anon123 said:
It looks like C-6 is removing the intent to reside, but still keeping the requirement to remain eligible for citizenship until the oath ceremony. My question is with regards to the Residence Obligation:
- Will a PR fulfill the RO if accompanying a Canadian citizen common law partner while the partner is on a dependent visa? (i.e. the PR is the principal visa holder in a 3rd country and the Canadian citizen is a dependent to the PR?)
- Will the a PR fulfill the RO if accompanying a Canadian citizen common law partner while living in the PR's home country where the Canadian has residency as a common law partner of the PR?
Is it correct to assume that if C-6 passes we can apply "on the way to the airport" and as long as we keep the RO we should be fine? I.e. the "Maintaining requirements for citizenship until Oath taking" does not apply to the 3/5 physical presence requirement?
ZingyDNA said:
My understanding is you have to maintain the citizenship RO, which is 3 out of 5 years in the proposed new law, while your citizenship application is in process. Also the proposed new law will remove the "Intent to reside" clause. So in a sense, you CAN apply on the way to the airport, as long as you come back in 2 years (or less, depending on your physical presence in Canada before the application), if your application hasn't been finished by then.
What is essential was observed by
links18, that the PR applicant must continue to be qualified for citizenship and not have any prohibitions right up to the time the oath is actually taken; this includes not being inadmissible, which mostly means not being reported for a breach of the PR Residency Obligation (inadmissibility for criminality would also entail being prohibited).
But my sense is that the OP's query goes to the larger issue about whether going abroad after applying can affect the applicant's qualification for citizenship
if and when Bill C-6 is adopted and takes effect (assuming it is adopted), since it removes the
intent-to-continue-to-reside-in-Canada requirement.
Discussion about these aspects can be confusing if certain distinctions are blurred.
What has been traditionally known as the
residency requirement for citizenship, is now a strict
physical presence requirement, and will continue to be such if Bill C-6 is adopted (but for different duration, 3/5 rather than 4/6); even when it was a
residency requirement (three years resident in Canada), the primary test was also based on physical presence (3/4 rule).
The PR Residency Obligation (2/5) is totally separate,
except to be qualified for citizenship the applicant must have valid PR status and not be subject to a Removal or Departure Order, so the applicant for citizenship who leaves Canada after applying for citizenship must nonetheless be sure to remain in compliance with the
PR Residency Obligation right up to the time of taking the oath (as observed by others above).
The latter was true under the 3/4 residency rule, is true under the 4/6 presence rule, and will continue to be true if the proposed 3/5 presence rule is adopted.
For citizenship presence requirements, only a very narrow class of individuals get credit toward presence in Canada while outside Canada.
For the PR RO, there are exceptions for PRs accompanying a Canadian citizen partner (in a qualified relationship) and a more limited one for PRs on temporary assignment abroad for a Canadian business. These exceptions do not apply toward meeting the citizenship presence requirements. But they nonetheless do count toward the citizenship-applicant continuing to be in compliance with the PR RO.
Thus, the answer to one aspect of the OP's query is that is yes, a PR abroad accompanying a Canadian citizen partner (cohabiting in qualified relationship) is entitled to credit toward being in compliance with the PR RO, and thus remains qualified (as a PR with valid PR status) despite being abroad while the application is in process.
The intent-to-reside aspect:
The other aspect of the OP's query (as I read it) is about any effect removing the
intent-to-reside will have.
This tends to slip into more muddy waters since the
intent-to-reside provision invariably invites discussion of policies or practices intended to discourage or preclude granting citizenship to those who are seeking a so-called
passport of convenience or who have sometimes been described as
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport.
To be clear:
-- no provision, under the old law, the current law, or the proposed law, specifically disqualifies any applicant on the grounds he or she is seeking a
passport of convenience
-- no provision, under the old law, the current law, or the proposed law, specifically disqualifies any applicant on the grounds he or she
applied-on-the-way-to-the-airport
-- seeking a
passport of convenience or
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport has
NO direct effect in the calculation of presence (whether the relevant period is that currently prescribed, 6 years, or was the 4 years under the old law, or the 5 years as it will be if the proposed changes take effect)
However, under the old law (3/4 rule), at least while Diane Finley, Jason Kenney, and Chris Alexander were the Ministers of CIC, CIC scrutinized applicants for indications they were seeking a so-called
passport of convenience or perceived to be
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport, and tended to target these applicants for RQ, elevated skepticism, and sometimes long delays (which some perceived to be deliberate efforts to allow the applicant to fall into breach of the PR RO before the process was completed). So there was
NO overt disqualification related to seeking a
passport of convenience or
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport, but CIC did plenty to discourage or obstruct the path to citizenship for such persons.
Technically the adoption of the
intent-to-reside requirement did not change the above substantively, except it was obvious that the Conservatives adopted this requirement in order to give CIC more tools, if not teeth, to better discourage or preclude the path to citizenship for those seeking a
passport of convenience or
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport. In particular, under current law the applicant who moves abroad while the application is pending
logically cannot have the requisite intent to
continue to reside in Canada, since logically a person cannot intend to
continue to do something unless he is currently doing that thing (that is, a person cannot logically intend to continue to reside in Canada unless he is currently residing in Canada). Whether or not the current IRCC would pursue enforcement of the intent requirement, under current law, in such a way as to identify those who are residing abroad and move to summarily deny their applications, is unknown. My guess is that it might depend on how blatant the move abroad is, but the current IRCC might only be enforcing the requirement to the extent that the applicant must affirm this intent (it is still required in the citizenship application).
It is perhaps an easy observation that CIC under the Conservatives was far, far more focused on discouraging if not overtly obstructing those seeking a
passport of convenience or
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport, and that under Minister McCallum's leadership IRCC is, perhaps, not so concerned about this issue.
I would not interpret this, however, to signal a license to apply-on-the-way-to-the-airport or otherwise boldly and blatantly be seeking a passport of convenience.
Again, technically neither of these directly disqualifies the applicant. It has long been about the extent to which the government screens and scrutinizes and imposes questionnaires and otherwise demands proof sufficient to show physical presence. And the extent to which the appearance of seeking a
passport of convenience or
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport might elevate that scrutiny.
Which leads back to an observation I have repeated a few times: the initial introduction of screening designed to identify applicants living abroad while the application is pending was done under Liberal leadership back in 2005. There was nothing then which disqualified an applicant due to living abroad. Living abroad could
not figure into the calculation of physical presence during the relevant four years. But it was nonetheless identified then, by CIC under Liberal leadership, as a
reason-to-question-residency, meaning as a reason to issue RQ and potentially require a hearing with a Citizenship Judge.
Thus, this has mostly been a long way of saying: just because nothing specifically prohibits a person from seeking a
passport of convenience or
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport does not mean such applicants will not be subject to elevated scrutiny and more strict demands of proof, regardless of the new law. I doubt that Minister McCallum means to signal that Canada welcomes those who are seeking a
passport of convenience or
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport. Rather, the current government's objective is to eliminate unnecessary and unfair burdens imposed on qualified PRs, and better facilitate the path to citizenship for those who are qualified and deserving. I would guess that those who attempt to take undeserving advantage of this do so at some risk.
In the meantime, there is nothing in the proposed law which will mitigate the currently fairly harsh provisions and policies regarding abandonment, so that is one of the ways in which those who move abroad could face risks, if they fail to timely respond to requests or to appear when scheduled. Under current policy (which appears to be continuing despite change in government), missing the test twice or missing the oath once due to being abroad typically results in terminating the application as deemed to be abandoned.
