It is imperative to appear for the test. Being outside Canada is not an acceptable reason (from CIC's perspective, the perspective which counts) for missing a scheduled test.
It is imperative to be honest in answering questions at the test interview. Technically the interview is a
documents-check interview, and it usually involves the interviewer examining original documents (passports, Identification), including stamps in the applicant's passports. However, the interview can involve questions beyond the scope of verifying the documents, and sometimes goes into matters outside the four relevant years in the residency calculation.
The recent absence from Canada may or may not come up in the questions you are asked. Sometimes it does. Oft times it does not. If the interviewer does not ask questions about recent absences (absences made after date of applying), there is no need to bring up anything relative to your absence while the application has been pending.
If the interviewer does ask questions about absences since the application was made, you have no choice but to be honest. Simple, direct answers are best. No need to elaborate or offer complex explanations unless the interviewer asks for more information, for further explanation.
Key questions could be about current employment and address. Do not be tempted to fudge your answers. For example, if you are not actually living in Canada, gambling for convenience is a bad bet. Sure, many get away with it. More do not. CIC is now being more thorough and probing in this regard than they were in the past. Consequences for misrepresentation are something you do not want to learn from experience.
Regarding impact of extended absence since applying:
Extended absences from Canada while an application is pending can, indeed, lead to problems. Technically, under the currently applicable law, there is no requirement to remain in Canada while the application is pending, and no disability or disqualification for living outside Canada after applying.
However, there are many indications that if CIC identifies an applicant as one who has been living outside Canada while the application is pending, RQ may be issued, elevated scrutiny may be applied, and the applicant can be subject to increased skepticism.
That does not mean that every applicant with extended absences is so treated. We do not have any information about the extent to which applicants are subject to such hurdles due to extended absences while the application is pending. Many applicants report interviews in which there is little or no attention given to any other time period than the four years which are part of the residency calculation.
But there are also many cases in which it is clear that where CIC has identified the applicant as someone who has been living outside Canada while the application is pending, CIC has consequently imposed hurdles in the processing of the application.
You may notice that in the above responses, for example, you see both extremes, based on personal experience or knowledge of particular cases, some reporting there is no problem, others reporting that RQ is virtually certain. Actually we do not know what portion of applicants with extended post-app absences still have smooth sailing, what portion run into RQ squalls and an unfriendly CIC process. It can go either way. Even if we knew all the details it would be impossible to reliably predict which way things will go.
But, there is indeed a risk that the lengthy absence will trigger questions which in turn could lead to CIC making requests for further information and documentation, including possibly issuing RQ, and potentially (depending on how CIC perceives the situation) imposing processing hurdles making the path to citizenship longer and more difficult.
I have mixed feelings about a post like this:
CanV said:
Your concerns are 100% valid. I think you will most likely get an RQ after the interview. There has been cases where citizenship was denied because the applicant left the country after applying. The decision could be overcome in court (since you meet the residency requirement) but that is a long battle and it means you will have to in the country for the "battle".
So you will either get lucky and nothing happens, get an RQ and wait few more months, or get denied all together.
My advice to you as plan to come back and stay. If that not possible, then stay there but don't cry about it if becomes a lengthy stressful process. And like others said, you reasons for leaving and staying away for this long after applying arent that appealing.
I largely agree with the observation that your concerns are valid, and with the suggestion that if citizenship is important to you, come to Canada to live and stay.
And in a sense I acknowledge that some applicants are, in a practical sense, denied because they left the country after applying.
Technically, however, the observation by others that absences after applying do not count against residency is an accurate one, and it is error for a CJ to deny approval because of the extent to which an applicant has been absent
after applying.
But as I noted above, CIC can impose hurdles on the path to citizenship, leading to delays and elevated scrutiny.
There are a couple recent Federal Court cases (well one early this year, and one in December) which illustrate the obstacles some individuals encounter.
The more recent one is the
Helen Wang case. Technically this is not a case about leaving Canada after applying, but is an applicant who was denied citizenship because she failed the CJ's oral examination as to her knowledge of Canada. She passed the written test. But since she was living outside Canada, she was issued RQ . . . even though, apparently, there was no real question about her having been actually present in Canada for at least 1095 days. Despite having passed the written test, the CJ decided to give her an oral test and ruled that she failed, and denied citizenship. The real issue, though, is clearly indicated in the CJ's attitude about the applicant residing abroad. It is no surprise that Justice Rennie was not sympathetic. The case illustrates that where CIC perceives the applicant is living abroad, CIC and the CJ are likely to probe for whatever reason they can to justify denying citizenship.
The case from earlier this year is the more disconcerting one, since the applicant was abroad for a temporary reason, an internship, and after RQ and a residency hearing with a Citizenship Judge, the CJ approved the applicant for a grant of citizenship. This was the
Wasim B.H. Alsayegh case. This individual returned to his internship (with GOOGLE) abroad after the test. He was scheduled to take the oath on December 7, 2012, and for that purpose was returning to Canada on December 4, 2012 when he was subject to a residency examination at the POE upon arrival in Canada. This individual asserts that he was in compliance with the PR residency obligation, and that the CBSA officer at the POE refused to consider documents the individual had in his possession documenting that he had been in Canada. A 44(1) report and a Removal Order was issued at the POE, and an alert sent to the local CIC office that a Removal Order had been issued, making this individual ineligible for a grant of citizenship. CIC summarily terminated the application at that point.
This person won the appeal, because the summary termination of the application was on its face not within the authority of CIC, but we do not know what ultimately happened in this case. (A Removal Order, even if on appeal, does indeed make him ineligible to be granted citizenship.)
However, this case nonetheless illustrates the hardline approach CIC sometimes takes toward applicants identified as living abroad while the application is still in process.
The government's overall position on this is best illustrated by the fact that Bill C-24, adopted into law and given Royal Assent this past June, will give CIC the authority (when it comes into force) to terminate applications for applicants living abroad while the application is pending (the new law contains an intent to
continue residing in Canada clause, and of course logically a person cannot continue to live in Canada if he is living abroad, that is, not living in Canada).
