Can I lose My Canadian Citizenship if I travel back home
- Thread starter mrmaster
- Start date
That is not guaranteed.
As a Canadian you are allowed to travel everywhere every other Canadian is allowed to travel.
However, traveling to your home country may be the one exception. Doing so may lead your to your refugee case being reviewed -- if it led to someone wondering why you were able to travel to the place you fled. If, on review, they find that you misrepresented your case during your refugee application you might be stripped of your Canadian citizenship (and refugee/PR status). If there is no proof of misrepresentation then you'll be just fine.
- There is a chance that on your return nothing will happen.
(Maybe the situation in your home country has changed enough that the original reason to flee no longer exists, so going there won't raise any questions about your original case. Or maybe it's not noticed. Or maybe it's not something that triggers an investigation.)
- There is a chance that on your return you will be questioned. After that, nothing may happen, or you may end up in a hearing about your case.
- There is a chance you won't be questioned, but a hearing about your case still gets called.
We can't tell you how likely each of those cases is. We can't tell you what the likely outcome of any of those cases is.
People on this forum are not lawyers and in any case cannot give legal advice. If you are worried about your case, go see a lawyer that is familiar with refugee and citizenship law. Or get in touch with an organisation that supports refugees, who may be able to give you advice, or refer you to someone who is familiar with these matters.
Refugee status is obtained based on the danger of being in the home country. The trip back there is an evidence of absence of danger -> false refugee claim -> stripping all statuses due to misrepresentation or fraud. One exception might be if drastic changes occurred to the home country (regime changed, for example).
Makes sense. I quickly re-read the OP, guess OP is just asking about visiting US not even his home country. If he's visiting his home country, then something drastic must've happened that facilitates travel to this country.
This is not true, even with "may be." Please see the previous post by @dpenabill which explains it quite well.
In easy words, when you become Canadian Citizen:
Your PR status is terminated.
You are not a refugee anymore.
You have freedom of mobility.
You are Canadian Citizen in equal rights as any other Citizen who was born in Canada.
According to Law, and incorporating recent changes which bill C-6 brought in: Misrepresentation in your citizenship application is the ground that your citizenship can be revoked.
Last edited:
You CANNOT lose your Canadian citizenship because you returned to a country you previously claimed refugee status from. You CAN lose Canadian citizenship if you committed material misrepresentation or fraud on your citizenship application or in any previous applications upon which your citizenship is based: PR application, refugee declarations, etc. Is returning to a country you previously claimed refugee status from grounds to question the veracity of your previous declarations? That depends. Have conditions in that country changed since you claimed you needed protection as a refugee from it? Has there been some democratic transition, etc.?
From the message @dpenabill wrote that you're telling me to read (emphasis mine):
So I suspect those questions were not about mere curiosity. But, rather, probing to see whether the individual's returns to the home country indicated that perhaps the original refugee claim was fraudulent. That would be grounds for, first, revoking citizenship, and then revoking refugee status leading to deportation.
Misrepresentation to get PR, I expect, is considered to be misrepresentation to become a citizen, as having valid PR status is a prerequisite to become a citizen. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems too important to let something of this magnitude depend on the opinions of a bunch of random people on a forum, rather than seeking legal advice from someone who is well versed in this matter.
And it is true that the issue is not the visit to that country. Legally that is perfectly acceptable. The possibility exists that doing so, however, will trigger an investigation. That investigation doesn't mean one will be found guilty of misrepresentation, of course. But the risk exists, and the process to get to a verdict, even if exonerated, may be cumbersome, costly, and deeply unpleasant. So I stand by my recommendation to be cautious and to seek competent legal advice.
I would agree on getting competent legal advice prior to making travel plans. Of course, the key word there is competent. I would think though that it would be very unlikely for CIC to pursue a revocation action for misrepresentation in these circumstances as there are many subjective issues involved and the government has recently received some negative press over its handling of misrepresentation revocations in light of Minister Monsef's case. In the end though, nobody can offer a 100 percent guarantee of anything in such matters.
For the OP: obviously, whether it is OK to travel to your home country is foremost about whether it is safe to do so, about what the risks are.
Beyond that, there is NO risk of losing Canadian citizenship for actions which would be deemed reavailment under the UNHCR guidelines.
Thus, for example, fraud in the original refugee application process can be a basis for revoking citizenship.
That said, travel to the home country after becoming a Canadian citizen is NOT likely to trigger an inquiry, let alone an investigation, into the individual's history. Note that a Canadian citizen is entitled to the protections afforded all Canadian citizens, so that alone is a major material change in circumstances. Scores of Canadian Christians travel to China every year without fear of persecution. A person who fled China for fear of persecution related to being a Christian, for example, should be able to travel to China as a Canadian citizen.
Remember too, for many refugees the danger they fled was not state sponsored or state imposed persecution, but a danger the state failed to provide protection for the person fleeing that danger. So once they have availed themselves of the protections afforded Canadian citizens, the danger to that particular individual traveling in that country may be far, far less than it would be for a non-Canadian otherwise among the group facing that danger.
As for potential fraud in obtaining refugee status in the first place, for the person who engaged in fraud to obtain refugee status that will always be a potential ground for revoking status in Canada, including citizenship. This applies whether there is any travel to the home country or not. What matters is whether there was fraud. Example: refugee whose claim was based on being a homosexual in a country where homosexuals are exposed to extreme danger of persecution or physical harm. If Canada learns this individual never was a homosexual, lied about being homosexual, this person's Canadian status can be revoked for misrepresentation, even after he or she has become a citizen, and without regard to any actions or behavior or travel after becoming a Canadian PR or Canadian citizen. On the other hand, if this person subsequently makes an application to sponsor a spouse of the opposite sex and the information suggests they were in a relationship previous to the individual's flight, yeah, that is likely to raise some questions and trigger an inquiry, potentially an investigation, with revocation of status looming as a possible outcome.
BUT even if a former refugee Canadian citizen is asked questions about travel to the home country, this should NOT trigger any problems UNLESS, of course, there actually was fraud committed in the process of becoming a refugee, and something substantively more compelling evidencing the fraud than merely having traveled to the home country.
Beyond that, there is NO risk of losing Canadian citizenship for actions which would be deemed reavailment under the UNHCR guidelines.
To be clear, misrepresentation made in the process of immigrating to Canada, obtaining refugee status, obtaining PR status, OR, in the citizenship application process, is a ground for revocation of citizenship. Misrepresentation AT ANY STEP is grounds to revoke citizenship.
Thus, for example, fraud in the original refugee application process can be a basis for revoking citizenship.
That said, travel to the home country after becoming a Canadian citizen is NOT likely to trigger an inquiry, let alone an investigation, into the individual's history. Note that a Canadian citizen is entitled to the protections afforded all Canadian citizens, so that alone is a major material change in circumstances. Scores of Canadian Christians travel to China every year without fear of persecution. A person who fled China for fear of persecution related to being a Christian, for example, should be able to travel to China as a Canadian citizen.
Remember too, for many refugees the danger they fled was not state sponsored or state imposed persecution, but a danger the state failed to provide protection for the person fleeing that danger. So once they have availed themselves of the protections afforded Canadian citizens, the danger to that particular individual traveling in that country may be far, far less than it would be for a non-Canadian otherwise among the group facing that danger.
As for potential fraud in obtaining refugee status in the first place, for the person who engaged in fraud to obtain refugee status that will always be a potential ground for revoking status in Canada, including citizenship. This applies whether there is any travel to the home country or not. What matters is whether there was fraud. Example: refugee whose claim was based on being a homosexual in a country where homosexuals are exposed to extreme danger of persecution or physical harm. If Canada learns this individual never was a homosexual, lied about being homosexual, this person's Canadian status can be revoked for misrepresentation, even after he or she has become a citizen, and without regard to any actions or behavior or travel after becoming a Canadian PR or Canadian citizen. On the other hand, if this person subsequently makes an application to sponsor a spouse of the opposite sex and the information suggests they were in a relationship previous to the individual's flight, yeah, that is likely to raise some questions and trigger an inquiry, potentially an investigation, with revocation of status looming as a possible outcome.
BUT even if a former refugee Canadian citizen is asked questions about travel to the home country, this should NOT trigger any problems UNLESS, of course, there actually was fraud committed in the process of becoming a refugee, and something substantively more compelling evidencing the fraud than merely having traveled to the home country.
This post is following the misrepresentation/fraud tangent further off topic, but there a couple recent Federal Court decisions worth discussing, decisions which clarify the scope and forever-tainted aspect of misrepresentations made at earlier stages of an immigrant's path to PR and citizenship; these are NOT refugee cases, but the general principles apply for any path to PR and then citizenship.
Because of this off-topic tangent, it is probably best to first be clear about the OP's situation.
Beyond that, again, there is NO risk of losing Canadian citizenship for actions which might be deemed reavailment under the UNHCR guidelines. (You have availed yourself of Canadian protection as a Canadian citizen, so reavailment of another country's protection is irrelevant now.)
To be clear, however, there is never any guarantee someone can travel "without any problem." Stuff happens. Even false criminal accusations. Lost travel documents. Way too many potential problems lurking in any international travel, for anyone, to categorically say a person can go and come back to Canada "without any problem."
It can be stated, however, that the fact of having originally immigrated to Canada as a refugee, that does not preclude your capacity to legally travel to your home country once you are a Canadian citizen, so far as Canadian law and rules apply. (Obviously the destination country determines who can travel to or in that country.)
The fraud or misrepresentation tangent:
There is nothing in what the OP has reported which in any way suggests a discussion about fraud is relevant to the OP's situation. Merely traveling to the home country after becoming a Canadian citizen is NOT evidence of having committed fraud.
Fraud or misrepresentation is only an issue if there was in fact some fraud committed, whether in the process of applying for and becoming a refugee, or in the process of applying for and becoming a PR, or in the process of applying for and becoming a citizen.
Note: a material misrepresentation or fraud in the application for citizenship itself, in the process of applying for citizenship itself, is grounds for revoking citizenship. This alone is not grounds for terminating PR status. Example: citizenship applicant misrepresents place of actual residence or amount of presence in Canada in the citizenship application. That is fraud which can result in loss of citizenship, whereupon the individual reverts to PR status.
Misrepresentation in the process of becoming a PR (including in becoming a refugee who becomes a PR), however, is grounds for revoking citizenship and PR status and can lead to deportation.
Which brings me to one of the more recent cases of misrepresentation: Vujicic, 2018 FC 116 http://canlii.ca/t/hqbl7
In this case, the court succinctly states what I so much more clumsily attempted to say in a previous post:
The case involves a lot of collateral issues, probably more of interest to a jurist junkie like me (but some of these issues, like the admissibility of CAIPS notes, and response to Vujicic's claims about not understanding the import of the decision in a court case, are illuminating and instructive), but the decision makes this particular principle clear: a misrepresentation made in a PR application many years previous is a basis for revoking citizenship.
The other recent misrepresentation case which warrants some attention is one which has become a big media story, regarding a man who applied for and obtained PR status while he was on parole for a murder conviction (this should link to CBC story) in a high profile honour-killing case. While that conviction was later set aside, obviously he made a material misrepresentation at the time he became a PR.
His PR status is not the subject of the Federal Court decision. He is abroad and unless and until he applies for a PR Travel Document, or attempts to return to Canada, there is no proceeding in which to determine his inadmissibility based on the misrepresentation. He in effect remains a PR but will likely lose PR status if he attempts to come to Canada.
The Federal Court decision, rather, is about whether one of his sons, an accompanying dependent at the time the father applied for and became a Canadian PR, is also inadmissible FOR MISREPRESENTATION and should lose PR status. Despite the fact that as an accompanying dependent the son was never asked if any other family member or his father had any criminal charges or convictions. This case depends on the meaning and scope of what constitutes indirectly making a misrepresentation of material fact.
The court stated the issues this way:
Spoiler alert: Maybe.
See Singh Sidhu, 2018 FC 306 here: http://canlii.ca/t/hr34q
or here https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/307392/index.do
The case has been sent back to be decided by a different IAD panel. A question has been certified for further review by a higher court.
Obviously, the dependent son's age at the time (mid-20s by the time of the landing interview) is a factor. I cannot guess what the ultimate outcome will be. Obviously IRCC is pursuing the matter aggressively, zealously. I'd say "we will see," but many times these cases do not result in a publicly disclosed outcome.
A Separate Important Lesson:
Both of these cases illustrate that many, many factors and circumstances can influence the ultimate outcome. It is one thing to recognize that failing to disclose a material fact, like being convicted of murder, can constitute a material misrepresentation which will forever be a ground to revoke citizenship and/or terminate PR status. But "can" is not the same as "will." What will happen in the particular case is a lot more complicated, and subject to all sorts of It-Depends factors.
There is a reason for avoiding definitive declarations about how this or that will affect what happens. There are almost always many other factors which can lead to variations in what actually will happen.
Because of this off-topic tangent, it is probably best to first be clear about the OP's situation.
As I previously stated, and it should be obvious, whether it is OK to travel to your home country is foremost about whether it is safe to do so, about what the risks are.
Beyond that, again, there is NO risk of losing Canadian citizenship for actions which might be deemed reavailment under the UNHCR guidelines. (You have availed yourself of Canadian protection as a Canadian citizen, so reavailment of another country's protection is irrelevant now.)
To be clear, however, there is never any guarantee someone can travel "without any problem." Stuff happens. Even false criminal accusations. Lost travel documents. Way too many potential problems lurking in any international travel, for anyone, to categorically say a person can go and come back to Canada "without any problem."
It can be stated, however, that the fact of having originally immigrated to Canada as a refugee, that does not preclude your capacity to legally travel to your home country once you are a Canadian citizen, so far as Canadian law and rules apply. (Obviously the destination country determines who can travel to or in that country.)
The fraud or misrepresentation tangent:
There is nothing in what the OP has reported which in any way suggests a discussion about fraud is relevant to the OP's situation. Merely traveling to the home country after becoming a Canadian citizen is NOT evidence of having committed fraud.
Fraud or misrepresentation is only an issue if there was in fact some fraud committed, whether in the process of applying for and becoming a refugee, or in the process of applying for and becoming a PR, or in the process of applying for and becoming a citizen.
Note: a material misrepresentation or fraud in the application for citizenship itself, in the process of applying for citizenship itself, is grounds for revoking citizenship. This alone is not grounds for terminating PR status. Example: citizenship applicant misrepresents place of actual residence or amount of presence in Canada in the citizenship application. That is fraud which can result in loss of citizenship, whereupon the individual reverts to PR status.
Misrepresentation in the process of becoming a PR (including in becoming a refugee who becomes a PR), however, is grounds for revoking citizenship and PR status and can lead to deportation.
Which brings me to one of the more recent cases of misrepresentation: Vujicic, 2018 FC 116 http://canlii.ca/t/hqbl7
In this case, the court succinctly states what I so much more clumsily attempted to say in a previous post:
"There is no suggestion that Mr Vujicic made any false claim in his citizenship application; the Minister’s allegations relate solely to Mr Vujicic’s application for permanent residence (which is a sufficient basis on which to conclude that his citizenship was wrongly acquired; see s 10(2))."
The case involves a lot of collateral issues, probably more of interest to a jurist junkie like me (but some of these issues, like the admissibility of CAIPS notes, and response to Vujicic's claims about not understanding the import of the decision in a court case, are illuminating and instructive), but the decision makes this particular principle clear: a misrepresentation made in a PR application many years previous is a basis for revoking citizenship.
The other recent misrepresentation case which warrants some attention is one which has become a big media story, regarding a man who applied for and obtained PR status while he was on parole for a murder conviction (this should link to CBC story) in a high profile honour-killing case. While that conviction was later set aside, obviously he made a material misrepresentation at the time he became a PR.
His PR status is not the subject of the Federal Court decision. He is abroad and unless and until he applies for a PR Travel Document, or attempts to return to Canada, there is no proceeding in which to determine his inadmissibility based on the misrepresentation. He in effect remains a PR but will likely lose PR status if he attempts to come to Canada.
The Federal Court decision, rather, is about whether one of his sons, an accompanying dependent at the time the father applied for and became a Canadian PR, is also inadmissible FOR MISREPRESENTATION and should lose PR status. Despite the fact that as an accompanying dependent the son was never asked if any other family member or his father had any criminal charges or convictions. This case depends on the meaning and scope of what constitutes indirectly making a misrepresentation of material fact.
The court stated the issues this way:
"This application for judicial review raises questions about the responsibility of an applicant for permanent residence in Canada to disclose what they know about another family member’s criminal history. Are they inadmissible for indirectly representing a material fact if they are landed as the dependent of the principal applicant who lied about his criminal record? Do they have a duty of candour to disclose their knowledge of that fact?"
Spoiler alert: Maybe.
See Singh Sidhu, 2018 FC 306 here: http://canlii.ca/t/hr34q
or here https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/307392/index.do
The case has been sent back to be decided by a different IAD panel. A question has been certified for further review by a higher court.
Obviously, the dependent son's age at the time (mid-20s by the time of the landing interview) is a factor. I cannot guess what the ultimate outcome will be. Obviously IRCC is pursuing the matter aggressively, zealously. I'd say "we will see," but many times these cases do not result in a publicly disclosed outcome.
A Separate Important Lesson:
Both of these cases illustrate that many, many factors and circumstances can influence the ultimate outcome. It is one thing to recognize that failing to disclose a material fact, like being convicted of murder, can constitute a material misrepresentation which will forever be a ground to revoke citizenship and/or terminate PR status. But "can" is not the same as "will." What will happen in the particular case is a lot more complicated, and subject to all sorts of It-Depends factors.
There is a reason for avoiding definitive declarations about how this or that will affect what happens. There are almost always many other factors which can lead to variations in what actually will happen.
If he left his country and became refugee in Canada is because he can’t stay there...now he is going back after gaining Canadian citizenship?...I think is fair if anybody ask questions
Did you find any solution and answer for this?? I am facing the same problem in last few years and have the same status as you. Office told me that I have flag on passport. Please advise if you are still facing it??
For future reference:
"Can a refugee go back to his country after getting citizenship?
According to Geneva Convention Refugee Act a host country can take back their citizenship or PR if the former refugee ever go back country he fled from, Scandinavian countries use that article to strip citizenship and PR and turn them away at point of entry".
You came to Canada as a refugee, you have no reasons to go back home. Canada is your home now, period.
Can a refugee go back to his country after getting citizenship?
According to Geneva Convention Refugee Act a host country can take back their citizenship or PR if the former refugee ever go back country he fled from, Scandinavian countries use that article to strip citizenship and PR and turn them away at point of entry.