From chibiks:
. . . using USA employment offer for urgent processing . . . can CIC deny me citizenship for this?
my understanding is if you applied before March 2015, then no, it wont count against you; but if you applied after March 2015, then applying for work in America can be used against you. Right?
I guess there is a risk that the officer wont remember this distinction and then deny me?
There will be no urgent processing based on a U.S. job offer. That should be obvious.
For an applicant who made a pre-June-11-2015 application, leaving Canada or planning to leave Canada while the application is pending does not disqualify the applicant for citizenship.
Applicant must continue to meet the PR Residency Obligation however.
That said, if CIC is aware the applicant has moved abroad or is spending a lot of time abroad, it appears that CIC will elevate the nature and extent of scrutiny, be more likely to impose RQ, and otherwise make inquiries that can delay processing. That is, CIC could dig deeper and look more closely for reasons to reject the application, and in the past has appeared to sometimes delay processing of such applicants for very long periods of time (some for years). See topics discussing leaving Canada after applying.
If CIC is aware of the applicant's plan to leave Canada soon, I am not sure that would have the same effect. Perhaps. There should be no question which would require an applicant (still talking about a pre-June application) to divulge such plans and it would be foolish to voluntarily inform CIC of this intent or such plans.
I am confident that CIC personnel handling citizenship applications, including interviewers and officers, will be fully cognizant of and applying the rules consistent with those applicable to the application, that is that CIC will not mix up rules which should only apply to post-June-11 applications.
All that said, no advanced degrees in engineering necessary to recognize that if CIC is aware the pre-June applicant plans to be moving abroad, taking a job abroad, that is likely to trigger elevated scrutiny and perhaps even a concerted investigation aimed at finding a reason to reject.