UNHCR guidelines, which Canada uses and follows, specify that obtaining a country's passport supports the PRESUMPTION of reavailment. So of course CBSA can proceed with an investigation and bring cessation proceedings if it learns or discerns a refugee-PR has obtained a passport from the home country. Grounds for cessation are legally presumed.
It is a rebuttable presumption. The refugee-PR gets an opportunity to make the case that he or she has not reavailed himself or herself of home country protection. That should be a fairly easy case to win if the only thing indicating reavailment is the obtaining of a passport that has never been used.
Make no mistake, however, the UNHCR guidelines prescribe that EITHER obtaining a home country passport OR traveling to the home country, supports the
PRESUMPTION of reavailment. No showing of fraud in obtaining refugee status is necessary; fraud is a totally separate ground for cessation.
BUT, nonetheless, it appears that obtaining the home country passport alone, UNDER THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT (the Harper government took a far more severe approach) is NOT likely to trigger cessation proceedings. IRCC and CBSA are not in the GOTCHA game. They are not engaged in digging up technicalities they can exploit to terminate status and deport people.
You don't have to be a lawyer to realize that this argument wouldn't stand a chance in Federal Court.
Proving cessation is not that easy, you need strong actions to indicate that you are seeking the protection of your government or that your initial fear has disappeared: the classical example of this is traveling back to your home country.
So this is wrong. It is correct that traveling to the home country is the more or less classical example of reavailment. BUT again, obtaining the home country passport supports the
PRESUMPTION of reavailment. That is strong enough to support cessation. BUT again, the current Canadian government does not appear likely to pursue cessation if this is the only indication of reavailment, and again if this is the only evidence of reavailment it is relatively easy to rebut the presumption. The burden of doing so, however, is on the refugee-PR.
THERE IS A REASON WHY SO MANY ARE CONCERNED THE CHANGE IN LAW, AS IT IS, IS OVERLY HARSH. The Harper government implemented this change back in 2012, and was aggressively pursuing cessation proceedings right up to the 2015 elections. Unless the government adopts legislation to change this draconian law, the next Conservative government could easily resume more extensive and harsh enforcement. Last I knew, NDP MP Kwan, from a riding in BC, was the main MP pushing for a change in this law.
