+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445

Permanently leaving Canada just after submitting my citizenship application

Das67

Hero Member
Oct 19, 2019
967
560
Don't fall for the excuses about tax and benefits that these conservatives pretend to care about. They simply hate immigrants and want them to be 2nd class citizens.

If they really cared about fiscal issues, they would make Canadian citizens pay taxes on worldwide income regardless of residence, just like USA does. But this would mean that white Canadians who were born in Canada would also need to pay taxes, which of course, they dont want.

No. Conservatives want to control the actions of behavior of immigrants throughout their life and keep a track of how much money Canada is gaining and losing from each immigrant.

Meanwhile, if you are born in Canada, you can suck up education and health subsidies till you are 21, then fly off to US to work no problem. Come back when you are old, no problem.

Some of the senior members of the conservative party have done exactly this: Doug Ford, Caroline Mulroney both spent prime years working in US and are now back to live off a govt salary. Their PM candidate Scheer has dual US citizenship which he refused to give up. Not even their party leader is willing to let go of the option to go abroad for career prospects, but immigrants dare not do this!
This is why I need my citizenship so that I can vote and make sure these people with these kinds of mentality do not run this country again. I know they hate immigrants. One category of citizens can do whatever they want and asking another category to stay here forever as if Canada was an open sky jail.
 
Last edited:

prudhvi

Star Member
Mar 1, 2014
178
36
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
Please your opinion/experience:
I want to permanently leave Canada to my country ASAP. I am thinking about returning to my country immediately after submitting my citizenship application and to return only on the test/interview day and again on oath day. In my application my physical presence will be a continuous non interrupted 1127 days. For the contact details I assigned a registered representative and his mailing and email addresses will be the contact details. What I am afraid of is that they may conclude during the interview from my complete absence after submitting the application that I am planning to leave Canada permanently and they may decide to delay making the decision until I resettled in Canada again with a physical address. Your advice please

Why do you want to apply for Canadian Citizenship in the first place if you want to leave Canada permanently?
 

prash42

Hero Member
Jun 1, 2014
291
176
Why do you want to apply for Canadian Citizenship in the first place if you want to leave Canada permanently?
I don't know OP's personal circumstances. But keeping options open is a pretty valid and solid reason in my book. If the law permits it, and OP is making no misrepresentations to IRCC, what are the grounds to object?
 

canuck78

VIP Member
Jun 18, 2017
55,404
13,454
If I was you, I would not be worried about if immigrants pay enough taxes or not, because they definitely do. You should be more worried about what "Trudeau and the gang" (and who ever come after them) do with the money. You are picking the wrong target. Reset and aim again...
Also concerned about government spending. You can care about both. Paying for 3 years of taxes even if you pay your fair share may not sven cover the services you use while in Canada. Most of us are proud Canadians but we give away our citizenship so easily.
 

canuck78

VIP Member
Jun 18, 2017
55,404
13,454
You are assuming that each immigrant who leaves did pay taxes. If an immigrant cannot find jobs in their field, how will they pay taxes? In fact, if a jobless immigrant stays in Canada for 7 years instead of 3, not only will they not pay any taxes, they will consume a lot more of government services.

The only way is to tax worldwide income for all citizens like USA does. But I know Conservatives wont support this, because this affects snowbirds and Canadian borns as well.

Anyway, the law is the law. Deal with it.
The majority of new immigrants tend to be tax payers even if it may have taken a year to become established. In any group there are those that are happy to live off the state but I do beleive the majority are hard workers. The government is giving money left and right so most will qualify for at least CCB.
 

FlyingLion

Star Member
Aug 19, 2020
132
106
Well Canada needs immigration, and they will continue to give their citizenship ¨easily¨, like it or not. I wonder what is your definition of easy btw. Leaving your country to move in a different country is already difficult and now you want to make them work for more years? Ok since you are a proud Canadian, tell your fellow proud Canadians to start having kids. The population and the birth rate is extremely low. Immigrants are the one that actually help you with taxes because they go throught all the process of coming in this country even though it's a very exhausting process. They bring youth to this population because most of them still have the concept of a traditional family. They accept to do a lot of jobs that proud Canadians dont want to do. Some of them go to study in Colleges and Universities and pay very high tuitions that your fellow proud Canadians can not even afford. Most of my Canadian born ex classmates still owe a lot to the government, but somehow me and all the other international students are debt free and we were paying 3-4 times more. We did FINISH our programs btw (no dropping for us), we worked for canadian companies and paid taxes IN Canada.
What else can we do more ? Do you want us to forget where we come from ? Or disregard all the better opportunities that come to us outside of Canada?
It is in the best interest of Canada to leave the door open for us if we decide to comeback.
Immigrants are not your slaves and slavery has been abolished 200 years ago+.

FYI: I have met a lot of Canadians born overseas, who havent come back to Canada for years. Ask them to pay your taxes too...
 
Last edited:

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,427
3,173
Lots and lots of theorizing about how things should work and why.

To be clear, however, NONE of that is at all responsive to the OP's question or those posed by others making inquiry about the potential impact of leaving Canada for extended periods of time AFTER applying but before taking the oath.

REMINDERS responsive to the subject of this topic:

Traveling abroad, with a lot of emphasis on TRAVELING rather than moving or living or staying abroad for extended periods of time, is not at all prohibited or restricted. There are logistical RISKS however. These are real and should not be underestimated. Time to respond or appear can often be rather short for IRCC requests and notices, including scheduling for tests and interviews, but especially scheduling for the oath.

There are currently NO prohibitions or restrictions precluding PRs from living abroad (or staying abroad for an extended period of time), except the very liberal PR Residency Obligation. This is true for PRs with grant citizenship applications pending as well as PRs generally. For the PR with a citizenship application pending, there are again the logistical risks. Which, again, are real and should not be underestimated. There are additional procedural RISKS related to concerns about verifying the citizenship applicant's actual physical presence. The latter tends to be way underestimated by many of the observations posted in this and other topics about this subject.

And it is in this regard the discussions tend to wander astray of how things work, what is the better way to navigate the process, or what to anticipate from IRCC. There is more than a bit of how-it-should-be underlying many of the observations as if how-it-should-be determines how-it-will-go.

And frankly, sure, more than a little how-it-should-be probably does influence some of the decision-making. EXCEPT how that influences the decision-making does not depend on who has the better view about how-it-should-be. How this influences the decision-making is not about which point of view is more right. It is about the point of view of those making the decisions.

While the point of view of those making the decisions is NOT all that easy to discern, since the decision-making is always framed in terms of eligibility requirements and determinations of fact directly relevant to the requirements, no great psychic powers necessary to recognize some of the more influential, albeit typically unspoken elements in bureaucratic decision-making.

The biggest influence of this sort is general credibility. So long as the decision-maker has no reason to doubt, question, or challenge the applicant's credibility, there is a very good likelihood of a decision based on the facts provided by the applicant in the application and calculation of actual physical presence. As soon as there is a crack in the extent to which the applicant can be relied upon to be a reliable reporter of fact, there is a growing RISK the process will go off on a non-routine processing track which, depending on the particular case, may result in lengthy delays or even a skeptical assessment of the applicant's case potentially resulting in a Citizenship Judge hearing, in which event it can come down to whether the CJ believes the applicant's accounting of facts related to presence or not.

There are many, many tangents in the factors which can affect a decision-maker's impressions about the applicant's credibility.

This leads to some of those which may affect how it actually goes for an applicant who has moved abroad while the application is pending. Questions: what impression does the applicant's case make? Does this applicant appear to be an honest, sincere, credible individual?

Let's be frank: if the overall pattern of facts suggest the individual applying for citizenship is seeking a passport of convenience, that gives the impression there is a MOTIVE to exploit the Canadian immigration system, and where there is a motive to exploit the Canadian immigration system, that suggests a MOTIVE to manipulate if not outright deceive. If the decision-maker gets an impression the applicant is exploiting the Canadian immigration system, seeking a passport of convenience, there is an increased RISK the decision-maker, AT THE LEAST, will approach assessment of the claimed facts with an elevated degree of skepticism. This is real.

How much so? That is very difficult to forecast. Historical reporting has shown cases going in very different directions. Many who move abroad while the application is pending run into ZERO problems. No delays. No RQ. But many others do run into problems, more than a few encountering RQ-related non-routine processing that causes lengthy delays, some ending up waiting for a CJ hearing, some denied citizenship based on failing to prove actual presence. REMEMBER: the requirement is MORE than just meeting the actual physical presence requirement; to be eligible for a grant of citizenship the applicant is required to PROVE meeting the actual physical presence requirement.

No matter how much some believe there should be no negative influence in the process resulting in living abroad after applying, and indeed no matter how much that belief is right, the REALITY is that of course there is a significant RISK that living abroad is going to have a negative influence in, again AT THE LEAST, how severely the decision-maker scrutinizes the case.

For anyone who has doubts about this, two reminders:
-- for DECADES the criteria for issuing RQ, that is what constituted a reason-to-question-residency, EXPLICITLY included indications the applicant was living abroad while the application was pending; make no mistake, this was true under previous Liberal governments and indeed was an explicit part of the appendix added to the then governing Operation Manual for assessing residence under a Liberal government.​
-- under a Conservative government, the statutory requirements were modified to include a provision that would allow the denial of a citizenship application on the sole grounds the applicant was living abroad after applying; while Trudeau's government promptly repealed this provision . . . it warrants revisiting how that all went down, and the sense that was more extreme and harsh than necessary . . . it did NOT reject the general widespread sentiment in government, or among most Canadians, that underlies strong suspicions about those whose application for citizenship is about seeking a passport of convenience.​

OVERALL: make no mistake, there is a rather high RISK the applicant who barely meets the minimum requirements for citizenship, and moves abroad soon after applying, could be suspected of seeking a passport of convenience. They can still make their case and eventually take the oath. The RISK is the path will be longer and the hurdles higher.

This is just about the way it is. Regardless what one believes about how it should be.

Some of the discussion above is about what naturalized citizens have done AFTER becoming a citizen. NOT at all relevant to what the prudent applicant will do before taking the oath.
 
Last edited:

FlyingLion

Star Member
Aug 19, 2020
132
106
Lots and lots of theorizing about how things should work and why.

To be clear, however, NONE of that is at all responsive to the OP's question or those posed by others making inquiry about the potential impact of leaving Canada for extended periods of time AFTER applying but before taking the oath.

REMINDERS responsive to the subject of this topic:

Traveling abroad, with a lot of emphasis on TRAVELING rather than moving or living or staying abroad for extended periods of time, is not at all prohibited or restricted. There are logistical RISKS however. These are real and should not be underestimated. Time to respond or appear can often be rather short for IRCC requests and notices, including scheduling for tests and interviews, but especially scheduling for the oath.

There are currently NO prohibitions or restrictions precluding PRs from living abroad (or staying abroad for an extended period of time), except the very liberal PR Residency Obligation. This is true for PRs with grant citizenship applications pending as well as PRs generally. For the PR with a citizenship application pending, there are again the logistical risks. Which, again, are real and should not be underestimated. There are additional procedural RISKS related to concerns about verifying the citizenship applicant's actual physical presence. The latter tends to be way underestimated by many of the observations posted in this and other topics about this subject.

And it is in this regard the discussions tend to wander astray of how things work, what is the better way to navigate the process, or what to anticipate from IRCC. There is more than a bit of how-it-should-be underlying many of the observations as if how-it-should-be determines how-it-will-go.

And frankly, sure, more than a little how-it-should-be probably does influence some of the decision-making. EXCEPT how that influences the decision-making does not depend on who has the better view about how-it-should-be. How this influences the decision-making is not about which point of view is more right. It is about the point of view of those making the decisions.

While the point of view of those making the decisions is NOT all that easy to discern, since the decision-making is always framed in terms of eligibility requirements and determinations of fact directly relevant to the requirements, no great psychic powers necessary to recognize some of the more influential, albeit typically unspoken elements in bureaucratic decision-making.

The biggest influence of this sort is general credibility. So long as the decision-maker has no reason to doubt, question, or challenge the applicant's credibility, there is a very good likelihood of a decision based on the facts provided by the applicant in the application and calculation of actual physical presence. As soon as there is a crack in the extent to which the applicant can be relied upon to be a reliable reporter of fact, there is a growing RISK the process will go off on a non-routine processing track which, depending on the particular case, may result in lengthy delays or even a skeptical assessment of the applicant's case potentially resulting in a Citizenship Judge hearing, in which event it can come down to whether the CJ believes the applicant's accounting of facts related to presence or not.

There are many, many tangents in the factors which can affect a decision-maker's impressions about the applicant's credibility.

This leads to some of those which may affect how it actually goes for an applicant who has moved abroad while the application is pending. Questions: what impression does the applicant's case make? Does this applicant appear to be an honest, sincere, credible individual?

Let's be frank: if the overall pattern of facts suggest the individual applying for citizenship is seeking a passport of convenience, that gives the impression there is a MOTIVE to exploit the Canadian immigration system, and where there is a motive to exploit the Canadian immigration system, that suggests a MOTIVE to manipulate if not outright deceive. If the decision-maker gets an impression the applicant is exploiting the Canadian immigration system, seeking a passport of convenience, there is an increased RISK the decision-maker, AT THE LEAST, will approach assessment of the claimed facts with an elevated degree of skepticism. This is real.

How much so? That is very difficult to forecast. Historical reporting has shown cases going in very different directions. Many who move abroad while the application is pending run into ZERO problems. No delays. No RQ. But many others do run into problems, more than a few encountering RQ-related non-routine processing that causes lengthy delays, some ending up waiting for a CJ hearing, some denied citizenship based on failing to prove actual presence. REMEMBER: the requirement is MORE than just meeting the actual physical presence requirement; to be eligible for a grant of citizenship the applicant is required to PROVE meeting the actual physical presence requirement.

No matter how much some believe there should be no negative influence in the process resulting in living abroad after applying, and indeed no matter how much that belief is right, the REALITY is that of course there is a significant RISK that living abroad is going to have a negative influence in, again AT THE LEAST, how severely the decision-maker scrutinizes the case.

For anyone who has doubts about this, two reminders:
-- for DECADES the criteria for issuing RQ, that is what constituted a reason-to-question-residency, EXPLICITLY included indications the applicant was living abroad while the application was pending; make no mistake, this was true under previous Liberal governments and indeed was an explicit part of the appendix added to the then governing Operation Manual for assessing residence under a Liberal government.​
-- under a Conservative government, the statutory requirements were modified to include a provision that would allow the denial of a citizenship application on the sole grounds the applicant was living abroad after applying; while Trudeau's government promptly repealed this provision . . . it warrants revisiting how that all went down, and the sense that was more extreme and harsh than necessary . . . it did NOT reject the general widespread sentiment in government, or among most Canadians, that underlies strong suspicions about those whose application for citizenship is about seeking a passport of convenience.​

OVERALL: make no mistake, there is a rather high RISK the applicant who barely meets the minimum requirements for citizenship, and moves abroad soon after applying, could be suspected of seeking a passport of convenience. They can still make their case and eventually take the oath. The RISK is the path will be longer and the hurdles higher.

This is just about the way it is. Regardless what one believes about how it should be.

Some of the discussion above is about what naturalized citizens have done AFTER becoming a citizen. NOT at all relevant to what the prudent applicant will do before taking the oath.
That's way too long. Let me show you how it is done.:rolleyes:

https://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=911&top=5
 

Megs7

Member
Aug 19, 2020
12
0
Lots and lots of theorizing about how things should work and why.

To be clear, however, NONE of that is at all responsive to the OP's question or those posed by others making inquiry about the potential impact of leaving Canada for extended periods of time AFTER applying but before taking the oath.

REMINDERS responsive to the subject of this topic:

Traveling abroad, with a lot of emphasis on TRAVELING rather than moving or living or staying abroad for extended periods of time, is not at all prohibited or restricted. There are logistical RISKS however. These are real and should not be underestimated. Time to respond or appear can often be rather short for IRCC requests and notices, including scheduling for tests and interviews, but especially scheduling for the oath.

There are currently NO prohibitions or restrictions precluding PRs from living abroad (or staying abroad for an extended period of time), except the very liberal PR Residency Obligation. This is true for PRs with grant citizenship applications pending as well as PRs generally. For the PR with a citizenship application pending, there are again the logistical risks. Which, again, are real and should not be underestimated. There are additional procedural RISKS related to concerns about verifying the citizenship applicant's actual physical presence. The latter tends to be way underestimated by many of the observations posted in this and other topics about this subject.

And it is in this regard the discussions tend to wander astray of how things work, what is the better way to navigate the process, or what to anticipate from IRCC. There is more than a bit of how-it-should-be underlying many of the observations as if how-it-should-be determines how-it-will-go.

And frankly, sure, more than a little how-it-should-be probably does influence some of the decision-making. EXCEPT how that influences the decision-making does not depend on who has the better view about how-it-should-be. How this influences the decision-making is not about which point of view is more right. It is about the point of view of those making the decisions.

While the point of view of those making the decisions is NOT all that easy to discern, since the decision-making is always framed in terms of eligibility requirements and determinations of fact directly relevant to the requirements, no great psychic powers necessary to recognize some of the more influential, albeit typically unspoken elements in bureaucratic decision-making.

The biggest influence of this sort is general credibility. So long as the decision-maker has no reason to doubt, question, or challenge the applicant's credibility, there is a very good likelihood of a decision based on the facts provided by the applicant in the application and calculation of actual physical presence. As soon as there is a crack in the extent to which the applicant can be relied upon to be a reliable reporter of fact, there is a growing RISK the process will go off on a non-routine processing track which, depending on the particular case, may result in lengthy delays or even a skeptical assessment of the applicant's case potentially resulting in a Citizenship Judge hearing, in which event it can come down to whether the CJ believes the applicant's accounting of facts related to presence or not.

There are many, many tangents in the factors which can affect a decision-maker's impressions about the applicant's credibility.

This leads to some of those which may affect how it actually goes for an applicant who has moved abroad while the application is pending. Questions: what impression does the applicant's case make? Does this applicant appear to be an honest, sincere, credible individual?

Let's be frank: if the overall pattern of facts suggest the individual applying for citizenship is seeking a passport of convenience, that gives the impression there is a MOTIVE to exploit the Canadian immigration system, and where there is a motive to exploit the Canadian immigration system, that suggests a MOTIVE to manipulate if not outright deceive. If the decision-maker gets an impression the applicant is exploiting the Canadian immigration system, seeking a passport of convenience, there is an increased RISK the decision-maker, AT THE LEAST, will approach assessment of the claimed facts with an elevated degree of skepticism. This is real.

How much so? That is very difficult to forecast. Historical reporting has shown cases going in very different directions. Many who move abroad while the application is pending run into ZERO problems. No delays. No RQ. But many others do run into problems, more than a few encountering RQ-related non-routine processing that causes lengthy delays, some ending up waiting for a CJ hearing, some denied citizenship based on failing to prove actual presence. REMEMBER: the requirement is MORE than just meeting the actual physical presence requirement; to be eligible for a grant of citizenship the applicant is required to PROVE meeting the actual physical presence requirement.

No matter how much some believe there should be no negative influence in the process resulting in living abroad after applying, and indeed no matter how much that belief is right, the REALITY is that of course there is a significant RISK that living abroad is going to have a negative influence in, again AT THE LEAST, how severely the decision-maker scrutinizes the case.

For anyone who has doubts about this, two reminders:
-- for DECADES the criteria for issuing RQ, that is what constituted a reason-to-question-residency, EXPLICITLY included indications the applicant was living abroad while the application was pending; make no mistake, this was true under previous Liberal governments and indeed was an explicit part of the appendix added to the then governing Operation Manual for assessing residence under a Liberal government.​
-- under a Conservative government, the statutory requirements were modified to include a provision that would allow the denial of a citizenship application on the sole grounds the applicant was living abroad after applying; while Trudeau's government promptly repealed this provision . . . it warrants revisiting how that all went down, and the sense that was more extreme and harsh than necessary . . . it did NOT reject the general widespread sentiment in government, or among most Canadians, that underlies strong suspicions about those whose application for citizenship is about seeking a passport of convenience.​

OVERALL: make no mistake, there is a rather high RISK the applicant who barely meets the minimum requirements for citizenship, and moves abroad soon after applying, could be suspected of seeking a passport of convenience. They can still make their case and eventually take the oath. The RISK is the path will be longer and the hurdles higher.

This is just about the way it is. Regardless what one believes about how it should be.

Some of the discussion above is about what naturalized citizens have done AFTER becoming a citizen. NOT at all relevant to what the prudent applicant will do before taking the oath.
Thank you for your thorough response. The reason I want to apply for citizenship is that my husband and baby are both Canadian citizens. We are moving back to my home country due to Covid as we can live with my parents there. He will get a 2.5 yr visa but there is no guarantee he will be granted an extension so we may be returning to Canada at that point. My worst nightmare would be for him to not be able to stay in my home country and me not be able to return to Canada leaving us separated.

As I understand because he is a Canadian citizen any time abroad living with him counts towards my PR obligations so technically I can retain my PR Status. However, the difficulty I see with this is when I renew my PR card. I would obviously need to prove I have been living with him which isn’t an issue but I understand you need to be physically present in Canada to renew the PR card which can be lengthy. To avoid this worry I wanted to secure citizenship before we left but with the current very lengthy processing times that will be difficult.

Im now just unsure whether to bother applying for citizenship or just maintain my PR status through living with my husband.
 

steaky

VIP Member
Nov 11, 2008
14,730
1,738
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
Thank you for your thorough response. The reason I want to apply for citizenship is that my husband and baby are both Canadian citizens. We are moving back to my home country due to Covid as we can live with my parents there. He will get a 2.5 yr visa but there is no guarantee he will be granted an extension so we may be returning to Canada at that point. My worst nightmare would be for him to not be able to stay in my home country and me not be able to return to Canada leaving us separated.

As I understand because he is a Canadian citizen any time abroad living with him counts towards my PR obligations so technically I can retain my PR Status. However, the difficulty I see with this is when I renew my PR card. I would obviously need to prove I have been living with him which isn’t an issue but I understand you need to be physically present in Canada to renew the PR card which can be lengthy. To avoid this worry I wanted to secure citizenship before we left but with the current very lengthy processing times that will be difficult.

Im now just unsure whether to bother applying for citizenship or just maintain my PR status through living with my husband.
As an alternative to getting a valid PR card, you can also try to apply for multiple entry permanent resident travel documents available from visa application centres / consulate outside Canada. I heard these documents can be valid up to three years.
 

canuck78

VIP Member
Jun 18, 2017
55,404
13,454
Thank you for your thorough response. The reason I want to apply for citizenship is that my husband and baby are both Canadian citizens. We are moving back to my home country due to Covid as we can live with my parents there. He will get a 2.5 yr visa but there is no guarantee he will be granted an extension so we may be returning to Canada at that point. My worst nightmare would be for him to not be able to stay in my home country and me not be able to return to Canada leaving us separated.

As I understand because he is a Canadian citizen any time abroad living with him counts towards my PR obligations so technically I can retain my PR Status. However, the difficulty I see with this is when I renew my PR card. I would obviously need to prove I have been living with him which isn’t an issue but I understand you need to be physically present in Canada to renew the PR card which can be lengthy. To avoid this worry I wanted to secure citizenship before we left but with the current very lengthy processing times that will be difficult.

Im now just unsure whether to bother applying for citizenship or just maintain my PR status through living with my husband.
Would warn you the who is moving for whom can sometimes be a factor when counting time abroad with a Canadian citizen. The rules was created primarily for the Canadian not to be limitted if they need to move for various purposes. It doesn't come up often but it does come up sometimes when it is very clear that the move was really only based and beneficial to the non-Canadian.
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,427
3,173
That's way too long. Let me show you how it is done. :rolleyes:

https://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=911&top=5
That information is the bare minimum and WAY, WAY understates just the logistical risks, and fails to illuminate anything at all about the procedural risks, with no hint of the very high probability decision-makers will perceive SOME applicants living abroad to be exploiting the Canadian immigration system, passport shopping, in pursuit of a passport of convenience, and because of that are far more likely to approach those applications with significantly elevated scrutiny if not outright skepticism.

Whether it should be this way or not. There is no doubt, there is at least some heightened suspicion of applicants perceived to be passport shopping, which can lead to delays and potential problems proving qualifications. That's simply how it is.

I am NO expert. I am NOT an authority. So I make a concerted effort to fully explain as well as reference sources. So my observations tend to go long. But I only focus on a rather few issues which tend to be more complex. Like this one, for which your response is totally inadequate and in that rather misleading.

For those who are in the process of making real decisions that can have an impact on how things might go for them, if they move abroad (however they label it), like the OP @gsmo12, as well as @hungnguyen and @Megs7 in this particular topic, many others periodically posing very similar questions in other similar topics, real information should help them make what can be difficult decisions. For some, putting off moving abroad is a more feasible and a prudent way to reduce the risks of RQ-related problems, as well as the logistical risks. For others, there is often a range of options which can help them better navigate the process, and even if they cannot eliminate some of the risks they may be able to make choices that reduce the risks and make it easier.

And that leads to even much longer observations. Just one tangent is the margin the applicant has over the minimum actual presence requirement. The applicant who apprehends moving abroad soon after applying would be prudent to be sure to have a solid margin over the minimum presence requirement. This is just one of many aspects of this issue.

Leading to the more recent inquiry by @Megs7 . . . to be addressed in a separate, and long post.

Before going there . . .
Would warn you the who is moving for whom can sometimes be a factor when counting time abroad with a Canadian citizen. The rules was created primarily for the Canadian not to be limitted if they need to move for various purposes. It doesn't come up often but it does come up sometimes when it is very clear that the move was really only based and beneficial to the non-Canadian.
Regarding credit toward the PR Residency Obligation for a PR accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse, the who-accompanied-whom question does not seem likely to arise, not even close, for a PR who was well-settled IN Canada with a Canadian citizen spouse before they moved abroad. At least not under the current law (for which there has been no hint of changes coming). Even though in recent years there have been more cases in which PRs have been denied this credit based on a determination the citizen was accompanying the PR, with RARE exceptions those are all rather extreme cases in which the PR had little if any establishment in Canada.

That is, I agree that it "doesn't come up often but it does come up sometimes when it is very clear that the move was really only based and beneficial to the non-Canadian," but would add that this is typically when the PR ALSO was not well-established in Canada before moving abroad.

EDIT for CORRECTION:

To be clear, a PR is a Canadian, NOT a "non-Canadian." PRs are Canadians, Canadian Permanent Residents. The way the immigration law (IRPA) addresses this is by defining "Foreign Nationals" (that is, non-Canadians) to be individuals who are NOT a Canadian, not either a Canadian citizen or PR.

Sure, even upper echelon politicians and government officials sometimes say "Canadian" meaning Canadian citizens, but in more formal contexts "Canadian" references BOTH citizens and PRs. Such as the announcements about repatriating "Canadians" earlier this year, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, which included repatriating both citizens and PRs.

And, in any event, the law explicitly defines non-Canadians ("Foreign Nationals") to NOT include PRs.
 
Last edited:

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,427
3,173
Thank you for your thorough response. The reason I want to apply for citizenship is that my husband and baby are both Canadian citizens. We are moving back to my home country due to Covid as we can live with my parents there. He will get a 2.5 yr visa but there is no guarantee he will be granted an extension so we may be returning to Canada at that point. My worst nightmare would be for him to not be able to stay in my home country and me not be able to return to Canada leaving us separated.

As I understand because he is a Canadian citizen any time abroad living with him counts towards my PR obligations so technically I can retain my PR Status. However, the difficulty I see with this is when I renew my PR card. I would obviously need to prove I have been living with him which isn’t an issue but I understand you need to be physically present in Canada to renew the PR card which can be lengthy. To avoid this worry I wanted to secure citizenship before we left but with the current very lengthy processing times that will be difficult.

Im now just unsure whether to bother applying for citizenship or just maintain my PR status through living with my husband.
Your situation illustrates the range of circumstances in which these questions arise. As I have said, I am NOT an expert. I am NOT an authority. I am NOT qualified to offer personal advice.

What I have commented so far addresses the surface: there is NO prohibition. There are RISKS. Applicants can prepare to deal with most of the RISKS. As long as the QUALIFIED applicant can get notices timely, respond to requests and appear for scheduled events appropriately, EVENTUALLY the applicant should be taking the oath and becoming a Canadian citizen. And to be clear, NOT all applicants who are living abroad while their application is pending run into any RQ related problems. Many sail through. Depends.

"Im now just unsure whether to bother applying for citizenship or just maintain my PR status through living with my husband."

I cannot give you personal advice, but if you can arrange things to get notices timely, and traveling to Canada on short notice is practical for you, there should be little downside to applying. A lot of what I have posted, and will below, is to help someone like you better prepare for what MIGHT come. Not to scare you off applying.

Even if I was qualified to offer personal advice, the decisions you are facing are very personal and depend on so many particular details (not the least of which are personal priorities, financial circumstances, and the particulars of where, under what conditions, you will be living abroad), it would still be inappropriate to do so.

Aside from that, and even though I do not fully know your situation, and of course this is not an appropriate venue for going into those details, but it does NOT appear your circumstances are likely to trigger suspicions of passport-shopping (pursuing a passport of convenience). This should significantly REDUCE your risks of elevated skepticism . . . RQ is a possibility for any applicant, so all applicants should be prepared to provide proof of their actual presence, but there can be a big difference in how it goes for the applicant under suspicion versus IRCC officials doing due diligence in making sure applicants meet the qualifications. Things tend to go rather difficultly for the former. Not so bad for the latter so long as the applicant submits the evidence requested.


LONGER, MORE IN-DEPTH OBSERVATIONS:

As I referenced above, a good margin over the minimum actual physical presence requirement can be something that tips the scales toward reducing the risk of RQ related concerns. Will not eliminate them, but for sure at least a significant margin would be prudent. So the longer you can stay in Canada before applying, the more you can build a margin over the minimum, that could help.

The LOGISTICAL risks loom large for any and all applicants who go abroad while the application is pending. These risks are not created equal. Obviously, living a short car drive from the border (in the U.S.) means the risk of missing a scheduled test or interview, or the oath, is less than it would be for someone who may have to make a long trip just to get to an airport that will get them on a long flight with stopovers, particularly if there are visa issues involved. Setting up a reliable mail and notice arrangement can be more difficult for some than others. Being able to afford travel on short notice can be more an issue for some than others.

Bottom-line, if a citizenship applicant is living abroad while the application is pending, the applicant needs to be prepared for how to get notices and how to get to Canada, often with rather short notice.


THE PROCEDURAL RISKS: As I observed earlier, the procedural risks are more difficult to define and very, very difficult to quantify. There are two aspects of this which warrant attention.

(1) Should the applicant postpone the move abroad? Postpone applying for citizenship?​
(2) What can the applicant do to reduce the risks?​

The first of these questions is not all that easy for many. Sure, if the move is entirely discretionary, and can be postponed, the applicant can simply choose whether to take the RISKS or postpone the move. At the other end of the spectrum, some have very little choice. This or that life circumstance is compelling the move abroad sooner rather than later.

Among the more common examples are young people pursuing particular educational objectives which sometimes require moving abroad for a particular graduate level program not available in Canada, or not feasibly so for the individual. It may not be easy or practical to postpone going abroad to complete this or that program. Some may choose to complete their studies abroad and postpone applying for citizenship. But for some the program is likely to take long enough they fall out of eligibility, so the only practical way forward is to make the application and deal with the risks. Good news for these applicants is that it seems like IRCC recognizes this pattern and does not perceive such individuals to be exploiting the Canadian immigration system, so there is much LESS risk of dramatically elevated scrutiny and suspicion related to those perceived to be passport-shopping.

In any event, what I have tried to illuminate is that this is a question to be asked and answered by any PR considering moving abroad with a citizenship application pending. And at least point in the direction of some things to think about in this regard.


REDUCING the RISKS:

If and when the citizenship applicant is in a position to make a move abroad while the application is pending, whether due to personal preference or compelling circumstances, it will be prudent to do some homework, to recognize the logistical risks I have referenced and get prepared to deal with them. Including plans for travel arrangements as well as getting notices timely.

And to at least consider the risk of RQ-related non-routine processing, and to be prepared to provide RQ-related evidence. But also to be cognizant of credibility factors. As mentioned often, because it is one of the more significant factors, MARGIN over the minimum can be important (applying the day after becoming eligible would be foolish).

Beyond that, other than recognizing the more or less obvious elements of what makes a strong actual physical presence case, here too the personal details will vary widely. Overall immigration history may be a factor. Activities in Canada while in Canada can be a factor. Anything which tends to evidence living a life IN Canada, connection to living IN Canada, helps.

Additionally, which should not need to be said but really needs to be said, any applicant who anticipates moving abroad while the application is pending, should be EXTRA, EXTRA diligent about getting all the facts right, especially ALL dates of travel, all entry dates, all exit dates, including ALL day-trips to the U.S. Sure, this is something all applicants should do. But that is not how we roll in reality. Applicants who are aware they have increased risks of RQ-related scrutiny, like the applicant who will be living abroad, should really be extra diligent in getting the information right.
 

duckduckgoose

Star Member
Jul 4, 2020
59
29
Yes but it will require people to at least pay more taxes until they leave which will offset any potential liabilities.
Some countries offer citizenship/passport after paying a fee like Malta. You don't even have to have ever stepped foot in the country. Often around 1 million USD dollars (Malta is 650k euros). Would you be ok with this in theory since most Canadians won't pay that amount in taxes, even if they've been working in Canada for 30 years (at current median personal income levels). Some feel that puts a 'price' on citizenship like it's something that can be bought without regard for their appreciation of the home country, furthermore it really creates a second class of citizens since its not clear why people who were born in Canada (even to poor parents)have the privilege of not having to pay this 'citizenship' tax.
On the other side we could keep the rules as the same but let people claim more years of residency towards citizenship based on the net amount they contributed to Canada on a dollar figure. So if you came here as an immigrant and started making 150k+ (maybe tech job in Toronto/Vancouver) you can apply quicker than someone who has been here for 5 years making 50k (maybe as a part time live-in caregiver and social worker). However, is your contribution to Canadian society only based on the dollar amount you provided in taxes?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FlyingLion

FlyingLion

Star Member
Aug 19, 2020
132
106
Some countries offer citizenship/passport after paying a fee like Malta. You don't even have to have ever stepped foot in the country. Often around 1 million USD dollars (Malta is 650k euros). Would you be ok with this in theory since most Canadians won't pay that amount in taxes, even if they've been working in Canada for 30 years (at current median personal income levels). Some feel that puts a 'price' on citizenship like it's something that can be bought without regard for their appreciation of the home country, furthermore it really creates a second class of citizens since its not clear why people who were born in Canada (even to poor parents)have the privilege of not having to pay this 'citizenship' tax.
On the other side we could keep the rules as the same but let people claim more years of residency towards citizenship based on the net amount they contributed to Canada on a dollar figure. So if you came here as an immigrant and started making 150k+ (maybe tech job in Toronto/Vancouver) you can apply quicker than someone who has been here for 5 years making 50k (maybe as a part time live-in caregiver and social worker). However, is your contribution to Canadian society only based on the dollar amount you provided in taxes?
Basically, this is how they ended up having so many Chinese in Vancouver or Toronto that don't even speak English or French (I speak both by the way) but somehow hold a Canadian passport. This is also how the real estate market in those cities became out of reach for the middle class Canadian citizen. It is just funny to hear my white Canadian friends complaining about it...
And one day you wake up and you see this https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/vancouver-news/chinese-only-ads-skytrain-station-richmond-bc-2656150
 
  • Like
Reactions: BenLinus6