I'm not sure if that is possible.
You want to try to avoid cessation at all costs. Don't travel to your home country while a PR.
Refugee status cessation and PRs applying for citizenship
- Thread starter dpenabill
- Start date
You want to try to avoid cessation at all costs. Don't travel to your home country while a PR.
Dear, if this interview is called by CBSA then for sure they will question you about your renewal of passport and travel but still if you give them good answers with solid reasons then it may be okay. Make sure that if they ask you about your knowledge about Refugee Travel Document, then you must tell them that you don't know about that document at all.
Secondly, if this interview is called by IRCC then I would say that its simply next step towards your citizenship coz that interview is just about general questions like what are doing now a days and some normal questions. Look like they are just testing your english a little bit and thats all.
best of luck
hi i applied for asylum 2 years ago now that i applied for pr i was asked for a valid identification. ive heard we should not renew our passports ,since my passport is expired so i applied for my countrys national id and it was mailed straight to my address i didnt have to show up at the embassy .
note that my id of my country if origin is also expired, they have me in their data with my fingerprints thats why it is easy to get it and convenient because it is recognized valid identification
i just wanted to make sure that renewing national id doesn’t fit the definition of re-availement
any leads, useful information is appreciated
thanks in advance
note that my id of my country if origin is also expired, they have me in their data with my fingerprints thats why it is easy to get it and convenient because it is recognized valid identification
i just wanted to make sure that renewing national id doesn’t fit the definition of re-availement
any leads, useful information is appreciated
thanks in advance
You can read this document as an intro; but you may wish to consider speaking to a lawyer - I'm going to say 'in due course' as opposed to right now.
https://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/legal-policy/legal-concepts/Pages/RefDef12.aspx#n125
My intuition is that this would likely not be seen as re-availment. As covered elsewhere in this thread, re-availment is mostly pursued by government here when the subject (you) travels to their country, and usually more than once.
The other technical part of the definition is that the person “has voluntarily reavailed themselves of the protection of their country of nationality.”
This 'availing themselves of protection' is often co-defined with applying for and receiving a passport of the country of origin, because (historically and by international law) the passport attests to you being a citizen of that country and entitled to have protection of that country under international law (what is called 'consular protection').
My intuition is that the national ID does not have that implication of protection (by the country of origin) vis-a-vis other countries. Or put differently, the national ID is basically a nullity under international law, serving no purpose other than whatever the receiving country (here, Canada) may choose to accord it; there is no meaning to it under international law.
As you'll see in that doc, they also emphasis that the voluntary ('intentionality') aspects are important and usually having more than one act to indicate availment.
Or most simply: if this is your only interaction and you haven't/don't travel to your country of origin, I wouldn't see much to worry about.
Whether it's important to look into this at this stage in your PR process and speak to a lawyer, I do not know. (I only kind-of follow the issue with relation to cessation, and am not well acquainted with the refugee to PR process).
The Refugee ID is valid for 5 years, that can be used as well as a Provincial ID or Driver’s License if you have one. Your provincial health card can also be used as an ID. You may want to speak with a lawyer but it may not be wise to submit your new national ID from your home country. Best of luck.
hi yes thank you i was told only passport renewal means reavailement . never heard that national id is considered reavailement too though
There is already a good response above posted by @armoured, which in particular includes the link to IRCC legal resources regarding applications to cease refugee protection.
The IRCC information is a good GENERAL resource, especially in terms of the main principles. However, to some extent it is dated, last modified nearly three years ago, and the most recent case law cited is from 2020. Even though not much if anything has changed in terms of the underlying substantive law, the interpretation and application of the law in cessation cases has been significantly updated pursuant to the Galindo Camayo decision by the Federal Court of Appeals in late March 2022, which is here https://canlii.ca/t/jndkg and which has been discussed in the pages above at length (given that most of the subsequent Federal Court cessation cases involve applying Camayo in one respect or another, if not in several respects).
As I noted, there is already the good response above to this query by @armoured, but some clarification in regards to some observations are warranted, particularly in regards to subsequent posts. These appear to be tangential to your query, bouazza1112, at least so long as your ONLY contact with your home country is the obtaining of a national ID. And, in particular, as long as you do not obtain a home country passport, and especially so long as you do not travel to the home country, there should be no reason to fear any cessation-related investigation let alone the Canadian government pursuing cessation.
Some (largely tangential) clarifications:
"As covered elsewhere in this thread, re-availment is mostly pursued by government here when the subject (you) travels to their country, and usually more than once."
In this statement it is the reference to cessation cases arising from travel to the home country "usually more than once" that calls for clarification. Not too long ago, back around the time that IRCC legal resource was last updated, it did indeed appear that cessation cases typically involved more than one trip to the home country, almost all the cases reaching the Federal Court involving more than one trip (a majority involving several trips). Anecdotal reporting here illustrated multiple instances in which PR-refugees applying for citizenship were approved and granted citizenship despite having made a trip to the home country.
But in numerous subsequent Federal Court cases, including numerous such cases in which the FC upheld cessation, there was ONLY ONE trip to the home country, as discussed in numerous previous posts here, above, warranting a more emphatic caution about ANY travel to the home country. For those who must go home, who must take the risks, it is what it is. They should seek legal counsel before making the trip.
In any event, as I have often cautioned, PR-refugees should avoid ANY travel to the country they fled. (There might be some indications that CBSA/IRCC and the RPD may be approaching brief trips attendant a parent's terminal illness or death more leniently than trips for other reasons, but even in these circumstances there is at least a significant if not high risk, which will vary depending on factors like the nature and extent of precautions the PR-refugee takes. Also note, a significant number of the cases in which cessation has been pursued involve PR-refugees traveling to the home country to marry.)
Re obtaining or renewing passport, or other transactions/contact with home country:
Assuming I understand the gist of this, focused on the impact of obtaining or renewing a home country passport in contrast to obtaining a national ID, I agree.
Moreover, in particular, I agree (and this is also reflected in @armoured's observations) that obtaining a national ID is not going to be a sufficient reason for a finding of reavailment constituting grounds for cessation. Or, even a reason why CBSA or IRCC might initiate investigation of cessation.
That is, standing alone, with no other transactions involving the country from which the PR-refugee fled (for sure no travel there, no obtaining or renewing the passport), as best we can discern, obtaining a national ID is not likely, not at all likely, to trigger cessation.
Note, for example, that the IRCC legal resource, citing the handbook published by the United Nations, distinguishes "actual reavailment" versus "occasional or incidental contacts with national authorities," and mentions obtaining documents like birth or marriage certificates as examples of the latter. While obtaining current identification falls somewhere in-between, it is clearly far more like obtaining a birth certificate than a passport.
So, again, standing alone, it is highly unlikely that obtaining a national ID would result in cessation.
But this warrants a couple clarifications.
One has to do with the more complicated matter of what might trigger an investigation even if it does not rise to the level of establishing reavailment. I do not mean to dig deep into that weed patch here other than to note that even if this or that action will not in-itself be grounds for cessation, there is a broad range of things which might trigger a cessation-related investigation. Even if the outcome of that will eventually be NO cessation, not even a cessation proceeding let alone a RPD determination of cessation, that can still have an impact most will prefer to avoid if possible. It can mean a big difference in processing timelines for a new PR card or citizenship application. Basically, even if the contact will not support cessation, NO contacts or at least FEWER contacts should reduce the risk that CBSA/IRCC will see cause to investigate, and that can save some headaches down the road.
Secondly, somewhat similarly but far more importantly for any PR-refugee who has engaged in other actions which might trigger a cessation investigation (especially any travel home), it is important to be clear about the difference between actions which standing alone can support a finding of reavailment (if in the circumstances the government shows voluntariness, intention, and actual reavailment), versus evidence as to various actions and other circumstances that can be used to show voluntariness, intention, or actual reavailment. For example, any contact with national or even local authorities in the home country, in conjunction with any travel there, can constitute evidence of voluntariness and intention. As obtaining national ID while IN that country very well might. So, even though it alone will not support a finding of reavailment, if done in that country it could be used as evidence to support the government's cessation case.
Thus . . . back to the observation that "only passport renewal means reavailement . never heard that national id is considered reavailement" . . . unpacking this . . .
Obtaining a home country passport does not necessarily mean a refugee has reavailed home country protection for the purpose of establishing cessation (reavailment is one of several grounds for cessation, but the most common ground by a lot). HOWEVER, the passport, and especially its use, will invoke presumptions which a refugee would need to refute to avoid cessation (if the government pursues cessation).
In particular, what constitutes "reavailment," as defined in the UN handbook and which guides what is applied in Canada, involves three elements (voluntariness, intention, and "actual reavailment"). Obtaining a home country passport creates a presumption of reavailment, but since it appears that this alone does not trigger cessation, the published cases focus on the presumption that obtaining the passport and using it to travel to a third country creates the presumption, in particular, that the refugee has actually reavailed home country protection (diplomatic protection). Using the passport to travel to the home country is often described as establishing a very strong presumption of actual reavailment and an intention to re-avail home country protection.
In contrast, the influence of other contacts, interactions, or transactions involving authorities in or from the home country, will vary depending on the nature and scope of the contact, but also affected by context. Isolated contacts, very little or no negative impact. Such as obtaining a birth certificate. Obviously, more extensive contacts would be seen as evidence of voluntariness and intention.
It's a very good point and one I'd sort-of intended to make, but don't think I did.
Specifically: even if getting the national ID may not cause issues on its own, other factors can influence - and other factors we may not know.
And hence no-one should interpret the conclusion (however cautious) above as suggesting that applying and obtaining a national ID is a good idea. I'd suggest not doing it at all; I was responding to the specific situation above - specifically, after it was done.
I also responded to the OP in a different thread that it is NOT a good idea for those in this situation to undertake any such acts without considering in advance whether there are any risks - not just in terms of cessation risks in future. And only then deciding whether it's 'worth it' (that is, whatever benefit one gets) compared to potential costs in future.
In other words, I think the OP basically got a bit lucky - lucky because they didn't look into it in advance.
I believe I put this as 'get informed first' - before applying for the doc or whatever. Particularly also get informed about the current situation - practice by IRCC does change, and it might change again (possibly due to elections, but not just because of them).
The hard part in the OP's question was that it seemed to have been undertaken in order to get identification that IRCC would accept - and I don't know the situation there. But it seems to me that the situation of a refugee claimant/asylum seeker (etc) that does not have current national ID from a country they fled is known to them. And that hopefully other options (eg presenting expired ID with an explanation, presenting non-typical ID such as library cards or other issued by non-national govts) may work and are preferable, and it may be highly preferable to at least attempt to use those alternatives first. (If for no other reason than to document that one attempted to NOT interact with national govt).
Caveat here that I do not know all such situations and how IRCC will handle, of course. The principle I'm underlining here is get informed first, act carefully and protect yourself from inadvertent mistakes about protected person status (even after becoming a PR).
wow very clarified and detailed answer . a big thanks to you . you are a precious in this forum
New case although something a bit different. Stay an order of removal for someone who lost citizenship as a result of cessation:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2024/2024canlii106280/2024canlii106280.html
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2024/2024canlii106280/2024canlii106280.html
Borderlines podcast / youtube episode on cessation:
https://borderlines.ca/132-cessation-of-refugee-protected-person-status-with-doug-cannon/
I think it's quite interesting from a policy perspective (short form: this is a crazy policy/application of policy that serves little purpose, costs tons of money [to government], results in very few actual removals, and out of all proportion to any plausible 'benefit' of discouraging fraudulent refugee claims, and at great human cost to the individuals caught in this, etc). Unfortunately, it being a poorly thought-out policy does not mean it's going to be stopped (at least any time soon).
But also because the lawyer, Doug Cannon, seems one of the very few lawyers that is actually specializing in cessation cases. Perhaps that contact and/or info in this podcast can help some here.
There is also some info about specifics. Mostly for practical purposes the main lesson should be "don't do the three things that lead to cessation: renew/apply for home country passport, use home country passport, travel to home country" and "get citizenship as soon as possible (IF you haven't done any of these three things)."
Apparently there is a court case in process where applicants are using Charter of Rights claims to try to get the use of this quashed (at least in current usage/practice). I have no idea of prospects for this case, strongly advise that no-one rely upon it.
https://borderlines.ca/132-cessation-of-refugee-protected-person-status-with-doug-cannon/
I think it's quite interesting from a policy perspective (short form: this is a crazy policy/application of policy that serves little purpose, costs tons of money [to government], results in very few actual removals, and out of all proportion to any plausible 'benefit' of discouraging fraudulent refugee claims, and at great human cost to the individuals caught in this, etc). Unfortunately, it being a poorly thought-out policy does not mean it's going to be stopped (at least any time soon).
But also because the lawyer, Doug Cannon, seems one of the very few lawyers that is actually specializing in cessation cases. Perhaps that contact and/or info in this podcast can help some here.
There is also some info about specifics. Mostly for practical purposes the main lesson should be "don't do the three things that lead to cessation: renew/apply for home country passport, use home country passport, travel to home country" and "get citizenship as soon as possible (IF you haven't done any of these three things)."
Apparently there is a court case in process where applicants are using Charter of Rights claims to try to get the use of this quashed (at least in current usage/practice). I have no idea of prospects for this case, strongly advise that no-one rely upon it.