Yes, I wondered the same thing. I think you are probably right.
Refugee status cessation and PRs applying for citizenship
- Thread starter dpenabill
- Start date
We are pleased to inform you that you have reached the next stage of your application for Canadian citizenship. The citizenship interview will take place at the date and time stipulated above.
"I have got this letter today and found that this interview is from Citizenship Office. Its really didn't say anything serious in it other than they want to have interview, verify identities, eligibility and answers to questions or concerns if they have. But there is no any RPD or CBSA things are mentioned in the letter. I am hopeful this may be a good news.
After CBSA interview last year, I didn't hear anything but I have now received a letter from Citizenship official saying
We are pleased to inform you that you have reached the next stage of your application for Canadian citizenship. The citizenship interview will take place at the date and time stipulated above.
They have called me for interview at Citizenship office. They asked for all identities scanned and copies and i am not sure what they gonna ask in interview. Fingers crossed
Many times they even ask if you want to take oath right after the interview. That could also be one of the possibility.
yes exactly, this case isnt really related as he already had major removal issues.
"On December 18, 2015, the Applicant was convicted of the offence of possession of counterfeit marks. This conviction led to a hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board, Immigration Division which issued a removal order. Upon appeal to the Immigration and Refugee Board, Immigration Appeal Division (“IAD”), the removal order was found to be legally valid and a plea for relief on humanitarian and compassionate grounds was dismissed. The IAD issued its decision on March 19, 2019. "
I disagree. It's relevant for those who are interested in the impact of Camyao on future cases. It further confirms that Camyao has not establish a new legal test for cessation.
Overall:
You are in a situation where you should be looking at advice from a lawyer, and should have been looking to a lawyer for a long while now.
That said, best guess, emphasizing that it is a guess, it appears that IRCC is lifting the hold on processing your citizenship application and you are on track to have the process finalized. Given the years that have passed, it makes sense they would require another in-person interview.
Seems likely, then, this will be a typical PI (program integrity) interview, although you probably should anticipate the possibility there could be some questions related to travel in the last three years as well as before you made the application, and there might be questions about obtaining home country travel documents/passports and use of those.
Please update this thread in regards to how things go at the interview and what happens next.
Some Observations:
But based on what you have shared it must be emphasized the above is a GUESS, that you really should have the assistance of a lawyer.
There have been a number of mandamus cases involving cessation holds on processing citizenship applications, and some Federal Court justices have ruled that a continuing hold was improper, so that IRCC must proceed with processing the citizenship application. However, proceeding with processing does not necessarily mean the application is on track to be approved and citizenship granted. Thus, while it seems likely that yours is on track for processing to be finalized, and to be granted citizenship, that is not at all a sure bet.
That is, it is possible your application is moving ahead now as a response to those FC decisions. And the odds of being scheduled for the oath seem good. But not anywhere near a sure bet.
As we discussed nearly a year ago, your situation appears to be outside the range of cases in which CBSA was typically prosecuting cessation, given only one trip to the home country in compelling circumstances. Your situation was more consistent with those in which it has appeared CBSA and IRCC were not pursuing cessation. But that was mostly based on scant anecdotal reporting.
Moreover, given the presumption of reavailment when a protected person obtains a home country passport and uses it to travel to the home country, as I caution again and again, even in this situation, one short trip under compelling circumstances, there is a real risk of cessation. And, even short of cessation, as you have experienced, this can lead to very lengthy delays in processing a citizenship application . . . yours approaching four years now.
The fact that your citizenship application was put on hold (suspended) pending the cessation inquiries, separated your case from the several anecdotally reported cases in which PR-refugees have applied for and been granted citizenship despite one or even two trips to the home country. Like many other aspects of the way immigration rules are enforced, one of the biggest factors influencing how things tend to go is what triggers the issue, which is mostly about whether or not a more formal and probing inquiry or examination is triggered. (Most obvious example: for PRs in RO breach arriving at a PoE, the risk of inadmissibility proceedings goes way up if the PR is not waived through -- that is, it makes a huge difference whether or not there is a referral to Secondary focused on RO compliance.)
So, again, even though the odds in your situation seem favourable, it remains very difficult to forecast what will actually happen. And, again, it will be appreciated if you report back here with some details about the interview, including questions and your impressions, and what happens next.
Justice Heneghan's decision, in Adebanjo v. Canada, 2023 FC 1303 https://canlii.ca/t/k0dd2 , is very much in line with the general approach by the Federal Courts, in the last year plus some, distinguishing the scope of what must be considered, as expanded or as Justice Heneghan describes it, as particularized by Camayo, versus the legal test for what constitutes reavailment, which has not changed . . . the three legal requirements still being reavailment being based on the person's (1) voluntary acts, (2) with an intent to reavail home country protection, and (3) actual reavailment.
While other FC Justices have framed this somewhat differently, they are all still applying the three-step cessation test . . . what Camayo changed is the factual and circumstantial considerations the RPD must consider in applying these three requirements, and in many if not most of these cases the outcome largely depends on whether the refugee has rebutted the presumption of intent to reavail.
Justice Heneghan, Adebanjo v. Canada, 2023 FC 1303 https://canlii.ca/t/k0dd2 , does not reference the particular criminal code provision underlying the issuance of a Removal Order, but it clear this is about Johnson Adebanjo being inadmissible for serious criminality.
My guess is that he was convicted of Section 376(2)(b) in the Criminal Code https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-53.html#docCont which is an indictable offence subject to imprisonment for up to 14 years . . . definitely meeting the definition of serious criminality which makes a PR inadmissible. This offence is a property crime grouped with forgery and forgery like crimes. In addition to crimes involving false or forged government documents, others convicted of this offence are typically also involved in crimes like credit card fraud or possession of instruments for forging or falsifying credit cards, or other fraud schemes.
That is, the possession of a counterfeit mark crime itself was probably unrelated to immigration law. But to some fraudulent scheme. It is a serious offence, clearly meeting the definition of serious criminality, and thus grounds for finding Adebanjo to be inadmissible.
That determination effectively terminated Adebanjo's PR status when the Removal Order, for being inadmissible, took effect.
That would NOT terminate or set aside Adebanjo's status as a protected person.
Leading to . . .
In addition to the observation by @scylla, that this case is one more FC decision making it clear that Camayo has not changed the legal standards for finding reavailment and cessation . . .
There are scores and scores of persons found to be inadmissible but remaining in Canada. This gets into the particulars of deportation, and procedures like pre-removal risk assessment, H&C relief, and other procedural recourse to facilitate staying in Canada. Lots of individuals are subject to Deportation orders that are stayed. This does not restore PR status but does preclude deportation. There is a lot about this aspect of immigration law and its enforcement I know rather little.
What I do know is that as long as Adebanjo continued to have protected person status, despite losing PR status and being inadmissible he had various ways of pursuing relief that could preclude actual deportation. In contrast, when a cessation determination takes full effect (as noted previously, I am not sure when this happens), that basically slams the door shut. No more appeals. No more pre-removal risk assessment. No H&C relief. Thus, even someone with minor children in Canada and facing serious dangers in the home country, once the cessation determination is in full effect there is virtually nothing that will block actual, physical deportation.
Only an anecdote.
Received refugee PR status as minor. Applied for home country passport and visited home country a few times as minor and as adult (including with a passport issued after age 18). Applied for Canadian citizenship and reported both travel and foreign passport (as required); no questions asked and citizenship was granted.
We may see the statistics on the number of cessation cases that succeed out of the total number of cases, but we have no idea how many cases are never initiated despite the government having actual knowledge of travel to the home country. Some justifications for travel can succeed in a hearing, but we don't know how many refugees travel to their home countries but never face an actual attempt at cessation.
(Of course, never travelling or getting a home country passport is the safest option because then there is no question.)
Received refugee PR status as minor. Applied for home country passport and visited home country a few times as minor and as adult (including with a passport issued after age 18). Applied for Canadian citizenship and reported both travel and foreign passport (as required); no questions asked and citizenship was granted.
We may see the statistics on the number of cessation cases that succeed out of the total number of cases, but we have no idea how many cases are never initiated despite the government having actual knowledge of travel to the home country. Some justifications for travel can succeed in a hearing, but we don't know how many refugees travel to their home countries but never face an actual attempt at cessation.
(Of course, never travelling or getting a home country passport is the safest option because then there is no question.)
Curious: what time frame did this occur in? Eg receiving PR status / the travel as an adult / citizenship application and citizenship.
Your point is a good one: we do not know the denominator (the total number of such cases). We do know that once the cessation is commenced, it's a tough row to hoe to get out of the decision to pursue (legally).
It makes sense your citizenship application was processed without issues. You were a depedant in the application and not the primary claimant.
I am, of course, only guessing, but, the part of the text I was referring to was this:
Relevant in this are two (possibly and a half) hints in this text:
-the possession of counterfeit marks "in the name of the CBSA" seems to mean that the marks (like a stamp) were of some kind of stamp/mark that the CBSA would affix ... including possibly an entry stamp? Or similar other stamp/mark that's associated with entry process. [Could of course be something commercial like a duties paid stamp or similar, of course.]
-the Respondent (ie IRCC) has opined (submitted) that this indicates/implies a high degree of knowledge of immigration processes. Like possibly ... info indicating previous entries and/or date of entry?
-the 'half' - the rhetorical link (unspecified) between the 'travel history and possession of counterfeit marks', which could mean that both occurred and indicate knowledge, or that it's specifically the (directly linked) travel history and possession of counterfeit marks, i.e. that date and/or other relevant parts of the 'marks' combined to misrepresent the travel history. (BTW I'm not sure this would exclude possibility of there being 'marks' (stamps) from other places that are counterfeit, like hiding where one travelled to).
So my inference is that the counterfeit marks here WERE related to immigration law. But it's an inference, or educated guess, only.
Yeah, fair enough in terms of what might be the underlying factual basis for the EITHER the criminal charge and conviction (it is clear enough that the Removal Order was based on serious criminality), or for the IRCC Minister's representative's argument that Adebanjo was in possession of counterfeit marks in the name of CBSA.
FC Justice Heneghan does not comment on the argument that Adebanjo was in possession of counterfeit marks in the name of CBSA (and thus, according to the Minister's counsel, "had a high degree of knowledge of immigration"), other than to cite the fact that is what IRCC asserts. And, actually, FC Justice Heneghan states, in contrast, that in regards to the RPD's determination as to Adebanjo's subjective intention, "the RPD inferred the Applicant’s intention from his actions, that is in obtaining passports from Nigeria and using them for international travel." And that was a reasonable inference. No indication that FC Justice Heneghan's decision relies much if at all on the claim about possessing counterfeit marks in the name of CBSA.
If the criminal charge and conviction was based on possession of counterfeit marks in the name of CBSA, that could have been (and my guess would be fairly likely was) more about manipulating customs than immigration.
Important Observation Regarding Obtaining and Using Passport For International Travel:
In taking a second look at the decision, in addition to ruling that Camayo does not impose a new legal test, as @scylla noted, this decision is indeed highly relevant in regards to a recurrent contention in this topic, that is that obtaining a home country passport and using it to travel to countries OTHER than the home country, will not lead to cessation. I have made a concerted effort to caution that just obtaining a home country passport could result in cessation, and that obtaining a home country passport and using it for travel, even if NOT to the home country, increases the risk of cessation.
One of Adebanjo's arguments is that he did not travel to his home country and that the RPD unreasonably inferred he did. Justice Heneghan's ruling basically says that is not a problem . . . that evidence of Adebanjo obtaining the home country passport and using it to travel internationally, including to Benin, was sufficient for the FC to hold "the RPD reasonably considered the voluntariness of the Applicant’s actions in obtaining a Nigerian passport and using it for international travel."
I do not mean to overstate the significance of this. There were, obviously, some compelling negative equities weighing against Adebanjo, so the fact that Justice Heneghan ruled that passport plus international travel (without showing travel to home country) is enough to support cessation does not necessarily mean that any PR-refugee who has done similarly without traveling to the home country is at high risk. But the significance of this should not be understated either. Obtaining a home country passport and using it to travel internationally, even if NOT to the home country, can lead to cessation.
Leading to . . .
I am reminded of the different level of risk walking on a ledge two meters above the ground below, versus on a similar ledge twenty meters above the ground. The risk of slipping and falling off the ledge is the same. The risk of serious injury and death is far, far greater doing the latter.
We really do not know what the risks are for any particular PR-refugee who engages in acts that could constitute reavailment and therefore lead to cessation. Easy to forecast that more such acts, the more risk there is of cessation investigation. But what tips the scales, we do not know . . . we have been seeing, it should be cautioned, what appears to be a trend toward more cessation cases involving just one or two trips.
What looms really large in regards to cessation is the impact of cessation, call it a slip-and-fall. Even if the risk of triggering cessation is fairly low, what really matters is what happens, what the consequences are, if a cessation proceeding is triggered.
I don't mean to go off on a game-theory tangent in risk-analysis. I don't think that is necessary to grasp that in regards to cessation, the consequences element looms far more prominently in assessing risks and making related decisions.
I cannot offer a guess, let alone an opinion why @affleck did not encounter cessation while Camayo did, notwithstanding what appears to be a lot of similarities (both minor dependents initially but later adults also engaging in acts that could constitute reavailment). It is not clear how things turned out for Camayo, as there is still the prospect that a different RPD determined there was reavailment and ceased Camayo's status. It is really not at all clear if, going forward, someone in a situation much like @affleck will similarly sail through and be granted citizenship.
Travel and passport were pre-Covid and within the past 5 years. PR status a few years before that (on a fairly normal timeframe for claim processing). Application to test to oath took only a few months. I think that the process is getting faster in general now as they recover from their Covid-related delays.
I'll mention that the other members of the family have similarly travelled back (actually, more times). They have some reasonable justifications and answers that could be given if proceedings were ever brought against them — but none ever have. They never even received hard questionings at the border — which seems to be the case when people end up getting cessation against them (although this is by no means a legal requirement). They haven't applied for citizenship yet but should do so soon.
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 I don't think it's fundamentally based on any principles of equity. There is a lot of room for discretion in the system (and I think this makes it a rather poor system, but that's just my opinion). Will a border officer give you the third degree? Will they refer you for investigation? Will that investigation proceed very far? Will a ministerial official decide you're a worthy target for proceedings? What will the board think of your justifications and arguments in a proceeding? All of those stages have considerable room for discretion.
Discretion could be based in equity. And to some extent, it probably is. A person who seems more sympathetic is probably less likely to be targeted. (Consider, though, that the perception of this attribute may be influenced by stereotypical or other biases, conscious or otherwise. The same patterns have been outlined in studies of bias in criminal justice.) But what happens could also be based on completely immaterial issues. Some people are nicer and some are perhaps more mean-spirited, sure. But whether or not you get referred could also have to do with an officer going through a tough breakup or simply being hungry (lunch has been shown to have a significant impact on many decisions in the justice system, too).
We know for a fact that there are cases where a person does something that could be considered grounds for cessation, but nothing happens. This is hardly the first time someone's posted such an anecdote in this thread of getting citizenship without a hitch. We also know there are also people who have faced cessation and even had their status ceased despite what we might consider very sympathetic circumstances (the plight of the activist filmmaker who travelled back to her native Iran comes to mind).
To account for the scope of our ignorance here, let's take a step back. 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.
We even know the statistics have shown more cessation cases in the late 2010s and early 2020s, with higher rates of cessation, but we don't even really know the circumstances that underlie these cases. We can operate based on anecdotes, but we see that similar fact patterns can lead to very disparate results.
My impression is that the government probably only brings cases which it reasonably believes it will win (without any judicial appeal). This is backed up the the success of the government in most cessation proceedings. But we have no idea how many cases they choose not to bring. Case law analysis is great, but the reality is that most of the time the most important decision is whether or not to bring proceedings in the first place.
A lot of this could be solved by simply returning to the old system, in which permanent residency is permanent. I don't think anyone has a real problem with PR being revoked in cases of vacation for fraud or misrepresentation (which was allowed pre-2012, too). But cessation removing PR status can be too harsh. At the very least there should be some H&C considerations.
Is the system we have really fair? No. (Well, I don't think so.) But when you're an non-citizen immigrant of any stripe, that's the game you have to play.
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.
We even know the statistics have shown more cessation cases in the late 2010s and early 2020s, with higher rates of cessation, but we don't even really know the circumstances that underlie these cases. We can operate based on anecdotes, but we see that similar fact patterns can lead to very disparate results.
My impression is that the government probably only brings cases which it reasonably believes it will win (without any judicial appeal). This is backed up the the success of the government in most cessation proceedings. But we have no idea how many cases they choose not to bring. Case law analysis is great, but the reality is that most of the time the most important decision is whether or not to bring proceedings in the first place.
A lot of this could be solved by simply returning to the old system, in which permanent residency is permanent. I don't think anyone has a real problem with PR being revoked in cases of vacation for fraud or misrepresentation (which was allowed pre-2012, too). But cessation removing PR status can be too harsh. At the very least there should be some H&C considerations.
Is the system we have really fair? No. (Well, I don't think so.) But when you're an non-citizen immigrant of any stripe, that's the game you have to play.