For those who might be moving abroad after applying, and who will be applying for citizenship in the coming months, and especially those applying after that, it could be important to recognize that personal opinions aside, being abroad while the application is pending could once again be more risky than it has been of late.
It is at least somewhat risky now. Remember, for example, being abroad is generally NOT an acceptable reason for failing to appear for a scheduled oath. That alone imposes some risk. (Missing the oath can happen to anyone . . . let alone someone living abroad who does not get notice in time.)
On the other hand, in the last few years it appears the current government does not much care if an applicant is living abroad while the application is pending. This is something a different government could change overnight, without notice. It cannot make being abroad a ground for denying citizenship, not without going through the legislative process to change the law itself. BUT it can implement policies and practices which increases the risks and makes the process more difficult.
Beyond that, contrary to the opinion of some, there is a BIG difference between the status of a person the DAY before the oath is taken versus the day after. This is not about mere technicalities.
The following addresses this in the context of how it affects travel rights BUT make no mistake, the difference looms large in multiple respects. Consider the difference between having a few drinks and being involved in an automobile accident resulting in injuries the night before taking the oath, versus this happening the night after taking the oath. Huge difference. The former does not get to become a citizen, not for some time anyway, and might even face the loss of PR status altogether.
Also, this matter of leaving BEFORE or AFTER getting the citizenship to me is immaterial. If you are person who believes in restricting freedoms of naturalized citizens, this 1 yr or so gap hardly makes a difference and is merely a technicality.
To be clear, Permanent Residents are NOT Canadian citizens. Any restrictions imposed on PRs international travel has NOTHING to do with restricting the freedom of citizens, naturalized or otherwise.
That is, the fact you find the distinction to be immaterial is, well, immaterial. There is a major distinction in the law.
Permanent Residents are NOT Canadian citizens . . . even on the morning they are scheduled to take the oath and become a citizen. This is NO mere technicality. For example, there have been actual cases in which PRs scheduled to take the oath who were living abroad, while the application was pending, who arrived at the ceremony only to find out their taking the oath was cancelled . . . triggered by the fact of their absence from Canada in the meantime. (Will address this more below.)
Moreover, there is an explicit distinction in the Charter as to the travel rights of PRs versus citizens. PRs have a charter right to travel WITHIN Canada. In contrast, the Charter of Rights specifically protects the rights of citizens (and
NOT PRs) to travel abroad and return to Canada. And again, to be clear, this distinction applies right up to the moment someone takes the oath.
Thus, again, while the distinction between provisions restricting travel rights for PRs, which of course includes PRs applying for citizenship, versus those who are already citizens (again, naturalized or otherwise) may be immaterial to you, it is NOT immaterial in the law . . . not only is there a definitive difference in the applicable statutory provisions, the difference looms large in the Charter of Rights itself.
As I noted above, Permanent Residents are NOT Canadian citizens . . . even on the morning they are scheduled to take the oath and become a citizen. And again this is NO mere technicality.
There are multiple ways in which this can become a significant issue arising in the processing of a citizenship application.
I have mentioned one, the fact that when a person is living abroad that in itself evidences strong residential ties abroad, thus potentially raising questions about the veracity of the applicant's claims about days present in Canada. As discussed elsewhere, for example, when an applicant has a spouse who is living abroad during the eligibility period, that inherently invites questions about that applicant's travel history . . . it is reasonable to apprehend that spouses are more likely to be living together, so the fact that one was living abroad is reason to question the extent to which the one claiming to have been in Canada might have been, instead, abroad with the spouse some of that time. Bottom-line: the more residential or employment ties abroad an applicant has, the more likely a total stranger bureaucrat will reasonably make further inquiry into the veracity of the applicant's presence-claims.
I have also mentioned another, which is more apparent in how the Harper-era CIC approached citizenship applicants, and that is their perception that applicants who came to Canada just barely long enough to meet the minimum presence requirement, and then left, are likely to be
seeking-a-passport-of-convenience and thus more likely to be playing the Canadian immigration system, thus more likely to be fudging the facts, at least enough so to warrant elevated scrutiny (like RQ).
The fact that a citizenship applicant is living abroad while the application is pending can also have bearing on meeting the most fundamental requirement for grant citizenship: having valid PR status (not being inadmissible). This does not loom much currently since even the longer non-routine processing timelines tend to be well less than three years, but in the past when the processing timeline for many well exceeded two years and was longer than three years for more than a few, there were cases in which PRs applying for citizenship failed to stay in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation while their application was pending. Some were scheduled to take the oath. But upon arriving at the ceremony, they were instead deferred for further processing, some being reported for inadmissibility, due to a breach of the PR RO, and issued a Removal Order (thereby losing PR status in addition to NOT becoming a citizen). Others were issued RQ.
The reason this still looms as potentially relevant is at least twofold. One is that processing timelines are now, again, getting longer and longer . . . and especially so for those involved in non-routine processing. Thus, once again some of those who moved abroad while their application was pending may indeed face RO compliance issues before they get to take the oath. But perhaps the more ominous peril lurks in a potential shift in policy and practice, if for example there is a Conservative government by year's end, which could resume measures aimed at targeting applicants who are PERCEIVED to be
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport or otherwise
seeking-a-passport-of-convenience. . . . recognizing that neither would be a ground for denying citizenship, but also recognizing such PERCEPTION can lead to non-routine processing, RQ, and otherwise elevated scrutiny and skepticism, which could pose significant difficulties for such applicants.
While it was never actually established, many suspected that when Kenney and Alexander were the Minister (under Harper), there was deliberate stalling of applications if processing agents PERCEIVED the applicant was
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport or otherwise
seeking-a-passport-of-convenience. . . . dragging the process out so long that applicants living abroad would indeed run into trouble complying with the PR RO.
Again, while the distinction may be immaterial in your mind, that will be of little or no comfort to those who run into problems because this distinction is material in the law and it may loom significantly so in multiple respects for IRCC processing agents.