1/3/0
Overall, the author has a negative attitude towards the very procedure of a Canadian embassy official meeting with an applicant for an immigration visa and awarding the notorious points for "personal impression". This resembles a scene from the classic American film "Spartacus", where the slave owner selects slaves by examining their teeth. If you remember, Kirk Douglas's hero indignantly refuses to undergo the humiliating procedure, and the entire democratic world community (including Canadians, I think) joins the film's hero in spitting in the satrap's face. This film, whose merits we will leave to film critics, gives a somewhat exaggerated idea of the Spartacus uprising, but nevertheless, it quite accurately reflects the freedom-loving worldview of North Americans.
An embassy representative will surely say that we are exaggerating and drawing incorrect analogies. That there is nothing humiliating in the process of talking with an official, and it is an integral part of getting to know the applicant. That officials are polite and generally nice... Yes, they know how to smile, but who said you can't humiliate a person with a smile on your face? And how is the medical examination procedure, which follows a successful interview, fundamentally different from examining the teeth of slaves? However, there are differences, and very significant ones: Canadians are interested not only in the applicant's health, but also in their professional qualities, education and work experience, your ability to take out a mortgage and the availability of a dacha outside the city. Where could Spartacus, without education or diploma – nowadays he wouldn't even be granted a personal meeting with an immigration official and would remain a barbarian to the end of his days.
• By the way, experience shows that only prepared applicants can count on a successful interview. Therefore, the role of consultants accompanying your immigration process is so important. The Canadian company CanadaOpen offers on its website http://canadaopen.org/ a full range of services in immigration, education, and visa matters. Moreover, visa and immigration services here are provided only by a Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant.
Irony of fate: you want to live decently – go through the humiliation of selection. Could Canadians avoid this procedure? Possibly. After all, New Zealanders, for example, make a decision to issue an immigration visa without meeting the applicant. The decision on the suitability of education and work experience, knowledge of English by the applicant is made in absentia, which allows the applicant to avoid unnecessary stress and saves officials' time. Agree – it is much less painful to receive a rejection letter by mail than to have a conversation with an immigration officer that ends in failure.
However, whether you want it or not, an interview must be undergone. There are cases when an official decides to waive the meeting with an applicant, based on the assumption that the latter's data can be approved in absentia. For events to develop along this path, certain conditions must be met, in particular:
– you must have a profession that scores high (for example, specialization in information technology: programmer, systems analyst, engineering specialties);
– if you are an engineer, it is strongly recommended that your credentials be approved by the Association of Professional Engineers of Canada;
– documents (recommendation letters, resume, samples of professional projects) must unambiguously testify to your high qualifications;
– you must successfully pass the English language test according to the IELTS system at the British Council.
In this case, there is a high probability of the interview being canceled. But it is not at all guaranteed to happen – this issue is not strictly regulated by immigration law, and in each specific case the same official makes the decision.
Suppose you have overcome your ambition (after all, the goal is worth it), but you have no chance of going through the immigration procedure without an interview. Only one thing remains – to prepare for the interview.
QUESTION ONE: WHAT TO PREPARE FOR?
You need to prepare for an oral conversation with an official who needs to understand how ready you are to adapt to living conditions in Canada. The concept of "ability to adapt" includes a wide range of issues. Among them are the demand factor for your specialty (points that the profession receives according to the General Occupations List), knowledge of the official language of Canada, specifics of life in the country, working conditions and job search, motivation for leaving, and much more. Based on the conversation, the official gives a score, the maximum possible being 10 (in reality, however, we are talking about quite achievable 4-6 points).
A significant part of the interview is devoted to the applicant's employment history. The applicant will definitely be asked in detail about their job responsibilities, education, and plans for settling after moving. A separate topic, as a rule, is the necessity and possibilities of employment in Canada, as well as the applicant's knowledge of the country as a whole and of the area where they intend to settle in particular.
The nature and direction of the conversation with the official depends on the client's data, their biography, and the specifics of their profession. Of course, there is a certain list of standard questions, but it is very limited and does not deserve much attention. What is much more important is to anticipate questions that will be asked based on each specific situation. Practice shows that even taking into account the consultant's experience, you can talk about creating a reliable interview scenario about 60-70% of the time. The rest is the official's improvisation, which, unfortunately, cannot be predicted.
QUESTION TWO: LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY
One of the most uncertain issues. Moreover, a low level of knowledge of Canada's official language is the most common reason for refusal to issue an immigration visa. The officer assigns a score for language knowledge at his own discretion. That is, the nature of this assessment is very, very subjective.
The applicant's self-control has a very strong influence. It often happens that a client, due to excitement, falls into a stupor and cannot say a word in Russian, let alone English. And then try to prove that you know the language but were very nervous at that moment.
The required level of language proficiency is assessed individually in each case, depending on the client's other data. For programmers and engineers, a 'conversational' level is sometimes sufficient; for economists or doctors (if it even made sense for them to submit documents), it is usually advisable to speak fluently.
In theory, the officer defines four levels of foreign language proficiency: 0 points (not at all) – I don't know; 2 points (with difficulty) – with difficulty; 6 points (well) – I write, read, and speak well; 9 points (fluent) – fluent. Admitting one's own illiteracy by mentioning the first or second indicator in the application means dooming oneself to a refusal in advance, regardless of all other data.
It is difficult to determine your own level of English knowledge on your own. However, even the assessment of specialists is not always accurate. We have repeatedly encountered that during interview preparation, the client behaves confidently and competently, but then at the interview receives a refusal due to an insufficient level of English proficiency. Therefore, it is better, so to speak, to 'play it safe.' Foreign language proficiency also greatly influences the score the officer gives for overall personal impression. It is practically impossible to make a good impression on an officer with mediocre English (in our practice, there was only one case when a woman received 7 points for personal impression with an English level assessed at 2 points).
Weak English is fraught with another unpleasantness. Suppose the applicant could not answer the officer's question about his professional activity due to misunderstanding of the question itself. The officer may interpret this as a consequence of a low level of language proficiency, but may also understand it differently: you are a poor specialist in your field, and do not know *what to answer, rather than *how to answer this question *in English.
Also, attention should be paid to such an important detail as the presence of an interpreter at the interview. Often, in addition to the applicant's family members and the officer, an interpreter is also present at the interview. He monitors the beginning of the conversation and, if both sides do not have problems understanding each other, he leaves. Some applicants, upon seeing the interpreter, naively feel relief ('But they said you can't have the interview in Russian!') and partially or completely switch to their native, usually non-English, language. In most cases, this leads to refusal due to insufficient knowledge of Canada's official language. The most frustrating thing is that the client could have communicated in sufficiently good English. But he decided to use the services of an interpreter – to better present himself as a highly qualified specialist. This is a typical mistake. In preparing for the interview, you cannot focus on one thing at the expense of another. The level of professionalism does not compensate for shortcomings in language knowledge. On the contrary, the opposite also happens: due to fluent language, a mediocre specialist can make a good impression on the immigration officer.
In the next issue of the newspaper 'Zagranitsa,' we will continue this topic and introduce the reader to the following questions: Who does the officer talk to? How long does the interview last? How and when does the embassy announce its decision? How to prepare for the interview?