I'm asking about someone who came to Canada as a refugee 7 years ago. During these 7 years, they have never travelled back to their home country or used their home country's passport.
They recently became a Canadian citizen about 6 months ago (the application was routine and processed quickly).
Once a former PR-refugee has obtained Canadian citizenship, cessation of status is not relevant, no threat, not a problem. Your situation is off-topic in this thread (which is about PRs and cessation).
In addition to no longer being a PR (becoming a Canadian citizen terminates PR status by operation of law), by becoming a Canadian citizen the former PR-refugee has, in effect, conclusively established grounds for the cessation of their protected person status pursuant to section 108(1)(c) IRPA, in that they have "
acquired a new nationality," as in they have become a citizen of another country, Canada, and they enjoy the protection of this country (again, Canada). But cessation of protected status has no effect on a person's Canadian citizenship status.
@abff08f4813c referenced other relevant discussions, and I will quote and respond more directly to your questions in the Ex-Refugee Visiting Home Country After Getting Citizenship thread, here:
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...untry-after-getting-citizenship.846040/page-2
I generally agree with the observation by
@scylla:
"There are no issues traveling after citizenship. They should feel free to travel."
In the context of this thread, which again is about cessation leading to loss of status in Canada, this is correct: once a citizen, there are no cessation related issues . . . and
as far as Canada is concerned, the former PR-refugee is free to travel, and free to renew or obtain their home country passport, and use it for travel (to the home country or elsewhere) without that having any impact on their Canadian status.
But where a person can freely travel is also limited by the law of the countries where they are traveling. And of course the risks an individual might face traveling will depend on both general risks of travel in the destination country AND on any personal risk factors. If the circumstances and dangers the individual fled still exist, no special expertise necessary to recognize there can still be a significant risk traveling to the home country. So I would not say that once they become a citizen they should feel free to travel to their home country, not without taking into consideration how things could go in the home country.
The latter leads to observations by
@abff08f4813c in regards to Canadian citizens and Canadian government protection while they are abroad. Many countries will restrict the Canadian government's efforts to intercede on behalf of a Canadian citizen if the individual is also a citizen of that country . . . regardless which passport the traveler used to enter that country. (This includes, for example, the United States.) International law recognizes the primary authority of a country in regards to its own citizens who are in the country. So, even though Canadian authorities will try to do what they can to protect a Canadian citizen in another country (and they often try to help PRs abroad), those with citizenship in multiple countries should anticipate that this can be very limited while they are in another country in which they are a citizen.
That in turn leads back to some previous discussion here about the Li v. Canada, 2025 FC 934,
https://canlii.ca/t/kc9p2 decision (late May 2025), another cessation case in which the RPD's cessation decision was upheld, a case I have not previously commented on here.
New case:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2025/2025fc934/2025fc934.html
I've been disturbed by these cases generally, as I disagree with the premise behind the post-2012 rule: namely I think that that folks who have a fear of persecution in their home country may still feel compelled to return to it at times, and that they may take solace in the protection of Canada that comes with having PR status.
Even though where and why "
solace" may be found is not likely to have legal significance, I think I understand the gist of the sentiment here and I very much agree. After all, just having a PR card that will facilitate fleeing the country to return to Canada, if and when the risks in the home country escalate, is a real factor reducing the risks a PR-refugee faces in traveling to the home country, and to my view more consideration should be given to balancing compelling reasons for the travel and the PR-refugee's management of risks, including relying on being able to just leave and return to Canada, before concluding the PR traveled to the home country with the intent to reavail home country protection (a necessary element in cessation based on reavailment grounds).
But it is important to caution that even a Canadian citizen, let alone a PR, may have limited protection from the Canadian government when they are in their home country, given that under international law a country can repel Canadian government efforts on behalf of its own citizens in the country.
In any event, I will offer further observations here: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...untry-after-getting-citizenship.846040/page-2
Beyond That . . . The previous conversation above brings up some of the major underlying threads in regards to how cessation applies to PRs, that is, how it is that one class of persons (refugees / protected persons) who have obtained the status of Canadian (
permanent residents; no longer Foreign Nationals under Canadian immigration law), how it is they do not have the same legal status (so not the same rights or privileges) as other "
permanent residents."
But the conversation also gets into some other largely off-topic tangents . . . allowing that to the extent a tangent is addressing
how-things-work more broadly it can be very relevant . . . and recognizing, in particular, there are issues that overlap. For example:
In general the longer someone remains in Canada, especially if they now have a family in Canada who can retain their status, the harder it will be to remove them.
The process of actual removal, or deportation, is not involved until AFTER cessation is final. At that stage the individual is a Foreign National, so no longer a PR. This is a subject separate from cessation proceedings . . . what happens and what can happen AFTER a PR has lost status (whether due to an adjudication of inadmissibility, or operation of law due to an adjudication of cessation) is itself a big topic with lots of tangents.
Of course the post-cessation or deportation process comes up here occasionally. In addition to former PRs who lost status pursuant to cessation, PR-refugees potentially subject to cessation are, of course, interested in that process, interested in what can and what will happen AFTER cessation has been fully and finally adjudicated. But so are PRs, including all other classes of PRs, facing loss of PR status due to inadmissibility for failing to comply with the PR Residency Obligation, as well as those potentially inadmissible for serious criminality or security reasons, as well as inadmissibility for misrepresentation. There is, for example, the sprawling subject of pre-removal risk assessment, and who qualifies for PRRA is in itself a big subject with lots of tangents (last I looked, FNs who are inadmissible pursuant to cessation of their refugee status are NOT eligible for PRRA for a year), let alone getting into the nuts-and-bolts involved -- such as who might be protected from removal based on the best interests of a minor child, which is what I suspect
@canuck78 is referencing, at least in part, in regards to the role family in Canada might have.
Spoiler alert: in addition to what FNs subject to Removal or Deportation can do to avoid or delay actual deportation, even navigating the PRRA process alone, can be complicated and tricky. This is a subject beyond my purview.
There are many thousands of individuals in Canada who are subject to a Removal or Deportation order but who, for now anyway, Canada cannot physically cause to be deported. A hugely important subject for those affected. Again, this is a subject beyond my purview and, generally, beyond the scope of this topic . . . a tangent for discussion elsewhere, other than to recognize the nature of that in broad, general terms, and to acknowledge that is a separate process which in itself can take a long time, or a very long time.
And Then, before getting into some of those underlying threads raised by the recent discussion . . . there is another recent cessation case I had overlooked (being lax): Perez Bonilla v. Canada, 2025 FC 1290,
https://canlii.ca/t/kdc3r which is interesting because it is one of the few Federal Court decisions setting aside a cessation determination. Note that this individual was represented by one of the higher profile lawyers involved in these issues, Lorne Waldman. This case, and again some of the other underlying threads, warrant some further observations, and not just that having a damn good lawyer could make the difference . . . if I have time.
To be continued . . .
