Protected person returning to their country of nationality or former habitual residence

[davenportdiamond]

It's common knowledge that, as a protected person (including permanent residents who are protected persons), you will lose your status if you travel to your country of alleged persecution. This is under section 108(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection act—voluntarily reavailing oneself of the protection of their country of nationality.

This is true even if your travel was under extenuating circumstances, such as to visit a severely ill or deceased family member.

It's important to note here that this revocation is not immediate; rather, upon entry back into Canada, the CBSA officer will report you to the Minister of Immigration who will make an application to the IRB to cessate your status. As a permanent resident, you have the statutory right to enter Canada—you will be let through. Your status will only cease once the IRB has ruled against you, after which you will be subject to removal.

Today, I came across an interesting case that suggests it may be possible to avoid having your status revoked if you had to travel to your country of persecution under extenuating circumstances.

Notable paragraphs:

[18] To establish whether the respondent voluntarily reavailed herself of the protection of Peru in accordance with paragraph 108(1)(a) of the IRPA, the panel considered the three-pronged test set out in the case law.[5] Specifically, the panel considered the following conditions:
• voluntariness: the respondent must act voluntarily;
• intention: the respondent must intend by her action to reavail herself of the protection of the country of her nationality; and
• reavailment: the respondent must actually obtain such protection.

[19] Moreover, in Bashir,[6] the Court held that the three conditions are cumulative and must all be met before allowing an application to cease refugee protection under paragraph 108(1)(a).

[31] The panel is of the opinion that the issue is not whether someone told the respondent that she could not return to her country of nationality, the country she claimed refugee protection against. The respondent was not prohibited from doing so. Instead, given that she returned to her country of nationality after obtaining protected person status in Canada, the panel must assess her reasons for returning.

[32] A few of the respondent’s reasons for returning could be considered exceptional circumstances in some cases.

[33] For instance, she explained that the trip in XXXX 2011 was because her mother had died. She had to leave Canada suddenly. According to her testimony and the evidence on the record, the trip was unexpected and, obviously, she dropped everything to go.

[34] During that same trip, she had to extend her stay because of illness. She needed emergency surgery during her trip and stayed for her recovery. In addition, for the trip in 2012, the respondent had to return for a follow-up appointment with her doctor. She tried to have the follow-up in Canada, but she could not get an appointment with a specialist, so out of concern for her own health, she decided to return to Peru this time and to stay there as an exception, for the follow-up. The respondent filed personal evidence to support her explanations for these two trips, including evidence regarding her health condition and her mother’s death.[9]

[35] In certain circumstances, reasons like these could be considered exceptional. In 2011, she left Canada suddenly because of an unexpected situation that was clearly beyond her control. Moreover, her trip in 2011 was extended through no fault of her own: she unexpectedly needed emergency medical care. For her trip in 2012, as mentioned above, although she tried to obtain treatment in Canada, she was unable to receive the medical follow-up she needed in a timely manner. Given all of the evidence, especially the respondent’s explanations, the panel is of the opinion that for these two trips, in 2011 and 2012, the situation constituted exceptional circumstances for the respondent.

[47] As for the trips to Peru between 2007 and 2010, given the evidence as a whole, especially the respondent’s explanations, the panel is of the opinion that, in this case, the respondent acted voluntarily. With the exception of the last trips in 2011 and 2012, the panel is of the opinion that she chose to return to her country of nationality to take care of her mother. It was not for reasons beyond her control or against her will.

[51] Given all of the evidence, the panel is of the opinion that these returns between 2007 and 2010 were neither short nor secret. The panel is not satisfied that the respondent took specific measures or precautions while in Peru. At the hearing, the respondent explained that she did not fear the Peruvian state when she claimed refugee protection in Canada; rather, the state was unable to provide adequate protection. When she used her Peruvian passport to return to Peru, she availed herself of the protection of the Peruvian state.

[53] The panel considered whether the respondent acted voluntarily, whether she intended to voluntarily reavail herself of the protection of Peru, and whether she actually did voluntarily reavail herself of the protection of Peru.

Effectively, the IRB found that the protected person's trip to their country of persecution because of their mother's death was not voluntary (paras. 35 and 47) and therefore did not meet the criteria under 108(1)(a) of the IRPA for the cessation of their status (para. 53).

However, the trips that they took to take care of their mother were found to be voluntary (para. 47) and formed the basis of the decision to cessate their status.

For these trips, it is also noteworthy that the IRB took into account the length and their precautions for their safety during the trip (para. 51).

 

[Simba112]

It's common knowledge that, as a protected person (including permanent residents who are protected persons), you will lose your status if you travel to your country of alleged persecution. This is under section 108(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection act—voluntarily reavailing oneself of the protection of their country of nationality.

This is true even if your travel was under extenuating circumstances, such as to visit a severely ill or deceased family member.

It's important to note here that this renovation is not immediate; rather, upon entry back into Canada, the CBSA officer will report you to the Minister of Immigration who will make an application to the IRB to cessate your status. As a permanent resident, you have the statutory right to enter Canada—you will be let through. Your status will only cease once the IRB has ruled against you, after which you will be subject to removal.

Today, I came across an interesting case that suggests it may be possible to avoid having your status revoked if you had to travel to your country of persecution under extenuating circumstances.

Notable paragraphs:



Effectively, the IRB found that the protected person's trip to their country of persecution because of their mother's death was not voluntary (paras. 35 and 47) and therefore did not meet the criteria under 108(1)(a) of the IRPA for the cessation of their status (para. 53).

However, the trips that they took to take care of their mother were found to be voluntary (para. 47) and formed the basis of the decision to cessate their status.

For these trips, it is also noteworthy that the IRB took into account the length and their precautions for their safety during the trip (para. 51).

Simply its not worth a shot

 

[scylla]

It's common knowledge that, as a protected person (including permanent residents who are protected persons), you will lose your status if you travel to your country of alleged persecution. This is under section 108(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection act—voluntarily reavailing oneself of the protection of their country of nationality.

This is true even if your travel was under extenuating circumstances, such as to visit a severely ill or deceased family member.

It's important to note here that this renovation is not immediate; rather, upon entry back into Canada, the CBSA officer will report you to the Minister of Immigration who will make an application to the IRB to cessate your status. As a permanent resident, you have the statutory right to enter Canada—you will be let through. Your status will only cease once the IRB has ruled against you, after which you will be subject to removal.

Today, I came across an interesting case that suggests it may be possible to avoid having your status revoked if you had to travel to your country of persecution under extenuating circumstances.

Notable paragraphs:



Effectively, the IRB found that the protected person's trip to their country of persecution because of their mother's death was not voluntary (paras. 35 and 47) and therefore did not meet the criteria under 108(1)(a) of the IRPA for the cessation of their status (para. 53).

However, the trips that they took to take care of their mother were found to be voluntary (para. 47) and formed the basis of the decision to cessate their status.

For these trips, it is also noteworthy that the IRB took into account the length and their precautions for their safety during the trip (para. 51).

Short answer is that this can go either way. So if you return to your home country, there is a risk of cessation.

There is a very detailed cessation thread in the Citizenship section of the forum. Suggest you spend some time reading through that thread. However ultimately there's no way to return to your home country before citizenship without creating some risk around cessation. So you have to be OK with that risk - or your need to return has to outweigh the risks of losing your status in Canada. Here's the thread: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/refugee-status-cessation-and-prs-applying-for-citizenship.333455/page-55

 

[canuck78]

It's common knowledge that, as a protected person (including permanent residents who are protected persons), you will lose your status if you travel to your country of alleged persecution. This is under section 108(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection act—voluntarily reavailing oneself of the protection of their country of nationality.

This is true even if your travel was under extenuating circumstances, such as to visit a severely ill or deceased family member.

It's important to note here that this revocation is not immediate; rather, upon entry back into Canada, the CBSA officer will report you to the Minister of Immigration who will make an application to the IRB to cessate your status. As a permanent resident, you have the statutory right to enter Canada—you will be let through. Your status will only cease once the IRB has ruled against you, after which you will be subject to removal.

Today, I came across an interesting case that suggests it may be possible to avoid having your status revoked if you had to travel to your country of persecution under extenuating circumstances.

Notable paragraphs:



Effectively, the IRB found that the protected person's trip to their country of persecution because of their mother's death was not voluntary (paras. 35 and 47) and therefore did not meet the criteria under 108(1)(a) of the IRPA for the cessation of their status (para. 53).

However, the trips that they took to take care of their mother were found to be voluntary (para. 47) and formed the basis of the decision to cessate their status.

For these trips, it is also noteworthy that the IRB took into account the length and their precautions for their safety during the trip (para. 51).

The reason for needing protection will also be a factor. I’m this case it was due to domestic violence. If the asylum case was due to factors affecting the whole country evaluation could be different. There is never a safe way to visit your home country as a protected person until you are a Canadian citizen. Any visit comes with risks and the government is pursuing a lot more cases.