Study guide, revision checklist and 50 original sample questions with answers and explanations. No account or purchase required.
These 50 samples are separate from the 600 paid assessment questions. English and French are versions of the same questions, counted once.
Your selections remain only in this open page. No results are saved to an account. Reloading or leaving resets this exercise.
Original teaching exercises, not official or recalled exam questions. No independent subject or French-language review is claimed. Check the official requirements for your sitting.
Know your RISIA assessment
The official 2026 guide describes 125 questions in 180 minutes, including 10 unscored items. Our full mocks use 115 scored items and ten unidentified practice field-test items.
This is a research edition dated September 16, 2026. Verify your sitting and its applicable 90-day reference cut-off before treating any resource as exam-current.
The exam is closed book. This cheat sheet supports revision before an exam; it is not an authorized aid to use during the official assessment.
Cover all eight areas
Combine legal knowledge with student advising, research, professional judgment and clear communication. A strong score in one area does not replace work on the others.
Foundational knowledge · 23.5%
Student advising and coaching · 11.8%
Legal research and informatics · 8.8%
Leadership and advocacy · 8.8%
Professionalism · 17.7%
Cultural competence · 8.8%
Communication and education · 11.8%
Critical thinking and problem solving · 8.8%
A four-week study plan
Adapt this plan to your available time and exam date. Complete an untimed baseline before deciding which areas need attention.
Week 1: establish the baseline
Complete the 50 free samples and Mock 1 without a timer. For each error, record the missing fact, rule or reasoning step.
Week 2: connect rules and decisions
Review primary references in your weakest areas. Use Mock 2 and explain why each distractor fails, rather than memorizing the answer letter.
Week 3: practise timing
Take Mock 3 in one uninterrupted 180-minute session. Compare distinct-question coverage and error types, not just the percentage.
Week 4: consolidate
Use Mock 4 for mixed practice. Revisit unresolved sources, rehearse referrals and communication, and stop treating repeated items as new evidence of mastery.
Cheat sheet: a decision sequence
Use this sequence as a prompt for reasoning, not a substitute for the law or a list of automatic outcomes.
1. Define the student’s question
Identify the requested decision, client, event date and deadline. Separate what the student wants from what the evidence establishes.
2. Check authority and scope
Confirm that the proposed service falls within the adviser’s licence and competence. Urgency does not expand either. Plan a timely referral when needed.
3. Separate the legal questions
Ask separately about entry documents, status, study authorization and work authorization. One valid document does not settle all four.
4. Build the timeline
Place expiry, submissions, decisions, study changes and travel on one timeline. Then identify which provision applies to each event.
5. Verify every condition
Read the full rule, exceptions and relevant version. Match each condition to evidence. If a fact is missing, ask for it rather than filling the gap with an assumption.
6. Protect the professional relationship
Check conflicts, confidentiality, consent, accessibility and student autonomy. Institutional pressure does not replace the adviser’s professional duties.
7. Explain a workable next step
Give the supported options, uncertainties and deadlines in plain language. Check understanding, document the advice and follow up on agreed actions.
Distinctions worth remembering
Eligibility to apply is different from approval. An application receipt is different from a decision. A document’s printed expiry is different from every possible event affecting its legal validity.
A recruitment goal is different from a student’s interests. Permission from a manager is different from a student’s consent. Consent is not a universal cure for a conflict or an out-of-scope service.
A rule found online is different from a rule applicable on the event date. An official source link is different from a complete analysis. Read the relevant exception and transition before concluding.
Legal checkpoints to verify
Status and study: a timely extension request and continued study are separate legal questions. Read IRPR 183(5)–(6), 217 and 189 together, including the conditions about remaining in Canada and the former permit.
Restoration: IRPR 182 sets a 90-day application window for specified losses of temporary status, with further requirements. Subsection 182(2) bars restoration for students who fail the applicable enrolment or active-pursuit conditions. Filing does not restore status or generally authorize work or study.
Off-campus work: all IRPR 186(v) conditions apply; the limit is 24 hours per week during regular academic sessions, with full-time work during regularly scheduled breaks between sessions. Under 186(w), check prior eligibility under paragraph (v), a work-permit application before study-permit expiry and no decision yet. Enrolment or an application receipt alone is insufficient.
Institution and permit validity: read IRPR 220.1 and 222 when enrolment changes or a program ends. The printed expiry date is not the only possible end of validity. Verify the institution named on the permit, any relevant exception and the exact event dates.
Scope and competence: Code 19–20 require competence within the licence and a proper response where assistance is needed. A student’s consent, a supervisor’s instruction or an urgent deadline cannot create professional authority.
Professional safeguards: Code 15 governs conflicts, 25 sets all conditions for a particular salaried-adviser agreement exemption, 28 governs confidentiality and limited disclosures, and 30 addresses errors. Check the precise provision; institutional employment does not remove all duties.
Turn errors into an improvement plan
Use one row per error: question ID; your choice; the decisive fact; source provision and date; why the best answer fits; why your choice fails; next practice date.
Classify the cause as missing knowledge, missed exception, misunderstood facts, scope error, communication judgment or time pressure. Choose a study action that addresses that cause.
The progress report uses the latest submitted response to each distinct scored item. Small samples and repeated exposure limit what the percentages can tell you.
Pacing and source-check routine
A 180-minute session for 125 questions averages about 86 seconds per question. This is a planning average, not a requirement to spend the same time on every question.
Read the task before choosing. Distinguish the best immediate action from a later remedy. Flag a difficult item, move on deliberately and return with enough time to submit.
For each legal proposition, record its source, precise locator, effective version and verification date. If sources conflict, resolve their authority, scope and dates instead of taking a majority vote.
Reasoning checklist
Identify the decision-maker, stage and exact issue.
Separate established facts, assumptions and missing information.
Check the official source, applicable date and exceptions.
Explain why the best choice fits and why the alternatives fail.
Record the error and revisit that competency after a break.
For revision only. This guide is not an authorized aid during the official closed-book examination.
50 questions to get started
Choose an answer, then open the explanation. This is a teaching exercise, not a mock exam or a prediction of success.
Question 1 / 50 · Foundational knowledge
Show answer and explanation
Answer C: Answer truthfully and supply the relevant evidence reasonably required.
First identify the request's source: an officer examining the application. Then test relevance and reasonableness, both established here. IRPA 16(1) requires truthful answers and the reasonably required relevant evidence. Academic merit does not displace that duty.
A. Academic quality and the examination duty answer different questions. Strong grades do not waive an identity-evidence request.
B. Institutional admission requirements are separate from an officer's lawful examination requests.
D. A substitute unrelated to the requested issue does not answer the request; any genuine difficulty should be addressed transparently.
Approach: Identify the legal duty before weighing sympathetic facts.
Answer A: The two intentions can coexist, but the officer must still be satisfied she will leave by the authorized end.
Separate the two time horizons. A long-term wish does not erase today's temporary obligations. Section 22(2) permits coexistence if the officer is satisfied about departure when required; it neither guarantees approval nor waives other requirements.
B. The wish creates no authorization to remain beyond the permitted period.
C. IRPA 22(2) expressly rejects that automatic exclusion. A future ambition is not itself disqualifying.
D. A stated intention is evidence to assess, not automatic proof of every condition.
Approach: Allow two intentions without treating either as an exemption.
Answer D: Whether the activity requires work authorization and she has it
Distinguish an opportunity from permission. IRPA 30(1) requires statutory authorization for work or study. The adviser must assess the activity and the student's actual authority under applicable rules; the offer alone cannot supply that answer.
A. Selection for a job addresses suitability, not whether immigration law authorizes the activity.
B. Educational value does not establish legal work authority; classify the activity and verify the applicable authorization.
C. Official letterhead can support the offer's authenticity but does not establish immigration work authorization.
Approach: Separate employer approval from immigration permission.
Answer C: What prompted this, and when would the change occur?
Start by identifying the problem and timeline, not by selecting an outcome. The answers determine what academic, immigration and support information is needed. This is a professional reasoning step under competent, effective advising, not a claim that one specific question is legislatively prescribed.
A. Peers' experiences may provide context, but they do not establish this student's facts and time constraints.
B. A recommendation before understanding the reasons and timing is premature.
D. Choosing the outcome before eliciting the relevant facts undermines an informed individual assessment.
Approach: Start with a neutral fact-finding question before recommending action.
Answer C: Name the missing document, responsible person, due date and follow-up.
Convert a vague intention into a task that can be completed and checked. The document, owner, date and follow-up identify both responsibility and timing. This supports effective communication and diligence without promising an immigration result.
A. Shared planning should clarify roles; a broad memory promise can conceal what the student must do.
B. More unrelated information does not make the immediate task actionable.
D. Outcome prediction does not identify work that still needs doing.
Approach: A useful plan states an action, an owner and a time.
Answer B: Match every required condition to evidence and identify any unresolved element.
Read the full provision, identify each required fact and test the record against each. If a required disclosure or role condition is unknown, the exemption is not established merely because the person is salaried. The method prevents selective reading.
A. Headings aid navigation but do not replace the operative wording.
C. A summary may omit conditions needed for the actual answer.
D. One satisfied condition does not establish a cumulative exception.
Approach: Turn an exception into a checklist of necessary facts.
Answer D: Use the current operative provision and verify which facts satisfy its conditions.
Start with the controlling text rather than the convenience of a summary. Section 25 sets conditional non-application of sections 23 and 24; it is not a blanket occupational exemption. Record the provision, relevant facts and any missing evidence so the conclusion can be checked.
A. A presentation summary is not equivalent to the governing regulation.
B. Desired outcomes cannot determine the meaning of the rule.
C. Memorability does not establish legal completeness or currency.
Approach: Trace a broad statement back to its precise legal basis.
Answer A: Check understanding and completion of next steps, then adjust.
Connect the service indicator to the professional purpose. Efficient service must still communicate effectively and support needed actions. Reviewing understanding and completion can reveal whether a faster process is undermining quality; the Code does not prescribe a particular survey instrument.
B. Feedback is evidence for improvement, not merely criticism.
C. Speed alone may conceal ineffective or incomplete service.
D. Assigning blame before examining the service design overlooks whether communication and follow-up actually work.
Answer B: Arrange competent authorized coverage and clear handover instructions.
Identify time-sensitive duties, arrange coverage by someone with authority and competence, limit their access to necessary information, and tell students how to reach support. This is an application of diligence, confidentiality and reliable administration rather than a statutory promise that every absence has the same procedure.
A. Known urgent matters require planning rather than automatic delay.
C. An adviser cannot suspend external legal timelines.
D. Continuity does not justify indiscriminate access.
Approach: Plan coverage, authority, access and communication together.
Answer C: Advance funds and invoicing for delivered services are governed by different safeguards.
Separate receipt from earning and withdrawal. Section 32 regulates advance funds in a client account, including records and invoicing before withdrawal. Section 33 permits invoicing once services are provided or disbursements made. The stem assumes the fee-based work itself is lawful; these provisions do not expand a RISIA's scope.
A. Receiving money does not itself establish that services were provided.
B. The invoice rule does not authorize billing undelivered services as completed.
D. Section 32(c) excludes funds not belonging to a client from the client account.
Approach: Receiving an advance is not the same as earning a fee.
Answer A: Complete the required return, accounting, final invoice and excess-trust refund within the applicable 30-day period.
Identify each closing duty rather than treating closure as one email. Section 36(1) addresses property return, an accounting, a final invoice for services and disbursements, and return of trust funds above the invoiced amount, no later than 30 days after completion or early termination.
B. Client ownership, not the licensee's assessment of usefulness, governs return.
C. Trust funds do not become earned fees merely because a file closes.
D. The duty does not depend on the client noticing the balance.
Approach: Use a closing checklist that separates property and money.
Answer B: The student received the agreed immigration consulting services.
Look at the statutory definition's relationship, not who booked or paid. A person who consults a licensee who provides or agrees to provide immigration consulting services can be a client. Identifying that relationship is the first step before deciding whose instructions and confidential information are involved.
A. Client status does not wait for the immigration outcome.
C. Booking logistics do not alone determine the professional relationship.
D. Conversational preference does not determine who receives professional services.
Approach: Identify the service relationship before assigning rights and duties.
Answer B: Explain that respectful questions are welcome and check the student's own understanding and preferences.
Use the student's own account rather than a group stereotype. Invite questions without demanding confrontation and verify understanding. Cultural sensitivity supports informed participation; it does not change the legal rule or authorize omitting significant risks.
A. Harmony cannot justify withholding information needed for informed choice.
C. Silence may reflect the stated concern rather than understanding or agreement.
D. One person's explanation cannot establish a uniform national characteristic.
Approach: Respond to the person's expressed needs rather than presumed group traits.
Answer D: Ask about barriers, explain deadlines and agree on feasible arrangements.
Separate observed behaviour from its unverified cause. Ask what prevented arrival, explain why particular deadlines matter and identify feasible support. This combines individual respect and effective communication without assuming cultural traits or inventing legal exceptions.
A. The adviser cannot create legal deadline exemptions through an accommodation promise.
B. An inference is not verified merely because it fits a stereotype.
C. That response substitutes prejudice for individual assessment and support.
Approach: Name the observation separately from the explanation you have not verified.
Answer A: Document received; review is pending. Please keep tracking your deadlines.
Describe the completed step and distinguish what has not happened. Receipt, professional review, submission and government approval are different events. A precise message acknowledges progress without creating false certainty or an assumption that deadlines have stopped.
B. Receipt alone does not remove outstanding responsibilities.
C. Office receipt is not a decision by immigration authorities.
D. Sufficiency cannot be confirmed before the assessment described.
Approach: Choose verbs that describe the actual completed event.
Answer A: Explain applicable conditions and offer an individual assessment route.
Replace an unsupported universal claim with a structured rule and a clear limit on general information. Learners should know what facts determine the answer and where to seek individual advice. The goal is understandable accuracy, not maximal detail on one slide.
B. A universal statement remains misleading for the whole audience even if later appointments might correct it.
C. Reported experiences do not establish the operative rule or show that every audience member meets its conditions.
D. An opposite unsupported universal claim is still inaccurate.
Approach: Simplify presentation without erasing decisive conditions.
Question 17 / 50 · Critical thinking and problem solving
Show answer and explanation
Answer B: Enrolment evidence alone does not establish every separate condition.
Break the conclusion into elements. Section 220.1(1) separately addresses enrolment at the named institution and active pursuit, with exceptions in subsection (3). A registration receipt may support one part but leaves other material facts untested. The correct conclusion preserves that uncertainty.
A. An unanswered question is not an established breach.
C. Neither immediate departure nor its legal basis has been established.
D. Evidence for one element cannot automatically prove a different element.
Approach: Ask which element a document proves, and which it does not.
Question 18 / 50 · Critical thinking and problem solving
Show answer and explanation
Answer D: Verify the conflicting dates before giving date-dependent advice.
Identify the uncertainty that matters and the evidence capable of resolving it. Because the date changes the legal pathway, a definitive answer would be premature. Verify the relevant notices or records and protect known deadlines meanwhile; a contradiction alone does not establish intent to deceive.
A. Error, misunderstanding or differing event types may explain the discrepancy.
B. Favourable consequences do not make an unsupported date true.
C. Legal dates are not determined by averaging inconsistent evidence.
Approach: Match confidence to evidence and investigate decisive contradictions.
Answer A: Institutional admission and immigration authorization are separate
A school’s admission decision does not replace the immigration assessment. Applicable permit requirements and any exemption must be considered separately.
Answer C: Actively pursuing the course or program of study
For a holder subject to these conditions, enrolment and actively pursuing studies are distinct requirements. Specific exceptions and authorized circumstances must be checked rather than assumed.
Answer D: Assess dual intent together with the requirement to leave when the authorized stay ends
IRPA recognizes dual intent. A longer-term goal can coexist with temporary residence, but does not remove the requirement to satisfy the officer about leaving when required.
Answer A: Clarify the circumstances and applicable study conditions before recommending a course of action
Academic permission and immigration compliance are separate questions. Individual facts and the applicable conditions are needed before advising on the immigration effect of a leave.
Answer B: Verify the document and current facts, correct the record and assess any time-sensitive action
An inconsistent expiry record can materially affect advice. It should be verified and corrected promptly rather than resolved by choosing the more convenient date.
Answer C: Separate the activities, verify the applicable authorization for each and summarize the next steps
Breaking the problem into distinct authorizations avoids conflating permission to travel, study and work. The adviser should identify scope limits and refer questions outside their authorization.
Answer D: Review the plan in clear language and ask the student to restate the key actions
Checking understanding helps identify a communication gap before it affects the application. The goal is informed participation, not merely obtaining apparent agreement.
Answer B: The effective date and any transitional treatment for that application
Current wording alone may not settle transitional treatment. A careful answer connects the change to the application date and any specific transition rule.
Answer D: Accuracy, currency, applicability to the institution and permission to reuse the material
Changing a logo does not validate advice or establish permission to reproduce a resource. Competent practice verifies the substantive content and respects legal obligations.
Answer A: Coordinate a clear correction with the responsible office and distinguish the two deadlines
A recurring communication problem calls for a coordinated correction at its source. Clear institutional information can prevent repeated individual errors.
Answer B: Explain the limits and propose accurate wording about separate immigration approval
Institutional pressure does not justify inaccurate assurances. The adviser can support the institution by correcting the claim while explaining the separate decision process.
Answer D: Identify the access barrier and coordinate an accessible alternative with appropriate triage
Access improvements should address the actual barrier while preserving confidentiality and sound administration. Sharing credentials or public files creates additional problems.
Answer B: Decline the disclosure and explain the confidentiality boundary
Employment at the same institution does not by itself authorize access to every confidential advising record. Disclosure needs a valid basis and must respect its purpose.
Answer C: The required prompt disclosures and recommendation for independent legal advice
Section 30 addresses an error that may prejudice the client and is not readily correctable. It requires prompt protective steps, including notifying the client, insurer and Registrar.
Answer A: Explore a suitable individual or confidential communication option
An individualized response can address a participation barrier while protecting confidentiality. Discomfort with a group setting should not be equated with unwillingness to cooperate.
Answer B: Check the individual student’s understanding and explain unfamiliar terms
Cultural competence requires attention to the individual rather than a group stereotype. Checking understanding helps avoid errors caused by unfamiliar terminology.
Answer C: Respect the communication preference and separately verify the names required on official documents
Respectful communication and accurate forms can be addressed together. The adviser should clarify the relevant records and requirements without stereotyping the student.
Answer A: Avoid discussing the identifiable case publicly and direct it to an appropriate private advising channel
A public educational session should not become an uncontrolled disclosure of an individual file. Private follow-up allows proper scope, facts and confidentiality checks.
Answer B: Submission, any applicable maintained status and approval are different concepts
A submitted application is not an approval. Whether a person benefits from maintained status depends on the applicable rules and facts, including timing; it should not be assumed from a receipt alone.
Answer D: Ask which rule and source are meant, verify them and explain the effect on this student
The adviser should turn a vague concern into a verifiable question. Neither repeating a rumour nor offering blanket reassurance establishes the applicable rule.
Question 47 / 50 · Critical thinking and problem solving
Show answer and explanation
Answer A: Build a timeline and assess each document against the relevant activity and date
A timeline exposes which facts and authorizations matter at each point. The latest expiry date alone cannot answer distinct questions about travel and study.
Question 48 / 50 · Critical thinking and problem solving
Show answer and explanation
Answer B: Reassess the plan using the verified gap and applicable conditions
A material new fact may change the analysis. Competent advice should be revised when its factual foundation changes, while preserving an accurate record.
Question 49 / 50 · Critical thinking and problem solving
Show answer and explanation
Answer C: Their immigration assessments may differ and require individual verification
A shared program is only one fact. Documents, dates and applicable conditions can produce different assessments, so comparison does not replace individual analysis.
Question 50 / 50 · Critical thinking and problem solving
Show answer and explanation
Answer D: Classify each missed issue by source and explain who has authority over it
The study activity should target the observed distinction. Identifying the source and decision-maker improves application more than answer-letter memorization.
Code sections 22 (communication), 28 (confidentiality) and 30 (errors) Respond to information requests and mistakes without hiding facts or disclosing too broadly.
For each scenario, name the recipient, authority to disclose, minimum necessary information and record of the decision.
