Swede said:
Since intending to continue to reside in Canada is a prerequisite to be granted citizenship, couldn't it be argued that you have committed fraud if e.g. you take your brand new passport and immediately move back to the old country?
Note: the following addresses applications made
after the new residency and intent provisions take effect (for sure by next year); that is, applications made by individuals who will have to meet the "intent to continue residing in Canada" requirement to be qualified for a grant of citizenship.
What
can be argued is one thing. What
can be reasonably argued is yet another. And what
can be persuasively argued is yet another. And, what will provoke the Minister to pursue revocation of citizenship is yet another.
But, in a literal sense, no, what a person does after becoming a citizen, no matter how inconsistent that is with what a person said they intended before becoming a citizen, is not anywhere near
proof that the individual made a material misrepresentation of fact regarding his or her intent before becoming a citizen. People change their minds all the time.
That is not to say, however, that if there is other, additional evidence of fraud, that the brand new citizen who immediately leaves Canada as soon as a Canadian passport is in hand, cannot have his citizenship revoked for fraud. It is not to say, even, that leaving Canada so soon after the oath will not potentially catch CIC's attention and invite the sort of inquiries which, if evidence of actual fraud is uncovered, could lead to the revocation of citizenship.
But merely leaving Canada to live in another country is not grounds for revoking citizenship, and this will still be true even when all of Bill C-24 is in effect.
So, for example, the applicant who continued to own residential property abroad, or continued to have an interest in a business abroad, and who omitted this information in responding to a Residence Questionnaire, who then very soon after becoming a citizen goes abroad to work in that business that was not disclosed,
DUH!, sure, there is a real prospect that if CIC discovers this, citizenship could be revoked for fraud.
But applicants who provided complete and accurate information during the application process, who were not making plans to move abroad while their application was still pending, have
nothing to worry about if, per chance, some time after becoming a citizen they decide to move abroad.
This is another subject I have analyzed and discussed in-depth at the immigration.ca citizenship forum, in multiple topics there including one specifically devoted to grounds for the revocation of citizenship. I cite and link various actual cases about the revocation of citizenship in those discussions.
Also see the topic "bill c-24" at the immigration.ca citizenship forum for a number of my in-depth analyses of Bill C-24, including the "intent to continue residing in Canada" provision.
Observations about the "intent to continue residing in Canada" provision in particular:
The "intent to continue residing in Canada" provision will potentially allow the government to use some powerful and profoundly invasive tools for
screening those applying for citizenship. There is no doubt, though, that this provision is about
screening applicants, and it is
NOT about controlling the travel of naturalized citizens.
While what the Minister says is a big clue, it is not controlling. The law, once adopted, speaks for itself. And in this regard the language of this provision, both literally and as taken in context (these actually being consistent with one another), is clearly a screening requirement.
The impact this provision will have, however, is profound and should not be understated. It is huge. The scope of scrutiny it will allow, and the scope of discretion it will give the government to deny applicants, is daunting.
For example: the inclusion of the intent to continue residing provision (1) makes consideration of an applicant's residency related activities
after applying specifically relevant, and (2) makes consideration of continuing ties abroad directly, materially relevant. These are, again, huge.
Thus, for example, circumstances which could potentially affect an application, at the least invite questions, potentially invoke skepticism, and possibly result in negative inferences, will (for applications subject to the new residency requirements) include:
-- continued ownership of property abroad, especially residential property
-- continued interests in a business abroad
-- work or residence of any immediate family members abroad, but especially an applicant's spouse
-- extended absences after applying
-- status to live or work in another country (like a U.S. Green Card, or a M.E. work visa, and so on)
Some these are factors now, but less directly than they will be once the applicant is required to affirmatively have an intent to continue residing in Canada after becoming a citizen.
In other words, I am not suggesting that the "intent to continue residing" provision is not important. It is, it is very important. It will probably cause big problems for many applicants. But it will NOT be cause for revoking or canceling a person's citizenship (after they are a citizen of course) because they go to live abroad.
