I’m in the exact same situation. I am submitting my application now but will likely leave Canada mid next year. I assume that would usually be enough time to get the citizenship, but with Covid I highly doubt it. I was wandering the same thing about whether to hire a lawyer to deal with communication or just out my friends mailing address.
How these things go can vary widely from one person to another.
The short answer is that there is no prohibition against living abroad, let alone traveling abroad.
BUT there are RISKS which tend to loom significantly larger for the applicant abroad than one who remains living in Canada.
Thus the safest approach (by a rather substantial margin)
is to continue living in Canada pending the outcome of the citizenship application, even if one occasionally travels abroad.
There are numerous discussions in this forum about the various RISKS involved if someone applying for grant citizenship goes abroad for an extended period of time while the application is in process. That is not a simple discussion.
In particular, there are logistical RISKS, like failing to get notice in time to respond to requests for information or to appear for a scheduled event. This can include things like a global pandemic interfering with returning to Canada. But also recognizing there are many other personal
stuff-happens events which can interfere with showing up when scheduled. Anecdotally reported examples range from getting stuck abroad due to injuries in a car accident (as I recall, there was an anecdotal report from someone claiming they already had their plane ticket to return to Canada when they were in a crash and hospitalized), to lost, stolen, or expired PR cards.
The procedural RISKS are more difficult to define and very difficult to quantify. The more salient of these RISKS is potentially being subject to RQ-related non-routine processing which puts a much heavier burden on the applicant to submit hard evidence proving actual presence in Canada and which can result in lengthy delays in the process.
Thus, even though technically, emphasis on TECHNICALLY, living abroad does not affect eligibility, in a more practical sense, when a total stranger bureaucrat reviews the applicant's case and, whether before or during the interview the bureaucrat learns the applicant is living abroad, that can invite questions about the applicant's claims in the application about living in Canada for at least three years.
Kind of a no-brainer: applicant comes to Canada to attend an interview, coming from where the applicant lives abroad, asserting a right to be given Canadian citizenship -- of course there will be a substantial RISK the bureaucrat conducting the interview may want to examine more evidence, more than just a bare outline of dates of entry and exit, to determine if in fact the individual now living abroad was actually physically present IN Canada all those days claimed.
This is not always a problem. Some sail smoothly, problem-free, through the process. More than a few do not.
Rather difficult to identify what factors most influence how it goes. One salient factor appears to be whether it appears the applicant is seeking a passport of convenience. In this regard, what individuals like
@ecomath appear to overlook is that a response affirming an intent to return to Canada to live is NOT relevant. Where the applicant intends to live is NOT an issue. Being abroad itself has no direct impact on an applicant's eligibility.
That is, if it appears the applicant is pursuing a scheme to obtain a passport of convenience, that in itself does NOT matter . . . except, it could be the factor which triggers questions, elevated scrutiny, and perhaps even skepticism. In particular, asserting an intent to return to Canada does NOT answer or eliminate questions about whether the applicant really was living in Canada when the applicant claims to have been.
Which leads to some of the exchanges above.
First, in regards to posts by
@hungnguyen, raising the same question in multiple topics, and which were also asked in yet other topics last week, and answered. For example (follow link to see full post):
Many ask about TRAVELING outside Canada while their grant citizenship application is pending when the real question is about RESIDING or LIVING outside Canada while their grant citizenship application is pending. There are significant practical differences.
@hungnguyen appears to confuse "travel" details with things like where it is one currently resides, appearing to want assurances there will be no problem living abroad after applying. As I have addressed these queries already I will not dive into the details again here. HOWEVER, I would caution that approaching the process according to self-serving interpretations (like referring to living abroad as "travel") tends to hinder rather than help an individual navigate through the process. There are pitfalls enough.
It also appears that
@hungnguyen is seeking permission to misrepresent the address at which
@hungnguyen will be residing. Some here will say that it is OK to misrepresent one's "home" address, by omission or otherwise, that it's OK to give IRCC the address of a family member or friend even though that is an address other than where the applicant actually lives. Make no mistake, those observations are largely based on the odds of
getting away with it. NOT about whether it is OK.
For clarification about what the applicant's obligations are, in regards to what information the applicant is required to share with IRCC, the instructions are actually straight-forward. For example, read what it says in the box where the applicant signs the application. It is quite simple:
The applicant's signature on the application VERIFIES the applicant will "
advise Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) if any information on this form changes before I take the Oath of Citizenship."
No advanced degrees in philosophy or logic necessary to recognize this means TRUTHFULLY advising IRCC. Giving a relative's address for where one claims to be residing is not truthful . . . no matter how good the chances are of getting away with it.
Then there are the comments above, such as
@PMV describing observations offered earlier in the year by
@jc94 as "
Quite a skewed perspective." Specifically in regards to "
Personally I get why people may want it but getting it when you have no desire to live here doesn’t really seem right."
@PMV posted:
Quite a skewed perspective. As long as immigrants are paying their taxes on time and earning citizenship + nationality, what they do beyond is frankly their business and not subject to morals or ethics.
EXCEPT it warrants recognizing, with some emphasis . . . without getting tangled in the
how-things-should-be tangent (I try to focus on
how-things-actually-are) . . . it would be foolish to not anticipate that among many Canadians "
having an issue" with what some politicians describe as schemes to obtain a passport of convenience, it is rather likely some are bureaucrats working in IRCC.
What some who emphasize having met the technical requirements to obtain a grant of citizenship fail to adequately understand is that those who stand on technicalities can find themselves in a
live-by-the-sword-die-by-the-sword scenario. Especially when they fail to understand the actual technicalities. For example, some seem to be rather insistent that if the applicant was actually physically present in Canada for at least 1095 days in the eligibility period, they are ENTITLED to a grant of citizenship. That is NOT what the law prescribes. The burden of proving actual presence is on the applicant. TECHNICALLY that means proving ALL days present. TECHNICALLY that can mean showing actual presence ALL the days between known dates of entry and exit. That can be a tall order for some. Even if they were in fact actually present in Canada all those days.
These observations are not about
how-things-should-be. That is a very different conversation. A not particularly relevant conversation for someone who is applying for citizenship and trying to figure out whether it would be prudent to move abroad while the application is still pending. Answering this question demands understanding
how-thing-actually-work, at least as best we can.
What we know about
how-thing-actually-work when a citizenship applicant moves abroad is that there is an elevated risk of RQ-related processing which can be aggravated by a skepticism rooted, at least in part, by the feeling that, at the least, it should not be easy to obtain a passport of convenience, so such applicants (those
perceived as such) should have to fully meet the technical burden of proof as to actual presence. Which is no problem for many, but not so easy for those who were not, in effect, at least metaphorically punching the clock at a recognized job location in Canada week in and week out for three plus years.
And it is a recognition of this risk that underlies questions like those posed by
@hungnguyen, about efforts to conceal the fact of having moved abroad.
