Leaving Canada after applying for citizenship

The portion you quote from the manual, EasyRider, is the absolute minimum that must be examined.

There is no basis whatsoever for inserting the word "only" into your statement:
"At least in CIC residency manual it's written to examine and take into account only stamps concerning relevant period during interview procedure."
And inserting that "only" there changes the meaning, and it is overtly misleading. If this was an isolated instance, I'd shrug. It is not an isolated instance. It is not an oversight since you have previously participated in many of the discussions about leaving Canada after applying and are thus well aware that CIC has often given RQ to applicants where a post-application absence triggers further scrutiny.

Your statement is also misleading in context. While the interview is not "RQ" the official's job is indeed to screen for residency issues.

As I quoted from the appendix When coming to write an exam . . . the client's passport shows recent [stamp indicating return to Canada]," is specifically a consideration relevant to assessing the applicant's residency. It is, indeed, explicitly just one consideration among a whole range of considerations the interviewing official may assess attendant the interview relative to the residency issue.

Moreover OB 407's pre-interview check process makes it clear that part of the interview is to conduct a further evaluation of the applicant relative to residency, to follow up any questions that arose in the pre-interview check assessment.

Bottom-line: the documents check conducted during the interview is not just to affirm the applicant's identity, but is explicitly, overtly, part of the residency assessment. No doubt about this whatsoever.

So, this assertion that the interview is "not RQ," while technically correct ("RQ" being a form), is misleading to the extent that it implies, in the least, that there is no residency questions being asked or examined in the test interview.

Don't want to be caught in over-rationalization loop with dpenabill.

Examining procedure doesn't call for examining documents outside relevant period and according to reports I witnessed over time, some CO's follow it and don't care and check about your passport stamps that fall beyond relevant period. It doesn't mean that some CO's may not focus on your unrelated travels more during interview. But this is not part of mandatory assessment, so it may or may not happen.

This is still misleading.

I quoted, from the manual, the specific consideration that is part of the examination procedure, that is, illustrating that an examination of stamps in the passport indicating travel right up to the date of the test is relevant.

Moreover, there is no doubt, even if one's current passport was issued after applying (mine will be, as I must renew my passport before it is likely I will attend the interview), that is, if it is a document outside the relevant period, it must still be presented at the interview and it will be examined. ALWAYS. No doubt about this.

While the amount of attention the CIC official at the interview gives to any post-application stamps in one's passport will undoubtedly vary, in general, overall, an applicant can expect the CIC official conducting the documents check to examine ALL stamps in a current passport.

Is this mandatory? Or just a standard practice? Either way, it is highly likely that, at the least, the stamps will be looked at.

It is part of the guidelines in effect prior to OB 407. There is little likelihood that changes to CP 5 have removed this consideration, given that OB 407 appears to have expanded not reduced what is considered attendant assessment of residency.

To what extent that triggers further inquiry will vary. As I emphasized, context matters. It is not so much about chance, as it is about context. It will matter what the rest of the facts are, what the circumstances are.

It is true, yes, whether or not a post-application stamp is problematic will vary, for some it will be, for others it will not be. Context matters.

As I posted above, something which I have said in various ways many times:

Again, there is NO reason to panic Yes, an extended absence just before taking the test is relevant BUT . . . An extended absence is just one factor. The context is important. If the context indicates the applicant has moved abroad and intends to live abroad, and the CIC officer reviewing your documents perceives this, sure, yes, that can be (not necessarily will be) something that triggers a request for additional information and documentation. I do not know with any degree of confidence just what factors will influence CIC in this regard, beyond the obvious: length of time spent abroad, potential FOSS notes, as well as the nature and reason for the time spent abroad (if asked . . . again, to what extent this issue arises, is considered, probably depends on other factors; some applicants will encounter more scrutiny in this regard than others, some hardly any perhaps). How solid the picture is of a PR who has settled in Canada permanently and otherwise met the residency requirement is probably a major factor as well.

It is worth emphasizing, although it is obvious in context, this is about extended absences, not merely any travel abroad after applying.

Before I address this any further, I want to emphasize that there is no doubt, none, none at all, that the concern underlying the queries posted by hekmeh30 allude to a genuine issue, a genuine concern. That concern is rooted in the recognition that an applicant's residence abroad after applying can be problematic. Despite efforts to distract the discussion in this topic, to distort what the real issues are, there should be no doubt about this, that applicants who leave Canada to reside abroad for an extended period of time, after applying, might face elevated scrutiny, even RQ. And yes, CIC is wont to look for indications of this in any aspect of the file, including the applicant's current travel documents and indications therein, such as recent stamps.

This has NOTHING to do with vacations. Nothing at all to do with vacations. The reference above to whether or not, or to what extent, is CIC interested in examining details about an applicant's vacations is a red herring, more about distraction and distortion, and totally irrelevant to this topic, totally irrelevant to the concerns expressed by hekmeh30, totally irrelevant to anything I posted in regards to hekmeh30's concerns.

The distinction is obvious. Going abroad for a vacation is not about going abroad for an extended period of time, not about actually residing abroad. CIC does not care about applicants going abroad for vacations.

CIC does care if there are indications an applicant has continuing residential/employment ties abroad, such as ties implicated by an extended period of time actually residing abroad.

The reason CIC cares should be nearly as obvious: such continuing ties raise questions about whether or not, or to what extent, the applicant had actually established and maintained residence in Canada, or was perhaps only temporarily in Canada.

This does not mean an applicant who has circumstances (including an extended period of residing abroad after applying) indicating continuing residential ties abroad will necessarily get RQ, let alone face a highly skeptical assessment. CIC knows and understands and puts these things into context, and almost always can discern what is going on. As I often say, CIC can connect the dots and CIC will connect the dots. They figure it out. They make decisions accordingly. Sure, more than a few are swept into the grey areas and get RQ even though in response they will readily make their case, prove their residency. But many will not be given RQ. Again, it depends. It is a case-by-case decision.

How concerned should hekmeh30 be? I do not know. Again, it depends on factors in addition to just how long hekmeh30 was abroad after applying. It depends on a range of factors including the work history, the residence history, the travel history of the applicant overall.

Beyond having CRA tax documents, perhaps a few other documentary items to show where in Canada the applicant was residing, and otherwise being fully upfront and honest in answering any questions asked at the interview, there is probably little the applicant can do to change the outcome of the interview. And unfortunately in many instances, in such a situation, the applicant will often have no clue about how the interview actually went in this regard, the decision about whether or not to impose RQ likely to be made later, based on a review of the photocopy of all pages in the applicant's passport and other information in the file. Many applicants will encounter no problems despite a fairly lengthy stay abroad after applying. Many applicants who were living abroad after applying, particularly those who lived abroad for an extended period of time and who only returned to Canada just in time to take the test, will encounter RQ. Again, who goes in which direction will vary depending on many factors.

Regarding the factors, one factor which might loom large is whether or not the applicant honestly and timely reported the change of residential address (even if temporary) reflecting residing abroad. It is worth remembering that any indication an applicant is failing to be fully honest in their dealings with CIC can trigger some rather negative consequences.

Regarding chance: There is always some element of chance. The official conducting the interview, or the one subsequently making the actual decision about whether or not to impose RQ, could be in a bad mood that particular day. The official may have some particular personal history which makes him or her more, or less, skeptical about applicants with certain kinds of backgrounds, which can have just a little influence or quite a lot of influence. And so on.

But overall, the actual facts are what matters. Chance will, at most, play an incidental role.

Regarding what might be taken to the interview:
Above I suggested the applicant could take to the interview CRA documents, as in notices of tax assessments, and some documents showing where in Canada the applicant actually resided (for all time periods the applicant declared a residence in Canada), and this might help.

I should have noted that reports about whether or not applicants get an opportunity to present such documents vary considerably, and it appears that practices vary considerably. That is, sometimes applicants have an opportunity to present such documents. Sometimes there is no opportunity afforded to do this.

I should have also included documents directly reflecting employment during the relevant time periods, including T-4s, some paystubs perhaps, long term contracts if applicable, and so on.

It should also be noted that the applicant who wants to present additional documents at the interview should have both the original and a photocopy to be given and left with CIC (if they will take it).

As I indicated, while the applicant may have an opportunity to present such additional information and documentation, and for some it may make a difference, for most it is not likely to change the outcome, that is, not likely to avoid RQ if otherwise RQ was going to be imposed.

It is also worth the reminder that given the pre-test RQ process, and the pre-interview check conducted by CIC prior to the interview, that most applicants who have not been given RQ before the test now have little to worry about in terms of getting RQ. RQ at or following the test is unlikely unless there is some issue that arises in the course of the interview or documents check. The most obvious issues that might arise are, of course, the failure to present all relevant travel documents/passports, or a discrepancy between what was declared in the residency calculation and what is indicated by stamps (or such) in the passport.

And, in particular, applicants who took vacations abroad after applying should not worry one iota about that having an impact on how the interview and documents check goes.

Whereas, in contrast, someone who after applying left Canada to reside abroad and who returns just in time to take the test, shares the sorts of concerns hekmeh30 has expressed, which are addressed above.