To withdraw or not to withdraw; my sense overall:
Withdrawing an application probably leads to at least a closer examination when an individual re-applies, but the actual consequence of this probably varies widely depending on many factors. A huge, probable factor is whether there were concerns about the applicant's credibility in the first application; if so, a new application will not automatically clean the slate, so concerns the first time around may continue to plague the applicant in the second application.
On the other hand, withdrawing a declared shortfall application, and reapplying after being solidly qualified, makes sense on its face, and in the absence of any reason to have credibility concerns, my sense is that even if there are some additional inquiries made, some additional documents requested, the actual processing time should not be too significantly delayed.
Obviously there is room for many variations in between these two scenarios.
Historically, a second application was typically subject to RQ, but not always.
Some explanatory observations:
It has been a few years now since CIC has publicly divulged much at all about the criteria employed to screen applicants, particularly as to criteria triggering RQ or what amounts to a residency case.
The last versions of criteria we had much information regarding (largely through various ATI requests and one response to an ATIP request which was widely shared, the latter providing a copy of the File Requirements Checklist which included the so-called triage criteria, sometimes referred to as risk indicators) still included what was known as A3, "previous citizenship applications which were not approved, withdrawn, abandoned, renounced or revoked."
Which is to say, at least through 2013 or so, the fact of having had a prior citizenship application typically triggered at least the issuance of RQ. Any RQ will undoubtedly result in some delay, but how much so varies from case to case.
Notwithstanding this, however, there were reports in another forum, and perhaps this one as well (my memory as to which forum some reports were in that long ago is a bit fuzzy), by a small number of individuals whose second application actually sailed smoothly through the process. However, these were individuals whose first application involved a shortfall and no credibility concerns, and who in the meantime had continued to live in Canada, and mostly be present in Canada, and it was at the CJ hearing (for the first application), per the advice of the Citizenship Judge, that they withdrew and then reapplied. It appeared that notes were made in their file by the CJ which likely indicated the strength of their case upon re-applying, leading to an easier and faster process for the second application.
Which is to say, even when we knew for sure that a new application, after withdrawing an application, was marked for RQ pursuant to the screening criteria, it did not always result in RQ the next time.
Since 2013 we know the triage criteria has been modified in some respects, probably significantly so, but because the screening criteria is considered confidential information, CIC and IRCC have been careful to not divulge what those changes have been. We also know that CIC (now IRCC) implemented the issuance of the CIT 0520 form for requesting a limited amount of additional documentation regarding proof of residency (now presence rather than residency for applications since June 11, 2015), and thus it is clear that many applications which would have been subject to RQ and full-blown residency-case processing (with long delays) before 2013 are now only being issued the CIT 0520, sometimes resulting in some delay but not necessarily long delays.
Which leads back to my overall sense, and that there are many factors which can influence how a second application will be assessed. Thus, to some extent it is probably related to the types of issues causing delays for the first application. For the applicant who has become qualified in the meantime, while a first application was pending, it makes total sense to withdraw an application with a simple shortfall without any credibility concerns. On the other hand, if the applicant declared well over 1095 days actual presence in the first application, then withdraws, there is a significant chance that whatever concerns were underlying delays for the first application are something IRCC will want to examine and assess the second time around as well.
As in many of these things, there is no-one-rule-fits-all, and there are so many variables any attempt to enumerate some is likely to be more misleading than helpful. But, as usual, some factors loom more obviously.
For example: As already noted, any credibility concerns are likely to follow the applicant in a second application.
For example: Withdrawing after being issued RQ without responding to the RQ is likely (my guess) to invite questions about what is it that the applicant did not want to disclose, which in a sense amounts to raising a credibility concern.
Timeline:
There are no guarantees. No reliable forecasts per se. But in general I think it is a safe bet that timelines will be shorter for many procedures which took years in the recent past. Thus, my guess is that generally non-routine cases are not likely to take nearly so long as they were taking even in 2014/2015, let alone the grossly excessive timelines for those who applied in 2010 to 2013 and ended up in a non-routine process. Which is to say, unless the current application is so flawed there is virtually no chance of success, probably better to ride it through to at least the CJ hearing. There is a chance of success. And if not, at the least this puts the applicants' case into the record, and could easily establish a base line of information in the applicant's GCMS against which it could be clear the second application overcomes the flaws in the first. Thus, even if the second is also processed as a non-routine case, it may nonetheless sail through the process relatively easily and on a fast timeline.
Ultimately, of course, it is a personal judgment call whether to abandon/withdraw a pending application and start over. Again there is no-one-rule-fits-all. The particular facts and circumstances of each individual's case will have much influence in determining what the best course of action is for any particular person.
Once an applicant is perceived to have credibility issues, however, those can be difficult to overcome unless and until there is solid, objective proof for every aspect, every element of the application.
