Many in this forum suggest that a week buffer (seven or so days) is good. My view is that, if possible, PRs should have at least a full month extra in days credited toward meeting the 1095 days in five year requirement. This has been discussed in depth often and in many other topics. This is largely about avoiding or minimizing the inconvenience and risks associated with non-routine RQ-related processing . . . after all, if the applicant accurately completes the actual physical presence calculation and has 1095 or more days credit, and can prove it, that is enough to qualify and be granted citizenship (assuming all other requirements are met).
More than a few applicants would be prudent to wait EVEN LONGER than a month. (Been there, done that, although in my situation there were some rather obvious reasons for doing so, and I actually waited a full extra year plus some.)
It is probably prudent for a PR planning to move outside Canada after applying to seriously consider padding the buffer considerably. That is, to wait longer and have even more than a month extra buffer. That said, it will also be prudent to not wait so long that the applicant blatantly appears to be among those likely perceived to be
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport.
There is no law or rule against
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport, or otherwise living outside Canada while the citizenship application is pending. There is NO required "
intent to reside" in Canada, as such.
BUT those in this forum suggesting that this means there are no negatives, no downsides, little or no risk for such applicants, are very much mistaken and overlooking the REAL RISKS involved.
To be clear: there are RISKS involved when a citizenship applicant moves abroad (or travels abroad for an extended period) pending processing the application. The extent of the risk for your spouse is probably attenuated by some of your circumstances, such as your Canadian citizenship for example.
In any event, leaving Canada after applying is also a subject that has been discussed often and in many other topics. Views about this vary even more widely than views about how much buffer is wise. Moreover, a lot of the discussion about this tends to conflate "traveling" abroad and moving abroad to live or work; they are not the same. Like many subjects discussed in this forum, in regards to this there also tends to be quite a lot of conflating what the law ALLOWS with how it works relative to particular situations. The details can matter.
But nonetheless, again, there are RISKS involved when a citizenship applicant moves abroad (or travels abroad for an extended period). The law and rules do NOT prohibit moving abroad. So, the fact that a citizenship applicant has left Canada after applying is not, not in itself, a reason to deny the application.
There are, at the very least:
-- logistical risks; missing scheduled events or failing to timely respond to requests from IRCC (notices for scheduled events, in particular, can tend to be rather short)
-- non-routine processing risks related to questions about meeting the actual physical presence requirement (RQ-related requests, even full blown RQ)
Both sorts of risks can be reduced or to a significant extent managed. The logistical risks depend a lot on where the applicant moves to and how easily the applicant can travel to Canada on short notice. The risks related to non-routine RQ-related processing can range from a minor inconvenience and short delays, to major inconvenience and lengthy delays, or in some cases pose a risk the application is denied such as where proving actual physical presence might become problematic. In regards to the risk of RQ-related non-routine processing, this may be reduced by applying with a bigger margin over the minimum, and is likely also reduced by factors such as moving abroad accompanying a citizen spouse.
I do not intend to summarize or revisit the full range of issues, questions, concerns, and potential twists and turns, that may be relevant for the applicant anticipating moving abroad after applying. Again, this is a subject widely discussed in numerous topics. Moreover, after all, how it goes for any individual applicant will vary considerably depending on many other factors in addition to the matter of living abroad while the application is pending.
Indeed, in the circumstances you describe, absent some other factor raising the risks,
your spouse's risks may be near the lower end of the range.
But I think the "
intent to reside" in Canada issue warrants some further clarification for others.
Intent to Reside in Canada:
An "
intent to reside in Canada" is NOT a requirement for a grant of Canadian citizenship.
That does NOT mean it is irrelevant. This is one of those matters regarding which the forum discussion tends to rather badly fail to recognize the difference between what the law ALLOWS and what can nonetheless influence how things go.
I have already mentioned applicants who might be perceived to be
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport. This does not seem to be as profoundly negative as it was in the past but there is no doubt that many, probably a large majority of Canadians, harbour a negative view about such applicants, which can and probably does affect how they feel about some of those applying for citizenship. IRCC officials, including Citizenship Officers, are Canadians. While allowing biases to influence their decision making is discouraged, only a fool fails to recognize that an applicant perceived to be
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport is, at the least, at RISK of a total stranger bureaucrat deciding to more thoroughly scrutinize such an applicant's case, meaning at higher RISK for encountering RQ-related non-routine processing.
There are more than a few who would argue this is unfair, since an intent to reside in Canada is not required, and since the intent of the law governing the grant of naturalized citizenship itself does not specifically involve a
to-live-in-Canada purpose. They MISS the point. A couple points actually.
A big one is that suspicions about such applicants is real. As simple as that. And it is in significant part due to the fact that a majority of Canadians very likely do NOT consider this to be unfair. They may not articulate good reasons why. More than a few may harbour this view due to xenophobia. BUT it is probable most simply apprehend that those who do not intend to reside in Canada do not deserve to be granted citizenship (indeed, for a short period of time there was an "intent to reside" requirement, pursuant to which just living abroad while the application was pending was a basis for denying the application, even if the applicant had an intent to return to Canada to live). And many likely apprehend that there is good reason to be suspicious of such applicants, apprehending the prospect that such applicants are exploiting or otherwise gaming the Canadian immigration system.
To understand the latter, it might help to recognize that the purpose for granting PR status is explicitly so that the individual can settle and live in Canada PERMANENTLY. A PR can maintain PR status, continue to be a PR, even if the PR is living abroad. The law ALLOWS this, it ALLOWS PRs to live abroad. BUT that does not change or diminish the purpose for the grant of PR status, which again is so the individual can settle and live in Canada PERMANENTLY.
So the PR living abroad can continue to meet the requirements for citizenship, including the requirement that the PR have valid PR status (not be inadmissible due to a failure to meet the PR Residency Obligation for example). BUT it is easy to apprehend the individual is NOT acting consistent with purpose of having been granted PR. To what extent this will influence IRCC processing agents and Citizenship Officers, particularly in regards to how much scrutiny they apply in evaluating a particular citizenship applicant, is very, very, very difficult to predict . . . but the RISK that it will influence some, sometimes, is real.
