Is it possible that someone would send his citizenship application and then travel to unite with loved ones or work ?? are there actual cases of such ??
First question that comes to mind is ; How are the mail communications managed then ??
Traveling, including traveling abroad, is not prohibited while a grant citizenship application is pending. Applicants traveling abroad for more than two weeks are advised, by IRCC, to notify IRCC. The purpose of this is to avoid being scheduled for an event during that period of time.
Otherwise, the applicant bears the risk of not getting a notice in time to appear for a scheduled event.
Basically, the risks are logistic, about getting notices and requests on time, in time to respond or appear as required. The longer the trip abroad, typically the more risk there is.
Obviously applicants who have trusted, reliable family or friends who collect their mail, tend to be at less risk.
Traveling versus living or working abroad:
In this forum many inquiries about "traveling" abroad while the application is pending are
NOT really about traveling, but rather about going abroad to stay for a significant period of time. This is likewise
NOT prohibited.
Labeling the time abroad as "travel" fools no one. But over the years there has been no shortage of forum participants describing time abroad for three, five, even six or more months, as "traveling abroad." Technically the label does not matter. Technically, again, even living and working abroad is not prohibited.
HOWEVER, extended stays abroad significantly increase logistical risks (failing to get notices on time, including requests from IRCC as well as for scheduled events, tending to be the more salient risk) and also involve some processing related risks . . . there continues to be some indication that if and when IRCC perceives an applicant is, in effect, staying abroad for an extended period of time, that can trigger elevated scrutiny and potentially lead to non-routine processing.
This was far more obvious in the past. Previous versions of "
triage criteria" or "
reasons-to-question-residency" specifically included criteria triggering RQ-related processing when an applicant was perceived to be living abroad -- going back to the 2005 criteria added to the old CP-5 Operational Manual, as well as the leaked version of triage criteria in the 2012 OB-407. Indeed, for a short time during the Harper government, the requirements for citizenship were statutorily revised to include a provision that allowed CIC to summarily deny a citizenship application if the applicant was living abroad while the application was pending (this provision was immediately no longer enforced when the Liberal government was formed in 2015, and repealed in the same Bill that revised the presence requirement to 3 out of 5 years rather than 4 out of 6). Thus, even though there is NO technical prohibition, the history offers a rather salient clue about attitudes and perceptions. Anyone who thinks the absence of an overt prohibition means the applicant living abroad is not at risk for being looked at in a less favourable light is covering their eyes.
The "
reasons-to-question-residency" employed by IRCC in screening grant citizenship applicants has been "confidential" since April 2012, and the last known version that was leaked later that year has clearly been modified . . . so we do not know to what extent processing agents or Citizenship Officers are currently looking at extended stays abroad as a reason to more thoroughly examine the applicant's actual physical presence. Being abroad itself does NOT result in any deduction from the presence calculation . . . the issue is whether or not it might trigger elevated scrutiny or suspicions. Many who went abroad for various reasons report they have successfully proceeded through the application process, and taken the oath. So even being abroad for an extended period of time will not necessarily trigger delays. But there are more than a few anecdotal reports which suggest at least some applicants who have gone abroad for an extended period of time have encountered non-routine processing or otherwise been bogged down in longer processing times.
My sense is that staying abroad for an extended period of time while the application is pending still increases the risk of elevated scrutiny, non-routine processing, and delays. This is in addition to and apart from the logistical risks (failing to get a notice on time to appear for a scheduled event for example).
Remember the Need For Ongoing Compliance with the PR Residency Obligation:
For several years the processing time for grant citizenship applications tended to be fast enough the applicant who went abroad did not need to worry about continuing to comply with the PR Residency Obligation. But back when processing times were often in the two to four year range, going back to the period 2008 to 2014, citizenship applicants staying abroad for extended periods of time sometimes were abroad so long as to fall short of complying with the RO.
Now that Covid-19 has thrown a huge wrench into the works and it is near impossible to forecast how long it will take to process the still-building backlog of applications, any applicant who goes abroad to stay for a particularly lengthy extended time would be wise to keep the PR RO in mind and be sure to not get close to falling short. Back when processing time lines were lengthy, there were more than a few cases in which the applicant got a favourable decision made and was scheduled for the oath, but upon arrival at the PoE to come into Canada to take the oath was issued a 44(1) Report for failing to comply with the RO, with the result their scheduled oath was cancelled and instead of becoming citizens they lost PR status. So far the processing time line is not approaching this long, but given the current situation time lines for two plus and more years could happen again.
