I am getting ready to submit my citizenship application. Everything is pretty much straight forward as I spent all the days in Canada and was fully employed.
The only tricky part is that I plan to leave Canada after submitting my application. So I thought a lawyer might be helpful as all mails and emails will arrive to their office. That way I don't have to go through the hassle of sending the mails to a friend or using a mail service.
My concerns:
1) I was advised that applications with a lawyer representing the applicant get more scrutiny and higher chance of RQ since they feel there must be something fishy here to hire a lawyer for a straight forward application.
2) What if the lawyer missed out the notification or forgets to notify me of test or interview. A lawyer office makes mistakes like everyone makes mistake. But this one will have major impact on my life. Is that possible? and can I check the application status even though a lawyer is representing me?
Any opinions here?
Regarding (1) . . . As already pointed out, the risk of elevated scrutiny (including non-routine processing) is probably more about the fact of living abroad after applying than about having a lawyer representative.
Regarding (2) . . . living abroad after applying for sure elevates the logistical risks related to missing notices or failing to respond to requests timely, and failing to appear for scheduled events. You appear to be well aware of this risk and it is looking for guidance about how to reduce this risk your queries here have been largely focused on . . . and this would be the primary purpose of hiring a representative.
Yeah, no one is likely to be more motivated to watch for notices from IRCC than you, the applicant. But even the applicant who gets her mail from the mailbox just outside her door, at the address where she lives, has some risk of missing a notice. Should be a very minimal risk. But sure, relying on others increases the risks. How much so depends on who and the circumstances.
For most applicants going forward the good news is it appears that most communication, including notices for scheduled events, is done by email. Others here likely know much better than I how well this is working, how reliable this is.
But to the extent an applicant wants assurances that paper-mail is monitored, yep, again, no one is likely to be more motivated to watch for notices than you. Thus, if you leave Canada after applying, you will be dependent on someone, in one fashion or another, to monitor your mail and to also take appropriate action upon receiving IRCC communications. Failing to forward information in mail to the applicant for just a week or so can result in missing a scheduled event (depending on how quickly the individual can make the trip to Canada).
Designated representatives do not need to be paid-for professionals. It is not necessary to hire an authorized consultant or a lawyer. A trusted family member or friend can be your formal representative.
Someone YOU TRUST is the key. Lawyer or friend. Because yep, you will be relying on them.
In the meantime, anecdotal reports indicate many do this (live abroad while the application is pending) without having a formal representative. And without running into problems. Mail monitored by family or friend without them being a formally designated representative. How they go about this varies. I suspect more than a few engage in some degree of fudging what information is shared with IRCC (particularly as to the address where they live). That seems like taking foolish risks to me, even though many appear to
get-away-with-it, since the applicant's credibility looms so large as perhaps the most important risk factor relative to triggering non-routine processing, RQ-related and otherwise.
Some Further Observations:
Efforts to unravel the many threads of RQ-related risk-factors tends to be too speculative to offer much guidance in making decisions like this. Knowing the risk factors may have some influence in a prospective applicant's decision-making, but the more useful role for this information is about being prepared for how things might go.
We know certain factors or circumstances can increase the risk. Applying with a small margin over the minimum presence, for example. Or, as anticipated here, leaving Canada to live abroad after applying. Failing to be complete or otherwise entirely accurate in reporting travel history tends to be a big factor increasing the risk of elevated scrutiny. Certain patterns of travel history or employment history can increase the risk. Appearing to be evasive let alone deceptive can dramatically elevate the risks.
BUT it is near impossible to quantify these risks. And many if not most of the risks are fairly hardwired into the applicant's situation (work and address and travel history are, after all, history), factors which an applicant has little or no ability to change or fix, or which would be rather difficult to change or fix. (That said, applicants would be prudent to (1) apply with a good margin over the minimum, and (2), be as honest, accurate, and complete as possible.)
And even in regards to those factors which an applicant can control, like deciding whether or not to continue living in Canada after applying until the oath has been taken, it is near impossible to forecast what the impact will be. Any applicant can be dragged into RQ-related non-routine processing. Many applicants who leave Canada to live abroad while the application is pending do NOT get RQ-related non-routine processing. More than a few, it appears, do. Attempts to figure the odds, either way, tend to be unavailing, fruitless.
Again, leaving Canada to live abroad after applying for citizenship has risks. Posts and responses in the other topic you started for the purpose of asking about doing this pointed you in the direction of other discussions, some of which address the issue and related aspects in depth. Based on your responses it appears you have read at least some of the other discussions.
Again, some of those risks are
logistical. Some are, as discussed above (and discussed in other topics in much more depth), about
the risk of RQ-related non-routine processing.
Leading to . . .
How Living Abroad After Applying Might Influence Decision-making:
As referenced above, living abroad after applying tends to increase the risk of elevated scrutiny, thus the risk of RQ-related non-routine processing. There is
NO requirement to be living in Canada after applying or at the time citizenship is granted, so there is NO directly negative impact on the application.
There are multiple underlying reasons why living abroad after applying MIGHT raise questions, even suspicions, about whether the applicant actually was IN Canada all the days the applicant reports in the actual physical presence requirement. Some challenge this, but most of those challenges are about what some believe SHOULD be how it works and not so much about how things actually work.
In regards to
how things actually work, the criteria IRCC uses to screen for
reasons-to-question-residency is confidential, secret, not shared with the public or even with lawyers. So the best we can do is follow anecdotal reporting, research relevant discussions in officially published Federal Court decisions in actual cases, and triangulate based on the law and rules and what we know from the past (last leaked version of the "triage criteria" I know about was way back in 2012, with some information about how the criteria was amended and interpreted in later internal CIC memos obtained in ATI requests). Based on all this, best I can discern is that living abroad is still a significant risk factor but
NOT nearly so much so now as it was in the past.
How much influence this has now is very, very difficult to assess.
Leading to observations highlighting negative views about those who APPEAR to be
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport or otherwise APPEAR to be
passport-shopping, or seeking a
passport-of-convenience.
Historically, applicants perceived to be be
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport or
passport-shopping, have been approached with more suspicion. When
reasons-to-question-residency were public information, it was clear this was a real factor in whether or not the applicant was issued RQ. This goes back to published criteria under former Liberal governments, not just when the Conservatives were in power. There was even a brief period when provisions in the law provided grounds to outright dismiss the application of any applicant living abroad after applying. This provision was promptly not enforced when the Liberals formed the government in late 2015, and eventually repealed altogether in Bill C-6. But it illustrates, nonetheless, the extent to which there are strong negative sentiments among many Canadians about this, and not just Canadians generally but also among at least some of those employed within IRCC.
Personally I do not wrestle with
how-it-should-be in regards to matters like this. Keeping up with
how-things-actually-work is enough for me.
Again, it is near impossible to know how much this influences present-day decision-making. Seems obvious it likely still has at least some influence.
