Refugee status cessation and PRs applying for citizenship

[dpenabill]

Thanks for the detailed answer. Do you by any chance have any kind of cases where they were allowed to keep their Refugee Status after cessation case? I mean in what ways does it make a little bit more compelling? One of my friend visited back home to get married and visit his wife's grandmother (stayed for 1 month, for once only) and then came back to Canada. After a year, he got this cessation application. (He only went back once for wedding and to visit his wife's grandmother who later died). Do you think this is a bit of a rare case as I have never seen any case online where the applicant got a cessation application on only 1 visit. All of the cases are mostly 2+ times and for a much longer stay.

Your friend needs the assistance of an experienced lawyer.

I have no idea how rare such cases are. But as you saw in my previous response, I do not hesitate to emphasize (repeatedly) that a PR-refugee should NOT obtain or use a home country passport, and as I said in ALL CAPS, for well-founded emphasis, FOR SURE, a PR-refugee SHOULD NOT TRAVEL TO THEIR HOME COUNTRY.

Will Camayo offer your friend an arguable defense? Depends on a number of factors. There is no doubt, however, the best shot your friend has is to get help from a good lawyer, a damn good lawyer.

In some of the cases, as cited and discussed in regards to them in previous posts above, some PR-refugees have been granted an appeal setting aside a RPD cessation decision, and typically it is one or more of the Camayo criteria that decision is based on. That is, yes, some who have traveled to the home country and are then subject to cessation proceedings can present a successful defense based on Camayo related issues . . . probably better shot of winning this in the RPD, or at least more likely to be successful there than it is in Federal Court appealing a negative RPD decision.

So, the gist of it is not complicated: Do Not travel to the home country. If you do, and cessation proceedings are brought, Get a Damn Good Lawyer.


Some Further Context and Background:

Periodically this thread has participants more or less downplaying the risks, largely based on knowing about some PR-refugees who have not become subject to cessation despite using a home country passport, and including some who have traveled to the home country. That view tends to leave out the fact that these individuals have not become subject to cessation YET. Once a PR-refugee has traveled to the home country, Only IF, and Only WHEN, the PR-refugee becomes a Canadian citizen, can they be sure they will not become subject to cessation. In many of the cessation cases we see, the proceedings leading to cessation are not brought for many years. For example, in a case I will address further below, the PR-refugees had a cessation action brought against them in 2017 based on a trip to the home country in 2009, and back before the RPD in 2023 (we do not know the disposition of that).

Not enough definitive situations have been reported for us to be sure, but it looks like at least some of those who run into a cessation action later in time may have triggered the inquiry and an investigation by applying for citizenship.

That said, we have also seen a number of anecdotal reports from PR-refugees who have made successful applications for citizenship despite one or two trips to their home country. And numerous reports about having and using a home country passport otherwise (not traveling to home country) without facing cessation. NOTE: I have made a concerted effort to caution that these instances do NOT, not in any way, mean there is little, let alone no risk of cessation, for using a home country passport for any travel let alone travel to the home country, just once or otherwise.

Reminder: use of home country passport to travel to the home country JUST ONCE creates a presumption of reavailment. Nothing more needs to be presented or argued by the government for that to mandate (not merely justify but require) cessation. The affected PR-refugee can present evidence and argument claiming to rebut the presumption, but as much as Camayo makes it clear that the RPD must hear and consider such evidence and argument, many other cases clearly illustrate that successfully rebutting the presumption of reavailment can be a difficult uphill challenge. After all, the main question is whether the PR-refugee voluntarily traveled to the home country, and at least for adults it is typically difficult to persuasively argue their trip to the home country was not their choice.

We just plain do not know who, when, or why CBSA/IRCC chooses to proceed with cessation against some and not others . . . other than, as I previously stated, the obvious: the more often the travel to the home country, and/or the longer the trip there, the greater the risk that a cessation action will be prosecuted. It appears that CBSA/IRCC does not pursue, or at least so far has not pursued cessation, of every PR-refugee who uses a home country passport to travel to their home country. But even if betting on that seems to have good odds, it is what is at stake, what could be lost, that still makes it a really risky, dangerous gamble.

Another possible tipping factor could be how soon after becoming a PR the PR-refugee travels to the home country, or some other circumstance suggesting the possibility of fraud in the claim underlying the need for protection. This could be where, perhaps, the evidence of fraud is not very strong but the return to the home country gives the government grounds for cessation based on reavailment without having to prove fraud. This would not be limited to cases of actual fraud, but rather might be triggered by any appearance the PR-refugee does not face the risks in the home country they claimed, as suggested by the trip to the home country.

But, again, we do not really know much about what triggers cessation prosecution for some but not others, and again the huge problem we have in trying to assess the risks is that even when a PR has used a home country passport and traveled to the home country, cessation may not be commenced for many years and it is only IF and WHEN the PR-refugee has become a Canadian citizen that it is for sure there is no risk of cessation.

Consider, for example, a case discussed in posts earlier this year, the Malik v. Canada, 2023 FC 443, https://canlii.ca/t/jwg5x case. In this case the cessation action was not commenced until 2017 and was based on just TWO trips to the home country, one of which the RPD concluded did not show reavailment. That is, the cessation was based on just ONE trip, a trip nearly 8 years prior to CBSA bringing the cessation action.

This is one of the examples in which arguments based on Camayo persuaded the Federal Court to set aside the RPD cessation.

But it warrants cautioning that this example offers scant comfort for most of those dealing with cessation (as noted before, see posts #741, 742 for deep dive into why Camayo offers little relief). Back in April I commented it was curious that the government even pushed this case, the reported facts and circumstances easily weighing in favour of not imposing cessation. A couple aspects stand out in particular:

Three of the four PR-refugees in this case were minor children at the time they traveled to the home country (strong argument their travel was not voluntary and even stronger argument rebutting the presumption they intended to reavail the home country's protection); and FC otherwise found that the RPD failed to consider key factors in assessing the PR-refugee's rebuttal of an intent to reavail home country protection.​

At the time of the travel (in 2009), travel to the home country would have NO effect on their PR status, so there was no reason for the mother to even apprehend she was risking the loss of PR status by traveling to the home country. Technically this is not a defense. As I noted in my previous post, the courts have ruled the application of cessation based on conduct prior to the change in the law does not constitute an ex post facto law imposing a retroactive penalty for prior actions (which would be prohibited by the Charter). Even though, in terms of its practical effect, it obviously does. Even though anyone with any sense of fairness readily recognizes the draconian injustice. So, despite the blatant inequity, the FC cannot hang its hat on this; but it is my sense that the courts have been approaching the subjective intent to reavail issue in a way that allows relief in these circumstances without specifically hanging it on the change in law, focusing on an "individual’s lack of actual knowledge of the immigration consequences of their actions," and recognizing this is "a key factual consideration" (quotes from Camayo, and quoted by the FC). While this leaves open the "I didn't know . . . " door, regardless when the travel took place, spoiler alert: does not get a lot of traction; see for example the decision in the Karasu v. Canada, 2023 FC 654 https://canlii.ca/t/jx63x case, the Dari v. Canada, 2023 FC 887, https://canlii.ca/t/jxwhw case.​

Edit to note that in the most recent case noted here, in Anvar v. Canada, 2023 FC 1194, https://canlii.ca/t/jzzj6 the FC did allow the appeal largely due to the issue of a "I didn't know . . . " defense. But it is not as if the FC gave that defense much credence, the decision to allow the appeal riding on the RPD not considering it at all.

​

 

[alexmathew244]

New Case : https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc1284/2023fc1284.html

 

[dpenabill]

New Case : https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc1284/2023fc1284.html

Like most of the later cases decided this year, there is no new law or take on the law in Justice Strickland's decision in the Ceki v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1284 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/k09qr case. It mostly affirms the importance of the criteria set out in the FCA Camayo decision (oft discussed in previous posts and in the published decisions referenced in those discussions).

Moreover, the ruling in favour of the PR-refugee Ceren Ceki offers rather little comfort for other PR-refugees who have returned to their home country (although this case involved two trips to Turkey, overall it is consistent with cessation potentially predicated by just one trip to the home country).

There is not much to suggest that when decided by another RPD, the ultimate outcome will be different. The first RPD cessation decision was set aside because the RPD failed to assess the PR-refugee's "state of knowledge with respect to the cessation provisions."," and the "RPD’s failure to consider the Applicant’s evidence on this factor renders its decision unreasonable." I have mentioned, before and in the context of several other cases, that the "I didn't know the consequences . . . " defense, while valid if supported by the facts, typically fails to get much traction. But the RPD must, at the least, specifically acknowledge and assess any evidence in the case the PR-refugee lacked knowledge of the consequences (this goes to whether the PR-refugee has rebutted the presumption of intent to reavail home country protection).

 

[alexmathew244]

Like most of the later cases decided this year, there is no new law or take on the law in Justice Strickland's decision in the Ceki v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1284 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/k09qr case. It mostly affirms the importance of the criteria set out in the FCA Camayo decision (oft discussed in previous posts and in the published decisions referenced in those discussions).

Moreover, the ruling in favour of the PR-refugee Ceren Ceki offers rather little comfort for other PR-refugees who have returned to their home country (although this case involved two trips to Turkey, overall it is consistent with cessation potentially predicated by just one trip to the home country).

There is not much to suggest that when decided by another RPD, the ultimate outcome will be different. The first RPD cessation decision was set aside because the RPD failed to assess the PR-refugee's "state of knowledge with respect to the cessation provisions."," and the "RPD’s failure to consider the Applicant’s evidence on this factor renders its decision unreasonable." I have mentioned, before and in the context of several other cases, that the "I didn't know the consequences . . . " defense, while valid if supported by the facts, typically fails to get much traction. But the RPD must, at the least, specifically acknowledge and assess any evidence in the case the PR-refugee lacked knowledge of the consequences (this goes to whether the PR-refugee has rebutted the presumption of intent to reavail home country protection).

Thank you so much for your reply. Is there a way to see the final outcome for the previous cases where the Judge granted the judicial review (set aside current RPD's decision and sent back to a different panel)?

 

[alexmathew244]

Like most of the later cases decided this year, there is no new law or take on the law in Justice Strickland's decision in the Ceki v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1284 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/k09qr case. It mostly affirms the importance of the criteria set out in the FCA Camayo decision (oft discussed in previous posts and in the published decisions referenced in those discussions).

Moreover, the ruling in favour of the PR-refugee Ceren Ceki offers rather little comfort for other PR-refugees who have returned to their home country (although this case involved two trips to Turkey, overall it is consistent with cessation potentially predicated by just one trip to the home country).

There is not much to suggest that when decided by another RPD, the ultimate outcome will be different. The first RPD cessation decision was set aside because the RPD failed to assess the PR-refugee's "state of knowledge with respect to the cessation provisions."," and the "RPD’s failure to consider the Applicant’s evidence on this factor renders its decision unreasonable." I have mentioned, before and in the context of several other cases, that the "I didn't know the consequences . . . " defense, while valid if supported by the facts, typically fails to get much traction. But the RPD must, at the least, specifically acknowledge and assess any evidence in the case the PR-refugee lacked knowledge of the consequences (this goes to whether the PR-refugee has rebutted the presumption of intent to reavail home country protection).

There is another case that I heard from some of my friends, they said this this guy also faced a cessation application and is currently challenging the constitution etc. regarding losing the PR status. Here is the case link: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1595/2022fc1595.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQANR25hbmFwcmFnYXNhbQAAAAAB&resultIndex=2 (His hearing is set in December 2023 but I think this hearing is for his Constitution challenge case which obviously impacts the result of cessation application)

Do you have any information on this?

 

[dpenabill]

Is there a way to see the final outcome for the previous cases where the Judge granted the judicial review (set aside current RPD's decision and sent back to a different panel)?

I have not made an exhaustive effort to do this, so I don't know. I have made enough of an effort, however, to safely say that it is NOT easy and it is possible that no more than "select" decisions can be found. However, I am not familiar with or clear about the extent to which focused Access to Information requests might generate some of this information.

One source where one might begin doing some homework is the IRB "Decisions" page: https://irb.gc.ca/en/decisions/Pages/index.aspx but I have not found decisions about cessation there and only a very small number of IRB decisions are discussed. More a source for a selection of decisions reflecting policy, practice, and general decision-making guidelines.

Otherwise, in addition to research of Federal Court decisions involving cessation issues (which are those RPD decisions taken to an appeal before the FC), IRB decisions can be researched at the CanLII page for the IRB in particular: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/ . . . just search term "cessation" pulls up over four hundred IRB decisions (tens of thousands of results for all CanLII). But the identity of the refugee is redacted in many if not most of these cases, and this too appears to only be a selection of the cases decided.

There is another case that I heard from some of my friends, they said this this guy also faced a cessation application and is currently challenging the constitution etc. regarding losing the PR status. Here is the case link: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1595/2022fc1595.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQANR25hbmFwcmFnYXNhbQAAAAAB&resultIndex=2 (His hearing is set in December 2023 but I think this hearing is for his Constitution challenge case which obviously impacts the result of cessation application)

Do you have any information on this?

I did indeed discuss the Gnanapragasam v. Canada, 2022 FC 1595 https://canlii.ca/t/jt4xd decision here last November (following a link to it here by @scylla); see my November 28, 2022 post #690 above, including (in small part):

This is not actually a cessation decision, but a collateral proceeding which . . . well, that gets into legalese weeds . . . the decision in Gnanapragasam v. Canada, 2022 FC 1595 https://canlii.ca/t/jt4xd is likely of far more interest to lawyers and those engaged in related jurisprudence . . .
. . . The case also illustrates the nature and scope of efforts to find ways to get relief from cessation in the Federal Court. Some might see what the lawyers and the The Canadian Council for Refugees have done, here, as grasping at straws.

While I have not seen a follow-up decision or discussion in regards to Gnanapragasam in particular, and as much as many fervently believe that the automatic termination of Permanent Resident status based on cessation of protected person status is grossly unfair, and to many contrary to the Charter, there is not much hinting that the Constitutional argument underlying Gnanapragasam's position is likely to be persuasive. But Constitutional issues involve very complicated stuff, so how it will actually go is hard to forecast.

Still seems to me to be more or less grasping at straws. But I am no expert and I am not a Canadian lawyer, so I could be off.

Reminds me, though, of another tangent of this that I have not addressed here, which has to do with IRCC suspending, or putting processing on hold, the citizenship applications made by a number of PR-refugees who are the subject of cessation proceedings. I have been meaning to engage in a more systematic review of these cases, related to research I have been doing in regards to applications for mandamus relief generally which encompass a number of these on-hold-pending-cessation cases, including some in which the Federal Court has ruled the hold to be improper, ordering IRCC to proceed with processing the citizenship application, while others have ruled the opposite. Worth a closer and more structured assessment. But that requires not just time, but rather intently focused time, and considerable effort.

 

[alexmathew244]

Oh wow, you did some really great research mate. Thanks for all the details.

Let's say a PR guy gets cessation and then RPD's decision is that cessation is correct. Now at that time, does the applicant automatically lose his PR Status (and right to work, etc.) in Canada? What if he/she immediately submits the Judicial Review Appeal application?

If he/she loses their status after RPD's decision, then are they able to apply for the work permit and still keep on working during the meantime? (I have seen a bunch of cases where the applicants were well settled in Canada so I believe they must have car loans, mortgages, etc. so what happen to those?)

And let's suppose that he/she wins the Judicial Review Appeal application where the Judge says "RPD's decision is set aside and this matter is sent to a different panel". Now, does this mean that the applicant gets back their PR status since the RPD's decision is set aside?

 

[dpenabill]

Oh wow, you did some really great research mate. Thanks for all the details.

Let's say a PR guy gets cessation and then RPD's decision is that cessation is correct. Now at that time, does the applicant automatically lose his PR Status (and right to work, etc.) in Canada? What if he/she immediately submits the Judicial Review Appeal application?

If he/she loses their status after RPD's decision, then are they able to apply for the work permit and still keep on working during the meantime? (I have seen a bunch of cases where the applicants were well settled in Canada so I believe they must have car loans, mortgages, etc. so what happen to those?)

And let's suppose that he/she wins the Judicial Review Appeal application where the Judge says "RPD's decision is set aside and this matter is sent to a different panel". Now, does this mean that the applicant gets back their PR status since the RPD's decision is set aside?

I am no expert but know enough to recognize that even an expert is likely to balk if confronted with a triple-conditional hypothetical.

Otherwise, as to particular questions about the process, for any PR-refugee who has cessation proceedings initiated against them, they really should have the assistance of reputable, experienced counsel, a competent lawyer.

To my view once a PR is aware they are the subject of a cessation investigation, that is LAWER-UP-TIME, time to get information from competent legal counsel. Some may choose to wait to see how it goes. If so, they should nonetheless be prepared to obtain the assistance of a lawyer the moment they know cessation proceedings are being brought against them, and for sure proceed to get the assistance of a lawyer.

I can clarify some things:

"Let's say a PR guy gets cessation and then RPD's decision is that cessation is correct."​

Not sure what you mean by PR "gets cessation" here. CBSA conducts the investigation and then, assuming there is a decision to proceed with cessation, the Minister of Public Safety is, in effect, the prosecutor bringing the case against the PR-refugee. The tribunal deciding the case is the RPD. The affected PR is entitled to present evidence, including testimony, and make arguments to the RPD.

Make no mistake, well before the RPD hearing is scheduled, an affected PR should obtain the assistance of counsel. This is not represent-yourself territory. Technically one can. Practically, however, that's not going to work.

So, in regards to a question like this:

"Now at that time, does the applicant automatically lose his PR Status (and right to work, etc.) in Canada? What if he/she immediately submits the Judicial Review Appeal application?"​

That's something to discuss with the lawyer. I do not know when the determination of cessation takes effect. I do not know what the individual's status is pending proceedings before the Federal Court.

"If he/she loses their status after RPD's decision, then are they able to apply for the work permit and still keep on working during the meantime?"​

When the determination of cessation takes effect (noting again I do not know its status pending an application before the FC), not only is the affected individual then a Foreign National, they are an inadmissible FN. They are NOT eligible for any status that would qualify for a work permit. Even if they are married to a Canadian, citizen or PR, they are not eligible to be sponsored (off the top of my head I do not recall how long they are inadmissible, but at least five years I think).

As to how enforcement actually works, in practice, including the procedures involved in effecting deportation, the affected individual basically needs to voluntarily leave or figure out what else to do with a lawyer.

"(I have seen a bunch of cases where the applicants were well settled in Canada so I believe they must have car loans, mortgages, etc. so what happen to those?)"​

It's not good. Perhaps not so bad as going to jail. Particular impact will depend on the specific individual's situation, some quite likely entangled far more than others. And for those in marriages, for example, navigating this can indeed be a huge and ugly nightmare. Just how devastating the cessation determination is for the individual affected is a big, big part of why the Federal Courts spend so much of their resources on these cases. Even apart from the potential risks involved in being returned to the home country, cessation and total loss of status in Canada, and becoming inadmissible, can be and for many really is devastating. The severity of the impact is a big part of why I so persistently caution PR-refugees to not take chances.

 

[alexmathew244]

I am no expert but know enough to recognize that even an expert is likely to balk if confronted with a triple-conditional hypothetical.

Otherwise, as to particular questions about the process, for any PR-refugee who has cessation proceedings initiated against them, they really should have the assistance of reputable, experienced counsel, a competent lawyer.

To my view once a PR is aware they are the subject of a cessation investigation, that is LAWER-UP-TIME, time to get information from competent legal counsel. Some may choose to wait to see how it goes. If so, they should nonetheless be prepared to obtain the assistance of a lawyer the moment they know cessation proceedings are being brought against them, and for sure proceed to get the assistance of a lawyer.

I can clarify some things:

"Let's say a PR guy gets cessation and then RPD's decision is that cessation is correct."​

Not sure what you mean by PR "gets cessation" here. CBSA conducts the investigation and then, assuming there is a decision to proceed with cessation, the Minister of Public Safety is, in effect, the prosecutor bringing the case against the PR-refugee. The tribunal deciding the case is the RPD. The affected PR is entitled to present evidence, including testimony, and make arguments to the RPD.

Make no mistake, well before the RPD hearing is scheduled, an affected PR should obtain the assistance of counsel. This is not represent-yourself territory. Technically one can. Practically, however, that's not going to work.

So, in regards to a question like this:

"Now at that time, does the applicant automatically lose his PR Status (and right to work, etc.) in Canada? What if he/she immediately submits the Judicial Review Appeal application?"​

That's something to discuss with the lawyer. I do not know when the determination of cessation takes effect. I do not know what the individual's status is pending proceedings before the Federal Court.

"If he/she loses their status after RPD's decision, then are they able to apply for the work permit and still keep on working during the meantime?"​

When the determination of cessation takes effect (noting again I do not know its status pending an application before the FC), not only is the affected individual then a Foreign National, they are an inadmissible FN. They are NOT eligible for any status that would qualify for a work permit. Even if they are married to a Canadian, citizen or PR, they are not eligible to be sponsored (off the top of my head I do not recall how long they are inadmissible, but at least five years I think).

As to how enforcement actually works, in practice, including the procedures involved in effecting deportation, the affected individual basically needs to voluntarily leave or figure out what else to do with a lawyer.

"(I have seen a bunch of cases where the applicants were well settled in Canada so I believe they must have car loans, mortgages, etc. so what happen to those?)"​

It's not good. Perhaps not so bad as going to jail. Particular impact will depend on the specific individual's situation, some quite likely entangled far more than others. And for those in marriages, for example, navigating this can indeed be a huge and ugly nightmare. Just how devastating the cessation determination is for the individual affected is a big, big part of why the Federal Courts spend so much of their resources on these cases. Even apart from the potential risks involved in being returned to the home country, cessation and total loss of status in Canada, and becoming inadmissible, can be and for many really is devastating. The severity of the impact is a big part of why I so persistently caution PR-refugees to not take chances.

Thanks for the reply.

I have heard from some of my friends that when the RPD made a negative decision and the applicant lost their PR status afterwards but they were still working etc and got Open Work Permit in the meantime. Their application then went to Judicial Review and I think it is still in processing and Judicial Review was granted by the judge last year. Do you know if the applicant is legit be able to get a Work Permit during the meantime in case he/she loses his or her PR Status? It would be a nightmare for people with mortgages or loans etc but I dont know how it works...

 

[dpenabill]

Thanks for the reply.

I have heard from some of my friends that when the RPD made a negative decision and the applicant lost their PR status afterwards but they were still working etc and got Open Work Permit in the meantime. Their application then went to Judicial Review and I think it is still in processing and Judicial Review was granted by the judge last year. Do you know if the applicant is legit be able to get a Work Permit during the meantime in case he/she loses his or her PR Status? It would be a nightmare for people with mortgages or loans etc but I dont know how it works...

Again, for that level of practical detail, best to discuss with competent legal counsel who is not only well informed as to the law and practice regarding cessation, but who is informed about the particular details in that individual's case.

There are, most likely, significant differences between those who have refugee claims pending, those who have been granted protected person status, and those who have been granted protected person status AND PR status. And many other variables affecting how things go, what recourse is available, and so on.

I understand there are special work permits available pending an appeal in certain refugee cases. How cessation cases fit into this I do not know. There is a forum specifically about "Refugees and Asylum," which is here: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/forums/refugees-and-asylum.56/
You may find more information there in regards to work permits during appeals.

Additionally, anecdotal reporting often fails to distinguish conduct that is consistent with how things are supposed to work versus conduct in the range of what some or even many may, more or less, get-away-with. There is no shortage of "I did XXX and it was OK" reporting in forums like this that are examples of what someone got away with, not an example of how things usually work let alone how things should or will work.

For anyone potentially facing cessation, such as someone who has traveled to the home country and is aware that CBSA might be evaluating whether to prosecute cessation, I cannot emphasize it enough: that is LAWYER-UP TIME . . . LAWYER-UP and ask the lawyer.

 

[alexmathew244]

Again, for that level of practical detail, best to discuss with competent legal counsel who is not only well informed as to the law and practice regarding cessation, but who is informed about the particular details in that individual's case.

There are, most likely, significant differences between those who have refugee claims pending, those who have been granted protected person status, and those who have been granted protected person status AND PR status. And many other variables affecting how things go, what recourse is available, and so on.

I understand there are special work permits available pending an appeal in certain refugee cases. How cessation cases fit into this I do not know. There is a forum specifically about "Refugees and Asylum," which is here: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/forums/refugees-and-asylum.56/
You may find more information there in regards to work permits during appeals.

Additionally, anecdotal reporting often fails to distinguish conduct that is consistent with how things are supposed to work versus conduct in the range of what some or even many may, more or less, get-away-with. There is no shortage of "I did XXX and it was OK" reporting in forums like this that are examples of what someone got away with, not an example of how things usually work let alone how things should or will work.

For anyone potentially facing cessation, such as someone who has traveled to the home country and is aware that CBSA might be evaluating whether to prosecute cessation, I cannot emphasize it enough: that is LAWYER-UP TIME . . . LAWYER-UP and ask the lawyer.

Actually, I just heard back from my friend who got this cessation application recently. She lawyered up already and her lawyer did mention that you can apply and get Open Work permit if the RPD gives negative decision (since PR status would be out)

 

[Blind Dolphin]

Thank you so much for a detailed reply. I would be keeping updated once i get some news about my interview. Just to add, i had this trip due to my dad's critical health and he only could survive around 12 months after my visit and passed away. I have provide them the death certificate of my father also. Hoping to have answer soon as this was a long weekend so it may take couple more days or don't know when they will revert back.

Attend the interview
Waiting on you
We’ve scheduled you for an interview with our official on [date]
Follow the instructions that will be sent to you for information on:

• how to attend the interview
• what documents you have to present

The notice you’ll receive is the official confirmation of the appointment. If you haven’t received the notice by the date of the scheduled appointment,



"Finally I have got this update on my online tracking today. My first call in letter was from CBSA where I attended interview almost an year ago. Today they have called for another interview, I am not sure its with CBSA and or any other agency. Its look like probably with IRCC. Anyone has idea whats gonna be this second interview like?

 

[Blind Dolphin]

Thank you so much for a detailed reply. I would be keeping updated once i get some news about my interview. Just to add, i had this trip due to my dad's critical health and he only could survive around 12 months after my visit and passed away. I have provide them the death certificate of my father also. Hoping to have answer soon as this was a long weekend so it may take couple more days or don't know when they will revert back.

Attend the interview
Waiting on you
We’ve scheduled you for an interview with our official on [date]
Follow the instructions that will be sent to you for information on:

• how to attend the interview
• what documents you have to present

The notice you’ll receive is the official confirmation of the appointment. If you haven’t received the notice by the date of the scheduled appointment,



"Finally I have got this update on my online tracking today. My first call in letter was from CBSA where I attended interview almost an year ago. Today they have called for another interview, I am not sure its with CBSA and or any other agency. Its look like probably with IRCC. Anyone has idea whats gonna be this second interview like?

 

[scylla]

Thanks for the detailed reply. This Camayo case happened very recently (fall 2022) so the majority of the cases are now getting Judicial Review Granted based on the Camayo case. Do you think this is getting better now? There is one article that I found: https://cila.co/refugee-cessation-the-year-since-galindo-camayo/

Here's a very recent case that tried to rely on Camayo. Didn't work out for them.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc1303/2023fc1303.html

EDIT: From the case: "In my opinion, the recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Camyao, supra particularizes those elements but does not create a new legal test."

 

[armoured]

Here's a very recent case that tried to rely on Camayo. Didn't work out for them.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc1303/2023fc1303.html

Not really related, but I'm curious what is meant by the 'counterfeit marks [in the name of the Canada Border Services Agency.]' I can only guess faked entry stamps or something similar?