Thank you for the info. but in my case, I like to go visit my parents for 2 months and then come back. Then, I will stay the rest of the time in Canada until I finish the process. What do you think?
Temporary absences, even for a relatively extended duration, are not the same as leaving Canada to live and work abroad.
So, even if IRCC's current approach is more probing or skeptical toward applicants who are perceived to have
applied-on-the-way-to-the-airport, the main risk involved for a two-month sojourn abroad is logistical, potentially failing to get a notice in time to properly respond or appear.
In concert with the consensus, I think that IRCC's instruction to notify IRCC of planned absences longer than two weeks is to put the burden and responsibility on the applicant if there is a failure to timely respond to IRCC communications or an event, like the test or oath, is missed. That is, it is advisory rather than mandatory. (In contrast, notifying IRCC of an address change is mandatory, since it is material information and the applicant is required to notify IRCC of any change in material information, and the failure to do so is a form of misrepresentation, misrepresentation by omission.)
In any event, it is very difficult to quantify the risks even for those who leave Canada to live abroad, let alone those who go abroad temporarily but for an extended duration, except to emphasize the logistical risks (missing notices mostly) and that the more obvious it is the absence is temporary, the the less risk there is
in the event (again we do not know if) IRCC is currently approaching applicants living abroad more skeptically.
So my hubby moved to the US for work and i had to stay behind in other to get my citizenship now after I apply, I will be moving over. What do you suggest I do?
Generally, the more ongoing ties abroad the applicant has, the greater the risk that IRCC will elevate scrutiny and potentially non-routine processing, including the dreaded RQ. The extent of IRCC's skepticism, and potentially negative inferences, depends on all the facts and circumstances, not the least of which is the strength of the applicant's case, both on its face, and substantively (if, for example, it comes to RQ and having to affirmatively prove actual presence, that means not only proving dates of travel but also submitting
sufficient evidence of actual presence in-between dates of entry and next exit to prove presence beyond a balance of probabilities.
Obviously, spouses ordinarily live together. Thus, obviously an individual is more likely to be living where that individual's spouse lives. Thus, if a citizenship applicant's spouse lives outside Canada, that in and of itself, at the least, raises a question about the extent to which the applicant
possibly was abroad with the spouse more than reported. So this factor alone can, itself, invite questions, even concerns. Whether this rises to the level of causing doubts, leading to skepticism or even suspicion, probably depends a lot on all the other facts and circumstances in the case.
No advanced studies in sociology are necessary to apprehend the impression made by leaving Canada to live abroad with one's spouse while the application is in process.
I am not qualified to give personal advice, and other than more obvious suggestions (like
follow-the-instructions or
wait-to-apply-long-enough-to-have-a-comfortable-margin-over-the-minimum), I try to avoid giving specific suggestions, let alone advice, if for no reason other than there are way, way too many other variables involved which can affect how things will go, so it is impossible to give reliable advice (I cringe at many definitive statements in the forum, in the form
"do this" or
"do that," which can so easily be wrong, and sometimes way wrong, due to an unspoken factor).
What I have already offered should give you some ideas about how
YOU can weigh the particular factors in your case and make a judgment call about how to best proceed, taking into account the risks in context with your priorities. And, the latter, your personal priorities, looms large in the equation.
Note: bottom-line, strong proof of meeting the presence requirement will overcome doubts and skepticism. The applicant who proves actual presence will not and cannot be denied for failing to meet the presence requirements.
Even in the Harper-era that was true. The government cannot, and will not, deduct any time from the presence calculation based on time abroad after applying.
For further clarification and context:
As always, a lot depends on what a processing agent or Citizenship Officer
perceives. And the longer the absence, the broader the range of possible perceptions there can be, especially by a total-stranger bureaucrat.
As noted, the more obvious, and significant difference, is that between
traveling abroad, such as holidays and business trips, versus actually leaving Canada to live and work abroad. Again, historically the latter tended to involve non-routine processing and elevated scrutiny, but
we do NOT know the extent to which IRCC will
currently take notice let alone focus attention on this, let alone what the effect will be if IRCC takes notice.
In contrast, historically
temporary absences, even relatively long-term absences, did not have anywhere near the same negative impact as leaving Canada to live and work abroad. The main risk was the logistical one, potentially missing a notice or request from IRCC.
In this regard, again for context, even at the peak of Harper-era skepticism toward citizenship applicants (in 2012 the RQ rate sometimes exceeded one-in-four applicants), and intense focus on obstructing the path to citizenship for those who were
perceived to be
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport, there were many anecdotal reports from applicants who were
temporarily abroad for extended periods, while the application was in process,
whose applications were routinely processed with no perceptible delays (compared to the mainstream flow of applicants at the time, recognizing timelines then were universally slow). This included, for example, applicants who were abroad for a full academic year studying for an advanced degree in another country, and applicants
on a temporary assignment abroad in the employ of a Canadian business.
The latter was still a gamble then, since again so much depends on what a total-stranger bureaucrat might perceive, and in that period of time (later Harper-era), there was no doubt,
if the applicant was perceived to be
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport, the risk of problems was high. (Many speculated, and frankly the circumstantial evidence was fairly persuasive, that in those days CIC might deliberately shelve applications when the applicant was
perceived to be living abroad, in effect waiting until the applicant would run into problems complying with the PR Residency Obligation, which would give Harper's CIC overt grounds to deny citizenship.)
So, for those abroad
temporarily but for an extended period of time, it is impossible to forecast the risks generally, let alone specific to a particular individual. As always, the extent of risk is related to many other facts and circumstances, to the strength of the applicant's case overall.
Reminder: For the vast, vast majority of qualified applicants who properly and accurately completed their application, presence calculation, and interview/test, there are few if any diversions or problems, and processing is routine. There is little or no reason to overthink or get bogged down in paranoia about the risk of things going awry. My observations are more for the education of those who recognize their situation has some risk of real issues, potential concerns or pitfalls, who have reason to apprehend non-routine processing and the implications of that. Most applicants do not need to worry about this stuff.
