The decision here, in Badran v. Canada, 2022 FC 1292,
https://canlii.ca/t/jrxw9 , is mostly about whether there was an abuse of process and is thus very focused on the specific procedural elements in Badran's individual case. This may be of some importance to those PR-refugees who have remained PRs for a long time without becoming a Canadian citizen, but that is probably a small portion of those affected by this subject.
It appears (but not for sure) to be a case that illustrates a citizenship application triggering the cessation action. In particular, he had renewed his PR card multiple times reporting his travel outside Canada, and been interviewed by CBSA on multiple occasions when returning from abroad, but it was after he had made the application for citizenship that the Minister for Public Safety initiated the cessation.
There is a key element in the decision, addressed almost in passing but clearly enough articulated (see paragraph 6 in the decision), regarding the distinction between cessation of need for protection as might be grounds for cessation of protected person status pursuant to Section 108(1)(e) IRPA, versus a cessation proceeding on the grounds of re-availment) under Section 108(1)(a) IRPA.
If a PR's protected person status is determined to be ceased pursuant to Section 108(1)(e) IRPA, which again would be based on the cessation of the need for protected person status, that does NOT affect that individual's status as a Canadian PR.
However, even if there are grounds for cessation of protected person status for this reason, that does NOT preclude Canada from proceeding with cessation based on on the grounds of re-availment) under Section 108(1)(a) IRPA. This is something which has popped up here several times, in this thread, and I have typically responded just as Justice Go did here; but there does tend to be a common misunderstanding that if Section 108(1)(e) IRPA could apply that would mean the PR-refugee is not subject to cessation.
Otherwise . . . it needs to be made clear the following is, at best, misleading:
To be clear, how use of the home country passport can affect an individual PR-refugee depends on additional factors. Using even a non-expired home country passport to travel to the home country will create a PRESUMPTION of re-availment, and create a real risk of losing Canadian PR status . . . how much risk depends on many factors, so the risk can range from relatively low to quite high. Varies. Depends.
Moreover, "
fine" is one of those vague, ambiguous terms, with no definite meaning in the context of what might put a PR-refugee's status at risk. Note, for example, in the case just discussed, Badran has lost his PR status, and even if he is deported, he might be "fine," noting after all he has spent a lot of time in Egypt, has recognized circumstances in Egypt have changed and he does not face the same risks as before, so he indeed might be "
fine" going on in life as an Egyptian national with no residency status in Canada.
But what really matters to most in this forum concerned about cessation is what could trigger and result in the cessation of their status in Canada. While the more serious risk arising from using a home country passport comes from using it to travel to the home country, it demands remembering that just using the passport itself is an action constituting re-availment of home country protection and can support the cessation of status.
This is important, so I for emphasis I will elaborate further.
Good news.
It needs to be made clear, however, that
for PR-refugees using a home country passport to travel internationally is an action which can constitute reavailment, and thus potentially is grounds for cessation of PR status.
The fact you in effect
got-away-with-it was not at all surprising. As I posted a month ago:
Unfortunately this forum tends to blur important distinctions, especially in regards to fairly low-risk actions which nonetheless cross the lines drawn in the law, the regulations, the rules, and in this context, the UNHCR standards. Using a home country passport to travel internationally is an act constituting re-availment (subject to rebuttal). Whether that alone, to travel to third countries (not home country), will trigger cessation proceedings is a separate question; so far and for known cases, it is NOT LIKELY this alone (even if done using a renewed passport) will trigger cessation.
So for those who have used their home country passport and at most used it to travel to third countries, no need to worry, not much. Odds are very good that just like
@Toronto1971 this will not cause a problem, not a problem with PR status, not a problem with qualifying for and being granted citizenship.
But that in no way should be understood to suggest that going forward any PR-refugee should rely on those odds and (absent compelling cause otherwise) take even the low risk of using their home country passport to travel to third countries. Best practice, the safe practice, is to get a Refugee Travel Document TD (Adult Travel Document) to use for any international travel.
That is to some extent true. Hopefully not a majority. But yeah, we will see posts saying things like "
But using your non expired home passport, is fine!" for a PR-refugee despite how clear it is in the law, the regulations, the rules, and the UNHCR standards, and in scores of OFFICIALLY published decisions about actual cases, that using a home country passport is an action constituting re-availment of home country protection and potentially grounds for cessation . . . subject to the scope of enforcement being employed by the current government.
Not experiences reported in this forum. Actually these are very untrustworthy. Only informative and useful if and when corroborated in multiple ways, including:
-- extent to which the report is consistent with known law, regulations, and rules
-- extent to which the report is consistent with OFFICIAL accounts of actual cases, such as those being linked by
@scylla and myself, among others (these are actually the best source, the more reliable source of what people actually experience)
-- extent to which the experience makes sense based on best understanding of how things works
-- extent to which the experience reported makes sense compared to other personal reports of individual experience
CAUTION: in itself, the experience reported by a particular individual regarding what happened in one particular case is
NEVER a reliable indicator of how things work, how the rules apply, or what is likely or even typically might happen for another individual (and absolutely NOT an indicator of what will happen for sure). It might coincidentally match what usually happens and what will happen. In contrast, first and foremost:
if in doubt, follow the rules; otherwise, yep, follow the rules. For PR-refugees, this includes paying attention to UNHCR rules and standards, as well as the Canadian law.
