Refugee status cessation and PRs applying for citizenship

[dpenabill]

My tracker now shows language, presence, and test as completed, with background “in progress” (because of the fingerprints). I’m hopeful the next step will be an oath invite…

I think the mandamus really worked out in my favour because my application was stuck for close to four years, my file started moving again after the mandamus filing, I got a fingerprint request and completed it last week. Now my tracker shows almost everything completed, and I’m waiting for the oath.”

Hopeful congratulations. Please let us know how it goes from here.

If you are uncomfortable sharing details about your history related to the cessation investigation, I fully understand, for sure.

But if you are willing to share more that would be appreciated, to share some details that would illuminate what may have triggered the cessation investigation and what may have factored into what appears to be a decision to either not proceed with cessation or to withdraw an application for cessation if one had been made by the Minister. Again, totally understand if you don't . . . and particularly so until after you have taken the oath and for sure have your Canadian citizenship.

 

[dpenabill]

I hold PR status based on refugee. I have been in Canada for about 10 years. In 2019, due to my mother’s illness, I had to return to my country for about a month. I did not renew my passport in any way. Upon my return, CBSA interviewed me, took a copy of my mother’s medical report, and allowed me to pass. Based on what I had read here, I decided to take the risk and applied for citizenship five years after that trip.

My background check and citizenship test were completed within a month. Later, I was asked to upload copies of my passport pages, where my 2019 entry to my home country was visible. After that, I received an invitation for an online interview, during which I was asked why I hadn’t disclosed my trip to the country I had claimed asylum from. I explained that only the last five years were requested, and the officer said he understood. He also rechecked all the passport pages during the call.I have two other travel for vocational purpose by the way.

The day after the interview, I received a notification that the language requirement was completed. Physical presence and prohibition are still in progress. I will keep you updated as things move forward.

The interview mainly focused on my work in Canada and my travels. Wishing everyone the best of luck!

The account of your experience is appreciated. I hope this goes well.

Given some anecdotal reports from PR-refugees who have taken the oath despite a trip to their home country (seemingly credible accounts), and considering you made just one home country trip and it has been more than five years since CBSA questioned you when returning to Canada, and so far citizenship application not on hold, there is probably good reason to be optimistic, to be looking forward to taking the oath.

Good idea, nonetheless, to approach this with cautious optimism . . . in particular, if there is much of a delay being scheduled for the oath, or if there are any further requests from IRCC (including an in person interview), or if you are contacted by CBSA, it would be a good idea to hire a lawyer for advice (not just a consultation).

Better to get the advice of a lawyer before any in-person interviews!

If there is an issue (I am NOT suggesting there will be, and again there is reason to be optimistic, at least cautiously optimistic, there will not be, but there is still a significant risk, and there is so much at stake it would be prudent to be prepared), my sense is that will result in a substantial delay before there are further requests from IRCC or contact from CBSA, giving you time to get with a lawyer . . . and not just any lawyer, but a lawyer with real experience dealing with cessation cases.

In particular, if you are again interviewed or asked questions about your travel (not just the trip to the home country, but any international travel), it is important to have some real in-depth assistance from a competent, experienced lawyer to help you prepare. And hopefully, if there is an issue and you are questioned about your travel (again, including any travel using a home country passport), there will be time to get a lawyer's help.

If you have followed the discussion here in much detail, then you are already aware that I will caution against any further use of the home country passport (if you still have a valid one) until AFTER you take oath. It will increase the risks if you travel again with that passport before you take the oath. Remember, just using the home country passport (even if it is a passport obtained before getting refugee status and was returned to you) for travel is an in fact act of availment of that country's protection and it establishes a presumption of reavailment.

It may seem I lean paranoid. Despite a number of it-went-OK stories, there are many signs things more often, and perhaps most often, go the other way. Explaining this is complicated, nuanced, and clouded with uncertain factors; I will be addressing this further but putting that together will take some time.

It appears there is a good chance you are past the danger zone. So I do not mean to cause anxiety. Moreover, the very recent report from @Lovmena offers additional cause for optimism (but it would be helpful to know more details about that situation).

Further Observations For Other PR-Refugees:

Notwithstanding a number of it-went-OK stories, it is still true that PR-refugees:

. . . should not obtain or renew a home country passport​

. . . if they have a home country passport, they should not use it for travel (anywhere) or for any transaction with the home country​

. . . and they absolutely should not travel to their home country​

If a PR-refugee has done any of these things, no matter how much it appears to be OK, they should totally avoid doing it again (unless and until they are a Canadian citizen).

I fully understand that there are situations in which a PR-refugee will feel compelled to return to the home country. It is important to recognize what is at stake, that deciding to make that trip is, in effect, deciding that the reason for going to the home country is reason enough to give up Canadian status. That is, in weighing what to do, the question to ask and answer is whether the reason to go to the home country is more compelling than keeping status in Canada.

Given the it-went-OK stories (hoping this includes the final outcomes for @Taxslave and @Lovmena), some will be inclined to take the risk. To be clear, however, it appears the odds are better playing Russian Roulette. (I know no one who suggests taking that risk.)

There are things that can be done to reduce the risks. The moves by @Taxslave for example, making only one trip for a compelling reason, and not a lengthy stay, and then waiting more than five years after the home country trip to apply for citizenship, may be big factors in helping this to be another it-went-OK story.

Nonetheless, at the risk of being overbearing about this, it should be understood that even with a very compelling reason for going to the home country, to travel to the home country is pretty much a decision to give up status in Canada, while hoping you get lucky that doesn't happen (again, however, this is at odds worse than putting a revolver to the head with one round in it hoping to just hear a click when pulling the trigger on an empty chamber).

Among the biggest misconceptions about the risk is that H&C factors are considered.

There is no consideration of H&C factors in the RPD's determination of cessation.

This even sounds like a case where there are good H&C reasons to support the trip, even if the person were only a PR and not a citizen.

Again, to be clear, there is no consideration of H&C factors involved in cessation determinations. In fact the RPD does not have jurisdiction to so much as consider H&C factors in determining cessation. Bermudez, 2015 FC 639, https://canlii.ca/t/gj6wb is the most often cited decision regarding this, but it is also affirmed in the Camayo FCA decision as well, and referred to by Doug Cannon, who is among the few lawyers with extensive cessation experience, in a BorderLines podcast last year. I will say more about this, including some comments about the law?point information you referenced, but this is complex, nuanced stuff, demands some careful unraveling and revisiting a lot of homework.

My guess is you are thinking of reasons so compelling the decision to travel is not voluntary (sufficient to rebut the intent to reavail), a much higher bar than H&C.

Some Notables in the @Taxslave Scenario:

First, a reminder: even though it is travel to the home country that is the focus of cessation investigations and proceedings, ANY USE of the home country passport for travel is an act that is considered to be availing home country protection, and it is enough to establish the presumption of reavailment, enough to be grounds for cessation unless the presumption of reavailment is rebutted. So far we have not seen cessation cases that did not involve at least one trip to the home country, but there have been plenty of cases in which the court gave a good deal of weight to the use of the passport for other travel in addition to a home country trip, including cases in which there was only one trip to the home country.

Secondly, the account of the interview suggests that IRCC is indeed screening PR-refugee applicants about cessation-related facts. I mentioned the Borderlines podcast about cessation last year (@armoured probably brought this one to the forum's attention), and in it they strongly suggested that cessation-related screening has increased over the years and that now, in addition to PoE screening of returning PRs, IRCC is overtly screening PR card and citizenship applications for potential cessation. I cannot recall any other anecdotal reports of a citizenship applicant being asked about travel BEFORE the five year eligibility period. And, given the application was made more than five years later than that trip, I assume there is a big buffer margin, so the extent of questions about the other travel at the least hints the processing agent's interest may have been other than physical presence.

 

[stuckinsec]

Are there any issues with visiting the home country embassy in Canada? Or there is a risk too with that, just for doing paperwork ( Nothing related to the passport).

 

[dpenabill]

Are there any issues with visiting the home country embassy in Canada? Or there is a risk too with that, just for doing paperwork ( Nothing related to the passport).

Best guess: That alone, but depending some on just what service is involved, is not likely to trigger a cessation investigation or be a factor that makes much of a difference if the PR-refugee is being investigated for cessation based on other actions. But beyond that it can get complicated; this subject is rife with nuances and pitfalls and hard to see sharp turns.

But of course availing a country's services provided for citizens of that country is an act consistent with availing the country's protection.

Beyond that:

Not sure what you mean by "visiting."

And at the risk of being oppressively repetitive, this particular thread is not about refugees as such, but rather about those refugees who have Permanent Resident status in Canada. Makes a difference.

And there is a huge range in risks. The legal parameters (like availing a country's services provided for citizens of that country is an act consistent with availing the country's protection) are base line but policy and practice play a big role in the scope of real life risks.

As often discussed here, just using a home country passport is an act availing that country's protection, definitively (not just evidence of availing the country's protection but specifically recognized as in fact availing that country's protection) and moreover creates a presumption of reavailment (this is the part that puts a hook into PR-refugees). But the practical risk of even being investigated for doing that is far, far less than the risk attendant a single trip to the home country.

So when you ask about any "issues" are you asking whether engaging in a transaction involving a consular provided service (unrelated to passports) is an act availing that country's protection? Probably is if it is a service provided for citizens of that country. Or, for a transaction that is consistent with availing the country's protection, will that cause a problem, an "issue?"

One of the situations I have read about, but did not study closely, involved using consular services to obtain records, like birth or marriage records, from the home country. Best I recall, these were considered to be acts consistent with reavailing home country protection but carried rather little weight in the case, understood to be incidental, and not important compared to the other evidence of reavailment in those cases. Noting these were cases in which there was travel to the home country using the home country's passport.

 

[abff08f4813c]

Nonetheless, at the risk of being overbearing about this, it should be understood that even with a very compelling reason for going to the home country, to travel to the home country is pretty much a decision to give up status in Canada, while hoping you get lucky that doesn't happen (again, however, this is at odds worse than putting a revolver to the head with one round in it hoping to just hear a click when pulling the trigger on an empty chamber).

Among the biggest misconceptions about the risk is that H&C factors are considered.

There is no consideration of H&C factors in the RPD's determination of cessation.

At the risk of appearing to be pedantic, I didn't say RPD. I should have been clearer - I meant post RPD, on the likes of H&C reasons to stay a removal order and such.

That said, I would agree with the statement that "There is no consideration of H&C factors in the RPD's determination of cessation."

But then, you bring up a really interesting case...

Again, to be clear, there is no consideration of H&C factors involved in cessation determinations. In fact the RPD does not have jurisdiction to so much as consider H&C factors in determining cessation. Bermudez, 2015 FC 639, https://canlii.ca/t/gj6wb is the most often cited decision regarding this

Agreed. The relevant text from the decision is this,

> 34 As counsel pointed out, the last sentence of this paragraph must be taken to refer to a separate application process for a section 25 exemption, since the RPD does not have the authority to consider H&C factors.

However, in my poor layman's reading of the case, Bermudez goes on to state that the officer not only can but should consider H&C factors before making a decision to refer to the RPD,

> 38 The manual contemplates that a cessation application need not be pursued if the individual in question is a permanent resident. Even where the individual is not a permanent resident, the officer is directed to consider factors of an H&C nature such as establishment.
> ... the existence of mitigating factors (e.g. illness of a family member) ...

I'd also argue that these parts of the decision (referring to whether or not the applicant was allowed to refer the matter to the court before the RPD issued a determination) could support a view that courts may review if factors like H&C were given due consideration, even if the RPD itself cannot do so.

> 23 The applicant points out that the RPD does not have the jurisdiction to look behind the decision to refer.
> 26 It is clear that the recourses available to a protected person after a finding of cessation are extremely limited. In the circumstances, I am not prepared to find that this application is premature.

That I wonder if there's an appeal of Bermudez that I wasn't able to find? As Bermudez does certify a question of exactly this nature (whether or not H&C factors can be considered for the decision to refer to the RPD regarding cessation), perhaps you're thinking of an appeal where this was in fact answered in the negative?

> Does the CBSA hearings officer, or the hearings officer as the Minister’s delegate, have the discretion to consider factors other than those set out in subsection 108(1), including H&C considerations and the best interests of a child, when deciding whether to make a cessation application pursuant to subsection 108(2) in respect of a permanent resident?

but it is also affirmed in the Camayo FCA decision as well

I didn't see H&C mentioned at all in that decision https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/do...21:39:45:324/bb121411adc54c54afe30afdf5556941

The closest I could find is this part, in which the factors that the RPD should consider are explicitly spelled out - as H&C isn't listed as one of the factors, so perhaps H&C is excluded by its omission.

> 84 Thus, in dealing with cessation cases, the RPD should have regard to the following factors, at a minimum

Of course, I don't have any legal training, while you clearly come from that kind of background. So I could quite easily believe that I've made some serious mistakes in reading the above decisions, which (if you wished to do so) would be simple for you to point out to me.

My guess is you are thinking of reasons so compelling the decision to travel is not voluntary (sufficient to rebut the intent to reavail), a much higher bar than H&C.

Hmm. I wasn't, and now that you bring up this point, I'm not sure if that OP's point (about last chance to see a father dying of cancer) would indeed be sufficient to rebut the intention to revail.

 

[abff08f4813c]

I cannot recall any other anecdotal reports of a citizenship applicant being asked about travel BEFORE the five year eligibility period.

And, given the application was made more than five years later than that trip, I assume there is a big buffer margin, so the extent of questions about the other travel at the least hints the processing agent's interest may have been other than physical presence.

These two things stood out as red flags to me too, which is why I stated my concern about that poster's citizenship app possibly also ending up delayed...

But of course availing a country's services provided for citizens of that country is an act consistent with availing the country's protection.

Agreed. So knowing the exact nature of the service provided is important here. It's important to note that embassies and consulates do provide some services to non-citizens too.

For example, a US green card holder can make an appointment to visit a US embassy to get a boarding foil, see https://china.usembassy-china.org.cn/services/boarding-foil-application-procedures/

The above is obviously available only to non-citizens, but there are some other services that US embassies provide to US citizens and non-citizens alike, such as notarization: https://ca.usembassy.gov/notarial-services/

> U.S. citizens and nationals of other countries may use the Embassy’s notarial services.

One of the situations I have read about, but did not study closely, involved using consular services to obtain records, like birth or marriage records, from the home country. Best I recall, these were considered to be acts consistent with reavailing home country protection

I have no doubt your analysis is spot-on. But this bothers me. Using consular services to obtain things like birth records or marriage records isn't something that seems like it would fundamentally be exclusive by its very nature to only citizens.

I guess the first counter-point is that one could try to obtain these records without resorting to the use of consular services. Such as using VitalChek in the US to obtain a birth certificate (as per https://www.vitalchek.com/Fax-Phone/DC_Birth_Application.pdf they will ship it worldwide with UPS Worldwide Expedited for $36.50 USD)

And the second counter-point would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi

Are there any issues with visiting the home country embassy in Canada? Or there is a risk too with that, just for doing paperwork ( Nothing related to the passport).

So in the extreme case, you risk death. See the second counter-point above.

That said, the fact that no one has heard of a cessation case based solely on a visit to an embassy in Canada just for doing paperwork is... well, hopefully optimistic. And even better if this paperwork that you need to do is something that non-citizens of your home country are also allowed to do.

Edit: I also found https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...nt-questions-and-answers.397458/#post-4966061 which is not sourced but states as advice,

> Just simply don’t have any contact with embassy of your home country.

 

[dpenabill]

However, in my poor layman's reading of the case, Bermudez goes on to state that the officer not only can but should consider H&C factors before making a decision to refer to the RPD,

> 38 The manual contemplates that a cessation application need not be pursued if the individual in question is a permanent resident. Even where the individual is not a permanent resident, the officer is directed to consider factors of an H&C nature such as establishment.
> ... the existence of mitigating factors (e.g. illness of a family member) ...

Mea Culpa. Sorry, meant to cite and link the Federal Court of Appeal Bermudez decision (not the Federal Court):
Bermudez v. Canada, 2016 FCA 131, https://canlii.ca/t/gr714

Too often I make mistakes (many far worse than grabbing the wrong citation from a collection of sources), so I very much appreciate a challenging or critical eye, particularly catching things that need correction.

And I apologize for the misdirection. Not good. Sorry. But it is good your comments pressed me to chase some sources I was mostly relying on memory, and especially in regard to FCA Camayo . . . revisiting that decision shows me how far off I can be, the vast majority of Federal Court decisions since that case going way differently than I expected -- who am I expect though. (By the way, my memory said that Camayo relied in part on how the RPD decision was so strict and narrow but with huge consequences; I might try to read it closely enough to discern why I interpreted that to include affirmation of the limited scope of the RPD's discretion or jurisdiction.)

Anyway, it's the Bermudez FCA decision I meant to refer to as the case most oft cited for this principle; it puts it bluntly, first sentence in the summary of the court's holding simply states: "The hearings officer has no discretion to consider H&C factors in determining whether a cessation application should be made." The final statement of that court, in regards to whether a hearings officer has "discretion to consider H&C and the best interest of a child . . ." The court gives a one word answer: "No." It is why this outcome (the interpretation of the statutory provisions, the reasoning for the court's conclusion), that has been applied to conclude the RPD cannot consider (not sure now of source for particular term, "jurisdiction," for what the RPD cannot do), has no ability to consider H&C factors in determining cessation. Couple examples: Wiseman Hunt v. Canada, 2024 FC 837, https://canlii.ca/t/k52hs and Aydemir v. Canada, 2022 FC 987, https://canlii.ca/t/jqbt1

Which may seem misleading given that many of the same situations, circumstances, and particular factual details, not only can be but must be considered. How much so, though, and in what way, that is where my expectations, my understanding of what the law requires based on Camayo crashed against how the RPD and Federal Court interpret and apply it, how it appears they continue to rule.

From my perspective this thread is about clearly cautioning PR-refugees what is at stake, and to recognize when things are at a stage in the process past when a PR-refugee with a cessation target on them should be connecting with an immigration lawyer experienced in this.

I tend to hammer fundamentals:

-- PR-refugees who have stayed here, stay and make your way here (not always easy, but the odds are generally favourable so far as I can forecast, if this is where you see your life)​

-- PR-refugees who have traveled to the home country, pull up your socks and call a lawyer AFTER researching for a good lawyer, or take your chances​

Beyond that, it can get damn weedy. Some may have noticed, in regards to just a few issues or subjects, this being a salient one, I tend to go there, into the weeds. But this one is especially weedy, nuanced, riddled with pitfalls.

It can be difficult to identify what is important let alone relevant. This is especially so here since the whole scheme connecting PR status to cessation is riddled with inconsistencies. Refugee status is largely (if not essentially) intended to be temporary whereas the purpose of granting PR status is to facilitate settlement and integration; yet the cessation provision links the two definitively. And then there's the whole this-is-really-a-penalty-for-fraud largely unspoken aspect (actually spoken out loud in the parliamentary history, and in some posts in this forum). The subject is tangled.

All that is without straying into the post-cessation stage (a damn complex stage in itself) in which those who have lost their status here, and are Foreign Nationals inadmissible based on cessation, and are facing in fact deportation, and under more limitations while they contest physical deportation than most of those subject to Removal or Departure Orders.

Which leads back to your earlier observations related to a law?points webpage . . . for those interested beyond the fundamentals . . . even though I would not refer to or link that entity, acknowledging most of their information is consistent with what I understand (FWIW) but not so in regard to PR-refugees, there are issues there which warrant addressing (at least for those of us wading into the weeds). But . . . yeah, weedy, complicated, nuanced . . . after all, it is crazy that someone who in flight arrived here a decade ago, who has settled and integrated into a life in Canada (to put it in IRCC/IRPA terms), has to worry their application for citizenship is at risk because they traveled home once when a parent was seriously ill.

So, yeah, easy guess, more to come . . . probably . . .

 

[Lovmena]

Hello Everyone... I just need some guidance on how to proceed with my application as there seems to be a cessation investigation on my file.
MY TIMELINE:
Feb 2016- Got a Passport from home country embassy here in Canada, this was my first ever passport, i arrived Canada without a passport. (I was 17 at the time, My lawyer asked that i get a passport as it was required for identification for my Refugee claim).
March 2016- Refugee claim was accepted (fleeing persecution from Nigeria govt due to my sexuality), my passport was never collected/seized.
Feb 2018- I Applied for a travel document (application was returned due to some errors).
June 2018- Got PR under protected person status.
June 11 2019- visited home country (stayed 44 days). Told the CBSA that i visited my sick mom, she was diagnosed with breast cancer. he let me go, did not mention anything else. Never used my home country passport again until it expired in 2021.
November 2020- Applied for Citizenship
May 31 2021- Got travel document
July 2021- Traveled with my travel document to Benin. (stayed for about 50 days). was directed to CBSA for questioning upon my return, but when i got there, he said he was not sure why i was sent to him for questioning and asked me to go. Have not left the country since then.
Sept 2021- Passed citizenship test, got an email to send pages of my passport which i did. no updates, sent several enquiries, kept being told my application was being processed...
Sept 2023- got my Renewed PR card

There has been no update on my file since 2020, sent multiple enquiries, contacted MP multiple times, sent multiple emails, called multiple times... requested for three GCMS note, two from IRCC and one for CBSA.

• The notes from IRCC-2023 showed location of my file as (GRANT Cessation), APP status- ON HOLD, Reason- Redacted.
• IRCC-2024 showed location as (GRANT) I believe some information was redacted.
• THE CBSA notes was a bit less redacted and showed a location of (GRANT-ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS-C), App status- ON HOLD, Reason- Suspended- Clearances.

I am not sure what this means. the notes kept saying "this application is suspended and non-routine". my marital status and address has not been updated even though i sent an inquiry to update my file months ago. I spoke briefly with a lawyer who has suggested that i wait it out and should not force the hand of IRCC, but i am not sure if that is the right thing to do as i would like a decision made on my application, this has really affected my mental health tremendously. Should i contact a different lawyer to file a mandamus? or truly wait it out? would this be giving them the time they need to build a stronger case against me?
should i send a LOE via email explaining why i had travel to visit my mom, and that i had no intention of re-availment even though i knew i should not have returned but the circumstances were dire... and add that I still very much fear persecution in my home country as a bisexual woman and have been married to a same sex partner for over a year now and would be persecuted if i was to loose my PR status and face deportation back to Nigeria? plus, i applied for a passport as a minor and my intentions at the time of application was solely to have a form of identification during my refugee claim... so many thoughts, I fear i might unwillingly admit to wrong doing and re-availment if I submit an LOE leaving me with less options if they do decide to go ahead with the cessation.

Hello everyone, wanted to provide an update on my case….
I applied for multiple ATIP and I was lucky to receive all my information with little to no redactions including the email correspondence to IRRC requesting for my files as they intend to pursue cessation. Now that I had evidence that cessation was being filed and that’s why my application was on hold, I got a lawyer and we filled for mandamus in Jan 2025… we got a response from IRRC and they basically said my application was being processed, they were doing some background checks and awaiting third party verifications… they claimed I was trying to cut the line by filing mandamus(it’s been four years of nothing), they mentioned that my PR card was still active and I could travel if I wanted to, they didn’t make mention of cessation(I was never formally told that a cessation was being pursued). My lawyer included the document i think was sent to me by accident (that clearly shows email from someone from IRCC to Refugee board I think asking for my files so they can pursue cessation)… he mentioned that they were denying me due process, not informing me about the cessation, gas-lighting me to think my file was being processed while in reality it was on hold…
In March, I requested for another ATIP… I specifically told them that if this was heavily redacted like the previous ones, I would be taking things a step further as I have proof of a cessation investigation even though they haven’t officially come forward to tell me anything and I made it clear that this was unfair and a violation of due process since they wouldn’t give me a chance to defend myself, I told them I did not want information concerning me or my files redacted, I wanted any document that makes mention of a cessation(I had concrete evidence that a cessation process was going on but they haven’t officially said anything). This ATIP was different, They mailed me a hard drive with over 300 pages… this document showed that in November 2021, cessation case was opened and in March 2025, it was closed with outcome “maintain status” “ no referral to IRB”… I waited a couple of months and got no response or update. Last month I sent a web form explaining that the ATIP shows that the cessation case is closed and I maintain my status(I attached proof) so I can’t think of any other reason why my application isn’t moving forward.
August 2025, I got an email to do finger print.
My tracker now shows language, presence, and test as completed, with background “in progress” (because of the fingerprints). I’m hopeful the next step will be an oath invite…

I think the mandamus really worked out in my favour because my application was stuck for close to four years, my file started moving again after the mandamus filing, I got a fingerprint request and completed it last week. Now my tracker shows almost everything completed, and I’m waiting for the oath.”

 

[Lovmena]

Hopeful congratulations. Please let us know how it goes from here.

If you are uncomfortable sharing details about your history related to the cessation investigation, I fully understand, for sure.

But if you are willing to share more that would be appreciated, to share some details that would illuminate what may have triggered the cessation investigation and what may have factored into what appears to be a decision to either not proceed with cessation or to withdraw an application for cessation if one had been made by the Minister. Again, totally understand if you don't . . . and particularly so until after you have taken the oath and for sure have your Canadian citizenship.

I just responded to my previous thread. I took a trip to my home country using the passport. The lawyer thinks they just decided to let it go and that's why it was closed with no referral to IRB. prior to filing the mandamus, I would always email them explaining how not having a passport was affecting my life, how I have built a life in Canada (graduated nursing Sch, Been working for three years and even bought a property) and my application continues to be on hold. from the notes that was sent to me, nothing really much went on with the cessation, it just shows the date the case was opened and the date it was closed, no notes or updates in between. Almost like the file was forgotten.

 

[abff08f4813c]

I just responded to my previous thread. I took a trip to my home country using the passport. The lawyer thinks they just decided to let it go

I would always email them explaining how not having a passport was affecting my life, how I have built a life in Canada (graduated nursing Sch, Been working for three years and even bought a property)

Hmm, that's interesting. I wonder if those emails helped them to decide to let it go (as in, provided factors for the officer to consider when deciding against a referral).

Did your one trip to the home country take place before or after December 15, 2012? Wondering if the date of the trip may also have played a factor (if it was pre-Dec 2012).

I think the mandamus really worked out in my favour because my application was stuck for close to four years, my file started moving again after the mandamus filing, I got a fingerprint request and completed it last week. Now my tracker shows almost everything completed, and I’m waiting for the oath.”

Happy to hear that this worked out for you - it sounds to me like you're in the clear now - and I'm keeping my fingers crossed that you get to that oath soon!

Generally speaking, it's worth pointing out that there is a risk to using mandamus for refugees who are at risk of cessation. There is this case where CIC (as IRCC was then called) filed for cessation in response to a mandamus filing
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/do...12:12:50:169/fc153e0eb2554f5ab4ba955a273a693d

Timeline is more clearly explained on https://meurrensonimmigration.com/suspending-citizenship-applications-due-to-cessation-hearings/

> On October 23, 2014, the Applicant launched the present application for an order ofmandamus. On the same day, a CIC officer suspended the processing of the Applicant’s citizenship application pursuant to s 13.1 of the Citizenship Act pending CBSA’s cessation investigation.
> In December 2014, CBSA filed an application for cessation of the Applicant’s refugee status. Through this notice, the Applicant also received notice that his citizenship application was suspended.

 

[abff08f4813c]

Mea Culpa. Sorry, meant to cite and link the Federal Court of Appeal Bermudez decision (not the Federal Court):

Too often I make mistakes (many far worse than grabbing the wrong citation from a collection of sources), so I very much appreciate a challenging or critical eye, particularly catching things that need correction.

And I apologize for the misdirection. Not good. Sorry.

Beyond that, it can get damn weedy. Some may have noticed, in regards to just a few issues or subjects, this being a salient one, I tend to go there, into the weeds. But this one is especially weedy, nuanced, riddled with pitfalls.

Not a problem in the slightest. If anything I'm grateful that someone with such a deep understanding of the topic as yourself is willing to help us understand such weedy and complex topics, particularly ones where misinformation can otherwise easily run rampant (to the detriment of all, but in particular the vulnerable).

But it is good your comments pressed me to chase some sources I was mostly relying on memory, and especially in regard to FCA Camayo . . . revisiting that decision shows me how far off I can be, the vast majority of Federal Court decisions since that case going way differently than I expected -- who am I expect though. (By the way, my memory said that Camayo relied in part on how the RPD decision was so strict and narrow but with huge consequences; I might try to read it closely enough to discern why I interpreted that to include affirmation of the limited scope of the RPD's discretion or jurisdiction.)

Looking forward to that and can't wait to see what insights will be unearthed.

Anyway, it's the Bermudez FCA decision I meant to refer to as the case most oft cited for this principle; it puts it bluntly, first sentence in the summary of the court's holding simply states: "The hearings officer has no discretion to consider H&C factors in determining whether a cessation application should be made." The final statement of that court, in regards to whether a hearings officer has "discretion to consider H&C and the best interest of a child . . ." The court gives a one word answer: "No." It is why this outcome (the interpretation of the statutory provisions, the reasoning for the court's conclusion), that has been applied to conclude the RPD cannot consider (not sure now of source for particular term, "jurisdiction," for what the RPD cannot do), has no ability to consider H&C factors in determining cessation. Couple examples: Wiseman Hunt v. Canada, 2024 FC 837, https://canlii.ca/t/k52hs and Aydemir v. Canada, 2022 FC 987, https://canlii.ca/t/jqbt1

Which may seem misleading given that many of the same situations, circumstances, and particular factual details, not only can be but must be considered. How much so, though, and in what way, that is where my expectations, my understanding of what the law requires based on Camayo crashed against how the RPD and Federal Court interpret and apply it, how it appears they continue to rule.

Thanks, I'm a bit embarrassed that I couldn't find that appeal myself tbh.

On reading FCA Bermudez and FCA Camayo side by side, I'm struck at the disparate outcome despite the similarities of the two cases. (For starters, both involve Colombian nationals.) It's unfortunate that Bermudez's case came first, if Camayo's had been decided first then perhaps the precedent set there might have actually helped Bermudez.

On rebutting intent,

FCA Camayo,
> 77 I agree with Ms. Galindo Camayo that this was an unreasonable finding: the evidence with respect to her use of private security while she was in Colombia speaks not to her intention to entrust her protection to Colombia, but is, rather, to the opposite effect. It is evidence of Ms. Galindo Camayo’s ongoing subjective fear of the situation in Colombia, and her lack of confidence in the ability of the state to protect her.

FCA Bermudez,
> 9 The respondent subsequently returned to Colombia in 2008 and 2009. On both occasions, he took measures to avoid detection in Colombia.

Bermudez is less clear about the measures taken, but clearly neither applicant had much faith in the ability of the Colombia to protect them while they were in Columbia.

On lack of knowledge of the consequences of using the national passport,

FCA Camayo,

> Having failed to find that Ms. Galindo Camayo’s testimony on this point lacked credibility, the RPD is deemed to have accepted her claim that she did not know that using her Colombian passport to return to Colombia and to travel elsewhere could result in her being deemed to have reavailed herself of Colombia’s protection, and that this was not her intent.

FCA Bermudez doesn't cover this point explicitly, but it does point out the timeline: Bermudez's last trip using his Colombian passport was in 2010 while the law changed in Dec. 2012, so he clearly would have not been aware of the full consequences of using his national passport back during the trips (to his home country or elsewhere). I suppose though, the case does point out this

> 23 The circumstances enumerated in subsection 108(1) of the IRPA include cases in which a person has voluntarily reavailed themselves of the protection of their country of nationality, including by travelling to that country or by travelling elsewhere using that country’s passport. Such circumstances can trigger a cessation application which leads to a determination by the RPD. Prior to 2012, as in the case of the respondent, the law was such that a cessation of refugee protection did not affect a person’s permanent resident status.

So maybe a technicality here - Bermudez could have been aware that he was availing himself of the protection of Colombia by using his Colombian passport and thus lose refugee status. As he wouldn't have lost PR (as he so believed at the time), he just might not have cared.

after all, it is crazy that someone who in flight arrived here a decade ago, who has settled and integrated into a life in Canada (to put it in IRCC/IRPA terms), has to worry their application for citizenship is at risk because they traveled home once when a parent was seriously ill.

Agreed. The other thing that bothers me about FCA Bermudez is this,

> 8 The respondent was approved for refugee protection from within his native Colombia, where he was the victim of paramilitary violence and members of his family were killed in a massacre on May 31, 2001.

So, Bermudez actually never feared his own gov't. It was just that he feared for his life and his gov't was not capable of protecting him. But there's no reason to believe that the paramilitaries that were after Bermudez and his family would be able to project their power onto Bermudez during his trip to the US solely through Bermudez's choice of travel document.

Certainly it's plausible that the Colombian gov't wouldn't be able to send a strong enough police or military force to guarantee Bermudez's safety in his own country, but that (through diplomacy for example) they may be able to nudge the various layers of US gov't if Bermudez encountered any sort of difficulty during his US trip. So this is another example where I feel like the premise of the law is wrong. Namely, that Bermudez availing himself of the protection of the Colombian gov't while in the US does not in any way affect the danger he faced should he be returned to Colombia or indicate that this danger was less than originally believed.

From my perspective this thread is about clearly cautioning PR-refugees what is at stake, and to recognize when things are at a stage in the process past when a PR-refugee with a cessation target on them should be connecting with an immigration lawyer experienced in this.

I tend to hammer fundamentals:

-- PR-refugees who have stayed here, stay and make your way here (not always easy, but the odds are generally favourable so far as I can forecast, if this is where you see your life)​

-- PR-refugees who have traveled to the home country, pull up your socks and call a lawyer AFTER researching for a good lawyer, or take your chances​

So, yeah, easy guess, more to come . . . probably . . .

Agreed, and it is indeed a great service you provide. Looking forward to your next set of insights.

 

[abff08f4813c]

So I've been disturbed by these cases generally, as I disagree with the premise behind the post-2012 rule: namely I think that that folks who have a fear of persecution in their home country may still feel compelled to return to it at times, and that they may take solace in the protection of Canada that comes with having PR status.

So, I just realized that Omer v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2022 FC 1295 (CanLII) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1295/2022fc1295.html is an example of a case where this (the solace in the protection of Canada that comes with having PR status) is taken into account favorably, and while this is just one element, the decision overall favors the applicant.

> 27 ... The Decision does not explain why this “other reason”, coupled with the Applicant’s belief that he was protected by his Canadian PR status, would make it less likely for the Applicant to rebut the presumption of reavailment. ... The Decision did not analyze this aspect of the Applicant’s evidence when considering the Applicant’s intent to reavail.

Of course, Justice Go refers to the applicant's "belief" - so it doesn't matter so much whether or not being a Canadian PR holder offers any actual, genuine protection, rather it's about the person believing that they're protected by it - it's the belief that may be used evidence in favor of rebutting the presumption of the intent to reavail.