jason2540 said:
Hello all. If someone leaves Canada after submitting their citizenship application in order to do field work for their studies (Masters or PhD), in connection with a partner university overseas, will this be a problem under the "intent to reside" requirement? If the person is married to a Canadian citizen and does intend to go back to Canada after the field work, is this enough to say that they intend to reside in Canada?
It's very vague, because at this point, it only seems that the only way CIC defines this intent is through the "I intend to reside in Canada" box on the citizenship application form. There is also no requirement to stay in Canada after sending the application, according to the CIC website (cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?q=911&t=5).
Thank you.
As noted, there is no required intent to continue residing in Canada for applications made prior to June 11, 2015.
For subsequent applications, applicants who are required to have an intent to
continue to reside in Canada in order to qualify for the grant of citizenship, beyond the formal expression of such intent (as you indicated you do in the application form, and quite likely again when being interviewed), there is virtually no clear indication as to how this requirement will be interpreted and applied.
Since it was specifically adopted in response to the perceived problem of applicants
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport, it is fairly obvious that it was intended to be a tool to more efficiently reject applicants who move abroad after applying. But of course that was a Conservative agenda. And the Minister of CIC will soon be a Liberal.
There is no formal, separate requirement for applicants to "stay in Canada" after applying, but even before the intent provision was added to the qualifications for citizenship, CIC had long been targeting applicants perceived to among those
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport (not literally of course), imposing elevated scrutiny, RQ, more skeptical evaluation, and delays. This has its roots much earlier when there was a Liberal government, when indications of living abroad, or being abroad for an extensive period, were articulated as a
reason-to-question-residency (this is in reference to a 2005 Operational Bulletin, again while the Liberals formed the government).
So there is
risk in moving abroad even for those who applied before June 11, 2015, and given the intent requirement a significantly greater risk for those who go abroad to live after submitting a post June 11 application.
That said, a certain degree of flexibility can be anticipated. It is not as if CIC is digging through the application, of someone who is otherwise qualified, looking for technical grounds to deny the applicant. The problem is the lack of knowing for sure how CIC will respond to this or that specific case. One might say that if it is obvious the time abroad is for a
temporary purpose, it should not be a problem. But who knows how CIC will approach this going forward? Let alone how it will go for a specific individual. One could say, for example, if the time abroad is specifically arranged through a degree program here in Canada, the odds are better there will not be a problem. But this is a process for which most people prefer to minimize the extent to which things are a gamble.
The extent to which this provision introduces uncertainty for many applicants whose lives are tangled in such contingencies is perhaps the main criticism. On the other hand, most Canadians are on board with an approach which closes the door, as much as possible, on those whose agenda is to use Canada as a stepping stone to career opportunities elsewhere. This provision was implemented to accomplish that.
Could be a tough decision. The good news, however, is that timelines for the vast majority should be far more reasonable than they have been for a great many in the last four or five years (the big backlog began in 2010 or so, which coincides with the increased focus on spotting applicants supposedly
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport, and the escalation of anti-fraud interdiction, but the backlog then ballooned dramatically in 2012 when Jason Kenney introduced measures which almost brought processing citizenship applications to a halt).
Note: there are particular risks even for pre-June applicants: These include the typical very short-notice CIC tends to give for events, like the test and interview, or even the oath. There is some flexibility relative to the test/interview, but missing the oath because the applicant is outside Canada and could not return in time is
not an accepted reason for missing the scheduled oath, and will usually result in NO grant of citizenship.
These risks have been discussed in multiple topics here which in one way or another are about leaving Canada while the application is pending.
