App. Rejected after passing test

[JPBless]

My friend application for citizenship was rejected. It is very sad after passing the test and long wait. What actions can be taken after she requests the GCMS?

This matter has gone all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court declined to hear the matter. Still your friend needs to talk to an Immigration lawyer (not a consultant). It is a long shot nevertheless better than nothing.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/supreme-court-will-not-hear-case-of-refugee-who-could-lose-status-after-return-visit-to-sri-lankan

 

[dpenabill]

Lawyer-up . . . Lawyer-up . . . Lawyer-up . . . Lawyer-up . . . Lawyer-up . . .

Update: It is pending because IRCC wants to remove her refugee status because she visited her home country a few times as far as I understood.

For applicable PDIs about this, see --

-- https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/refugee-protection/resettlement/processing-vacation.html

-- https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/refugee-protection/vacation.html

There is a topic specifically about refugee (protected person) status cessation and PRs applying for citizenship. First post in that topic is quoted here . . . follow link in the quote for the full topic.

I do not have time to fully digest the Ovalle mandamus decision recently decided by Justice Russell, but for anyone who is a refugee PR this is a very significant case. A lot of the issues related to CIC's relatively recent purge of refugees considered to no longer be in need of protection, including those who are in the process of applying for Canadian citizenship, are addressed in this decision.

In theory, the policy makes sense. In practice, however, it tends to be draconian and harsh. My sense is that Justice Russell is very concerned about the actual impact this policy has on people's lives.

There is another recent and significant case regarding cessation of protected person status and loss of PR status as well, but I do not have the link handy.

This is a busy area of law right now. The impact is huge for those involved.

Anyone who is a refugee with PR status should be aware of the policy to terminate protected person status and thereby terminate PR status for those who either travel to their home country or who obtain a Travel Document from their home country, and especially anyone who does both.

THIS is NOT about fraud or misrepresentation.

BUT more importantly the impact is far more serious than the denial of the citizenship application.

CESSATION OF REFUGEE STATUS RESULTS IN AUTOMATIC TERMINATION OF PR STATUS and THUS LEADS TO DEPORTATION FROM CANADA.

LAWYER-UP IMMEDIATELY . . .





Again, the cessation of status is NOT ABOUT FRAUD . . . NOT ABOUT MISREPRESENTATION . . .

All the following posts are simply OUTRIGHT WRONG. I really do not understand why there is so much blatantly uninformed posting of what is NOT true, what is NOT at all based on any real information. Especially in regards to a subject like this. Please do at least a little homework before spewing uninformed.

Then it’s the ground of fraude or misrepresentation, and not much can be done

NO. WRONG. It is NOT fraud. Not misrepresentation. PR's intentions are key and presumptions of reavailment can be rebutted. So, the affected person can contest the cessation process before the RPD. A significant percentage of cessation cases are withdrawn or dismissed. See links to statistics in topic where this is discussed.

Being a refugee and going back to home country means you’re no longer being threatened and you must remove your status if not it’s a Fraud unless if you received an authorization from government to visit your home country

NO. WRONG.

Again, it is NOT fraud. Not misrepresentation. Presumptions of reavailment can be rebutted.

If she filled up all travel information in application form how did they allow her to take a test? I think they should've spotted this at an early review stage. I think she might've hidden that info and this has been revealed during an interview with an officer right after the test. Anyway it may be a misrepresentation.

NO. WRONG. There is a lot of discussion here about the actual process (not just uninformed spewing of what someone thinks), regarding what we know about the process, and as is too often the case, recognizing some important gaps in what we know.

And it is NOT as if information about cessation is obscure or difficult to find. Yes, four years ago there was insufficient publicizing of the 2012 change in law which meant that obtaining a home country passport or traveling to the home country was a ground for determining a Permanent Resident who came to Canada as a protected person or refugee had reavailed himself or herself of home country protection, and therefore AUTOMATICALLY lost PR status when the RPD made such a determination. But this issue has had a lot of attention over the last four years, and again there is a topic here with several HUNDRED posts about it, with many links to authoritative sources, official sources and IRCC sources. It is NOT about fraud. It can be complicated. It is NOT a subject suitable for making callous uninformed off-the-cuff posts about.

The only way she can save herself is by proving with substantial evidence that initially her life was indeed under danger , but subsequently things improved.

This too is WRONG. Not as blatantly so as some others here. This alludes to some of the more detailed elements in cessation cases, and reavailment cases more specifically, and recognizing that the specific grounds for a cessation of status determination can make a difference affecting the outcome. That said, the OP here clearly indicates this is related to the Refugee-PR's travel to the home country, which suggests it is a "reavailment" case based on Section 108(1)(a) IRPA . . . see https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-20.html#h-275708
for which improved conditions in the country are NOT relevant (subsection 108(1)(e) cases, in contrast, do not result in loss of PR status, and thus do not affect the person's qualification for citizenship). Also note that reavailment cases are about cases in which there was sufficient proof of initial danger, so that is NOT an issue to be addressed in contesting a cessation proceeding. There is a separate process, label is "vacation" of status, which is prescribed in Section 109 IRPA, which is about terminating refugee status based on fraud or misrepresentation in the initial application process.



ALL THAT SAID . . . FOR THE INDIVIDUAL AFFECTED HERE, THE STAGE THIS IS AT IS CRUCIAL. EVEN REFUGEE-PRs WHO TRAVELED TO THE HOME COUNTRY MULTIPLE TIMES CAN WIN IF THEY CAN PROVE THEY DID NOT HAVE AN INTENT TO REAVAIL THEMSELVES OF HOME COUNTRY PROTECTION. BUT TO DO THIS THEY NEED A LAWYER, A GOOD LAWYER.

For a more recent post about a couple recent cessation of status cases (again, follow link in quote for the full discussion):

Two fairly recent Federal Court decisions regarding cessation may be of interest to those affected by this issue.

Yuancai Jing http://canlii.ca/t/hx631
Obtained home country passport and then renewed it, and traveled to home country for two or more months at a time on three occasions, and traveled to other countries using the second home country passport. Cessation of refugee status upheld by Federal Court January 2019


Ezaz Ud Din http://canlii.ca/t/hzn0j
Refugee granted PR Feb 2007
Obtained home country passport and traveled to home country "on numerous occasions." Duration of stays ranged from one to four months. Renewed the home country passport and traveled to home country using it twice, each time for three weeks.
Cessation of refugee status set aside by Federal Court April 2019 . . .
. . . this is NO guarantee Din gets a favourable outcome overall, the case is returned for reconsideration by a different RPD member.

Difference between these two cases? Din apparently made a much stronger presentation of evidence as to efforts taken to avoid the dangers he faced in the home country, with no practical indication of obtaining home country protection, and explicitly did NOT intend to reavail himself of the home country's protection.

Illustrates that these cases can be won by the refugee-PR . . . and relative to that, the evidence of intention to NOT reavail oneself of home country protection is a key factor.

Ezaz Ud Din http://canlii.ca/t/hzn0j illustrates making the case that there was NOT reavailment despite multiple travels to the home country.

 

[CitizenSoon]

Lawyer-up . . . Lawyer-up . . . Lawyer-up . . . Lawyer-up . . . Lawyer-up . . .



For applicable PDIs about this, see --

-- https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/refugee-protection/resettlement/processing-vacation.html

-- https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/refugee-protection/vacation.html

There is a topic specifically about refugee (protected person) status cessation and PRs applying for citizenship. First post in that topic is quoted here . . . follow link in the quote for the full topic.



THIS is NOT about fraud or misrepresentation.

BUT more importantly the impact is far more serious than the denial of the citizenship application.

CESSATION OF REFUGEE STATUS RESULTS IN AUTOMATIC TERMINATION OF PR STATUS and THUS LEADS TO DEPORTATION FROM CANADA.

LAWYER-UP IMMEDIATELY . . .





Again, the cessation of status is NOT ABOUT FRAUD . . . NOT ABOUT MISREPRESENTATION . . .

All the following posts are simply OUTRIGHT WRONG. I really do not understand why there is so much blatantly uninformed posting of what is NOT true, what is NOT at all based on any real information. Especially in regards to a subject like this. Please do at least a little homework before spewing uninformed.



NO. WRONG. It is NOT fraud. Not misrepresentation. PR's intentions are key and presumptions of reavailment can be rebutted. So, the affected person can contest the cessation process before the RPD. A significant percentage of cessation cases are withdrawn or dismissed. See links to statistics in topic where this is discussed.




NO. WRONG.

Again, it is NOT fraud. Not misrepresentation. Presumptions of reavailment can be rebutted.



NO. WRONG. There is a lot of discussion here about the actual process (not just uninformed spewing of what someone thinks), regarding what we know about the process, and as is too often the case, recognizing some important gaps in what we know.

And it is NOT as if information about cessation is obscure or difficult to find. Yes, four years ago there was insufficient publicizing of the 2012 change in law which meant that obtaining a home country passport or traveling to the home country was a ground for determining a Permanent Resident who came to Canada as a protected person or refugee had reavailed himself or herself of home country protection, and therefore AUTOMATICALLY lost PR status when the RPD made such a determination. But this issue has had a lot of attention over the last four years, and again there is a topic here with several HUNDRED posts about it, with many links to authoritative sources, official sources and IRCC sources. It is NOT about fraud. It can be complicated. It is NOT a subject suitable for making callous uninformed off-the-cuff posts about.



This too is WRONG. Not as blatantly so as some others here. This alludes to some of the more detailed elements in cessation cases, and reavailment cases more specifically, and recognizing that the specific grounds for a cessation of status determination can make a difference affecting the outcome. That said, the OP here clearly indicates this is related to the Refugee-PR's travel to the home country, which suggests it is a "reavailment" case based on Section 108(1)(a) IRPA . . . see https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-20.html#h-275708
for which improved conditions in the country are NOT relevant (subsection 108(1)(e) cases, in contrast, do not result in loss of PR status, and thus do not affect the person's qualification for citizenship). Also note that reavailment cases are about cases in which there was sufficient proof of initial danger, so that is NOT an issue to be addressed in contesting a cessation proceeding. There is a separate process, label is "vacation" of status, which is prescribed in Section 109 IRPA, which is about terminating refugee status based on fraud or misrepresentation in the initial application process.



ALL THAT SAID . . . FOR THE INDIVIDUAL AFFECTED HERE, THE STAGE THIS IS AT IS CRUCIAL. EVEN REFUGEE-PRs WHO TRAVELED TO THE HOME COUNTRY MULTIPLE TIMES CAN WIN IF THEY CAN PROVE THEY DID NOT HAVE AN INTENT TO REAVAIL THEMSELVES OF HOME COUNTRY PROTECTION. BUT TO DO THIS THEY NEED A LAWYER, A GOOD LAWYER.

For a more recent post about a couple recent cessation of status cases (again, follow link in quote for the full discussion):



Ezaz Ud Din http://canlii.ca/t/hzn0j illustrates making the case that there was NOT reavailment despite multiple travels to the home country.

Thank you so much your advice is a real life saver. She would really appreciate your help and guidance.