Technically i broke the laws but . . .
Ignore troll bait. We live in an age of clever monkey mischief with a proclivity to throw feces for amusement. Ignorance tends to be as common a trait among them as malice. Ignore.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
REAVAILMENT of home country protection is NOT a crime. It does NOT constitute breaking any Canadian laws.
Conduct which might be construed or interpreted to constitute reavailment of home country protection is NOT a crime, NOT a breach of any Canadian laws, NOT a breach of any conditions. Moreover, if the PR-refugee engaged in the conduct NOT INTENDING to reavail himself or herself of home country protection, that is NOT REAVAILMENT, and is NOT grounds for cessation of protected person status.
To be clear, PRs returning to their home country is very common. It is NOT breaking the law, NOT any Canadian law anyway.
And, to be further clear, it is NOT against any Canadian law for a PR who has protected person status (a refugee) to visit the PR's home country. Or to obtain a home country passport.
And, for that matter, it is NOT against any Canadian law for a PR-refugee to actually reavail himself or herself of home country protection, even IF (a big IF) that is what the PR-refugee intended in obtaining a home country passport or traveling to the home country.
BUT the reality, in contrast, is that scores of PR-refugees have had little understanding of what the UNHCR guidelines (these come from the UN not Canadian law) prescribe about
PRESUMING intent to reavail oneself of home country protection . . . and even CIC/IRCC help line agents have erroneously advised PR-refugees it is OK to obtain or renew a home country passport (in the last few years it appears the agents have been better trained and instructed about this, and are better about informing PR-refugees about the availability of an alternative special Travel Document for Canadian refugees).
Dozens of cessation cases have been WITHDRAWN or DISMISSED notwithstanding the fact that the PR-refugee obtained or renewed a home country passport AND also traveled to the home country. This appears to usually be based on a finding the PR-refugee DID NOT INTEND TO REAVAIL himself or herself of home country protection notwithstanding obtaining the passport and traveling to the home country.
There are many reports from persons with protected person status, and from family or friends of persons with protected person status, who have NOT been referred for a cessation investigation, let alone actual cessation proceedings, NOTWITHSTANDING fully disclosing to CIC/IRCC they had a home country passport and traveled to the home country. Here too it appears to be readily discerned that the PR-refugee did NOT intend to reavail himself or herself of home country protection. Thus, NO grounds for cessation of protected person status.
THE PROBLEM FOR PR-refugees WHO TRAVEL HOME, with NO INTENT to REAVAIL themselves of home country protection, is the
RISK an IRCC or CBSA official will perceive otherwise, and trigger a cessation action. Best case scenario if this happens is LIFE on HOLD for a long time. And the RISK of the worst case scenario is substantial, the loss of any status to live in Canada looming ominously over the PR's head.
BECAUSE the potential consequences are so severe, and there is NO clear demarcation between who (among those who have, like most PRs, traveled to the home country, even briefly) is likely to be referred for cessation investigation or a cessation proceeding, and those who will not be, any PR-refugee who has obtained a home country passport, or traveled home, or especially who has done both (recognizing that the vast majority of those who traveled home did so using their home country passport), HAS THIS DARK AND UGLY CLOUD HANGING OVERHEAD UNTIL THEY TAKE THE OATH and actually BECOME A CITIZEN.
It is impossible to fully articulate how unjust and unfair this is.
For scores and scores of PR-refugees, just the fact that they have Canadian PR status can dramatically diminish the physical risks they face during temporary visits to the home country, even if they take no special precautions. Similarly, just the fact of NOT having to live in the home country, but being able to travel to another country and live and work elsewhere, often dramatically diminishes the risks they face during temporary stays in the home country. And for those who nonetheless still face elevated risks, for short visits they can often take special precautions, and it is worthwhile when there are compelling reasons for the visit, like visiting a severely ill family member.
For such PR-refugees, unlike any other Canadian PR, to go home to visit a dying parent RISKS losing all status to live in Canada. No matter how long and well-settled they are in Canada. No matter if they have family and children in Canada. And even if they are likely to NOT be subject to a final decision of cessation of status to live in Canada, they are at a dramatically elevated RISK of their life being put on hold, and on hold for long periods of time (years), pending the government's review of their case.
The current law is the malign policy of the Harper/Conservative government to discourage and decrease refugee settlement in Canada. Ostensibly it was adopted (in 2012) to address fraudulent refugee claims. But similar to other anti-immigrant laws and policies adopted while Harper was the PM for a Conservative majority government, ostensibly implemented to address fraud, like the conditional PR status implemented for spouse-sponsored PRs, the actual reach of these policies and laws far exceeds the scope of fraud and has a draconian impact on scores and scores of innocent immigrants.
UNLIKE many of those laws and policies adopted by the Harper government, such as the conditional PR status implemented for spouse-sponsored PRs, the application of cessation with automatic termination of PR status to PR-refugees has NOT been repealed by the current Liberal government (which in contrast has repealed numerous Harper-era over-reaching and draconian laws such as the spouse-sponsored conditional PR, grounds for revoking Canadian citizenship based on the commission of certain crimes (even for citizens born in Canada), imposing a required intent to continue residing in Canada upon becoming a citizen, elimination of sponsored PR for parents or grand-parents, no credit toward citizenship requirements for time living and working in Canada before formally becoming a PR, among many others).
Leading back to this: "
Technically i broke the laws but . . ."
BUT YOU DIDN'T.
IN ANY EVENT YOU DID NOTHING "WRONG" GOING HOME. And, you did nothing which should cause you to lose your status in Canada if you did NOT intend to reavail yourself of home country protection. Unfortunately the current law puts you at RISK for losing status, and even if that does not happen, at an even bigger risk for having your life hanging in limbo for a long while. On behalf of my country (I am all-in on being a Canadian now), I apologize.
Moreover, the current law has such potentially catastrophic consequences it inflicts a massively unfair amount of anxiety on scores and scores of PR-refugees even though their risk is fairly low.
on promise to be deducted from any legal costs you incur later if they take up your case. I dont know if its worth consulting at this stage or I should wait to see if I'm up for cessation. What would CBSA or IRCC be looking for in my case.? Like what information would give them a solid ground for cessation that they do not already know?
