I am responding to clarify given inaccurate or at least misleading responses today.
Foremost it is very difficult to extrapolate what will happen next based on comments during a PI interview . . . unless there is a definitive decision to request more information or the facts establish the applicant is not eligible. If, for example, it is clear during the interview that the applicant made an error in the presence calculation and was short of 1095 days credit on the date the application was made, the applicant can easily infer the application will be denied (and should withdraw; otherwise there will be a lengthy RQ process before the application is actually denied).
There is no indication of that here. There is no firm indication there will be non-routine processing, RQ-related or otherwise.
However, there is no firm indication there will NOT be any non-routine processing. RQ-related non-routine processing remains possible. Even a referral to CBSA, for its NSSD division to conduct further background inquiries or investigation remains possible. This is NOT to say either of these are likely. It is to say it is very difficult to forecast one way or the other based on comments during the interview.
So, for
@Mahyar85, it is mostly now
wait-and-see what happens.
BUT . . .
Whether the interview was a routine PI (Program Integrity) interview, typically conducted by a Processing Agent, or was an interview with the Citizenship Officer who will decide whether to approve the application, both have very wide discretion to ask questions. They can for sure ask why an applicant was abroad. In fact, in the application itself applicants are required to state the reason for each and every trip they made abroad during the eligibility period.
There has been an effort among some forum participants to assert that officials cannot inquire into travel or residence outside Canada after the application was made. There is no reliable source or explanation for that assertion, plenty of anecdotal reporting it is sometimes done, and of course any and all ties a citizenship applicant has outside Canada (including time spent outside Canada) are fair game in the process of assessing the information provided by the applicant and determining whether or not to more closely examine the applicant's case, and whether or not to initiate RQ-related non-routine processing.
What factors into whether the application is approved, or not, of course depends on specific qualifying criteria, and there must be specific grounds based on qualifying criteria to deny or reject an application. Being abroad after applying is not itself a ground for which an application can be denied.
But it can be, and the evidence is strong it sometimes is, a factor influencing whether there is RQ-related non-routine processing. It warrants noting with some emphasis that there is NO review of decisions to initiate RQ-related non-routine processing. There is NO review of decisions to refer an application to CBSA for its NSSD to conduct an investigation (which can specifically be to for purposes of investigating the applicant's presence calculation; NSSD is not limited to "security" related investigations). No "probable cause" is necessary.
A referral to CBSA does not necessarily suspend or put processing on hold. It can, and it is not clear which referrals will result in a formal hold. But if there is a referral and no formal hold, then in terms of what the applicant sees, the application might as well be on hold, because a referral to CBSA can result in a long, or very long period of time during which the applicant will see nothing happening . . . even the fact that the application has been referred to CBSA does NOT show up in the version of GCMS applicants have access to seeing, because it is behind the investigatory method and means curtain, confidential.
Again, this is NOT to suggest that there is any indication at all that @Mahyar85's application is headed in that direction. But IRCC officials can decide to go in that direction and being abroad after applying is something that can (and to be frank, in some cases clearly does) factor into that decision-making.
Citizenship Judges have a 60 day time frame in which to make a decision following a hearing. If an application is headed to a CJ, HOWEVER, it can take many months after the knowledge test and interview for the case to even be formally referred to a CJ and put into a queue for a hearing, and additionally many more months or a year or more to actually have the hearing. Few cases go this route. So it is the wait for the hearing that tends to go long, very long.
Citizenship Officers are "encouraged" to make decisions within 60 days after the application is referred to them. This is mostly about routinely processed applications. Once a decision to approve the grant of citizenship is made, by the Citizenship Officer, there is then the period of time it takes to schedule the oath.
The timeline that matters for most applicants is how long it takes for the Processing Agent to complete processing the application and refer it (with recommendations) to the Citizenship Officer. For applications in routine processing (no RQ for example, no further inquiries or referrals to CBSA), that can happen the same day the knowledge test and interview is completed, and again if the application is routine, most likely is done for the vast majority of applicants within days or a few weeks at most (although for some there may be a somewhat routine follow-up necessary which can mean a few weeks to some months for that referral).
BUT non-routine processing AFTER the test and interview is a totally different story. Even just some follow-up RQ-related inquiries, even without RQ-related requests put to the applicant, can add months or many months to the timeline at this stage.
Applicants Abroad After Test and Interview:
In the meantime, how local offices are handling applicants in the post-test and interview phase, when the applicant is known or perceived to be abroad, is far, far from clear, except we know that many are left in limbo pending further developments in their case. It appears that local offices might not proceed to schedule at least some applicants for the oath unless and until there is a firm return-to-Canada date. And the jury is still out on how being abroad for the test or interview is affecting the process, to what extent this factor is influencing decisions to initiate RQ-related non-routine processing for example.
Meanwhile, the law specifically requires that the oath be taken IN Canada. The Minister can grant special relief, and there is even one known case where that has happened recently (for an applicant who went to Ukraine in December and was trapped there by the conflict). There may be others. There is NO HINT, however, this will become anywhere near common. On the contrary, the prospects of getting such special relief are still probably remote even in what many might think are special circumstances.
