Some further observations:
There are two additional cessation decisions recently published by the Federal Court not mentioned here so far, and in both the RPD determination of cessation was set aside.
That probably looks like good news to some.
And either or both of these cases could go similar to how it went for others like
@xotica where the RPD's reconsideration resulted in a decision that does not determine cessation of status on any of the grounds resulting in the automatic termination of PR status (either no reavailment, for lack of intent or voluntariness, or as in the Gnanapragasam and the
@xotica cases cessation based on 108(1)e) which does not result in the loss of PR status).
There is, however, NO guarantee that either Azmat or Singh will get a favourable outcome, one that does not result in the loss of PR status when the RPD reconsiders their respective cases.
Which brings this back to the Borderlines podcast session with Douglas Cannon. And first the statistics that Steven Meurrens referenced. There was a big spike in cessation cases in 2019 that has not been matched as yet, but since the following year there has been a steady increase in cessation cases from year to year. And according to Meurrens, in 85 to 90 percent of the cases the RPD concludes cessation of status. Cannon, Meurrens, and Deanna Okun-Nachoff all seemed to concur in the view that the Canadian government is continuing to get more aggressive in pursuing cessation . . . despite how counter-productive and inconsistent it is with general immigration policies . . . and a very important aspect of this is the extent to which CBSA border officials screening returning PR-refugees, in addition to IRCC officials processing PR card applications and citizenship applications, are focused on identifying potential cessation cases.
Their demeanor indicated certainty in the assessment that travel using a home country passport is screened for PR card applicants as well as citizenship applicants (those who are PR-refugees).
Meanwhile the one-trip home cases definitely signal Port-of-Entry scrutiny. What we see in the published decisions, however, is still dominated by older cessation cases. The Azmat case I cite above, for example, is a one-trip home case, dating back to a trip in early 2017.
In regards to efforts to persuade the RPD that if they find cessation that should be done pursuant to section 108(1)(e) IRPA, not reavailment, which would allow the PR-refugee to keep PR status, I am not sure but in addressing this it may have been the Taji v. Canada, 2023 FC 1587,
https://canlii.ca/t/k1f24 decision that Cannon was referring to. That was one of Cannon's wins (and maybe overlooked here, even though thanks to
@scylla catching most new cessation cases we have seen most if not nearly all) based on an argument that the RPD should have considered cessation under section 108(1)(e) IRPA, not reavailment. Despite that win just last year, in the podcast Cannon characterized the section 108(1)(e) IRPA defense as rarely succeeding before the RPD or other Federal Courts (noting again, nonetheless, that the Gnanapragasam and the
@xotica are cases illustrating success on this issue).
All this reinforces and reiterates how important it is that PR-refugees get the message: do not get a home country passport, do not use a home country passport, and absolutely do not travel to the home country. Not until they are Canadian citizens.
But over and above that, a big part of what Cannon was saying in the podcast, and
@armoured focused some on this, was about the heavy cost paid by those who go through cessation proceedings regardless the outcome, and a heavy bureaucratic cost as well which is ultimately borne by all Canadians.
And for what? In the Azmat case I cite above he had been in Canada well over two years (compare that to the scores of other PRs who do a "
soft landing") before taking one trip home for 26 days because his sister was getting married and his mother's health included her compelling need to see him, when he had a Canadian PR card with which he could get back on a plane to return to Canada (like any other PR) . . . which hardly suggests there was fraud in the refugee claim or that this shows an intent to in fact reavail home country protection.
Why would just one trip home warrant such an effort to strip a Canadian PR of status?
Meanwhile there is a more recent (than Cannon's piece) CARL law review article about cessation, from early this year the articles is titled "Challenging The Loss Of Permanent Resident Status Resulting From Cessation Of Refugee Protection" and it is by Karo Dupuis and Hélène Mayrand. I think it can be found here:
https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2024CanLIIDocs438#!fragment/zoupio-_Toc3Page20/ (copy and paste if link does not work)
This is less readable than Cannon's, in a far
more-for-lawyers format, but it address specific issues and cites relevant case law, so it is a good resource . . . except it is a little dated already, given the status of what had been the Gnanapragasam charter challenge.