Apart from the inherently logistical RISKS (missing notifications or failing to get to scheduled events on time, among others) that are involved if living abroad while a citizenship application is in process, which are discussed in multiple topics here . . . a reminder that this subject is NOT nearly so cut-and-dry as some suggest . . .
These days there appear to be few reports of processing problems resulting from the applicant's absence from Canada AFTER applying, assuming the applicant otherwise meets the requirements AND, of course, timely responds to all IRCC communications and appears for scheduled events.
And, currently, there is nothing about being outside Canada after applying that in itself constitutes a reason to deny the application . . .
. . . unless the process takes so long, and the applicant remains outside Canada so long, that at any point before taking the oath the applicant fails to be present in Canada at least 730 days within the preceding five years (this would be grounds for a Removal Order which would prohibit a grant of citizenship . . . which in the past, when processing times were very long for some applicants, meant that even applicants approved and scheduled for the oath were instead reported at the PoE upon their return to Canada and not only did not become citizens but lost their PR status).
So it is correct to state, as some have, that applicants are NOT required to continue living in Canada while the application is processing, AND there is NO required intent to live in Canada.
Nonetheless some CAUTION is warranted.
It is NOT true, for example, that IRCC is "not allowed to take this factor [applicant living abroad after applying] into consideration." To be clear, there is very, very little restriction on what factors IRCC can take into consideration when assessing the facts in a citizenship application. IRCC cannot discriminate on the basis of certain things like religion or race, for example. IRCC cannot employ a game of chance (rolling dice for example) or other capricious means for making a decision on an application for citizenship. And, overall, the reasons for the decision must be REASONABLE, which involves principles like the applicable standard and burden of proof (applicant has the burden to prove qualification beyond a balance of probabilities).
This leads back to the observation that THESE DAYS there appear to be few reports of processing problems resulting from the applicant's absence from Canada AFTER applying. It may indeed be the current LIBERAL government's general policy to recognize the need for more flexibility in a global economy and as a matter of practice NOT elevate scrutiny (not impose non-routine processing) just because the applicant has gone abroad after applying. I am NOT sure this is the case, BUT even if it is, there is going to be a Federal election by October and the Liberals are currently NOT polling well at all.
Thus, new applicants, and more than a few of those who currently have applications in process, should be aware that policies and practices can change, and potentially change rather dramatically, in the event a different government is formed later this year, especially if it is a Conservative government.
This leads to recognizing the difference between what the law literally and technically prescribes, and the practical impact that the wide, wide range of discretionary policies and practices can have.
Best illustration of this is that even BEFORE there was any intent-to-continue-residing-in-Canada requirement, under BOTH Liberal and Conservative governments just the mere fact the applicant was living abroad after applying WAS AN EXPLICIT FACTOR in determining if there were REASONS-TO-QUESTION-RESIDENCY. At that time the residency requirement calculation was in fact specifically about the relevant time period (four years at the time), and time outside Canada after applying could NOT deduct from the calculation. BUT NONETHELESS applicants who were perceived to be living abroad after applying were commonly subjected to elevated scrutiny, RQ, and much longer processing time lines.
This became especially prominent during the years Harper was PM. But it was under a Liberal government, before Harper, that CIC (as it was then named) formally adopted criteria for questioning the applicant's residency based on indications the applicant was abroad and returning just for the purpose of attending the test or oath ceremony. This was in an appendix added to CP-5 Residence in 2005. Then under the Harper government this was taken to a much more severe extreme, when it appears CIC may have been deliberately stalling processing applicants who were perceived to be applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport or otherwise seeking-a-passport-of-convenience.
To be clear, IRCC does NOT need to explain or have justification to issue RQ. Perhaps the current government is NOT targeting applicants living abroad for RQ or even considering this factor when deciding whether or not to issue RQ (my sense is that this may not be a big factor, like it has been in the past, but that it is probably still considered to some extent).
But, for example, if a Conservative government is formed later this year, NO CHANGE in the LAW itself is necessary for IRCC to pay a lot more attention to applicants who are abroad or to impose RQ on them.
WHICH IS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE OP'S CONCERN, ABOUT HOW BEING ABROAD MIGHT POTENTIALLY AFFECT THE PROCESS, IS VALID.
IRCC cannot deny the applicant just because the applicant is living abroad. But it can ask a lot more questions. It can approach the applicant's account of facts more skeptically. It can issue RQ. And the fact the applicant is living or working abroad after applying can be what triggers this . . . or a factor in conjunction with others that triggers this.
Whether it will or not is the big question. The RISK. Many believe that risk is fairly low (or even non-existent) under the current government.
My sense is that the current risk depends in part on the extent to which the applicant has other risk factors . . . for example, an applicant who applies within just a few days of reaching the eligibility threshold and promptly leaves Canada to live and work at a job abroad, I'd guess has a rather significantly higher risk of non-routine processing, RQ, and a more skeptical approach to assessing the evidence of actual presence.
We can only speculate about what the risk will be later this year. No crystal ball or powers of prophesy are necessary, however, to forecast the risks increasing if the next government is Conservative . . . the real question, if that happens, is by how much.
THAT SAID, AS FOR HOW TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS ABOUT BEING ABROAD:
As others have said and emphasized, and for which a DUH is perhaps warranted: the only way to respond to such questions is HONESTLY, FRANKLY, OPENLY . . . without artifice. Any attempt to script answers to such questions is far, far more likely to appear disingenuous or evasive or defensive or outright deceptive, EVEN if the answer is actually truthful . . . and thus more likely to trigger concerns, doubts, or suspicions, again EVEN if the answer is actually truthful.
Note for example, even at the peak of the Harper government crackdown on applicants who appeared to apply-on-the-way-to-the-airport, many applicants abroad while the application was pending did NOT encounter problems . . . why many did and others did not is a separate discussion, which is not worth the tangent here since, again, there are NO odds trying to script this. The applicant who goes abroad does so for his or her own reasons. If asked about it, the truth is the only sensible response.
