Refugee status cessation and PRs applying for citizenship

[SheikhAhmed]

In my opinion, you and your daughters shouldn't fear cessation since you are NOT a convention Refugee as defined in section 95(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the CBSA hearing officer won't be able to file for cessation.

Here is the federal court view on this :

“ In my view, [the argument that can accompanying family member is a Convention refugee who is subject to cessation] does not outweigh the following important points:

• It makes no sense for the respondent to face negative consequences for visiting Iran, where she never claimed to be at risk;
• The applicable statutory and regulatory provisions (read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the IRPA, the object of the IRPA, and the intention of Parliament) do not support the applicant’s position; and
• The applicant’s position would work against the clearly stated policy of family unity. “

It is all up to the specifics of your refugee claim, so you should seek legal advice once the time comes to do so. Meantime, apply for a Refugee Travel Document and never use your passports.

It could take up to 20 years without hearing a word from CBSA. So my advice for you is to forget about all this and live your life.

Do you think it will be a good idea to apply for citizenship by the end of this year for all of us?

 

[rousseau]

Do you think it will be a good idea to apply for citizenship by the end of this year for all of us?

I'm NOT a lawyer and I never study law, so whatever I'm saying is just a personal opinion. I think you should apply for citizenship because if you don't, you will need to renew your PR card. In both cases, cessation proceedings will be triggered. So, you're not losing anything by applying for citizenship.

 

[rousseau]

Do you think it will be a good idea to apply for citizenship by the end of this year for all of us?

@dpenabill
I want to share my story about citizenship application delays, to get advice and to help another applicant. I applied in June 2019 from Montreal and I've not been invited for a citizenship test as of August 12, 2021. I contacted IRCC several times through the web form, and order numerous GCMS notes.

I obtained my PR status through the Protected Person Program.
I never travelled outside Canada. I never renew my expired passport. I never did anything that could have been perceived as REVAILMENT.
The last time I visited my home country was 3 years before I came to Canada. I've been in Canada since 2014. I'm married to a Canadian citizen and have 2 kids who are Canadian citizens.

Ultimately I contacted my MP and here is the response she got from IRCC :

• The application (XXXX) was received at the Case Processing Centre in Sydney (CPC-S), Nova Scotia, on July X, 2019.
• The application was considered complete and an acknowledgement letter was sent to the applicant on September 6, 2019.
  • If he has not received this letter and is between the ages of 18 to 54, he can find the guide here.
• The application is considered non-routine due to the following reason:
  • The file is under review because it requires further verifications; rest assured that the responsible office will inform the applicant if he has to provide further details.
• We recommend that the applicant verifies the e-Client Application Status (e-CAS) online tool regularly to check the status of his application.
• The criminality verifications are currently valid.
• The security verifications are currently valid.
• The immigration verifications have not been initiated.
• Due to COVID-19, IRCC is experiencing processing delays and we can’t provide you with accurate processing times for this application. Rest assured that we understand how important this process is for the applicant and are making all the necessary efforts to finalize the application as soon as possible.
  • Should the applicant need to travel using a commercial carrier during this time, he should ensure he holds a valid permanent resident card

I was fed up due to the exaggerated processing time so I decided to bring it to court. I applied for leave.

The lawyer from Justice Canada has decided not to submit any arguments in response to mine at this point in time. Can I hope to win the leave application?

 

[salem10]

Hi guys! I have been lurking around here for a while now and finally decided to post my case up here. I became a convention refugee of Canada in 2014 through a private sponsorship (CRS - Convention refugee abroad, sponsored by a SAH) along with my wife and 3 daughters. The primary applicant was my wife. Now we had no idea what this whole cessation thing even was, really just assumed that those who are PR enjoy the same benefits as citizens and also because people who came to Canada under the same program as us had made trips back home literally 15 days after landing and today they are citizens. We had to delay our citizenship applications at first due to language reasons and then financial. Coming back to the point, unknown to this whole cessation thing, we had to make 2 emergency trips back home. One in 2018 for about 28 days(bad news- we renewed our passports this year too! again we were never made aware of anything against this, neither by any Canadian authority neither the SAH that sponsored us) and one this year, for which my wife and younger daughter came back within 2 months (this was also delayed up to 2 months because of flight cancellations due to covid) while me and my other 2 daughters had to stay back waiting for our travel documents as our pr renewal applications were returned earlier this year and had to resend. When my wife and daughter came back they easily passed everything and since they were travelling on PR weren't referred to immigration. When we came back earlier this month and since we were travelling on our national passport, yes you guessed it right, we were sent to the immigration room where the officer after looking through our passport and expired pr cards began to question us. First question being that how did we come to Canada in the first place. I told her "through refugee immigration" but at that time didn't get to tell her about the kind of refugee application and that I wasn't the main applicant. After that, she asked us whether we still feared for our life and we said yes. Then she asked us the purpose of the trip and told us that how we shouldn’t be travelling back home and also not have the passport on us. Then she sent us to sit, our documents were still with her and I am not sure if she made copies of the passport or the PR but she called us back 5-8 minutes later and told us that she will be putting in a report and also asked for our boarding passes to copy. Once she came back I asked her what the next step should be, she said there may not be any next step and if there is we will be contacted. I asked what is the worst case scenario and she said worst case scenario you lose your status and that was it. Said thanks and she let us go. Now I have a few questions:

1. Since my wife was the primary applicant and not us we are not considered refugees in our own right? I want to refer back to the 2 cases ( Canada vs esfand -https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2015/2015fc1190/2015fc1190.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAGZXNmYW5kAAAAAAE&resultIndex=1 and Canada vs Heidari Gezik https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2015/2015fc1268/2015fc1268.html searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAGZXNmYW5kAAAAAAE&resultIndex=5) In these 2 cases since both were outland refugees and dependents on the primary applicant, they were considered as convention refugees and henceforth kept their status. Does the same apply to me and my daughters and considering that these were a little high profile cases, and if so shouldn't the cbsa officer be aware of this and our status through the info available to her and does cbsa hearing agent consider our status before filing a cessation application or will we have to prove this during the hearing?
2. Worst case scenario, my wife loses her status for going back, can I sponsor her back as a spouse or no?

Your answers will be greatly appreciated

@dpenabill

this person has excellent experience to analysis your case.

 

[Ahmed Deedat]

I want to share my story about citizenship application delays, to get advice and to help another applicant. I applied in June 2019 from Montreal and I've not been invited for a citizenship test as of August 12, 2021. I contacted IRCC several times through the web form, and order numerous GCMS notes.

I obtained my PR status through the Protected Person Program.
I never travelled outside Canada. I never renew my expired passport. I never did anything that could have been perceived as REVAILMENT.
The last time I visited my home country was 3 years before I came to Canada. I've been in Canada since 2014. I'm married to a Canadian citizen and have 2 kids who are Canadian citizens.

Ultimately I contacted my MP and here is the response she got from IRCC :

• The application (XXXX) was received at the Case Processing Centre in Sydney (CPC-S), Nova Scotia, on July X, 2019.
• The application was considered complete and an acknowledgement letter was sent to the applicant on September 6, 2019.
  • If he has not received this letter and is between the ages of 18 to 54, he can find the guide here.
• The application is considered non-routine due to the following reason:
  • The file is under review because it requires further verifications; rest assured that the responsible office will inform the applicant if he has to provide further details.
• We recommend that the applicant verifies the e-Client Application Status (e-CAS) online tool regularly to check the status of his application.
• The criminality verifications are currently valid.
• The security verifications are currently valid.
• The immigration verifications have not been initiated.
• Due to COVID-19, IRCC is experiencing processing delays and we can’t provide you with accurate processing times for this application. Rest assured that we understand how important this process is for the applicant and are making all the necessary efforts to finalize the application as soon as possible.
  • Should the applicant need to travel using a commercial carrier during this time, he should ensure he holds a valid permanent resident card

I was fed up due to the exaggerated processing time so I decided to bring it to court. I applied for leave.

The lawyer from Justice Canada has decided not to submit any arguments in response to mine at this point in time. Can I hope to win the leave application?

I think what you did is the right path, it’s clearly a common procedure that IRCC applies to all Refugee applying for citizenship, unfortunately these extended verification will lead to zero findings, and they don’t care and I would argue that they knew your case is crystal clear.

I think your lawyer senses that no need to waste time in writing an argument, because the case is clear and they will come back with written explanation to judge about their delays, I don’t see any reasons except “ Mr.COVID-19 “ or busy on Afghanistan refugee applications.
My personal feeling, they will resolve it before it gets to court

 

[dpenabill]

When we came back earlier this month and . . . the officer . . . told us that how we shouldn’t be travelling back home and also not have the passport on us. . . .
. . . Now I have a few questions:

1. Since my wife was . . . . the primary applicant and not us we are not considered refugees in our own right? . . .
2. Worst case scenario, my wife loses her status for going back, can I sponsor her back as a spouse or no?

Note regarding references to the Esfand case https://canlii.ca/t/glrm0 and the Heidari Gezik case https://canlii.ca/t/gm3b8 . . . these are merely Federal Court decisions, thus NOT binding precedent in other cases. The WHO is subject to cessation question appears to be complicated. For further consideration see the Federal Court of Appeals decision in Siddiqui v. Canada case, 2016 FCA 134, [2017] 1 FCR 56, https://canlii.ca/t/grsb2 and the Federal Court decision in Camayo v. Canada, 2020 FC 213, [2020] 2 FCR 575, https://canlii.ca/t/j54n9 . . . noting that the FCA decision in Siddiqui does establish binding precedent.

Do you think it will be a good idea to apply for citizenship by the end of this year for all of us?

If there is an easy or obvious answer, I have not seen it.

We know that the current government is still making and proceeding with Applications to Cease Refugee Protection (ACRP) against Permanent Residents in the "protected person class" (not necessarily limited to Convention Refugees) who have engaged in actions that evidence reavailment of home country protection. The latter is described and discussed at length in this topic. The short version is that obtaining a home country passport constitutes a PRESUMPTION of reavailment of home country protection (regardless where and how the passport was obtained . . . but variations in the circumstances can constitute part of the defense that includes rebutting that presumption), and using that passport, and especially using it to travel to the home country, are STRONG EVIDENCE of reavailment. All three combined: obtaining the passport; using the passport; and traveling to the home country, tend to make a very strong case of reavailment, one that can be difficult to rebut.

But there are many indications that CBSA does NOT pursue cessation against all protected persons, including those who have become PRs, who have done even all these. Why this person has the ACRP made against them, versus those persons who CBSA does not pursue cessation for, is largely a mystery, an unknown. We do not know what factors make the difference; although, as usual, it is fairly clear that the stronger the PR's ties with the home country are, and the more trips there, and the longer the trips there, increases the risk.

So, for example, PRs who have established or otherwise done business in the home country are almost certainly at high risk. At the other end, we've seen reports from some who only briefly visited the home country once or twice, and did so for something like an immediate family member's funeral or serious surgery, whose citizenship applications were not derailed because of this issue. We just have no idea where, in-between those extremes, the tipping point is.

Thus, as best we can discern, once a protected person (not necessarily individuals specifically determined to be Convention Refugees . . . again, see Siddiqui v. Canada case, 2016 FCA 134, [2017] 1 FCR 56, https://canlii.ca/t/grsb2) has engaged in these actions, they are at RISK.

It is a problem that unless and until the formal ACRP has been made, or a successful citizenship application results in taking the oath and being issued a citizenship certificate, the affected protected person is largely in the dark about whether not CBSA is or will be conducting a cessation related investigation, potentially leading to the ACRP.

So, it can be very difficult to know whether there is an actual problem lurking. For those at risk, they can be very much in limbo.

It is difficult to forecast if a citizenship application will, in effect, wake a sleeping tiger. Remember, however, that the citizenship applicant must disclose and present ALL passports that could have been used in the previous five years, AND disclose all countries visited during the previous five years, and if that information specifically shows the applicant to have obtained a home country passport and to have traveled to the home country, making the citizenship application can be a bit like a criminal mailing the prosecutor's office detailed evidence of the crimes he committed. (Should note, however, that reavailment is NO crime . . . it just means the individual has resumed a relationship with the home country and, so the argument goes, no longer needs status in Canada.)

I do not know if the anticipation, the suspense, is too hard to handle to wait long enough that any home country travel was more than five years in the past, and any home country passports expired at least five years past, but that might be about as safe an approach one can make . . . of course the safe approach was to never have obtained a home country passport, after obtaining status in Canada, let alone use such a passport, and to not travel to the home country after obtaining status in Canada.

Of course, if in the meantime the PR receives notice of the ACRP, that means the storm is arriving.

It is not clear whether obtaining a lawyer will help much before that happens, before an actual ACRP is initiated.

That said, a qualified, informed lawyer could help, in the meantime, explain things and maybe even offer some prediction.

Leading to . . . .

Alos- yes I did consult a lawyer, paid over a 100 dollars and the guy knew little to nothing about cessations. I am making another appointment with another lawyer this week, hopefully he will know better.

No Doubt: trying to find a lawyer who knows about this stuff is probably the best way to go. But that may not be easy.

It does not surprise me the first lawyer was not familiar with cessation. You may have to do some serious homework to find a lawyer who can help. While cessation itself is fairly straightforward, particularly cessation proceedings based on reavailment, there are complex tangents and, it seems (hard to know the score about this subject) some still unresolved issues, including in particular about WHO is subject to the cessation provisions.

But it is rather obvious there are not a lot of experts in this subject. I have seen quite a few reports about refugees returning to their home country, but my guess is that the vast majority of those who fled personal danger in their home country are not soon or regularly or even commonly going back to where their life would be in danger. So the field of affected persons is not likely to be a large number. Not likely a number large enough to attract many in the lawyer-class (even among the minority who are not money-grubbing, greed-driven, the rest are usually, nonetheless, constrained to pursuing causes for which there are paying clients).

For someone with the financial resources (if you are out there), perhaps a good lawyer not well acquainted with cessation could, nonetheless, be hired to do the research in order to become well acquainted.

I will offer references and links to two potential (but dated) resources:
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
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/


And I will note that overall there are multiple questions looming. In regards to many aspects of this there are no definite answers, so far as I know.

Who in particular falls within the scope of potential cessation is something I have meant to research further but it is a complicated subject given the myriad ways in which individuals can obtain status in Canada through not just the procedures for refugees/protected persons but related pathways to status in Canada. And I am NO expert. I am NOT a Canadian lawyer. So I have kind of been waiting to see more definite information about this issue.

But the other big factor has to do with the practical criteria CBSA employs in deciding who to subject to cessation proceedings. As already noted, it appears clear that not every refugee-PR who obtains a home country passport and travels to the home country will face cessation proceedings. But many do. Again, we just do not know what makes the difference.

But the RISK is there. The consequences are huge. So continuing the search for competent advice from a qualified, experienced lawyer is probably the best thing to do for now. That and make sure your contact information with CBSA/IRCC is accurate and current, and be watching for notices or such.

 

[dpenabill]

In my opinion, you and your daughters shouldn't fear cessation since you are NOT a convention Refugee as defined in section 95(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the CBSA hearing officer won't be able to file for cessation.

Here is the federal court view on this :

“ In my view, [the argument that can accompanying family member is a Convention refugee who is subject to cessation] does not outweigh the following important points:

• It makes no sense for the respondent to face negative consequences for visiting Iran, where she never claimed to be at risk;
• The applicable statutory and regulatory provisions (read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the IRPA, the object of the IRPA, and the intention of Parliament) do not support the applicant’s position; and
• The applicant’s position would work against the clearly stated policy of family unity. “

It is all up to the specifics of your refugee claim, so you should seek legal advice once the time comes to do so. Meantime, apply for a Refugee Travel Document and never use your passports.

It could take up to 20 years without hearing a word from CBSA. So my advice for you is to forget about all this and live your life.

You appear to be quoting Justice Locke in the Esfand case https://canlii.ca/t/glrm0

Unfortunately that decision is NOT binding precedent in other cases, and even more unfortunately there is binding precedent in the Federal Court of Appeals decision in Siddiqui v. Canada case, 2016 FCA 134, [2017] 1 FCR 56, https://canlii.ca/t/grsb2 . . . the latter does not address those accompanying a refugee or protected person, so it does not definitively answer this question. But it does rule "that section 108, the cessation provision, applies to protected persons, regardless of the route or mechanism by which they obtain status as a protected person."

Which brings this to the somewhat recent decision in the Camayo v. Canada case, 2020 FC 213, [2020] 2 FCR 575, https://canlii.ca/t/j54n9 . . . (which is also just a Federal Court decision, and thus not necessarily precedent, and in any event NOT binding precedent . . . but of course still illuminates much about the respective issues) although once again it is not directly on point about those whose status was obtained as an accompanying family member (it is an inland case). It applies the above mentioned Siddiqui case. While it set aside the RPD's decision, that was based on findings that the RPD's decision was unreasonable for various reasons . . . BUT nonetheless found that a minor child of the primary applicant for protected person status is a person who "falls within the ambit of IRPA's 95(1)(b), and consequently that the RPD has jurisdiction to cease her protected person status pursuant to IRPA s 108(3)."

Leading back to the queries posed by @SheikhAhmed

1. Since my wife was the primary applicant and not us we are not considered refugees in our own right?
2. Worst case scenario, my wife loses her status for going back, can I sponsor her back as a spouse or no?

Regarding Q1: it appears, even though NOT for sure, that you are likely within the class of protected persons for whom the RPD has jurisdiction to cease status pursuant to IRPA section 108. So NO, the worst case scenario is not just that the primary applicant loses PR status.

Again, this is NOT for sure. But the probabilities of things heading in that direction loom large enough to proceed VERY CAREFULLY, and preferably with the assistance of a qualified lawyer.

 

[rousseau]

I think what you did is the right path, it’s clearly a common procedure that IRCC applies to all Refugee applying for citizenship, unfortunately these extended verification will lead to zero findings, and they don’t care and I would argue that they knew your case is crystal clear.

I think your lawyer senses that no need to waste time in writing an argument, because the case is clear and they will come back with written explanation to judge about their delays, I don’t see any reasons except “ Mr.COVID-19 “ or busy on Afghanistan refugee applications.
My personal feeling, they will resolve it before it gets to court

@dpenabill
I just want to clarify that it is the IRCC lawyer that did not provide an argument to defend themself at the court! So what does this really means? Will I get my application for leave granted since the IRCC lawyer did not defend IRCC?

 

[dpenabill]

I just want to clarify that it is the IRCC lawyer that did not provide an argument to defend themself at the court! So what does this really means? Will I get my application for leave granted since the IRCC lawyer did not defend IRCC?

I understood this. And I intended to respond more extensively.

But you may have noticed that my participation here is not twitter/facebook style posting, but generally more lengthy, in-depth observations which require some time and effort, and doing some homework. As I often repeat, I am NO expert, I am NOT a Canadian lawyer, so even as to the issues I follow and comment about, it takes time to sort things out as best I can and map that into what I know, and for many of these subjects, more importantly taking into account what we in this forum do not know. Not sure who said it, or the precise words they used, but someone wise once said that it is more important to know what we do not know, to recognize the limits of what we know (wish I could recall the exact words, as they said it so much better than I can) . . . and this looms large in this forum, as the pitfalls, the risks, the problems are all too often lurking in what we do not know.

So it can take me a fair while to compose a response unless the response is within the range of what I have recently addressed, and even those often require more time and effort than some might appreciate (the above responses to the situation presented by @SheikhAhmed, for example, are well within a range of discussions I have contributed to recently, but still demanded significant time and effort).

So, I will offer some comments about the situation you report . . .

HOWEVER . . . if you have a lawyer representing you, your lawyer is a far, far better source of information than I am.

By the way, if your application to obtain leave for judicial review is NOT being handled by a lawyer, or at least was not prepared with a lawyer's advice, that makes answering your question ("Can I hope to win the leave application?") fairly easy, at least in terms of statistical probabilities: probably not.

But of course what will happen does not depend on statistical probabilities. It is no game of chance, not a lottery, not a roll of dice. What will happen will primarily depend on two things:

(1) the merits, that is the factual and legal merits of your case, and​

(2) your application meeting the procedural requirements and properly presenting the substantive case, including presentation of the factual and legal merits​

That is, if there is a strong case on the merits, AND the applicant properly makes the case, the odds of a successful application to the Federal Court are good, very good, no matter how few such applications succeed. But, if the application is not handled by a lawyer, no matter how strong the case is on its merits, the odds are heavily against the application adequately meeting the procedural requirements let alone sufficiently presenting the substantive case. There is no prohibition, in the law or the rules, against pro se applications; but the procedural hurdles are generally prohibitive in a practical sense. Proceeding pro se is not as difficult as, say, performing brain surgery on oneself, but the statistical odds of succeeding pro se are probably comparable.

In other words, if you do not have a lawyer representing you in the FC application, you almost certainly need one. If you do have a lawyer, your lawyer is your best source for information about the status of your case and its prognosis.

BEYOND that, it warrants noting and emphasizing your situation is essentially outside the scope of discussion in this topic. In particular, your case does NOT appear to be at all related to or about cessation of status.

I will offer some additional comments but since this is off-topic, and since the impact of cessation issues can be so devastating I hope to keep this thread on-topic, so despite your situation being a related tangent (it appears to be about issues specific to citizenship applications by PRs who became a PR as a member of the refugee or protected persons class), rather than address it further here instead I am going to start a new, separate topic, as a place to discuss the questions, concerns, issues, problems, and related matters, which are particular to citizenship applicants in this class of PRs. Beginning with the situation you present.

But be patient. I will make the effort to address this further. In a new topic. But it may be awhile.

In the meantime, however, it demands repeating and emphasizing: if you have a lawyer, rely on your lawyer and NOT me.

 

[canuck78]

In my opinion, you and your daughters shouldn't fear cessation since you are NOT a convention Refugee as defined in section 95(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the CBSA hearing officer won't be able to file for cessation.

Here is the federal court view on this :

“ In my view, [the argument that can accompanying family member is a Convention refugee who is subject to cessation] does not outweigh the following important points:

• It makes no sense for the respondent to face negative consequences for visiting Iran, where she never claimed to be at risk;
• The applicable statutory and regulatory provisions (read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the IRPA, the object of the IRPA, and the intention of Parliament) do not support the applicant’s position; and
• The applicant’s position would work against the clearly stated policy of family unity. “

It is all up to the specifics of your refugee claim, so you should seek legal advice once the time comes to do so. Meantime, apply for a Refugee Travel Document and never use your passports.

It could take up to 20 years without hearing a word from CBSA. So my advice for you is to forget about all this and live your life.

@SheikhAhmed Disagree that man and his daughters are safe since they were all sponsored asunder the private sponsorship for refugees. They are all considered protected people even though the wife was the primary applicant.

 

[Fallen_Warrior]

Feb 2018 applicant. Citizenship granted recently. Finally, the process is over for me.

Timeline:

Local Office: Kitchener, ON
Application Type: Protected Person based PR, leading to Citizenship. No refugee cessation issues.

Feb 2018 - Application sent
September 2019 - Background check completed
January 2020 - Federal Court Application filed
April 2020 - Approval Received from Case Management Branch (CMB)
June 2020 - Affidavit received from the case officer that file will be processed on priority basis
May 2021 - Test Scheduled
September 2021- Interview Required
Oath - October 2021

Guys, hang on tight. You will all be successful one day. Good luck!

 

[Fallen_Warrior]

@dpenabill My friend, I have a question for you.

If a refugee travels back home with a Canadian passport, can't IRCC and CBSA still be able to file a misrepresentation allegation and revoke your status?

If they say that your return meant that your RPD claim was fraudulent, then this could possibly be used against the refugees. For many, the passage of time is important - I.e., genuine refugee claim, but risk has been reduced or changed over time.

Some times I think even citizenship status is not safe for refugees, let alone PR and other statuses. If they can't get you on cessation clause for citizenship, they can throw a misrepresentation allegation and can still revoke your status.

Do you think there is some sort of protection in Citizenship Act against this kind of situation?

 

[Fallen_Warrior]

@dpenabill
I want to share my story about citizenship application delays, to get advice and to help another applicant. I applied in June 2019 from Montreal and I've not been invited for a citizenship test as of August 12, 2021. I contacted IRCC several times through the web form, and order numerous GCMS notes.

I obtained my PR status through the Protected Person Program.

I never travelled outside Canada. I never renew my expired passport. I never did anything that could have been perceived as REVAILMENT.
The last time I visited my home country was 3 years before I came to Canada. I've been in Canada since 2014. I'm married to a Canadian citizen and have 2 kids who are Canadian citizens.

Ultimately I contacted my MP and here is the response she got from IRCC :

• The application (XXXX) was received at the Case Processing Centre in Sydney (CPC-S), Nova Scotia, on July X, 2019.
• The application was considered complete and an acknowledgement letter was sent to the applicant on September 6, 2019.
  • If he has not received this letter and is between the ages of 18 to 54, he can find the guide here.
• The application is considered non-routine due to the following reason:
  • The file is under review because it requires further verifications; rest assured that the responsible office will inform the applicant if he has to provide further details.
• We recommend that the applicant verifies the e-Client Application Status (e-CAS) online tool regularly to check the status of his application.
• The criminality verifications are currently valid.
• The security verifications are currently valid.
• The immigration verifications have not been initiated.
• Due to COVID-19, IRCC is experiencing processing delays and we can’t provide you with accurate processing times for this application. Rest assured that we understand how important this process is for the applicant and are making all the necessary efforts to finalize the application as soon as possible.
  • Should the applicant need to travel using a commercial carrier during this time, he should ensure he holds a valid permanent resident card

I was fed up due to the exaggerated processing time so I decided to bring it to court. I applied for leave.

The lawyer from Justice Canada has decided not to submit any arguments in response to mine at this point in time. Can I hope to win the leave application?

Definitely. I was in the same situation as yours. Never traveled back home, and still had damn delays. When IRCC conducted my interview, CO asked for my home country passport as a first thing. She asked me three times if I have renewed or extended it, or traveled back home in any way (even she had my expired passport infront of her) and when I said no, she was not really interested in anything else. She told me right there that you are approved and they have no concerns. They will be scheduling me for the oath asap and that's what happened. Oath scheduled in less than a week after the interview.

My 2 cent advice. Immediately lawyer up and move the court for Mandamus. This will speed up things for you.

Just don't break your hopes and travel back home atm. Finish this process. You are almost at the finish line. Good luck!

 

[rajkamalmohanram]

@dpenabill My friend, I have a question for you.

If a refugee travels back home with a Canadian passport, can't IRCC and CBSA still be able to file a misrepresentation allegation and revoke your status?

If they say that your return meant that your RPD claim was fraudulent, then this could possibly be used against the refugees. For many, the passage of time is important - I.e., genuine refugee claim, but risk has been reduced or changed over time.

Some times I think even citizenship status is not safe for refugees, let alone PR and other statuses. If they can't get you on cessation clause for citizenship, they can throw a misrepresentation allegation and can still revoke your status.

Do you think there is some sort of protection in Citizenship Act against this kind of situation?

They can't arbitrarily revoke Canadian citizenship like that. Citizenship can be revoked for very limited number of reasons.

Here's an example :

If they found you misrepresented yourself in your citizenship or PR application, they can revoke the citizenship (former case) and revoke citizenship and PR (latter case).

I don't think refugees traveling to the country where they came from AFTER OBTAINING CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP is considered misrepresentation.

Refugees, once they are Canadian citizens, have no restrictions on where they can travel. AFAIK, refugees are free to travel to the country where they came from once they are Canadian citizens AFAIK. The regulations of reavailment end when the said refugee becomes a Canadian citizen.

 

[Fallen_Warrior]

They can't arbitrarily revoke Canadian citizenship like that. Citizenship can be revoked for very limited number of reasons.

Here's an example :

If they found you misrepresented yourself in your citizenship or PR application, they can revoke the citizenship (former case) and revoke citizenship and PR (latter case).

I don't think refugees traveling to the country where they came from AFTER OBTAINING CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP is considered misrepresentation.

Refugees, once they are Canadian citizens, have no restrictions on where they can travel. AFAIK, refugees are free to travel to the country where they came from once they are Canadian citizens AFAIK. The regulations of reavailment end when the said refugee becomes a Canadian citizen.

I think this is still a grey area.