Refugee status cessation and PRs applying for citizenship

[dpenabill]

Recent availment of home country protection and loss of PR status case: a decision regarding Afshin Norouzi

see http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/fr/item/230023/index.do

This case is not good news for those PRs via refugee status who have acquired a home country passport and used it to travel to the home country, at least not those against whom CIC (now IRCC) or the Minister of Public Safety had already commenced proceedings to terminate protected person status based on reavailment of home country protection.

The Minister of IRCC continued to argue and, in effect, prosecute this case.

The frequency and duration of travel to the home country was extensive, including several trips for three or more months, and in sum spending well over a third of the time in the home country over a period of four years or so.

On the other hand, there were no trips to the home country indicated during the six year period of time preceding the date the proceedings to terminate protected person status were commenced, and indeed none during the five years preceding the date the Harper government changed the law which made these proceedings applicable to refugees after they became PRs.

I am not competent in French and internet translations for these decisions leave a lot to be desired, so I am not real clear about how the issues were decided. That said, my limited reading of the decision suggests the Federal Court tends to push (or brush) aside many fair procedure and Charter issues rather than address them substantively, which seems to me to leave such individuals in a very precarious position.

We still do not know if the Minister (either of IRCC or Public Safety) is still bringing such cases. But this case amply illuminates that cases already in progress have been continued under the Liberal government. (Proceedings began July 2013, under Harper government, but the RPD decision was not until June 2016, well after the Liberal Party formed the government, and this Federal Court decision was just this month, April 2017, and again the Minister of IRCC affirmatively prosecuted the case against this (now) former PR.)

If anyone has knowledge of any cases like this commenced within the last year or so, please provide the forum with as much information you can or are willing to share about it.

 

[sopranotb]

There seems to be some legal reasons for liberals not stop following old cases.. They seem stopped following new cases.. We did not hear any new cases in the federal court website long time ago.. This opinion was seconded by people here in the forum who got thier citizenship despite being travelled to their homecountries.. Also no news from refugee advocates associations like ccrweb and BAR assocaiation.. Also that report that showed budget saving plan that someone here shared few weeks ago that showed that liberals not inititating new cessation proceedings to save government money.. I am not saying I am sure they stopped completly cessation I am saying many signs indicates they are at least not as agressive as the conservatives

Recent availment of home country protection and loss of PR status case: a decision regarding Afshin Norouzi

see http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/fr/item/230023/index.do

This case is not good news for those PRs via refugee status who have acquired a home country passport and used it to travel to the home country, at least not those against whom CIC (now IRCC) or the Minister of Public Safety had already commenced proceedings to terminate protected person status based on reavailment of home country protection.

The Minister of IRCC continued to argue and, in effect, prosecute this case.

The frequency and duration of travel to the home country was extensive, including several trips for three or more months, and in sum spending well over a third of the time in the home country over a period of four years or so.

On the other hand, there were no trips to the home country indicated during the six year period of time preceding the date the proceedings to terminate protected person status were commenced, and indeed none during the five years preceding the date the Harper government changed the law which made these proceedings applicable to refugees after they became PRs.

I am not competent in French and internet translations for these decisions leave a lot to be desired, so I am not real clear about how the issues were decided. That said, my limited reading of the decision suggests the Federal Court tends to push (or brush) aside many fair procedure and Charter issues rather than address them substantively, which seems to me to leave such individuals in a very precarious position.

We still do not know if the Minister (either of IRCC or Public Safety) is still bringing such cases. But this case amply illuminates that cases already in progress have been continued under the Liberal government. (Proceedings began July 2013, under Harper government, but the RPD decision was not until June 2016, well after the Liberal Party formed the government, and this Federal Court decision was just this month, April 2017, and again the Minister of IRCC affirmatively prosecuted the case against this (now) former PR.)

If anyone has knowledge of any cases like this commenced within the last year or so, please provide the forum with as much information you can or are willing to share about it.

 

[jabindovic]

I have an update regarding this issue:

Quick background: my friend is a PR with refugee status - obtained home country passport and travelled back home (Asia) for a funeral once and gone for vacation twice.
He applied for PR card renewal back in December. He got AOR in March and his application status has been 'in progress" since March 21. He got pretty worried and finally mustered the courage to call the call centre last week. He was told his card is "in production" and he should get in within 4 weeks.

I imagine this means that the application has been "completed" (even though he says ecas has apparently not been updated - i.e. still 'in process').

• Does "in production" mean everything is done - only printing the card remains?
• Is there still a chance for the application to be referred for cessation investigation?

Thanks.

 

[dpenabill]

I have an update regarding this issue:

Quick background: my friend is a PR with refugee status - obtained home country passport and travelled back home (Asia) for a funeral once and gone for vacation twice.
He applied for PR card renewal back in December. He got AOR in March and his application status has been 'in progress" since March 21. He got pretty worried and finally mustered the courage to call the call centre last week. He was told his card is "in production" and he should get in within 4 weeks.

I imagine this means that the application has been "completed" (even though he says ecas has apparently not been updated - i.e. still 'in process').

• Does "in production" mean everything is done - only printing the card remains?
• Is there still a chance for the application to be referred for cessation investigation?

Thanks.

First, the report is appreciated.

The lack of much if any news about this has been generally good news, good news in the sense that there is some indication that the current government does not appear to be pursuing cessation much. That is not as good news as it would be if the current government formally took steps to remove the termination of PR status provision, but indications of relative non-enforcement or minimal enforcement should help some in this situation, such as your friend, sleep a little better.

This report indicates that, at the least, there is not an aggressive effort to prosecute potential reavailment and cessation of status.

• Does "in production" mean everything is done - only printing the card remains?

That is the likely status but it is not necessarily so.

• Is there still a chance for the application to be referred for cessation investigation?

While making a PRC application, at least when Harper was still PM, might trigger a referral to CBSA to investigate and potentially prosecute cessation proceedings, it is not the application itself which would be referred. Rather it is the PR. The referral would be an entirely separate proceeding. The PRC application process could still proceed on its own.

Any interaction with CBSA or IRCC could trigger the referral.

In the meantime, the issuance of a new PR card does not terminate potential exposure to cessation proceedings. Only taking the oath of citizenship will terminate exposure.

All that said, as already noted, this report suggests that your friend has not been referred for cessation proceedings, and that is probably a good sign that the current government is not pursuing these cases, at least not aggressively.

My guess is that the particular facts might matter. In other contexts there is what is referred to as prosecutorial discretion, which is similar to what law enforcement officers exercise . . . the typical speed trap, for example, does not stop and ticket every car going over the speed limit, but only those going over it by a certain amount. The police are exercising their discretion to, in effect, not prosecute every speeding violation, instead focusing on going after those who are more blatantly and deliberately breaking the law.

Which is to say, while the presumptions that arise from merely obtaining the home country passport could be sufficient for CBSA/IRCC to prosecute cessation, perhaps they will only go after those who have blatantly and excessively demonstrated reavailment. Maybe how much a person has used the home country passport, and how much time the person has spent in the home country, can make the difference.

We do not really know.

Note that in the Norouzi case I discuss above, for example, he had made seven trips to the home country in barely three years, and some of those trips were several months at a time (adding up to nearly a year and a half). In contrast, if the refugee-PR only traveled two or three times total, and spent only a few weeks at a time, the total over the course of many years might seem to not indicate reavailment at all, and not invite cessation proceedings.

Unfortunately, as long as the law is on the books as it currently is, refugee-PRs who have obtained a home country passport, and especially those who have used it, and even more so for those who have used it to visit the home country, are at some risk, but it is impossible to assess the extent of that risk.

Reports like this, which tends to indicate a lack of strict enforcement, offer hope but NO guarantee.

In the meantime, the prudent course to follow is to not use a home country passport, any more than one already has used it, and to avoid going to the home country . . . until one becomes a Canadian citizen or the law is changed.

 

[jabindovic]

First, the report is appreciated.

Yea, no worries.

The referral would be an entirely separate proceeding. The PRC application process could still proceed on its own.

Any interaction with CBSA or IRCC could trigger the referral.

In the meantime, the issuance of a new PR card does not terminate potential exposure to cessation proceedings. Only taking the oath of citizenship will terminate exposure.

It is definitely interesting to note that the two processes can be separate. I will follow-up with my friend and update if there are any new developments.

 

[jabindovic]

This was published today: https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2017/05/09/supreme-court-appeal-asks-whether-refugees-are-equal-to-all-other-immigrants.html
A cessation case is going to the Supreme Court.

 

[dpenabill]

The fact that a case involving a suspended citizenship application is going to Canada's Supreme Court might not be all good news.

In the meantime, even a favourable outcome for Nilam would not necessarily mean there will be no further cessation proceedings for other PRs. In particular, the decision is likely to be a narrow one. The only issue at stake is whether IRCC can suspend a citizenship application pending the outcome of cessation proceedings. And actually . . . well, I will get to that part of things below, but note for now that this is a citizenship application case NOT a cessation case.


I am not dismissing the arguments made on behalf of Nilam, but to the extent the case depends on the premise that PRs cannot legally have their status terminated for re-availment is probably a very difficult case to make. An argument that depends on the premise the law is not valid is almost always a tough case to make.

To put that in perspective, remember the Supreme Court could unanimously and emphatically conclude that the law is unwise and unjust, but still be required to uphold it as valid. Only if it is unconstitutional, as in only if it violates the Charter of Rights, can it be rejected as not valid.

Remember, Parliament has the authority to adopt and enforce bad laws. Make no mistake about that.

I do not know Canadian constitutional law anywhere near enough to venture a guess as to the outcome of this case, except to note, again, this is always a tough case to make.

I do know that scores of people express firm knowledge about such things without a hint of credibility, the vast majority of them blowing fake smoke. Even the best experts about a subject like this cannot say with confidence how a case like this will be decided, and anyone purporting to know that this law is unconstitutional is inherently unreliable, not to be believed.


There is possibly another argument . . .

My access to legal databases does not afford me an opportunity to purview the application made to the Supreme Court. So I am relying on the Star's account of what that application argues.

I am not familar with the quality or competency of attorney Douglas Cannon.

What the Star quotes tends to indicate that the law applicable to PR refugees should not allow termination of their status as a PR, that is, that the cessation provision applicable to PRs is not valid. As I previously noted, that is always a hard case to make.

But newspaper reporters often mangle things of this sort. There is some language quoted from the application for leave which indicates that perhaps Cannon is distinguishing PRs who have qualified for citizenship.

In this respect, in contrast to the three members of the Federal Court of Appeals who made the decision here, in effect agreeing with Federal Court Justice Bell (see cases cited and linked below), there was the underlying decision by Justice Russell, and a separate decision by Justice O'Keefe, reaching a contrary conclusion about the scope of IRCC's authority to suspend processing an application.

That is, there may be an argument based on statutory interpretation. Given the decision by the Federal Court of Appeal, that too seems a difficult argument to make, but if that is an argument which can be made to the Supreme Court, that seems to me a little less daunting a task than asking the Supreme Court to, in effect, invalidate the provision added by the Harper government in 2012 (automatically terminating PR status for a refugee whose protected person status is subject to cessation).







There is, however, some important, salient news in this story, including especially that under the Liberal government in 2016 there were 94 cessation applications made and in 2016 there were 18 who had status stripped.

While this represents barely more than half the number of applications made the previous year, and a smaller total number of cessation determinations, obviously the Liberal government has continued to implement and prosecute the cessation provisions.




More about the particular case involved:

As I noted above, this case, the one purportedly going to the Supreme Court of Canada, is a citizenship case, NOT a cessation case.

Nilam applied for citizenship. That application was suspended pending the outcome of cessation proceedings.

The cessation proceedings themselves are a totally separate case.

The formal decisions:


RPD proceedings:

see http://canlii.ca/t/gllrk for Justice Mactavish's decision in favour of CIC. The RPD actually ruled in Nilam's favour and denied the government's application for the cessation of Nilam's refugee status. CIC appealed. Justice Mactavish essentially disagreed with the RPD's conclusions based on the evidence, which should not be the role of the Federal Court (obviously higher authority than me, as in Justice Mactavish, sees this differently); for example, Justice Mactavish dismissed the RPD's conclusions based on evidence of Nilam's means of avoiding risks, and did so largely because Nilam had used a Sri Lankan passport (in effect saying use of the passport was more weighty evidence than that relied on by the RPD).

So Nilam's case went back to the RPD to be determined by another panel. This was the first week of October 2015. Just two weeks later the Harper government was resoundingly defeated in the Federal election and, apparently, this cessation case has been pending ever since.



Case being appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada:


Federal Court of Appeal decision:

see http://canlii.ca/t/h1s6l

This decision was issued March 7, 2017, that is barely two months ago.

The issue in that case was a certified question, which was certified by Justice Russell in an August 3, 2016 decision.

Can the Minister suspend the processing of an application for citizenship . . . to await the results of cessation proceedings?
(citations omitted)

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that that yes, the Minister can suspend processing a citizenship application pending the outcome of cessation proceedings.

Decision was signed by J.A. Richard Boivin, and agreed with by Near and Rennie.

This effectively reverses the decision by Justice Russell:

Federal Court mandamus decision:

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/169070/index.do
or http://canlii.ca/t/gstsh

Again, this case was about a citizenship application. It was an application for a Writ of Mandamus, essentially a request that the Federal Court order IRCC to proceed with his application for citizenship.

Justice Russell ordered that IRCC proceed with the citizenship application, and in effect ordered that IRCC do so promptly (ordering the oath ceremony to be scheduled no later than 15 days after a decision).

But, Justice Russell also certified the questions posed by the Liberal government.

For further reference, Justice Russell had ruled similarly in another mandamus application case, see http://canlii.ca/t/gkgft for the Ovalle decision.

Justice John A. O'Keefe also issued a Federal Court order of mandamus to compel CIC to proceed with a citizenship application made by Carlota Segura Valverde notwithstanding the hold CIC had placed on processing the citizenship application pending a CBSA application for cessation of the applicant's refugee status. See http://canlii.ca/t/glf6h

In contrast, another application for mandamus in a similar situation, albeit specifically in consideration of the expanded authority to suspend processing prescribed in changes to the Citizenship Act by Bill C-24, had a contrary result, Justice Bell ruling against issuing a writ of mandamus. see http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/fr/item/180677/index.do


The latter brings this back around to the Nilam case and the Federal Court of Appeal decision: it explicitly concludes that IRCC can suspend processing a citizenship application pending the outcome of cessation proceedings. This is an application of Section 13.1 in the Citizenhsip Act.

Most of these cases (other than the March Federal Court of Appeal decision) I have discussed before, going back to last year.

 

[Fallen_Warrior]

Personal Background:

I am a PR in Canada, who is also a protected person. I came to Canada in 2007 as a student, went through a lot of mess, and ended up with this status. I am living alone in Canada from past 10 years and haven't been able to go back home since 2008. I was granted my residency in 2015. I have completed my undergraduate from University of Waterloo and doing my second degree from University of Western Ontario now. I have successfully established an online business and paying approximately $60k taxes every year (not joking or exaggerating).

When I chose the path to become a refugee, I was unaware of all the hardships and harsh realities associated with it. I am not a political refugee and have no serious issues back in my country. My protected person status is due to my marriage with my EX-WIFE. We are divorced now and things are slightly in my favor back home. It’s not like I do not need Canadian protection anymore. I still have fears that I might be subjected to the harsh treatment by my society due to my past marriage. Since I came this far, I decided to reach the finish line and put an end to this immigration matter once and for all.

Since becoming the protected person in early 2011, I am following up on this cessation law. Day and Night, again and again, I googled the term "refugee cessation Canada 201X". Reading articles, case laws at Canlii, recommendations by lawyers, talk of politicians and discussing it with my family and friends. Sometimes reading the same information three or four times to figure out something, which might help me see my family.

When I see other PRs, who have all the rights in Canada, I feel myself as a second-class permanent resident here. So many times, I thought to set aside my Canadian life and identity, transfer my well saved fortune back to my home country, pack my bags, renew my home country passport and say bye to this country. This doesn’t mean I came here to take unfair advantage of this country, but it’s because my mother's health.

My mom in 2014 suffered severe heart issues. When I talk to her she pretends that everything is fine, but I can feel the pain in her voice. I can imagine how badly she wants to see me before any unfortunate event happens. She knows that I cannot come back so she doesn’t try to make it a big deal that her health is a problem. This makes me cry sometimes and force me to think that does this protection and life in Canada worth it? What good is a Canadian passport if I ever lose my mom and cannot even see her face one last time. I got the Canadian refugee travel document and planned to meet my family in a third country. My mother was not able to travel so I invited my brother to meet me. I travelled to a third country in 2016 and met him there. I saw him after 8 years and it felt like a dream. After living apart for so long, for a moment it felt like I was meeting with some stranger. I asked myself, does this struggle worth it when your relationship with your own family is in jeopardy. I missed my sister’s wedding and birth of my beloved niece. She is now 4 years old and barely knows me. I missed all my family events and all the love and comfort of my home. Every night when I try to sleep, I ask myself: IS THIS A PROTECTION OR A JAIL?

10 Years passed by asking the same question to myself, and yet here I am, still in Canada writing this little story for you. I chose to write all this so that I can tell all other PR + Refugees, who are in this spiral of madness, that they are not alone. We all are going through this pain together. Some have slightly better circumstances, since they have families in Canada, and some like me suffer bit more because they are alone. However, pain is the same regardless.


I apologize for taking your time and making you read my boring story, but this might help calm down someone who is in same shoes as me.


Law and Its Implications:


I will now talk about the real stuff.

Cessation of refugee status means that a person is found to no longer need protection as a refugee. Although the possibility of a cessation application is not new, however changes in the Canadian immigration law by conservative government have made the consequences much more drastic for people who were granted refugee status and are now permanent residents of Canada. Changes to the IRPA adopted in 2012 mean that a person automatically loses their permanent residence if the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) decides that they are no longer a refugee. I strongly believe that this Draconian immigration rule was a major step backwards in Canadian immigration policy, and have increased insecurity and mental health issues in refugees.

Since 2012, CBSA has made cessation applications a significantly higher priority. In their enthusiasm to identify cessation cases, CBSA is casting an inappropriately wide net and interpreting almost any contact with the country of origin as re-availment. CBSA has been arguing that cessation should apply in cases where individuals have done no more than applying for a passport, or have made short visits to the country of origin, for compelling reasons.

By the automatic operation of the law, a decision by the IRB to cessate refugee status results in the person losing permanent residence and becoming inadmissible to Canada. There is no H & C option available to refugees for at least one year and this maybe is harsher punishment than the treatment for other grounds of loss of permanent residence. A permanent resident who does not respect the residency requirements or even commits crime has the right to an appeal before the IAD, however no such appeal is available to a permanent resident who faces the loss of their status due to cessation. The impact of a cessation decision is that a person goes immediately from being a permanent resident to being inadmissible, without any rights in Canada. They are immediately removable.

An effected person with a Canadian citizen spouse might eventually be able regain permanent residence through a spousal sponsorship, but in the meantime, they would have to give up their job, spend extra money on lawyers and have no legal status in Canada. They might well be deported. If the person loses status through cessation, and then regains permanent residence through a spousal sponsorship application, what good is all the headache for by CBSA and CIC?

Many refugees used to feel that once they had permanent residence they were safe and no longer refugees. This sense is lost when it is understood that permanent residence is effectively conditional on their continuing to be recognized as refugees. It is unclear what permanent residence status means for refugees if it can be lost simply because they are no longer refugees. We are accustomed to thinking of permanent residence as a status that, once legitimately acquired, is independent of the grounds on which it was acquired. We don’t expect Skilled Worker immigrants to lose their status if they no longer work in their profession, or Family Class immigrants to be told to leave Canada if the family member that sponsored them dies. Canada is a nation built by immigrants: People need to feel that they belong to Canada before they invest, start a business or set down roots in Canada. People won’t feel they belong to this society if they know that any moment they can be asked to leave.


What to do:


1) Admit to yourself that you are in a luxurious Jail. Do not renew your home country passport and use it to go back home until the law in Bill C-31 is revoked or you become a CANADIAN CITIZEN.

2) Get a Canadian Travel Document and use it to see your family in some third country.

3) If you have no choice but to renew your passport to see your family (since some countries do not accept Canadian Travel Document), do not travel on it to your home country. Only use it to travel to the nearest third country to your home country (i.e. UAE, Dubai etc.). See the case law Bashir 2015.

4) If you absolutely must go back home, try getting married in Canada first. Since you can re-apply for PR using spousal sponsorship. This option is still dangerous because IRCC may argue that this is a “marriage of convenience”.

5) If you are not in a hurry, apply for your citizenship (thanks to passage of Bill C-6 in the senate) and then go back home. Your travel details in the application won’t show any visit to your home country. IRCC will not know from your application that you are a potential candidate for the cessation. When you come back and, are lucky enough, to not get clutched at the airport based CBSA screening, you will be fine. One less risk! Sometimes if you find a nice CBSA officer, he may let you go without reporting you to the IRCC.

6) If you cannot find a wife here, cannot wait to submit your citizenship application and have a real emergency, then just go back home. Family is more important than money and Canadian life. Remember, not every refugee who goes back home is caught. Some are caught at the airport, some get caught when they submit their PR Card renewal/Citizenship applications and some are not caught at all. It’s like stealing, not every thief is caught.

7) If you encounter cessation application, immediately contact the best Canadian immigrations lawyers such as Mario Bellissimo (Toronto), Erin Roth [Edelmann] (Vancouver), etc. It takes immigration approximately 2-3 years to get you out (given you go to federal courts etc.). Meanwhile, make as much money as you can and transfer it back home.


Option 5 above is my favorite. All experienced members, please comment.

Above recommendations are my personal opinions and must not be taken as a legal advice. I would love to hear from other experienced members about their recommendations and comments.


I hope, one day we will all go back home and see our families. Until then, let’s stay strong.

 

[frankwhyte22]

Good write up.

No one knows or can possibility understand how Harper government felt it was ok to create two classes of PR holders.

It totally unfair and wrong to attain PR status and yet be considered a refugee....makes no sense.

 

[dpenabill]

PoE Examinations and Questioning Permanent Residents Regarding Cessation:

I had not previously noticed changes made late last year to the Operational Manual ENF 4 governing PoE Examinations, pursuant to which a subpart of Section 11.4, regarding investigating PRs for inadmissibility, was added covering the questioning of PRs regarding cessation.

Operational manuals can be found at http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/index.asp

See, in particular, ENF 4 Section 11.4 and the part about cessation beginning on page 48.

To the extent there has been any doubt about the Liberal government's approach to applying the rather draconian cessation provisions for PRs who were granted refugee or protected person status, this revision of the guidelines for PoE examinations in December of 2016 indicates full enforcement. Remember, NDP MP Kwan's private members Bill, to repeal this draconian provision, was tabled last June. The Minister of IRCC at the time, McCallum, was vague about how the Liberal government would approach this issue.

The December 2016 revision of Section 11.4 in ENF 4 governing PoE Examinations is a rather distinct signal.

In conjunction with the position the Minister took in the recently reported case above, this strongly suggests that refugee-PRs do NOT obtain a passport from any country (other than becoming a citizen of Canada and obtaining a Canadian passport) and do NOT travel to their home country (country fled).

For those who have already done one or the other, or both, best to avoid any further travel abroad using another country's passport (only use the Canadian provided refugee travel document) and do not travel to the home country.

Yes, this can be a huge inconvenience for many. But it appears that the Liberal government is indeed enforcing the provisions for cessation against PRs.

Best to lay low until qualified for citizenship, and become a citizen, before traveling to the home country.

While there is a possibility that the Nilam case, discussed above, could result in these provisions being rendered inoperative, that is not an outcome worth betting on at this stage. In other words, for now STAY SAFE.

 

[Fallen_Warrior]

I always thought that this new liberal govt will come rescue us but infact they are no different than their counterparts - conservatives.

I find that NDP's Jenny Kwan is the only person in political arena who is raising her voice on this matter and infact even presented a private member bill in this regard. If i ever become a canadian citizen my vote will always be with NDP.

When is Nilam's case is scheduled to be heard by supreme court of Canada?

I also invite other members to share their authentic experiences if they have ever renewed their passport and visited back home recently.

Please also sign this petition i have found on the change.org.

https://www.change.org/p/honourable-john-mccallum-stop-refugees-deportation-from-canada-say-no-to-cbsa-refugee-cessation-applications

 

[sopranotb]

The supreme court denied Nilam case with no comments.. Does this has an impact on the trigger of new cessation cases? Here is the link it says 393 citizenship application cases pending cessation investigations..

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/supreme-court-will-not-hear-case-of-refugee-who-could-lose-status-after-return-visit-to-sri-lankan/wcm/afc198ea-5755-4434-87ee-b00ed64dd539

 

[itsmyid]

His situation is unfortunate and probably unique - that he was a refugee of the war and the war ended after he left his country, so in his case, going back might be justified - however, I think this rule is there for a good reason, especially since how the system has been abused and taken advantage of by so many fake refugee claims. I know a lot of people overstayed with visitor visa and filed for refugee application, simply because they wanted to stay and live in Canada but didn't have the skill/credential for other legal immigration paths. And there are lawyers coaching them how to make up stories about how they get prosecuted in their home country, and telling them to join some protest outside their home country's embassy and take picture of it so they could use it as evidence that they are against their government and will be thrown in jail if they go back... or other innovative ways of presenting their cases.

In the end, I guess the rule is not really the root to blame, instead, it is the action of those people who resulted in the introduction of this rule. Just like all the RQ, non-routine processing ... if some people didn't try to 'outsmart' the system and take advantage of loopholes, none of those rules would have been created.

Additional edit: just took a look at the 'refugee' board of this forum, and saw a lot of people seeking help on how to get refugee status under false/made-up claim, some of which started with 'I will entire Canada with a visitor visa how can I stay and claim refugee' or 'I will board the plane with a fake visa that I will destroy before landing' or 'I will tell them I am changing my religion'... quite an eye-opener

 

[Saaqs]

you can find the most recent numbers on cessation here: http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/Eng/RefClaDem/stats/Pages/RPDVacStat.aspx

 

[light88]

I do not have time to fully digest the Ovalle mandamus decision recently decided by Justice Russell, but for anyone who is a refugee PR this is a very significant case. A lot of the issues related to CIC's relatively recent purge of refugees considered to no longer be in need of protection, including those who are in the process of applying for Canadian citizenship, are addressed in this decision.

In theory, the policy makes sense. In practice, however, it tends to be draconian and harsh. My sense is that Justice Russell is very concerned about the actual impact this policy has on people's lives.

There is another recent and significant case regarding cessation of protected person status and loss of PR status as well, but I do not have the link handy.

This is a busy area of law right now. The impact is huge for those involved.

Anyone who is a refugee with PR status should be aware of the policy to terminate protected person status and thereby terminate PR status for those who either travel to their home country or who obtain a Travel Document from their home country, and especially anyone who does both.

Hi

I am a refugee. I never renewed my passport and never went back to my home country since I came to Canada. There's a serious danger if I do so.

Would I have a problem submitting my application for citizenship?

Second question: would I be able to go for a short visit to see my mother after I get Canadian passport ? Would that be an issue with Canadian immigration?

I believe my country of origin government will think twice before persecuting me if I come with Canadian passport.