I realize that. And I try to help lower the stress level in scenarios like yours where the risk of negative action is likely very low, by repeatedly couching the negatives with assurances of the low risk.
It's a delicate balance. It is an even more delicate balance for those who have traveled to the home country, for whom the risk of cessation investigation is significantly higher, and if they traveled often, or stayed for a significant period of time, the risk of CBSA following through with cessation proceedings hangs over them.
In particular I also recognize that for many with protected person status the rule itself imposes a severe hardship. For many there are compelling reasons to visit the home country (such as a parent nearing death), and in addition to having Canadian PR status allowing them to withdraw and return to Canada, many could otherwise balance the risks involved to more or less travel to the home country briefly and take precautions so they can do so in relative safety, again knowing they can readily leave and return to Canada, and they can do this with zero intention of reavailing themselves of home country protection. Many do and do not encounter cessation proceedings. It is very difficult to predict who will encounter cessation enforcement issues. We just know that the biggest trigger of increased risk is home country travel, and for those who do this, the risk increases with the frequency or duration of such trips.
But the rules themselves do not support let alone favour flexibility. The typical defense is that to the extent the PR-refugee has done acts indicating reavailment, they can offer evidence to document they had no intent to reavail themselves of home country protection or that they did not "
voluntarily" reavail themselves of home country protection. Relying on this is just outright very risky.
It is in regards to the latter that some, who were a minor still at the time a passport for them was obtained, have the defense that a parent or guardian made that decision, so it was not their voluntary decision to obtain the passport, not their intention to reavail.
Which brings up
@armoured asking about getting status as a minor.
And . . .
I doubt the label makes much difference, and since there is a different travel document issued depending on whether the individual is less than or older than 16, and the application forms themselves refer, respectively, to "Adult Travel Document Application" (which is form PPTC 190), and "Child Travel Document Application" (which is form PPTC 192), I fully trust that the respective Travel Documents themselves are likewise labeled.
However, for those searching the IRCC website for information about obtaining the Travel Document available to refugees, protected persons, and stateless persons, that information is generally easier found looking for information about a "
Refugee Travel Document" . . . a lot of IRCC's information (most of it so far as I have seen) refers to it as a "
Refugee Travel Document."
This seems part of a pattern of IRCC's mix of information, sometimes using particular terms for specific things, more or less the technical term, other times using more general usage language, and sometimes it not being clear which is which.
Overall IRCC does not make it easy for refugees to find information about traveling outside Canada. There is no reference or link, none at all, to information about travel outside Canada on the IRCC web page for "
How Canada's refugee system works" or at IRCC's general "
Refugees and asylum" web page
Among IRCC web pages referring to it as a "
Refugee Travel Document" is the general information page for making the application, which is here --
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/canadian-passports/travel-documents-non-canadians.html (with the link for how to apply for a "
Refugee Travel Document" going to the pdf for the "
Adult Travel Document" application)
and IRCC's glossary of terms, here
https://www.canada.ca/en/services/immigration-citizenship/helpcentre/glossary.html#member_of_the_convention_refugees_abroad_class which defines "
Refugee Travel Document" as "
A document for people in Canada with protected-person status to use for travel outside Canada."
Also see, for example the FAQ question and answer:
Question: I am a refugee and I need to travel outside Canada. What documents do I need to travel?
Answer: You need to get a Refugee Travel Document from Passport Canada. It is recognized in all countries as a valid travel document. However, you cannot use it to travel to the country that you are a citizen of or the country of claimed persecution.
The FAQ response expands on this, but it also specifically states:
"If you are a:
- Convention refugee, or
- person in need of protection,
you will need a Refugee Travel Document.
But things can and do get complicated. When I started this topic, for example, agents in the CIC Help Centre (and more than a few attorneys and many forum participants) were still advising PR-refugees they should obtain a home country passport before applying for citizenship, despite that doing so creates the presumption of reavailment, and despite the fact that the change in law which made this a risk for a PR had been in effect for more than two years (the change in law applying cessation to refugees even after they became a PR took effect in December 2012).
And throughout all this time, it is still readily apparent that many refugees and protected persons are not well advised about these things when they get status in Canada. That was the crux of the Safi case (Canada v. Safi, 2022 FC 1125,
https://canlii.ca/t/jr4nw ); Safi was unaware of the consequences for using the home country passport or traveling to the home country, erroneously believing this based on believing "
his status had changed from being a refugee to a permanent resident" (his status had changed, becoming a PR, but such PRs are still refugees and subject to cessation provisions).
I fully get and have much empathy for the anxiety, frustration, and many times outright fear, and all too often the confusion, many refugees must deal with in their efforts to establish a life in Canada. And I wish I was better at clarifying and explaining things more clearly, in more simple terms. I'd gladly pass on the baton for this particular subject. For now, though, I worry that many will still fall into a trap about this issue, especially since notwithstanding a lot of the political-reassurances-rhetoric about playing nice with immigrants coming from the front runner for the Conservative Party leadership, who very well could become Canada's next Prime Minister, that is Pierre Poillievre, he is very much from the Harper-camp and perhaps significantly more to right, which relative to immigration means policies which favour some immigrants but which tend to be severe if not harsh toward many others, especially refugees. I worry that some have been lulled into relying on the typically more lenient enforcement pattern under the Liberals and will be sadly confronted with difficulties when a Conservative government takes the helm.
