Refugee status cessation and PRs applying for citizenship

[ImageOfLight]

I have a question that goes to the fundamentals of this issue. Is there a difference between a 'Protected person' and a 'protected person who has become a permanent resident"?

Let me try to spell out my thoughts and see if there is the basis for a legal challenge.

When an individual is granted refugee protection in Canada, their status in Canada becomes that of a Protected person.
If said person then applies for Permanent Residence, does their status become that of a Permanent Resident, the same as everyone else who holds that PR designation, or they fall into a different group (protected persons who are permanent residents of Canada)?

The section of the Immigration and Refugee Act which addresses the issue of cessation states:
Rejection

• 108 (1) A claim for refugee protection shall be rejected, and a person is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, in any of the following circumstances:
  • (a) the person has voluntarily reavailed themself of the protection of their country of nationality;
  • (b) the person has voluntarily reacquired their nationality;
  • (c) the person has acquired a new nationality and enjoys the protection of the country of that new nationality;
  • (d) the person has voluntarily become re-established in the country that the person left or remained outside of and in respect of which the person claimed refugee protection in Canada; or
  • (e) the reasons for which the person sought refugee protection have ceased to exist.
• Marginal note:Cessation of refugee protection
  (2) On application by the Minister, the Refugee Protection Division may determine that refugee protection referred to in subsection 95(1) has ceased for any of the reasons described in subsection (1).

The IRCC website shows that this law is interpreted as below.

Cessation and vacation of refugee protection
There are two ways that refugee protection can be removed:

1. A person can cease to hold their refugee status (A108) if, for example, they voluntarily reavail themself of the protection of their country of nationality or obtain protection from another country (citizenship).
2. A person can have their refugee status vacated (A109) if they obtained that status by directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter.

Applications for potential cessation or vacation of refugee protection may be referred to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) for:

• protected persons (status conferred by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) or by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) as a resettled refugee), including those who have pending applications for permanent residence in Canada; and
• protected persons who are permanent residents of Canada.

IRPA allows for loss of permanent residence status if refugee protection ceases under A108(1)(a) to (d) and a finding of inadmissibility under A40.1. There is no loss of permanent residence status if refugee protection is removed because of a change in country conditions [A108(1)(e)].


Back to my original question, does this mean the IRCC views the permanent residence status of protected persons as being on the condition that they do not reavail themselves the protection of their former countries. This in effect places additional conditions on their permanent residence status apart from the usual requirements for other classes of permanent residence, that is, that they would lose their PR status if they do not continue to meet the requirements of the pre-STATUS.

Thus if the IRCC recognizes the PR status of Protected persons as a de facto Conditional Permanent Residence, different from that of other permanent residents, as shown above, and they did not communicate this condition to the individuals at the time became PRs, does that not raise the possibility of a lack of procedural fairness?

Most of the cases Dpenabill posted the links to have one recurrent theme, the individuals did not know that reavailment even as a PR would lead to loss of status.

IRCC is aware that a lot of Protected Person PR are not aware their status is dependent on continuing to be a protected person, but by either omission or deliberate action, failed to communicate this condition to the individuals who may be affected, in effect creating a state of entrapment by random virtue testing. The failure to provide prospective Protected Person PRs with this information (i.e. their Permanent resident is dependent on maintaining their Protected person status) effectively took away their ability to make an informed choice about making such a life changing decision.

In the past there used to be a conditional Spousal permanent residence, where those individuals were required to cohabit for a certain duration of time. those conditions were clearly outlined by CIC and were listed on the website, in effect, there was no ambiguity about the requirements for spousal conditional permanent residence. Even after it was repealed, references to it can still be found.

Unfortunately this is not the case with Protected Person PRs who have a condition attached to their status, but which was never communicated to them. As you can tell i have no legal training and do not know how to channel my arguments, but i do believe there is merit to challenging this status quo and I intend to bring this up with my counsel when we meet.

 

[LadyA]

Thus if the IRCC recognizes the PR status of Protected persons as a de facto Conditional Permanent Residence, different from that of other permanent residents, as shown above, and they did not communicate this condition to the individuals at the time became PRs, does that not raise the possibility of a lack of procedural fairness?

AMEN!

 

[sopranotb]

I wrote an email about cessation to Jenny Kwan office, this is what I got back:

Thank you for taking the time to write to my office regarding the important issue of Cessation of Refugee Status, contained within Bill C-31.

Since my election as MP for Vancouver-East and NDP Critic for Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship, I have been an outspoken critic of this policy. Revoking someone’s legal status in Canada is a very serious issue and carried with it significant ramifications for the individuals impacted.

The current law allows for cessation proceedings to be brought against someone who travels back to their country of origin regardless of changing circumstances in the country, regardless of the reason for travel, and regardless of whether the travel occurred before this provision existed as it effective retroactively. Often, it is when former refugees who are now permanent residents of Canada are applying to become citizens that they are flagged and are faced with these provisions. These are law-abiding people who have committed no crime, violated no immigration laws, and passed all requirements to become Canadian citizens, and they are being targeted for cessation. These individuals are building new lives, contributing to Canadian society, and starting families. Simply put, this is an injustice.

I have demanded numerous times in the House of Commons that legislative changes be made to eliminate the unjust cessation provisions targeting refugees brought in by the previous government. I attempted to address this issue during the Committee stage study of Bill C-6 in 2016. Unfortunately my attempt to amend Bill C-6 to repeal cessation was deemed out of scope of the Bill. At that time, the former Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship the Hon. John McCallum P.C., M.P. suggested that he was interested in working with me on the issue and that the government would be moving forward with another immigration Bill. However, this has yet to manifest, and the current Minister, the Hon. Ahmed Hussen has not shown the same interest.

Over this period, the government is spending millions of dollars per year to strip away refugees' permanent resident status, simply because individuals have travelled back to their countries of origin, regardless of the reason. This is unacceptable.

I have tabled two PMB in the House of Commons: Bill C-333, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (granting and revoking of citizenship), and Bill-C-294, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Cessation of refugee protection).

Bill C-294 only seeks to repeal the cessation provisions. Bill C-333, while repealing cessation, also incorporates several other legislative improvements to Canada’s immigration system. Those Bills can be found here:
- Bill C-294: http://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&billId=8274877
- Bill C-333: http://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&billId=8685174

If the government wishes to continue to tell the world how open and humanitarian we are in our approach to immigration, then the government needs to fully repeal Bill C-31. We need to bring in legislation to repeal the cessation provisions that were brought forward by the Harper government.

Thank you again for taking the time to write to me on this important issue. Rest assured I will continue to advocate against these unfair policies which wrongly target former and current refugees and implore that action is taken to repeal the provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which allow for cessation of refugee status to take place.

 

[dpenabill]

I wrote an email about cessation to Jenny Kwan office, this is what I got back:

Thank you for sharing. Not exactly comforting. Those affected by this issue, or otherwise concerned, should certainly support MP Kwan's efforts, including in particular Bill C-294 or comparable legislation (I am not well acquainted with Bill C-333 and it mostly addresses other issues).

The differences between "can" and "is" and "will" loom large. It is for sure IRCC and CBSA can pursue cessation based on the UNHCR guidelines specifying what constitutes reavailment and Section 108 IRPA. And it is apparent that they are in at least SOME cases. The looming question remains, however, who will IRCC actually proceed against and when.

An election is also looming, next year, so it is important to keep that context in mind when weighing some of what a politician says. I do not doubt MP Kwan, but I suspect and very strongly hope her statement, "the government is spending millions of dollars per year to strip away refugees' permanent resident status, simply because individuals have travelled back to their countries of origin, regardless of the reason" (emphasis added), at least significantly overstates the current government's approach.

Back to my original question, does this mean the IRCC views the permanent residence status of protected persons as being on the condition that they do not reavail themselves the protection of their former countries. This in effect places additional conditions on their permanent residence status apart from the usual requirements for other classes of permanent residence, that is, that they would lose their PR status if they do not continue to meet the requirements of the pre-STATUS.

To be clear, reavailment of home country protection, which is presumed if the PR-protected-person EITHER obtains a home country passport OR travels to the home country, is grounds for cessation of protected person status, and if there is cessation of this status that AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATES PR STATUS.

There is NO notice requirement. There is no knowledge requirement. Indeed, many of the cessation cases involved PRs who only traveled to the home country BEFORE the law changed, whose actions allegedly constituting reavailment occurred when there was NO legal effect on their PR status.

Technically the automatic termination of PR for cessation of protected person status does NOT constitute a condition, does NOT mean the PR-refugee has conditional PR.

The characterization of the cessation provision for reavailment as a condition, or otherwise, is of little or no substantive import.

The distinction has some procedural import. That technically it is NOT a condition favours the PR-refugee because typically the PR has the burden of proving a condition is satisfied, whereas the Minister has the burden of proving reavailment grounds for cessation of protected person status. Of course, proof of obtaining a home country passport or traveling to the home country raises the PRESUMPTION of reavailment, in effect shifting the burden to the PR to rebut this presumption. But the Minister nonetheless bears the primary burden of proof and this is an important procedural safeguard.

Explanation for why, technically, it is NOT a condition, and not conditional PR: The termination of PR status, based on cessation of refugee or protected person status, is not for a failure to meet a condition, but rather for engaging in an action which has certain consequences. In substantive terms it is similar to other actions which can result in the termination/loss of PR status. Such as breaching the PR Residency Obligation. Such as engaging in serious criminal activity. Such as becoming a Canadian citizen.

In procedural terms, however, there are differences. Termination of PR status for a breach of the PR RO, or for criminality, requires IRCC to afford the PR an opportunity to respond to the allegations of inadmissibility and an opportunity to appeal the decision to terminate status. While termination of PR status is automatic on becoming a Canadian citizen, no one has cause to challenge this as the individual is thereby afforded a more secure status in Canada. Termination, or "cessation," of protected person status automatically terminates PR status, thus terminating eligibility for citizenship (BUT has NO effect on a PR who has become a citizen).

Nonetheless, the PR-refugee does have procedural protections in any cessation proceeding, and again the Minister bears the burden of proving the grounds for cessation.

IRCC is aware that a lot of Protected Person PR are not aware their status is dependent on continuing to be a protected person, but by either omission or deliberate action, failed to communicate this condition to the individuals who may be affected, in effect creating a state of entrapment by random virtue testing. The failure to provide prospective Protected Person PRs with this information (i.e. their Permanent resident is dependent on maintaining their Protected person status) effectively took away their ability to make an informed choice about making such a life changing decision.

As previously noted, yes, the change in law did indeed catch scores of PR-refugees (protected persons) OFF GUARD. Suddenly, as of December 2012, those who had obtained a home country passport and especially those who traveled to the home country YEARS BEFORE the change in law was even proposed let alone adopted, suddenly they were targeted and subject to cessation proceedings resulting in the loss of both protected person status and, automatically, PR status. There is NO way this was fair or just.

BUT, as of December 2012, the law has been clear. This information is readily accessible. And has been readily accessible.

When I came across cases in which citizenship applicants were not only denied citizenship, but had their PR status terminated, I was stunned by the total absence of discussion about this. That was in the summer of 2015. More than two years after the change and the Harper government's purge. Even as of then, from CIC call centre agents to more than a few lawyers, and very much so in this and other forums, PR-refugees were not being warned or advised about this, but were actually getting BAD advice about it being OK to obtain a home country passport, even travel to the home country, AND there were more than a few reports of CIC call centre agents, like many forum participants, who were outright advising prospective citizenship applicants they SHOULD obtain a home country passport before applying for citizenship EVEN though they were PR-refugees and doing so put them at risk for cessation, loss of PR status, and being denied citizenship.

NOW, however, more than FIVE years after this change in the law, there is LEGALLY NO EXCUSE. Sure, in practice many fail to know what the law prescribes, many fail to know the risks involved in obtaining a home country passport or travelling to the home country. And to the extent cessation is imposed on those who have compelling reasons to travel home and who otherwise have every intent of maintaining their life in Canada, this is UNJUST.

But now PRs with protected person status should be aware of the law and its potentially very serious consequences.

The current government (which may be replaced next year by a far more strict and refugee-unfriendly Conservative government) appears to be at least somewhat understanding, somewhat flexible, and perhaps might even be somewhat liberal or lenient in how it approaches these situations now. BUT this is NOT for-sure.


REMINDERS:

PRs with protected person or refugee status SHOULD:
-- NOT obtain a home country passport
-- NOT travel to the home country

PRs with protected person or refugee status who have already obtained a home country passport OR traveled to the home country, and especially those who have done both, SHOULD:
-- cease using the passport for any purpose (albeit citizenship applicants must declare and present it)
-- make NO further trips to the home country
-- NOT apply for citizenship without first consulting with a reputable, experienced lawyer who demonstrates familiarity with the cessation law

For those who have already applied for citizenship, it would be prudent to consult with a lawyer, again a reputable, experienced lawyer who demonstrates familiarity with the cessation law.

 

[sopranotb]

Ahmed Hussein been appointed as IRCC minister on Jan 2017. Numbers of cessation cases in 2016 during former minister John McCallum were doubled under Hussein in 2017. The question is why liberals changed their approach between 2016 and 2017?. Was it because Trudeau tweet that welcomed refugees in Jan 2017 and since then many people crossed irregularly from the states?.

 

[dpenabill]

Ahmed Hussein been appointed as IRCC minister on Jan 2017. Numbers of cessation cases in 2016 during former minister John McCallum were doubled under Hussein in 2017. The question is why liberals changed their approach between 2016 and 2017?. Was it because Trudeau tweet that welcomed refugees in Jan 2017 and since then many people crossed irregularly from the states?.

As I discussed in a previous post, I think, my sense is that this was largely logistic. BUT it was probably also related to pending litigation, as several of the cessation cases resulted in certified questions. Those questions were mostly answered in a way that does not favour the PR-refugee. These cases have been linked and discussed above, going back to late spring and summer last year. My guess is that the government put bringing new cases on hold until those cases were decided (early spring last year as I recall). See, for example, the Nilam cases.

It is also possible that under Minister Hussein the government has decided to be more strict or more aggressive. How much so is, again, the big looming question.

At least some refugee lawyers must have a better idea about the government's current attitude and approach. I strongly encourage those affected to consult with a lawyer and to the extent appropriate, share what they learn here.

 

[vensak]

If I may add to it.
The whole purpose of the refuge is a protection of the person where his country has failed it. But with that said, there is not written in stone that circumstances in his home country cannot change. And should that happen that is when displaced people may wish to return home. As the original thought is that they never wanted to live in the other country by this means but are forced to do so and they would grab the first opportunity to be reunited with their homeland.
Hence the reason, why refuge is seen as something temporary and only if the circumstances do not change for years where the person decides to become citizen of other country then his resettlement is permanent(and most of the times cut off the final ties to his former country).
So as some of you said, change of circumstances in the original home country can happen. But with those changes the temporary sheltering should also end. As a refugee program is no way a shortcut how to skip the line and requirements given to the normal economic immigrants.

So like it or not, that is the reason why using your country to protect yourself when you are travelling (AKA getting, renewing your passport and using it to travel) or returning back there is a clear signal that you do not need the refuge anymore. Otherwise why would you try to seek out the place where your life is threatened or why would you try to get support from the very place that failed to protect you.

And would not this assumption be executed, it would more or less only encourage those that do not need the sheltering that much but have means to come and ask for it while those that really need it would not be able to enter the overcrowded system anymore.
As a result public would see the refugee system less and less effective and would call for the cancellation of the whole system which will bring no good to all those in real need.

You can argue that you family that you left behind might be in danger, however the first human instinct is the self protection which is above all. You are no Rambos to dance in a start saving others, so your presence in the country will do little to nothing (other then get yourself killed). Yes it is very harsh to watch from the distance and not being able to act on the spot, but surely your family did not want you to perish in a mostly futile attempt. You can still try the safe means how to help (like sending the money, advising how to escape...).

 

[dpenabill]

If I may add to it.
The whole purpose of the refuge is a protection of the person where his country has failed it. But with that said, there is not written in stone that circumstances in his home country cannot change. And should that happen that is when displaced people may wish to return home. As the original thought is that they never wanted to live in the other country by this means but are forced to do so and they would grab the first opportunity to be reunited with their homeland.
Hence the reason, why refuge is seen as something temporary and only if the circumstances do not change for years where the person decides to become citizen of other country then his resettlement is permanent(and most of the times cut off the final ties to his former country).
So as some of you said, change of circumstances in the original home country can happen. But with those changes the temporary sheltering should also end. As a refugee program is no way a shortcut how to skip the line and requirements given to the normal economic immigrants.

So like it or not, that is the reason why using your country to protect yourself when you are travelling (AKA getting, renewing your passport and using it to travel) or returning back there is a clear signal that you do not need the refuge anymore. Otherwise why would you try to seek out the place where your life is threatened or why would you try to get support from the very place that failed to protect you.

And would not this assumption be executed, it would more or less only encourage those that do not need the sheltering that much but have means to come and ask for it while those that really need it would not be able to enter the overcrowded system anymore.
As a result public would see the refugee system less and less effective and would call for the cancellation of the whole system which will bring no good to all those in real need.

You can argue that you family that you left behind might be in danger, however the first human instinct is the self protection which is above all. You are no Rambos to dance in a start saving others, so your presence in the country will do little to nothing (other then get yourself killed). Yes it is very harsh to watch from the distance and not being able to act on the spot, but surely your family did not want you to perish in a mostly futile attempt. You can still try the safe means how to help (like sending the money, advising how to escape...).

In contrast, becoming a PERMANENT Resident is about settling and living in Canada PERMANENTLY.

That is a big decision. As you allude, it is one thing to flee danger until the danger subsides. It is another to embrace a new country to be one's permanent home. And if Canada in turn accepts someone to live in Canada permanently, unless and until that person acts to establish his or her home elsewhere, Canada should not renege its acceptance of the refugee, not merely as a refugee but as an immigrant, a Permanent Resident, "Permanent" meaning something . . . meaning what many IAD and Federal Court decisions have emphasized what the purpose is of granting someone "Permanent Resident" status.

The UNHCR guidelines are specifically about refugees and protected persons, many if not most of whom are suspended in limbo sometimes for very long periods of time, no permanent place to settle. The guidelines make sense in that context.

BUT Canada purports to offer many refugees the opportunity to settle in Canada PERMANENTLY, to make Canada their permanent home. Except the Harper government implemented these automatic termination of PR status provisions in effect making PR-refugees a separate, lesser class of Permanent Resident. As previously noted, technically NOT conditional PR status, but nonetheless less than Permanent, significantly less Permanent than the PR status others have.

The real rub is the presumption. Sure, if and when a PR-refugee re-establishes himself or herself in the home country, that is strong evidence of not having settled in Canada permanently, not acting consistently with the purpose of being granted PR status. BUT that is NOT what cessation has been limited to under the Harper implemented provisions. Just obtaining and using a home country passport itself raises a presumption of reavailment. Just visiting a terminally ill parent in the home country itself raises the presumption of reavailment. And this deemed reavailment is enough to strip a person of status to remain in his or her Canadian home NO MATTER HOW WELL SETTLED, HOW LONG SETTLED, the PR-refugee has been in Canada.

Permanent Residence should be PERMANENT unless the PR overtly acts contrary to maintaining a permanent home in Canada. A mere visit to the home country should not be sufficient to force from his or her adopted home a person permanently settled in Canada with status to permanently be settled in Canada.

 

[vensak]

In contrast, becoming a PERMANENT Resident is about settling and living in Canada PERMANENTLY.

That is a big decision. As you allude, it is one thing to flee danger until the danger subsides. It is another to embrace a new country to be one's permanent home. And if Canada in turn accepts someone to live in Canada permanently, unless and until that person acts to establish his or her home elsewhere, Canada should not renege its acceptance of the refugee, not merely as a refugee but as an immigrant, a Permanent Resident, "Permanent" meaning something . . . meaning what many IAD and Federal Court decisions have emphasized what the purpose is of granting someone "Permanent Resident" status.

The UNHCR guidelines are specifically about refugees and protected persons, many if not most of whom are suspended in limbo sometimes for very long periods of time, no permanent place to settle. The guidelines make sense in that context.

BUT Canada purports to offer many refugees the opportunity to settle in Canada PERMANENTLY, to make Canada their permanent home. Except the Harper government implemented these automatic termination of PR status provisions in effect making PR-refugees a separate, lesser class of Permanent Resident. As previously noted, technically NOT conditional PR status, but nonetheless less than Permanent, significantly less Permanent than the PR status others have.

The real rub is the presumption. Sure, if and when a PR-refugee re-establishes himself or herself in the home country, that is strong evidence of not having settled in Canada permanently, not acting consistently with the purpose of being granted PR status. BUT that is NOT what cessation has been limited to under the Harper implemented provisions. Just obtaining and using a home country passport itself raises a presumption of reavailment. Just visiting a terminally ill parent in the home country itself raises the presumption of reavailment. And this deemed reavailment is enough to strip a person of status to remain in his or her Canadian home NO MATTER HOW WELL SETTLED, HOW LONG SETTLED, the PR-refugee has been in Canada.

Permanent Residence should be PERMANENT unless the PR overtly acts contrary to maintaining a permanent home in Canada. A mere visit to the home country should not be sufficient to force from his or her adopted home a person permanently settled in Canada with status to permanently be settled in Canada.

Again you are mistaking permanent residency (where other country does allow you to live long term there) with a citizenship (where you have right to live in your own country).
Yes I do understand that the word permanent is maybe not the best to describe the status of such person. More exact description would be something that is not specifically determined by a certain time limit anymore.

Permanent residency does have certain conditions and also the status itself may give you the same possibilities when it comes dealing inside Canada like permanent resident who have used different streams.
It certainly does not gives you right to get it or keep it. All that depends on the law that is setup in the country. And if the part of the law is to determine at certain points if you are still eligible to keep it than that is what you have to bow to.

At the end of the day until you become citizen you are still a foreigner in Canada. You can claim that things are unjust only and only if whatever happened is not according to the valid law in Canada.

And by the way refugee that became PR is not the only group of PR with limited rights.
any PR who became PR as a result of a spousal sponsorship cannot sponsor another spouse for 5 years after he or she became permanent resident.
And those PR that got the sponsorship with 2 years live together condition, will loose it if they will start living separately during those 2 years.

One important thing to remember.
Lack of knowledge of the current law is unfortunately no excuse to avoid the consequences. (otherwise everybody would just plead that they did not know).

So all those favourable decisions are nothing more than giving a second chance to somebody and none of those judges were forced by law to do that.

 

[dpenabill]

At the end of the day until you become citizen you are still a foreigner in Canada. You can claim that things are unjust only and only if whatever happened is not according to the valid law in Canada.

Canadian Permanent Residents are CANADIANS NOT foreigners.

In particular, foreigners, referred to as "foreign nationals" in Canadian law, explicitly excludes Canadian PRs.

Section 2(1) IRPA (should link) states:
"foreign national means a person who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident"

Moreover what is just or unjust is NOT a matter of law. It is primarily a matter of fairness, more about moral or philosophical standards than legal standards. Justice is an ideal. In countries like Canada the ideal of justice tends to carry a lot of weight, as it should, even though it does not carry the weight of law.

Many times laws are recognized to be unjust. That does not make them invalid. The remedy for an unjust law is to change the law, which in Canada is done through the democratic Parliamentary process. Example: the two year cohabitation condition for a spouse sponsored PR was unjust, so the government which enacted this law was booted in the next election, and this unjust law was then repealed by Parliament.

As MP Jenny Kwan has tirelessly advocated, Parliament should proceed to repeal another unjust enactment by the Harper government, the 2012 provisions which can strip away a PR's status in Canada for no more than merely visiting a terminally ill family member.

Note: I am no immigration expert but I do make a concerted effort to do the homework. Under Canadian law PRs are Canadians. Not Canadian Nationals (those are citizens). Not foreign nationals. But Canadians, Canadian Permanent Residents.

 

[vensak]

Canadian Permanent Residents are CANADIANS NOT foreigners.

In particular, foreigners, referred to as "foreign nationals" in Canadian law, explicitly excludes Canadian PRs.

Section 2(1) IRPA (should link) states:
"foreign national means a person who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident"

Moreover what is just or unjust is NOT a matter of law. It is primarily a matter of fairness, more about moral or philosophical standards than legal standards. Justice is an ideal. In countries like Canada the ideal of justice tends to carry a lot of weight, as it should, even though it does not carry the weight of law.

Many times laws are recognized to be unjust. That does not make them invalid. The remedy for an unjust law is to change the law, which in Canada is done through the democratic Parliamentary process. Example: the two year cohabitation condition for a spouse sponsored PR was unjust, so the government which enacted this law was booted in the next election, and this unjust law was then repealed by Parliament.

As MP Jenny Kwan has tirelessly advocated, Parliament should proceed to repeal another unjust enactment by the Harper government, the 2012 provisions which can strip away a PR's status in Canada for no more than merely visiting a terminally ill family member.

Note: I am no immigration expert but I do make a concerted effort to do the homework. Under Canadian law PRs are Canadians. Not Canadian Nationals (those are citizens). Not foreign nationals. But Canadians, Canadian Permanent Residents.

Again, the citation that you did is from a specific law. It is a common practice to explicitly define certain words that could be explained in a different ways. However that definition is just for that specific law. (you can have the same word in a different law bearing broader or narrower meaning)That is how law language function.
Would you dig again to check the UNCHR guidelines which Canada does follow, you would find out that there is a definition of a refugee (conventional refugee). However there is no specific time limitation (after how long you will stopped to be considered a refugee). But there is re-availment mentioned.

What I was referring to is foreigner as opposed to the Canadian citizen. To put that in a perspective. If ever (how improbable) a military conflict would arise between my home country and Canada, there is nothing stopping Canada to pass emergency law to target all citizens from my country (that are not Canadian citizen) and terminate their PR right and let them deported.
Why? Because those who are targeted have 0 political power and voting power to change the things. And the country is there to protect their citizens in a first place.
Hence again, until the day you become citizen, you remain foreigner in Canada and that is regardless if you have or do not have PR status.

With that said as long as you are a citizen of a different state and not Canadian citizen, you can still be seen as a conventional refugee regardless of the additional rights coming from PR. And for such person additional set of law applies.

Hence again, until the day you become citizen, you remain foreigner in Canada and that is regardless if you have or do not have PR status.

Do not expect any milder treatment of refugees from Canadian citizens any time soon. From their perspective, they have seen rather big amount of illegal border crossing, where people living for years without correct status in USA have suddenly remembered that they need to claim refuge in Canada (since USA is not good enough).

So if anything they need to appease the voters first. Hence the increased amount of cessations, long waiting queues for hearings and more colder attitude in the last months (well liberal party does want to win again).

 

[ANTONIUS125]

If I may add to it.
The whole purpose of the refuge is a protection of the person where his country has failed it. But with that said, there is not written in stone that circumstances in his home country cannot change. And should that happen that is when displaced people may wish to return home. As the original thought is that they never wanted to live in the other country by this means but are forced to do so and they would grab the first opportunity to be reunited with their homeland.
Hence the reason, why refuge is seen as something temporary and only if the circumstances do not change for years where the person decides to become citizen of other country then his resettlement is permanent(and most of the times cut off the final ties to his former country).
So as some of you said, change of circumstances in the original home country can happen. But with those changes the temporary sheltering should also end. As a refugee program is no way a shortcut how to skip the line and requirements given to the normal economic immigrants.

So like it or not, that is the reason why using your country to protect yourself when you are travelling (AKA getting, renewing your passport and using it to travel) or returning back there is a clear signal that you do not need the refuge anymore. Otherwise why would you try to seek out the place where your life is threatened or why would you try to get support from the very place that failed to protect you.

And would not this assumption be executed, it would more or less only encourage those that do not need the sheltering that much but have means to come and ask for it while those that really need it would not be able to enter the overcrowded system anymore.
As a result public would see the refugee system less and less effective and would call for the cancellation of the whole system which will bring no good to all those in real need.

You can argue that you family that you left behind might be in danger, however the first human instinct is the self protection which is above all. You are no Rambos to dance in a start saving others, so your presence in the country will do little to nothing (other then get yourself killed). Yes it is very harsh to watch from the distance and not being able to act on the spot, but surely your family did not want you to perish in a mostly futile attempt. You can still try the safe means how to help (like sending the money, advising how to escape...).

I just wan to add:

The reason for refugee to visit their home country is not just because the situation has changed, but could be because they miss their family or even miss their home country; I see 2 frequent reason used blindly for applying cessation on refugee who has visiting his home country: 1) reavailment, 2) well founded fear of persecution become questionable, which is not only not making sense, but also inhumane even cruel.

Is refugee's feeling of missing or homesick wrong? I dont see any thing wrong there, because quenching homesickness/missing family are human nature - needs and right. Becoming refugee does not mean that we loose our human needs or right, and government doesn't give refugee status by exchanging with or revoking their right!

Does visiting home country always means reavailment? I don't think so. As long as the refugee during visiting home country does not try to reconnect themself to their ex society, nor trying to find job there, not trying to buy property there, not trying to get marriage there, then there is no ground for reavailment!

Does visiting home country always mean that the "well founded fear of persecution" previously claimed by the refugee become uncredible? Not necessarily. In some cases, the fear of persecution is very well founded if they stay at their home country permanently - while the fear is non existent if live there temporarily; for example if they fear of vigilante/mob trying to persecute them because they are LGBT or maybe because profess certain religion then the fear of persecution by the vigilante is well founded if they stay permanently; but if they stay for short time and secretly then they dont have to fear the persecution from mob/vigilante (for example they don't declare his short visitation to home country to other than their immediate relatives and staying in the hotel instead of staying at house/place they used to stay).

So I hope government will change the way they treat refugees and be more much careful in examining the cases of refugees who have visiting their home country.

 

[ANTONIUS125]

Canadian Permanent Residents are CANADIANS NOT foreigners.

In particular, foreigners, referred to as "foreign nationals" in Canadian law, explicitly excludes Canadian PRs.

Section 2(1) IRPA (should link) states:
"foreign national means a person who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident"

Moreover what is just or unjust is NOT a matter of law. It is primarily a matter of fairness, more about moral or philosophical standards than legal standards. Justice is an ideal. In countries like Canada the ideal of justice tends to carry a lot of weight, as it should, even though it does not carry the weight of law.

Many times laws are recognized to be unjust. That does not make them invalid. The remedy for an unjust law is to change the law, which in Canada is done through the democratic Parliamentary process. Example: the two year cohabitation condition for a spouse sponsored PR was unjust, so the government which enacted this law was booted in the next election, and this unjust law was then repealed by Parliament.

As MP Jenny Kwan has tirelessly advocated, Parliament should proceed to repeal another unjust enactment by the Harper government, the 2012 provisions which can strip away a PR's status in Canada for no more than merely visiting a terminally ill family member.

Note: I am no immigration expert but I do make a concerted effort to do the homework. Under Canadian law PRs are Canadians. Not Canadian Nationals (those are citizens). Not foreign nationals. But Canadians, Canadian Permanent Residents.

I hope MP Jenny Kwan doesn't limit the advocation only for those who visit a terminally ill family member, but also include any other visiting home country for other humane reason as long as during the visit he/she doesn't try to reavail him/herself (living temporarely, secretly).

 

[vensak]

I just wan to add:

The reason for refugee to visit their home country is not just because the situation has changed, but could be because they miss their family or even miss their home country; I see 2 frequent reason used blindly for applying cessation on refugee who has visiting his home country: 1) reavailment, 2) well founded fear of persecution become questionable, which are not only not making sense, but also inhumane even cruel.

Is refugee's feeling of missing or homesick wrong? I dont see any thing wrong there, because these (quenching homesickness/missing family) are human nature - needs and right. Becoming refugee does not mean that we loose our human needs or right, and government countries doesn't give refugee status by exchanging with or revoking their right!

Does visiting home country always means reavailment? I don't think so. As long as the refugee when visiting home country does not try to reconnect themself to their ex society, nor trying to find job there, not trying to buy property there, not trying to get marriage there, there is no ground for reavailment!

Does visiting home country always mean that the "well founded fear of persecution" previously claimed by the refugee become uncredible? Not necessarily. In some cases, the fear of persecution is very well founded if they stay at their home country permanently - while the fear is non existent if live there temporarily; for example if they fear of vigilante/mob trying to persecute them because they are LGBT or maybe because profess certain religion; but they dont have to fear the persecution from mob/vigilante if they only stay temporarily and not exposing themself to public (eg: they don't declare his visitation to home country to other than their immediate relatives, staying in the hotel instead of staying at house/place they used to stay).

So I hope government will change the way they treat refugees and be more much careful in examining the cases of refugees who have visiting their home country.

Let me introduce you to the Maslow theory. It is talking about priorities in the human life and about how satisfying more basic things takes priority against those more advanced.
So here is the list:
1. life preservation and safety - that you are not in danger.
2. water and basic food - once your life is safe you secure these so that your body can keep on going
3. Shelter - somewhere where you will be protected against harsh weather
4. Social needs - that is family and friends. Well only when you are safe, fed and sheltered you think about having children or visiting friends
5. Self realisation - hobbies or job career.

Now to your points:
Feeling home sick or missing your family belongs to nr. 4 - social needs. But if the very place where your family or friends live does not meet the very basic need (life preservation and safety), then you would not risk it. And if you would risk it, that means that you consider danger to be actually low for whatever reasons (for example change of government, change of law in your country or stabilization if the country was in war or civil war). So it is only logical, that you do not need the temporary shelter given by other country.

Being somewhere for a short period of time against long period (temporary or permanent). All it takes is one bullet in your head or one knife in your heart (or enough stones from an angry mob). That does not take much time to be done. If you claim that you are unable to live somewhere (any day longer, that is why you have escaped in a first place), then returning in such place (where you never know when you will be killed or tortured and then killed) would not make sense (other than having a death wish)
So the logic is, that if you assume that you can return and stay safely there again, then actual danger must be much lower. Because at the end of the day you are still citizen of that country so if ever you get imprisoned, kidnapped or killed, Canada cannot step in for your protection since it is your very country that shall do so. All they can do is to denounce violence that is happening to the citizens of their country.

As for not exposing. In order to become refugee you would have to prove, that your particular life is threatened and no matter what you do you would be found and tortured or killed. So how can you now talking about not exposing yourself if you were not able to hide before?

 

[CANADIANZ]

Let me introduce you to the Maslow theory. It is talking about priorities in the human life and about how satisfying more basic things takes priority against those more advanced.
So here is the list:
1. life preservation and safety - that you are not in danger.
2. water and basic food - once your life is safe you secure these so that your body can keep on going
3. Shelter - somewhere where you will be protected against harsh weather
4. Social needs - that is family and friends. Well only when you are safe, fed and sheltered you think about having children or visiting friends
5. Self realisation - hobbies or job career.

Now to your points:
Feeling home sick or missing your family belongs to nr. 4 - social needs. But if the very place where your family or friends live does not meet the very basic need (life preservation and safety), then you would not risk it. And if you would risk it, that means that you consider danger to be actually low for whatever reasons (for example change of government, change of law in your country or stabilization if the country was in war or civil war). So it is only logical, that you do not need the temporary shelter given by other country.

Being somewhere for a short period of time against long period (temporary or permanent). All it takes is one bullet in your head or one knife in your heart (or enough stones from an angry mob). That does not take much time to be done. If you claim that you are unable to live somewhere (any day longer, that is why you have escaped in a first place), then returning in such place (where you never know when you will be killed or tortured and then killed) would not make sense (other than having a death wish)
So the logic is, that if you assume that you can return and stay safely there again, then actual danger must be much lower. Because at the end of the day you are still citizen of that country so if ever you get imprisoned, kidnapped or killed, Canada cannot step in for your protection since it is your very country that shall do so. All they can do is to denounce violence that is happening to the citizens of their country.

As for not exposing. In order to become refugee you would have to prove, that your particular life is threatened and no matter what you do you would be found and tortured or killed. So how can you now talking about not exposing yourself if you were not able to hide before?

Its difficult for me to comprehend how are you relating Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory to the situation of a refugee? They are all fundamental needs. Can you please explain? Thanks.