Refugee status cessation and PRs applying for citizenship

[dpenabill]

The safe answers are obvious. If you don't do anything that might be grounds for a finding of cessation, you're safe. If you ever do one of those things, you're at risk. How much is really unknowable.

I agree with many of your observations, in both posts, including in particular the quote above.

And very much, with much emphasis, this one as well:

. . . most of the time the most important decision is whether or not to bring proceedings in the first place.

Much of what you observe is consistent with my own posts here in this topic over the course of the last eight years. (And the observation about the most important decision is what triggers enforcement actions is one I repeatedly emphasize in many contexts; perhaps the most obvious example is the difference in impact for PRs in breach of the RO, many waived through a Port-of-Entry without any RO compliance questioning versus those who have inadmissibility proceedings initiated against them.)

However . . .

Of all the people who've done some act which might be grounds for cessation, we can put them into multiple levels:

1. Instances where the Canadian government never finds out (and never seeks to find out) — e.g., renewal of ID without travel to the country and without falling within the scope of the questions on a PR renewal or citizenship form
2. Instances where they find out, but the case is never referred for investigation
3. Instances that are investigated but in which the government believes it may not have a strong case
4. Instances that are investigated and which the government believes it could win, but which it decides not to pursue or to otherwise deprioritize
5. Instances in which proceedings are brought, but the board finds that the status was not ceased
6. Instances in which status is ceased but there is no judicial appeal
7. Instances in which there is a judicial appeal

Remember, if we're reading it, it's in category 7 (or in the very small number of example board decisions that get published). This is only the very tip of the iceberg and it's impossible to draw definite conclusions about the other levels of the process from this information.

It is true that we see only a select slice of all POTENTIAL cessation cases:

-- anecdotal reports, ranging from those like yours to those from others like @Blind Dolphin, and the second-hand ones like that from @alexmathew244​

-- the sample reflected in select RPD decisions that get published​

-- cases resulting in judicial review and a published Federal Court decision​

​

And it is true that it is very difficult to draw definite conclusions about what tips the scales. As I have said (often, in various ways):

We just plain do not know who, when, or why CBSA/IRCC chooses to proceed with cessation against some and not others . . .

We are almost clueless in regards to who, when, and why some who travel to the home country are spared cessation proceedings and others are not, other than the obvious, the obvious being that multiple trips to the home country, and/or lengthy stays in the home country, clearly increase the risk of cessation proceedings and loss of status.

And I will concede that it is possible that the known cases of cessation are "only the very tip of the iceberg" of "instances" (cases) in which PR-refugees have engaged in actions which could constitute reavailment of home country protection potentially leading to cessation.

That is not what is probable, however.

We do know, for example, that CBSA has prosecuted HUNDREDS of cessation cases (among the posts above, there is a link to the relevant government statistics), resulting in HUNDREDS of protected persons losing their status. Given that, and given the relatively few anecdotal reports like yours, while it is POSSIBLE the known cessation cases, in comparison with all the instances in which refugees have engaged in acts potentially constituting reavailment, is a percentage comparable to the "tip of the iceberg," that appears to understate the nature of the risk . . . so, despite not being able to definitively conclude even a vague range of percentages as to who-is-prosecuted versus who-could-be-prosecuted, as best I can evaluate the evidence, the evidence indicates those subject to cessation constitute a far larger share than what can fairly be described as merely the "tip of the iceberg."

And, while we cannot confidently identify the criteria that makes the difference, let alone state definite conclusions about what will trigger cessation proceedings, there is enough information from multiple sources to recognize some key factors, including . . .

. . . 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.

Leading to some valid conclusions, and for those who would be devastated if they lost status in Canada, rather important conclusions:

[While . . . 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. . . . 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.

So, as much as I agree with a lot of your observations, for purposes of this topic and for providing information that will help PR-refugees make decisions, it is important to not understate that PR-refugees should not engage in actions that could constitute reavailment . . . as I have often posted, in particular:

PR-refugees should NOT obtain a home country passport, NOT use a home country passport if they have obtained one, NOT use it again if they already have, AND FOR SURE, do NOT travel to the home country, and if they already have, do NOT travel to home country again.

That is not just what is the "safest" approach. That is the reasonable, prudent approach. Hands down.

As for the justice, injustice, fairness, and so on, I have addressed that at length, and in-depth, several times in previous posts, despite my reluctance to get tangled in how-things-should-be, trying to stay focused on how-things-actually-work (as best we can figure that out). But yeah, there are many (me included) who support the efforts of MP Jenny Kwan in regards to this issue . . . though there was more hope six and seven years ago, when the Liberals were otherwise more actively implementing numerous reforms to address most (but as this issue reflects not all) of the more draconian provisions adopted by Harper-Conservative government.

 

[alexmathew244]

Another new case update : https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc1317/2023fc1317.html

Judicial Review is granted (She travelled back to her Home Country more than 5 times)

 

[affleck]

To be clear, @dpenabill, I don't disagree with you on what's prudent and reasonable. The potential consequences are harsh, and it is better to be safe than sorry.

When I say we only see the tip of the iceberg, I mean informationally. We have some idea of the number of cessation cases, and the rates of the general outcomes, but we don't know the fact patterns behind those cases. It is only in a very small number of cases (the judicial appeals and sample decisions) that we really have any access to the facts at hand. Even then, we lack information on the final board decisions when judicial appeals are granted.

Canada accepts tens of thousands of refugees each year. The CBC, quoting statistics Canada, reported that over 200,000 people became refugee PRs between 2016 and 2021. (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/statistics-canada-immigration-census-1.6629861). So we're talking about a group of hundreds of thousands of people.

We know there are a few hundred cessation cases brought each year. The number has gone up, but not by an order of magnitude. It's also worth noting that the number of refugees has significantly increased since 2015; this should be remembered when looking at the number of cessation cases per year.

What number of refugees do something that could be grounds for cessation? I have no clue. And when dealing with a group of people this large, it would be really difficult to draw a conclusion. Really only someone with access to Canadian government private info could shed light on this.

Individual advice? Definitely best to play it safe. What are the general patterns of enforcement? Really hard to say.

 

[dpenabill]

When I say we only see the tip of the iceberg . . .

Canada accepts tens of thousands of refugees each year. The CBC, quoting statistics Canada, reported that over 200,000 people became refugee PRs between 2016 and 2021. (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/statistics-canada-immigration-census-1.6629861). So we're talking about a group of hundreds of thousands of people.

We know there are a few hundred cessation cases brought each year. The number has gone up, but not by an order of magnitude. It's also worth noting that the number of refugees has significantly increased since 2015; this should be remembered when looking at the number of cessation cases per year.

I do not mean to litigate statistical inferences, not at length anyway, BUT there is NOT much to indicate there is a substantial, let alone large number PR-refugees who travel to their home country who are NOT subject to cessation. Some do. Yes. If the anecdotal reports are credible. That's what we know. Some are not subject to cessation. But HUNDREDS are. That's what we know.

In contrast, the main reason I began this topic more than eight years ago, and this reason continues to this day, is to get a clear message out about the potential consequences of engaging in any conduct that could constitute reavailment of home country protection leading to loss of status in Canada. Especially in regards to going to the home country. To caution PR-refugees to NOT travel to their home country.

Let's be frank, let's be clear . . . the caution about NOT traveling to the home country is not merely about being careful . . . it is about not being stupid, about not being ignorant, as many claim they are, similar to Ms. Razia Begum, as detailed in the new case you cite and link, Begum v. Canada, 2023 FC 1317, https://canlii.ca/t/k0f54 and, despite the decision to allow the appeal, setting aside the cessation decision, the decision clearly shows that the extent to which such claims of ignorance get traction before the RPD is NOT much . . . Justice Elliott granted this appeal because the RPD more or less off-handedly dismissed Ms. Razia Begum's claim of ignorance, without considering or assessing it in any meaningful way.

Caveat: despite the specifically articulated grounds for setting aside the RPD's decision in Begum v. Canada, that is that the RPD failed to reasonably consider the claim of ignorance, this and some of the other more recent decisions favourable to refugees (at least temporarily, subject to what another RPD decides) and which have similarly turned on ignorance, the refugee's "subjective knowledge" (meaning lack of subjective knowledge) of cessation law and consequences, might just possibly reflect that at least these particular FC justices are considering the severity of the consequences in just how stringently they review the RPD's decision-making.

Slipping a bit into how-things-should-work, to my view this would be good, if FC justices are approaching cessation cases more stringently given the severity of the consequences. Indeed, to my view, just the fact that possessing a valid PR card which will ordinarily allow the PR-refugee to get on a plane and return to Canada, to simply leave, to escape if particular dangers arise, rather than rely on the home country's protection, should be given a lot more weight in rebutting the presumption of intent to reavail . . . but I hesitate to focus much on that precisely because the risk of cessation and the consequences make it clear, PR-refugees should totally avoid home country travel (even in compelling circumstances if at all possible).

It warrants cautioning that just because Ms. Razia Begum in effect won this appeal, what that means is she gets a new hearing before a different RPD. Justice Elliot's decision does NOT dictate what the outcome of that should be. The decision just outlines the factors the RPD must consider, the factors that the previous RPD failed to consider. It warrants noting with emphasis that Justice Elliot identifies several areas in which the RPD did not even mention Ms. Razia Begum's submissions (those written or her testimony), let alone explain how her evidence was considered.


While hesitant to further litigate statistical inferences . . .

Most refugees have lots of incentive to NOT travel to the home country, at least not until they have acquired Canadian citizenship and can travel internationally as a Canadian.

While we appear to be in agreement that there is a lot we do not know about who and when PR-refugees are subject to cessation proceedings, there appears to be some difference in what we recognize is known. As I noted, there is NOT much to indicate there is a substantial, let alone large number of PR-refugees who travel to their home country who are NOT subject to cessation. Some do. Yes. If the anecdotal reports are credible. That's what we know. Some travel to the home country but are not subject to cessation. But HUNDREDS who travel to the home country are subject to cessation. That's what we know.

The latter is really, really important; that is, while we do not know what percentage of refugees travel to their home country, it is important to recognize that at least among those who do travel to their home country, HUNDREDS become subject to cessation proceedings. And even though there are some like you, who reported they are not (or at least, for those who have not become Canadian citizens, not yet) subject to cessation, the number of such reports does not indicate there are all that many. Reports of the latter sort, in contrast, are fairly scarce. Some here. Some there. Not nearly enough to suggest the risk of cessation is low, let alone, given the consequences, a risk low enough to make taking it worth contemplating.

There is little indication, in particular, that a large number of individuals who are given refugee status in Canada travel to their home country. There is no reason to suspect much of a correlation between the total number of those granted refugee status in Canada and those who travel to their home country, recognizing that most refugees are fleeing a country which poses very serious dangers to them (so would avoid returning there anyway), and also recognizing a high percentage are relying on various kinds of assistance to manage the move to Canada and have limited means to engage in such travel. And who, by now, should be getting the message: travel to the home country establishes a presumption of reavailment and is grounds for totally stripping them of status to live in Canada. As in, it's not a good idea. As in, don't be stupid.

So, sure, we cannot say that the number of those subject to cessation is 90% of those who travel to the home country. But we know that comparing the number of refugees subject to cessation to the number of refugees in Canada illuminates near nothing. The relevant comparison is what percentage of refugees among those who travel to the home country are subject to cessation. And while we do not know these numbers, there is nothing to indicate it is a low percentage, only enough to know that it is less than 100%. Maybe it's only 10%, 20% or 30%. Maybe half. Could be 90%. We don't know.

We know it is enough to add up to HUNDREDS.

I acknowledge I belabor this at some length. I allow the risks may be somewhat lower than I apprehend. But for those who travel to the home country, it is clear there is a real risk of being subject to cessation, and for sure, for many the consequences of that could be devastating.

Some will look at a decision like Begum v. Canada, 2023 FC 1317, https://canlii.ca/t/k0f54 and see the outcome as not just favourable to Ms. Razia Begum, herself, but as indicating a defense that could save others (mostly the ignorance defense). What I take away from this decision, in contrast, is what it shows about how the RPD approaches these cases . . . and, in particular, this case shows just how little consideration the RPD seems inclined to give refugees in such circumstances . . . Justice Elliot refers, again and again, to the RPD failing to consider all the evidence, engaging in decision-making that fails to analyze key factual considerations, engaging in reasoning that "does not add up," and in respect to some aspects, not even mentioning the refugee's submissions let alone explaining how such evidence was considered. If this is at all representative of how it goes before a typical RPD, that suggests the odds are not good for those refugees who have traveled to the home country. This is NOT casual gambling territory.

 

[scylla]

New case. Judicial review allowed: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc1317/2023fc1317.html

 

[dpenabill]

New case. Judicial review allowed: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc1317/2023fc1317.html

See previous post for commentary about this case Begum v. Canada, 2023 FC 1317, https://canlii.ca/t/k0f54 and reference with link by @alexmathew244 (I mistakenly referred to Begum being first noted here by @affleck).

As I noted, above, despite the outcome of the Federal Court decision being in favour of Ms. Razia Begum, it does not offer much comfort for those potentially subject to cessation due to home country travel. As explained further in that post. And how this will ultimately turn out for Ms. Razia Begum is nowhere near clear; this could still very easily go against her before another RPD.

 

[alexmathew244]

New case. Judicial review allowed: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc1332/2023fc1332.html


What does paragraph 11 means? :

[11] On a more general level, the Court of Appeal underscores that the test for cessation “should not be applied in a mechanistic or rote manner” (Galindo Camayo at para 83). Rather, “The focus throughout the analysis should be on whether the refugee’s conduct – and the inferences that can be drawn from it – can reliably indicate that the refugee intended to waive the protection of the country of asylum” (ibid.).

 

[alexmathew244]

Another New case. Judicial review allowed: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc1339/2023fc1339.html

 

[dpenabill]

New case. Judicial review allowed: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc1332/2023fc1332.html

This is Shah v. Canada, 2023 FC 1332, https://canlii.ca/t/k0l4w

Another New case. Judicial review allowed: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc1339/2023fc1339.html

This is Edirimanna v. Canada, 2023 FC 1339, https://canlii.ca/t/k0l58

BOTH these cases were decided in favour of the PR-refugee.

This means that there have been, now, many decisions in a row favouring a PR-refugee who traveled to the home country on a home country passport, and thus is presumed to have reavailed themselves of home country protection.

Does this signal the Federal Courts are interpreting and applying Camayo in a way that more or less raises the bar high? And so what if it does? (Note, slipping into how-it-should-be stuff, since PRs are Canadians, regardless what class of PR visa they obtained, the bar should be high.)

I have been more or less living in Canada for more than two decades now, a Canadian for more than a decade, reading and analyzing Canadian immigration law for nearly fifteen years, with let's say some significant experience in the jurisprudence of another jurisdiction for a quarter century before that, and closely following this issue for more than eight years, but I still cannot read the judicial system here well enough to forecast what this means relative to who CBSA will bring cessation actions against or how the RPD will decide these cases.

For now, especially seeing that it appears these two cases were pursued based on SINGLE home country trips, and given the RPD's decisions, and recognizing that it was the manner in which RPD decided these cases, not necessarily the determination of reavailment itself, CAUTION, much CAUTION is still in order for anyone with refugee status. Same caution I have repeated repeatedly. Mostly, do not travel to the home country.

But for those already dragged into the system, already under investigation or the subject of a cessation proceeding, or those who have traveled to the home country and are aware they are at risk, these cases offer significant hope that if you can fight it out, there may indeed be a decent chance of saving status to live in Canada.

How much so? Wish we knew enough to guess. I wonder if the lawyers most experienced in this can offer a reasonable guess.

What does paragraph 11 means? :

[11] On a more general level, the Court of Appeal underscores that the test for cessation “should not be applied in a mechanistic or rote manner” (Galindo Camayo at para 83). Rather, “The focus throughout the analysis should be on whether the refugee’s conduct – and the inferences that can be drawn from it – can reliably indicate that the refugee intended to waive the protection of the country of asylum” (ibid.).

At the risk of being what some might perceive to be overly cautious, it warrants noting what it does NOT mean. It does NOT mean there is no presumption of reavailment based on traveling to the home country with a home country passport. That is, nothing here, and nothing in the other cases, that negates the fact that just traveling to the home country with a home country passport constitutes a presumption of reavailment of home country protection. Grounds for losing status to live in Canada.

From Shah (same case):

". . . there is a presumption that refugees who acquire and travel on passports issued by their country of nationality to travel to that country or to a third country have intended to avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality . . ."​

From Edirimanna, likewise:

"The presumption is that refugees who return to their country of nationality, using the passport of that country, intend to reavail themselves of the protection of that country." (Citing Camayo)​

It is one thing to gamble against what could be a reasonable inference. Going up against a presumption, sometimes it is necessary, life can be tough, but that's not gambling, that's about being compelled, doing what must be done despite the odds.

So, back to what FC Justice Norris meant, saying

"the test for cessation 'should not be applied in a mechanistic or rote manner' . . . Rather, 'The focus throughout the analysis should be on whether the refugee’s conduct – and the inferences that can be drawn from it – can reliably indicate that the refugee intended to waive the protection of the country of asylum'."​

In that particular case, in regards to that particular PR-refugee, it appears to mean that it was not reasonable for the RPD to fail to meaningfully grapple with the proposition that the PR-refugee was compelled to return to the home country one time because he had a seriously ill five year old son who might be dying, with no intent to reavail himself of home country protection. Leaving this for another RPD to determine.

But I am not sure, not close. Things are in a bit of no-man's land for now. One these two cases was decided by the RPD without the benefit of having the Camayo decision as a guide, the other not much later but well before the FCs had interpreted and applied Camayo.

But one thing remains for sure, no doubt about it, PR-refugees should avoid traveling to their home country. No doubt about that. Not until they are a Canadian citizen.

For those who are potentially facing cessation, meanwhile, the trend in recent cases suggests it might be worth fighting to save status.

 

[Blind Dolphin]

Overall:

You are in a situation where you should be looking at advice from a lawyer, and should have been looking to a lawyer for a long while now.

That said, best guess, emphasizing that it is a guess, it appears that IRCC is lifting the hold on processing your citizenship application and you are on track to have the process finalized. Given the years that have passed, it makes sense they would require another in-person interview.

Seems likely, then, this will be a typical PI (program integrity) interview, although you probably should anticipate the possibility there could be some questions related to travel in the last three years as well as before you made the application, and there might be questions about obtaining home country travel documents/passports and use of those.

Please update this thread in regards to how things go at the interview and what happens next.

Some Observations:

But based on what you have shared it must be emphasized the above is a GUESS, that you really should have the assistance of a lawyer.

There have been a number of mandamus cases involving cessation holds on processing citizenship applications, and some Federal Court justices have ruled that a continuing hold was improper, so that IRCC must proceed with processing the citizenship application. However, proceeding with processing does not necessarily mean the application is on track to be approved and citizenship granted. Thus, while it seems likely that yours is on track for processing to be finalized, and to be granted citizenship, that is not at all a sure bet.

That is, it is possible your application is moving ahead now as a response to those FC decisions. And the odds of being scheduled for the oath seem good. But not anywhere near a sure bet.

As we discussed nearly a year ago, your situation appears to be outside the range of cases in which CBSA was typically prosecuting cessation, given only one trip to the home country in compelling circumstances. Your situation was more consistent with those in which it has appeared CBSA and IRCC were not pursuing cessation. But that was mostly based on scant anecdotal reporting.

Moreover, given the presumption of reavailment when a protected person obtains a home country passport and uses it to travel to the home country, as I caution again and again, even in this situation, one short trip under compelling circumstances, there is a real risk of cessation. And, even short of cessation, as you have experienced, this can lead to very lengthy delays in processing a citizenship application . . . yours approaching four years now.

The fact that your citizenship application was put on hold (suspended) pending the cessation inquiries, separated your case from the several anecdotally reported cases in which PR-refugees have applied for and been granted citizenship despite one or even two trips to the home country. Like many other aspects of the way immigration rules are enforced, one of the biggest factors influencing how things tend to go is what triggers the issue, which is mostly about whether or not a more formal and probing inquiry or examination is triggered. (Most obvious example: for PRs in RO breach arriving at a PoE, the risk of inadmissibility proceedings goes way up if the PR is not waived through -- that is, it makes a huge difference whether or not there is a referral to Secondary focused on RO compliance.)

So, again, even though the odds in your situation seem favourable, it remains very difficult to forecast what will actually happen. And, again, it will be appreciated if you report back here with some details about the interview, including questions and your impressions, and what happens next.

Thank you so much for your previous feedbacks and I am done with my interview with Citizenship Offcial;

Questions asked are line by line here;
Q. Can I have your two pieces of IDs please?
A. There you go... and given my PR card and Driving License to the officer..... for a minute, officer matched information and my face etc. and returned my IDs saying thanks

Q. Can I see your landing paper please?
A. Presented my COPR (Confirmation of PR). Officer reviewed it and returned to me as well.

Q. Do you have had any travel documents in your possession during the 5 years eligibility period?
A. Yes officer, i have a valid passport but at the same time i have some expired passports as well and I have all of them with me. Officer said, Can you show me only current one. I showed and again officer returned back the passport to me.

Q. What are you doing now a days?
A. Told her about my job and business and officer asked what activities I am doing in this business and or job. I explained in two three sentences.

Q. Do you have family in Canada?
A. Yes I do have some family members in Canada and told the officer who are them including my spouse, siblings etc.

Q. Do you have family in Backhome?
A. Yes I have some family members in backhome as well and told the officer about my other siblings.

Q. How did you arrive in Canada and what was your status?
A. Told officer that we made a refugee claim and it was accepted and we got PR and now applied for Citizenship.

Q. Have you ever traveled to United States during the 5 years eligibility period?
A. Yes, we have visited USA around 5 or 6 times within our eligibility period and officer asked again if we have stayed overnight and I replied NO, Not at all, they all were only day trips.

Q. Have you ever travelled backhome since your eligibility period?
A. Yes, i have visited once due to my father's critical condition and told the officer date of my trip.

Q. Have you any plans to visit backhome soon in future?
A. No officer, I will not visit backhome anymore.

Officer: Thank you very much for appearing today for Interview. This is everything for now. Your background check will be in process and I am not sure how long it will take but the rest of the tabs i.e. Language SKill, Citizenship Test, Physical Presence, Background Verification will be completed and officer said that as IRCC has to make my spouse and myself citizens so the officer will evaluate my spouse file as well. Thank you very much and have a good day.

 

[dpenabill]

Thank you so much for your previous feedbacks and I am done with my interview with Citizenship Offcial;

Questions asked are line by line here;
Q. Can I have your two pieces of IDs please?
A. There you go... and given my PR card and Driving License to the officer..... for a minute, officer matched information and my face etc. and returned my IDs saying thanks

Q. Can I see your landing paper please?
A. Presented my COPR (Confirmation of PR). Officer reviewed it and returned to me as well.

Q. Do you have had any travel documents in your possession during the 5 years eligibility period?
A. Yes officer, i have a valid passport but at the same time i have some expired passports as well and I have all of them with me. Officer said, Can you show me only current one. I showed and again officer returned back the passport to me.

Q. What are you doing now a days?
A. Told her about my job and business and officer asked what activities I am doing in this business and or job. I explained in two three sentences.

Q. Do you have family in Canada?
A. Yes I do have some family members in Canada and told the officer who are them including my spouse, siblings etc.

Q. Do you have family in Backhome?
A. Yes I have some family members in backhome as well and told the officer about my other siblings.

Q. How did you arrive in Canada and what was your status?
A. Told officer that we made a refugee claim and it was accepted and we got PR and now applied for Citizenship.

Q. Have you ever traveled to United States during the 5 years eligibility period?
A. Yes, we have visited USA around 5 or 6 times within our eligibility period and officer asked again if we have stayed overnight and I replied NO, Not at all, they all were only day trips.

Q. Have you ever travelled backhome since your eligibility period?
A. Yes, i have visited once due to my father's critical condition and told the officer date of my trip.

Q. Have you any plans to visit backhome soon in future?
A. No officer, I will not visit backhome anymore.

Officer: Thank you very much for appearing today for Interview. This is everything for now. Your background check will be in process and I am not sure how long it will take but the rest of the tabs i.e. Language SKill, Citizenship Test, Physical Presence, Background Verification will be completed and officer said that as IRCC has to make my spouse and myself citizens so the officer will evaluate my spouse file as well. Thank you very much and have a good day.

Update appreciated. Looks like a standard Program Integrity interview. Further updates will also be appreciated, when next step happens, which hopefully will be the oath and which appears likely.

Questions about travel to home country might mean the cessation inquiries are not completely closed; hard to say . . . and this is part of the reason I previously repeated the prudence of obtaining advice or assistance from a lawyer. That said, it appears you have largely gotten past the stage of being questioned about reavailment, that going into the interview there would be no further concern about reavailment unless the interview revealed additional reasons for concern, which it appears it did not.

One very tiny thing: I cannot say, or even guess, if the exchange about travel to the home country in the future might raise questions, such as in regards to your credibility, but obviously for someone with family still in their home country, a categorical statement they will never travel there again might be perceived to be less than honest. Obviously it would not be true for the vast majority. Representing that one has no plans to travel there, and no inclination to do so for now or the foreseeable future, makes sense. Foreclosing ever returning there, not so much. After all, once you are a Canadian citizen there is no legal reason why you should not travel to the home country.

Odds are the processing agent conducting the interview interpreted your statement to mean there is no plan, no near future intention to travel to the home country. But even if the processing agent has a little concern about how forthcoming your response was, as I noted above it appears you have gotten past the stage of being questioned about reavailment, that going into the interview there would be no further concern about reavailment unless the interview revealed additional reasons for concern, which it appears it did not. So there should be NO reason to worry about this.

 

[Blind Dolphin]

Update appreciated. Looks like a standard Program Integrity interview. Further updates will also be appreciated, when next step happens, which hopefully will be the oath and which appears likely.

Questions about travel to home country might mean the cessation inquiries are not completely closed; hard to say . . . and this is part of the reason I previously repeated the prudence of obtaining advice or assistance from a lawyer. That said, it appears you have largely gotten past the stage of being questioned about reavailment, that going into the interview there would be no further concern about reavailment unless the interview revealed additional reasons for concern, which it appears it did not.

One very tiny thing: I cannot say, or even guess, if the exchange about travel to the home country in the future might raise questions, such as in regards to your credibility, but obviously for someone with family still in their home country, a categorical statement they will never travel there again might be perceived to be less than honest. Obviously it would not be true for the vast majority. Representing that one has no plans to travel there, and no inclination to do so for now or the foreseeable future, makes sense. Foreclosing ever returning there, not so much. After all, once you are a Canadian citizen there is no legal reason why you should not travel to the home country.

Odds are the processing agent conducting the interview interpreted your statement to mean there is no plan, no near future intention to travel to the home country. But even if the processing agent has a little concern about how forthcoming your response was, as I noted above it appears you have gotten past the stage of being questioned about reavailment, that going into the interview there would be no further concern about reavailment unless the interview revealed additional reasons for concern, which it appears it did not. So there should be NO reason to worry about this.

Today updated my
Physical Presence to Completed;
Language Skills to Completed;
Background Verification to Completed;
Cititzenship Test to Completed;
only Prohibitions and oath is still in progress

 

[alexmathew244]

New Case: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc1402/2023fc1402.html

 

[dpenabill]

New Case: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc1402/2023fc1402.html

New but not a cessation case, but rather a citizenship case in which the applicant for citizenship has been the subject of a cessation decision, which in turn is apparently the subject of a separate pending appeal. Citizenship application was denied based on prohibition applicable to applicants who are subject to a Removal Order, which Removal Order in this case derived from the cessation decision. Applicant had requested IRCC to suspend processing their application, pending appeal of cessation, rather than deny the citizenship application. Appeal allowed because Citizenship Officer did not address the request to suspend processing when making the decision to deny the citizenship application; that is, the officer did not give a reason for denying the request (officer did not actually deny the request as much as ignore it).

Justice Pamel's decision in Salimi Tamagheh v. Canada, 2023 FC 1402 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/k0qs9 reveals little if anything at all about the cessation decision against Tamagheh or cessation generally. And it will probably have little impact on either citizenship or cessation cases generally.

It is, nonetheless, an interesting case in itself. (Acknowledging I probably have a heightened, perhaps somewhat distorted sense of what is interesting, given the extent to which I go gardening, one might say, in regards to these things, digging into the weeds.)

But the reference with link to Tamagheh is especially appreciated because this case cites (bringing to my attention) an important Supreme Court decision regarding immigration issues, a very recent (late September 2023) decision I have not previously seen discussed. Mason v. Canada, 2023 SCC 21, https://canlii.ca/t/k0c85 Which is even more weedy, way more weedy, than where I typically go, again so to say, gardening, and has nothing to do with cessation other than the extent to which its discussion of the manner and standard of review will apply in cessation cases. While its analysis is mostly oriented to whether the reasonableness standard or correctness standard applies, it specifically discusses cessation cases in this context (the FCA Camayo decision looming large). But this subject, the standard of review, and what constitutes reasonableness in these kinds of cases, does indeed, as I am wont to say, loom large . . . very large. ***(see distinction)

This Supreme Court decision involves the application of a key principle which also underlies the FCA Camayo decision, which again is Canada v. Galindo Camayo, 2022 FCA 50, https://canlii.ca/t/jndkg and which is oft quoted and stated as follows:

"Where the impact of a decision on an individual’s rights and interests is severe, the reasons provided to that individual must reflect the stakes . . . The principle of 'responsive justification' means that if a decision has 'particularly harsh consequences for the affected individual', then 'the decision maker must explain why its decision best reflects the legislature’s intention'."​

Leading me to express a huge mea culpa . . . the failure to better grasp the import and impact of this principle, which derives from another very important Supreme Court decision in an immigration and citizenship case, that is Canada v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, 4 SCR 653, https://canlii.ca/t/j46kb (a decision cited many thousands of times, illustrating its importance and impact), and is a key principle as cited again and again in cessation cases discussing the application of Camayo.

My excuse (like most, I tend to have my excuses, however valid or not, relevant or otherwise) for underestimating the significance of this principle: Foremost, my focus here is largely on the substantive law, what the rules are, not review procedures or standards. Moreover, it is generally a mistake (at least for nonlawyers, and probably most lawyers who are law practitioners not necessarily legal experts) to place too much emphasis on isolated statements in judicial decisions, other than what the court is expressly holding (which is usually quite specific and narrow), and especially so in regards to how general principles will apply beyond the particular factual situations in the case before the court.

Which leads back to this Tamagheh decision, which apart from some of the curious details (like how the citizenship application was deemed abandoned despite the individual providing fingerprints as requested), and the subject of the appeal, which I initially perceived to be at least somewhat odd (will get to that), appears to indicate how closely the Federal Courts are willing to examine cases in which PRs are the subject of cessation. As I have speculated in recent posts, this case in conjunction with several recent cessation cases might be seen as representing an elevated resistance to cessation, some reluctance to uphold a decision which results in such harsh consequence as cessation. Except that is not how the courts or legal experts are at all likely to frame it. The standard of reasonableness is just that, the standard of reasonableness, the courts and legal experts are likely to say, albeit couched in legalese and more refined expressions of jurisprudence.

And except that since the Vavilov decision, even if not uniformly implemented yet, the adequacy (or to use the court's terms, the "reasonableness") of the decision depends (among other elements) on the extent to which the decision-maker addresses and considers its reasons on a par with the impact it has on the individual affected. (Note, this could be a very, very slippery slope, but that's for another forum.)

Roughly, at the risk of over-simplifying, the more severe the impact the decision has on the person, the more thorough or weighty the justification for the decision needs to be . . . or as now frequently cited by all levels of the Federal Court system, the reasons for the decision "must reflect the stakes."

Grasping how important this element is, now, better explains (for me, my lack of expertise showing) what probably underlies the recent cessation decisions and suggests there is indeed an elevated standard at least in terms of how strictly the RPD's decisions will be scrutinized when reviewed by the Federal Court. Not about a change in what constitutes reavailment, or what will rebut the presumption, but about (as they literally state) how well the decision-maker articulates the justification for the decision.

Which brings up an important distinction:

*** Important Distinction: These issues revolving around the standard of review are immensely important to individuals who are the subject of cessation proceedings, and offer significant hope that to the extent they engaged in acts indicating reavailment they may succeed in rebutting the presumption of reavailment and thereby avoid the harsh consequences of cessation. NONE of this should be interpreted to, in anyway, diminish the CAUTION about not traveling to the home country, about not acting in a way that creates or would support the presumption of reavailment.​

All that said, I am way short of fully grasping what this will mean in regards to decisions made by CBSA and the RPD. For now, still seems no doubt that PR-refugees should avoid travel to the home country, period.

This discussion is more relevant to those facing cessation, or potentially facing cessation, and the prospects of escaping cessation if the government seeks it. That's the litigation side. That's lawyer stuff.

 

[Blind Dolphin]

Today updated my
Physical Presence to Completed;
Language Skills to Completed;
Background Verification to Completed;
Cititzenship Test to Completed;
only Prohibitions and oath is still in progress

My spouse also got Citizenship Interview letter today. Once she is done with her interview, will update again. thanks for all your support and suggessions.