You should not, You can lose your PR. What people do not understand is that as a Refugee, you do not lose that status until you become Canadian citizen so even after you become PR you are still a refugee and not allowed to take the protection of the country you claim to be under persecution fromI thought it wasnt allowed to use the home country passport at all.
This person answered this question very well
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/time-line-for-permanent-residence-application-for-refugees.683967/post-10189962
They even showed some recent cases where a woman lost her refugee status after getting a passport and returning home.
This woman told the Judge that her dad was in jail, so the fear was no longer there but the judge said that does not matter and since the fear that made her file for protection is gone, she no longer needs it.
you lose your protection from Canada you also lose your PR too. if you want to travel to a different country get a PRTD and travel meet your family in neighbouring countries etc, but also if you meet too close to your home country CBSA will grill you when you get back to Canada.
Here are excerpts from the law
The term “re-availment” is often used when referring to a return to a country of persecution.Note119
The issue of reavailment can arise in the context of the Board's assessment of a claimant's subjective fear in the determination of a refugee claim .
Return to the country of nationality is the kind of re-availment that is most often discussed in the case law.
It is quite proper for the Refugee Division to take the plaintiff's actions into account in assessing his subjective fear. It is reasonable for it to conclude that the fact he returned to the country where he feared persecution makes the existence of such a fear unlikely (citations omitted)In Kabengele,Note121 Mr. Justice Rouleau, citing several cases, stated that it was reasonable for the Board to conclude that the claimant's return to the country where he allegedly faced persecution made it unlikely that he had a subjective fear
In Ortiz Garcia,Note122 the Court held that reavailment typically suggests a lack of a subjective fear of persecution:
Similarly, in Kostrzewa,Note123 the Court stated:[8] Reavailment typically suggests an absence of risk or a lack of subjective fear of persecution. Absent compelling reasons, people do not abandon safe havens to returns to places where their personal safety is in jeopardy.
[26] …As has been repeatedly held by this Court, a refugee claimant's re-availment to the jurisdiction in which he or she fears persecution or a type of harm contemplated by section 97 of the IRPA seriously undermines allegations of subjective fear, particularly in the absence of a compelling reason for such re-availment (Hernandez v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 197 at para 21; Ortiz Garcia v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1346 at para 8; Mughal v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1557 at paras 33-35; Natynczyk v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 914 at para 69).
Last edited: