simoncanada said:
After the citizenship test there is a small interview
In the interview time what kind of question the officer ask
Do we need to explain about all the visa pages and stamp
The interview, which is ordinarily attendant the same event as the test, is primarily a
documents-check interview, pursuant to which the applicant is instructed to present the original of those supporting documents copies of which were submitted with the application. This aspect of the interview is done for
all applicants and involves more or less perfunctory questions related to the interviewer's task to verify the authenticity of the documents, verify the applicant's identity, and compare the original documents with the copies submitted and with information in the file, including details in the application itself. Again, this part happens to all applicants and is often (if not most often by a big margin) perfunctory, barely taking a couple minutes or so.
There are some mandatory questions, not many and these too are usually perfunctory, regarding particular requirements, such as questions related to prohibitions (any criminal charges? for example). These too are brief and take a very minimal amount of time (unless, of course, an issue comes up, such as if the applicant has been arrested since applying or such).
In addition to that, most applicants are asked a
few casual questions related to information in their application or otherwise in the file. These too tend to be perfunctory and brief, related to verification of details, the interviewer paying as much attention to the applicant's demeanor and body language, manner of speaking, as to the content of the answers themselves. Thus, the interviewer's focus is on assessing the credibility of the applicant, on one hand, while at the same time screening the details for incongruities, inconsistencies, or outright discrepancies.
Thus, as
Blueboy1980 observed, and experienced, the applicant can anticipate some general questions, such as about employment or confirmation of travel history, and such.
All that adds up to just a few minutes. The interview can be remarkably quick. Mine went so quickly that despite my intent to make note of every question, the next question was asked before I could barely complete my answers and then it was abruptly over, done.
That is the typical, most common interview. BUT more than a few report a more in-depth interview, a significantly longer, more probing interview.
Beyond what is described above, the nature and scope of the interview may be far more intrusive, more probing, and sometimes even severely exacting if not combative.
Which is to say the interview can range from brief and perfunctory, a friendly almost casual exchange, which is the usual experience, to a more probing and relatively severe examination which can seem to be more like an interrogation, and perhaps even seem accusatory.
That said, the longest and most probing interviews probably do not exceed ten to fifteen minutes, at least not by much. Some have reported longer interviews, but there is a strong tendency to inflate how long the interview was, and indeed more caustic interviews can seem to have lasted a very, very long time even though they really took less than ten minutes. An interviewer can cover a huge amount of information in five to ten minutes. So sure, some probably go longer, but that is not at all common, not even in difficult cases.
What triggers a more probing interview?
Interviewers are supposed to review an applicant's file before the interview and be prepared to address concerns or questions. So, for some, the interviewer may be prepared ahead of time to go probing more extensively into certain aspects of the application, certain aspects of the applicant's life and circumstances.
Otherwise, interviewers are trained and experienced examiners, and if they observe an incongruity, inconsistency, or an outright discrepancy, or they otherwise observe some reason to doubt the applicant's credibility, that will typically lead to more probing and perhaps more severe questions.
Some applicants have complicated travel histories, often accompanied by a lot of stamps in their passport, and for such applicants it is (apparently, according to many anecdotal reports) common for the interviewer to more or less go through the pages of the passport and compare stamps and dates with the applicant's declared travel dates in the presence calculator.
Obviously, any answer which tends to raise further questions can, of course, lead to further questions, more probing questions.
Scope of more probing and severe interviews:
There is no practical limit on the scope of the interview, but of course it should not stray into offensive matters or subjects suggesting prohibited discrimination, and otherwise the questioning should be relevant to qualifications for citizenship. That noted, however, almost any aspect of a person's life can be related to questions about where the individual spends his or her time, and thus related to questions about physical presence in Canada. Including religious exercises. Including how one recreates, who one associates with, among the more obvious things like where does one do his grocery shopping, what route or means of transportation is used to get to work, what is the neighbourhood like where the applicant lives, or where the applicant lived four years ago, and how are members of the applicant's family doing. And so on.
In officially published decisions we have seen actual cases in which CIC's skepticism was triggered by an applicant's alleged failure to adequately describe where he bought groceries, or in another case, a failure to adequately explain how the applicant got to his work. There are cases where IRCC challenged the applicant's credibility because, allegedly, the applicant failed to adequately convince IRCC (and the CJ) that a LinkedIn account indicating employment contrary to the applicant's declared work history was not the applicant using a different name. More than a few cases (over the course of many years) have highlighted the extent to which some applicants were closely questioned about very particular details in their day-to-day life.
It warrants a reminder that IRCC can, and more than occasionally does, make collateral inquiries about an applicant. IRCC can, for example, not only make inquiries to verify an employer, IRCC sometimes has directly contacted employers seeking to verify the applicant's employment. This probably is not common, but it does occur, and if there is any incongruity, let alone inconsistency or outright discrepancy uncovered, there is bound to be some penetrating exploration of details about this in the interview.
And as I have oft pointed out, IRCC can and apparently more than occasionally does, conduct Internet queries regarding an applicant, ranging from social media and sites like LinkedIn, to Canada411 . . . and these queries can be about the applicant, a member of the applicant's family, or any employer named by the applicant. And of course, what is discovered in the course of such queries can be the subject of questions posed to the applicant in the interview.
All that said, about the possibility of a severe, probing interview, the most common experience reported is a brief, perfunctory, mostly friendly Q&A.
The vast majority of applicants have no reason to worry about the nature or scope of the interview. There is no indication that interviewers go on
fishing expeditions or arbitrarily employ
gotcha traps. The vast majority of questions asked are simple to answer. For the applicant who has honestly and accurately provided information in the application, the questions should be a breeze.
Language ability note:
Despite including documentation (in the application itself) to show the applicant has the requisite ability in an official language, a collateral purpose of the interview is to verify the applicant has the requisite ability in an official language. This is just one aspect of verifying documents, a cross-check of sorts. That is, in particular and to be clear, one of the interviewer's tasks is to verify that the applicant has the requisite ability in an official language. Thus, any applicant whose ability in English or French might be border-line, best to practice before going to the interview.
Reminder: IRCC can reject an applicant for failing to
prove requisite language ability without referring the case to a Citizenship Judge.
