It needs to be made clear that the attacks against me mischaracterize my posts, misstate the law, and misrepresent how the process actually works. The subject here is not about me, should not be about me; in this particular topic it is about the scope of questions an applicant may be asked in an interview.
As is typical in this forum, following a post reporting questions about being located abroad, including "why" questions, including post-application location and employment questions, just the fact that such questions are asked was challenged and ridiculed. This forum is rife with unfounded and erroneous assertions that IRCC is or should be prohibited from asking such questions.
No surprise, my effort to illuminate and explain that such questions are common, typical, not improper, and for those abroad for extended periods of time, are questions that are to be more or less expected, brought out the usual suspects, now plus some, attacking me for simply clarifying that yes, questions about the applicant's life after applying can be and sometimes are asked, and for applicants abroad for an extended period of time it is more likely such questions will be asked.
I have made a concerted effort to put the discussion in context; among things I have repeated in various ways is this:
"It warrants emphasizing that the vast majority of qualified applicants have little or nothing to worry about. This includes those who are abroad after applying (subject, of course, to their continuing to meet all the requirements, including compliance with the Residency Obligation and appropriately showing up for scheduled events)."
As I have said, repeated, including in a larger font for emphasis:
The basics are simple, and have been repeated often:
-- there is nothing that prohibits citizenship applicants from living abroad after applying for citizenship
-- a citizenship application cannot be denied because the applicant was living abroad after applying, but
-- extended time abroad after applying can raise concerns and result in questions, and potentially lead to non-routine processing, ranging from minimal increased scrutiny involving additional factual inquiries, to RQ-related non-routine processing which, in turn, can involve investigatory inquiries, even referrals to CBSA's NSSD for more extensive and intensive background investigation
For example follow link in this post:
The basics are simple . . .
There, in that post, and elsewhere, in an effort to be clear, I summarized:
SUMMARY: Applicants who are abroad while their application is pending should anticipate and prepare to be questioned more extensively, and the scope of questions asked can include questions about their residence or employment AFTER applying. Qualified applicants have little or nothing to fear, but given the likely higher risk of RQ-related non-routine processing, perhaps a good idea to be even more prepared (than most applicants), if asked, to submit objective evidence documenting their actual physical presence.
And along the way I added (and in various way repeated):
To Be Clear: There is NO Indication That IRCC Punishes or Penalizes Citizenship Applicants for Living Abroad After Applying.
While it is said that my posts are "
opinion" (it should be noted, however, not all opinions are created equal), actually the key elements stated above, and most of the supporting propositions in my explanations, are either well established law (like "
there is nothing that prohibits citizenship applicants from living abroad after applying for citizenship," and "
a citizenship application cannot be denied because the applicant was living abroad after applying"), with which it appears no one here disagrees, or observations (not opinion) about what actually happens, based on factual reporting, including anecdotal reports like those here acknowledging that yes, indeed, questions about after-applying location, residence, employment, and related matters (even "why"), are asked in interviews, but also including what is reported in officially published accounts of actual cases in Federal Court decisions. I do the homework.
So the question is what actually is objectionable about what I have posted? It's not exactly a brain teaser.
It is not because I reiterate and emphasize that the majority of applicants have little or nothing to worry about, including those who are abroad after applying.
It is not because I reference the obvious: that questions about location, residence, and employment after-applying are sometimes asked, and more likely to be asked of applicants abroad for an extended period of time. (Some of those who find my posts objectionable report this themselves.)
It is not because I describe the risk of additional questions as typically minimal, and that applicants can rest assured 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.
-- Noting: all of the above are important. --
It may seem, and some seem to say, that what is objectionable about my posts is the caution that SOME applicants, if and when there are additional facts or circumstances suggesting a
reason-to-question-presence, might be subject to more probing inquiries, elevated scrutiny, and potentially inconvenient if not problematic non-routine processing that, for some, can pose substantial difficulty. Which as a caution, which given the reality of RQ-related non-routine processing and referrals to CBSA's NSSD for investigation, is information the prudent applicant will generally want.
But what is really objectionable about this caution is the explanation for who, when, and why there can be an increased risk of the process going beyond a few additional questions, to more questions and depending on the responses to those questions, leading to doubts, and then potentially concerns, and for some to skepticism and suspicion, with a predictable trajectory. The explanation for this is what draws the challenges, the attacks, the derision.
But there is no dodging that reality: 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 does not apply to the vast majority of applicants, even among those abroad for extended periods of time. For those it does apply to, well, it really is what it is, and the risks are real. And there are ways to prepare to navigate the process better, to deal with RQ if and when it happens for example.
I rarely say or expect anyone to trust me, but the law is so well established it is safe to say trust me:
-- there is nothing that prohibits citizenship applicants from living abroad after applying for citizenship
-- a citizenship application cannot be denied because the applicant was living abroad after applying
And there really is no doubt that IRCC's interviews of citizenship applicants quite often ask about location, residence, and employment after-applying. Beyond that, whether the applicant's answers suffice or there is further inquiry will depend on the applicant's answers, the situation, and a range of other factors. Nothing for anyone to get stressed about . . . unless, of course, they know there is cause to worry in their particular case.
