I truly appreciate your detailed response. I will keep you posted about my situation.
Refugee status cessation and PRs applying for citizenship
- Thread starter dpenabill
- Start date
Hi. I was wondering why they keep telling do not renew your home country passport and travel with that passport even to the third country. If it’s not a problem better not to deal with refugee travel document. So request or renew home country passport and travel with that.
I am just asking to know about that more. Thank you.
That’s the reality. I’ve heard a lot of people using their home country passport without any issues. And no one asks a question, they become citizens. Personally, I would never risk it, and also do not recommend to do so.
Because of paragraph 121 of the UNHCR handbook, the definitive source for everything related to refugees.
Link : https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/5ddfcdc47.pdf
It says this (listing 120 too for context purposes) :
"120 : If the refugee does not act voluntarily, he will not cease to be a refugee. If he is instructed by an authority, e.g. of his country of residence, to perform against his will an act that could be interpreted as a re‑availment of the protection of the country of his nationality, such as applying to his Consulate for a national passport, he will not cease to be a refugee merely because he obeys such an instruction. He may also be constrained, by circumstances beyond his control, to have recourse to a measure of protection from his country of nationality. He may, for instance, need to apply for a divorce in his home country because no other divorce may have the necessary international recognition. Such an act cannot be considered to be a “voluntary re‑availment of protection” and will not deprive a person of refugee status.
121. In determining whether refugee status is lost in these circumstances, a distinction should be drawn between actual re‑availment of protection and occasional and incidental contacts with the national authorities. If a refugee applies for and obtains a national passport or its renewal, it will, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be presumed that he intends to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality. On the other hand, the acquisition of documents from the national authorities, for which non‑nationals would likewise have to apply – such as a birth or marriage certif‑
icate – or similar services, cannot be regarded as a re‑availment of protection."
The key here is that, applying for a home country passport by the refugee's own volition is a presumption that someone no longer needs protection from their home country, as it says in 121. Yeah, there are circonstances that need to be considered, and stripping someone of their refugee status will not be done lightly and without due process, but the source is very clear, its absolutely ground to reavailment and an invitation to end up in a court defending the status...
@Seym referenced the UNHCR provisions for refugees . . .
. . . more generally, the UNHCR provisions for refugees govern the system or arrangement pursuant to which those fleeing danger can seek and obtain refuge in and protection from a state/nation other than their home nationality (or where they were residing), in significant if not large part based on the understanding that their home state will not protect them or the home state itself is posing the danger being fled. This refugee protection ceases if the refugee "reavails" the home country's protection. No more need for refugee protection.
Which makes sense. The refugee no longer needs the new state's refuge, no longer needs the new state's protection, because they have "reavailed" home country protection.
This goes off the rails in regards to Canadian PRs.
It is not just that cessation itself applies to Permanent Residents who became a PR via the refugee stream. Until December 2012 cessation of protected person status had no effect on the individual's Canadian PR status. They were PRs just like every other PR, subject to the same rules of inadmissibility (residency obligation, criminality, security). Live in Canada and stay out of criminal trouble, status is secure. So, prior to December 2012 no government body pursued formal cessation of those refugees who had become Canadian PRs. No point: so what if they did? If they did, it would not have had any impact on the individual's status as a PR. So what the individual is no longer a refugee under protection pursuant to the UNHCR system? They are still a PR.
The issue is that the Harper/Conservative government added a provision to IRPA, which took effect December 2012 (but until around 2015 was largely overlooked by anyone not directly affected), that automatically terminates PR status if they had obtained PR status as a refugee and their refuge status ceased under the UNHCR provisions (there is one exception; and there is only one of the provisions that has been regularly applied with real teeth, and that is the reavailment of home country protection provision).
No notice, no hearing, no process at all in regards to the termination of PR status. If the CBSA prosecutes the case and the RPD determines a PR-refugee's status as a protected person has ceased based on reavailment of home country protection, that automatically (by operation of law) also terminates the individual's PR status. No H&C relief.
There was a lot of noise about this around ten years ago. I started this topic August 2015 when I saw cases in which applicants for citizenship were subject to cessation rather than granted citizenship, when at the time many were advising PR-refugees that they needed to get a valid passport to submit with a citizenship application. That is, not only were some posting such advice in forums like this, but the conventional wisdom in this and other forums was for PR-refugees to do the very act, obtain a home country passport, for which their status could be terminated, thus taking away not just their eligibility for citizenship but any status to remain in Canada. Not good. Needed to get the word out.
MP Kwan (NDP last I looked) introduced a bill into Parliament soon after Harper got fired and the Liberals formed a majority government.
To admit an example of how utterly wrong I too often am, I thought the odds were good that the Liberals would roll this back some, and then there is what I posted about what I thought was the worst it could go, back in October 2015 shortly after the election, Liberals getting a majority government:
That's not how it went. My bad.
(I have excuses; I always have excuses: the Liberal government had already clearly signaled it would immediately cease enforcing many of the more severe provisions Harper had enacted, like the required intent to continue residing in Canada provision, and to anyone with a sense of balance, the termination of PR status in Harper's law for just visiting family in the home country seemed just the sort of thing where the Liberals would apply the brakes. They didn't.)
The new Liberal majority proceeded to roll back several Harper-era provisions, what many considered to be overly-strict provisions (like allowing presence credit for pre-PR-days in Canada, reducing the presence requirement to three rather than four years, and repealing the Harper era provision that would allow the government to revoke citizenship based on specified crimes, even the citizenship of those born in Canada in some circumstances) but skipped this one . . . and, based on the Federal Court decisions we have seen over the last few years, under a Liberal government authorities have actually continued to fairly aggressively apply cessation to PR-refugees. And IRCC in particular, it appears, has been using the citizenship application process (in which applicants must disclose all passports and all countries traveled to for the previous five years) to spot, to in effect catch PR-refugees who have engaged in conduct that could be grounds for cessation based on reavailament.
Traveled to your home country? Went home for your sister's wedding? to be by your father's side during surgery? Apply for citizenship and get deported instead.
Frank observation: It is highly, highly unlikely this will be rolled back in its application to PR-refugees anytime in the near future. I am far more confident of this forecasting than my erroneous guess nearly a decade ago. After all, both social and political trends appear to be driving hard in the get tough direction (fast enough lately, it sometimes seems, to constitute stunt driving . . . I know, sorry, this is serious stuff and I should not make light of it).
The main bug in this system is the presumption of an intent to reavail home country protection. Here is where there is a huge, huge practical difference between someone who is a protected person relying on a country's protection because they are a person in need of protection, and a person who has become a Canadian, a Canadian Permanent Resident, someone who has a safe permanent home in Canada and who, if visiting the home country, for example, can run to the airport and get on a plane to leave a dangerous country to return to Canada because they are a Canadian with PR status.
Which leads to the last cited decision above. It all but puts a nail in the coffin of the did-not-know-the-consequences defense, not it alone as it is one in a long string of cases that have been minimizing the impact of not knowing the consequences in assessing the PR-refugee's intent. Logically it is impossible for a person to intend to do something they do not know they are doing. The Federal Court of Appeal has said that what matters is what the individual knew, not what they should have known or what a reasonable person would know, but what they actually knew themselves. That now, apparently, poses little or no hurdle to determining the person intended to reavail themselves of home country protection, justifying not just the cessation of their protected person status but in doing so terminating their PR status.
The thing is, that last discussed FC decision reeks of illogic and is as unintelligible as many of the decisions the Federal Court often and quite routinely overrules as unintelligible.
Which I have been meaning to discuss further . . . when I get to it.
Last edited:
Im sorry to read about your situation- if you are able to afford a consultation with a lawyer at this stage I would strongly recommend it. Pay for a consult on your circumstance, not to retain them. Even if just to support your decision to wait a few years before applying for citizenship.
More experienced members can perhaps shed light on this, but I am wondering about the scenario if CBSA/IRCC already has information regarding your home country passport renewal/use.
I imagine you don't want to have waited a few extra years to apply for citizenship, only to then find out that there was another way. If affordable, a single consult with a lawyer is worth it at this stage in my opinion.
Good luck!
The risk of cessation doesn’t end when you get citizenship. There have been cases pursued after 10-20 years of the reavailment. If people want to ensure they can remain in Canada and just avoid the stress and expense of fighting to keep their status in Canada don’t use your home country passport or return to your home country while a protected person.
Yes. For who wants to go to their home countries back wait until citizenship. That’s what I am saying. But some people say that renewing or getting passport back from IRCC and travelling with them to the third countries okay. They say if you are not going to your home country it’s okay because there is no cessation until now because of this. What I am saying is this is wrong. It doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen.
Getting Canadian citizenship, in itself, is grounds for cessation of refugee or protected person status.
Section 108(1)(c) IRPA provides that a person is not a refugee or a person in need of protection when he/she has "acquired a new nationality and enjoys the protection of the country of that new nationality."
But once the refugee becomes a Canadian citizen, cessation has no impact on that person's status in Canada.For a Canadian citizen (whether a refugee or otherwise), cessation of refugee or protected person status poses no risk to their Canadian status. (They remain a Canadian citizen.)
So, for a Canadian citizen (whether a refugee or otherwise), engaging in conduct that could be grounds for cessation of refugee or protected person status, including reavailment of protection from the country that was fled, poses no risk to them because it has no impact on their status as a Canadian citizen.
So once a refugee becomes a Canadian citizen, getting a home country passport and using it, even using it to travel to the home country, will not pose any risk to their Canadian citizenship or status to live in Canada otherwise.
(Note: I personally dislike the "home" country attribution, since to my view Canada is now my "home" country, not the country I emigrated from. I very much went through the process of becoming a Canadian citizen in order to make this my home country. But "home country" is the common usage, and easily understood, typically used to refer to the country the person was born in or at least was a citizen.)
That is not to minimize the risks a former refugee, now Canadian citizen, might face in their home country . . . whether traveling on their Canadian passport or the home country passport, noting that many countries (similar to the U.S.), require their citizens to use a home country passport when traveling to that country. Correct, refugees should NOT travel to their home country until they have become a Canadian citizen . . . well, unless they are not concerned about losing their status in Canada (there are refugees who deliberately reavail home country protection if and when it is safe to do so, or for some they do so to allow them to return home for the purpose of engaging in political activism despite the risks).
For purposes of status in Canada, once the refugee has Canadian citizenship it is OK to obtain a home country passport and OK to travel to their home country (subject to risks they might face IN that country), either on their Canadian passport (if that country allows that) or that's country's passport.
The rest is correct so long as it is clearly understood that just obtaining a home country passport establishes a presumption of intentional reavailment, and using the passport for travel to any country constitutes in fact availment of that country's diplomatic protection.
Refugees should NOT obtain a home country passport. If they have, no reason to worry much let alone panic, but they should NOT use it to travel internationally and not renew it again. (Unless they have first become a Canadian citizen.)
Refugees should not use a home country passport if they have one (some have their passport returned to them during the process of becoming refugee).
Not sure who is saying that "renewing or getting passport back from IRCC and travelling with them to the third countries okay," but there is a difference if they have been returned their passport by Canadian authorities, in which case it is OK to keep it, NOT OK to use for travel to third countries. Renewing the passport is enough to establish the grounds for cessation based on reavailment, shifting the burden of proving to the refugee, to prove there was no intent to reavail the home country's protection. The fact that so far we have not seen these cases prosecuted against PR-refugees means those who have done this need not worry much, but it is no guarantee and especially not when there is a Conservative government in Canada. I believe these cases are prosecuted against refugees who are not PRs.
Even if there is not much news, seems there is usually something interesting about these cases. This one,
Liaqat v. Canada, 2025 FC 56, https://canlii.ca/t/k8pc4 appears to be a desperate reach claiming the PR-refugee had incompetent counsel in the case before the RPD, based on the lawyer's failure to adequately assist the PR-refugee in compiling documents (medical reports for his mother) for the hearing. No go.
In any event, this case involved numerous trips to the home country. Outcome rather predictable: cessation upheld.
Let's be clear on this: the risk of cessation DOES end after getting Canadian citizenship. Someone who is already a citizen does not need to worry about this.
I assume this was just a typo or misformulation on your part.
It's applying for and getting citizenship when (for many) the risk comes up, if there has been reavailment before becoming a citizen.
Both comments that are valid BEFORE one becomes a citizen. But not after.
Clearly misspoke but what I meant to say is that if a previous protected person misrepresented any part of their asylum claim then the risk to their status doesn’t go away even after Canadian citizenship. If someone can return to visit their home country especially repeatedly and/or for long periods of time protected person with or without PR that can also put into question their grounds for asylum.
I have heard this hypothetical put many times. But do you have a case - a SINGLE case - of government pursuing a case of misrepresentation against a now-citizen / former protected person in this way? Not for documentary misrepresentation, but a claim of misrepresentation based on the individual returning to their home country AFTER becoming a citizen.*
Please, if you have a case, share it. Not a hypothetical, but an actual case.
*The distinction I'm making is between a case of misrepresentation backed by documentation for something in the claim of asylum, i.e. prior to becoming a citizen. Not actions after becoming a citizen. Obviously someone who claims asylum on being, for example, a member of a protected class who lies about that could be liable for misrepresentation.
Thank you. I think getting a new citizenship mean is here other than Canada. For example you are from saudi Arabia and refugee claimant in Canada. You have your pr and also some how you got citizenship from Germany. That’s the reason for cessation.
No, obtaining Canadian citizenship constitutes acquiring a new nationality which means the person is no longer a "Convention" refugee or protected person under the UNHCR provisions (which are the same as adopted by Canada, as one of the member nations, in Section 108(1) IRPA). But again, that has no impact on the new Canadian citizen. It does not matter that they are no longer a Convention refugee.
Technically, pursuant to Section 108(2) IRPA, on an application by the Minister, the RPD may determine this person's refugee protection "has ceased," but that would have no effect, no impact, on the person's Canadian status. So there is no reason for the Minister to make any such application.
Until December 2012 it was similarly so for Canadian Permanent Residents who obtained status in Canada as a refugee or protected person. Prior to then, for Canadian PR-refugees, there was no impact from reavailing home country protection. Technically they no longer met the definition of a Convention refugee, so no longer were entitled to the protection provided by the UNHCR. But the Minister never made an application for cessation of their protected status under IRPA (again, Section 108(2) IRPA) because it would have no effect, no impact on that person's status in Canada. The Harper government changed this by adopting Section 46(1)(c.1) IRPA, which is the provision pursuant to which PR status is lost if there is a final determination of cessation (excepting cessation based on changed circumstances).
While I (and many others) hold the view that the current application of cessation to PR-refugees, terminating PR status automatically, is unfair in many, many respects, it was especially unfair when the Minister started bringing cessation applications based on travel BEFORE there were any consequences in the law. In the first several years of the new law, almost every PR-refugee facing cessation it was for travel when the PR-refugee FOR-SURE did not know that traveling to the home country could result in the loss of their status in Canada, because until December 2012 traveling to the home country could not result in the loss of their status. I am not a Canadian lawyer, and no expert on how a prohibition against ex post facto laws works even in the jurisdiction in which I practiced, so I cannot explain why Canadian courts ruled this was not an ex post facto application of a change in the law. But no expertise needed to see how utterly unfair it is to impose what amounts to a very severe penalty for conduct which, at the time it was done, there was no penalty.
Re NON-Existent Post-Citizenship Risk to Canadian Status By Reavailing Home Country Protection:
Main thing to make clear is that once a refugee or protected person becomes a Canadian citizen, their status as a Canadian citizen will NOT be put at risk by obtaining a passport from their home or previous country, or by using a passport from their home or previous country, or by traveling to their home or previous country using a passport from their home or previous country.
There is NO indication, NONE, that there is any risk of revocation of citizenship for misrepresentation based on reavailing home country protection after becoming a citizen.
There are aspects of that discussion involving @canuck78 and @armoured which I will address. It gets complicated. Nonetheless, to be clear, that is a tangent largely if not totally unrelated to this topic. It should be emphasized that there is NO support for the suggestion by @canuck78 that there is a risk a naturalized Canadian citizen who came to Canada as a refugee might encounter the stress and expense of fighting to keep their status in Canada, AFTER becoming a Canadian citizen, because they have used their home country passport or returned to their home country. Reavailing home country protection after becoming a Canadian citizen is NOT evidence of misrepresentation, and absolutely NOT grounds for revocation of Canadian citizenship.
To be continued . . .