Hi
1. There are quite a few Federal Court rulings on Cessation at :
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/en/nav.do do a search on Cessation, so if you are a refugee in Canada and travel or obtain the country that you claimed against passport, you probably will have problems if you are a PR.
This is a glib, fly-by, and out-of-context comment which ignores the scores of posts above, going back for over two years, which address these issues seriously.
But for the use of "probably," it is somewhat but only superficially accurate, but in the context of recent discussion it is a distraction. In the meantime, many if not most of the important cessation cases are already discussed, cited, and linked throughout the last two years' of posts in this topic. This subject has been discussed in depth. The relevant cases cited and linked.
To the extent it is accurate (even though, again, not in any way responsive to the post you quote or the posts which I was responding to), I would emphasize replacing "probably will have problems" with
MAY have a problem. But that is a far more complex subject than what my recent post addressed or the queries it was in response to (but, again, is the subject of scores of researched posts above).
The risk of a problem depends on a lot of the particular facts in the individual case.
Any risk of cessation is worth avoiding, so of course refugee-PRs should be cautioned against obtaining a passport or traveling to the home/risk country, recognizing however for some there are compelling circumstances and no feasible alternatives. The latter would be advised to consult with a competent lawyer experienced with refugee matters, and
NOT try to do his or her own research (it borders on reckless to suggest otherwise).
And that is two-thirds of why I started this topic, over two years ago, and have continued to express that caution in the course of dozens of posts over these last two plus years. In particular, there was some anticipation that given the change to a Liberal government these risks might go away. They have not, but it appears the risk is not nearly so high as it was when Harper was PM.
The
other third of why I started this topic is the subject of my most recent post, the one you quote, the one in response to queries which are NOT about whether to travel to the risk country or to obtain a home country passport. Rather, the subject of these recent queries and my recent post
is about the risk of proceeding with a citizenship application if the refugee-PR has already done any of those things which might be perceived as reavailment of home country protection.
This risk is what actually induced me to start this topic (in the summer of 2015) and get the message out: CIC under the Harper government was clearly screening citizenship applicants for possible cessation proceedings. Thus, in particular, it warranted cautioning refugee-PRs who have already obtained a home country passport or traveled to the risk-country, that applying for citizenship could trigger a cessation investigation, leading to cessation, loss of PR status, and thus of course not only failing to become a citizen but losing status to live in Canada.
Recent statistics do not adequately reveal the extent to which this remains a risk. They do reveal that in the first half of this year more than 80 cessation proceedings were commenced. So it is clear that any refugee-PRs who engage in actions which constitute reavailment continue to indeed be at risk for cessation.
But that is well outside the subject discussed in the recent posts. Indeed, one query did not involve either a home country passport or travel to the risk-country at all. The other involved obtaining a home-country passport many years ago, prior to the change in law, prior even to obtaining PR status, and then the passport did not cause any problem at the time this individual went through the process of becoming a PR, even though that was during the peak of the Harper-era crackdown (so to say). That passport was not used and has expired.
Thus, even though technically the obtaining of the home country passport is a fact which can support an allegation of reavailment, in these circumstances there is no hint of actual reavailment or that the current government is at all likely to perceive it as such, let alone suspend the citizenship application and investigate potentially proceeding with cessation.
Reminder: obtaining a home/risk country passport is NOT grounds for cessation. Traveling to the risk-country is NOT grounds for cessation. These may constitute part of the factual basis upon which reavailment is alleged, but whether the refugee-PR has actually reavailed himself or herself of home/risk country protection is its own factual question, and one which depends in significant part on the refugee-PR's intent.
In particular, while obtaining a home country passport can lead to a presumption that the refugee-PR has reavailed himself or herself of home country protection, which would be grounds for cessation, that is a
rebuttable presumption. In the absence of ever using the passport, and in the absence of ever traveling to the home country in the meantime, and particularly where the only passport so obtained has not been used and is not valid, there is little or no hint that Canada would initiate let alone proceed with cessation.
The officially published decisions in which cessation was pursued overwhelmingly involve individuals with substantial history of obtaining and using a home country passport, almost all in conjunction with multiple trips to the home country, usually for an extended duration. This should not be taken to suggest the risk is worth taking in just obtaining a home country passport OR traveling to the risk-country only briefly (noting, however, it is the combination which tends to elevate the risks). It is not.
But again, the more recent discussion is about the risk of applying for citizenship. That is a very fact specific, personal to the particular individual assessment to make. The circumstances reported by
technic do not suggest much of a risk at all. Insinuations to the contrary are unwarranted and misleading.
While comments like this do not warrant a response:
If you want to have a luxury of going back to your home country just renounce your PR status and go back home and reapply through the normal rout.
If a family member or loved one needs help, care, or comforting, especially one nearing death, traveling home is hardly a luxury, and often can only be done at some risk, but a risk typically greatly reduced by just having status in a country like Canada, even just PR status which would allow the individual to retreat and return to the physical safety of Canada.
Most of the refugees I have known personally deeply miss the opportunity to at least visit with family and other loved ones back home, they often miss just being able to touch base with their roots and where they come from. Even once they become a citizen, the costs of travel are daunting, they often face serious risks and have to balance those risks against how important it is to be by a parent's side when dying, among other heart-wrenching scenarios.
The Harper-era draconian law which treats refugee-PRs differently than all other PRs was grossly unjust if not outright brutal. It is a shame that Kwan's Private Member Bill and this issue have been ignored by the current Liberal government. All other PRs can go to their home country for three out of five years without any risk of losing PR status. To impose this law on refugee-PRs, which means they cannot even briefly visit a dying parent without risk of cessation, and potentially lose PR status with no notice or right to a hearing to contest the termination of their PR status, let alone any right of appeal, is simply NOT FAIR. Once a person is given
Permanent Resident status, that should be permanent unless the individual does something which is contrary to being a permanent resident, like committing serious acts of criminality or failing to actually permanently live in Canada.
