+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445

Citizenship Interview Question

Mahyar85

Star Member
Jan 10, 2022
185
60
Hi guys
I want to share my interview expreince
So i had my interview just now.
I have been asked to show my documents on webcam .
She looked at my pp translation . She had an issue with one date . ( it was very stressful ) but somehow we managed to solve that.
Then she asked me why i have been out of the country for a long time and i explained the reason which was covid. But she said you should have come back to canada to get your vaccination. She said it gives me the impression that you dont want to stay in canada eventhough my physical presence is 1362 days. I explained my reason that im going to start my business over here and planning to stay in canada.
Then she asked me more about my job whether im employed or unemplyed.
at the end of the interview i asked if my interview went OK? She said yes . Then she said Everything looks ok but she has to review more and if she wants more information then she will either call or email me for extra documents
That all . Hope it helps the other people that have an interview
I think everything looks ok and i should wait for my tracker to update
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrTee

Ziad81

Full Member
Oct 1, 2019
24
13
Hi guys
I want to share my interview expreince
So i had my interview just now.
I have been asked to show my documents on webcam .
She looked at my pp translation . She had an issue with one date . ( it was very stressful ) but somehow we managed to solve that.
Then she asked me why i have been out of the country for a long time and i explained the reason which was covid. But she said you should have come back to canada to get your vaccination. She said it gives me the impression that you dont want to stay in canada eventhough my physical presence is 1362 days. I explained my reason that im going to start my business over here and planning to stay in canada.
Then she asked me more about my job whether im employed or unemplyed.
at the end of the interview i asked if my interview went OK? She said yes . Then she said Everything looks ok but she has to review more and if she wants more information then she will either call or email me for extra documents
That all . Hope it helps the other people that have an interview
I think everything looks ok and i should wait for my tracker to update
Seems great, thank you
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mahyar85

Dreamlad

Champion Member
Jan 11, 2016
1,266
471
Category........
FSW
Visa Office......
Ottawa
NOC Code......
2171
AOR Received.
08-04-2017
Med's Done....
23-06-2017
Hi guys
I want to share my interview expreince
So i had my interview just now.
I have been asked to show my documents on webcam .
She looked at my pp translation . She had an issue with one date . ( it was very stressful ) but somehow we managed to solve that.
Then she asked me why i have been out of the country for a long time and i explained the reason which was covid. But she said you should have come back to canada to get your vaccination. She said it gives me the impression that you dont want to stay in canada eventhough my physical presence is 1362 days. I explained my reason that im going to start my business over here and planning to stay in canada.
Then she asked me more about my job whether im employed or unemplyed.
at the end of the interview i asked if my interview went OK? She said yes . Then she said Everything looks ok but she has to review more and if she wants more information then she will either call or email me for extra documents
That all . Hope it helps the other people that have an interview
I think everything looks ok and i should wait for my tracker to update
The interview instruction says you have to present documents such as translation but I don't wanna print them out. Can I simply share the files through Microsoft Teams? Do you have to print everything out?
 

Sheno1986

Full Member
Feb 15, 2022
30
5
No
Since march 23rd
Hello,

I just received the letter and they required the original passports, did they check that or just the translated copies?
As I sent mine to my embassy to Renew it and not sure if it will be back before my interview date?
 

UnleashedFX

Hero Member
Oct 21, 2016
215
127
Hi guys
I want to share my interview expreince
So i had my interview just now.
I have been asked to show my documents on webcam .
She looked at my pp translation . She had an issue with one date . ( it was very stressful ) but somehow we managed to solve that.
Then she asked me why i have been out of the country for a long time and i explained the reason which was covid. But she said you should have come back to canada to get your vaccination. She said it gives me the impression that you dont want to stay in canada eventhough my physical presence is 1362 days. I explained my reason that im going to start my business over here and planning to stay in canada.
Then she asked me more about my job whether im employed or unemplyed.
at the end of the interview i asked if my interview went OK? She said yes . Then she said Everything looks ok but she has to review more and if she wants more information then she will either call or email me for extra documents
That all . Hope it helps the other people that have an interview
I think everything looks ok and i should wait for my tracker to update
I find it humorous that they ask why you were out of the country for so long… ugh because it’s your prerogative and because it’s allowed by their own laws… As if that makes a difference given that you lived there for the time required. Citizens, for which we are applying are allowed to live wherever they want after becoming a citizen, so all of these questions are pointless - yet baby tourism occurs all the time and newborns get citizenship without even being a week in the country and leave. Okay…
 
Last edited:

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,435
3,182
I find it humorous that they ask why you were out of the country for so long… ugh because it’s your prerogative and because it’s allowed by their own laws… As if that makes a difference given that you lived there for the time required.
If you are interested in understanding the process: it is the IRCC's job to examine and evaluate the whole picture and how all the individual parts fit into the whole picture, and to compare the individual parts, to verify the facts. That means looking beyond what applicants represent, looking for conflicts, inconsistencies, incongruities, any information that does not fit with ALL the other pieces. Like it or not, agree or not, IRCC and before it CIC have consistently perceived evidence of residential and employment ties outside Canada as a potential reason-to-question-presence/residency, and of course lengthy periods of time spent outside Canada is evidence of continuing residential or employment ties outside Canada. It is merely about whether or not to take a more in-depth, more probing examination of the facts related to where the applicant has been during their eligibility period. Quite simple: lengthy absence outside Canada, even after the eligibility period, tends to result in further scrutiny of the applicant's actual physical presence.

For the majority of qualified applicants spending lengthy periods of time outside Canada, there is no problem. The officials involved take a closer look, verify all is in order, the physical presence requirement was met. For some, the officials see something which triggers further inquiry, triggering RQ-related non-routine processing. This is one of the RISKS there are for those spending a long time abroad after applying. Many think that this is unfair, but it is simply a verification process, and when IRCC has verified the applicant has submitted sufficient PROOF of meeting the presence requirement, all is well . . . well, of course the applicant must still meet all the other requirements, including still having valid PR status, which includes not having been abroad so long as to breach the PR Residency Obligation. Leading to . . .


Citizens, for which we are applying are allowed to live wherever they want after becoming a citizen, so all of these questions are pointless . . .
Until the oath is taken, the citizenship applicant is still a PR. So the mobility Charter rights that Canadian citizens have is not relevant.

In particular, the PR Residency Obligation applies to the applicant right up to the day of the oath. More than one person has been scheduled for the oath but upon arrival at a Port-of-Entry, returning to Canada to take the oath, become the subject of a 44(1) Inadmissibility report, rendered ineligible for citizenship, and instead of becoming a Canadian citizen they are engaged in an appeal to save their PR status. Similar has happened for applicants abroad whose PR card has expired or been lost, who apply for and are denied a PR Travel Document, unable to come to Canada to attend the scheduled oath.

This is about one of the RISKS related to relocating outside Canada after applying. We know that many, and perhaps even MOST applicants who spend extended periods of time abroad do NOT encounter significant problems and progress to the taking of the oath. But we also know that there are a significant number for who it does not go that smoothly.

Those who will be applying, and those who have applied, and are either considering relocating abroad, or who are already abroad, would be wise to be aware of the risks, be prepared to provide additional evidence to document their physical presence, and of course be prepared to respond to IRCC requests and appear for scheduled events.

Regarding the requisite intent to come to Canada to settle PERMANENTLY to qualify for PR status: there is not much indication that IRCC makes in-depth inquiries into applicants for citizenship to verify there was no misrepresentation made in the process of becoming a PR regarding the required intent to come to Canada to settle PERMANENTLY even when the PR has relocated abroad after applying for citizenship.

But if perceived to be such an individual, someone who obtained PR status but did not intend to settle PERMANENTLY in Canada, of course that can influence how strict a processing agent or citizenship officer might scrutinize an applicant.

In particular, depending on the individual's overall history and context in consideration of other aspects of the applicant's life, it seems likely that the total stranger bureaucrats processing applications and assessing the applicant might, nonetheless, have questions or doubts, especially if the overall pattern suggests the possibility of a plan to come to Canada temporarily, long enough to get citizenship, and rather than settling in Canada PERMANENTLY (as the individual must represent is their intent to qualify for PR) then relocate elsewhere (return to home country or relocate to the U.S. are among the more common plans some have). Again, this typically does NOT lead to allegations of misrepresentation in the process of becoming a PR but of course it can influence how skeptical those processing the citizenship applicant are and how much more closely they examine the citizenship applicant. It is well known that a significant number of people come to Canada with such plans. Unfortunately they tend to make things more difficult for those who have come to Canada honestly and just happen to have this or that reason to go abroad after applying for citizenship.

In other words: attention to an applicant's life after applying is not frivolous or arbitrary. Not humorous. And for those who relocate abroad, it would be prudent to recognize how that can potentially influence how the process goes. Those who met the requirements, and can meet the burden of proof, and who otherwise continue to meet the other requirements until taking the oath, will be OK . . . just might encounter some inconvenience and delays along the way.
 

UnleashedFX

Hero Member
Oct 21, 2016
215
127
If you are interested in understanding the process: it is the IRCC's job to examine and evaluate the whole picture and how all the individual parts fit into the whole picture, and to compare the individual parts, to verify the facts. That means looking beyond what applicants represent, looking for conflicts, inconsistencies, incongruities, any information that does not fit with ALL the other pieces. Like it or not, agree or not, IRCC and before it CIC have consistently perceived evidence of residential and employment ties outside Canada as a potential reason-to-question-presence/residency, and of course lengthy periods of time spent outside Canada is evidence of continuing residential or employment ties outside Canada. It is merely about whether or not to take a more in-depth, more probing examination of the facts related to where the applicant has been during their eligibility period. Quite simple: lengthy absence outside Canada, even after the eligibility period, tends to result in further scrutiny of the applicant's actual physical presence.

For the majority of qualified applicants spending lengthy periods of time outside Canada, there is no problem. The officials involved take a closer look, verify all is in order, the physical presence requirement was met. For some, the officials see something which triggers further inquiry, triggering RQ-related non-routine processing. This is one of the RISKS there are for those spending a long time abroad after applying. Many think that this is unfair, but it is simply a verification process, and when IRCC has verified the applicant has submitted sufficient PROOF of meeting the presence requirement, all is well . . . well, of course the applicant must still meet all the other requirements, including still having valid PR status, which includes not having been abroad so long as to breach the PR Residency Obligation. Leading to . . .




Until the oath is taken, the citizenship applicant is still a PR. So the mobility Charter rights that Canadian citizens have is not relevant.

In particular, the PR Residency Obligation applies to the applicant right up to the day of the oath. More than one person has been scheduled for the oath but upon arrival at a Port-of-Entry, returning to Canada to take the oath, become the subject of a 44(1) Inadmissibility report, rendered ineligible for citizenship, and instead of becoming a Canadian citizen they are engaged in an appeal to save their PR status. Similar has happened for applicants abroad whose PR card has expired or been lost, who apply for and are denied a PR Travel Document, unable to come to Canada to attend the scheduled oath.

This is about one of the RISKS related to relocating outside Canada after applying. We know that many, and perhaps even MOST applicants who spend extended periods of time abroad do NOT encounter significant problems and progress to the taking of the oath. But we also know that there are a significant number for who it does not go that smoothly.

Those who will be applying, and those who have applied, and are either considering relocating abroad, or who are already abroad, would be wise to be aware of the risks, be prepared to provide additional evidence to document their physical presence, and of course be prepared to respond to IRCC requests and appear for scheduled events.

Regarding the requisite intent to come to Canada to settle PERMANENTLY to qualify for PR status: there is not much indication that IRCC makes in-depth inquiries into applicants for citizenship to verify there was no misrepresentation made in the process of becoming a PR regarding the required intent to come to Canada to settle PERMANENTLY even when the PR has relocated abroad after applying for citizenship.

But if perceived to be such an individual, someone who obtained PR status but did not intend to settle PERMANENTLY in Canada, of course that can influence how strict a processing agent or citizenship officer might scrutinize an applicant.

In particular, depending on the individual's overall history and context in consideration of other aspects of the applicant's life, it seems likely that the total stranger bureaucrats processing applications and assessing the applicant might, nonetheless, have questions or doubts, especially if the overall pattern suggests the possibility of a plan to come to Canada temporarily, long enough to get citizenship, and rather than settling in Canada PERMANENTLY (as the individual must represent is their intent to qualify for PR) then relocate elsewhere (return to home country or relocate to the U.S. are among the more common plans some have). Again, this typically does NOT lead to allegations of misrepresentation in the process of becoming a PR but of course it can influence how skeptical those processing the citizenship applicant are and how much more closely they examine the citizenship applicant. It is well known that a significant number of people come to Canada with such plans. Unfortunately they tend to make things more difficult for those who have come to Canada honestly and just happen to have this or that reason to go abroad after applying for citizenship.

In other words: attention to an applicant's life after applying is not frivolous or arbitrary. Not humorous. And for those who relocate abroad, it would be prudent to recognize how that can potentially influence how the process goes. Those who met the requirements, and can meet the burden of proof, and who otherwise continue to meet the other requirements until taking the oath, will be OK . . . just might encounter some inconvenience and delays along the way.
Thanks for the detailed writing. My point was that although there are risks, the current laws allow applicants to leave the country during the processing of their application. They are not specific on the duration and/or reason. As such, being asked one’s intentions should be procedural, but should not disqualify a candidate from obtaining citizenship after meeting all other requirements in their residency obligations, such as physical presence over the past 3 out of 5 years, taxes paid, whether there is property ownership, bank accounts and other ties to Canada.

I understand that they have to check everything about an applicant and his/her intentions, but as of this writing the law is a bit ambiguous about leaving the country and may cause delays precisely because it’s open to interpretation. One candidate may leave permanently during or after their application, while another may leave temporarily.

I sincerely hope that they elaborate and clarify their policy position in regards to post-application residency procedures.
 

Mahyar85

Star Member
Jan 10, 2022
185
60
I find it humorous that they ask why you were out of the country for so long… ugh because it’s your prerogative and because it’s allowed by their own laws… As if that makes a difference given that you lived there for the time required. Citizens, for which we are applying are allowed to live wherever they want after becoming a citizen, so all of these questions are pointless - yet baby tourism occurs all the time and newborns get citizenship without even being a week in the country and leave. Okay…
Hi
Thank you for your reply
I called ircc and i have been told that my file is still in progress and
Thanks for the detailed writing. My point was that although there are risks, the current laws allow applicants to leave the country during the processing of their application. They are not specific on the duration and/or reason. As such, being asked one’s intentions should be procedural, but should not disqualify a candidate from obtaining citizenship after meeting all other requirements in their residency obligations, such as physical presence over the past 3 out of 5 years, taxes paid, whether there is property ownership, bank accounts and other ties to Canada.

I understand that they have to check everything about an applicant and his/her intentions, but as of this writing the law is a bit ambiguous about leaving the country and may cause delays precisely because it’s open to interpretation. One candidate may leave permanently during or after their application, while another may leave temporarily.

I sincerely hope that they elaborate and clarify their policy position in regards to post-application residency procedures.
I find it humorous that they ask why you were out of the country for so long… ugh because it’s your prerogative and because it’s allowed by their own laws… As if that makes a difference given that you lived there for the time required. Citizens, for which we are applying are allowed to live wherever they want after becoming a citizen, so all of these questions are pointless - yet baby tourism occurs all the time and newborns get citizenship without even being a week in the country and leave. Okay…
Hi
Thank you for your response
Just to update is that i finally was successful calling ircc regarding my interview which has not been updated since more than a month
The agent told me that my application is still in progress but it has no any notes on it saying i have an issue so i just have to wait for the final decision.
thank you for replying to my post
 
  • Like
Reactions: UnleashedFX

UnleashedFX

Hero Member
Oct 21, 2016
215
127
Hi
Thank you for your reply
I called ircc and i have been told that my file is still in progress and


Hi
Thank you for your response
Just to update is that i finally was successful calling ircc regarding my interview which has not been updated since more than a month
The agent told me that my application is still in progress but it has no any notes on it saying i have an issue so i just have to wait for the final decision.
thank you for replying to my post
That is great news! Fingers crossed that you have a successful approval process, regardles of your current geographical location.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mahyar85

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,435
3,182
Thanks for the detailed writing. My point was that although there are risks, the current laws allow applicants to leave the country during the processing of their application. They are not specific on the duration and/or reason. As such, being asked one’s intentions should be procedural, but should not disqualify a candidate from obtaining citizenship after meeting all other requirements in their residency obligations, such as physical presence over the past 3 out of 5 years, taxes paid, whether there is property ownership, bank accounts and other ties to Canada.

I understand that they have to check everything about an applicant and his/her intentions, but as of this writing the law is a bit ambiguous about leaving the country and may cause delays precisely because it’s open to interpretation. One candidate may leave permanently during or after their application, while another may leave temporarily.

I sincerely hope that they elaborate and clarify their policy position in regards to post-application residency procedures.
There really is no ambiguity about the law in regards to the physical presence requirement -- it is entirely and only about counting days IN Canada during the five year eligibility period.

The law is settled: There is NO requirement to stay in Canada after applying, and being abroad after applying is NOT a reason for an application to be denied.

There really is no ambiguity about the scope of inquiry involved in checking the information an applicant has submitted -- IRCC has very broad discretion and can ask a wide, wide range of questions about the applicant for any time period, before, during, or after the presence-related eligibility period.

There is nothing prohibiting IRCC from asking questions about the applicant's post-application address and employment. (Protests to the contrary are simply unfounded.) And there is a more or less steady stream of posts illustrating that IRCC often does in fact ask questions about location and employment AFTER applying, and quite often even more detailed questions of applicants known or perceived to be abroad.

Almost all the confusion comes from those who challenge the right of IRCC to ask questions about the applicant that are not directly about the applicant's location during the presence-related eligibility period. But there is no ambiguity or doubt about this. Such questions can be asked. And are asked. Why is more complicated but that also varies widely depending on the particular case; that is "why" such questions are asked is not the same for all applicants.

The relevancy of the Q&A, related to where the applicant has been after applying, including what effect the answers might have, varies as widely as the backgrounds and circumstances of applicants do. Why one applicant is asked more probing questions can be quite different from why another applicant is asked.

Internal investigatory decision-making is not subject to review. The referral of an application into RQ-related non-routine processing does not need to be justified. There is no "probable cause" requirement.

Many do not like it that living abroad after applying might be the factor that triggers RQ-related non-routine processing. But historically this has actually been one of the more common triggering factors. We do not know the extent to which it still is, but it is very likely still at least a significant factor.

In other posts and topics I have offered some explanation as to SOME of the rational underlying this. No need to dwell on that now. The main thing is that those who are applying or have applied, and who are considering moving abroad or have moved abroad, should be aware that just the fact they are abroad is a factor that can influence the degree of scrutiny their application encounters, and can lead to additional screening and delays in processing, and may even trigger RQ-related non-routine processing which can result in very lengthy delays.
 

UnleashedFX

Hero Member
Oct 21, 2016
215
127
There really is no ambiguity about the law in regards to the physical presence requirement -- it is entirely and only about counting days IN Canada during the five year eligibility period.

The law is settled: There is NO requirement to stay in Canada after applying, and being abroad after applying is NOT a reason for an application to be denied.

There really is no ambiguity about the scope of inquiry involved in checking the information an applicant has submitted -- IRCC has very broad discretion and can ask a wide, wide range of questions about the applicant for any time period, before, during, or after the presence-related eligibility period.

There is nothing prohibiting IRCC from asking questions about the applicant's post-application address and employment. (Protests to the contrary are simply unfounded.) And there is a more or less steady stream of posts illustrating that IRCC often does in fact ask questions about location and employment AFTER applying, and quite often even more detailed questions of applicants known or perceived to be abroad.

Almost all the confusion comes from those who challenge the right of IRCC to ask questions about the applicant that are not directly about the applicant's location during the presence-related eligibility period. But there is no ambiguity or doubt about this. Such questions can be asked. And are asked. Why is more complicated but that also varies widely depending on the particular case; that is "why" such questions are asked is not the same for all applicants.

The relevancy of the Q&A, related to where the applicant has been after applying, including what effect the answers might have, varies as widely as the backgrounds and circumstances of applicants do. Why one applicant is asked more probing questions can be quite different from why another applicant is asked.

Internal investigatory decision-making is not subject to review. The referral of an application into RQ-related non-routine processing does not need to be justified. There is no "probable cause" requirement.

Many do not like it that living abroad after applying might be the factor that triggers RQ-related non-routine processing. But historically this has actually been one of the more common triggering factors. We do not know the extent to which it still is, but it is very likely still at least a significant factor.

In other posts and topics I have offered some explanation as to SOME of the rational underlying this. No need to dwell on that now. The main thing is that those who are applying or have applied, and who are considering moving abroad or have moved abroad, should be aware that just the fact they are abroad is a factor that can influence the degree of scrutiny their application encounters, and can lead to additional screening and delays in processing, and may even trigger RQ-related non-routine processing which can result in very lengthy delays.
I understand that, but in my opinion this is not the right approach. Why would someone’s decision of where to wait for the application after submission be a factor in the length of their processing timeline when by law it is allowed to be abroad?

On one hand they allow it and on the other hand it could potentially hinder an application by potentially slowing it down. To me it makes no sense, but I won’t dwell on this any further.

I hope nobody’s application is slowed down because of this, because it is not their fault for leaving after being told that they can.