MountainLife said:
My other questions are, I'm travelling abroad from October 2016 to June 2017 and curious:
- Is it possible to leave the country if I've submitted my citizenship application?
- Will I run into any issues?
- What's the approxiamate processing time for applications currently as I'm guessing I'll have to come back when they want me for interviews/tests etc?
There are indeed several other topics in which the progress of Bill C-6 is being discussed. Although the legislation may indeed attain Royal Assent this month, there is also a significant probability it will not get a final vote and go to Royal Assent until sometime this fall. Anyone who claims to know for sure when it will happen is BSing.
As I just noted in the other topic, no matter when the Bill gets Royal Assent, the 3/5 rule will not take effect any time soon. All we really know is that the soonest it will take effect is later this year, not at all likely to take effect before near the end of the year, with sometime next year being the safer guess. But we do not really know.
There is no restriction on traveling abroad after applying. The current law's
intent-to-continue-to-reside requirement
may be applied to render ineligible any applicant who
resides abroad after applying, but it appears the current government is not enforcing this requirement in that manner. And once Bill C-6 is adopted, this requirement is not only repealed, but it will be as if it never was a part of the law.
That said, extended absences after applying can lead to issues.
There are, of course, the potential logistical problems of getting to a scheduled event on short notice. I am not familiar with the current pattern in the timing of notices since the Liberals formed the government; under Kenney and Alexander, CIC often gave less than three weeks notice, sometimes as little as just over a week. Many applicants relied on family members or close friends to open their mail and keep them informed, and ran into problems when there was some delay in doing this, resulting in the applicant not being able to get back to Canada and appear at the time scheduled. (As I recall, I had about three weeks notice for my interview.)
But extended absences have long invited CIC (now IRCC of course) to at least examine the applicant more extensively. This goes back to the Liberal government before Harper's first term as Prime Minister, when in 2005 an OB included indications of returning to Canada in time to attend an interview or the test as a
reason-to-question-residency. That OB was subsequently incorporated into the Operational Manual CP-5 governing assessment of residence. While this manual is no longer in effect, ostensibly replaced by the current Program Delivery Instructions, my sense is that if and when IRCC perceives that an applicant is residing abroad after applying, there is at least an increased risk of elevated scrutiny, including RQ (apparently IRCC is still labeling the full-blown request for proof of compliance with the presence requirement as a "Residence Questionnaire" even though now the requirement is specifically a presence requirement not a residency requirement).
Criteria used to identify applicants to be targeted for elevated scrutiny is now confidential information. While we have some idea of the criteria , due to a leak of the File Requirements Checklist back in 2012, both the criteria and the way it is applied have changed, and probably changed already more under the Liberal government. One way or another, however, my guess is that an extended absence abroad, particularly one of the length of time you are talking about (which is long enough to constitute residing abroad, even if one characterizes that as a temporary residence abroad), will continue to
potentially invite elevated scrutiny, up to and including potentially RQ. This is not to say it would be necessarily problematic. Even under the Conservative government, CIC appeared to recognize some applicants abroad for an extended time period were nonetheless well-established in Canada, the absence was temporary, and perceived no reason to pursue further inquiry or impose RQ. (Typical example was an applicant who went abroad for a particular advanced educational course of study, or internship, or such.)
All of which means it is difficult, if not impossible, to guess the extent to which residing abroad after applying might have an impact on how the processing goes.
Current processing time lines:
So far as I have discerned, the time line continues to vary greatly, even routine applications taking from six months to a year and a half, and non-routine applications from less than a year to more than two years (even longer if one includes those still bogged down from a few years ago).
The IRCC website posts information about current processing time lines. That information tends to be a time line significantly longer than how long it takes for a majority of routinely processed applications, way longer than some. But it can go longer.
There are many factors which can influence how long it takes, many if not most of which are beyond the individual's control. But there are also many factors which are within the applicant's control. Too many to attempt to enumerate here. Clue: failure to precisely, accurately, and completely declare
ALL trips abroad is a factor which dramatically increases the risk of a much longer time line. And, obviously, any complicating aspect of the individual's situation can lead to a longer time line.
