Today my wife had her citizenship test which she passed with full marks - 20/20. However, during the interview they refused to grant citizenship saying that since she is an EU citizen they cannot track her departure history but arrival history can. So they asked her to provide other proofs such as tickets, boarding passes (which doesn't have as she didn't know of this situation), hospital and/or clinic visits in Canada etc. She has to submit these proofs then they will decide on citizenship. Could anyone with similar situation share their experience and provide some advice? It will be greatly appreciated.
NO NEED TO PANIC. Many, many applicants are asked to provide additional information at or after the interview.
In addition to what others have already offered:
Generally the interview conducted at the time of the test is NOT a hearing, not a formal decision-making proceeding, but more a document-verification and information-gathering event. The interviewer is often NOT the Citizenship Officer who makes the decision whether to grant citizenship or not, and even if it happens to be the Citizenship Officer there is rarely a formal decision made in the interview EXCEPT perhaps in a blatantly clear case (example: applicant admits to being charged and convicted of a serious crime, and is thus prohibited from being granted citizenship).
That said, some interviewers will overtly state conclusions. More often they do not. But sometimes the interviewer will indeed explicitly inform the applicant there is a reason why the application will NOT be granted or why it MIGHT NOT be granted.
Even when there is a more or less clear reason for denying the application, most reports suggest the interviewer only hints or suggests or offers the option of withdrawing the application, rather than bluntly declaring the application is to be refused.
I go into the above in detail because what really happened, what was specifically conveyed to your spouse, matters. If the interviewer was explicitly stating they have concluded she did not meet the physical presence requirement, that is a big deal and that suggests a full blown RQ is coming. BUT, frankly, this is unusual enough I apprehend the interviewer's statements were NOT so direct let alone definitive.
This is especially so given the request for additional information and documentation. The request for other proofs suggests a decision is yet to made. And this is indeed a very common post-interview scenario: again,
many applicants are asked to provide further information and documentation.
IS THE APPLICATION IN SERIOUS JEOPARDY? (That is, does what happened at the interview indicate the application is likely to be denied?)
This depends on the specific facts in her case. You and her know the facts. She knows whether the dates she provided for the presence calculation were complete and accurate, and how they add up.
Otherwise, in terms of what IRCC's position likely is, the precise manner in which your spouse was asked to provide other proof should offer some indication, some insight, into whether IRCC needs to review additional evidence to verify the facts, or whether IRCC has outright concerns, doubts or suspicions.
Was the request for additional proof just a verbal request? If so, this would suggest there is NOT likely to be a serious problem, just the need to help IRCC verify the information provided. In which case she should provide what she can as soon as she can.
Was the request for additional proof in writing using a specific form? This could be the CIT 0520 form (sometimes referred to as RQ lite) or the CIT 0171 form (known as full-blown RQ), and either may come with other specific requests, such as a specific request for a record of movement from a particular country, or a request for personal reference. Neither means that IRCC is leaning toward refusing the application, let alone has decided to refuse. BUT the CIT 0171 generally signals more concern than the CIT 0520.
IN ANY EVENT, SCORES OF APPLICANTS WERE EU CITIZENS OR RESIDENTS and the absence of passport stamps correlating to trips to Europe has NOT itself been a serious problem let alone a primary reason for questioning the applicant's travel dates. From your post it is not possible to discern whether there is a serious challenge to your spouse's case or not (many, many applicants misread the interviewer's comments or requests).
Obviously, she should make a diligent effort to provide what is requested and in writing explain what she cannot provide and why.
If she is issued CIT 0171, she should make a particularly concerted effort to provide all that is requested AND seriously consider including additional proof of where she lived in Canada, what activities she has engaged in while in Canada, what work or other regularly attended activities she has had in Canada, and if this evidence is weak in any respect, try to provide alternative evidence of being in Canada, of doing things in Canada . . . even if she has to go so far as to provide some credit card information showing her making purchases in Canada.
