An unusual situation with regards to intention to reside

[zzzzzzzz]

Hello, good people of this forum! It's a pretty long post so please bare with me.

I am eligible to apply for Canadian citizenship by early January 2017 according to current rules. However, the intent to reside rule is giving me nightmares because I have a 1-year contract job in Europe scheduled to last for the entirety of 2017. Let me just point that I love this country, and intend to be back in 2018.

What would this forum advise me to do? (I'll probably approach a consultant as well, but I just wanted to get an idea from this forum)
Should I apply for citizenship and then leave for work? I've applied for PR renewal and got my card extended till 2021, and their requirements are surprisingly similar to the citizenship application, but I'm just worried about the fact that I will 'intend' to reside in Canada but won't be in the country while my application is being processed, and IRCC may not take that fact lightly during the interview process.

The other option for me is to wait for Bill C-6 to get implemented, and then apply abroad from Europe. If Bill C-6 becomes law, the intent to reside is gone, and a Canadian PR that has completed their required stay is eligible to apply from anywhere in the world, according to the cic website.


Also, I understand that the royal assent stage for Bill C-6 and the implementation stage might have a 6-8 month gap, maybe even longer. But I'm unsure about is whether the intent to reside requirement is waived off during the royal assent stage, or the implementation stage, because if it is the former, then I can apply as soon as Bill C-6 receives royal assent (which is projected to be in early 2017).

I'd love to hear opinions about my situation from the forum. Thanks

 

[walmzd]

If you are not living in Canada while applying for citizenship, you will never grant the citizenship under any rule. This applies to current C-24, pre-C-24 and C-6 laws.
You must be living in Canada while processing your application in all cases.

 

[zzzzzzzz]

If you are not living in Canada while applying for citizenship, you will never grant the citizenship under any rule. This applies to current C-24, pre-C-24 and C-6 laws.
You must be living in Canada while processing your application in all cases.

You sure about that? CIC website says that you can be abroad after sending in your application. Citizenship test, interview and oath ceremonies need to happen in Canada, but there's no requirement apart from that.

 

[foodie69]

You can go for vacation, that's it. Otherwise if you want to leave Canada, what's the point of becoming a citizen??

 

[dpenabill]

Hello, good people of this forum! It's a pretty long post so please bare with me.

I am eligible to apply for Canadian citizenship by early January 2017 according to current rules. However, the intent to reside rule is giving me nightmares because I have a 1-year contract job in Europe scheduled to last for the entirety of 2017. Let me just point that I love this country, and intend to be back in 2018.

What would this forum advise me to do? (I'll probably approach a consultant as well, but I just wanted to get an idea from this forum)
Should I apply for citizenship and then leave for work? I've applied for PR renewal and got my card extended till 2021, and their requirements are surprisingly similar to the citizenship application, but I'm just worried about the fact that I will 'intend' to reside in Canada but won't be in the country while my application is being processed, and IRCC may not take that fact lightly during the interview process.

The other option for me is to wait for Bill C-6 to get implemented, and then apply abroad from Europe. If Bill C-6 becomes law, the intent to reside is gone, and a Canadian PR that has completed their required stay is eligible to apply from anywhere in the world, according to the cic website.


Also, I understand that the royal assent stage for Bill C-6 and the implementation stage might have a 6-8 month gap, maybe even longer. But I'm unsure about is whether the intent to reside requirement is waived off during the royal assent stage, or the implementation stage, because if it is the former, then I can apply as soon as Bill C-6 receives royal assent (which is projected to be in early 2017).

I'd love to hear opinions about my situation from the forum. Thanks

The current application still requires the applicant to affirm an intent to continue residing in Canada. As you are aware, there is legislation pending, Bill C-6, which will remove this requirement and, moreover, make it as if there never was any such requirement . . . even for those who applied when the requirement was applicable.

But it is usually a mistake to rely on proposed legislation unless and until it has been formally adopted.

There is also some misconception about how liberal or lenient IRCC is approaching immigrants under this administration. Make no mistake, in respect to what can be observed about IRCC policy, it appears that IRCC is continuing to apply at least several of the more strict changes made under the Harper government:
-- revocation of citizenship appears to be way up under this administration
-- termination of refugee's PR status for obtaining home country passport appears to be continuing
-- appeals of grant citizenship cases reflect continuing a more or less hardline approach

Thus, even though it may appear that IRCC will not look into where an applicant lives after applying, or at least not be aggressive about enforcing the intent to continue residing in Canada requirement so long as the applicant has made an affirmation of such intent in the application, obviously there is some risk residing abroad after applying.

Among salient questions, how much risk looms large. And this is a two-pronged concern:
(1) how much risk is there that IRCC will look for indications of residing abroad while the application is pending, and
(2) what impact will it have if IRCC looks for and perceives that the applicant is residing abroad while the application is pending

This leads to the observation that even if the intent to reside requirement is not enforced, the plan to go abroad for the purpose of working abroad entails some risks.



There are risks even if there is no intent to reside requirement.

Technically, apart from the intent-to-continue-to-reside-in-Canada requirement, living abroad after applying has NO direct impact on whether or not the PR is qualified for a grant of citizenship. Thus, living or working abroad does not directly disqualify an applicant. (Under the intent requirement it could directly disqualify an applicant, since it is logically impossible to intend to continue residing anywhere other than where one is currently residing, so residing abroad could be a sufficient ground to deny the application.)

But practically, extended absences abroad were long a factor which could lead to elevated scrutiny, additional inquiries, including non-routine processing like RQ, and thus could result in a more difficult if not skeptical assessment of the applicant and, even in the best circumstances, long delays. It was under Liberal leadership, after all, that CIC implemented screening criteria specifically looking for indications the applicant had long absences from Canada while the application was pending. (This was pursuant to an Operational Bulletin in 2005, before the first term of Harper's government, which was added to the application Operational Manual and applied until under Jason Kenney's reign at CIC a far more draconian screening process was implemented.)

My sense is that IRCC will continue to look for and have elevated concerns if and when an applicant is perceived to be living or working abroad while the application is pending. Even if this is not directly disqualifying, there is a significant risk it can result in far more difficult and lengthy processing. (There are older topics here in which there is extensive discussion of the potential problems there can be for applicants leaving Canada after applying, much or even most of which is not about the intent requirement, but about the practical difficulties such applicants have long faced.)


Logistical factors: There are also serious logistical factors. Events like the interview and test are often scheduled with quite short notice, and failing to show for the interview or test can be problematic. Time to respond to requests is limited. Notice for the oath itself tends to be short, and a failure to appear on time for the oath can result in having to start all over.


The ever-looming IT-DEPENDS factor:

Even when Jason Kenney and Chris Alexander were the Ministers of CIC, not everyone who went abroad for an extended period of time, while the application was in process, encountered much if any additional difficulty. In particular, some applicants who were abroad for a particular temporary purpose (especially if the temporary nature of the reason for being abroad was obvious), and who were otherwise clearly well-qualified, did not suffer non-routine processing.

Clearly, the impact of being abroad while the application is in process can depend on a lot of factors, but it is not as if there is a direct correlation or any definitive factors. For example, some students who were abroad for a specific degree program sailed through easily, while others did not.

The best we can say is that being abroad while the application is in process elevates the risks of things going awry or getting difficult. Quantifying that risk is near impossible.

 

[zzzzzzzz]

The current application still requires the applicant to affirm an intent to continue residing in Canada. As you are aware, there is legislation pending, Bill C-6, which will remove this requirement and, moreover, make it as if there never was any such requirement . . . even for those who applied when the requirement was applicable.

But it is usually a mistake to rely on proposed legislation unless and until it has been formally adopted.

There is also some misconception about how liberal or lenient IRCC is approaching immigrants under this administration. Make no mistake, in respect to what can be observed about IRCC policy, it appears that IRCC is continuing to apply at least several of the more strict changes made under the Harper government:
-- revocation of citizenship appears to be way up under this administration
-- termination of refugee's PR status for obtaining home country passport appears to be continuing
-- appeals of grant citizenship cases reflect continuing a more or less hardline approach

Thus, even though it may appear that IRCC will not look into where an applicant lives after applying, or at least not be aggressive about enforcing the intent to continue residing in Canada requirement so long as the applicant has made an affirmation of such intent in the application, obviously there is some risk residing abroad after applying.

Among salient questions, how much risk looms large. And this is a two-pronged concern:
(1) how much risk is there that IRCC will look for indications of residing abroad while the application is pending, and
(2) what impact will it have if IRCC looks for and perceives that the applicant is residing abroad while the application is pending

This leads to the observation that even if the intent to reside requirement is not enforced, the plan to go abroad for the purpose of working abroad entails some risks.



There are risks even if there is no intent to reside requirement.

Technically, apart from the intent-to-continue-to-reside-in-Canada requirement, living abroad after applying has NO direct impact on whether or not the PR is qualified for a grant of citizenship. Thus, living or working abroad does not directly disqualify an applicant. (Under the intent requirement it could directly disqualify an applicant, since it is logically impossible to intend to continue residing anywhere other than where one is currently residing, so residing abroad could be a sufficient ground to deny the application.)

But practically, extended absences abroad were long a factor which could lead to elevated scrutiny, additional inquiries, including non-routine processing like RQ, and thus could result in a more difficult if not skeptical assessment of the applicant and, even in the best circumstances, long delays. It was under Liberal leadership, after all, that CIC implemented screening criteria specifically looking for indications the applicant had long absences from Canada while the application was pending. (This was pursuant to an Operational Bulletin in 2005, before the first term of Harper's government, which was added to the application Operational Manual and applied until under Jason Kenney's reign at CIC a far more draconian screening process was implemented.)

My sense is that IRCC will continue to look for and have elevated concerns if and when an applicant is perceived to be living or working abroad while the application is pending. Even if this is not directly disqualifying, there is a significant risk it can result in far more difficult and lengthy processing. (There are older topics here in which there is extensive discussion of the potential problems there can be for applicants leaving Canada after applying, much or even most of which is not about the intent requirement, but about the practical difficulties such applicants have long faced.)


Logistical factors: There are also serious logistical factors. Events like the interview and test are often scheduled with quite short notice, and failing to show for the interview or test can be problematic. Time to respond to requests is limited. Notice for the oath itself tends to be short, and a failure to appear on time for the oath can result in having to start all over.


The ever-looming IT-DEPENDS factor:

Even when Jason Kenney and Chris Alexander were the Ministers of CIC, not everyone who went abroad for an extended period of time, while the application was in process, encountered much if any additional difficulty. In particular, some applicants who were abroad for a particular temporary purpose (especially if the temporary nature of the reason for being abroad was obvious), and who were otherwise clearly well-qualified, did not suffer non-routine processing.

Clearly, the impact of being abroad while the application is in process can depend on a lot of factors, but it is not as if there is a direct correlation or any definitive factors. For example, some students who were abroad for a specific degree program sailed through easily, while others did not.

The best we can say is that being abroad while the application is in process elevates the risks of things going awry or getting difficult. Quantifying that risk is near impossible.

Wow, that's the kind of detailed response that I was looking for. Thank you for that! I didn't know/expect that the intent to reside process would be equally as difficult or even more difficult under the liberals.

 

[dpenabill]

Wow, that's the kind of detailed response that I was looking for. Thank you for that! I didn't know/expect that the intent to reside process would be equally as difficult or even more difficult under the liberals.

What I posted should not lead to the conclusion that the intent-to-reside requirement ("process?") is equally as difficult now that the Liberals form the government. The contrary actually except that so long as it remains the law (as it is and will be until Bill C-6 is formally adopted and the repeal of subsection 5.(1)(c.1) takes effect) IRCC has a legal obligation to enforce it . . . that said, I doubt IRCC is aggressively enforcing it so long as the applicant affirms this intent (it is still part of the application form, last I looked anyway) and otherwise does not flaunt the intent to move abroad.

What I was mostly trying to illuminate is that even with no intent-to-reside requirement, extended absences or living or working abroad after applying can still be problematic for other reasons . . . the main one is that living abroad naturally raises a question about the extent to which the applicant really was living and present in Canada before applying. Once this question arises, here too IRCC has a legal obligation to examine and assess the applicant more thoroughly. That often means non-routine processing, and sometimes RQ. Which is no fun.

 

[zzzzzzzz]

What I posted should not lead to the conclusion that the intent-to-reside requirement ("process?") is equally as difficult now that the Liberals form the government. The contrary actually except that so long as it remains the law (as it is and will be until Bill C-6 is formally adopted and the repeal of subsection 5.(1)(c.1) takes effect) IRCC has a legal obligation to enforce it . . . that said, I doubt IRCC is aggressively enforcing it so long as the applicant affirms this intent (it is still part of the application form, last I looked anyway) and otherwise does not flaunt the intent to move abroad.

What I was mostly trying to illuminate is that even with no intent-to-reside requirement, extended absences or living or working abroad after applying can still be problematic for other reasons . . . the main one is that living abroad naturally raises a question about the extent to which the applicant really was living and present in Canada before applying. Once this question arises, here too IRCC has a legal obligation to examine and assess the applicant more thoroughly. That often means non-routine processing, and sometimes RQ. Which is no fun.

Point well noted. One good thing that might hopefully help me is the fact that I had my Permanent Residency successfully renewed in mid-2016, and the application process is very similar to the citizenship process (details of my work/study, history of addresses, detailed absences from Canada along with reason), and judging by the fact that I haven't and won't be leaving Canada till I'm eligible, the information should be static (really hope that the PR and Citizenship departments aren't disjoint in this matter). I assume a RQ is done if they're having significant doubts about your stay in Canada, but if they've already ascertained this through extending my permanent residency, I hope that the RQ shouldn't be an issue anymore! (Unless, of course, they do varying levels of scrutiny for the PR and citizenship process, which wouldn't make sense to me, but it's something that can be expected by the departments)


Since I assume that you have already attained citizenship, would this step of non-routine processing/RQ happen before/after the citizenship test? I'd be worried about the time after my citizenship test, because if I do mail in my application while in Canada, and then leave Canada, then how would it even be known that I am not in Canada?

 

[zzzzzzzz]

You can go for vacation, that's it. Otherwise if you want to leave Canada, what's the point of becoming a citizen??

Hey, I hope you made that comment after reading my entire post
Does becoming a country's citizen equate to spending the rest of your life in the country, no matter what?
I want to leave Canada just for 1 year, on contract work. I intend to live in Canada after that because I have work/family in Canada. Why not apply after I'm back, you may ask?
Well, because it's very likely that bill C-6 may be implemented by the time I'm back, and processing times are sent into oblivion after that. And if I have the option of exploring an opportunity to apply for citizenship before I have finished, why not use try to use the option?

 

[foodie69]

You are right..go and explore. Many do and never come back and are citizens of convenience. I love Canada and I get a bit emotional when people abuse the system. I see you are not one of them.

 

[zzzzzzzz]

You are right..go and explore. Many do and never come back and are citizens of convenience. I love Canada and I get a bit emotional when people abuse the system. I see you are not one of them.

I totally understand. I've heard stories of how ridiculously easy attaining citizenship used be back in the day, and I'm glad that the process has become more rigid in recent years. People who're committed to attaining citizenship and living in Canada should not have too much to worry about, apart from the increase in year (which again, doesn't matter too much to most people in the grand scheme of things)

 

[dpenabill]

Point well noted. One good thing that might hopefully help me is the fact that I had my Permanent Residency successfully renewed in mid-2016, and the application process is very similar to the citizenship process (details of my work/study, history of addresses, detailed absences from Canada along with reason), and judging by the fact that I haven't and won't be leaving Canada till I'm eligible, the information should be static (really hope that the PR and Citizenship departments aren't disjoint in this matter). I assume a RQ is done if they're having significant doubts about your stay in Canada, but if they've already ascertained this through extending my permanent residency, I hope that the RQ shouldn't be an issue anymore! (Unless, of course, they do varying levels of scrutiny for the PR and citizenship process, which wouldn't make sense to me, but it's something that can be expected by the departments)


Since I assume that you have already attained citizenship, would this step of non-routine processing/RQ happen before/after the citizenship test? I'd be worried about the time after my citizenship test, because if I do mail in my application while in Canada, and then leave Canada, then how would it even be known that I am not in Canada?

The presence requirement to comply with the PR Residency Obligation is way more liberal than the requirement for citizenship. Thus, while sure, IRCC is likely to review the citizenship application comparing information to that in the PR card renewal process, it is not as if getting the PR card renewed indicates the applicant qualified for citizenship.

RQ can be given to an applicant either pre-test, during the interview at the test event, or after the test/interview.

Pre-test RQ was rare prior to 2012. It is not clear to what extent IRCC, under current leadership, is issuing pre-test RQ.

Obviously, there are a range of concerns or questions that may arise in the course of the documents-check and interview, ranging from inconsistencies or other issues identified in the passport or other Travel Documents, to the interviewer having concerns based on how the applicant answers questions in the interview. Thus, among applicants getting RQ'd, a significant number are being sent RQ after the test. RQ at the test/interview typically arises when the IRCC officer preparing for the interview identifies a reason to question residency which is not likely to be resolved merely by an examination of supporting documents and the applicant's response.

Yes, I have been a citizen for more than two and a half years now. There were reasons why I anticipated a high risk of RQ in my case, so I began researching and following related issues many years prior to applying, and have continued to stay current with a few of those. (In fact, I delayed applying for nearly two years beyond when I initially met the then applicable physical presence threshold for eligibility.)

If you are residing abroad, technically you must inform IRCC. And yes, this can lead to problems. But remember, when you sign the application you are verifying that you will promptly notify IRCC of any change in the information in the application. Current address, where one is actually living of course, is actually among the few items of information in the application that can change (most of the information is historical, such as travel history, work history, address history, and so on). This alludes to the logistical problems which can arise if the applicant goes abroad while the application is pending -- without looking back at my first post here, I believe I discussed the logistical problems in that earlier post.

Bottom-line: going abroad for an extended period of time, while the application is pending, can make the process substantially more difficult. That is the way it is. Note especially the risk of missing an appointment due to short notice . . . especially missing a scheduled oath since even though one has been approved for a grant of citizenship, if the applicant misses the oath ceremony there is a high risk the application is terminated (as abandoned) and the applicant has to apply again.

 

[links18]

Where you reside can be a tricky proposition. You say you are considering a time limited position abroad. Will you be severing all residential ties to Canada during this period or not? What steps can you take to indicate a clear intention to return to Canada when this assignment ends?

I would say its risky. But it is also possible to still be a resident of Canada under various definitions even if you are temporarily away. Is one year too long? That's hard to say, because there is once again no clear definition of "reside" for the intent to reside clause. It is a major failing of Bill C-24. Certainly, Revenue Canada might still consider you a resident of Canada for tax purposes if you are only gone for a year, maintain some residential ties and have an intention to return.

 

[zzzzzzzz]

Where you reside can be a tricky proposition. You say you are considering a time limited position abroad. Will you be severing all residential ties to Canada during this period or not? What steps can you take to indicate a clear intention to return to Canada when this assignment ends?

I would say its risky. But it is also possible to still be a resident of Canada under various definitions even if you are temporarily away. Is one year too long? That's hard to say, because there is once again no clear definition of "reside" for the intent to reside clause. It is a major failing of Bill C-24. Certainly, Revenue Canada might still consider you a resident of Canada for tax purposes if you are only gone for a year, maintain some residential ties and have an intention to return.

Yes, I plan to uphold my ties to Canada. I have family in Canada, a student loan to pay off, so bank accounts will remain open. I won't have rent/mobile etc, so that might be an issue. But after some heavy thinking about the situation, I think it makes most sense to not apply for citizenship before leaving. Since I'll be back in a year and Bill C-6 will pass hopefully by 2018, I think I'll apply for citizenship at that time (since I'll still be eligible under 3/5 rule). It'll be the safest route to choose. I'm starting to dislike my original idea of paying 630$ in fees, 2 possible return trips from Europe and a risk of going under RQ or being denied citizenship after all the trouble.