Hello,
My application was sent to Etobicoke last week and I will be called for an in person interview eventually. Can anybody shed some light as to what the procedure is here onwards, what they ask? What am I expected to carry along? And mainly what’re the waiting timelines to be called for the interview?
Absent information about what issues are at stake, details in communications from IRCC scheduling an interview, or some other information illuminating what might be the concern, the issue at stake, it is very difficult if not impossible to answer these questions. All are contingent on what is involved. Big difference, for example, if IRCC is questioning the PR's compliance with the RO versus investigating a potential case of misrepresentation, or something as simple (and easily resolved) as verifying identity.
This is for a PR card renewal? Normally there are no interviews for a PR card renewal.
Yes for pr card renewal. Inspite of submitting all my documents and meeting all the requirements.
PR card Applications and Scheduling Interviews Generally:
In non-routine processing of PR card applications, particularly in cases where IRCC has questions about the accuracy of the information provided by the PR, or more so if IRCC is contesting a factual claim made by the PR, it is probably normal for IRCC to schedule an interview even if that is NOT common.
That said,
@scylla is correct that "
Normally there are no interviews for a PR card renewal," not normal in the sense that quantitatively an interview is unusual or uncommon.
However, many PR card applications involve non-routine processing, which many would also characterize as
NOT normal. And, again, in the non-routine processing of a PR card application IRCC might schedule an interview, particularly in cases involving questions about discrepancies or at least possible discrepancies in the facts compared to the information submitted,
Moreover, even among PR card applications involving non-routine processing, it is likely most would say that requiring an interview is
not normal, but again that is in the quantitative what is
not common sense . . . and other than those cases in which an in-person pick-up of the PR card is scheduled/required, which typically includes an interview (while the anecdotal reporting in the last few years has not been precise enough to consistently distinguish counter-interviews from those conducted by IRCC officers, in-person card pick-up will at least involve a counter-interview which typically includes some questions oriented to verifying RO compliance in addition to verification of identity).
Which is to say, generally, we do not see a lot of reports from PRs being required to attend an interview attendant PR card processing (other than when in-person card pick-up is required).
Which is NOT to say or suggest that scheduling an interview is irregular or otherwise not normal except in quantitative terms. Indeed, if for example IRCC has significant concerns about the accuracy of the information submitted by a PR which are sufficient to affect assessment of the PR's eligibility for a PR card, or otherwise the PR's admissibility, in that situation scheduling an interview would actually be a
NORMAL step, normal in the sense that is what would ordinarily happen.
Not always. If without conducting an interview IRCC officials conclude the PR is inadmissible, a 44(1) Report might be prepared (which can be based on a RO breach or grounds other than breach of the RO, such as misrepresentation, serious criminality, or security grounds), leading to procedures attendant that. The latter, the procedure following preparation of a 44(1) Report will almost for sure (nearly always) involve scheduling of an interview, be that in-person or telephonic (not sure if, or if not yet, then if and when IRCC will proceed with routinely incorporating online/web-based interviews beyond the scope of citizenship and IAD appeals). But in these cases there is specific notice of the interview.
Procedural Fairness Element:
Here too the anecdotal reporting is insufficient to illuminate the particular procedures involved when a PR card application triggers significant issues that could result in a determination of inadmissibility. Published IAD and Federal Court decisions also do not offer much detail that would clarify the procedures or communications involved prior to issuance of the Removal Order leading to the appeal.
Remember, IRCC does NOT deny PR card applications unless the applicant is not a PR. PR card applications made by someone who actually has PR status have three possible outcomes (with exceptions, largely anomalies):
-- application is returned (not processed)
-- application is approved and a PR card is issued (albeit this does not preclude possibility of inadmissibility proceedings and the PR being issued a one-year card rather than the five-year card)
-- there are inadmissibility proceedings brought against the PR -- for example, if in the course of processing the PR card application IRCC officials have determined the PR is inadmissible on the grounds of a breach of the RO, a 44(1) Report is prepared followed by procedures attendant reviewing the Report by a Minister's Delegate, which will include an interview/hearing with the PR
PR card applications can also be more or less suspended, in limbo, and sometimes this can be for very long periods of time. In some cases, for example, it appears that if the PR is outside Canada that IRCC is waiting for the PR to return to Canada or apply for a PR TD, and if such a PR is denied a PR TD, or is issued a Removal Order at a PoE when returning to Canada, there is never any decision made in regards to the PR card application (unless the PR's appeal succeeds, in which event there should be a positive decision to approve and issue a PR card).
Generally IRCC cannot make a negative determination based on facts contrary to the client's claims without complying with the applicable procedural fairness requirements. In most immigration processing contexts we see what is called a "
Procedural Fairness Letter" (PFL), communication to the PR clearly identifying the facts and issue involved, and why IRCC has concerns about or is contesting that issue.
Contextual illustration: Before IRCC can deny a spousal sponsored PR application based on the marriage being for the purpose of obtaining immigration status, it must give notice to the applicant that this is in issue and why, a PFL, giving the applicant an opportunity to substantiate/prove the applicant's version of the facts or otherwise why there should not be a negative determination based on that issue . . . in contrast, if the applicant acknowledges the marriage was for the purpose of obtaining immigration status, IRCC can deny the application, no need to separately inform the applicant giving an opportunity to respond.
The primary sources of information we have (someone could do an ATI request to get more information, that is information beyond anecdotal reports, statutory provisions and regulations, the operational manuals and PDIs, as well as published IAD and Federal Court decisions) do not illuminate the particular way in which the procedural fairness requirements are met in PR card application processing. My sense, cautioning that I am not particularly confident, let alone sure, is that in the context of inadmissibility proceedings against a PR, the 44(1) Report itself constitutes the notice/communication satisfying procedural fairness requirements.
Which finally leads back to the OP's situation:
My application was sent to Etobicoke last week and I will be called for an in person interview eventually.
It is the anticipation that there "
will be" an in-person interview, that is that an interview is expected apparently without yet being notified of a scheduled interview, that is puzzling. And while I cannot speak for
@scylla, I suspect this underlies the question about whether this is in regards to a PR card application. Absent actually getting notice that an interview will be required, it is indeed puzzling why the OP apprehends there "
will be" an in-person interview.
So, in regards to . . .
"Can anybody shed some light as to what the procedure is here onwards, what they ask? What am I expected to carry along? And mainly what’re the waiting timelines to be called for the interview?"
As I noted initially, absent actual notice from IRCC, or some other information illuminating what might be the concern, the issue at stake, it is very difficult if not impossible to answer this. Note, for example, the notice for an in-person card pick-up will typically give notice, when applicable, that there will be an interview and that the PR card delivered might be for one-year or five-years. If IRCC has concerns about RO compliance and requests an interview (prior to any 44(1) Report being prepared), my understanding is that the notice will make it clear that the interview will include questions about residency and the PR should be prepared to present supporting evidence of RO compliance and/or H&C considerations.
