Keep respecting every single one of the application requirements till the oath.
Excellent brief statement. This is, perhaps, the overriding key. Particularly in regards to the OP's situation.
I wish I knew that leaving Canada after applying would be this much trouble. When Mr. Trudeau changed the law with the date of effect in Oct. 2017, no one was talking about this practice. Many believed that applying and leaving the country might be fine. The law never clearly mentioned that leaving the country would be led to the nightmare of RQ. I wish I knew. I would have definitely planned differently. I might lose my PR. For those who are reading these forums: DO NOT LEAVE THE COUNTRY AFTER APPLYING FOR CITIZENSHIP!
Your situation is what it is, where it is, and doing what you can to save your PR status appears to be your best shot at retaining a chance to settle in Canada permanently going forward.
I offer the following observations more for others, to balance the books, so to say, to highlight what really should be quite apparent if not obvious, but which tends to be dismissed by some, understated by many, or otherwise ignored (typically the latter comes when an individual focuses on reading and understanding the rules in a way that favours his or her plans, rather than making an effort to objectively understand the rules and how they apply).
To be fair:
-- many (at least it appears) relocate abroad after applying with NO problem
-- -- since June 2017 there have been NO rules or laws prohibiting or penalizing citizenship applicants who live abroad after applying
-- but there are RISKS, which
-- -- others and I, probably me more often and more emphatically, have repeatedly cautioned about the RISKS . . . perhaps not in every topic where moving-abroad-after-applying comes up, but quite likely the majority of them, including discussions in this forum in 2017
-- -- the RISKS VARY depending on the applicant's individual circumstances, ranging from how solid the application itself is to how long the applicant remains abroad . . . but the RISKS also vary depending on
-- -- -- the extent to which it APPEARS (the extent to which the applicant might be PERCEIVED) the citizenship applicant is abusing the system, overtly acting CONTRARY to the purpose of the law
-- -- -- other factors which might invite questions, doubts, skepticism, or outright suspicion about the applicant's credibility
-- the PR Residency Obligation is more than adequately publicized and clearly applies to a PR who has applied for citizenship, so any failure to recognize the ongoing need to stay in compliance with the PR RO simply amounts to disregarding the rules
-- the impact of RQ and resulting delays in processing is widely and well known, so once an applicant for citizenship has encountered RQ-related non-routine processing, the challenges the applicant faces are no mystery, not some hidden pitfall
-- posts in forums like this summarily declaring it is OK to relocate abroad rarely, if ever, actually address the range of potential issues, let alone acknowledge the RISKS, and otherwise lack indicia of reliability; and, moreover, others and I will typically counter such naked overstatements, not only noting the RISKS but offering the underlying information and analysis
-- -- many such posts focus on the fact that it is OK to "TRAVEL" abroad while the application is pending, and blur or ignore that relocating to live abroad is NOT the same as TRAVEL abroad
-- some of the posts which seem to encourage moving abroad after applying, especially those who label Canadians xenophobes if they oppose abuse of the system by those seeking-a-passport-of-convenience, appear to be disingenuous, some more or less engaging in pernicious troll or bait posting . . . perhaps I have been following this and related issues so long, I easily spot their insidious slant, but their inherent dishonesty usually does seem rather obvious
-- -- the latter includes, in particular, posts emphasizing that "travel" abroad is OK in a way that makes it clear they are deliberately conflating or outright misleading the distinction between what is "travel" versus moving abroad to live
Role and Significance of the Purpose and Intent of the Law; CREDIBILITY:
Apart from all the above, which warrants a lot more attention than it tends to get in this forum (except for my hammering away at this), there is a tendency by many to mistakenly focus too much on what the law technically ALLOWS as a guide for individual choices, overlooking the very real impact, and often rather substantial impact, of factors which can influence how a decision-maker (like IRCC processing agents and citizenship officers) perceives the applicant's credibility. Meeting the requirements is absolutely required. Of course. And as
@Seym aptly noted, it is necessary to do so throughout the entire process. But the applicant's CREDIBILITY looms large, very large, in how the decision-making process unfolds. REMEMBER, the burden of proof is on the applicant. It is NOT enough to technically meet the requirements. To qualify for a grant of citizenship the PR must BOTH meet the requirements AND BE ABLE TO PROVE this.
As the Denzel Washington character in a
bad-cops-shoot-em-up film rather aptly put it: "
It's not what you know, it's what you can prove."
Who can directly prove exactly where they were EVERY day, every day that needs to be counted as a day IN Canada in order to meet the presence requirement? Of course that is not the standard. The standard depends on making REASONABLE INFERENCES. But the range of what can be reasonably inferred blows up if a decision-maker has cause to question or suspect the primary source of information, the applicant, lacks credibility.
For the vast, vast majority of applicants, IRCC simply relies on inferring the PR was IN Canada between a known date of entry and the next reported date of exit. But this is conditioned on ALL the facts and circumstances in the applicant's case supporting that inference, including all the information in regards to all travel dates, address history, work history, compliance with Canadian tax filing rules, and other details . . . MOST of which IRCC agents do not question UNLESS they have cause to question or suspect the applicant may not be credible.
Bringing this to the PURPOSE for the law governing who is qualified for a grant of citizenship. Make no mistake. The purpose and intent of the law is to facilitate settling and living IN Canada PERMANENTLY.
The fact that the Trudeau government repealed a provision that specifically enforced, as a qualifying requirement, the applicant have such intent did not change what the law's purpose and intent is. All that repeal did was eliminate "intent" as a stand alone ground for denying an application. So yes, an applicant for citizenship can relocate abroad after applying without fear of a penalty or otherwise having the application denied on that ground alone.
But if and when IRCC officials perceive that an applicant might have been deliberately using the Canadian system to obtain-a-passport-of-convenience, that is engaged in a plan CONTRARY to the purpose and intent of the law,
DUH! Obviously that will raise RED FLAGS about the individual's credibility. Obviously there is a real risk that individual's application will be more thoroughly scrutinized, and in particular the evidence of actual presence in Canada at the least more thoroughly investigated.
Frankly, it does not require a whole lot of understanding to get this, let alone expertise. This is mostly about the extent to which some people are overtly
gaming-the-system . . . and making it more difficult for others who, for this or that reason, need to relocate abroad after applying notwithstanding they are otherwise engaged in the process consistent with the purpose and intent of the law.
OVERALL: there is no direct enforcement provision which would allow IRCC to deny an application based on the PR's relocation abroad while the application is pending. But it is a mistake to overlook the fact that the purpose and intent of the law is to give immigrants a path to SETTLING PERMANENTLY in Canada. If and when an applicant's actions appear contrary to the purpose and intent of the law, of course that is bound to at least trigger questions . . . and for some, those questions can impair what inferences officials make in regards to evaluating the persuasiveness of proof the applicant was actually still in Canada between a known date of entry and the next reported date of exit.
