First, thank you for alerting the forum that the 2018 statistics are available. And it does indeed appear IRCC got busy last year deciding cessation applications. And even more so in proceedings to vacate status (taking away refugee status on misrepresentation grounds).
When referencing information like this it is helpful if you provide a link to the source. While those of us who follow an issue can ordinarily find the relevant sources with a little effort, it is helpful if a link is posted, or at least some direction as to where to find the information is provided.
Such as see
https://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/statistics/protection/Pages/RPDVacStat.aspx
(this is the IRB site page listing statistics for application to cease or vacate refugee protection)
No, I do not know the breakdown. I am NOT an expert.
I am especially NO expert in refugee related issues. As I oft remind, I started this topic, some two and a half years ago, ONLY because I noticed the impact on some citizenship applicants versus the absence of any warning or alerts here about the changes in law which the Harper government adopted and aggressively implemented, severely risking the status of any refugee-PRs who obtained a home country passport or traveled to their home country, and especially if they did both.
That said, it is probably safe to guess that a high percentage of the allowed cessation applications involved refugees who had traveled to their home country, and usually they are individuals who obtained a home country passport . . . published decisions tend to indicate that cessation applications are most often triggered by a transaction with IRCC or CBSA in which an officer takes note that the individual is using a home country passport AND has traveled to the individual's home country. As I have discussed in previous posts, this appears to mostly be about PoE examinations by CBSA . . . but there are also some instances in which the cessation proceedings were commenced against a citizenship applicant without it being apparent a PoE examination triggered it.
Last year's numbers are informative. The total number of new cessation applications is down (141 compared to 170 in 2017). The number of cessation cases which appear to have been resolved in favour of the refugee is up considerably (48 compared to 21 in 2017; this is total of dismissed and withdrawn cases).
Number of Cessation Actions Against PR-refugees/Citizenship Applicants:
We do not know an especially important statistic; that is, we do not know how many of the cessation actions have been against PR-refugees, or in particular those who are citizenship applicants, VERSUS cessation actions against refugees generally.
In the last part of 2018 there were a few (just a small number) of Federal Court decisions about cessation. NONE of these, so far as I could discern, were about refugees with PR status applying for citizenship. And relative to the discussion here, again so far as I could discern, they were not all that relevant, so I did not bother to report anything here about them. There seemed to be some focus on what the evidence revealed about the affected refugee's INTENT in traveling to the home country, and the extent of travel to the home country was substantial (both in terms of duration and frequency), but not enough details in this regard to draw any firm conclusions . . . merely a slight affirmation of a perception that Canada is NOT (under the current government) aggressively pursuing cessation if there were only a very few SHORT trips home for reasons like visiting an ill close family member. I do not know that this is an accurate perception. Some anecdotal reporting here indicates NO cessation action triggered for some citizenship applicants who have traveled home using home country passport. At least one of the recent cases explicitly distinguished the refugee's lengthy visits home in contrast to situations involving brief visit for such reasons.
In any event, MY GUESS (just a GUESS) is that a pattern of frequent travel to the home country, especially combined with extended stays in the home country, dramatically increases the RISK of a referral for a cessation investigation (which is what would then lead to commencement of cessation proceedings). What I do NOT KNOW is what the risk is for a citizenship applicant (a refugee-PR applying for citizenship) who has traveled to the home country but not often and not for an extended period of time. And these statistics offer little insight . . . other than illustrating the fact that Canada is still initiating cessation proceedings . . . 141 of them in 2018.
Again, I AM NOT AN EXPERT, not by a long shot. I do not know the answer to this question. I do NOT even know if withdrawing the application can help at this stage. That is, if IRCC is screening citizenship applicants for potential cessation issues, I do not know that withdrawing now will avoid that screening. We do not know to what extent or when in the process there is screening of PR-refugee applicants for potential cessation grounds.
Remember, there is no way to effectively withdraw the application until IRCC has opened it and done its initial completeness screening . . . there is no file number to identify in a request to withdraw until you get AOR.
So you have some time to go see a lawyer to at least CONSULT about the risk of cessation.
SEE A COMPETENT LAWYER:
The combination of RISK, and what we do NOT know, is why I have repeatedly emphasized that any PR-refugee who has obtained a home country passport (or, for that matter, a passport from any other country), or traveled to the home country (or the country from which they fled if that is a different country),
should consult with an experienced immigration lawyer who is informed about refugee issues and especially about potential cessation.
At this stage, more than a half dozen years into this process (cessation proceedings against fully landed PRs, including those who have applied for citizenship), experienced lawyers should have specific experience and exposure to what IRCC and CBSA are actually doing, practice and policy wise. I hope they do. Such lawyers should have a lot more and far better information about this than we have here.
HOW MUCH SHOULD YOU WORRY?
Whether to worry or not depends on the level of RISK. This is very individual specific. This depends on the particular facts in your own personal history. I am NOT qualified to assess your situation. I cannot offer an opinion or any advice about your personal case EXCEPT to again suggest consulting with a competent, experienced, reputable LAWYER (not a consultant, but a LAWYER).
That said, if you have used a home country passport rather little and only traveled to the home country once or twice, and then for ONLY a brief period (week or two), probably OK to not worry a lot. Still a good idea to consult with a lawyer, but again some anecdotal reporting suggests that such minimal evidence of reavailment appears to not trigger cessation. IF IN CONTRAST, you have used a home country passport extensively (including for travel other than to the home country) and especially if you have made frequent trips home, or trips involving lengthy stays in the home country . . . AND especially if the travel to the home country also involves activities like employment . . . if this describes your history since becoming a refugee in Canada, SEE a LAWYER SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.
Quote with links to previous post which addresses what we know about situations triggering cessation investigation/proceedings (follow link to read full post including discussion about transactions triggering cessation actions):
