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

Citizenship Interview Question

Jakke

Star Member
Nov 6, 2021
79
66
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.
They just ask because they want to feel that their job is more important than just checking documents and that they have some power.
I was out of the country for two straight years after submitting my application. The single question at my interview was "why?". I said "because the law allows it". No other questions or comments after that. Quick document check, and I was done.
 

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
They just ask because they want to feel that their job is more important than just checking documents and that they have some power.
I was out of the country for two straight years after submitting my application. The single question at my interview was "why?". I said "because the law allows it". No other questions or comments after that. Quick document check, and I was done.
I like your style. Know your rights. They're not kings or queens. I've been out for 1 year and 1 months. I will take oath outside and I will hassle them for my $630 and long wait.
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,427
3,173
In this post I make a concerted effort to illuminate and explain aspects of what we know about how the citizenship application process ACTUALLY WORKS . . . these abroad-after-applying discussions are typically rife with confusion about this, much of which seems deliberate (typically by participants who oppose or do not like the way things actually work).

The basics are simple, and have been repeated often:
-- there is nothing that prohibits citizenship applicants from living abroad after applying for citizenship
-- a citizenship application cannot be denied because the applicant was living abroad after applying, but
-- extended time abroad after applying can raise concerns and result in questions, and potentially lead to non-routine processing, ranging from minimal increased scrutiny involving additional factual inquiries, to RQ-related non-routine processing which, in turn, can involve investigatory inquiries, even referrals to CBSA's NSSD for more extensive and intensive background investigation

It is the last of these that many object to, the elevated screening that SOME (not all) applicants abroad encounter. As much as many have the view this should not happen, there is no doubt that it does, there is nothing in Canadian law to prohibit it, and contrary to protests otherwise, there are underlying rational reasons why this happens, albeit those reasons are not the same in every case.

My objective is to help put the potential elevated screening into context, primarily to help potentially affected applicants understand and prepare for lines of questioning that they might encounter. It warrants emphasizing that the vast majority of qualified applicants have little or nothing to worry about. This includes those who are abroad after applying (subject, of course, to their continuing to meet all the requirements, including compliance with the Residency Obligation and appropriately showing up for scheduled events). Elevated screening does not mean the application will be denied. But it can mean some inconvenient procedures and longer processing times; for some it can result in having to more fully document their case with evidence of their actual presence in Canada during the eligibility period. Even applicants remaining in Canada after applying should be prepared for such non-routine processing. Applicants abroad are at more risk for this, and historically have been at significantly more risk. That said, currently, at this time, it is not clear how much more at risk there is for those abroad.

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.
The crux of the situation is indeed precisely the extent to which many agree with you, when you say "in my opinion this is not the right approach."

And, as already noted, the extent to which there is any confusion about how being abroad after applying can affect the process, that is largely rooted in the extent to which a number of forum participants more or less conflate their view (about how it should be), that view, with how the process actually works.

Note for example oft repeated ERRONEOUS references to the "rights" a PR has in regards to travel abroad. Sorry to be the bearer of unwanted information, but no, under Canadian law a PR does NOT have a protected "right" to travel abroad. Those who confuse the general absence of laws restricting travel abroad as somehow conferring a "right" have repeatedly caused confusion in regards to this subject. More than a few seem to be deliberately misleading in this regard, aggravating the confusion.

As I previously noted, applicants for citizenship are PRs and as such NO, a PR has no international mobility "right" in Canadian law. The Charter of Rights (which is here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-12.html ) explicitly states, in Section 6(1), that "Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada." This is specifically limited to Canadian citizens. It does not prescribe such a right for Canadians who are not citizens, which includes PRs, including PRs qualified for citizenship but not yet actually a citizen, including those whose application for citizenship has been approved. So, to be clear, under Canadian law a PR does NOT have a protected right "to leave Canada."

That said, Canada does not have any provisions of law that will restrict a PR's travel outside Canada. Rather, if and when a PR travels outside Canada, the PR is relying on their passport and the laws of the country that issued their passport in conjunction with the laws of the country they enter. Canadian law plays almost NO role in the extent to which a PR has rights to travel outside Canada.

Of course Canadian immigration law (in addition to laws governing eligibility for various provincial benefits) can and does impose residency requirements for PRs. And of course a PR's ties abroad, including periods of extended residence or work abroad, are evidentiary factors which can be (and often typically are) considered when evaluating residency or presence questions. Thus, even though Canadian law does not restrict or prohibit a PR's travel abroad, even living or working abroad, the fact a PR is abroad can have an impact on the validity of their PR status and be a factor considered whenever a residency or presence requirement is at stake.

To be clear: a PR's mobility rights, under Canadian law (see section 6(2) in the Charter), are specifically:
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

And even these "rights" may be subject to limitations (see sections 1 and 6(3) in the Charter).

To Be Clear: There is NO Indication That IRCC Punishes or Penalizes Citizenship Applicants for Living Abroad After Applying.

RQ-related non-routine processing, for example, is NOT done to "hinder" or "slow down" a citizenship application. It is done to more thoroughly screen the applicant's claimed physical presence. It inherently results in a much longer processing time because it is a far more intensive, fact-finding process. How much effect it has will vary considerably depending on the individual case. For applicants with a very strong case, with consistent and convincing evidence of their actual presence in Canada, the risk of RQ is much lower (even if they are abroad after applying) and even if they encounter RQ-related non-routine processing, the extent of resulting delays in processing will typically be less.
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,427
3,173
The Elephant In the Room -- The Impact of Those Who Are Exploiting the Canadian Immigration System to Obtain a Passport:

I hesitate to bring this aspect of things up, as it tends to incite inflammatory attacks. But, it is what it is. And there is no doubt this has influence. There are undoubtedly more than a few who go through the process of becoming a Canadian PR with an overt plan to stay long enough to get citizenship and then relocate elsewhere. Typically this is about obtaining a Canadian passport, not about moving to and settling in Canada PERMANENTLY.

These individuals are making it more difficult for others, for all those who honestly obtained PR status in order to come to Canada to settle permanently.

For those who go into the process of becoming a PR with a plan to stay long enough to get citizenship and then relocate elsewhere, that's fraud. Being eligible for PR requires having a truthful intent to settle in Canada PERMANENTLY. Even after the grant of PR status is approved, the officer is to issue the PR visa only if it is established that "the foreign national is coming to Canada to establish permanent residence." This is prescribed by Section 70(1) in the Regulations (should link). Similar provision for inland applicants; Section 72(1).

Many signs indicate that Canadian officials apprehend there is no shortage of such individuals. For obvious reasons, if IRCC officials suspect this in regards to a particular person, they will also have some suspicions about the veracity of that individual's citizenship application. IRCC officials can have such suspicions about an applicant who remains in Canada after applying, but it appears highly likely that the risk is higher if the applicant has relocated abroad after applying.

The elevated scrutiny applicants abroad face is probably very much in large part caused by those kinds of applicants. Elevated scrutiny rooted in suspicion there was fraud from the outset, in the process of becoming a PR in the first place. Trying to blame IRCC officials for doing their job is misplaced. The real culprits are those who abuse the system and make things more difficult for everyone else.


Some Conclusions in Regards to the Nature and Scope of the Interview:

It is absolutely NOT the case, at least not at all usually, that processing agents conducting PI citizenship interviews "just ask because they want to feel that their job is more important than just checking documents and that they have some power."

This is important because generally qualified applicants have NO NEED to FEAR the interview. IRCC processing agents do not have time to harass qualified applicants. Sure, there is likely some going over the line by some agents or officers, but generally, overall, the citizenship applicant can be confident that agents and officers will not be arbitrary or capricious. I do not say this blindly. One can see the nature and scope of how IRCC/CIC agents have approached their duties reported in scores of published Federal Court decisions which are official accounts of actual cases. Moreover, I do not say this to defend IRCC. I say this to reassure qualified applicants there is no cause to worry about the interview, even if the interview is more probing than expected, and even if non-routine processing becomes involved.

Make no mistake: the vast majority of qualified applicants sail smoothly through the process. Even among those who are living abroad after applying, at least many if not most generally proceed through the process without encountering significant problems. (Of course the last two plus years all applicants have suffered inordinate delays in processing relating to IRCC's failure to adequately adapt to the Covid situation.)

In terms of questioning, whether in the PI interview, or in the course of requesting additional information and documents, the scope of questioning will almost always depend on the scope of the official's concerns, based on what the official discerns from the facts in the case. Many interviews are perfunctory, nothing complicated, quick, easy, and done.

We are all familiar with the telescoping nature of questioning, the transition from a few perfunctory questions to more questions, and then to more probing questions, if and when the answers suggest, to the interviewer, reason to ask more questions. That's how it works.

Meanwhile, while many disagree that it should have influence, there is little doubt that residing abroad after applying is one of those factors, a circumstance, that has influence, something that can lead to further and more probing questions. For the qualified applicant, however, this is still nothing to fear. Just answer the questions honestly.

SUMMARY: Applicants who are abroad while their application is pending should anticipate and prepare to be questioned more extensively, and the scope of questions asked can include questions about their residence or employment AFTER applying. Qualified applicants have little or nothing to fear, but given the likely higher risk of RQ-related non-routine processing, perhaps a good idea to be even more prepared (than most applicants), if asked, to submit objective evidence documenting their actual physical presence.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Essamrh

UnleashedFX

Hero Member
Oct 21, 2016
215
127
I am sorry, I don’t mean to be rude, but are you writing just for the sake of writing? I am not going to sit through a book of your scholarly opinion. We get the points you are making and I said I understand, but I don’t think it should be done this way - if in fact they are doing it this way. If they are not happy that people are living abroad or there just to get a passport then ban Birth Tourism and write it in your immigration laws amending the one that states you CAN LEAVE.
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,427
3,173
I am sorry, I don’t mean to be rude, but are you writing just for the sake of writing?
My posts are long. But I did explain why I was writing:

My objective is to help put the potential elevated screening into context, primarily to help potentially affected applicants understand and prepare for lines of questioning that they might encounter. It warrants emphasizing that the vast majority of qualified applicants have little or nothing to worry about.
And further explained that . . .
". . . generally qualified applicants have NO NEED to FEAR the interview. IRCC processing agents do not have time to harass qualified applicants. . . . I say this to reassure qualified applicants there is no cause to worry about the interview, even if the interview is more probing than expected, and even if non-routine processing becomes involved."​

Otherwise it appears you might not actually understand, since nothing about the elevated scrutiny those abroad are at risk for has anything to do with IRCC personnel being "not happy that people are living abroad." That is not what it is about.

As noted, the "why" is complicated and varies from case to case. It is rooted in rational decision-making applying reasonable inferences. There is no indication that IRCC officials inappropriately ask for or misuse information probed in the course of verifying an applicant's qualifications.

In particular, it is important that qualified applicants who did not engage in misrepresentation in either the process of becoming a PR or in their citizenship application be reassured that even if they encounter elevated scrutiny, questions about their presence abroad after applying, and even requests for additional evidence to prove their presence, the extent of any additional scrutiny will likely be proportionate to the merits of their case. They can expect IRCC personnel to be professional, and trust that decisions will not be capricious or arbitrary. (Of course there are exceptions, unfortunately.) The outcome will be based on the applicant's qualifications. And even though subject to some increased screening, the applicant who is prepared to honestly answer questions and, if asked, provide documentation to prove their presence, will likely encounter a lesser amount of scrutiny, and less delay in getting to the oath as well.

What you or I think the procedure should be is not relevant. I do not even bother to wrestle with how-it-should-be, since at best that is a distraction, and it tends to cause confusion.

In contrast, for some very recent reporting about an applicant struggling with RQ, and it appears likely headed to a hearing with a Citizenship Judge, see: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/please-i-need-help.766690/
This does not appear to be a relocated abroad after applying situation, but it illustrates the direction things can go if and when IRCC doubts the applicant's physical presence. It illustrates what is at risk.

Thus, it bears repeating: Applicants who are abroad while their application is pending should anticipate and prepare to be questioned more extensively, and the scope of questions asked can include questions about their residence or employment AFTER applying. Qualified applicants have little or nothing to fear, but given the likely higher risk of RQ-related non-routine processing, it is a good idea to be even more prepared (than most applicants), if asked, to submit objective evidence documenting their actual physical presence.
 

JHT

Star Member
Sep 4, 2020
82
26
...
As noted, the "why" is complicated and varies from case to case. It is rooted in rational decision-making applying reasonable inferences. There is no indication that IRCC officials inappropriately ask for or misuse information probed in the course of verifying an applicant's qualifications.
....
Very rational, those that need to travel internationally for work need to be scrutinized heavily.
Also very rational system to maintain an archaic system where they don't properly log entries and exits in to the country.

Better to create more useless work for everyone in preparing a worldwide travel log and auditing entry and exit logs

Meanwhile baby tourism is A ok.
 
  • Like
Reactions: snoopyta

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,427
3,173
Context note: this topic was initially about a citizenship PI interview generally. That was a little over a year ago.

Several weeks ago (late March) the topic was revived by a post sharing an anecdotal experience illustrating precisely what I have occasionally cautioned, that the applicant who is (or who appears to be) relocated abroad after applying may be asked questions regarding being abroad, and may even be asked why questions. Depending on other factors, there is a risk of elevated scrutiny, potentially RQ.

The rational for, or even the prospect of similar questions being similarly posed to other applicants, was challenged and to some extent ridiculed. Which continues. Some of this comes from the usual suspects and is otherwise part of a recurring pattern of posts which more or less dismiss or belittle or at least minimize the fact that being located abroad after applying can trigger additional questioning and elevated concerns.

Most qualified citizenship applicants have no reason to worry about what they might be asked in a PI interview. And no reason to worry that EVEN IF their application is subject to somewhat increased scrutiny, for whatever reason, that will cause a problem in their case.

This is true even for the qualified applicant who is abroad after applying. That said (and this is the primary message in my posts on this subject), applicants who are abroad while their application is pending should anticipate and prepare to be questioned more extensively, recognizing that the scope of questions asked can include questions about their residence or employment AFTER applying. Again, qualified applicants have little or nothing to fear in this regard, but given the higher risk of RQ-related non-routine processing, it is also a good idea to be even more prepared (than most applicants), if asked, to submit objective evidence documenting their actual physical presence.

The derision these observations tend to attract is almost never about advancing what we know and understand about the nature and scope of questions that may be asked of applicants who are abroad, in an interview or in requests for more information or documentation.

One of the most frequent and obvious examples of bad faith underlying such derision, is the recurring reference to this being about "traveling" abroad. It is NOT about traveling abroad. Make no mistake, to the extent that relocating abroad after applying is a factor that can lead to a particular line of questioning, in regards to relocating abroad, and potentially lead to additional inquiries, increased scrutiny, and in some cases some skepticism, that is NOT ABOUT traveling abroad.

So we see this . . .

Very rational, those that need to travel internationally for work need to be scrutinized heavily.
To be clear, there is ZERO indication that IRCC targets applicants who "need to travel internationally for work" for increased scrutiny.

There is nothing in the anecdotal reporting or officially published decisions recounting actual cases that so much as hints that those who "need to travel internationally for work" will "be scrutinized heavily."

In contrast, the applicant whose situation indicates strong residential or employment ties outside Canada can anticipate questions that will help IRCC clarify whether those ties indicate a reason to question the physical presence calculation, especially if there are indications the ties are a continuation of ties the applicant has had for some time.

So let's be clear: the applicant who is traveling abroad extensively for a readily identified and easily verified Canadian employer, and who otherwise applied in circumstances that do not invite questions or concerns about meeting the presence requirement, is not at all likely to encounter the least bit of elevated screening or concern in regards to the travel abroad. Traveling abroad, even frequently, is NOT an issue.

Likewise, again to be clear: qualified applicants on the up-and-up (as they say), even those located abroad, might encounter some questions about being abroad, and will need to be returning to Canada for the oath, BUT they need NOT WORRY there will be inordinate let alone arbitrary or capricious actions taken in their case.

For the qualified applicant on the up-and-up, a little elevated scrutiny should not be a problem. A closer look, a few additional questions beyond what most are asked, will generally not trigger the more severe non-routine processing (RQ or CBSA investigation or both) UNLESS it reveals further reason-to-question-presence. Applicants can rest assured that the scope of inquiry will depend on the merits of their case, based on the facts, and be rationally and reasonably commensurate with what the facts in their case indicate.

Those playing games, abusing the system, hiding something, or for whom their particular circumstances reveal further reason-to-question-presence, sure, if the fact they are abroad triggers a closer look and if in taking a closer look the total stranger bureaucrat processing the application sees reason-to-question-presence, yep, then there is a present risk of elevated scrutiny, and more significantly, the more the particular individual's situation indicates reasons-to-question-presence, the greater the scope and extent of additional inquiry and processing.

This involves the typical, common telescoping approach, so the extent of additional inquiry will depend on the extent to which what is learned satisfies the official (ending further scrutiny) or raises additional questions (leading to further inquiries). So, again, the extent of additional screening, and ultimately the extent of suspicion or skepticism where implicated, will vary and depend on the facts in the individual case. So the qualified applicant who is not playing games and not hiding something has very, very little to worry about.

In particular, we have seen numerous reports from applicants who were abroad for an extended period after applying, some asked probing questions about when or why they went abroad, but who nonetheless proceeded to be scheduled for and take the oath of citizenship once they returned to Canada. This was true even a decade ago, at the peak of the Harper-era heavy-handed, draconian crack-down aimed at applicants PERCEIVED to be applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport or otherwise PERCEIVED to be seeking-a-passport-of-convenience. (These are predominantly conservative characterizations, but far from exclusively so.) Even then, applicants temporarily relocated abroad after applying did not run into serious problems UNLESS there were other aspects of their case giving CIC cause to question and challenge their residency.

So, for many abroad for extended periods after applying things still go smoothly.

It has gone otherwise for some. And for most of those running into the more difficult RQ-related processing, including the more lengthy delays, this was rather predictable. It is safe to say, it needs to be noted, they know who they are and they know or have a good idea why their case ran into issues, and especially so in regards to those whose case has gone sideways.

No rocket science necessary . . . IRCC officials are not the bumbling fools some forum participants paint them to be. They mostly (not always, not entirely, but mostly) get it. They have worked through a few actual cases, as in THOUSANDS of actual cases, and they have the background and experience to figure things out. And they mostly do, they mostly figure things out. Not perfectly (far from it). And these days not anywhere near within a reasonable timeline. But overall qualified applicants, again those on the up-and-up, generally sail through without any significant problems or extra-delays. And this includes a significant number of applicants temporarily located abroad while their application is pending,

A big part of why this is important is to help applicants be prepared for the kinds of questions that might be asked during an interview, or the document requests IRCC might make. And so some applicants can make better informed decisions before applying (especially in regards to keeping appropriate records, but also as to things like how much of a margin to apply with), or before relocating abroad after applying.

IRCC's botched response to Covid aside, the other reason why understanding how this works is important is about giving applicants confidence in the process. In terms of screening applicants, and determining who to ask more questions, and who to screen a little more than the usual, that's their bailiwicke, that's what they do. They figure it out. Which seems to bother some, which frankly seems to rather often be about not wanting IRCC to figure it out.

Overall the qualified applicant need not worry; be prepared but no need to worry. Applicants can be confident that the nature and scope of inquiries in their case will be relative to, mostly commensurate with, the extent to which their situation and factual details show they are qualified, or raise questions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pedromw

Jakke

Star Member
Nov 6, 2021
79
66
I am sorry, I don’t mean to be rude, but are you writing just for the sake of writing? I am not going to sit through a book of your scholarly opinion. We get the points you are making and I said I understand, but I don’t think it should be done this way - if in fact they are doing it this way. If they are not happy that people are living abroad or there just to get a passport then ban Birth Tourism and write it in your immigration laws amending the one that states you CAN LEAVE.
The guy likes to write books on even the simplest matters. He obviously has plenty to kill. But he it has not yet occurred to him that most people here have work to do and cannot spend hours reading books by self-appointed "immigration experts".
 

Jakke

Star Member
Nov 6, 2021
79
66
Very rational, those that need to travel internationally for work need to be scrutinized heavily.
Also very rational system to maintain an archaic system where they don't properly log entries and exits in to the country.

Better to create more useless work for everyone in preparing a worldwide travel log and auditing entry and exit logs

Meanwhile baby tourism is A ok.
Ha ha ha ... right on! But dpenabill is a great immigration expert---one of the greatest ever---whence his endless volumes on all sorts of things.
 

Mahyar85

Star Member
Jan 10, 2022
185
60
I dont think dpenabil got me.
Just to clarify again. I did not relocate after submitting my application.
I went to visit my family then covid happend and border were closed. Specially my home country due to lack of vaccination we had a longer border closure.
im back in canada few months ago now. It was not a big deal.
did my test and interview and im waiting more than a month to get an update. Very simple
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,427
3,173
I dont think dpenabil got me.
Just to clarify again. I did not relocate after submitting my application.
I went to visit my family then covid happend and border were closed. Specially my home country due to lack of vaccination we had a longer border closure.
im back in canada few months ago now. It was not a big deal.
did my test and interview and im waiting more than a month to get an update. Very simple
I am always open to clarification or correction. Since I have not referenced you in particular in this thread, it would help if you could identify what I said about you or your case that I do not get.

As far as I can see the only comment of mine referencing you or your case was this:

Several weeks ago (late March) the topic was revived by a post sharing an anecdotal experience illustrating precisely what I have occasionally cautioned, that the applicant who is (or who appears to be) relocated abroad after applying may be asked questions regarding being abroad, and may even be asked why questions. Depending on other factors, there is a risk of elevated scrutiny, potentially RQ.

Even if you do not believe your interview "illustrates" that an applicant "who appears to be" relocated abroad "may be asked questions regarding being abroad, and may even be asked why questions," as I discussed, it clearly illustrates questions posed to an applicant who is abroad for an extended period of time asked questions regarding being abroad, including why questions. You may not feel as though the interviewer should have perceived you might have relocated abroad, but the nature of the questions clearly indicate that at least in the view of the interviewer (probably a processing agent) it appears (to her) you may have relocated abroad. In particular, here is your description of the interviewer's questions:
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.

It is worth further noting that your account of the interview also illustrates, as I have tried to make clear, the scope of questioning in an interview can also be about current (as in post-application) employment. To be clear about this, this questioning is typical for many if not most applicant interviews, even if they have spent very little time abroad after applying. Questions about current residential address are also commonly if not usually asked.

Thus otherwise illustrating that applicants might be asked questions regarding where they are living and working AFTER they made their application. And that being abroad for extended periods of time might lead to more probing questions in that regard.

Should be obvious that my observations in this topic do not depend on the details in your particular case. But it helps to get things right, so I am very much interested to see and understand what it is about your situation you say I got wrong.

As far as your application goes, and how it goes from here:

Obviously you do not know, yet, whether your application will be subject to further inquiries. Prudence suggests being prepared. Which is true for all applicants.

There is no reliable predicting how how it will go. But we know some of the factors which generally influence how it goes. Strength of the case, the merits, loom large. You report applying with 1362 days, for example. That is with what most would consider a big margin over the minimum, a buffer which should make it easier for the bureaucrats handling your application to be satisfied you met the presence requirement.

That is no guarantee there will not be any further inquiry into or elevated scrutiny of your physical presence, but your buffer over the minimum is undoubtedly a factor which leans in your favour.

The point of going into this is that your case may also illustrate that notwithstanding some probing questions into the nature, extent, and reasons for being outside Canada after applying, how it goes next will be influenced by other factors, by the extent to which the bureaucrats are satisfied, or not satisfied by the information they have: if satisfied, no problem, no further inquiries likely; if not satisfied, potentially more inquiries or even RQ-related non-routine processing. A good, solid buffer should help. May even be what makes the difference. Still a good idea to be prepared to provide additional information and documentation, evidence of your actual presence, IF ASKED, but the overriding take-away I hope to convey is that the nature and extent of additional screening will generally, almost always (but not always) be commensurate with the facts in the particular case.

Applicants know their own case. It is impossible to predict how things will go for sure, but fairly easy to identify factors which can increase the risk of elevated scrutiny. Applicants who apply with just 1096 days presence, for example, can and do sail through easily, but there is a solid rationale for the consensus recommendation that applicants wait to apply with more of a margin, a buffer, than that, and prudent applicants will wait to apply with a buffer that is proportionate to the particulars in their own case. The applicant with an employment history that includes punching a clock daily at a physical location in Canada, working for a well-known Canadian employer, and a travel history consistent with that kind of employment, can be confident applying with a much smaller buffer than the applicant whose employment history is predominantly as a consultant for a brother-in-law's company.

Not many challenge that. Likewise for other factors; one more obvious example is the applicant who was fairly transient for a significant period of their time in Canada and unemployed for much of that; there is little or no doubt that they should either apply with a significantly bigger margin or at least be prepared for more intensive scrutiny to document their presence.

But there is a crowd here who challenge acknowledging this about the applicant who is (or who appears to be) relocated abroad. They push how wrong THEY THINK it is for IRCC to even ask such applicants questions about being abroad, as if that in any way illuminates what the prudent applicant needs to know and be prepared for. Some ridicule IRCC for this. Some ridicule anyone who makes the effort to distinguish the derision and confusion, exposing it for what it is, and separating that from understanding (as best we can) how things really work, including in particular the subject of this topic: what questions might be asked in an interview, which no doubt can and quite often does include questions about location, residence, and employment AFTER applying. All of which your anecdotal report about your interview illustrates.

The process, including the scope of inquiry, is not capricious or arbitrary. It is NOT about bureaucrats who "want to feel that their job is more important than just checking documents and that they have some power."(@Jakke) It is NOT about IRCC personnel being "not happy that people are living abroad." (@UnleashedFX) It is NOT about those who "need to travel internationally for work" being "scrutinized heavily." (@JHT)

Based on what we know about how things actually work, there is no doubt, the questions asked in an interview can and quite often do include questions about location, residence, and employment AFTER applying. For the applicant who has relocated abroad, or appears to have relocated abroad, or who is otherwise abroad for an extended period of time, there is clearly a greater likelihood they will be asked such questions, and depending on how that goes, and depending on other factors in the particular case, there is an increased risk of additional screening, further inquiries, and for some applicants RQ-related processing. Whether anyone here likes that or not. Whether anyone here thinks that is how it should work or not.
 

Jakke

Star Member
Nov 6, 2021
79
66
I dont think dpenabil got me.
Just to clarify again. I did not relocate after submitting my application.
I went to visit my family then covid happend and border were closed. Specially my home country due to lack of vaccination we had a longer border closure.
im back in canada few months ago now. It was not a big deal.
did my test and interview and im waiting more than a month to get an update. Very simple
That would not matter to him. He will always write his books, even if they have no relevance the matter at hand.