I can see that, but the counter argument is seeing quite a few of us are stuck at security checks for who knows what reason, why would IRCC voluntarily expedite processing for jobs requiring really high security clearance?
Please advise..best option for my spouse
- Thread starter moonlightshadow
- Start date
Because the government wants to hire those people? And IRCC is part of government?
Keep in mind two separate points: expediting citizenship generally - not that controversial for those in situation I've described, some of whom may already have the necessary security clearance. For those, the security part of the prohibitions may be easy (there are other parts of prohibitions that may or may not be). (Even if they don't currently have a security clearance, renewing a previous one or having been through processes before may make it faster). Or they have gone through security clearance part, or lower level security clearances, etc - enough to get the job offer - and citizenship is the issue, a condition of employment.
Then there's general "please expedite" for those who are hung up in security/prohibitions, and have no previous security clearances or the like with government. And they are mostly just in the general queue for security checks and most of it is waiting. (Or it really is slow because of other reasons). Does IRCC 'agreeing' to expedite have any influence over some other agency (RCMP/CSIS) when no government agency has any direct interest in it, beyond the loose humanitarian? I don't know. Maybe they send an email. Maybe nobody reads that email.
Difference between the two? In the first instance, possibly something from other agency (like military) supporting it and requesting of IRCC. Second case: IRCC technically could ask, but are they motivated to? (Do they want to avoid any implication that a shortcut be taken on security clearances? yes, always).
Anyway - speculation even if somewhat informed speculation. Want to ask them to expedite? Go ahead.
Your initial query is well addressed in responses by @wilson and @Seym
In similar situations many applicants elect to use the Canadian address of trusted family or friends, and so long as the applicant will actually, for sure, get notices or requests sent by IRCC, and get them promptly, this can work, and so far as what is seen in anecdotal reporting this typically appears to work.
Moreover, this is more likely to work these days given that most communication can be done via email rather than paper mail. So for purposes of communicating with IRCC, what is given as a home address often or even usually does not matter.
That said . . . that comes with caveats leading to . . .
Further, Longer Observations:
A common reason why many applicants in this situation use the Canadian address of trusted family or friends is the apprehension that giving IRCC information about living abroad increases the risk of non-routine processing and delays. (This is not to say that if IRCC is aware the applicant is living abroad that will always trigger non-routine processing, but it can and it is readily apparent it has for more than a few; calculating the risk is difficult.)
It appears you are aware that approach is not, however, risk-free. For one rather sticky thing, applicants are required to notify IRCC of any changes in the information they have given in the application, and applicants must agree to do this to make the citizenship application. Thus, if the applicant's "home address" changes, the applicant is obligated to notify IRCC of that change. Failure to do so could constitute misrepresentation by omission. Giving IRCC a "home address" that is not actually where the applicant lives, that is an address that is not actually the applicant's "home address," is overt misrepresentation.
That said, fudging home address information is common and it appears to often work. It is probably the most common form of misrepresentation. There are many who have no qualms about fudging home address information, and there are even some who are likely to insist there is nothing wrong with giving IRCC a home address that is not where they are actually residing.
However, I do not recommend it. My view is that honesty is the best policy when dealing with Canadian immigration authorities (with some exceptions, since real life can be messy and most of us have excuses, but that's a personal choice regarding which one should be aware of the risks and other downsides). Make no mistake, there is a real difference in using someone else's address in dealing with IRCC compared to dealing with a bank, even though as a practical matter it might end up making no difference. (Getting-away-with-it is not confirmation it is OK let alone that it is proper.)
So . . . securing "normal" processing . . . as I noted, your initial query is well addressed in responses by @wilson and @Seym and I would just add that if the objective is to maximize the odds of "normal" processing, that is, as you have framed it, "trying to secure as much as possible 'normal' processing," it warrants emphasizing that for qualified applicants who apply with a decent buffer and who have accurately and completely provided the information requested in the application, odds are very good the application gets "normal" processing.
Those very good odds continue so long as there is nothing that happens to change the situation, and the applicant timely and properly responds to notices or requests, which mostly means showing up for and passing the knowledge of Canada test (showing up made rather easy these days given online testing), and showing up for an in-person interview if requested, as well as for the oath of course. Obviously, making sure that IRCC has contact information that will best assure notices and requests are timely received is important.
Among potential changes in the situation, ordinarily a change of address should have little or no negative impact on processing. The extent to which a change of address to outside Canada increases the risk of non-routine processing is a complicated subject. It is not prohibited. Living outside Canada after applying does not disqualify the applicant. It can, nonetheless, have an impact that potentially includes some delay or even a relatively lengthy delay. Again, how and why is complicated.
There are numerous discussions in the forum about this subject, the impact of going abroad for an extended time after applying. What seems to be often overlooked is that personal circumstances will have a lot of influence on how things go. There is likely to be a big difference in impact if the applicant is relocating with a Canadian citizen spouse and to a location for which an unplanned trip to Canada is not a problem, versus an applicant moving abroad with a non-Canadian spouse to the spouse's home country and a location for which it may be difficult to quickly travel to Canada. That's just one among various other potentially complicating factors.
Leading to priorities . . . a personal choice:
Many decisions we make depend on personal priorities. If maximizing the odds of avoiding non-routine processing is the main priority, staying in Canada may be the better route. If pursuing this opportunity and keeping the family together is the priority, that probably leans in favour of going abroad and accepting a higher risk of non-routine processing and some delays in getting to the oath.
There is no way to guarantee routine or "normal" processing. Any applicant can encounter non-routine processing; it can happen for many, many different reasons.
Meanwhile, ignore or forget the urgent processing proposition.
It does not appear you are considering the idea of requesting urgent processing. Makes sense. Good idea.
Thank you so very much for expanding on this and such detailed answer ; this is precious for us to make an informed decision.
