The subject here really is not about where an applicant intends to reside. There is
NO intent-to-reside-in-Canada requirement.
Intent is NOT an issue.
Living abroad before taking the oath, however, at the very least risks some problems, ranging from non-routine processing to potentially full blown RQ, and all the delays and inconvenience that process entails. In addition, there are inherent logistical difficulties facing the applicant living abroad (not the least of which is being able to timely obtain and act on short-notice to attend an event, especially the oath since failure to show for the oath is a sufficient basis for closing the application, no citizenship granted).
That said, living abroad while the application is in process is
NOT disqualifying.
Nonetheless, and contrary to protests otherwise, there are legitimate reasons why such applicants are more likely to encounter elevated scrutiny and non-routine processing, and perhaps having their qualifications challenged.
Which leads to this:
I will satisfy all the criteria to apply for Canadian citizenship and can prove it without any ambiguity or doubt.
Many seem to overlook the huge, huge difference between being able to prove meeting the requirements for citizenship, versus having to actually prove meeting the requirements.
Make no mistake: the vast, vast majority of applicants will want to avoid, as best they can, having to actually prove their qualification for citizenship.
On the other hand, being able to prove meeting the qualifications is an important consideration in determining when it is time to apply for citizenship. It would be risky to apply unless one can in fact prove it. All applicants need to be able to prove their qualification for citizenship.
Prepare for the worst. Hope for the best. And in regards to applying for citizenship, make an effort to submit an application more likely to sail smoothly through.
In any event, beyond the procedural, logistical hassle and time it takes to prove one's case, not to mention the profound intrusion into one's privacy that would involve,
actually proving it is not so easy as most might think. Many if not most take for granted the presumptions and inferences that work in the routine applicant's favour. The presence calculator, for example, explicitly works on the premise that all days in-between an applicant's reported date of entry into Canada, and next reported date of exit, are days present in Canada. If IRCC perceives a reason to question the applicant's actual presence, that premise carries far less weight, and even to that lessened extent only if there is direct evidence of presence in-between those dates.
Proving presence for all the days in-between days for which the applicant can submit overt, objective, direct documentation showing presence, can be more or less daunting depending on the nature and scope of IRCC's concerns and doubts and challenges.
I honestly don't see how asking about intent to reside or to query time spent abroad is relevant if one satisfies all of the application criteria.
I mean what's next? "you didn't smile at me or laugh at my bad joke, delayed 10 months!", it doesn't make sense to me, they are professionals, in fact if anything they might use those tactics to encourage you to get nervous or catch yourself in a lie, then you really are in trouble.
This demands some breaking down. There is no equivalency between the non-relevance of intent to reside versus the relevance of querying time spent abroad while the application is in process.
(Obviously, querying about time spent abroad during the previous 5 or 6 years (depending on when the application is made) is directly relevant, and material, and a part of the calculation of total presence in Canada.)
So, let's clear the table of this part:
"I honestly don't see how asking about intent to reside . . . is relevant if one satisfies all of the application criteria."
As noted before, the issue is not about intent, not about some future plans. There is NO intent-to-reside-in-Canada requirement. Officially, legally, it is as if there
never was an
intent-to-reside requirement. Practically there is minimal indication the previous
intent-to-reside-in-Canada requirement was much enforced, even when it was a statutory requirement, beyond the applicant having to affirm such intent in the application form itself.
It would be easy to slip further into the weeds about the possibility, a rather remote possibility, that an interviewer could ask about the applicant's future plans, about the applicant's intentions
vis-à-vis living abroad or in Canada, but that would be a less-than-helpful distraction. Such questions could be asked, sure, but expressing an intent to reside abroad
cannot and will not be a basis for denying a grant of citizenship to someone otherwise qualified.
If there is a problem, there will be other reasons for the problem.
The real crux of the query:
"I honestly don't see how . . . [a query about] time spent abroad is relevant if one satisfies all of the application criteria."
A little word looms very, very large here.
"IF!" If the applicant is qualified.
Frankly, perhaps it is indeed a bit naïve to just assume that IRCC knows the applicant meets the qualifications because the applicant knows he or she met the qualifications. That is not how it works.
Turn it around.
If IRCC has determined (concluded) the applicant met all the requirements for citizenship, is the time spent abroad (while the application is pending) relevant?"
No. It is not. Easy answer. Living abroad while the application is pending does
NOT disqualify the applicant.
But in the meantime, if the applicant is living abroad while the application is pending (if the applicant is employed abroad, if the applicant has business abroad), it is reasonable for IRCC to make inquiries into the accuracy of the applicant's
claims about meeting the requirements.
That is, it is not so much about the time spent abroad itself, but rather that living abroad (actually any continuing strong residential or employment ties abroad) is a reason for IRCC to at least make further inquiries to make sure the applicant's claims about time in Canada are verified.
Citizenship application processing is NOT a gotcha-game. With some exceptions (as to be expected), IRCC interviewers and officers are ordinarily professional and straight-forward with clients. There are no more than rare reports of even discourteous let alone abusive interviewers. The vast, vast majority of reports describe the interview as a perfunctory fact-focused exchange.
But sure, if the interviewer perceives the applicant is not living in Canada, some elevated scrutiny should be anticipated.
I mean what's next? "you didn't smile at me or laugh at my bad joke, delayed 10 months!"
Make no mistake, an individual's demeanor, including body language and facial expressions, inflections in voice, even the timing of responses, are always a factor in just about any person-to-person interview (from job interviews to CBSA PoE examinations, and IRCC interviews). There are legitimate reasons why there is a preference for in-person interviews, and why fair procedure ordinarily requires formal decisions be made by the same person who conducted the hearing, even though a transcript would sufficiently reveal the content of all questions and answers.
Of course this is not at all about punitive measures for failing to smile or laugh. It is about assessing intangible factors, screening applicants for signs of disingenuousness or outright deception, evasiveness or manipulation. It can be as simple as discerning how comfortable and familiar the individual is with recounting facts related to information in the application.
It is about discerning whether there may be a reason to probe more thoroughly, to perhaps issue RQ and require the applicant to actually prove he or she did indeed meet the requirements for citizenship.
Overall:
The range of what is relevant is wide, wide, wide. After all, any information which will bear on the applicant's credibility is relevant.
How this or that is relevant, what it means relative to assessing qualifications, varies widely. There is a difference, for example, between what is part of the calculation of days present, and what is relevant for the purpose of evaluating the credibility of the applicant's declarations as to dates present and absent.
Indications of living abroad while the application is pending has been, in the past (going back at least a decade prior to the implementation of an intent to reside requirement), an explicit
risk indicator or reason-to-question-presence.
Thus, apart from and in addition to the logistical difficulties inherently facing the applicant who is living abroad while the application is pending, such an applicant should be aware that this is indeed a circumstance quite likely to trigger elevated scrutiny, potentially full blown RQ, and all the hassles and delay that includes.
That's IRCC's job. To screen citizenship applicants. To verify the facts. To put the applicant to the test, to the need to prove qualification if there is any reason to question the applicant's claims.
And if and when it comes to RQ, being able to prove presence is one thing. Actually proving it is quite another.
