Foremost, the timing of Decision Made most likely indicates a positive decision and as others have observed means all is well, just waiting for the oath to be scheduled. Not a guarantee but close to for-sure. Subject, of course, to intervening events (an arrest in the meantime, for example, would prohibit the grant of citizenship).
Reminder: the timeline from DM to oath varies, and can vary considerably even if there is not the slightest hint of an issue. Two to six months is common. Longer happens. A DM at this stage signals NO WORRIES at all, just a matter of watching for notice of when to appear for an oath ceremony.
Impact of Residency in Another Country:
The OP indicates (as I quote above), there was a CONCERN expressed during the interview, and this "concern" had to do with the applicant still having residency status in another country. I interpret this concern to be what you reference as "this" in stating "There is absolutely no legal reason why this should be a problem."
On the CONTRARY, residency status in another country can be perceived to indicate the applicant may have been outside Canada more than reported. When IRCC identifies a risk indicator, such as this, it is not merely legal for IRCC to more closely scrutinize the applicant's presence declaration, IRCC has a MANDATE to more closely assess the facts (a mandate to enforce the legal requirements for granting citizenship), AND THUS IT MIGHT BE ILLEGAL FOR IRCC TO IGNORE THIS REASON FOR ELEVATED SCRUTINY.
Thus, for example, continuing to have residency status in another country might trigger a request for further information and documentation to prove actual physical presence in Canada, such as issuing the applicant CIT 0520 (which can include, for example, a request for Exit/Entry Records from other countries, and in circumstances such as this would likely request Exit/Entry Records from the country in which the applicant continued to have residency status), or the full blown RQ CIT 0171 (which requires an applicant to provide extensive personal information and documentation). Most applicants consider getting CIT 0520, and especially CIT 0171, a "PROBLEM," and either of these can result in a significantly longer processing time; while RQ does not always result in a much longer processing timeline, it can result in a much, much longer timeline (in the past it has often added 8 months to a year, and in the 2010 to 2013 period many who were RQ'd saw timelines as much as two or even three years longer than the routine timeline . . . which, again, most consider to be a "problem").
This is NOT about intent to reside in Canada in the future. It is about whether the applicant resided and was physically present during the eligibility period, about evidence and information which constitutes a reason to more closely examine the applicant's case and determine whether the applicant should be required to provide more evidence, more proof, he or she was physically present in Canada.
In the OP's situation, given the timing of residency in the other country having been prior to coming to and settling in Canada, it is a little surprising the interviewer focused much on it. Obviously, residency status in another country which has been obtained SINCE becoming a PR, and the more recently the more so, is a much stronger indicator the applicant may have been residing in that country more than reported in the presence calculator. Thus, it is NO SURPRISE that in the OP's case there was a positive (most likely) Decision Made not so long after the interview. In contrast, where an applicant obtains a U.S. Green Card AFTER becoming a PR, that is more likely to raise a serious concern, and depending on the particular facts of the case, raises the risk of getting RQ by a lot. Which, again, most would consider to be a "problem."
BIG CLUE AS TO RELEVANCY OF OTHER COUNTRY RESIDENCY STATUS: The applicant is specifically required to disclose any and all such status in the application itself.
This fails to distinguish between what could possibly indicate reasons to question the physical presence declared by the applicant versus the requirements for citizenship.
'Intent to reside' is NOT a citizenship requirement:
It is correct that there is no "intent to reside" requirement to be granted citizenship. It would unreasonable (not "illegal") for a Citizenship Officer to deny a grant of citizenship because the officer perceives the applicant does not intend to reside in Canada. Such a decision would almost certainly qualify for leave to obtain judicial review and upon being reviewed by the Federal Court set aside.
The odds of any Citizenship Officer making such a decision, for the explicit reason that the applicant has no intent to reside in Canada, is remote.
However, the odds of an obvious intent to NOT reside in Canada having a NEGATIVE impact on processing, causing a "PROBLEM," is actually fairly high. Depending on the actual facts in the particular case of course.
In particular, 'intent to reside' may, however, be relevant:
It is NOT correct, however, that it would be illegal or wrongful or even unreasonable for a processing agent, Citizenship Officer, or a Citizenship Judge, to "look" at an applicant's intent in assessing the information the applicant has provided. A person's motive is always a consideration when weighing evidence provided by that individual.
Note, for example, the perception an applicant was "applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport" has long been a RISK INDICATOR, a "reason-to-question" residency (presence). A full decade before the Harper government implemented the (since repealed) 'intent-to-continue-residing-in-Canada' requirement (in June 2015, repealed as of June 2017), this was explicitly incorporated into guidelines for assessing residency (for example, passport stamps indicating return to Canada in time to take test).
Similar to the situation described above, where an applicant has residency status in another country, this is about a concern as to the veracity of the applicant's declared presence in Canada, a reason to more closely evaluate the evidence of presence, and potentially a reason to issue RQ related requests, be that RQ-lite (CIT 0520) or full-blown RQ (CIT 0171).
After all, where a person wants to live, and especially where a person intends to live, has relevance when assessing evidence about where the person has been living.
This tends to have a bigger impact in cases where the applicant applied with a somewhat small margin over the minimum, there are other clues the applicant may have omitted some time abroad, and has left Canada to live elsewhere soon after applying. Technically, if the applicant met the qualifications as of the day the application was made, leaving Canada after applying does NOT in any way disqualify the applicant from a grant of citizenship. BUT it does invite IRCC to take a closer look, to make sure the presence requirement was actually met, meaning potentially RQ and possibly a much longer timeline.
And, potentially more skepticism in weighing the applicant's evidence of presence.
Leading to observations I have oft addressed, many times in depth, about the difference between a routinely processed application (the vast, vast majority of applicants) versus an applicant whose actual physical presence (APP) is questioned, relating to a huge, huge inference which the vast majority of applicants benefit from:
Inference of being present in Canada between a date-of-entry and next-reported-date-of-exit. Most applicants tend to take this inference for granted. Indeed, the physical presence calculator operates based on this inference: it counts all the days between a reported entry date and the next reported date of exit as days physically present in Canada. Applicants must further detail their address and work history to support this inference, and are subject to answering questions in the PI interview which may further probe the veracity of the applicant's APP declaration along with the address and work history. BUT ultimately, for the vast, vast majority of applicants, the processing agent and then the Citizenship Officer, will make a decision which relies on the inference the applicant was physically present in Canada all those days between a reported entry date and next reported exit.
If and when a processing agent, or a Citizenship Officer, sees some reason to not rely on this inference, some reason to question the possibility the applicant (some how, regardless of how) was outside Canada more than reported, that triggers elevated scrutiny. That can be a problem. This can go so far as to severely limit reliance on the inference of presence between entry and next exit dates. A real problem.
Last edited:
