Get Passport back
- Thread starter Akhenatonbta
- Start date
@dpenabill is very well versed on this topic and can hopefully offer more comprehensive answer
If you are considered to have reavailed yourself of your home country protection then you would not qualify for PR because you received PR based on your protected person status. You would not qualify for citizenship if you are considered to have reavailed yourself of the protection of your home country. Your application for citizenship may also be put on hold indefinitely if the government decides to do a secondary review into your travel history and your use of your home country passport while it considers whether to pursue the reavailment case. That alone is reason enough to get a RTD. Days abroad counted towards citizenship only apply to very rare cases mostly involving government positions where you have an established history of working in Canada and are temporarily transferred abroad.
SUMMARY of CAUTIONS:
Persons who are not yet a Canadian citizen who have obtained their status in Canada through the asylum process, that is anyone who is a refugee or protected person, SHOULD EXERCISE MUCH CAUTION BEFORE doing any of the following:
This includes Canadian Permanent Residents who obtained their status in Canada through the asylum process.
The risk is cessation of protected person status which not only terminates the individual's protected person status it also (with exceptions) AUTOMATICALLY terminates the individual's PR status.
Explanation and Longer Observations (the long read):
There are exceptions. There may be some open question about precisely which protected persons are at risk, about who might not be covered by the cessation provision. BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE, MOST "refugees" (I will be referring to "refugees" in a way that includes convention refugees, other refugees recognized by Canada, and protected persons, including Canadian PRs who obtained their status in Canada through the asylum process) . . . MOST refugees are subject to the cessation provisions, and the consequences of cessation are so severe (at least for anyone expecting to stay in Canada) no one potentially affected should proceed to do any of the three things I listed above UNLESS they have obtained competent, reliable advice from a trusted source that definitively states they are not subject to the cessation provisions.
This cannot be overstated. The consequences of cessation of protected person status are severe. It is readily apparent that the Canadian government fails to adequately inform refugees of what can trigger cessation proceedings; it appears the information is given to refugees (again, referring to the whole range of persons who may be covered by cessation as "refugees") but is more or less buried in the paperwork, all too easily overlooked.
And some of the posts in this topic illustrate a continuing failure to recognize how serious this issue is, how utterly devastating it can be for those affected. Posts by @Akhenatonbta and @Jedkhan are especially of concern and dangerously misleading to the extent they suggest refugee-PRs can use their home country passport to travel internationally, let alone to the home country itself, without risking loss of status in Canada. In contrast, @scylla, @canuck78, and @Kaisa_18 have posted here CORRECTLY CAUTIONING that using the home country passport risks cessation of status -- for example:
Distinguishing "Get Passport Back" Versus Obtaining Replacement or Renewed Passport:
Merely getting the passport back is NOT the same as obtaining a replacement or renewed passport. The latter is an affirmative act which invokes a presumption of reavailment. And reavailment constitutues grounds for cessation of status. For example . . .
Distinguishing "Get Passport Back" Versus Using the Passport for International Travel:
It is the WHY that looms large. For one's records? For a memento? Fine.
To use for travel? No, not for most refugees. Which brings up this:
For MOST refugees including PR-refugees, NO. Unless and until they become a Canadian citizen, using a home country passport RISKS being deemed to have reavailed oneself of home country protection, which is grounds for cessation of status.
"Most" refugees is not all refugees. "Who" in particular is more complicated. The prudent approach for any refugee (again, including those who became PRs), the safe approach, is to make sure, for certain, they are not covered by, not subject to the cessation provisions, BEFORE they use a home country passport.
It is quite possible that @Akhenatonbta's status is not covered by, not subject to the cessation provisions. And if that is the case, after obtaining the return of the passport, @Akhenatonbta could proceed to use it without risk of cessation. But that would NOT illuminate much for anyone else. Since most other PR-refugees are covered, are subject to the cessation provisions. (Note: who is covered appears to be broader than many anticipate; see Federal Court of Appeals decision in Siddiqui v. Canada case, 2016 FCA 134, [2017] 1 FCR 56, https://canlii.ca/t/grsb2 and Federal Court decision in Camayo v. Canada, 2020 FC 213, [2020] 2 FCR 575, https://canlii.ca/t/j54n9 )
Additionally, and perhaps what tends to obscure the risks more, is how unevenly the cessation provisions are applied and enforced. Indeed, the lack of enforcement is one of the circumstances which has lulled so many PR-refugees to apply for citizenship, not only showing IRCC they have a home country passport but also detailing their travel history using that passport, and typically showing travel to their home country. Consider, for example, a forum participant's report earlier this year:
Which means there are probably many, many PR-refugees who have used their home country passport and even traveled to their home country, who can report they have not been subject to cessation proceedings. To which the prudent observer should add: NOT YET.
Over the course of six plus years discussing this issue in the Citizenship forum, it is apparent that the Liberal government has not aggressively enforced cessation against all PR-refugees who have used their home country passport for travel, even travel to the home country, but that the government nonetheless continues to prosecute some of these cases. The sample size is way too small to draw conclusions about who is targeted for cessation proceedings and who is allowed to slide by, although the combination of obtaining the home country passport AND actual travel to the home country, especially for any extended period of time or multiple visits, appears to elevate the risks considerably.
Given that the risk remains substantial, and the consequences so severe (loss of all status to remain in Canada), again any refugee, including PR-refugees, should be VERY CAUTIOUS before --
To be continued . . .
Persons who are not yet a Canadian citizen who have obtained their status in Canada through the asylum process, that is anyone who is a refugee or protected person, SHOULD EXERCISE MUCH CAUTION BEFORE doing any of the following:
-- traveling to their home country
-- obtaining a replacement or new passport from ANY country other than Canada, especially the home country
-- using a passport from ANY country other than Canada to travel to any other country
This includes Canadian Permanent Residents who obtained their status in Canada through the asylum process.
The risk is cessation of protected person status which not only terminates the individual's protected person status it also (with exceptions) AUTOMATICALLY terminates the individual's PR status.
Explanation and Longer Observations (the long read):
There are exceptions. There may be some open question about precisely which protected persons are at risk, about who might not be covered by the cessation provision. BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE, MOST "refugees" (I will be referring to "refugees" in a way that includes convention refugees, other refugees recognized by Canada, and protected persons, including Canadian PRs who obtained their status in Canada through the asylum process) . . . MOST refugees are subject to the cessation provisions, and the consequences of cessation are so severe (at least for anyone expecting to stay in Canada) no one potentially affected should proceed to do any of the three things I listed above UNLESS they have obtained competent, reliable advice from a trusted source that definitively states they are not subject to the cessation provisions.
This cannot be overstated. The consequences of cessation of protected person status are severe. It is readily apparent that the Canadian government fails to adequately inform refugees of what can trigger cessation proceedings; it appears the information is given to refugees (again, referring to the whole range of persons who may be covered by cessation as "refugees") but is more or less buried in the paperwork, all too easily overlooked.
And some of the posts in this topic illustrate a continuing failure to recognize how serious this issue is, how utterly devastating it can be for those affected. Posts by @Akhenatonbta and @Jedkhan are especially of concern and dangerously misleading to the extent they suggest refugee-PRs can use their home country passport to travel internationally, let alone to the home country itself, without risking loss of status in Canada. In contrast, @scylla, @canuck78, and @Kaisa_18 have posted here CORRECTLY CAUTIONING that using the home country passport risks cessation of status -- for example:
Acknowledgement/disclaimer: I was not an asylum claimant and asylum cases are generally outside what I follow; so there are particular procedural details I am not familiar with, such as how and when a refugee's passport is taken by Canadian officials, or how and when refugees get a passport back. I have, however, been following the cessation of refugee status for reavailment of home country protection, and collateral matters, since the summer of 2015 when I started a topic in the Citizenship forum here to, in effect, sound the alarm about cessation; I did that due to noting the number of citizenship applicants for whom not only did their applications for citizenship fail but who lost PR status, losing status to remain in Canada altogether. See https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/refugee-status-cessation-and-prs-applying-for-citizenship.333455/
Distinguishing "Get Passport Back" Versus Obtaining Replacement or Renewed Passport:
Merely getting the passport back is NOT the same as obtaining a replacement or renewed passport. The latter is an affirmative act which invokes a presumption of reavailment. And reavailment constitutues grounds for cessation of status. For example . . .
No need to wander far into who, when, or how a refugee in Canada can get their passport back. That subject is discussed at length in pages of posts above. Getting a passport back does NOT invoke cessation of status issues. If that was, indeed, the full range of what @Akhenatonbta was posting about, here, no need to bring up potential cessation issues.
Distinguishing "Get Passport Back" Versus Using the Passport for International Travel:
It is the WHY that looms large. For one's records? For a memento? Fine.
To use for travel? No, not for most refugees. Which brings up this:
NOT so simple. Not close.
For MOST refugees including PR-refugees, NO. Unless and until they become a Canadian citizen, using a home country passport RISKS being deemed to have reavailed oneself of home country protection, which is grounds for cessation of status.
"Most" refugees is not all refugees. "Who" in particular is more complicated. The prudent approach for any refugee (again, including those who became PRs), the safe approach, is to make sure, for certain, they are not covered by, not subject to the cessation provisions, BEFORE they use a home country passport.
It is quite possible that @Akhenatonbta's status is not covered by, not subject to the cessation provisions. And if that is the case, after obtaining the return of the passport, @Akhenatonbta could proceed to use it without risk of cessation. But that would NOT illuminate much for anyone else. Since most other PR-refugees are covered, are subject to the cessation provisions. (Note: who is covered appears to be broader than many anticipate; see Federal Court of Appeals decision in Siddiqui v. Canada case, 2016 FCA 134, [2017] 1 FCR 56, https://canlii.ca/t/grsb2 and Federal Court decision in Camayo v. Canada, 2020 FC 213, [2020] 2 FCR 575, https://canlii.ca/t/j54n9 )
Additionally, and perhaps what tends to obscure the risks more, is how unevenly the cessation provisions are applied and enforced. Indeed, the lack of enforcement is one of the circumstances which has lulled so many PR-refugees to apply for citizenship, not only showing IRCC they have a home country passport but also detailing their travel history using that passport, and typically showing travel to their home country. Consider, for example, a forum participant's report earlier this year:
(Sidebar: this individual believed his situation was covered by Section 108(1)(e) IRPA, which would not be grounds for cessation resulting in loss of PR status; in contrast, CBSA is proceeding with cessation on the basis of Section 108(1)(a) IRPA. I will further address, below, how facts fitting the 108(1)(e) scenario do NOT preclude cessation on other grounds, including pursuant to 108(1)(a) reavailment.)
Which means there are probably many, many PR-refugees who have used their home country passport and even traveled to their home country, who can report they have not been subject to cessation proceedings. To which the prudent observer should add: NOT YET.
Over the course of six plus years discussing this issue in the Citizenship forum, it is apparent that the Liberal government has not aggressively enforced cessation against all PR-refugees who have used their home country passport for travel, even travel to the home country, but that the government nonetheless continues to prosecute some of these cases. The sample size is way too small to draw conclusions about who is targeted for cessation proceedings and who is allowed to slide by, although the combination of obtaining the home country passport AND actual travel to the home country, especially for any extended period of time or multiple visits, appears to elevate the risks considerably.
Given that the risk remains substantial, and the consequences so severe (loss of all status to remain in Canada), again any refugee, including PR-refugees, should be VERY CAUTIOUS before --
-- traveling to the home country
-- obtaining a replacement or new passport from their home country
-- using a passport from the home country to travel to any other country
To be continued . . .
. . . continuing . . .
Far more pertinent is the information published by the Canadian Council for Refugees here: https://ccrweb.ca/en/psr-toolkit/other-useful-info-travel-outside-canada and here: https://ccrweb.ca/en/cessation-basic-information
Also see a law group's information about cessation here: https://www.bellissimolawgroup.com/cessation-and-reavailment-could-i-lose-my-refugee-protection-and-my-permanent-residence-too/
While that information is somewhat dated, it is mostly still valid and applicable.
Both sources have been cited before in this topic. Both sources reiterate the cautions I cited in my previous post. The Bellissimo Law Group describing them as "behaviours" from which reavailment may be presumed; the Canadian Council for Refugees describing them as reasons why CBSA may argue the refugee (again, including PR-refugees) has accepted the protection of the home country. While worded slightly differently both reference the same three things, which are worth repeating for emphasis:
So, for example, NO, for any protected person subject to the cessation provisions, it is NOT true that the PR-refugee "can travel by your PP to any country except your own," at least not without RISKING the loss of both protected person status and PR status.
As the Bellissimo Law Group aptly puts it: "requesting or using a passport from a country can be seen as a declaration you trust that country to protect you as you travel, and to help you if something goes wrong abroad." That is, as reavailing oneself of the home country's protection. Grounds for cessation of protected person status.
If this was suggesting that days outside Canada while working for a Canadian organization will count toward citizenship, that is mostly wrong. Discussed at length in multiple topics in the citizenship forum . . . with many citations to official sources.
In regards to Canada being a case law system, but then citing statutory provisions as authority rather than case law, that's a sorry mess not worth cleaning up. Suffice to acknowledge, first, that Canadian law is comprised of both statutory provisions and rulings by the Federal Courts (case law), and secondly, to say there are indeed numerous Federal Court rulings describing situations in which the court has upheld decisions by the Refugee Protection Division to cease refugee protection based on reavailment of home country protection; the judicial decisions correspond to and apply the statutory provisions, ranging from distinguishing the application of Section 109 IRPA (basically providing the basis for vacating refugee protection status for fraud) from the application of Section 108(1)(a) through 108(1)(d), and further distinguishing the application of Section 108(1)(e). Statutory provisions all found here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-20.html#h-275723
Which leads to the flawed observation that "There is no loss of permanent residence status if refugee protection is removed because of a change in country conditions [A108(1)(e)]."
The latter is true but very misleading. In several actual cases, officially reported, the fact that circumstances have changed so that refugee protection is no longer needed has failed to be a sufficient defense to a cessation action based on reavailment under Section 108(1)(a) . . . and in at least one case, EVEN when the Minister's Counsel agreed before the RPD that the refugee's status should be assessed pursuant to only 108(1)(e), the RPD nonetheless concluded the individual reavailed herself of home country protection under 108(1)(a), and FC Justice McDonald upheld the RPD's decision. See the Tung decision, 2018 FC 1224 https://canlii.ca/t/hwgr8
That is, if the facts in the submission to the RPD support a finding of reavailment under 108(1)(a), the RPD can proceed to cease that person's status on that ground EVEN IF it could otherwise decide the case on the basis of 108(1)(e). Multiple FC decisions state this. There is one FC decision that qualifies this some, stating that the RPD should articulate reasons for not applying the provision which would have less severe consequences (finding of ceased refugee status under 108(1)(e) does not result in the automatic termination of PR status). See the Ravandi decision by Justice Norris, 2020 FC 761 https://canlii.ca/t/j8nqp
It warrants noting that the Federal Court rulings affirming the RPD can, in effect, apply whichever provision it chooses (so long as the facts support applying that provision), can go both ways. So, it can be POSSIBLE for the PR-refugee to persuade the RPD that it should apply 108(1)(e) (again, if the facts submitted support it) and not 108(1)(a). For an example, see the Al-Obeidi decision, 2015 FC 1041 https://canlii.ca/t/gl1cf (Minister's appeal dismissed)
The latter offers rather little refuge when considered against numerous more recent cases. Each case presents its own particular wrinkles and nuances, so it can be difficult to extrapolate general guidelines from such specific situations. That said, for anyone interested in looking under-the-hood further, the reasoning in the Lu decision, by Justice Walker, 2019 FC 1060 https://canlii.ca/t/j1w91 is worth a look. A couple highlights from that decision:
Justice Walker referred to the RPD's decision where it stated:
Which Justice Walker ultimately affirmed was the reasonable, appropriate approach, concluding:
The distinction between certificates of identity and refugee travel documents has nothing to do with the potential consequences if a refugee obtains or uses a home country passport (again, referring to "refugees" in a way that includes convention refugees, other refugees recognized by Canada, and protected persons, including Canadian PRs who obtained their status in Canada through the asylum process).
Far more pertinent is the information published by the Canadian Council for Refugees here: https://ccrweb.ca/en/psr-toolkit/other-useful-info-travel-outside-canada and here: https://ccrweb.ca/en/cessation-basic-information
Also see a law group's information about cessation here: https://www.bellissimolawgroup.com/cessation-and-reavailment-could-i-lose-my-refugee-protection-and-my-permanent-residence-too/
While that information is somewhat dated, it is mostly still valid and applicable.
Both sources have been cited before in this topic. Both sources reiterate the cautions I cited in my previous post. The Bellissimo Law Group describing them as "behaviours" from which reavailment may be presumed; the Canadian Council for Refugees describing them as reasons why CBSA may argue the refugee (again, including PR-refugees) has accepted the protection of the home country. While worded slightly differently both reference the same three things, which are worth repeating for emphasis:
-- traveling to the home country
-- obtaining a replacement or new passport from the home country
-- using a passport from the home country to travel to any other country
So, for example, NO, for any protected person subject to the cessation provisions, it is NOT true that the PR-refugee "can travel by your PP to any country except your own," at least not without RISKING the loss of both protected person status and PR status.
As the Bellissimo Law Group aptly puts it: "requesting or using a passport from a country can be seen as a declaration you trust that country to protect you as you travel, and to help you if something goes wrong abroad." That is, as reavailing oneself of the home country's protection. Grounds for cessation of protected person status.
In regards to "Number of Days to Citizenship is not affected if working for a Canadian organization abroad," if this is intended to mean that days abroad working for a Canadian organization DO NOT COUNT toward meeting the physical presence requirement for citizenship (as in do not affect meeting the qualifications for citizenship) that is correct. As with most things, however, there are exceptions (very narrow exceptions).
If this was suggesting that days outside Canada while working for a Canadian organization will count toward citizenship, that is mostly wrong. Discussed at length in multiple topics in the citizenship forum . . . with many citations to official sources.
In regards to Canada being a case law system, but then citing statutory provisions as authority rather than case law, that's a sorry mess not worth cleaning up. Suffice to acknowledge, first, that Canadian law is comprised of both statutory provisions and rulings by the Federal Courts (case law), and secondly, to say there are indeed numerous Federal Court rulings describing situations in which the court has upheld decisions by the Refugee Protection Division to cease refugee protection based on reavailment of home country protection; the judicial decisions correspond to and apply the statutory provisions, ranging from distinguishing the application of Section 109 IRPA (basically providing the basis for vacating refugee protection status for fraud) from the application of Section 108(1)(a) through 108(1)(d), and further distinguishing the application of Section 108(1)(e). Statutory provisions all found here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-20.html#h-275723
Which leads to the flawed observation that "There is no loss of permanent residence status if refugee protection is removed because of a change in country conditions [A108(1)(e)]."
The latter is true but very misleading. In several actual cases, officially reported, the fact that circumstances have changed so that refugee protection is no longer needed has failed to be a sufficient defense to a cessation action based on reavailment under Section 108(1)(a) . . . and in at least one case, EVEN when the Minister's Counsel agreed before the RPD that the refugee's status should be assessed pursuant to only 108(1)(e), the RPD nonetheless concluded the individual reavailed herself of home country protection under 108(1)(a), and FC Justice McDonald upheld the RPD's decision. See the Tung decision, 2018 FC 1224 https://canlii.ca/t/hwgr8
That is, if the facts in the submission to the RPD support a finding of reavailment under 108(1)(a), the RPD can proceed to cease that person's status on that ground EVEN IF it could otherwise decide the case on the basis of 108(1)(e). Multiple FC decisions state this. There is one FC decision that qualifies this some, stating that the RPD should articulate reasons for not applying the provision which would have less severe consequences (finding of ceased refugee status under 108(1)(e) does not result in the automatic termination of PR status). See the Ravandi decision by Justice Norris, 2020 FC 761 https://canlii.ca/t/j8nqp
It warrants noting that the Federal Court rulings affirming the RPD can, in effect, apply whichever provision it chooses (so long as the facts support applying that provision), can go both ways. So, it can be POSSIBLE for the PR-refugee to persuade the RPD that it should apply 108(1)(e) (again, if the facts submitted support it) and not 108(1)(a). For an example, see the Al-Obeidi decision, 2015 FC 1041 https://canlii.ca/t/gl1cf (Minister's appeal dismissed)
The latter offers rather little refuge when considered against numerous more recent cases. Each case presents its own particular wrinkles and nuances, so it can be difficult to extrapolate general guidelines from such specific situations. That said, for anyone interested in looking under-the-hood further, the reasoning in the Lu decision, by Justice Walker, 2019 FC 1060 https://canlii.ca/t/j1w91 is worth a look. A couple highlights from that decision:
Justice Walker referred to the RPD's decision where it stated:
. . . on a cessation application by the Minister the RPD can consider any ground set out in subsection 108(1). Given the presumption of re-availment that arises when a refugee applies for a passport from their country of nationality, and the strong presumption that arises when they do so in order to actually travel to their country of nationality, I find that the present matter is more appropriately decided under paragraph 108(1)(a) than 108(1)(e)
Which Justice Walker ultimately affirmed was the reasonable, appropriate approach, concluding:
The application will be dismissed. The RPD considered the evidence before it and reasonably concluded that it was more appropriate to determine the Minister’s cessation application on the basis of paragraph 108(1)(a), and not 108(1)(e), of the IRPA.
Thank you @dpenabill for your detailed clarification, I hope this will be used as reference for learning and making better informed and wise decisions to many, especially those who asked Canada to protect them because they were or are not safe in their home Countries/ or fear prosecution when returning to their home Countries. Be safe, be kind to one another, thank you
Hi there,
Does anyone received a seized passport from CBSA office located at 6900 Airport road in Toronto, I went there on 19 July 2021 and the staff asked to fill out the form and they will contact me, but still didn’t hear anything from them. Does anyone have a similar experience or know the next step. Thanks in advance.
Does anyone received a seized passport from CBSA office located at 6900 Airport road in Toronto, I went there on 19 July 2021 and the staff asked to fill out the form and they will contact me, but still didn’t hear anything from them. Does anyone have a similar experience or know the next step. Thanks in advance.
i have sent a request in August and no news till now, I really don't know why this is the case in Montreal whereas all the other provinces aren't experiencing such a delay
Hi everyone. I went to 6900 airport today. they told me i need to write a physical letter to 5343 dundas office and they will contact me about the date and place that i can take my passport back. does anyone has an example of that letter? do i need to fill the APPLICATION FOR THE RETURN OF SEIZED IDENTITY DOCUMENT(S form also? and do you have any guess on waiting time? thanks.
Last edited:
Hi, I just got my passport and other identity document seized from me by Canada Border Services Agency in 2018. So i wrote to IRCC using webform asking them for my country passport they seized, that i want all my documents back because i am now a Canada PR holder, after about a month i received a mail from IRCC telling me that my passport and other document seized from me are in IRCC Winnipeg office that i should write to them and ask for my passport and also tell them i am now a Permanent Resident of Canada. So I wrote to IRCC office in Winnipeg and after 2month they sent an email to me to give them my current residential and postal address which i sent to them and they mail my country passport and my other identity cards the CBSA seized from me in Montreal in 2018 to me to my address and I have received my passport and other document they took from me through Canada post, therefore i did not go to their office to collect my seized passport, they mailed it to me.
Hi there, Could tell me what you select on IRCC webform "Type of Application" section when you write them. or can you share the IRCC webform link please.
I got my eCOPR sometime last August and the PR card was mailed about 10 days later. As soon as I got the eCOPR, I went to CIC Etobicoke to find out about the return of my seized passport. I found they've posted a letter on the door indicating that you must write and request for the return of passports, as they're no longer doing uninvited walkins. I wrote and asked for the return of the passport and 6 weeks later I've had no invite to go pick the passport. I know several refugee claimants who got their passports back during the PR interview, but of course now the in-person interview has been eliminated.