This post addresses this issue on a broader level and goes LONG; file this one under INFORMATION FOR AVOIDING PITFALLS (if possible):
One looming caveat is that how it goes for one person will only offer some insight into how it
MIGHT go for others. Individual case specific factors can and often will loom large. Even during the Harper era rather draconian approach in which applicants PERCEIVED to have
applied-on-the-way-to-the-airport typically encountered severe hurdles and suspicion, even then there were often huge discrepancies in how applicants were handled depending on the particular facts and appearances and CIC officer's impressions. There are bound to be very different outcomes for some who are living abroad compared to others, again depending on a range of variable factors specific to the individual.
For example, even during the Harper-era if it was readily apparent the applicant was abroad for a temporary purpose (common example: abroad for a graduate or residency program specifically a year or two years in duration), such applicants oft times sailed smoothly through the process, while others (especially those employed abroad) ran into stringent obstacles (including lengthy delays, which at the time appeared to be possibly deliberate, sometimes including delays in processing so long, YEARS, as to put the applicant's compliance with the PR Residency Obligation at risk).
While there is little reason to apprehend IRCC will resume the Harper era approach, driven by an excessive dread of granting citizenship to those suspected, as they labelled it, of
seeking-a-passport-of-convenience, at least not until after the next Federal election, there is no reason, either, to believe IRCC will not approach such applicants (that is, those who APPEAR to have
applied-on-the-way-to-the-airport, or who APPEAR to be
seeking-a-passport-of-convenience) with at least a significant element of doubt or even suspicion, substantially elevating the risk of non-routine processing, lengthy delays, and potentially seriously skeptical decision-making.
In this regard
it warrants emphasizing how large appearances and impressions loom. Historically we have seen scores of anecdotal reports from applicants who returned to Canada just in time to take the test, and had stamps in their passport rather clearly indicating they were indeed just returning from abroad, and the interviewer never blinked let alone asked about those stamps or about travel or location after applying, followed by soon taking the oath. That is, NO PROBLEM. On the other hand, in contrast, historically we have seen scores of anecdotal reports, and more than a few actual cases in officially published decisions, where things went very much in the opposite direction. As in, PROBLEMS, sometimes big problems.
Thus, unless the reasons for going abroad to work and live are indeed compelling, it is prudent to conscientiously consider alternatives that would at least postpone doing so.
There are many, many other topics here in which this subject is addressed in depth. Again, it is indeed a common scenario. It is indeed, for many, a common dilemma.
In any event, this brings the discussion to IRCC's response to the FAQ:
Can I leave Canada after I mail my citizenship application?
Yes. You can leave Canada after we receive your application.
If you need to leave Canada and want to stay eligible for Canadian citizenship, you must:
The language employed is NO surprise. There is NO statute or regulation which makes going abroad a disqualification, even going abroad to live. Thus, IRCC cannot definitively deny or reject applicants on the grounds they are living abroad while the application is pending. IRCC's information must be consistent with the law. And this information is.
There is some hint, rather muted hints, of the risks as to preserving PR status, and as to appearing for scheduled events or responding to communications from IRCC otherwise. These are understated.
This information is reminiscent of the way CIC cautioned prospective applicants about the residency requirement prior to changes making it an actual physical presence requirement. For many, many years prior to June 2015, CIC's response to a FAQ about applying for citizenship with less than 1095 days actual presence was framed rather similar to this FAQ about leaving Canada after applying. Yes. With a rather muted, understated caveat about how only a Citizenship Judge could determine if the residency requirement was met. At the time ALL citizenship applications had to be decided by a CJ. What the FAQ response did not reveal was (1) the huge difference in how long the process would take, and (2) CIC's policy to approach all residency-based (in contrast to physical presence based) applicants skeptically, leaning toward rejecting any applicant who was short of meeting the physical presence test.
There too the FAQ answer was simply accurate according to the law and grossly belied the pitfalls. By a huge, huge margin. A more practical FAQ answer would have emphasized the importance of WAITING to apply only after meeting the physical presence test unless compelling, unavoidable circumstances dictated otherwise.
This in turn leads us back to risks related to timely responding to IRCC communications, including responding to requests as well as appearing for scheduled events. It is rather amazing how much so many take for granted they will receive communications in time and will be able to timely respond accordingly, among whom so many find their application going
off-the-rails when
STUFF HAPPENS and they have failed to timely respond or appear. While IRCC notices for test or interview events, or the oath ceremony, appear to have gotten more reasonable (mere two or three weeks notice, sometimes a bit less, was common in the past) in last year or two, even now just four to eight weeks appears to be common. And it can be less. And for those living abroad even five or so weeks notice can and will catch more than a few off guard, especially if there is any delay in actually receiving the notice, making it difficult to appear as scheduled.
How things go when there are scheduling issues can vary widely. The key risk to consider is that navigating scheduling problems when abroad tends to get more complicated and is prone to compounding problems. For example, generally an applicant cannot telephone the call centre from abroad, which can make it more complicated and difficult to sort out an issue.
In any case, many applicants are confident, very sure, they will timely respond to any IRCC requests and appropriately appear for all scheduled events.
And then they don't.
Which further brings the discussion to how uninformative IRCC information tends to be these days. There are, for example, numerous references to situations in which an applicant needs to give an "explanation," or provide an "acceptable reason," such as submitting a statement to IRCC containing an "acceptable reason" for missing a test or the oath ceremony.
Not all that long ago CIC or IRCC provided more specific information about what constitutes an "acceptable reason," including examples. And that information
explicitly stated being abroad was NOT an acceptable reason. This information may still be available, but it has gotten more difficult to find some IRCC information, including PDIs (see remarks I posted recently in a discussion about interviews).
So we do not know IRCC's current policy in regards to missing an appointment, or inability to timely respond to requests, due to logistical difficulties related to being abroad.
Part of why is undoubtedly rooted in things like equitable variables, regarding which it warrants repeating that appearances and impressions can loom large. IRCC probably looks at being abroad temporarily attendant a compelling situation (parent's serious illness or death) more sympathetically than an applicant abroad who appears to have
applied-on-the-way-to-the-airport or otherwise who appears to be
seeking-a-passport-of-convenience. That is, IRCC probably reserves a great deal of discretion depending on not just the merits but equitable factors as well.
One thing which more than a few have stumbled over is overly-relying on meeting the technicalities, failing to recognize that technicalities can and often do cut both ways, and if IRCC gets the impression an applicant does not deserve citizenship, IRCC too can look to and leverage the technicalities . . . the applicant is still OK UNLESS, for example, there is crack in the case, such as a potential a gap in evidence to prove presence (such as IRCC seeing cause to NOT give the applicant the benefit of an inference of presence between known date of entry and next reported date of exit), or a failure to appear for which the reason is deemed not acceptable, and so on.
Overall, it may be less risky to be abroad these days than it has been in the past (it was extremely risky during the Harper era, in addition to and apart from that brief period when living abroad would constitute a stand-alone reason to deny the application), but anyone who has alternative options would be prudent to seriously consider avoiding or delaying moving abroad while the application is in process.
