Context note: this topic was initially about a citizenship PI interview generally. That was a little over a year ago.
Several weeks ago (late March) the topic was revived by a post sharing an anecdotal experience illustrating precisely what I have occasionally cautioned, that the applicant who is (or who appears to be) relocated abroad after applying may be asked questions regarding being abroad, and may even be asked
why questions. Depending on other factors, there is a risk of elevated scrutiny, potentially RQ.
The rational for, or even the prospect of similar questions being similarly posed to other applicants, was challenged and to some extent ridiculed. Which continues. Some of this comes from the
usual suspects and is otherwise part of a recurring pattern of posts which more or less dismiss or belittle or at least minimize the fact that being located abroad after applying can trigger additional questioning and elevated concerns.
Most qualified citizenship applicants have no reason to worry about what they might be asked in a PI interview. And no reason to worry that EVEN IF their application is subject to somewhat increased scrutiny, for whatever reason, that will cause a problem in their case.
This is true even for the qualified applicant who is abroad after applying. That said (and this is the primary message in my posts on this subject), applicants who are abroad while their application is pending should anticipate and prepare to be questioned more extensively, recognizing that the scope of questions asked can include questions about their residence or employment AFTER applying. Again, qualified applicants have little or nothing to fear in this regard, but given the higher risk of RQ-related non-routine processing, it is also a good idea to be even more prepared (than most applicants), if asked, to submit objective evidence documenting their actual physical presence.
The derision these observations tend to attract is almost never about advancing what we know and understand about the nature and scope of questions that may be asked of applicants who are abroad, in an interview or in requests for more information or documentation.
One of the most frequent and obvious examples of bad faith underlying such derision, is the recurring reference to this being about "
traveling" abroad.
It is NOT about traveling abroad. Make no mistake, to the extent that relocating abroad after applying is a factor that can lead to a particular line of questioning, in regards to relocating abroad, and potentially lead to additional inquiries, increased scrutiny, and in some cases some skepticism, that is
NOT ABOUT traveling abroad.
So we see this . . .
Very rational, those that need to travel internationally for work need to be scrutinized heavily.
To be clear, there is ZERO indication that IRCC targets applicants who "need to travel internationally for work" for increased scrutiny.
There is
nothing in the anecdotal reporting or officially published decisions recounting actual cases that so much as hints that those who "
need to travel internationally for work" will "
be scrutinized heavily."
In contrast, the applicant whose situation indicates strong residential or employment ties outside Canada can anticipate questions that will help IRCC clarify whether those ties indicate a reason to question the physical presence calculation, especially if there are indications the ties are a continuation of ties the applicant has had for some time.
So let's be clear: the applicant who is traveling abroad extensively for a readily identified and easily verified Canadian employer, and who otherwise applied in circumstances that do not invite questions or concerns about meeting the presence requirement, is not at all likely to encounter the least bit of elevated screening or concern in regards to the travel abroad. Traveling abroad, even frequently, is NOT an issue.
Likewise, again to be clear: qualified applicants on the up-and-up (as they say), even those located abroad, might encounter some questions about being abroad, and will need to be returning to Canada for the oath, BUT they need NOT WORRY there will be inordinate let alone arbitrary or capricious actions taken in their case.
For the qualified applicant on the up-and-up,
a little elevated scrutiny should not be a problem. A closer look, a few additional questions beyond what most are asked, will generally not trigger the more severe non-routine processing (RQ or CBSA investigation or both)
UNLESS it reveals further
reason-to-question-presence. Applicants can rest assured that the scope of inquiry will depend on the merits of their case, based on the facts, and be rationally and reasonably commensurate with what the facts in their case indicate.
Those playing games, abusing the system, hiding something, or for whom their particular circumstances reveal further
reason-to-question-presence, sure, if the fact they are abroad triggers a closer look and if in taking a closer look the total stranger bureaucrat processing the application sees
reason-to-question-presence, yep, then there is a present risk of elevated scrutiny, and more significantly, the more the particular individual's situation indicates
reasons-to-question-presence, the greater the scope and extent of additional inquiry and processing.
This involves the typical, common telescoping approach, so the extent of additional inquiry will depend on the extent to which what is learned satisfies the official (ending further scrutiny) or raises additional questions (leading to further inquiries). So, again, the extent of additional screening, and ultimately the extent of suspicion or skepticism where implicated, will vary and depend on the facts in the individual case. So the qualified applicant who is not playing games and not hiding something has very, very little to worry about.
In particular, we have seen numerous reports from applicants who were abroad for an extended period after applying, some asked probing questions about when or why they went abroad, but who nonetheless proceeded to be scheduled for and take the oath of citizenship once they returned to Canada. This was true even a decade ago, at the peak of the Harper-era heavy-handed, draconian crack-down aimed at applicants PERCEIVED to be
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport or otherwise PERCEIVED to be
seeking-a-passport-of-convenience. (These are predominantly conservative characterizations, but far from exclusively so.)
Even then, applicants temporarily relocated abroad after applying did not run into serious problems
UNLESS there were other aspects of their case giving CIC cause to question and challenge their residency.
So, for many abroad for extended periods after applying things still go smoothly.
It has gone otherwise for some. And for most of those running into the more difficult RQ-related processing, including the more lengthy delays, this was rather predictable. It is safe to say, it needs to be noted, they know who they are and they know or have a good idea why their case ran into issues, and especially so in regards to those whose case has gone sideways.
No rocket science necessary . . .
IRCC officials are not the bumbling fools some forum participants paint them to be. They mostly (not always, not entirely, but mostly) get it. They have worked through a few actual cases, as in THOUSANDS of actual cases, and they have the background and experience to figure things out. And they mostly do, they mostly figure things out. Not perfectly (far from it). And these days not anywhere near within a reasonable timeline. But overall qualified applicants, again those on the
up-and-up, generally sail through without any significant problems or extra-delays. And this includes a significant number of applicants temporarily located abroad while their application is pending,
A big part of why this is important is to help applicants be prepared for the kinds of questions that might be asked during an interview, or the document requests IRCC might make. And so some applicants can make better informed decisions before applying (especially in regards to keeping appropriate records, but also as to things like how much of a margin to apply with), or before relocating abroad after applying.
IRCC's botched response to Covid aside, the other reason why understanding how this works is important is about giving applicants confidence in the process. In terms of screening applicants, and determining who to ask more questions, and who to screen a little more than the usual, that's their bailiwicke, that's what they do. They figure it out. Which seems to bother some, which frankly seems to rather often be about not wanting IRCC to figure it out.
Overall the qualified applicant need not worry; be prepared but no need to worry. Applicants can be confident that the nature and scope of inquiries in their case will be relative to, mostly commensurate with, the extent to which their situation and factual details show they are qualified, or raise questions.
