Refugee status cessation and PRs applying for citizenship

[Kan786]

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.



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.

Very to the point and precise reply

 

[screech339]

“ if you are a bonafied Refugee you wouldn’t go back to your country and thus won’t renew your passport “A- by renewing your passport does not mean at all that you are a person who is just seeking protection on fake bullshit or madeup grounds . B -just by renewing passport could surely cause unnecessary encumbrances and hurdles but it does not mean that immigration or cbsa could parcel back the person to the country ( back home ). This is the most common thing many people would do ( protected person ) that they would renew their passports due to the lack of knowledge of ( new refugee laws and Claus ) not with the intentions of going back . So calm the fuck down sweetheart and stop scarring the shit out of the poor people who are already scared ..

As dpenabill said in his post, the fact that you renewed your passport as a refugee doesn't absolved yourself or change the fact that it is ground for of possible cessation. The risk is still there, no difference from the risk an applicant faces applying for spousal INLAND sponsorship whenever he/she leaves Canada. Thanks for the colourful language sweetheart.

 

[sopranotb]

@dpenabill or anyone else:

Any news from people who applied to citizenship recently and traveled to home country for short trips (more than one but short) to see sick family members??

Have they brought a cessation application against you and sent you to IRB/RPD??

OR:

It went smooth and you got your citizenship??

Can you please share any information you may have?? Please if you can..

I guess that since federal court of appeal decision on March 2017 that allowed minister to suspend citizenship application and numbers of cessation application are getting higher, here is the link: https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/224106/index.do

Also there was a discussion last October (2017) between Kwan and Liberals in the house of common where the liberals confess they are still tageting people and promise to talk with stakeholders to improve the system, here is the link: https://openparliament.ca/debates/2017/10/17/jenny-kwan-2/

Please people who always judge others why you visited your country if you are a real refugee etc.., for God sake do not start this..

 

[dpenabill]

@dpenabill or anyone else:

Any news from people who applied to citizenship recently and traveled to home country for short trips (more than one but short) to see sick family members??

Have they brought a cessation application against you and sent you to IRB/RPD??

OR:

It went smooth and you got your citizenship??

Can you please share any information you may have?? Please if you can..

I guess that since federal court of appeal decision on March 2017 that allowed minister to suspend citizenship application and numbers of cessation application are getting higher, here is the link: https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/224106/index.do

Also there was a discussion last October (2017) between Kwan and Liberals in the house of common where the liberals confess they are still tageting people and promise to talk with stakeholders to improve the system, here is the link: https://openparliament.ca/debates/2017/10/17/jenny-kwan-2/

Please people who always judge others why you visited your country if you are a real refugee etc.., for God sake do not start this..

I have no new information.

Thank you for the link to the debate last October. While that does not offer any new information, it does confirm the current government's approach, which is an important consideration for any PR-refugee who has obtained a home country passport or who has traveled to the home country.

At the least, this warrants some emphatic reminders for PR-refugees:

-- do NOT obtain or renew home country passport
-- do NOT travel to the home country
-- if you have already obtained a home country passport, DO NOT USE it (do not use again if already used)
-- if you have already traveled to the home country, DO NOT do so again
-- if you have obtained a home country passport, OR have traveled to the home country, CONSULT WITH A REPUTABLE, COMPETENT LAWYER before you apply for citizenship; be sure the lawyer is experienced and specifically acquainted with cessation proceedings against PR-refugees



Some further observations:

I have seen nothing which suggests much has changed in the last year or so. For the most part, it appears my relatively recent observations (since spring 2017, after learning of the Boivin decision in the Nilam case, concurred in by Rennie and Near, and which you reference and link) continue to be as much as I can offer.

That is, in other words, if the government perceives a refugee-PR to have reavailed himself or herself of home country protection, this can trigger cessation proceedings. The comments (in the debate you also reference and link) by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Serge Cormier, affirms the current government continues to prosecute cessation cases and obviously there is no exception for a PR who has qualified and applied for citizenship.

Thus, the risk remains for any PR-refugee who has EITHER obtained a home country passport OR visited the PR's home country. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Serge Cormier, asserts that cessation decisions require "strong and compelling evidence," which may suggest that merely triggering the presumption (obtaining home country passport OR traveling to home country) is NOT LIKELY to trigger cessation proceedings, but this is way, way short of being any sort of guarantee. (Note, for example, Cormier also stated that the government follows the UNHCR guidelines, and it is those guidelines which prescribe obtaining a home country passport OR traveling to the home country raise the PRESUMPTION of reavailment, which is a specific ground for cessation.)

Some PR-refugees, those who have obtained a home country passport or have traveled to the home country, now face the dilemma: whether to gamble now, sooner rather than later, and soon apply for citizenship with the hope the current government will not interpret minimal connection with the home country as a reason to suspend the citizenship application and pursue cessation proceedings.

Or, wait longer, figuring that the longer the PR-refugee remains in Canada, does not use the home country passport, and does not travel to the home country, the stronger the defense the PR is still relying on protection from Canada and has not in fact reavailed home country protection.

This is a dilemma because there will be another Federal election next year and if the Conservatives form the government following that election there is a real risk that will lead to more aggressive enforcement of cessation. In which case, having obtained citizenship will be the best guarantee of continued status to live in Canada. But applying for citizenship in the meantime could, itself, trigger cessation proceedings when IRCC reviews the applicant's case and sees there is a passport (representing protection by the country which issued the passport, meaning the individual may no longer need Canada's protection) or sees evidence of reavailment (and again, obtaining a home country passport OR traveling to the home country raises the PRESUMPTION of reavailment).

It warrants repeating and emphasizing, any PR-refugee who has obtained a home country passport OR who has traveled to the home country, and ESPECIALLY any PR-refugee who has done both, SHOULD CONSULT WITH A KNOWLEDGEABLE LAWYER BEFORE APPLYING FOR CITIZENSHIP.


Thus, for emphasis, for PR-refugees, again REMEMBER:

-- do NOT obtain or renew home country passport
-- do NOT travel to the home country
-- if you have already obtained a home country passport, DO NOT USE it, not at all
-- if you have already traveled to the home country, DO NOT do so again
-- if you have obtained a home country passport, OR have traveled to the home country, CONSULT WITH A REPUTABLE, COMPETENT LAWYER before you apply for citizenship; be sure the lawyer is experienced and specifically acquainted with cessation proceedings against PR-refugees
​

Edit-to-Add:

I probably should reference the situation in which a PR-refugee who has obtained a home country passport, or traveled to the home country, has already applied for citizenship. The cake is in the oven, one might say.

Foremost, it would be greatly appreciated for any applicant in this situation to report here about how it goes:

-- whether there are questions posed, in the interview or otherwise, which appear to be about potential reavailment
-- if there is any referral to CBSA for cessation investigation
-- if the application proceeds without issue and the oath is scheduled​

While how it goes for one person will not necessarily forecast how it is likely to go for another, let alone how it will for sure go, it is information which can help others better assess their own situations and risks.

This is incredibly important stuff for those affected. A refugee can very seriously need Canada's protection and yet have engaged in actions which could be construed out of context so as to meet the UNHCR guidelines for reavailment. These can literally be life and death matters, and even if not life and death itself, raise the risk of profoundly inhumane treatment. The presumption of reavailment, for example, is subject to being rebutted and indeed all that is necessary to rebut the presumption is a showing that there was no intention to reavail oneself of the home country's protection (albeit, objective evidence consistent with this intention is likely needed . . . in one of the more salient official cases about this, for example, the individual spent so much time in the home country that there was an issue about his compliance with his PR Residency Obligation, relative to which his vociferous protests that he did not "intend" to reavail himself of the home country's protection rather lacked credibility).

 

[ANTONIUS125]

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.



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.

The presumption of reavailment from obtaining/renewing home country passport is till making sense. But I dont think that presumption of reavailment simply from visiting home country for short period is still making sense.

The need of revisiting home country could be because urgent or humanity matter such as visiting sick/dying family members or even because of the needs to quench their homesickness, and this is human need; I dont see any reavailment motive there. Refugee is still entitled with their right to fulfill those needs.

We need to support any petition to change that regulation or practice, such as the following:
https://www.change.org/p/honourable-ahmed-d-hussen-stop-refugees-deportation-from-canada-say-no-to-cbsa-refugee-cessation-applications

 

[sopranotb]

The presumption of reavailment from obtaining/renewing home country passport is till making sense. But I dont think that presumption of reavailment simply from visiting home country for short period is still making sense.

The need of revisiting home country could be because urgent or humanity matter such as visiting sick/dying family members or even because of the needs to quench their homesickness, and this is human need; I dont see any reavailment motive there. Refugee is still entitled with their right to fulfill those needs.

We need to support any petition to change that regulation or practice, such as the following:
https://www.change.org/p/honourable-ahmed-d-hussen-stop-refugees-deportation-from-canada-say-no-to-cbsa-refugee-cessation-applications

Well said Antonius

 

[dpenabill]

The presumption of reavailment from obtaining/renewing home country passport is till making sense. But I dont think that presumption of reavailment simply from visiting home country for short period is still making sense.

The need of revisiting home country could be because urgent or humanity matter such as visiting sick/dying family members or even because of the needs to quench their homesickness, and this is human need; I dont see any reavailment motive there. Refugee is still entitled with their right to fulfill those needs.

We need to support any petition to change that regulation or practice, such as the following:
https://www.change.org/p/honourable-ahmed-d-hussen-stop-refugees-deportation-from-canada-say-no-to-cbsa-refugee-cessation-applications

I largely concur that refugees in general, and those who have PR status (which I believe most are in Canada once they have been fully adjudicated to be a protected person) in particular, are especially vulnerable and their status should be afforded more protection.

This is, however, a very complex issue. Remember, the guidelines for reavailment are not determined by Canada but by the UNHCR (the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). It is the UNHCR guidelines in particular which state that going to the home country raises a presumption of reavailment.

As I noted, this is a rebuttable presumption. And official commentary in the cases amply illustrates that the refugee who does NOT INTEND to reavail himself or herself of home country protection, and who has briefly traveled to the home country for compelling reasons (visit a terminally ill parent among them; to retrieve a member of immediate family another), MAY successfully rebut the presumption, but of course this DEPENDS on the particular CIRCUMSTANCES/CONTEXT in the case.

Thus there are no guarantees. And in particular there are no guidelines for refugees, no way to visit a dying parent for example, without taking the risk of reavailment proceedings and gambling on persuading the decision-maker (the IRB) that the visit did not constitute reavailment.

I do not know what the law should be. Again, I concur that the current law is problematic, and seriously prone to severely unfair results.


Some Further Observations About How The Harper-era Provision Can Have Severely Unfair Consequences;
The Other Side of The Equation, Establishment in Canada, is NOT Relevant:

This aspect of the process is what tends to catch many PR-refugees off guard. The extent to which the PR-refugee has established a life in Canada is not factored into the reavailment decision. It is relative to this element that the current Liberal government's position appears to be particularly insensitive if not excessively harsh. POTENTIALLY anyway (depending in large part on how the current government is approaching those CANADIANS whose PR status derives from having obtained recognition as a refugee; and unfortunately we do not know much about how strictly or aggressively the current government is approaching these situations).

This element may be a factor which CBSA or IRCC considers BEFORE deciding to initiate cessation proceedings. That decision-making process, and the criteria employed, is largely behind the curtain, not public information. So we do not know what their current approach is.

All we have are the vague generalities reflected in statements like those made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Serge Cormier, in the debate referenced and linked above by @sopranotb, in which Secretary Cormier stated that refugees, including PR-refugees, are subject to losing refugee status because they voluntarily returned to their country of persecution . . . because they "have demonstrated that they no longer need protection from Canada" (which, in many cases, is not a fair conclusion, not at all). And despite the radical change in the law implemented by Harper's government, Secretary Cormier rather glibly conflates authority to terminate PR status generally with the draconian provision adopted in 2012 which suddenly exposed CANADIANS, Canadians with Permanent Resident status in Canada, to loss of that status NO MATTER HOW WELL-SETTLED, HOW WELL-ESTABLISHED, HOW LONG ESTABLISHED the PR is in Canada. Even if they have children born in Canada.

I have not revisited the full process of late so my memory of it is a bit vague at the moment, but this much is certain: a cessation decision AUTOMATICALLY terminates PR status. And avenues for seeking relief, even relief based on H&C factors, is very strictly limited.

To put this in context: the impact of cessation on children IS NOT RELEVANT. So, if a PR has been settled in Canada for many years, and has had multiple children born in Canada during that time, the impact on the PR's children CANNOT EVEN BE RAISED LET ALONE CONSIDERED in determining whether the PR's protected status is subject to cessation, and again, if there is a cessation of protected person status, that AUTOMATICALLY terminates PR status. Secretary Cormier's statements in the debate last fall totally ignored the reality. Just the looming threat alone, apart from those cases in which the government has pursued cessation with no regard for the extent to which the respective CANADIAN has established his or her life in Canada, is unfair, abusive, and refutes the lie that the Liberal government has "a proven record on refugee protection in recent years," at least to the extent the claim is that the Liberal government is focused on protecting refugees. Cormier's assurance that the Liberal government "will be reviewing the policies and legislative provisions put in place over the past few years and making improvements" is, literally, dismissive BS . . . that is what the current government promised in 2015, two years earlier . . . nearly two and a half years ago now, and still NO hint of any proposed changes to this draconian, unfair law which was implemented as part of Harper's overall anti-immigrant (with exceptions for those who would provide a direct benefit to the Conservative Party's big business interests) and especially anti-refugee policies.

 

[sopranotb]

I largely concur that refugees in general, and those who have PR status (which I believe most are in Canada once they have been fully adjudicated to be a protected person) in particular, are especially vulnerable and their status should be afforded more protection.

This is, however, a very complex issue. Remember, the guidelines for reavailment are not determined by Canada but by the UNHCR (the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). It is the UNHCR guidelines in particular which state that going to the home country raises a presumption of reavailment.

As I noted, this is a rebuttable presumption. And official commentary in the cases amply illustrates that the refugee who does NOT INTEND to reavail himself or herself of home country protection, and who has briefly traveled to the home country for compelling reasons (visit a terminally ill parent among them; to retrieve a member of immediate family another), MAY successfully rebut the presumption, but of course this DEPENDS on the particular CIRCUMSTANCES/CONTEXT in the case.

Thus there are no guarantees. And in particular there are no guidelines for refugees, no way to visit a dying parent for example, without taking the risk of reavailment proceedings and gambling on persuading the decision-maker (the IRB) that the visit did not constitute reavailment.

I do not know what the law should be. Again, I concur that the current law is problematic, and seriously prone to severely unfair results.


Some Further Observations About How The Harper-era Provision Can Have Severely Unfair Consequences;
The Other Side of The Equation, Establishment in Canada, is NOT Relevant:

This aspect of the process is what tends to catch many PR-refugees off guard. The extent to which the PR-refugee has established a life in Canada is not factored into the reavailment decision. It is relative to this element that the current Liberal government's position appears to be particularly insensitive if not excessively harsh. POTENTIALLY anyway (depending in large part on how the current government is approaching those CANADIANS whose PR status derives from having obtained recognition as a refugee; and unfortunately we do not know much about how strictly or aggressively the current government is approaching these situations).

This element may be a factor which CBSA or IRCC considers BEFORE deciding to initiate cessation proceedings. That decision-making process, and the criteria employed, is largely behind the curtain, not public information. So we do not know what their current approach is.

All we have are the vague generalities reflected in statements like those made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Serge Cormier, in the debate referenced and linked above by @sopranotb, in which Secretary Cormier stated that refugees, including PR-refugees, are subject to losing refugee status because they voluntarily returned to their country of persecution . . . because they "have demonstrated that they no longer need protection from Canada" (which, in many cases, is not a fair conclusion, not at all). And despite the radical change in the law implemented by Harper's government, Secretary Cormier rather glibly conflates authority to terminate PR status generally with the draconian provision adopted in 2012 which suddenly exposed CANADIANS, Canadians with Permanent Resident status in Canada, to loss of that status NO MATTER HOW WELL-SETTLED, HOW WELL-ESTABLISHED, HOW LONG ESTABLISHED the PR is in Canada. Even if they have children born in Canada.

I have not revisited the full process of late so my memory of it is a bit vague at the moment, but this much is certain: a cessation decision AUTOMATICALLY terminates PR status. And avenues for seeking relief, even relief based on H&C factors, is very strictly limited.

To put this in context: the impact of cessation on children IS NOT RELEVANT. So, if a PR has been settled in Canada for many years, and has had multiple children born in Canada during that time, the impact on the PR's children CANNOT EVEN BE RAISED LET ALONE CONSIDERED in determining whether the PR's protected status is subject to cessation, and again, if there is a cessation of protected person status, that AUTOMATICALLY terminates PR status. Secretary Cormier's statements in the debate last fall totally ignored the reality. Just the looming threat alone, apart from those cases in which the government has pursued cessation with no regard for the extent to which the respective CANADIAN has established his or her life in Canada, is unfair, abusive, and refutes the lie that the Liberal government has "a proven record on refugee protection in recent years," at least to the extent the claim is that the Liberal government is focused on protecting refugees. Cormier's assurance that the Liberal government "will be reviewing the policies and legislative provisions put in place over the past few years and making improvements" is, literally, dismissive BS . . . that is what the current government promised in 2015, two years earlier . . . nearly two and a half years ago now, and still NO hint of any proposed changes to this draconian, unfair law which was implemented as part of Harper's overall anti-immigrant (with exceptions for those who would provide a direct benefit to the Conservative Party's big business interests) and especially anti-refugee policies.

Can’t say anything but very well said..

 

[sopranotb]

https://www.facebook.com/LiberalCA/posts/428998040468097

And now after 6 years since that petition YOU LIBERALS are targeting PR Refugees and stripping their status using the same bill on behalf of conservatives?????????? what an ironyyy

 

[ImageOfLight]

Unfortunately this affects me. I renewed my passport after getting terrible advice (in retrospect) that it was OK to do so. But i have not used it and unfortunately i have applied for citizenship already. Now i have no idea how to proceed.
Do I call CIC and ask for a return of my application (status in ecas changed to IP late february)?
Do I proactively contact IRB and explain the circumstances to them?
Do i just wait and see how the dice roll? this last one will be terribly difficult because going through the figures on cessation of refugee status by IRB, only about 15% of identified cases get any traction within that given year. so getting flagged will be at least 12 months of limbo.

i will get in touch with a Lawyer within the next few days and see what my options are.

 

[Derut]

Unfortunately this affects me. I renewed my passport after getting terrible advice (in retrospect) that it was OK to do so. But i have not used it and unfortunately i have applied for citizenship already. Now i have no idea how to proceed.
Do I call CIC and ask for a return of my application (status in ecas changed to IP late february)?
Do I proactively contact IRB and explain the circumstances to them?
Do i just wait and see how the dice roll? this last one will be terribly difficult because going through the figures on cessation of refugee status by IRB, only about 15% of identified cases get any traction within that given year. so getting flagged will be at least 12 months of limbo.

i will get in touch with a Lawyer within the next few days and see what my options are.

This is very Sad. I am in the same boat. I just renewed my passport but I have never used it. I wish I would have known about this Forum before. I would have followed advices form people like depenabill. I actually felt something wired when I was about to send my passport for renewal but people told me that I was being worried for nothing and told me it is okay to apply and they even mentioned people who renewed and obtained their citizenship. But when I applied for the citizenship, I was aware of the risk but I did it because I didn't envision the future being a better one. But at least this forum helped me to be more conscious, I was supposed to go to US two month ago using the passport, but taking the advice from this forum " if you renew you passport don't use it" I cancelled it. I know some people have more serious reasons to travel. But as much as possible we have to avoid any further complications. But let's be positive, as long us we did it innocently, let's hope the result to be favourable. Regarding your options, I personally took the 3rd option. Wait and see. sometimes it is better to let things flow on its own. if you tell them in advance, may be you will be asked for more documents and other stuff which unnecessary take time. let's cross the bridge when we get there
Good Luck!

 

[dpenabill]

Unfortunately this affects me. I renewed my passport after getting terrible advice (in retrospect) that it was OK to do so. But i have not used it and unfortunately i have applied for citizenship already. Now i have no idea how to proceed.
Do I call CIC and ask for a return of my application (status in ecas changed to IP late february)?
Do I proactively contact IRB and explain the circumstances to them?
Do i just wait and see how the dice roll? this last one will be terribly difficult because going through the figures on cessation of refugee status by IRB, only about 15% of identified cases get any traction within that given year. so getting flagged will be at least 12 months of limbo.

i will get in touch with a Lawyer within the next few days and see what my options are.

I am in the same boat. I just renewed my passport but I have never used it.

I do not know for-sure, but most indicators suggest that if the only indication of reavailment is having obtained or renewed the home country passport, THAT IS NOT LIKELY TO TRIGGER CESSATION. Never having used the passport is a big positive factor.

Be prepared to answer questions about why you did obtain or renew the passport. But those who have done so thinking they needed it and without understanding its significance, AND WHO DO NOT USE IT FOR TRAVEL, really should be OK!

The more problematic situation is the combination of having obtained the home country passport AND using it to travel to the home country. Even for someone who did this, the presumption of reavailment can be rebutted by explaining there was NO INTENTION to rely on the home country's protection and giving an explanation which is consistent with that.

Best approach is to avoid the risks altogether, if possible. But as in many things, the extent of risk varies and can vary a lot relative to the particular facts.

Just the passport alone without ever using it for travel, I am not certain but I believe this should not trigger any cessation investigation let alone proceedings.

 

[ImageOfLight]

I do not know for-sure, but most indicators suggest that if the only indication of reavailment is having obtained or renewed the home country passport, THAT IS NOT LIKELY TO TRIGGER CESSATION. Never having used the passport is a big positive factor.

Be prepared to answer questions about why you did obtain or renew the passport. But those who have done so thinking they needed it and without understanding its significance, AND WHO DO NOT USE IT FOR TRAVEL, really should be OK!

The more problematic situation is the combination of having obtained the home country passport AND using it to travel to the home country. Even for someone who did this, the presumption of reavailment can be rebutted by explaining there was NO INTENTION to rely on the home country's protection and giving an explanation which is consistent with that.

Best approach is to avoid the risks altogether, if possible. But as in many things, the extent of risk varies and can vary a lot relative to the particular facts.

Just the passport alone without ever using it for travel, I am not certain but I believe this should not trigger any cessation investigation let alone proceedings.

While it is comforting to read these words, I still am filled with dread.

What can I do about it?
1. I have signed the petition at https://www.change.org/p/honourable-ahmed-d-hussen-stop-refugees-deportation-from-canada-say-no-to-cbsa-refugee-cessation-applications and asked my family members here to do the same.
2. I will meet with Lawyer soon and go over my options
3. Pray like crazy.

all the best to all those in a similar position. this is really distressing.

 

[dpenabill]

2. I will meet with Lawyer soon and go over my options

Good idea.

In fact, recent queries and observations here induced me to revisit known cases and information, and attempt some further research, and unfortunately it is very, very difficult to discern much at all about how IRCC or CBSA are CURRENTLY approaching potential reavailment situations.

I HAVE HOWEVER CHANGED MY VIEW SOME: And, in particular, I would strongly urge anyone who has applied for citizenship AND who has (1) obtained home country passport, AND (2) traveled to the home country (especially more than once), to FIND and CONSULT WITH A LAWYER, with a qualified lawyer experienced in refugee matters.

Unfortunately, it appears more than a few lawyers, even those engaged in refugee practices, may not be entirely up-to-speed with the cessation issue. So it remains imperative to, in effect, interview prospective lawyers about how well acquainted they are with the 2012 change in the law which subjects PR-refugees to automatic loss of PR status if there is a cessation of their refugee or protected person status, including (especially) PR-refugees who have applied for citizenship.

BUT, on the other hand, an individual's best source of information about how IRCC is approaching this issue will be an immigration lawyer well-acquainted with refugee cases. If the lawyer is in fact well-acquainted with the issue.


Updated Statistics:

Since @Saaqs linked, back in mid-October 2017, the page with cessation statistics, those statistics have been updated (as I was recently informed by a helpful participant here).
See http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/Eng/RefClaDem/stats/Pages/RPDVacStat.aspx

The most salient statistic brought to my attention is that in 2017 there were 172 section 108(2) cessation applications commenced, way more than the number commenced in 2016 (94), and approaching the number commenced during the last year of the Harper era purge (180 in 2015).

The number of applications resulting in cessation remains relatively low (a total of just 30 for all of 2016 and 2017), but it is nonetheless the number of new applications which suggests cause for concern.

Moreover, the number of new applications in the first six months of 2017 was 81, meaning ten more (91) were commenced in the second half of the year, which could be merely incidental or it could be that as the year went on IRCC and/or CBSA were escalating enforcement.

Note that of the more than 70 or so cessation cases that have resulted in cessation orders in the last three years, barely a few of these show up in published decisions.

The dearth of published decisions profoundly limits our access to information about how IRCC or CBSA are approaching the reavailment or cessation issue. If anyone knows if RPD decisions are at all publicly accessible, please provide some information or links. There are a few IAD decisions. Some information is redacted in those decisions. They are all titled "In Re X" or "X (In re)" for example. But overall, there are very, very few published decisions since the Liberals formed the government. So we are very much in the dark about actual policies and practices . . . other than it is apparent that the current government continues to initiate cessation proceedings. We just do not know when or why or what criteria is employed in making the decision to do so.


Revisiting some published decisions:

There is one very recent Federal Court decision, and it favoured the PR-Refugee. This might be to some extent re-assuring, except it reflects that both the government (the current Liberal government) and the RPD approached this individual case seeking to terminate this individual's status in Canada . . . noting that the case has not yet been won, that it is remanded back to the RPD (Refugee Protection Division) to be decided again by a different member.
See this case here: http://canlii.ca/t/hqf5v

Otherwise, what cases can be readily accessed suggest that the combination of (1) obtaining home country passport, and (2) traveling to the home country, tends to be far more risky than I have apprehended.

In particular, it appears that IRCC, CBSA, the RPD, and IAD agree that in addition to the presumption of reavailment, the combination of obtaining home country passport plus traveling to the home country ESTABLISHES the INTENTION TO REAVAIL ONESELF of home country protection, and thus the only question then is whether the PR's actions were voluntary or compelled. One case, for example, concluded a single visit to the home country to visit a parent who was apparently about to die, by a young refugee who was suffering anxiety about never seeing his father again and who took precautions to avoid the dangers he fled from, did not support cessation, that in effect this individual (given his age and other factors) was in effect compelled to visit the home country. That seems like a rather high bar.
For this case, see http://canlii.ca/t/gf86d

While this latter case is actually several years old now, and perhaps a single visit to the home country will NOT trigger an investigation and commencement of cessation proceedings, the general principle appears to be the dominant position held by the government: that the combination of obtaining the home country passport and traveling to the home country, does not merely raise the presumption of reavailment, but is sufficient to establish an intention to reavail oneself of home country protection . . . leaving only a defense of compulsion, an argument that the return to the home country was, in effect, under duress and not really volunatary.


Obtaining home country passport alone:

A couple months ago there was some discussion about the impact of just obtaining the home country passport. With the caveat that I am no expert, my recent revisiting of the research tends to confirm, as far as I can discern, this alone is NOT likely to be particularly problematic. Under the UNHCR guidelines, obtaining the home country passport is sufficient to raise the presumption of reavailment, but if it has NOT been used, the decisions suggest that this presumption is readily rebutted and may be rebutted by little more than the fact of not using it and affirming it was not intended to reavail oneself of home country protection. Again, however, it needs to be emphasized that I am NO expert, and that, after all, just obtaining the home country passport does raise the presumption of reavailment.


Additional sources for consideration (with some repeats):

Mayell 2018 FC 139 http://canlii.ca/t/hqf5v

XXX 2014 CanLII 66627 http://canlii.ca/t/gf86d

Xin Li Yuan http://canlii.ca/t/gkfq5

X (Re), 2016 CanLII 105329 (CA IRB) http://canlii.ca/t/h4n6s
three trips to Pakistan

Maqbool 2016 FC 1146 http://canlii.ca/t/gv6gq

Bermudez, [2017] 1 FCR 128, 2016 FCA 131 http://canlii.ca/t/gr714
Key ruling in Bermudez: Hearings Officer does not have discretion to address H&C considerations in making a cessation application

Abadi, 2016 FC 29 http://canlii.ca/t/gn0cx

Nilam, 2017 FCA 44 http://canlii.ca/t/h1s6l
Key ruling: yes, Minister may suspend processing citizenship application pending cessation proceedings (set aside mandamus granted by FC Justice Russell http://canlii.ca/t/gstsh ); also see http://canlii.ca/t/gllrk in which FC Justice Mactavish granted Minister's appeal of RPD decision which dismissed cessation application

Cerna 2015 FC 1074 http://canlii.ca/t/gl76g

 

[way4infinity]

Guys, I have a question. Does being a refugee by itself delay your case or take you through more checks?
Thank you!