Since, however, I am a jurist (a lawyer, just not a Canadian lawyer) and continue to have an interest in numerous aspects of Canadian citizenship and immigration law, I will probably continue to make occasional posts regarding developments in the law itself, including what I think are interesting judicial decisions.

montrealia wrote: 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.

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.    

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.

My husband and I had our exam and interview in Montreal today. We first did the exam which was very easy. Then we had to wait for the interview. They first called all the people with individual files. When they called groups, they would call one member at the time and consecutively (meaning that the same officer would interview the members of the same group, but one at the time).

In our case, my husband was called first. His interview was very quick. He got the pre-test RQ and the officer had spent time reading his RQ and was on top of things and she said that everything was very complete and there weren't much to check. I was called after and most of the interview went well, but then she had to check the passport stamps and that took forever (I travel a lot for work). She happily accepted some index that I made to help keep track of each stamp and trip.

In the end the officer said everything was OK, that the judge was almost certainly approve the case without any further inquiry, and that we should be called for the oath in 2-4 month.

I left with an uneasy feeling, though, because she wasn't very exhaustive at checking the passport stamps and they are just too many, I'm very afraid of getting an RQ myself...

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.