Why are they asking if we're working or not? is it a requirement now? I just went back to school after working for 3 years. will it cause an issue?
Not sure whats the purpose for the question as there is no such requirement on employment whatsoever.
There is NO employment related qualification requirement to become a Canadian citizen.
Nonetheless, information about an applicant's work or other activity (school or stay-at-home parent or whatever) is considered important enough that to even make a complete citizenship application the applicant must declare a complete employment history for the previous five years in the application itself, and any gaps in employment must be otherwise accounted for, accounting for every month. Failure to provide this full five year history will result in the application being incomplete and NOT getting processed.
Frankly, even though multifaceted, the relevancy of this information should be obvious . . . just the extent to which it helps corroborate identification and physical presence alone is sufficient to indicate the importance of this information. This relevance continues after the application is made. A core element of the interview, for example, is to positively identify that the applicant is the person they purport to be.
The main thing, however, as discussed in this particular thread multiple times, is that IRCC officials have very broad authority to ask a wide, wide range of questions in an interview, some focused on cross-checks to test the applicant's credibility. And the take-away is that yes, many applicants are asked questions about their current and recent circumstances, including where they live, where they work, where members of their family live. That's how it works. That's how it is done.
With regards to work, I heard that if you're unemployed, or are self-employed, they're more likely to send you a RQ after the interview... Not sure about going back to school though.
This is just stupid. If they have all the entry-exit records what's the point of RQ? Red tape after red tape. If employment is a criteria in citizenship then make it . Thank you for the info though.
Also, a lot of people move out of Canada after applying for citizenship and getting a job elsewhere, it just seems like a bullying tactic.
Historically being self-employed or unemployed was a significant factor tending to invite some degree of increased scrutiny. It's no mystery why. For the PR with a work history documenting they were employed and working IN Canada, week in and week out, that's compelling evidence they were in fact IN Canada all that time. Not much need to more closely examine the details in that PR's life in order to verify they were in Canada when they declared they were.
For the self-employed PR (like me), no objective (non-family/friend) employer to corroborate where the PR was physically located doing the work they do, that evidence of week-to-week physical presence in Canada is absent. So that is a factor that can influence a total stranger bureaucrat's decision-making, in particular as to whether there might be reason to more closely examine details in the PR's life in order to verify they were in Canada when they said they were.
Some Background: During the Harper years, when the Conservatives held a majority government, this was taken to a new level, and for a time this was not merely a factor but a stand-alone trigger for RQ. And yeah "
stupid" probably applies, some "
bullying" as well. Note that long before adopting a strict
intent-to-reside requirement, which was mostly about making leaving Canada after applying a stand-alone ground for denying an application, Harper's Conservative government had dramatically escalated all sorts of measures to make getting citizenship a lot more difficult for those applicants the Conservatives (and more than a few others as well) branded as
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport or
seeking-passport-of-convenience. It was in 2012, for example, the Conservative government implemented the screening criteria which automatically triggered RQ for any applicant reporting a period of unemployment, self-employment, or employment as a consultant . . . just about bringing processing citizenship applications to a standstill (some months one in every four applicants got the full blown RQ, CIT 0171) . . . routine processing timelines reached two years, with scores of applicants suffering three, four and more years of waiting. It was such a mess that it took less than a year for Harper's government to back down some (in time that my application got through without being RQ'd, noting though I deliberately waited to apply a full extra year after qualifying, until it was clear the Harper government was easing off giving full blown RQ to every self-employed applicant) and modify its "
triage criteria" and how it is applied. In the meantime, though, the Harper government amended the Citizenship Act to give it authority to deny a citizenship application just because the applicant was residing outside Canada after applying; that provision was short-lived because the Trudeau government immediately ceased enforcing it when elected in late 2015, and the Liberals promptly pursued legislation to repeal it altogether.
Meanwhile, now and for all but a short period of time (in 2015),
leaving Canada after applying does NOT directly affect a PR's qualifications for citizenship, and historically many have in fact relocated abroad after applying without encountering non-routine processing let alone real problems. HOWEVER, many others who have relocated abroad after applying have encountered non-routine processing, with more than a few running into significant difficulties and lengthy delays, the nature and extent of this depending on the particular situation.
Thus, being outside Canada while the application is pending has no direct impact on a citizenship application, and it has been this way for decades except during that short period of time when the
intent-to-reside in Canada requirement provided a stand-alone ground to deny an application if the applicant was determined to be residing outside Canada after applying (the requirement was actually that the applicant intend to
continue to reside in Canada, and of course a person cannot intend to continue doing something they are not currently doing, so those who moved abroad could not, as a matter of fact, possibly intend to continue residing in Canada, so under the approach adopted by the Conservative government, moving abroad before taking the oath was a more or less automatic trigger to deny the application).
Beyond That; Current Impact of Moving Abroad After Applying Generally:
We do not really know how much influence moving abroad typically has, currently. The jury is still out. There are many, many threads in this forum about this subject. The anecdotal reports reflect the whole gamut of outcomes, ranging from those who still sail through the process with no indication of any impact whatsoever, to those who have encountered and those still encountering delays and non-routine processing which appear to be in significant part caused by being seen to be abroad.
Again, moving abroad is NOT itself a reason to deny an application. There is a ton of evidence indicating moving abroad after applying (or appearing to have moved abroad) can still influence how things go, including an increased risk of non-routine processing, which in turn includes the risk of RQ-related non-routine processing, but which also includes some elevated scrutiny otherwise, ranging from simply more probing inquiries in interviews to applicants being required to document their return to Canada in order to be scheduled for the oath.
It appears that living abroad currently has LESS negative impact now, currently, than it has historically (well, especially compared to when there has been a Conservative government which overtly went after those applicants they perceived were
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport, noting that of course sooner or later the Conservatives will form the government again). But it readily appears that for SOME applicants abroad this continues to have some negative impact on how things go. Again, in regards to how much so, currently, the jury is still out -- we just don't know.
Meanwhile, there is nothing that precludes IRCC from considering an applicant's move abroad in deciding whether to issue RQ or pursue more probing inquiries. So all the outcries about how wrong it is for IRCC to do this have little or no effect on how things actually work. Why IRCC is almost certainly going to continue considering this (being abroad) in deciding whether to conduct non-routine processing of an applicant has been discussed at-length, in-depth, in many discussions in this forum, but is not particularly relevant here, since what is important here is to recognize that IRCC is almost certainly going to continue considering this in deciding whether to conduct non-routine processing, so that individual applicants and prospective applicants can make more informed decisions in navigating their way through the process.