Not sure why you persist in referencing "travel" abroad concurrent with issues related to moving or living abroad.
As I have said, with emphasis, there is NO increased risk of RQ for those who "travel abroad" after applying.
Living abroad after applying, that is different, totally different.
The observation that living abroad (not merely traveling abroad) increases the "chance" or RISK of RQ-related non-routine processing is NOT based merely on anecdotal reports in this forum. FAR from it. Indeed, as I rather emphatically noted in my posts above, among various additional considerations supporting that inference, including accounts of actual cases discussed in Federal Court decisions, the HISTORY LOOMS LARGE.
Let's be clear: the ONLY PUBLICLY KNOWN, PUBLISHED CRITERIA for questioning an applicant's residency or presence, specifically made indications of living abroad not merely a risk factor but by itself constituted a reason-to-question-residency. There is reason to infer, despite the criteria now being secret, that is no longer the Hard-Trigger for RQ it was then.
Nonetheless, however, there is NO evidence it has been totally eliminated as a factor. And more than enough reason to infer it continues to be a RISK factor.
I am not interested in changing your mind. If you sincerely believe that living abroad after applying for citizenship will NOT increase an applicant's RISK, you are certainly free to make decisions for yourself accordingly.
If and when you assert in this forum, to others, that there is no reason to apprehend that moving abroad will increase their risk of RQ, that should, and ordinarily will generate some push-back, a WARNING to the contrary. For good reasons.
As noted before, if you believe that living abroad after applying SHOULD NOT be considered, SHOULD NOT increase the RISK of RQ-related non-routine processing, that is a separate matter. That's about How-it-should-be.
I focus on how things actually work, recognizing that where secret criteria are involved we are limited to how things APPEAR to actually work. In this context, it still appears that moving abroad after applying will increase the RISK of RQ-related non-routine processing. This is about How-it-is. As best we can discern.
Note, at the time that was NOT merely a "risk" factor. That was specific criteria for questioning the applicant's residency.
But it was not the "stamp" in the passport that triggered RQ. It appears you confuse what led the government to perceive the applicant to be living abroad, the "stamp," for what was then the RQ trigger: the appearance of living abroad after applying. This may still be a trigger (we do not know for sure because the criteria for triggering RQ is secret), but we can easily, confidently, apprehend it is at least still a RISK factor.
Again, the specific RQ-triggers, often referred to as "reasons-to-question-residency," specifically referred to as the "triage criteria" subsequent to the implementation of OB-407 in 2012, are now confidential, meaning secret. The last for-sure version included indications of living abroad as a RQ-trigger.
Is there reason to believe that the current criteria employed has dropped this RQ-trigger? None suggesting it has been totally dropped.
But we do know, from a range of ATI request responses obtained after OB-407 was implemented (we only know of OB-407 because of ATI requests; it was not openly published or available to the public; and what was obtained through ATI requests, much of it shared in this and other forums, was heavily redacted, including the "triage criteria"), that many of the criteria employed to identify who would be issued RQ were modified, not eliminated so much as amended, amended to be considered as factors in conjunction with other information. Thus, for example, over time we learned that what had been a more or less Hard-trigger, things which for a time outright triggered the issuance of RQ, no longer triggered, not by themselves, RQ . . . but were still factors considered.
Some examples --
-- recently issued identification --
-- -- An early version of the triage criteria in the initial roll out of OB-407 included recently issued identification (a leaked File Requirements Checklist, shared here and in other forums, revealed this); thus, RQ was triggered if the applicant's identification was recently issued (I forget how recent, whether it was within two or three or four months). Not as a risk factor. But a hard trigger. If the applicant submitted a driver's license which had been issued within the criteria time frame, that alone automatically triggered RQ.
-- -- Later, ATI responses included internal CIC memos revealing that this was amended sometime in early 2013. Sorting through the redacted memos, it was clear that rather than a hard-trigger for RQ, this became a consideration with other factors . . . that is, a RISK-factor. That is, in 2012, for sure, a recently issued identification triggered RQ. By sometime in 2013, this would not necessarily trigger RQ but was a factor that in conjunction with others might; that is, it became a risk factor rather than a hard trigger.
-- self-employment --
-- -- The early version of the OB-407 triage criteria included self-employment (and periods of unemployment and employment as a "consultant") as a hard-trigger for RQ. If the applicant listed self-employment in the work history, that automatically triggered RQ. Here too, by sometime in 2013, between the ATI responses and other sources, it was apparent CIC had amended this and it too was no longer a hard-trigger . . . but quite likely still a RISK factor.
We do not know to what extent either of these are currently risk factors.
IN THE MEANTIME . . . CIC/IRCC implemented a variety of RQ-related requests for obtaining additional information or documentation, from some applicants, that is well-short of the full blown RQ. These range from simple requests for particular documents, like a record of movement from another country, to the CIT 0520, known as RQ-lite. That is, it is clear that from around 2013 to the present, CIC/IRCC has adopted a more flexible approach . . . and while the criteria employed for identifying who is subject to this or that RQ-related, non-routine request, continues to be secret, it readily appears IRCC now approaches this very much on a case-by-case basis, considering various factors, and doing so in conjunction with other factors (all still secret, but many easily inferred . . . discrepancies in reported travel history for example).
Who is issued any RQ-related non-routine request now appears to be a judgment call. Less about automatic triggers on a checklist.
Which brings this back to the old checklists. There were reasons why the specific items were included. Some of this is revealed in internal CIC memos obtained by ATI requests. Recently issued identification, for example, was considered enough an indicator the applicant may have been outside Canada before obtaining the identification to warrant RQ even though many (probably most) of those submitting recently issued identification were simply renewing their drivers' license or had simply moved between provinces. Good reasons to NOT include this as a trigger, but nonetheless probably still considered in conjunction with other information, and perhaps still a RISK factor.
Likewise, there were reasons why where the applicant was living AFTER applying was on the last publicly disclosed version of the checklist. This gets into the WHY question, tangled with the SHOULD it be question. As noted before, the WHAT-it-IS question is complicated enough, and to my view that is what is important to share here, so those trying to find out information that will help them make the decisions (like whether to move abroad soon or wait until after the oath) which could affect how things go for them. Years ago I engaged in discussions about the WHY. Perhaps more so in another forum rather than this one (been following and writing about this stuff for more than a dozen years, moderated one of these forums for several years, but I do not have an index of subjects discussed). Those discussions are still accessible, here and in other forums, for anyone actually interested in exploring the WHY. But yes, there are rational reasons why.
Apart from the rational reasons why, there is the influence of extensive, widespread prejudice. A lot of Canadians tend to have the hair on the back of their neck rise when they apprehend the government might be granting citizenship to those applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport. More than a few of them work in IRCC.
