What
@scylla said . . .
. . . or, stated somewhat differently:
In this case, the Canada v. Sardar, 2024 FC 647,
https://canlii.ca/t/k4b1b case, the PR-refugee won the case before the RPD, where the government's application for cessation was denied. That is, this refugee got a NO-cessation decision from the RPD.
BUT the government appealed (sought leave for review) and argued to the Federal Court that the RPD's decision should be set aside because it was not reasonable, because the RPD should have granted the application for cessation. In this appeal IRCC won; the refugee lost.
That is, the appeal was "
allowed," the win for the PR-refugee before the RPD set aside, and now it goes back to the RPD where the government will again be asking the RPD to grant cessation, terminating this refugee's status in Canada.
But it is even more negative for the PR-refugee here (Jannat Hussain Sardar) than that because Justice Favel's decision more or less says that under the facts in the case the only reasonable conclusion is that this refugee had the intent to reavail himself of Pakistan's protection and so not only was the RPD's decision unreasonable
procedurally but
substantively as well, as a matter of principle. This does not absolutely preclude another favourable decision (favourable for the refugee) when the matter is re-determined, but it is a very imposing signal to the RPD that cessation is the proper outcome.
For those placing bets on how this will go, the odds are quite high this refugee will suffer cessation. Despite having initially won before the RPD.
Justice Favel's decision demands attention because it differs significantly from most of the cessation cases in which an appeal is allowed, decisions in which the respective Federal Court justice ruled that the RPD failed to sufficiently consider this or that, sending the case back to the RPD for a re-determination in which the RPD is directed to take these other factors into consideration. Even though the refugee has won the appeal, in many of these cases the risk remains high that the RPD will again grant cessation after including the additional considerations ordered by the Court. In contrast, Justice Favel's decision was not about the RPD failing to consider something it should have considered, but about the RPD reaching an erroneous conclusion.
So, yeah, as
@Onwards56 observed:
That is, notwithstanding a bit of pushback seen in some of the Federal Court cases (discussed in previous posts), overall there is no sign the government is considering changing the law regarding cessation or how it is applied. In particular, it appears that CBSA and IRCC will continue to pursue cessation, with some hints it will be quite aggressive in doing so.
That is, it warrants adding to the comment made by
@Onwards56 that not only is there no change in the law in sight, it looks like the government will not be changing its approach either.
Unfortunately this is NOT good news for those PR-refugees who have traveled to the home country. It is, in contrast, more reason to emphasize:
-- PR-refugees should NOT obtain a home country passport
-- -- if they already have obtained a home country passport, they should NOT use it for travel anywhere
-- -- -- if they already have obtained it and already used it, they should NOT use it again
-- PR-refugees should NOT travel to their home country
-- -- if they have already traveled to their home country, they should NOT do that again
Otherwise they will be increasing the risk that the government seeks cessation, including a risk the government will do so aggressively.
Other Side-of-the-Coin, Hope For More Lenient Approach:
There remains some cause for hope that either the Charter challenges or those Federal Court decisions imposing a more demanding approach to ordering cessation, or both, could result in at least less severe enforcement of the current cessation law. This should continue to encourage those inclined to push for a more just approach to continue that effort.
I generally try to avoid taking sides in
how-it-should-be (not that I do not have views one way or the other, but it helps to stay out of that in order to better focus on how things actually work) BUT in regards to cessation applied against Canadians (that is, those refugees who have been granted PR status), that is one issue I do express a view about
how-it-should-be, siding with those who find the current law to be draconian and unjust. But there is not a lot to be optimistic about here. I think
@Onwards56 is right. So, again, what looms large here is that there remains much at stake, and it is just plain clear that PR-refugees should take heed and exercise much caution, taking the warning above very seriously.
So, mostly that means
GET citizenship before planning any travel back home.