. . . the Minister [has] authority to revoke a person’s Canadian citizenship . . . if it was obtained, retained . . . by . . .
false representation
fraud
knowingly concealing material circumstances.
wouldn’t returning to my home country might raise questions on the credibility of my claim?
Note: I will refer to "
misrepresentation" as constituting any false representation, fraud, or knowingly concealing material circumstances.
Obviously, there will be risks involved traveling to somewhere your safety could be in danger.
If your concern is specifically about the risk that your status as a Canadian citizen could be subject to revocation, just the fact of traveling to the home country after becoming a Canadian citizen would NOT be sufficient grounds to revoke citizenship, and standing alone would not be sufficient proof of misrepresentation in the process of obtaining status in Canada to constitute grounds for revoking the grant of citizenship.
@armoured pointed out the essential distinction: revocation of citizenship requires proof of misrepresentation made in the process of obtaining Canadian citizenship (which includes any misrepresentations made in any of the stages of obtaining status in Canada, including in making the claim for refugee or protected person status). Travel to the home country does not prove that claims about the dangers faced in the home country were false, were a misrepresentation. (This is true even if the trip was prior to becoming a Canadian citizen.)
But sure, such travel might trigger questions. As discussed in multiple threads here, it is rather common for new citizens who were formerly refugees to encounter increased questioning and scrutiny at the Port-of-Entry when they return to Canada from abroad, and especially so if they were visiting their home country. Sometimes the elevated screening is security related (related to conditions in the home country, including those leading to the refugee's flight to begin with). Sometimes it is probing whether there is cause to suspect there was misrepresentation in the claim seeking refugee protection.
The threshold for finding misrepresentation (thus constituting grounds for revoking citizenship) is far, far more stringent than the threshold for what might trigger questioning a former refugee about the possibility there was misrepresentations made in the process. Does not take much to trigger questions. But, after all, if the answer to any questions about potential misrepresentations made in the process of becoming a refugee, then citizen, is there was no misrepresentation, there are no grounds for revoking citizenship.
Generally a former refugee who did not engage in any misrepresentation, and who has obtained Canadian citizenship, should not worry much about questions related to whether there were any misrepresentations made during the process of becoming a refugee, PR, and eventually a citizen. In particular, if there were no misrepresentations made, there should be very little concern. But overall the crux of the matter is whether there are facts or circumstances which tend to show that misrepresentations were made in the process.
Without bothering to put my cursor on such cases, I know of at least some in which a former refugee claimed a need for protection based on home country persecution of those engaging in same-sex relationships and then later was involved in a spousal or common-law relationship with someone of the opposite sex. Fact of a heterosexual relationship later is not direct proof the earlier claim based on being a homosexual (and the dangers that caused) was false, but no rocket science necessary to map the trajectory of where these cases tend to land.
Leading to . . .
. . . because my immigration lawyer said there would be risks in doing this is making me a bit paranoid.
I presume that your lawyer knows the particular facts and circumstances of your case in some detail. Far more than what has been shared here. Far more than what should be shared in a forum like this. And I presume the lawyer is at least acquainted with both the law and to some extent with how Canadian authorities apply the law in practice. There are lots of reasons for deferring to your lawyer to provide YOU information and advice based on YOUR particular situation.
That said, cautioning a client about "
risks" can be in reference to more general risks, or it can be in reference to particular issues especially applicable to the client's specific situation. There is a big range between what might be merely a heads-up, "
be aware that you might be questioned" if you travel to your home country, versus advice to not go there because it might result in an action by the Minister to revoke your citizenship based on misrepresentation.
I generally defer to Canadian immigration lawyers in regards to such matters, notwithstanding how much, for nearly a half century now, I have engaged in wrestling with and oft times challenging arguments advanced by lawyers (the latter is elsewhere and not about Canadian immigration law or its enforcement).
Leading to . . .
*And anyone who's a lawyer might infer that I'm saying they're not normal people. I'm okay with them making that inference.
hmmm. Duly noted.
That said . . .
No, my understanding is that just going back to country of origin does not constitute any of these. Of course, if they can demonstrate that one of these is the case, they might pursue - but this would require separate evidence. (And again my undrestanding is direct evidence of false representation, fraud, etc., and not just the inference from the actions. )
@armoured is on the right track, in that to revoke citizenship for misrepresentation there must be sufficient proof that the naturalized citizen made material misrepresentations of fact at some stage, any stage in the process, from becoming a refugee to becoming a citizen. This is about what was done in the process of obtaining status in Canada and becoming a citizen, not about what a former refugee does after becoming a citizen.
However, at the risk of revealing I am not normal (but to be clear, I am not a Canadian lawyer, and not an immigration professional or expert), I can definitively state that inferences based on circumstantial evidence (in contrast to direct evidence) can constitute sufficient proof of misrepresentation. And later acts can be circumstantial evidence supporting inferences as to earlier facts. (If police find the murder weapon in your car even years after the crime, your possession of the weapon is not direct evidence you committed the murder years ago but it is circumstantial evidence which can support an inference of guilt, particularly if that evidence is corroborated by other evidence of guilt; meanwhile, it is sure to at least raise questions and suspicion.)
What evidence will suffice to establish (to prove) a misrepresentation (such as a false claim of fear based on a threat of persecution for same-sex activity) is not materially different from what proof is necessary to terminate a claim for refugee status, or to
vacate refugee status after it has been obtained. There are many, many cases in which refugee claims are denied, thus terminated, for misrepresentation. And more than a few cases in which someone with refugee status has had that status vacated for misrepresentation. While it may be difficult to find specific examples of citizenship revocation for misrepresentation as to what constituted the danger supporting the claim for protected status, the law and principles involved in its application, including matters about the burden of proof and weight of the evidence, are largely the same (despite the appearance of a more onerous approach in practice when revoking citizenship is at stake).
I will not try to second-guess why your lawyer has cautioned you about the risk of a misrepresentation allegation arising from travel to your home country. As a matter of professional standards of practice, lawyers are obligated to caution their clients about potential risks, and most tend to lean in the direction of being risk-adverse in the advice they give.
If you make the trip to the home country, I can say that there is a very substantial risk you will be questioned about the trip in more depth, and potentially more aggressively if not accusatorily, than other Canadians returning to Canada from that country but who are not former refugees. How that should influence your decision-making, as to whether to go or not, I cannot guess, not even close.
Some Additional Distinctions:
@armoured also referenced the cessation of protected person status which can be triggered by a refugee's travel to the home country. This has no relevance once a person becomes a Canadian citizen. Nonetheless, I will offer some further observations related to this . . . to be continued . . .
