Thank you so much for your detailed response. Yes, that makes sense to me. I'll carefully consider all the consequences before making a decision.
However, I have a doubt. If someone is going outside Canada for 2 years of education after applying for Citizenship, does this have fewer RISKS?
In regards to "
If someone is going outside Canada for 2 years of education after applying for Citizenship, does this have fewer RISKS?"
LOGISTICAL RISKS:
The logistical risks are the same regardless of reason why the applicant has relocated abroad. IRCC allows some flexibility in regards to rescheduling events like tests, interviews, even the oath, for example, but of course any failure to timely respond to requests or appear when scheduled will, at the least, result in delays. How long and with what potential collateral consequences, such as elevated scrutiny, will vary widely and depend on individual factors.
The logistical risks tend to vary more depending on (1) where abroad the applicant has relocated and (2) assurances mail communications are monitored and information forwarded. The latter risk has diminished a lot due to IRCC utilizing email for communication more often now, but some things are still done by regular mail and sometimes IRCC will use the telephone to contact applicants.
The
where-abroad factor should be obvious. Applicants living outside Canada but just a few hours drive away in the United States will obviously be able to get to Canada for scheduled events on short notice faster, easier, and more reliably, than those who have relocated to more distant parts of the world.
Non-Routine Processing and Related RISKS:
These risks are far, far more difficult to quantify or compare. Since there is no rule prohibiting an applicant from living abroad while the application is pending, a significant factor in how things go depends more on what is PERCEIVED, what IMPRESSION the applicant makes, and this in turn is an element that can vary depending on which processing agent or citizenship officer is reviewing the file.
Moreover, there are factors other than the fact of having relocated abroad which can have a big influence in whether an applicant is subject to non-routine processing and if so, how that goes. Some non-routine processing does not result in significant problems or delays. The more problematic non-routine processing tends to be RQ-related. That is, for applicants subject to requests for additional information and evidence (documents) in regards to establishing the applicant's actual physical presence.
Of course the applicant's credibility is a key factor. Applicants seen as being even a little evasive, for example, can anticipate that factors which might not attract much scrutiny for others can, nonetheless, trigger elevated scrutiny if not outright suspicion.
Overall it appears that these days the risk of RQ-related non-routine processing are fairly low. But as almost always, there is no guarantee a particular applicant will not encounter RQ-related non-routine processing, and otherwise trying to forecast or quantify risks is near impossible . . . except to recognize that certain circumstances quite likely increase the risk, and that some combination of factors will increase the risk considerably. (Multiple or lengthy omissions in dates of travel, for example; incongruities let alone inconsistencies in the applicant's information; among others, particularly in combination with a minimal margin over the minimum presence requirement.)
In the past, indications the applicant was living abroad after applying was clearly a factor increasing the risk of RQ-related non-routine processing. Indeed, prior to when the Harper-Conservative government stopped publicly disclosing, in 2012, the listed criteria for triggering RQ (the
reasons-to-question-residency criteria listed in the then applicable Operational Manual CP 5 "Residence") included indications the applicant was living abroad or otherwise was returning to Canada just in time to attend the test. In 2012 the Harper government revised its criteria and made this information confidential, as in secret, and then for a brief period (until repealed by Liberal government) the Harper government adopted a provision (the former, now repealed subsection 5(1)(c.1) in the Citizenship Act) which actually gave CIC/IRCC authority to deny an application if it was determined the applicant was not residing in Canada.
As I previously stated:
To what extent your plan might be perceived to be inconsistent with the purpose of the law is very, very difficult to forecast, as is the impact of such a perception. That is, such a plan involves RISKS rather than any for-sure known outcome.
Ultimately there is no restriction on moving abroad while the application is pending. So, in terms of technically meeting the requirements for a grant of citizenship, it makes NO difference if an applicant is living abroad for temporary reasons or has moved abroad pursuant to plans to live outside Canada indefinitely. IRCC cannot deny the application because the applicant has relocated abroad. IRCC cannot suspend processing an application on the grounds the applicant is living abroad. But obviously, if the processing agent or citizenship officer has questions, concerns, or is otherwise suspicious, IRCC can and commonly will subject the applicant to RQ-related non-routine processing, which inherently elevates the level of scrutiny and perhaps skepticism employed.
One can easily guess that an individual who is more or less obviously outside Canada temporarily, such as attending a particular course of study abroad or attendant a temporary job assignment abroad, is LESS LIKELY to be perceived as someone
seeking-a-passport-of-convenience (and therefore suspicious in the eyes of many Canadians, which likely includes at least some processing agents and citizenship officers at IRCC) than someone who APPEARS to have simply
applied-on-the-way-to-the-airport on their way to working and living outside Canada indefinitely.
OVERALL:
The main problem with some of the commentary in this forum is that these risks are often understated or outright ignored. And there are plenty of reports from those for whom things did not go, as one might say, according to plan.
Stuff-happens. The
best-laid-plans run into reality. As I noted in the previous post, the tendency of some to minimize or overlook these risks appears to be largely rooted in a narrow-focus on what the law allows, disregarding the impression made, and the impact that can have, if it appears an individual is acting contrary to the purpose and intent of the law. . . . regarding which, the purpose of the law is so individuals can settle IN Canada permanently. The purpose has no independent enforcement mechanism, but those who disregard its potential influence do so at their peril. As I often note, spoiler alert: does not help to be seen as
gaming-the-system. Unfortunately, under the current rules it is not so easy to distinguish who is
gaming-the-system from those who circumstances just happen to compel spending an extended period of time abroad.
