Interview Experience with Citizenship Officer November 2021

[CaBeaver]

Today I got the email I have another VIRTUAL interview tomorrow... what is going on I dont know... really it is crazy ...... this is really so so ... tensed situation again ...

Maybe the read our criticism of their conduct and decided to redo it officially this time.

 

[Dr kbknaidu]

Lol.... I hope they read our pain as well, how frustrating it is after being loyal tax paid workers in Canada

 

[luvtrump]

Today I got the email I have another VIRTUAL interview tomorrow... what is going on I dont know... really it is crazy ...... this is really so so ... tensed situation again ...

Everything should be okay , only aswer to what they ask do not give extra explaination unless asked. Also if possible can you ask them a question from my side that how long does withdrawal takes if ur physical presence is in progress from 2 years and if u missed an entry and it makes u 5 days short u realize after 2 years, will ur file be refused? Thanks

 

[Dr kbknaidu]

I hope I can ask this after all my interview was set and if I feel there is a scope of it ..definitely I will ask them

 

[luvtrump]

I hope I can ask this after all my interview was set and if I feel there is a scope of it ..definitely I will ask them

Im pretty sure Virtual interview will be for you to show ur passport pages and not many questions. But after all if u have enough time u can ask this from a non routine applicant waiting for than 2 years. Thankyou.

 

[CaBeaver]

Im pretty sure Virtual interview will be for you to show ur passport pages and not many questions. But after all if u have enough time u can ask this from a non routine applicant waiting for than 2 years. Thankyou.

Even if they asked on your behalf, the agent WILL NOT answer this question, and probably won't like it the applicant is asking questions about other applicants. The interview is for the applicant who was invited to the interview. To verify their documents, answer questions related to their file, and illustrate their language skills.

 

[luvtrump]

Even if they asked on your behalf, the agent WILL NOT answer this question, and probably won't like it the applicant is asking questions about other applicants. The interview is for the applicant who was invited to the interview. To verify their documents, answer questions related to their file, and illustrate their language skills.

that is also true.

 

[mohan78]

Today I got the email I have another VIRTUAL interview tomorrow... what is going on I dont know... really it is crazy ...... this is really so so ... tensed situation again ...

HI,

Could you share your experience virtual interview ? It will help lot for next week.

 

[dpenabill]

Second, I also find it strange that this person asked you about your intention to live in Canada, which she shouldn't have.

It is entirely appropriate for IRCC processing agents to ask questions which might reveal a motive to engage in fraud, to make inquiries which go beyond factual details and probe for indicators of evasiveness or deception. Make no mistake, the applicant's credibility is a huge, huge factor in what can affect how things go.

Reminder: the purpose of the path to citizenship provided in the Canadian immigration system is to facilitate settling and living IN Canada PERMANENTLY. There is not a specific requirement that an otherwise qualified PR applying for citizenship be acting consistent with or according to the purpose of the law, or intend to do so, but of course if there are indications the applicant's actions or intentions are not consistent with the purpose of the law (as stated in many, many, many official decisions), that can and more than occasionally does trigger elevated scrutiny, and even skepticism.

Questioning along these lines is fair game. This is not old school. The purpose of the path to citizenship provided in the Canadian immigration system remains the same as it has been for a long, long time, which again is to facilitate settling and living IN Canada PERMANENTLY.

To be clear: if the grant citizenship applicant engages in acts, plans, or intentions inconsistent with the purpose for which Canada grants citizenship, that is NOT grounds to deny the application, not in itself. But it can be a reason for IRCC to probe the applicant more thoroughly and be more skeptical of the information provided by the applicant.

 

[ybjianada]

It is entirely appropriate for IRCC processing agents to ask questions which might reveal a motive to engage in fraud, to make inquiries which go beyond factual details and probe for indicators of evasiveness or deception. Make no mistake, the applicant's credibility is a huge, huge factor in what can affect how things go.

Reminder: the purpose of the path to citizenship provided in the Canadian immigration system is to facilitate settling and living IN Canada PERMANENTLY. There is not a specific requirement that an otherwise qualified PR applying for citizenship be acting consistent with or according to the purpose of the law, or intend to do so, but of course if there are indications the applicant's actions or intentions are not consistent with the purpose of the law (as stated in many, many, many official decisions), that can and more than occasionally does trigger elevated scrutiny, and even skepticism.

Questioning along these lines is fair game. This is not old school. The purpose of the path to citizenship provided in the Canadian immigration system remains the same as it has been for a long, long time, which again is to facilitate settling and living IN Canada PERMANENTLY.

To be clear: if the grant citizenship applicant engages in acts, plans, or intentions inconsistent with the purpose for which Canada grants citizenship, that is NOT grounds to deny the application, not in itself. But it can be a reason for IRCC to probe the applicant more thoroughly and be more skeptical of the information provided by the applicant.

Please explain logically by referring to IRCC's official documents or the law: precisely how is the questioning of the applicant's intention to reside in Canada related to the uncovering of motives to engage in fraud in the citizenship application?

 

[im2kool]

Please explain logically by referring to IRCC's official documents or the law: precisely how is the questioning of the applicant's intention to reside in Canada related to the uncovering of motives to engage in fraud in the citizenship application?

Please ignore this guy. He/she is the not the minister of IRCC or nor a policy maker.

 

[dpenabill]

Please ignore this guy. He/she is the not the minister of IRCC or nor a policy maker.

I make a concerted effort to follow and research how certain aspects of the grant citizenship application process actually works, and an honest effort to explain what I learn. I am no expert, for sure. But I leave the blinders off and focus on, as best it can be discerned, how things actually work.

What many, if not nearly all of those who advocate there is no problem living abroad after applying, or otherwise appearing to not be settling permanently in Canada, fail to acknowledge, is that this is blatantly inconsistent with a key purpose for which the Canadian law provides a path to citizenship, and that can influence a decision-maker's assessment of the person's credibility.

This is not to say that living abroad after applying or an intent to live outside Canada after the oath, will in itself be grounds to deny citizenship. This is to acknowledge, however, that an agent's inquiry into this is not improper, but rather is well within the very broad scope of permitted questioning, and applicants and prospective applicants should be aware that IRCC processing agents and officers may indeed ask questions related to this, directly as well as indirectly.

Note, I am not the one who initially reported, in this thread, that an IRCC interview included questions about where the applicant planned to live.

I realize there is no shortage of forum participants ready and willing to dismiss reports that are inconsistent with how they believe the process should work. As if they know better than the agents and officers whose job it is to screen and evaluate those applying for citizenship.

The anecdotal report by @Dr kbknaidu appears credible, and specific on this point. It is a specific, recent example of a citizenship applicant being asked about where they planned to live. A rather big clue that IRCC officials engaged in screening citizenship applicants might ask about where the applicant plans to live . . . since they do.

What I tried to do is illuminate or explain the relevance of this questioning. Leading to . . .

Please explain logically by referring to IRCC's official documents or the law: precisely how is the questioning of the applicant's intention to reside in Canada related to the uncovering of motives to engage in fraud in the citizenship application?

My wording is clumsy, I admit. I am no expert. I try, trying to explain such things as best I can.

But as I tried to illuminate, the purpose of the law is an important element in its interpretation, application, and enforcement. Individuals whose intentions are inconsistent with the law's purpose, let alone contrary to it, are simply persons for whom those mandated with applying and enforcing the law may have concerns about their credibility. Not complicated. Not mysterious. Not nefarious. Not old school. Rather basic decision-maker procedure actually.

There is a tendency here to conflate what the law allows (such as an applicant for citizenship having no intention of settling and living in Canada permanently) with what the law intends, with the law's purpose (such as, here, to enable a former Foreign National to settle and live in Canada PERMANENTLY).

There is no penalty for acting contrary to what the law intends, to its purpose, so long as the individual actually does stay within what the law allows.

But it is certainly well within the discretion of those responsible for applying and enforcing the law to make inquiries about these matters. And as I noted above, a big clue that IRCC might indeed make such inquiries is the fact that, as @Dr kbknaidu reports, an applicant for citizenship was recently asked just such questions.

Note, too, otherwise the scope of permissible questioning is extremely broad. Even without a direct basis in the governing law for questions related to plans or intentions, such questions are well within that scope.

I am not commenting, in anyway whatsoever, about what the law should be or how it "should" be applied. I focus on what we can discern about how things actually work.

Moreover, it is readily seen that many aspects of the process have been disrupted and are otherwise in flux due to the global pandemic. So it is very difficult to get a pulse as to certain aspects of the process right now. One of the things I am watching for is whether or not we see a difference in tracking the post-test timelines for those applicants who took the test virtually while abroad versus those who were in Canada. That should be a significant clue about whether those outside Canada are still encountering more non-routine processing and related delays. Something to watch for in order to learn more, learn better, how things actually work.

 

[Dr kbknaidu]

I make a concerted effort to follow and research how certain aspects of the grant citizenship application process actually works, and an honest effort to explain what I learn. I am no expert, for sure. But I leave the blinders off and focus on, as best it can be discerned, how things actually work.

What many, if not nearly all of those who advocate there is no problem living abroad after applying, or otherwise appearing to not be settling permanently in Canada, fail to acknowledge, is that this is blatantly inconsistent with a key purpose for which the Canadian law provides a path to citizenship, and that can influence a decision-maker's assessment of the person's credibility.

This is not to say that living abroad after applying or an intent to live outside Canada after the oath, will in itself be grounds to deny citizenship. This is to acknowledge, however, that an agent's inquiry into this is not improper, but rather is well within the very broad scope of permitted questioning, and applicants and prospective applicants should be aware that IRCC processing agents and officers may indeed ask questions related to this, directly as well as indirectly.

Note, I am not the one who initially reported, in this thread, that an IRCC interview included questions about where the applicant planned to live.

I realize there is no shortage of forum participants ready and willing to dismiss reports that are inconsistent with how they believe the process should work. As if they know better than the agents and officers whose job it is to screen and evaluate those applying for citizenship.

The anecdotal report by @Dr kbknaidu appears credible, and specific on this point. It is a specific, recent example of a citizenship applicant being asked about where they planned to live. A rather big clue that IRCC officials engaged in screening citizenship applicants might ask about where the applicant plans to live . . . since they do.

What I tried to do is illuminate or explain the relevance of this questioning. Leading to . . .



My wording is clumsy, I admit. I am no expert. I try, trying to explain such things as best I can.

But as I tried to illuminate, the purpose of the law is an important element in its interpretation, application, and enforcement. Individuals whose intentions are inconsistent with the law's purpose, let alone contrary to it, are simply persons for whom those mandated with applying and enforcing the law may have concerns about their credibility. Not complicated. Not mysterious. Not nefarious. Not old school. Rather basic decision-maker procedure actually.

There is a tendency here to conflate what the law allows (such as an applicant for citizenship having no intention of settling and living in Canada permanently) with what the law intends, with the law's purpose (such as, here, to enable a former Foreign National to settle and live in Canada PERMANENTLY).

There is no penalty for acting contrary to what the law intends, to its purpose, so long as the individual actually does stay within what the law allows.

But it is certainly well within the discretion of those responsible for applying and enforcing the law to make inquiries about these matters. And as I noted above, a big clue that IRCC might indeed make such inquiries is the fact that, as @Dr kbknaidu reports, an applicant for citizenship was recently asked just such questions.

Note, too, otherwise the scope of permissible questioning is extremely broad. Even without a direct basis in the governing law for questions related to plans or intentions, such questions are well within that scope.

I am not commenting, in anyway whatsoever, about what the law should be or how it "should" be applied. I focus on what we can discern about how things actually work.

Moreover, it is readily seen that many aspects of the process have been disrupted and are otherwise in flux due to the global pandemic. So it is very difficult to get a pulse as to certain aspects of the process right now. One of the things I am watching for is whether or not we see a difference in tracking the post-test timelines for those applicants who took the test virtually while abroad versus those who were in Canada. That should be a significant clue about whether those outside Canada are still encountering more non-routine processing and related delays. Something to watch for in order to learn more, learn better, how things actually work.

Very nicely answered, and excellent narration of the truth ...

 

[cecapplied]

Today I got the email I have another VIRTUAL interview tomorrow... what is going on I dont know... really it is crazy ...... this is really so so ... tensed situation again ...

Hopefully it would be a follow up to the earlier request they had made and hope it works out for you. All the best!!

 

[ybjianada]

I make a concerted effort to follow and research how certain aspects of the grant citizenship application process actually works, and an honest effort to explain what I learn. I am no expert, for sure. But I leave the blinders off and focus on, as best it can be discerned, how things actually work.

What many, if not nearly all of those who advocate there is no problem living abroad after applying, or otherwise appearing to not be settling permanently in Canada, fail to acknowledge, is that this is blatantly inconsistent with a key purpose for which the Canadian law provides a path to citizenship, and that can influence a decision-maker's assessment of the person's credibility.

This is not to say that living abroad after applying or an intent to live outside Canada after the oath, will in itself be grounds to deny citizenship. This is to acknowledge, however, that an agent's inquiry into this is not improper, but rather is well within the very broad scope of permitted questioning, and applicants and prospective applicants should be aware that IRCC processing agents and officers may indeed ask questions related to this, directly as well as indirectly.

Note, I am not the one who initially reported, in this thread, that an IRCC interview included questions about where the applicant planned to live.

I realize there is no shortage of forum participants ready and willing to dismiss reports that are inconsistent with how they believe the process should work. As if they know better than the agents and officers whose job it is to screen and evaluate those applying for citizenship.

The anecdotal report by @Dr kbknaidu appears credible, and specific on this point. It is a specific, recent example of a citizenship applicant being asked about where they planned to live. A rather big clue that IRCC officials engaged in screening citizenship applicants might ask about where the applicant plans to live . . . since they do.

What I tried to do is illuminate or explain the relevance of this questioning. Leading to . . .



My wording is clumsy, I admit. I am no expert. I try, trying to explain such things as best I can.

But as I tried to illuminate, the purpose of the law is an important element in its interpretation, application, and enforcement. Individuals whose intentions are inconsistent with the law's purpose, let alone contrary to it, are simply persons for whom those mandated with applying and enforcing the law may have concerns about their credibility. Not complicated. Not mysterious. Not nefarious. Not old school. Rather basic decision-maker procedure actually.

There is a tendency here to conflate what the law allows (such as an applicant for citizenship having no intention of settling and living in Canada permanently) with what the law intends, with the law's purpose (such as, here, to enable a former Foreign National to settle and live in Canada PERMANENTLY).

There is no penalty for acting contrary to what the law intends, to its purpose, so long as the individual actually does stay within what the law allows.

But it is certainly well within the discretion of those responsible for applying and enforcing the law to make inquiries about these matters. And as I noted above, a big clue that IRCC might indeed make such inquiries is the fact that, as @Dr kbknaidu reports, an applicant for citizenship was recently asked just such questions.

Note, too, otherwise the scope of permissible questioning is extremely broad. Even without a direct basis in the governing law for questions related to plans or intentions, such questions are well within that scope.

I am not commenting, in anyway whatsoever, about what the law should be or how it "should" be applied. I focus on what we can discern about how things actually work.

Moreover, it is readily seen that many aspects of the process have been disrupted and are otherwise in flux due to the global pandemic. So it is very difficult to get a pulse as to certain aspects of the process right now. One of the things I am watching for is whether or not we see a difference in tracking the post-test timelines for those applicants who took the test virtually while abroad versus those who were in Canada. That should be a significant clue about whether those outside Canada are still encountering more non-routine processing and related delays. Something to watch for in order to learn more, learn better, how things actually work.

I will just point out a few things:

1) You repeatedly assert that the purpose of the law (regarding citizenship grant) is to "enable a former Foreign National to settle and live in Canada PERMANENTLY". Please QUOTE the law where it says that.

2) Related to the 1), A Permanent Resident already has the right to settle and live in Canada permanently. Yet, you claim that the conferral of citizenship serves the same purpose. Logic dictates that it cannot be so.

3) You referred to citizenship applicants as "Foreign Nationals". This is categorically incorrect. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act specifically defines a "Foreign National" as "a person who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident, and includes a stateless person. (étranger)": https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-2.5/page-1.html

4) You are asserting that the very fact that this OP was questioned about his/her intention to live in Canada is proof/evidence that this line of questioning is "well within the discretion of" IRCC agents. In effect, you are asserting that the very conduct of a government official/representative is proof that the said conduct is in line with official guidelines or the law. This reasoning is MAD unless we live in a world where government officials/representatives are infallible at all times. Otherwise, an easy alternative is that the conduct (questioning about intent to live in Canada) is not in line with official guidelines/the law.

5) The changes to the Citizenship Act as a Result of Bill C-6 (June 2017) explicitly repealed the requirement to intent to reside in Canada if granted citizenship (which, hopefully you are aware of). https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2018/02/changes_to_the_citizenshipactasaresultofbillc-6.html . How does it follow then that the current citizenship law gives the IRCC agent the right to question the applicant's intent to reside in Canada. If not strictly illegal, this is at least highly questionable practice on the part of the interviewing officer, far from being "well within their discretion" as you are claiming.