I agree with many of your observations, in both posts, including in particular the quote above.The safe answers are obvious. If you don't do anything that might be grounds for a finding of cessation, you're safe. If you ever do one of those things, you're at risk. How much is really unknowable.
And very much, with much emphasis, this one as well:
Much of what you observe is consistent with my own posts here in this topic over the course of the last eight years. (And the observation about the most important decision is what triggers enforcement actions is one I repeatedly emphasize in many contexts; perhaps the most obvious example is the difference in impact for PRs in breach of the RO, many waived through a Port-of-Entry without any RO compliance questioning versus those who have inadmissibility proceedings initiated against them.). . . most of the time the most important decision is whether or not to bring proceedings in the first place.
However . . .
It is true that we see only a select slice of all POTENTIAL cessation cases:Of all the people who've done some act which might be grounds for cessation, we can put them into multiple levels:
1. Instances where the Canadian government never finds out (and never seeks to find out) — e.g., renewal of ID without travel to the country and without falling within the scope of the questions on a PR renewal or citizenship form
2. Instances where they find out, but the case is never referred for investigation
3. Instances that are investigated but in which the government believes it may not have a strong case
4. Instances that are investigated and which the government believes it could win, but which it decides not to pursue or to otherwise deprioritize
5. Instances in which proceedings are brought, but the board finds that the status was not ceased
6. Instances in which status is ceased but there is no judicial appeal
7. Instances in which there is a judicial appeal
Remember, if we're reading it, it's in category 7 (or in the very small number of example board decisions that get published). This is only the very tip of the iceberg and it's impossible to draw definite conclusions about the other levels of the process from this information.
-- anecdotal reports, ranging from those like yours to those from others like @Blind Dolphin, and the second-hand ones like that from @alexmathew244
-- the sample reflected in select RPD decisions that get published
-- cases resulting in judicial review and a published Federal Court decision
And it is true that it is very difficult to draw definite conclusions about what tips the scales. As I have said (often, in various ways): We just plain do not know who, when, or why CBSA/IRCC chooses to proceed with cessation against some and not others . . .
And I will concede that it is possible that the known cases of cessation are "only the very tip of the iceberg" of "instances" (cases) in which PR-refugees have engaged in actions which could constitute reavailment of home country protection potentially leading to cessation.We are almost clueless in regards to who, when, and why some who travel to the home country are spared cessation proceedings and others are not, other than the obvious, the obvious being that multiple trips to the home country, and/or lengthy stays in the home country, clearly increase the risk of cessation proceedings and loss of status.
That is not what is probable, however.
We do know, for example, that CBSA has prosecuted HUNDREDS of cessation cases (among the posts above, there is a link to the relevant government statistics), resulting in HUNDREDS of protected persons losing their status. Given that, and given the relatively few anecdotal reports like yours, while it is POSSIBLE the known cessation cases, in comparison with all the instances in which refugees have engaged in acts potentially constituting reavailment, is a percentage comparable to the "tip of the iceberg," that appears to understate the nature of the risk . . . so, despite not being able to definitively conclude even a vague range of percentages as to who-is-prosecuted versus who-could-be-prosecuted, as best I can evaluate the evidence, the evidence indicates those subject to cessation constitute a far larger share than what can fairly be described as merely the "tip of the iceberg."
And, while we cannot confidently identify the criteria that makes the difference, let alone state definite conclusions about what will trigger cessation proceedings, there is enough information from multiple sources to recognize some key factors, including . . .
. . . the more often the travel to the home country, and/or the longer the trip there, the greater the risk that a cessation action will be prosecuted.
Leading to some valid conclusions, and for those who would be devastated if they lost status in Canada, rather important conclusions:
[While . . . it ] appears that CBSA/IRCC does not pursue, or at least so far has not pursued cessation, of every PR-refugee who uses a home country passport to travel to their home country. . . . even if betting on that seems to have good odds, it is what is at stake, what could be lost, that still makes it a really risky, dangerous gamble.
So, as much as I agree with a lot of your observations, for purposes of this topic and for providing information that will help PR-refugees make decisions, it is important to not understate that PR-refugees should not engage in actions that could constitute reavailment . . . as I have often posted, in particular:
That is not just what is the "safest" approach. That is the reasonable, prudent approach. Hands down.PR-refugees should NOT obtain a home country passport, NOT use a home country passport if they have obtained one, NOT use it again if they already have, AND FOR SURE, do NOT travel to the home country, and if they already have, do NOT travel to home country again.
As for the justice, injustice, fairness, and so on, I have addressed that at length, and in-depth, several times in previous posts, despite my reluctance to get tangled in how-things-should-be, trying to stay focused on how-things-actually-work (as best we can figure that out). But yeah, there are many (me included) who support the efforts of MP Jenny Kwan in regards to this issue . . . though there was more hope six and seven years ago, when the Liberals were otherwise more actively implementing numerous reforms to address most (but as this issue reflects not all) of the more draconian provisions adopted by Harper-Conservative government.