The Long Read (FWIW)
:
Others have largely well-covered
the-need-to-know elements, including key conditionals and contingencies, illuminating that pending processing of a citizenship application there is
NO prohibition or restriction requiring PRs to remain in Canada in order to stay eligible for a grant of citizenship, but how it actually goes can DEPEND on various factors in the individual situation.
Note the "
So, technically . . . " commentary by
@pumpkin_latte which in essence says
If . . . if . . . if . . . and if . . . it's all good. Yeah, there are a few
if this and
if that contingent conditionals which can have an impact on what actually happens for a particular citizenship applicant who goes abroad for an extended period of time after applying.
What we know is that many citizenship applicants do spend a considerable amount of time abroad, including some who more or less relocate abroad after applying, and in effect easily and quickly (as easily and quickly as any other applicants, noting none done all that quickly these days) sail through the process as long as they:
-- met the qualifying (eligibility) requirements
-- comply with the PR Residency Obligation
-- continue to be eligible (incur no prohibitions for example)
-- timely respond to communications from IRCC, and
-- appear as scheduled (mostly for the oath, but potentially for in-person interview as well)
Yeah, there are some
it-depends contingencies, a few
if this and
if that conditionals.
Side note for clarification: if you return to Canada, as you plan, rather than staying abroad indefinitely, and are available to participate in an oath ceremony while IN Canada, the comments above about the possibility of taking the oath while outside Canada are not much relevant. There has been some reference to "in some cases they have accepted to give oath outside" Canada. It needs to be clear, however, that is an exception, and likely a rare and perhaps very rare exception. As discussed in other threads in the forum.
What we also know is that some do not sail through the process so easily. Some encounter significant delays. Why tends to be particular to the individual. Among the more common problems are logistical issues, such as circumstances making it difficult for the applicant to respond timely to communications or return to Canada in time to attend scheduled events. Other problems are those I tend to put in the category of procedural risks, with the potential for RQ-related non-routine processing tending to be the most disruptive, potentially leading to inconvenient and intrusive requests for personal information and documentation, and the possibility of a lengthy delay.
What we further know, in regards to the latter, is that
historically applicants known to be abroad after applying have had an increased risk of non-routine processing, including the risk of RQ-related non-routine processing. To be clear, however, even when indications a citizenship applicant was abroad for a lengthy period after applying was an explicit factor in deciding to issue RQ (a "
reason-to-question-residency" listed in operational bulletins and manuals for example), and even during the Harper-era when this was especially triggering RQ, even then many who were temporarily abroad for an extended period of time after applying did NOT encounter any non-routine processing or delays. It varied. Nonetheless, compared to applicants remaining in Canada, historically being abroad for an extended time after applying increased the procedural risk of RQ and other non-routine processing.
What we do NOT know is the extent to which that continues. The Covid related global pandemic has so disrupted processing, on one hand, and has sabotaged plans for temporary stays abroad for many on the other hand, the best anyone can reliably report is that the jury is still out on the influence an extended stay outside Canada has. Now. Let alone trying to forecast the future . . . hard enough to predict if (albeit probably a matter of when) Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives will form a government, but not so difficult to predict that if and when they do, the risks for applicants abroad after applying will likely increase.
Leading to . . . you ask:
"Does people who leave canada after filing be subject to delays and blackmailing's or citizenship process is fair?"
That's what lawyers would object is a compound question, aggravated by what is potentially a false dichotomy. Many applicants, whether remaining in Canada or outside Canada pending processing, are "
subject to delays" for a wide range of reasons. For the vast majority of applicants the "
citizenship process is fair." That is, processing can be subject to delays and still be fair, and frankly (a large contingency of forum dissent aside) is usually fair, at least comparatively (the failure of IRCC to reasonably adapt to the global pandemic has resulted in delays constituting gross unfairness, but that is mostly uniform across the full spectrum of applicants, not discriminatorily unfair).
Probably happens some, but "
blackmailing" citizenship applicants is almost certainly not at all common. Unlike many countries in the world, there is generally no "
bite," no bribe, at play in the ordinary bureaucratic processing of citizenship applications. No necessary
bite. No advantage to be gained by offering a bribe, but rather doing so probably poses a serious risk of negative consequences.
Meanwhile, the reasons why a lengthy stay outside Canada can trigger questions and concerns leading to non-routine processing, particularly RQ-related non-routine processing, is a subject that tends to be controversial . . . suffice to note that explanations for "
why" have been discussed at length, and often, in many threads here. Opposing views, particularly those rooted in what people believe the rules and process
should be, rather than what they are, do not change how the process actually works. In regards to how things actually work, many of the factors that affect the risks for the applicant abroad are the same factors which influence the risk of RQ, and other non-routine processing delays, for applicants who remain in Canada. These include key factors like indications as to the applicant's credibility, and the strength of the case (which includes weight of evidence documenting presence in Canada and factors like the nature and extent of ties in Canada compared to ties abroad). The difference is that for an applicant with significant risk factors (such as an applicant with continuing strong residential ties abroad barely meeting the minimum presence requirement), the one abroad probably continues to have a higher risk.
Note: it is readily apparent that much of the
abroad-after-applying commentary in this forum makes a concerted effort to frame extended periods of time abroad, that is living abroad, as "
travel." The disingenuous intention is transparent. There is a difference. It is worth remembering that in dealing with IRCC credibility looms very large; credibility (which includes not just being honest, but appearing to be honest) is the next most important factor after (1) actually meeting all qualifying requirements, and (2) properly completing the application and following through.
More Re Logistical Risks: Otherwise it also warrants noting with some emphasis that many seem to underestimate the logistical risks. The realm of
stuff-happens is huge. From personal unforeseen calamities (illness, car accidents, family emergencies) to broader events like war and global pandemics, there are many ways in which an individual can encounter difficulty dealing with IRCC logistically. There is no shortage of reports here, for example, of applicants who needed to reschedule their oath multiple times, and for some this has resulted in needing to start the process over again (their application being deemed abandoned).
