Hi all, figured I'd change up the flavor of questions being asked here. Noticing a lot of people here are knowledgeable so I'm curious to see if folks can help me out with the following.
. . . . before becoming a PR, I was a Protected Person due to my PRRA application . . .
I agree with the observations posted by
spyfy above, but will offer more background and analysis as to why.
The vast, vast majority of discussion about the citizenship application process, in this forum, does not involve a refugee-PR applicant. The body of experience here (personal and derivative), and concurrent research, tends to not involve what can be different for the refugee-PR applicant. There are some important differences. You have well-handled one, regarding not having a valid passport, which is the right way to go about this for a refugee-PR (whereas, in contrast, other applicants, those who are not refugee-PRs, will often encounter some problematic, elevated probing, if there is a long gap during which they do not have a passport -- thus, there has been a tendency to encourage prospective citizenship applicants to keep their passports current, good suggestion for most, but a very bad idea for refugee-PRs).
Thus, as
canehh suggests, opinions here are not a reliable source of advice for your more specialized circumstances.
That said, parts of what you ask about are fairly well within the range of more or less known information, and some of your questions may be sufficiently answered by recognizing some general principles in navigating the citizenship application process. (And again, I think
spyfy adequately covered your queries above. In particular, I emphatically agree with the statements ". . . write what you think is the most reasonable" and "Any form will never capture the multitude of very different lives we have all been living. Be flexible, be honest, be to the point." Caveat: that is not necessarily easy.)
For example, your approach to the Travel Document item, item 14, makes total sense. The only thing you might want to add in Table B is a statement to the effect "and I have had no other travel documents in the last five years." This is not necessary, since listing your current Refugee-Travel Document and referring to the one you surrendered and referencing no others, is a representation there are no others, but you might want to explicitly say so.
There is no reason to include statements suggesting they refer to their own records and, in particular, you can drop statements like "which is in your possession" and "Feel free to check your records for both my previous travel document and for my previous foreign passport, thanks." IRCC is aware of what they have. And listing your Refugee Travel Document, including a copy, together with referencing the prior one which was surrendered, is a sufficient response for item 14.
REMINDER: since you are not submitting a passport, the instructions state to include TWO pieces of government issued photo-identification. Your travel document,
assuming it includes a photograph, should suffice as one. There is serious doubt that the PR card will work as another. Thus, best to submit a drivers' license, provincial health care card (with a photo), or a provincial identification card. (There has been one anecdotal report where a PR card was, apparently, accepted as one of the forms of identification; there are other reports to the contrary; none of the lists of forms of identification at all related to citizenship application processing refers to the PR card as an accepted form of identification. Better to not rely on it as one of the required forms of identification.)
Work/activity history:
For items like the work history and address history, your particular situation has no direct bearing, so general observations about how to answer these items should equally apply to you. If you are incorporated and your income is reported in T4s and the usual formalities in an employer-employee relationship are followed, you can list the company name as the employer. Whether you add "sole proprietor" or some such clarification, somewhere where appropriate and it will fit, is up to you, according to your best judgment as to whether that information should be given in order to give an accurate accounting of your employment. If, for example, you have a business with multiple full time employees (other than family) and a fixed location where the business is done, probably no need to elaborate. If you are the only one actually doing the work, and particularly if your business is essentially one individual, you, employed by others (such as per piece contract), you may consider adding some information so as to be clear that you are essentially a self-employed individual who is incorporated. But that is a judgment call. It has nothing to do with you being a refugee-PR. The technical content of the response is less important than it being an honest accounting of your work history. (This is true for many items, recognizing, however, there are also many items for which the precise content of the response is critical . . . it is usually fairly easy to distinguish which is which.)
Item 16 / Prohibitions / a Removal Order:
To be clear, here too I agree with what
spyfy offered.
But it warrants observing that the form and instructions for item 16 are vague and in some respects misleading, one more aspect of the new form which falls well short of clear.
But, obviously, you have been issued a Removal Order, however that order might be characterized. So you need to acknowledge this and check item 16. b rather than 16. a . . . and hope that IRCC is getting this right despite the way it is worded in the form and instructions. (IRCC is probably getting it right.)
What you state in the explanation box does not need to be at all comprehensive. Reference that you are responding to sub-item 16. 4 because you were issued a Removal Order, and just describe the basic facts, dates, that it was attendant the process for becoming a refugee, whatever the basic facts are, and that it was withdrawn or set aside. IRCC has the respective information in your records and will verify what it was and that should be the end of it. That should readily suffice. You might add "This is not a prohibition, and none of the other situations apply to me."
A big problem with the form and instructions is that they suggest if one of the situations applies, that means the applicant is prohibited even though it is not true for all the sub-items.
Previous forms had individual check boxes for each of the sub-items. So for a sub-item like 16. 4, it was easy to make it clear on the face of the form that was the applicable item and explain that even though there was a Removal Order issued in the past, that was resolved, status since is lawful, and it does not constitute a prohibition. No problem.
Or, at least, should be no problem. I have to acknowledge the way IRCC has phrased this item and the instruction is troublesome. The guide instruction in particular seems to affirmatively state that the listed items are prohibitions rather than MAY be prohibitions. Thing is, nearly all of them are prohibitions. Which is why the old form was so much better, rather than a generic yes-something-applies response, referring to a long list consisting of situations which really are prohibitions, the applicant specifically identified which one applied, so it was easy to recognize and distinguish sub-items like 16. 3, 16. 4, or 16. 8, which are the items that could apply to an individual but NOT necessarily constitute a prohibition (depending on the particular facts).
In the past, in this forum, some have proposed an alternative theory about the prohibitions, that the applicant only needs to acknowledge a situation if it actually constitutes a prohibition. The consensus, however, is to directly respond to the item based more or less on what it literally states, and trust that the explanation will direct IRCC in the right direction, to recognize that it does not constitute a prohibition, which it most likely do.
Edit to add: I recognize there are significant differences between certain refugees, as such, and other types of protected persons. But for purposes of the above observations, those differences are not relevant. Note, for example, that protected persons with PR status are as subject to cessation as refugees under the UNHCR programs, which is why it is so important for such PRs to NOT obtain or renew the home country passport (since doing so would create a presumption of reavailment, which is a ground for cessation of protected person status, which if successfully pursued by CBSA would automatically terminate PR status and terminate eligibility for citizenship, and in effect result in loss of any status to live in Canada -- this being one the huge differences for these PRs versus the vast majority here).