Key number 1: legitimate, qualified applicants, who follow the rules and properly complete the application, have little or nothing to worry about. IRCC does not have an agenda to deny citizenship for a qualified applicant. If someone in IRCC has reason to question, be concerned about, to challenge the applicant's case, sure IRCC will pursue established practices and procedures to investigate, assess, and verify. That can be onerous for some applicants. But (with some errant exceptions, as is usually the case) IRCC is mostly focused on making a fair determination, granting citizenship to those who qualify, denying citizenship for those who do not, and otherwise ferreting out fraud.
Key number 2: the process is not personal, not driven by emotion. It is not about being nice or not nice. It is not about anyone getting mad and making decisions influenced by that. It is not about what is appreciated or not appreciated.
It is a fact-based, criteria-driven process.
It is important, in this regard, to be cognizant that the burden of proof is entirely on the applicant. So the facts in the fact-based element of the equation, are the facts sufficiently established by the applicant, and IRCC's role is largely to verify those facts.
If a person assessing your application perceives reasons to question some aspect of your application and qualifications, IRCC will follow standard practices and procedures to further investigate, review, analyze, and verify the relevant information. Decisions will be based on what IRCC determines the facts to be according to the applicable criteria, again recognizing that it is the applicant's burden to prove the facts. (In other topics, for example, I have drilled deeply into what happens if IRCC has concerns about the applicant's travel history and the applicant in effect loses the benefit of an inference he or she was in Canada between last documented date of entry and next date of exit . . . proving actual presence in Canada in-between these dates can be difficult if IRCC finds reason to not give the applicant the benefit of such inferences.)
While a legitimate applicant who meets the qualifications has little or no reason to apprehend being treated unfairly, abusively, or capriciously, sure, evidence of extensive and continuing ties abroad, especially any residential or employment ties abroad, will significantly increase the risk of elevated scrutiny, including non-routine processing which may include RQ.
And for so long as the current law applies, there is a residency requirement, at least as of the day prior to making the application through to the day the oath is taken. (Current enforcement of this is unclear, although the applicant for sure must explicitly affirm this intent in the application, it is not clear if there is any follow-up enforcement effort beyond that.)
Without going deeper into the weeds about residency, which can be complicated, each case stands on its own facts, its own circumstances. While extended time in another country can indicate ties inviting reasons to question the applicant's presence, going abroad temporarily while the application is pending, even for months at a time, should not sabotage an otherwise legitimate, qualified application . . . with the caveat that of course the applicant needs to be sure to show up for scheduled events, the test for example, and for sure the oath, recognizing that notice for these may be rather short and getting back to Canada in time could be difficult for some who are abroad.
Prospect of RQ: Overall
It is very difficult to forecast who is likely to be issued RQ these days.
Reported RQs are way, way down. However, this may be due as much to the fact that the number of new applications has been way, way down for nearly two years now (although I expect that it has recently been creeping back toward historical averages). Other factors may include the longer minimum actual physical presence requirement, and the fact that since June 11, 2015 short-fall applicants are definitively NOT eligible (prior to June 11, 2015, PRs could possibly be qualified for citizenship even though they fell short of the 1095 days physical presence threshold, and indeed many did apply falling short). Mostly, though, for multiple reasons the pool of applicants with circumstances giving a reason-to-question the applicant's time in Canada is probably way down, and perhaps that explains why there are so few RQs reported these days.
There are, nonetheless, periodic reports of applicants being RQ'd. How often RQ is currently issued, we don't know.
All that aside, it is clear that the severe criteria employed in 2012, the triage criteria or risk indicators, have been significantly modified and less strictly applied, and have been since sometime in 2013. (The rate of RQ dropped significantly even before the change in requirements in 2015.)
Most recent reports of RQ follow the interview. It is not clear to what extent IRCC has continued the Harper-era triage criteria screening in Sydney since there have been virtually no recent reports of pre-test RQ.
Prospect of RQ: Triage Criteria / the Risk Indicators
Despite rants and whining to the contrary, who gets RQ is fact-based, criteria-driven.
Prior to OB-407, April 2012, the criteria for issuing RQ were known as reasons-to-question-residency. They were broad. They included things like a passport stamp indicating the applicant had recently returned to Canada just in time to attend the test.
OB-407 formalized the criteria for issuing RQ in the File Requirements Checklist, referring to these as the "triage criteria," and sometimes as "risk indicators." The application and the applicant were screened based on these criteria multiple times during the course of processing, first in Sydney, then again in the local office preparation for the interview, and then attendant the interview itself, and again by the Citizenship Officer responsible for making CIC's determination whether to grant citizenship. RQ could be issued following any of these occasions.
We do not know much about the current criteria employed.
Personally, my sense is that the criteria enumerated in OB 407 are quite likely to be the criteria still being used today, subject to some amendments and subject to revised practices in how those are applied. My sense is that it is the latter which has been most revised. What automatically triggered RQ and a residence/presence case before (such as one of the applicant's identification having been issued within three months prior to making the application), now a factor which is evaluated in context with other information.
Prospect of RQ: Frequent travel or extended periods of time outside Canada
It has been a long-standing myth that frequent travel abroad has been something which triggered RQ or at least increased the risk of RQ. There is minimal evidence to support this, except the obvious: the more frequent a person has traveled abroad the greater the risk the travel declarations include a mistake or omission, which definitely increases the risk of RQ. Additionally, the more a person is abroad, the more that evidences significant ties abroad, and of course the more ties an applicant has abroad the more the applicant is at risk for elevated scrutiny.
Infrequent but extended periods of time abroad similarly suggest some ongoing, substantial ties abroad, which of course will increase the risk of elevated scrutiny.
But what we know about actual criteria for RQ employed historically, there has been no direct triggering of RQ based on the frequency or duration of time spent abroad. The particular context and circumstances matter.
I cannot guess what your risk of RQ is. But I can say that other factors, other aspects of your situation and circumstances, are more likely to have a bigger influence in whether or not you are issued RQ than just the amount of time you regularly spend in SA. Basically, it really does come down to whether the circumstances in your case invite questions about the accuracy and completeness of your travel declarations and presence calculation.
Reminder: the biggest risks which arise due to being abroad for an extended period of time while the application is pending are related to missing scheduled events like the test and especially the oath.
There is some leeway. But not a lot. Less for the oath. And the notice for scheduled events can be quite short.
