Note: for PRs applying for citizenship, and then soon moving abroad, there are logistical and procedural risks. These have been discussed often, in numerous other topics. I will not revisit that here.
I would add that applying very soon after reaching the 1095 day threshold, with little margin over the minimum requirement, also increases the risk of RQ-related non-routine processing.
Recognizing risks does not say what will happen, but is about what can happen.
To some of the more experienced members here, is there not a risk of RQs being issued when entries are close to the interview / oath dates?
I could be wrong but I could've sworn I remember reading about such experiences years ago.
Yes, there WAS, in the past, an explicitly stated
reason-to-question-residency based on indications the citizenship applicant has been abroad and returned to Canada shortly before a scheduled event, such as the knowledge-of-Canada test or an interview. This was in an appendix to the Operational Manual CP 5 "Residence." That was replaced in
2012 by OB 407, in which the criteria which triggers RQ, called "triage criteria," was designated confidential and not shared with the public. So it has been, well, a long while. We do not know the current criteria . . . except based on a leaked version of the File Requirements Checklist (which included a checkbox list of the triage criteria) and some internal memos obtained through the ATI process (not the same as the ATIP process, but similar), along with other indirect indicators, we can surmise the criteria remain similar (but no where near as strict as the 2012 version when the Harper government went ballistic and for some periods was issuing RQ to nearly one in three applicants . . . just being self-employed for a time, for example, triggered RQ then). In other topics I have detailed this history in many posts going back to when we first learned about OB 407 replacing CP 5 . . . so yeah, much of that was posted many years ago.
Among reasons why we surmise the criteria remains similar is that what factors indicate ties and activities abroad which could in turn indicate more time spent abroad than reported by the applicant remain mostly the same. For PRs with family living abroad, for example, there is obviously a higher chance they spent more time abroad. Not rocket science. Remember that what amounts to a reason to do more scrutiny, more thorough verification of the applicant's information, is significantly less than what directly evidences where the applicant physically was during the eligibility period.
