Leaving Canada After Applying:
This issue comes up again and again. There are voluminous discussions about this in multiple topics here and even more so in some other similar forums.
I concur in the gist of the posts by screech339 and OP_POP and lenium.
To be clear, under the current law (which is applicable to all applications now in process no matter how long it takes CIC to process the application) while CIC cannot deny an applicant because the applicant has left Canada to live abroad while the application was pending, for many applicants in this situation it is clear CIC has not only dragged the applicant into a long and intensely scrutinized process, but in many cases has dug for excuses to deny citizenship. This is likely to be more so going forward. There is little sympathy for such applicants seen among the Federal Court justices.
That is, as both OP_POP and lenium suggest, there may be a de facto policy tending toward the denial of citizenship for those who CIC perceives to have applied-on-the-way-to-the-airport. (Thus, I would quibble a bit with screech339's statement that despite the elevated scrutiny and processing delays, the applicant will eventually be granted citizenship . . . since it appears that at least in a significant number of these cases, CIC digs far enough and deeply enough to find some details which it can leverage into supporting the inference that the applicant has failed to prove residency . . . remember, CIC does not have to determine whether or not the applicant actually met the residency requirement, it only has to determine whether, in its assessment, the applicant has proven residency.)
The main difference between current qualifications for grant citizenship and the revised requirements, not yet in force (but to be in force in the very near future), relative to this issue, is that for those who apply after the revised requirements come into force, CIC will have grounds to deny citizenship to an applicant who is determined to be living abroad while the application is pending, based on just that fact alone (reminder: it is impossible to intend to continue living in a place other than where one is at moment living, so the applicant living abroad cannot intend to continue residing in Canada since that applicant is not even residing in Canada).
This is the primary impact of the so-called intent-to-reside clause.
For those who have applied or will apply before the revised requirements come into force, the intent-to-reside clause has NO relevance. But that said, it is patently clear that many applicants (not necessarily all) who CIC perceives to be living abroad while the application is pending face an unfriendly CIC scrutinizing the applicant very intently looking for justification to deny the application.
I do not have the citiation or link off the top of my head, but the Wang case, which I have cited and linked multiple times in this forum and in others, is a prime example: when CIC could not find a reason to deny based on residency, the CJ sprung a surprise oral knowledge of Canada test on the applicant during the CJ hearing, which was ostensibly about residency, even though the applicant had already passed the written test. The CJ ruled the applicant did not pass the oral test, and the Federal Court upheld this as a fair procedure and reasonable cause for denying the grant of citizenship. It is obvious, however, that what drove the long delays in processing her application and the extra-ordinary effort to find a reason to deny citizenship, was the fact she was living abroad (and collecting benefits for residents).
Also see a discussion at the immigration.ca forum about a case currently in appeal (assuming the individual has filed the appeal, last report he was consulting with a lawyer in Canada), in which the applicant took a job in the U.S. while the application was pending, and CIC dragged the applicant through an intensive and delayed process, ultimately challenged the applicant about undeclared day trips which an applicant does not ordinarily declare in the residency calculation and which the form for RQ then in use also did not request that the applicant declare day trips (subsequent versions of the RQ form do request applicant's declare all day trips). Largely based on the failure to declare the day trips, the CJ concluded the applicant failed to prove residency . . . this particular individual was caught off guard by the ferocity of the challenge in the hearing, believing that his RQ submission well documented his life in Canada and his actual presence well above the 1095 day APP threshold, having ignored, to his detriment, all the warnings many have posted over the last many years that when an applicant has left Canada while the application is pending and is dragged into a long-haul RQ process headed for a CJ hearing, it is time to lawyer-up and get-game-on, and to definitely go into the CJ hearing armed and ready to really make the case, best done accompanied by a lawyer.
Note regarding mobility rights:
lenium has this right. Section 6(1) of the Charter is not at all applicable to a PR. An applicant for citizenship remains a PR unless and until the grant of citizenship.
ItExpert's assertion, in contrast, is at best a gross overstatement. To be clear, Canadian law will not condone let alone overtly allow the government to revoke citizenship based on a "pretext."
That said, for those who will be processed under the revised requirements, including the intent to continue to reside in Canada requirement, of course if an applicant has a job lined up abroad before taking the oath, takes the oath, then soon leaves Canada to take that job abroad, and someone reports this (which any Canadian who is aware of the fraud is obligated to do, using the CIC tip line), then CIC may conduct an investigation and if it is determined the individual made a material misrepresentation of fact in the application process, of course a prosecution including proceeding to revoke citizenship might be brought against such an individual.
This is not likely to be an issue except in the most obvious and egregious cases, which is to say it is not at all likely to impact genuine applicants or legitimate new citizens. But sure, any one who is pursuing Canadian citizenship as a step up the career-ladder, such as having a plan to find work in the U.S. once a Canadian passport is in hand, DUH!, yes, the current government has loudly and boldly broadcast it wants to preclude such individuals from obtaining Canadian citizenship. No advanced degrees in engineering necessary to read this in the blueprints.
This issue comes up again and again. There are voluminous discussions about this in multiple topics here and even more so in some other similar forums.
I concur in the gist of the posts by screech339 and OP_POP and lenium.
To be clear, under the current law (which is applicable to all applications now in process no matter how long it takes CIC to process the application) while CIC cannot deny an applicant because the applicant has left Canada to live abroad while the application was pending, for many applicants in this situation it is clear CIC has not only dragged the applicant into a long and intensely scrutinized process, but in many cases has dug for excuses to deny citizenship. This is likely to be more so going forward. There is little sympathy for such applicants seen among the Federal Court justices.
That is, as both OP_POP and lenium suggest, there may be a de facto policy tending toward the denial of citizenship for those who CIC perceives to have applied-on-the-way-to-the-airport. (Thus, I would quibble a bit with screech339's statement that despite the elevated scrutiny and processing delays, the applicant will eventually be granted citizenship . . . since it appears that at least in a significant number of these cases, CIC digs far enough and deeply enough to find some details which it can leverage into supporting the inference that the applicant has failed to prove residency . . . remember, CIC does not have to determine whether or not the applicant actually met the residency requirement, it only has to determine whether, in its assessment, the applicant has proven residency.)
The main difference between current qualifications for grant citizenship and the revised requirements, not yet in force (but to be in force in the very near future), relative to this issue, is that for those who apply after the revised requirements come into force, CIC will have grounds to deny citizenship to an applicant who is determined to be living abroad while the application is pending, based on just that fact alone (reminder: it is impossible to intend to continue living in a place other than where one is at moment living, so the applicant living abroad cannot intend to continue residing in Canada since that applicant is not even residing in Canada).
This is the primary impact of the so-called intent-to-reside clause.
For those who have applied or will apply before the revised requirements come into force, the intent-to-reside clause has NO relevance. But that said, it is patently clear that many applicants (not necessarily all) who CIC perceives to be living abroad while the application is pending face an unfriendly CIC scrutinizing the applicant very intently looking for justification to deny the application.
I do not have the citiation or link off the top of my head, but the Wang case, which I have cited and linked multiple times in this forum and in others, is a prime example: when CIC could not find a reason to deny based on residency, the CJ sprung a surprise oral knowledge of Canada test on the applicant during the CJ hearing, which was ostensibly about residency, even though the applicant had already passed the written test. The CJ ruled the applicant did not pass the oral test, and the Federal Court upheld this as a fair procedure and reasonable cause for denying the grant of citizenship. It is obvious, however, that what drove the long delays in processing her application and the extra-ordinary effort to find a reason to deny citizenship, was the fact she was living abroad (and collecting benefits for residents).
Also see a discussion at the immigration.ca forum about a case currently in appeal (assuming the individual has filed the appeal, last report he was consulting with a lawyer in Canada), in which the applicant took a job in the U.S. while the application was pending, and CIC dragged the applicant through an intensive and delayed process, ultimately challenged the applicant about undeclared day trips which an applicant does not ordinarily declare in the residency calculation and which the form for RQ then in use also did not request that the applicant declare day trips (subsequent versions of the RQ form do request applicant's declare all day trips). Largely based on the failure to declare the day trips, the CJ concluded the applicant failed to prove residency . . . this particular individual was caught off guard by the ferocity of the challenge in the hearing, believing that his RQ submission well documented his life in Canada and his actual presence well above the 1095 day APP threshold, having ignored, to his detriment, all the warnings many have posted over the last many years that when an applicant has left Canada while the application is pending and is dragged into a long-haul RQ process headed for a CJ hearing, it is time to lawyer-up and get-game-on, and to definitely go into the CJ hearing armed and ready to really make the case, best done accompanied by a lawyer.
Note regarding mobility rights:
lenium has this right. Section 6(1) of the Charter is not at all applicable to a PR. An applicant for citizenship remains a PR unless and until the grant of citizenship.
ItExpert's assertion, in contrast, is at best a gross overstatement. To be clear, Canadian law will not condone let alone overtly allow the government to revoke citizenship based on a "pretext."
That said, for those who will be processed under the revised requirements, including the intent to continue to reside in Canada requirement, of course if an applicant has a job lined up abroad before taking the oath, takes the oath, then soon leaves Canada to take that job abroad, and someone reports this (which any Canadian who is aware of the fraud is obligated to do, using the CIC tip line), then CIC may conduct an investigation and if it is determined the individual made a material misrepresentation of fact in the application process, of course a prosecution including proceeding to revoke citizenship might be brought against such an individual.
This is not likely to be an issue except in the most obvious and egregious cases, which is to say it is not at all likely to impact genuine applicants or legitimate new citizens. But sure, any one who is pursuing Canadian citizenship as a step up the career-ladder, such as having a plan to find work in the U.S. once a Canadian passport is in hand, DUH!, yes, the current government has loudly and boldly broadcast it wants to preclude such individuals from obtaining Canadian citizenship. No advanced degrees in engineering necessary to read this in the blueprints.