Refugee status cessation and PRs applying for citizenship

[scylla]

Another cessation case. Review allowed.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/do...ash=AAAAAQAJY2Vzc2F0aW9uAAAAAAE&resultIndex=1

 

[dpenabill]

Another cessation case. Review allowed.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/do...ash=AAAAAQAJY2Vzc2F0aW9uAAAAAAE&resultIndex=1

Updates are always appreciated.

Like many others, Du v. Canada, 2022 FC 1145, https://canlii.ca/t/jr6r4 does not offer much that is new, but it is another one which cites and discusses many of the more important cessation decisions, including in particular those that have been cited and discussed at length here, especially the Camayo and Siddiqui cases. In doing so it further highlights and illuminates some key aspects of cessation. Perhaps the biggest one is it illustrates, once again, that using the home country passport to travel to a third country (not home country) can be a major element in both triggering cessation proceedings and in RPD decision-making to deem cessation of status.

Some Observations:

Effect of review being allowed:

This was not the first appeal of a RPD decision finding that Yu Ming Du and Feng Shuang Sun (spouses) had reavailed themselves of home country protection, resulting in cessation. They previously benefitted from a Federal Court decision setting aside an earlier RPD cessation decision, remitting the matter be reconsidered and decided by a different RPD panel. That RPD panel, in turn, also allowed the application for cessation, and once again these PR-refugees sought judicial review. Once again, the appeal had a favourable result, so once again the matter is remitted back to the RPD for yet another RPD panel to make a determination.

Take-Away: a win on appeal does not necessarily mean status is saved. These PR-refugees will still need to prevail before the RPD to avoid cessation.


Travel to Third Country Using Home Country Passport:

As discussed at length in this topic, and particularly so this last month in response to posts by @ytyt and @Toronto1971, as a practical calculation of probabilities, it is very likely that travel to a third country using the home country passport, ALONE, does not trigger cessation proceedings. That said, travel to any country using a home country passport is considered availing oneself of diplomatic protection from the home country and it can be what triggers cessation proceedings.

Thus, I have push backed some comments that more or less suggested it is OK to use the home country passport to travel to a third country.

The decision here, Du v. Canada, 2022 FC 1145, https://canlii.ca/t/jr6r4 makes it clear that the diplomatic protection conferred by travelling on a passport issued by a refugee’s country of nationality can constitute actual reavailment. (paragraph 30)

And it is worth noting that in regards to the decision made by the RPD (Refugee Protection Division), the applicants and Justice Pallotta agree (paragraph 24) that:

. . . the RPD’s finding of intentional reavailment focused exclusively on the act of travelling to Cuba using Chinese passports in 2019​

Intent is only one of the requisite elements. And Justice Pallotta concluded this finding was not reasonable.

But what stands out in regards to this issue is it is clear that the RPD and the Minister (in the application for cessation AND in the appeal) considered a single use of the home country passport to travel to a third country is a BIG FACTOR, a key indicator of not just an act constituting reavailment but as evidence of that being intentional.

This is not intended to alarm anyone who has used the home country passport to travel to a third country. Overall reporting still indicates this alone is NOT likely to trigger a problem. Nonetheless, it warrants noting, and acting accordingly, that any travel using the home country passport is considered to avail oneself of diplomatic protection by the country that issued the passport, and thus constitutes both an act of reavailment and evidence of doing so intentionally.

Take Away: No need to worry, let alone panic, if a home country passport has been used to travel to a third country, BUT PR-refugees should avoid doing this, should avoid obtain or using a home country passport.

 

[scylla]

Failed cessation #1
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1239/2022fc1239.html

Failed cessation #2
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1236/2022fc1236.html

 

[dpenabill]

Failed cessation #1
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1239/2022fc1239.html

Failed cessation #2
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1236/2022fc1236.html

Regarding:
Canada v. Obaid, 2022 FC 1236, https://canlii.ca/t/jrq5h
Canada v. Arango, 2022 FC 1239, https://canlii.ca/t/jrnkv

Perhaps the most significant aspect of both these cases is that the Minister pursued an appeal of the RPD decisions, which rejected the Minister's applications for cessation, even though these PR-refugees only traveled to their home country BEFORE the change in the law (December 2012), which was when travel to the their home country had NO legal effect on their status as Canadian PRs.

Older cases rejected the claim that applying the change in the law to travel BEFORE the change in the law constituted an ex post facto penalty. And there have been numerous cases in which cessation of status and consequent loss of PR status were upheld notwithstanding the conduct constituting "reavailment" occurred prior to the 2012 change in law. Which has been perhaps the most salient and severe injustice resulting from the 2012 change in the law. Indeed, I rarely weigh in on what the law *should be* but regarding this I have, given the blatant injustice of stripping a Canadian of status in Canada based on actions for which the law, at the time of the actions, did not provide for any such consequences.

There should be no more than a few such cases lingering in the system, given that it has been nearly a decade since the change in law.

Most of the cessation cases still pending, and almost certainly any new cessation case, will involve actions potentially constituting reavailment (and thus grounds for cessation) since 2012.

But on their face these decisions appear to show that the current government is actively engaged in pursuing cessation resulting in loss of PR status, and moreover, if these cases are at all representative, doing so even if the travel to the home country was not extensive.

So, while the ultimate outcome for both these individuals was in their favour, these cases indicate continuing implementation and relatively strict application of the cessation provisions to Canadians who are refugees or protected persons and not yet a citizen. Note that the favourable outcome for both these individuals was based on the particular details in their specific circumstances. One might infer that the obvious injustice of applying the change in law to actions taken prior to the change in law is what tipped the scales here, and indeed I suspect that had much influence. However, both of these decisions approached this from the perspective that if the individual's actions constituted reavailment, that would constitute grounds for cessation and loss of both protected person and PR status, again notwithstanding the actions were BEFORE the change in law, and notwithstanding that at the time of those actions there was no legal grounds for terminating their status in Canada. Rather, the favourable outcome in both of these decisions rested on RPD's respective decisions, upheld as reasonable by Justice Elliot, that these individuals did NOT reavail themselves of home country protection.

 

[scylla]

Another one:

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1292/2022fc1292.html

 

[Toronto1971]

Another one:

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1292/2022fc1292.html

People, next week is my citizenship ceremony. All the lights turned green and Decision Made + Day of Ceremony is showing in my website.
I used my home passport
I was a PR protected person
I never renewed my home passport
I applied to renew my PR card . It was approved
I travelled to third countries with my home passport ( NOT my country) / nothing happened
In a few days, I’m Canadian
I have an advice: Not everyone in this forum tells the truth, majority tells bull….., experience of people is more important. Good luck to everyone, with all my heart!

 

[scylla]

People, next week is my citizenship ceremony. All the lights turned green and Decision Made + Day of Ceremony is showing in my website.
I used my home passport
I was a PR protected person
I never renewed my home passport
I applied to renew my PR card . It was approved
I travelled to third countries with my home passport ( NOT my country) / nothing happened
In a few days, I’m Canadian
I have an advice: Not everyone in this forum tells the truth, majority tells bull….., experience of people is more important. Good luck to everyone, with all my heart!

Congrats! And yes, your result makes sense. Based on what we've seen here for the last few years, travel to other countries with the home country passport seems fine. Of course the case I quoted above is very different from your situation and involves multiple trips to the home country. But even in home country travel cases, cessation hasn't always been successful recently (as you would see from the two cases I quoted a few weeks ago above where the court found in favour of the protected person / PR).

 

[Toronto1971]

Congrats! And yes, your result makes sense. Based on what we've seen here for the last few years, travel to other countries with the home country passport seems fine. Of course the case I quoted above is very different from your situation and involves multiple trips to the home country. But even in home country travel cases, cessation hasn't always been successful recently (as you would see from the two cases I quoted a few weeks ago above where the court found in favour of the protected person / PR).

Yes, it’s true what you talking about; travelling to your country is dangerous for your status.
But using your non expired home passport, is fine! During my interview with IRCC first week of September, I was anxious about the fact of using my home passport to third countries. The official never asked for that , only watching my ID and PR card or asking about my life in Canada & job. Nothing else!!!!
After 24 hours website changed in Decision Made and the day of OATH was there, in front of me. Thanks for all your help, love this forum! Good luck to everyone and please, Be Positive!!!

 

[linxord]

Yes, it’s true what you talking about; travelling to your country is dangerous for your status.
But using your non expired home passport, is fine! During my interview with IRCC first week of September, I was anxious about the fact of using my home passport to third countries. The official never asked for that , only watching my ID and PR card or asking about my life in Canada & job. Nothing else!!!!
After 24 hours website changed in Decision Made and the day of OATH was there, in front of me. Thanks for all your help, love this forum! Good luck to everyone and please, Be Positive!!!

Congrats!

 

[dpenabill]

Another one:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1292/2022fc1292.html

The decision here, in Badran v. Canada, 2022 FC 1292, https://canlii.ca/t/jrxw9 , is mostly about whether there was an abuse of process and is thus very focused on the specific procedural elements in Badran's individual case. This may be of some importance to those PR-refugees who have remained PRs for a long time without becoming a Canadian citizen, but that is probably a small portion of those affected by this subject.

It appears (but not for sure) to be a case that illustrates a citizenship application triggering the cessation action. In particular, he had renewed his PR card multiple times reporting his travel outside Canada, and been interviewed by CBSA on multiple occasions when returning from abroad, but it was after he had made the application for citizenship that the Minister for Public Safety initiated the cessation.

There is a key element in the decision, addressed almost in passing but clearly enough articulated (see paragraph 6 in the decision), regarding the distinction between cessation of need for protection as might be grounds for cessation of protected person status pursuant to Section 108(1)(e) IRPA, versus a cessation proceeding on the grounds of re-availment) under Section 108(1)(a) IRPA.

If a PR's protected person status is determined to be ceased pursuant to Section 108(1)(e) IRPA, which again would be based on the cessation of the need for protected person status, that does NOT affect that individual's status as a Canadian PR.

However, even if there are grounds for cessation of protected person status for this reason, that does NOT preclude Canada from proceeding with cessation based on on the grounds of re-availment) under Section 108(1)(a) IRPA. This is something which has popped up here several times, in this thread, and I have typically responded just as Justice Go did here; but there does tend to be a common misunderstanding that if Section 108(1)(e) IRPA could apply that would mean the PR-refugee is not subject to cessation.


Otherwise . . . it needs to be made clear the following is, at best, misleading:

But using your non expired home passport, is fine!

To be clear, how use of the home country passport can affect an individual PR-refugee depends on additional factors. Using even a non-expired home country passport to travel to the home country will create a PRESUMPTION of re-availment, and create a real risk of losing Canadian PR status . . . how much risk depends on many factors, so the risk can range from relatively low to quite high. Varies. Depends.

Moreover, "fine" is one of those vague, ambiguous terms, with no definite meaning in the context of what might put a PR-refugee's status at risk. Note, for example, in the case just discussed, Badran has lost his PR status, and even if he is deported, he might be "fine," noting after all he has spent a lot of time in Egypt, has recognized circumstances in Egypt have changed and he does not face the same risks as before, so he indeed might be "fine" going on in life as an Egyptian national with no residency status in Canada.

But what really matters to most in this forum concerned about cessation is what could trigger and result in the cessation of their status in Canada. While the more serious risk arising from using a home country passport comes from using it to travel to the home country, it demands remembering that just using the passport itself is an action constituting re-availment of home country protection and can support the cessation of status.

This is important, so I for emphasis I will elaborate further.

People, next week is my citizenship ceremony. All the lights turned green and Decision Made + Day of Ceremony is showing in my website.

Good news.

It needs to be made clear, however, that for PR-refugees using a home country passport to travel internationally is an action which can constitute reavailment, and thus potentially is grounds for cessation of PR status.

The fact you in effect got-away-with-it was not at all surprising. As I posted a month ago:

So, for example, @Toronto1971 probably does NOT need to worry, NOT much anyway, about having used an unexpired home country passport for travel to countries other than the home country. And even other PR-refugees applying for citizenship who have renewed or otherwise obtained a new home country passport and used it only occasionally for travel, but never to the home country, probably have no need to worry about the risk of cessation.

BUT . . . there is NO doubt, NONE, that they should cease using the home country passport for travel and NOT renew or otherwise again obtain a home country passport, UNTIL AFTER they become a Canadian citizen.

Unfortunately this forum tends to blur important distinctions, especially in regards to fairly low-risk actions which nonetheless cross the lines drawn in the law, the regulations, the rules, and in this context, the UNHCR standards. Using a home country passport to travel internationally is an act constituting re-availment (subject to rebuttal). Whether that alone, to travel to third countries (not home country), will trigger cessation proceedings is a separate question; so far and for known cases, it is NOT LIKELY this alone (even if done using a renewed passport) will trigger cessation.

So for those who have used their home country passport and at most used it to travel to third countries, no need to worry, not much. Odds are very good that just like @Toronto1971 this will not cause a problem, not a problem with PR status, not a problem with qualifying for and being granted citizenship.

But that in no way should be understood to suggest that going forward any PR-refugee should rely on those odds and (absent compelling cause otherwise) take even the low risk of using their home country passport to travel to third countries. Best practice, the safe practice, is to get a Refugee Travel Document TD (Adult Travel Document) to use for any international travel.

Not everyone in this forum tells the truth, majority tells bull…..

That is to some extent true. Hopefully not a majority. But yeah, we will see posts saying things like "But using your non expired home passport, is fine!" for a PR-refugee despite how clear it is in the law, the regulations, the rules, and the UNHCR standards, and in scores of OFFICIALLY published decisions about actual cases, that using a home country passport is an action constituting re-availment of home country protection and potentially grounds for cessation . . . subject to the scope of enforcement being employed by the current government.

experience of people is more important.

Not experiences reported in this forum. Actually these are very untrustworthy. Only informative and useful if and when corroborated in multiple ways, including:

-- extent to which the report is consistent with known law, regulations, and rules​

-- extent to which the report is consistent with OFFICIAL accounts of actual cases, such as those being linked by @scylla and myself, among others (these are actually the best source, the more reliable source of what people actually experience)​

-- extent to which the experience makes sense based on best understanding of how things works​

-- extent to which the experience reported makes sense compared to other personal reports of individual experience​

CAUTION: in itself, the experience reported by a particular individual regarding what happened in one particular case is NEVER a reliable indicator of how things work, how the rules apply, or what is likely or even typically might happen for another individual (and absolutely NOT an indicator of what will happen for sure). It might coincidentally match what usually happens and what will happen. In contrast, first and foremost: if in doubt, follow the rules; otherwise, yep, follow the rules. For PR-refugees, this includes paying attention to UNHCR rules and standards, as well as the Canadian law.

 

[Toronto1971]

The decision here, in Badran v. Canada, 2022 FC 1292, https://canlii.ca/t/jrxw9 , is mostly about whether there was an abuse of process and is thus very focused on the specific procedural elements in Badran's individual case. This may be of some importance to those PR-refugees who have remained PRs for a long time without becoming a Canadian citizen, but that is probably a small portion of those affected by this subject.

It appears (but not for sure) to be a case that illustrates a citizenship application triggering the cessation action. In particular, he had renewed his PR card multiple times reporting his travel outside Canada, and been interviewed by CBSA on multiple occasions when returning from abroad, but it was after he had made the application for citizenship that the Minister for Public Safety initiated the cessation.

There is a key element in the decision, addressed almost in passing but clearly enough articulated (see paragraph 6 in the decision), regarding the distinction between cessation of need for protection as might be grounds for cessation of protected person status pursuant to Section 108(1)(e) IRPA, versus a cessation proceeding on the grounds of re-availment) under Section 108(1)(a) IRPA.

If a PR's protected person status is determined to be ceased pursuant to Section 108(1)(e) IRPA, which again would be based on the cessation of the need for protected person status, that does NOT affect that individual's status as a Canadian PR.

However, even if there are grounds for cessation of protected person status for this reason, that does NOT preclude Canada from proceeding with cessation based on on the grounds of re-availment) under Section 108(1)(a) IRPA. This is something which has popped up here several times, in this thread, and I have typically responded just as Justice Go did here; but there does tend to be a common misunderstanding that if Section 108(1)(e) IRPA could apply that would mean the PR-refugee is not subject to cessation.


Otherwise . . . it needs to be made clear the following is, at best, misleading:



To be clear, how use of the home country passport can affect an individual PR-refugee depends on additional factors. Using even a non-expired home country passport to travel to the home country will create a PRESUMPTION of re-availment, and create a real risk of losing Canadian PR status . . . how much risk depends on many factors, so the risk can range from relatively low to quite high. Varies. Depends.

Moreover, "fine" is one of those vague, ambiguous terms, with no definite meaning in the context of what might put a PR-refugee's status at risk. Note, for example, in the case just discussed, Badran has lost his PR status, and even if he is deported, he might be "fine," noting after all he has spent a lot of time in Egypt, has recognized circumstances in Egypt have changed and he does not face the same risks as before, so he indeed might be "fine" going on in life as an Egyptian national with no residency status in Canada.

But what really matters to most in this forum concerned about cessation is what could trigger and result in the cessation of their status in Canada. While the more serious risk arising from using a home country passport comes from using it to travel to the home country, it demands remembering that just using the passport itself is an action constituting re-availment of home country protection and can support the cessation of status.

This is important, so I for emphasis I will elaborate further.




Good news.

It needs to be made clear, however, that for PR-refugees using a home country passport to travel internationally is an action which can constitute reavailment, and thus potentially is grounds for cessation of PR status.

The fact you in effect got-away-with-it was not at all surprising. As I posted a month ago:



Unfortunately this forum tends to blur important distinctions, especially in regards to fairly low-risk actions which nonetheless cross the lines drawn in the law, the regulations, the rules, and in this context, the UNHCR standards. Using a home country passport to travel internationally is an act constituting re-availment (subject to rebuttal). Whether that alone, to travel to third countries (not home country), will trigger cessation proceedings is a separate question; so far and for known cases, it is NOT LIKELY this alone (even if done using a renewed passport) will trigger cessation.

So for those who have used their home country passport and at most used it to travel to third countries, no need to worry, not much. Odds are very good that just like @Toronto1971 this will not cause a problem, not a problem with PR status, not a problem with qualifying for and being granted citizenship.

But that in no way should be understood to suggest that going forward any PR-refugee should rely on those odds and (absent compelling cause otherwise) take even the low risk of using their home country passport to travel to third countries. Best practice, the safe practice, is to get a Refugee Travel Document TD (Adult Travel Document) to use for any international travel.




That is to some extent true. Hopefully not a majority. But yeah, we will see posts saying things like "But using your non expired home passport, is fine!" for a PR-refugee despite how clear it is in the law, the regulations, the rules, and the UNHCR standards, and in scores of OFFICIALLY published decisions about actual cases, that using a home country passport is an action constituting re-availment of home country protection and potentially grounds for cessation . . . subject to the scope of enforcement being employed by the current government.




Not experiences reported in this forum. Actually these are very untrustworthy. Only informative and useful if and when corroborated in multiple ways, including:

-- extent to which the report is consistent with known law, regulations, and rules​

-- extent to which the report is consistent with OFFICIAL accounts of actual cases, such as those being linked by @scylla and myself, among others (these are actually the best source, the more reliable source of what people actually experience)​

-- extent to which the experience makes sense based on best understanding of how things works​

-- extent to which the experience reported makes sense compared to other personal reports of individual experience​

CAUTION: in itself, the experience reported by a particular individual regarding what happened in one particular case is NEVER a reliable indicator of how things work, how the rules apply, or what is likely or even typically might happen for another individual (and absolutely NOT an indicator of what will happen for sure). It might coincidentally match what usually happens and what will happen. In contrast, first and foremost: if in doubt, follow the rules; otherwise, yep, follow the rules. For PR-refugees, this includes paying attention to UNHCR rules and standards, as well as the Canadian law.

Im sorry Sir, but seems that you love polemics.
Looks that this forum for you is a class with students and you “ professor X “ giving lessons. Long speeches, makes me curious where do you find all these energies???
Sir,wake up! Real life is different from theory!
I have NO time for dialogue, should work!!
Good luck to all applicants and new comers! Be positive!

 

[dpenabill]

Long speeches, makes me curious where do you find all these energies???
Sir,wake up! Real life is different from theory!
I have NO time for dialogue, should work!!

I focus on a very small number of issues which can have a big impact on citizenship applicants or PR status. Particularly those matters regarding which there tends to be confusion, misunderstanding, or a significant amount of misinformation.

I do not waste time just throwing a contrary proposition up against unfounded, misleading, or erroneous statements. If the matter is important, it is important enough to actually engage in research, consideration, and in sufficient dialogue to get things right.

For most PR-refugees the risk of losing status in Canada is a hugely important matter. Most will make choices limiting the risks if they are aware of what the rules actually are. This is something worth the time and effort to get right.

Meanwhile there is a real possibility looming that Pierre Poilievre will be Canada's next Prime Minister, and no one should be fooled by the sheep's clothing he donned early this year as part of his image-scrub in a campaign to become the Conservative's next leader, which he now is. That image scrub is likely to continue as he campaigns to be the next Prime Minister.

Spoiler alert: the Conservatives and Poilievre have only limited immigrant-friendly policies, those which support certain big business economic interests; otherwise, the Conservatives and Poilievre are most emphatically NOT immigrant-friendly, and they are especially NOT friendly toward refugees.

Current and recent experience reflecting lenient enforcement policies toward refugees should not be relied upon to indicate how things are going to be going forward. There is only ONE for sure safe approach for a PR-refugee considering plans to travel outside Canada: get a Refugee (Adult) Travel Document and do NOT use a home country passport for international travel.

If in doubt, follow the rules; otherwise, yep, follow the rules.

No matter how many report they did not follow the rules and it was OK for them.

I in no way begrudge that things went OK for you despite engaging in actions which could be litigated as grounds for cessation of your status. On the contrary, this is a good outcome. But that does not change what the rules are and it for sure does not limit how a Poilievre government will apply and enforce the rules if and when he becomes Prime Minister.

So yes, BE POSITIVE, and for PR-refugees the most positive, the most safe approach, is use a Refugee Travel Document for international travel and NOT use a home country passport.

 

[WATCHTOWA]

I focus on a very small number of issues which can have a big impact on citizenship applicants or PR status. Particularly those matters regarding which there tends to be confusion, misunderstanding, or a significant amount of misinformation.

I do not waste time just throwing a contrary proposition up against unfounded, misleading, or erroneous statements. If the matter is important, it is important enough to actually engage in research, consideration, and in sufficient dialogue to get things right.

For most PR-refugees the risk of losing status in Canada is a hugely important matter. Most will make choices limiting the risks if they are aware of what the rules actually are. This is something worth the time and effort to get right.

Meanwhile there is a real possibility looming that Pierre Poilievre will be Canada's next Prime Minister, and no one should be fooled by the sheep's clothing he donned early this year as part of his image-scrub in a campaign to become the Conservative's next leader, which he now is. That image scrub is likely to continue as he campaigns to be the next Prime Minister.

Spoiler alert: the Conservatives and Poilievre have only limited immigrant-friendly policies, those which support certain big business economic interests; otherwise, the Conservatives and Poilievre are most emphatically NOT immigrant-friendly, and they are especially NOT friendly toward refugees.

Current and recent experience reflecting lenient enforcement policies toward refugees should not be relied upon to indicate how things are going to be going forward. There is only ONE for sure safe approach for a PR-refugee considering plans to travel outside Canada: get a Refugee (Adult) Travel Document and do NOT use a home country passport for international travel.

If in doubt, follow the rules; otherwise, yep, follow the rules.

No matter how many report they did not follow the rules and it was OK for them.

I in no way begrudge that things went OK for you despite engaging in actions which could be litigated as grounds for cessation of your status. On the contrary, this is a good outcome. But that does not change what the rules are and it for sure does not limit how a Poilievre government will apply and enforce the rules if and when he becomes Prime Minister.

So yes, BE POSITIVE, and for PR-refugees the most positive, the most safe approach, is use a Refugee Travel Document for international travel and NOT use a home country passport.

You have said it all. Follow the rules... X might be lucky and Y might be a scape goat.

 

[Kambs16]

My lawyer filed the first demand letter to IRCC. The one you send before the full Mandamus. IRCC is known to move things and get decision made quickly just by this letter. We are giving it a month. If we don't hear back we will file mandamus. 4 years and 2 months wait time since citizenship application date is ridiculous, no matter what investigation or procedure.
Will keep the forum updated.
He believes this is the only option no matter what is going on behind the scenes.

 

[dpenabill]

My lawyer filed the first demand letter to IRCC. The one you send before the full Mandamus. IRCC is known to move things and get decision made quickly just by this letter. We are giving it a month. If we don't hear back we will file mandamus. 4 years and 2 months wait time since citizenship application date is ridiculous, no matter what investigation or procedure.
Will keep the forum updated.
He believes this is the only option no matter what is going on behind the scenes.

Updates appreciated. Hoping this goes well. Let us know eh.