Caution: The jury is still out on how residing outside Canada after applying can (not necessarily will, but how it might) influence and affect the way things go.
Historically this has not been a problem for more than a few, while for many others it (being abroad) appears to be what has triggered delays, procedural hurdles, for some RQ-related non-routine processing, and for those for whom the delays result in absences from Canada resulting in a PR Residency Obligation breach, not only a negative outcome but potential loss of PR status as well.
So far a lot of those who reported taking the knowledge of Canada test while outside Canada appear to be in limbo with little or no promise of being scheduled for the oath anytime soon, with at least a significant number whose applications are apparently stuck in place unless and until they document their return to Canada.
The extensive and excellent report (partially quoted below), posted by
@Dalboy1980 Sunday, illustrates, at the least, that notwithstanding residing outside Canada or otherwise remaining abroad for an extended period of time (which some in the forum persist in mischaracterizing as "
travel" abroad, that is misleadingly or to be frank overtly misrepresenting living abroad to be "
travel" abroad) does not necessarily result in a serious problem beyond some logistical hurdles.
@Dalboy1980's report is particularly valuable because it gives enough detail to offer context, strongly suggest reliability, but even more significantly it makes clear that IRCC was not deceived about the applicants' presence outside Canada. One of the problems we have had in understanding how this goes is that it has been readily apparent, in the past, that some or a lot of the more or less success stories (relocating abroad after applying did not interfere with grant of citizenship) involved applicants who to some extent concealed they were abroad from IRCC.
Of course the other problem in figuring out how this goes has been the variability in outcomes. No problem for many. Some problems for many. Big problems for some.
Undoubtedly, many of those potentially affected would like to better know what will determine whether there is no problem, some problems, or a big problem.
It warrants noting and emphasizing that the SAFEST approach is to return to Canada, the sooner the better. For many this is not practical or, for some, even realistically possible. Nonetheless, the sooner the citizenship applicant returns to Canada, the better their odds of getting to the oath sooner, and for some that might mean quite a lot sooner.
There is another aspect of this that also warrants noting and emphasizing, in significant part because some here appear to still be holding on to hope they will be able to take the oath outside Canada. Not likely. Not close to likely. Some chance, perhaps, but notwithstanding some vague undocumented suggestions otherwise, there remains little sign that 5(1) citizenship applicants will be able to take the oath abroad.
In this regard I am reminded of a Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels movie in which the Carrey character asks the woman he has a crush on what the chances are she and him could have a romantic relationship. She says "
one in a million." After a pause the Carrey character erupts with joy, exhilarated, shouting "
Yes, there's a chance." More hope for the oath abroad? Perhaps.
In particular, as to special relief: As there is for almost all actions by IRCC, there is a provision allowing special relief by the Minister. And as to this, the odds of special relief allowing a particular applicant to take the oath abroad are perhaps better than the odds the Minister will grant citizenship to an applicant who fails to meet the qualifying requirements, for which the law likewise gives the Minister comparable discretion to grant special relief. But not much better. Anyone here waiting for a grant of citizenship even though they do not meet the qualifications? If so, there's a chance, but anyone waiting on that . . . or waiting on getting to take the oath abroad . . . could be waiting a very long time, and odds are they will only be disappointed in the end.
Bringing this around to a couple particular comments:
Ultimately each case is different . . .
But who would know what goes [on] in IRCC mind!
The first of these, that individual cases are different, is worth repeating. How things go, and many times the outcome, will indeed vary and sometimes vary considerably depending on the particular facts, circumstances, and situations in a specific individual's case. I do not want to dig too deeply into this tangent, but an obvious example is how differently things might go for the applicant abroad who applied with 1096 days actual presence and who appears to be more or less permanently relocated abroad, compared to the applicant abroad who applied with 1184 days actual presence and who appears to be abroad for a temporary purpose, school, job, family member's health, or such.
The other, wondering about what IRCC "
thinks" or "
feels" tends to miss the mark. Sure, this is mostly a reference to uncertainty about how IRCC handles certain cases, certain circumstances, and for sure there is much we do not know about how some decisions are made behind the curtain at IRCC. But it is important to recognize IRCC is not a sentient being, it is a bureaucracy, it does not "
think," it does not "
feel." There are laws, regulations, and rules, and these are interpreted and applied according to policies and practices, dictating the criteria and their application in the decision-making process. Sure, some aspects of the decision-making process are not entirely mechanical, recognizing that individual agents and officers within IRCC exercise some range of thinking which is influenced by their perceptions and impressions, to some extent how they "
feel," but the process is MOSTLY MECHANICAL.
Why is the latter worth mentioning? It illustrates and explains why there is a big difference between allowing applicants to take the knowledge of Canada test online while abroad versus administering the oath abroad. It's fairly simple: it is not about what IRCC feels or thinks, it is about what the law allows or requires. There is no law governing where the test is administered. In contrast, the current law (in regulations) prescribes that 5(1) citizenship applicants can only take the oath IN Canada. There is no provision allowing applicants to take the oath abroad (but for *special* relief discussed above).
That is, when IRCC implemented online testing there was no basis, in the law, to treat applicants abroad differently than those in Canada; they did, initially, but that appears to largely have been about the logistics. In contrast, for purposes of the oath, the current regulations not only allow for but in effect mandate treating applicants differently based on whether they are in Canada or abroad. There may be some arguable nuances suggesting a way around the regulations, but there are multiple reasons why IRCC is not likely to pursue that . . . just the risk of undermining the validity of citizenship for those taking the oath online from abroad alone is probably persuasive . . . but there is also the likely influence of opposition rooted in negative estimations about applicants relocating abroad soon after applying -- which many here may protest should not be the case, notwithstanding the long history illustrating it has been the case and little sign this has abated much.
The latter brings up a concluding observation: it is not clear what policy or practices are driving local IRCC offices to require some, perhaps most applicants known to be abroad, to document their return to Canada before proceeding to finalize the application and schedule the oath, but among the
usual suspects it is no stretch to speculate attitudes about applicants relocating abroad soon after applying is at least a significant factor in the matrix.
Leaving this where I started: the jury is still out on how residing outside Canada after applying can (not necessarily will, but how it might) influence and affect how things go.
