Oct applicant from HAMILTON
- Thread starter muk5477
- Start date
I don't recommend telling them that you are going to leave the country permanently . But I'm not expert, wish others can help you @dpenabill @razerblade
I am Jan 2018 applicant got in process Mar 05 2018. I am waiting on test invite too.
Short answer: NO, and NO. To be clear, that is an emphatic NO, and NO.
And to be frank, the answer to both questions should be as obvious as obvious gets; indeed, as noted in the other thread where this query was similarly posed, a natural response to the query was posted by Joshua1:
Beyond that, as I mentioned in the other thread, the query is illustrative. Being picky about the precise word, I do mean the query "illustrates" rather than "illuminates" a common issue, a recurring mistake in how some (tending toward many at times it seems) approach the process of becoming a Canadian citizen. In this regard, again, as the response by Joshua1 exemplifies, the answer to these questions is obvious, blatantly obvious, and thus the query illustrates a common misunderstanding which is evident enough to not need illumination but prevalent enough to warrant attention and correction.
As I understand it, the OP's application has reached the Decision Made stage. As such, informing the local office that the applicant has a job offer OUTSIDE Canada (fact it is in U.S. versus France or Japan is not an important factor) and therefore needs or at least would like the process to be expedited, probably would have little or NO impact on how the process proceeds. The OP is likely to be scheduled for the oath in due course, according to the local office procedures and the status of the OP's application as it is.
So this should not have any significant impact on the OP's application, either way, let alone be a big deal. The OP is probably OK, full-steam-ahead, no problem . . . even if IRCC is notified of the plan to leave Canada once citizenship is obtained.
But at an earlier stage of the process, notifying IRCC of plans to take a job abroad could have a negative impact.
In particular, at an earlier phase of processing notifying IRCC that the applicant for citizenship wants expedited (or urgent) processing BECAUSE citizenship is needed to facilitate taking a job OUTSIDE Canada, RISKS triggering elevated scrutiny and non-routine processing. Depending on the particular details in the individual applicant's case, especially key elements related to the strength of the case on its merits, the scope of the RISK may be minimal or it may be seriously problematic, and at the least it could significantly increase the RISK of non-routine processing resulting in LONGER processing rather than expedited processing.
Note: I use and emphasize references to "RISK" because the in-fact impact in any given case can and will vary considerably. Except for outright disqualifying factors, no one knows for sure how this or that will affect processing. We know what can influence the process, and a general idea about how something is likely to influence the process. We can highlight known RISKS. For example: it is well-known that living abroad after applying for citizenship can dramatically increase the RISK of elevated scrutiny and non-routine processing, and perhaps lead to far more skepticism in IRCC's assessment of the evidence, in effect raising the proof-of-physical-presence bar considerably.
Just because the intent-to-reside requirement has been removed does not eliminate the probable (not just possible but probable) negative influence it will have if IRCC perceives the applicant has an intent to NOT reside in Canada. An intent to not reside in Canada does NOT disqualify the applicant. BUT you can safely bet it is likely to elevate scrutiny and invite questions if not outright skepticism. Not good.
Practice Tip: If something about an applicant's situation triggers IRCC skepticism, the risk is that the processing agent, the total stranger bureaucrat who is assessing qualifications (especially the applicant's proof of actual-physical-presence), may be less likely to give the applicant the benefit of inferring presence in Canada between a date-of-entry and next date-of-exit. The vast majority of routine applicants benefit from this inference. Way, way too many applicants and prospective applicants take this inference for granted. The online presence calculation operates assuming the validity of this inference, as it counts all days from a date-of-entry to the next date-of-exit as days physically present in Canada. This is NOT, however, a for-sure inference. Whatever the terminology of the year is, if and when IRCC perceives what amounts to a reason-to-question-physical-presence, a risk indicator, IRCC can and often will look for and rely on the extent to which there is proof of actual presence in Canada in-between every reported date-of-entry and next date-of-exit. Those who have a strong case, for them the outcome is not much at risk but they are far more likely to suffer significant if not lengthy delays. Those who do not have a strong case, missing a lease agreement and proof of paying rent for some months, say, or having gaps in employment history, or applying with a minimal margin over the minimum, or having immediate family residing abroad, among other potential reasons for more doubts, more severe skepticism, the outcome could be in jeopardy.
So, in what regard is this query illustrative; what does it illustrate?
It illustrates a lack of objectivity. It suggests the undue influence of narcissism. It points to an approach tethered to entitlement, as if an individual is entitled to a right prescribed by statute rather than recognizing, and approaching the process recognizing, that the grant of citizenship is a PRIVILEGE, as it has been very emphatically and definitively ruled by Canadian courts to be. Qualifying for citizenship is NOT akin to collecting points which automatically guarantee a specified reward. It is NOT akin to getting course credits toward earning a university degree.
The vast majority of citizenship applicants tend to take the burden of proof for granted. They can afford to do this. They have been living a life in Canada which readily, not just apparently, establishes a paper-digital trail leaving little doubt or concern about their qualifying for the grant of citizenship. Canada, mostly (there are, unfortunately, some exceptions), is glad to embrace such immigrants as new citizens.
But those who underestimate the nature of the process and its essential BECOMING a citizen character, that is that it is about BECOMING a CANADIAN citizen, those who fail to understand the process is about a lot more than acquiring the status of citizen let alone about just getting a Canadian passport, are prone to make mistakes, to miss the pitfalls, to risk lengthy processing delays even though their case is strong, or to risk being denied if their case has weaknesses.
This query illustrates looking at the process, including the rules and policies and qualifying elements, from a subjective, what this does for-me perspective. This does not disqualify anyone. There is NO must-deserve-citizenship qualifying element. There is (currently -- there was an explicit intent-to-reside-in-Canada requirement for awhile, repealed by the current Liberal government) NO qualitative becoming-a-Canadian-citizen requirement. But make no mistake, those who approach this process without recognizing the influence of such factors and are making decisions contrary to such factors, are at risk for making a mistake which can cause delays or even put the outcome of the application in jeopardy.
The vast, vast majority of applicants have little or nothing to worry about in this regard.
In contrast, those who are in the citizenship game as a stepping-stone to work and a life in the U.S., or to climb a career ladder outside Canada, or who are pursuing a passport-of-convenience (as the Harper government described it), or those applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport (as a Federal Court justice and some politicians have described it), that is, those pursuing an agenda focused on acquiring citizenship status which is incongruous with becoming-a-Canadian-citizen, are prone to running into problems unless they take care to step outside their personal perspective and approach the process more objectively. Forum anecdotal reports are littered with tales of woe and gnashing of teeth among those who fail to grasp the practical import of what it means to distinguish the PRIVILEGE of being granted citizenship from having a statutory right to the grant.
The query here illustrates a cautionary tale.
I ph on help on Wednesday evening.
Luckily I got very nice agent on ph she help me a lot.
First she said my background check and is pressed and she.asked me did you passed the knowledge test I said yes she said my officers did not update my test .then she email my local office .for updates
Let's see know
Luckily I got very nice agent on ph she help me a lot.
First she said my background check and is pressed and she.asked me did you passed the knowledge test I said yes she said my officers did not update my test .then she email my local office .for updates
Let's see know
That's hopefully good news!
So you think you have passed the security clearances but the problem is with the local office?
I just got my Oath Invitation email! - May 22nd
CongratulationsI just got my Oath Invitation email! - May 22nd
Hope we see progress in DM too
Some people have been waiting for a very long time.
Since January and February
What time did they send the email?I just got my Oath Invitation email! - May 22nd