I am not clear what you are referring to as an "
overly pessimistic view," and I am especially not clear how optimism or pessimism fits into describing what circumstances or influences might trigger problems, including what might trigger non-routine inquiries delaying processing, or trigger overtly RQ-related non-routine processing resulting in inconvenience and potentially much longer processing timelines, potentially subjecting an applicant to elevated scrutiny and a more strict assessment of eligibility.
I am particularly unclear because it seems obvious you did not mean to say it is an "
overly pessimistic view" that:
"Many relocate outside Canada after applying for citizenship and become Canadian citizens in due course; no problems."
Which was the primary observation I made, and you quote, and you appear to be responding to. Indeed, my sense is the opposite, that you would perceive how smoothly it goes for many of those located abroad after applying to be a positive view. (To be clear, my approach and focus is trying to understand, as best we can, how things actually work, and is not about how things should work.)
But, there are those who feel differently. No shortage of them actually. There is no doubt, many, many Canadians, and a significant number of forum participants, who do consider that to be a pessimistic view, perhaps even an "
overly pessimistic view." There is no shortage of Canadians who believe citizenship should be denied if the applicant is living abroad. The animosity some have toward those seen or perceived to be "
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport" or otherwise "
seeking-a-passport-of-convenience," as those with such views typically label those in these scenarios, did not disappear because the Liberals won a majority government in 2015 and were able to repeal the more draconian measures adopted by Harper's government in 2014 (not the least of which was the short-lived provision implemented in 2015 which was essentially intended to give CIC grounds to deny an application on the sole basis that the applicant was residing outside Canada).
To what extent, these days, that sentiment influences decision-making among the total stranger bureaucrats processing citizenship applicants is very difficult to gauge. These decision-makers cannot deny an application because the applicant has relocated abroad (noting that has been true, how it works, for all but a few months in the second half of 2015), recognizing that it is correct that there is no eligibility qualification requiring an otherwise qualified applicant be residing in Canada while the application is in process.
In particular, living abroad after applying does not directly affect the applicant's eligibility as long as the applicant continues to comply with the PR Residency Obligation. So, there is no basis for IRCC to deny or reject a citizenship application based on a PR's move abroad. Which is how it has been for many decades
except for those few months in 2015 when the Harper government was enforcing the
former section 5(1)(c.1) in the Citizenship Act (not officially repealed until June 18, 2017, but was effectively no longer applied or enforced as soon as the Liberals formed the government in late 2015).
But, for those who are navigating the process, assessing the pros and cons in their own, personal situations, making personal decisions about whether or when to take a job outside Canada, or whether or when to otherwise relocate outside Canada, or whether to remain living outside Canada while their application is pending, most will want to make an informed decision, most will want to consider what is known about how the process works and what can influence how it goes, what is likely to influence how things go, and if possible the nature and extent of such influences. And then make decisions according to their personal situation and priorities.
Unfortunately, since 2012 the criteria employed by CIC/IRCC in deciding what triggers
reasons-to-question-residency has been confidential, secret (there have been leaks, but none I have seen in the last several years). In contrast, nonetheless, historically there has been a strong correlation between RQ and applicants perceived, by the total stranger bureaucrats making decisions in processing the citizenship application, to have relocated outside Canada.
The question is whether or not living abroad
continues to be a significant factor potentially triggering RQ-related requests and processing. Unlike how it was for many years, such as when circumstances indicated the applicant had recently returned to Canada from abroad (under criteria listed in the operational manual CP 5 governing assessment of residency, which the Harper government replaced with secret triage criteria), it does not appear that living abroad will, by itself, trigger RQ-related non-routine processing. This, in conjunction with sufficient anecdotal reporting, as noted, indicating that many proceed smoothly through the process even though they have relocated abroad after applying, suggests that
living abroad after applying has LESS RISK today than it did a few years ago.
But there is a lot of uncertainty about the extent of this. Many of those who report NO problem clearly masked their move abroad. There are some here who insist being abroad is not and cannot be a factor in deciding who is subject to RQ-related non-routine processing. The impact of the pandemic has totally skewered anecdotal reporting about processing timelines. In terms of simple logic, if a decision-maker perceives an applicant was pursuing Canadian citizenship for purposes contrary to Canada's immigration law and policy (in which bringing immigrants to settle permanently in Canada is a primary purpose), obviously that can indicate a potential motive to otherwise act inconsistent with the law and thus be a reason to initiate further scrutiny, more extensive inquiries, or outright investigation or make RQ-related requests.
Lots of clues, no firm leads. We just do not know for sure to what extent processing agents and Citizenship Officers might be, currently, more skeptical of applicants who are abroad. But we do know that historically this has been a significant factor.
I did not mean to paint a dark forecast for those who relocate abroad. As I noted, many do so and encounter NO problems. But it varies. Other factors can make a big difference.
Taking Oath Abroad:
Not all grants of citizenship are pursuant to Section 5(1) in the Citizenship Act. For SOME grants of citizenship the law allows the oath of citizenship to be administered by a foreign service officer if the person is outside Canada. A person who has applied for and is granted a resumption of citizenship, for example, can take the oath abroad. Likewise a person specially granted citizenship to alleviate statelessness. Among other EXCEPTIONS, including minors between 14 and the age of majority granted citizenship pursuant to Section 5(2).
Otherwise the current law requires adults granted citizenship pursuant to Section 5(1) to take "
the oath of citizenship by swearing or solemnly affirming it before a citizenship judge" and this must be done IN Canada. See
Citizenship Regulations 17 through 24. Some forum participants claim there will be changes to this forthcoming but those posting this are notoriously unreliable, generally among the deliberately disruptive and offensive usual suspects, and have provided no reliable sources (for just about anything).
