- How can someone know if their application is under investigation or if it’s been cessation?
If you have traveled to Iraq (your home country?) and applied for citizenship, it would be a good idea to at least pay for a consultation with a qualified lawyer experienced with refugee cases. I can offer some observations but cessation is serious stuff and a lawyer can provide far better information, and offer advice and representation. Remember, obtaining a home country passport establishes a presumption of reavailment of home country protection and travel to the home country constitutes in fact reavailment, which is grounds for cessation unless the PR-refugee can prove there was no intent to reavail home country protection, which is not at all an easy task given the decision made to travel to the home country.
The key question is whether you have traveled to Iraq.
If not, if no travel to the home country, probably no need to worry about cessation.
If you have returned to Iraq since obtaining status in Canada, and your citizenship application has been in process for many months more than most others who applied around the same time, there is at least a substantial likelihood that there is indeed a cessation-related investigation. Note, however, that PR-refugees applying for citizenship often encounter longer processing times related to more extensive background screening apart from any cessation-related issues.
If the government has cessation proceedings pending against a PR-refugee the PR will get notice. Since you have a citizenship application in process, you would have gotten notice. (I am not sure how notice works if the PR-refugee does not have an active application in process and the government has difficulty contacting the individual. A webform query or telephone call to the help centre should be sufficient to verify if cessation proceedings have been commenced.)
If there had been a determination of cessation regarding you, your citizenship application would be quickly denied since, after all, that would mean you are not eligible for citizenship, not a PR, and indeed you would be inadmissible and facing deportation proceedings.
Knowing about investigations . . .
Knowing about
investigations is a rather different
kettle-of-go-fish given the extent to which information about investigations, and the manner and method, the means and scope of investigations generally, even the fact that an individual is subject to an ongoing investigation, is considered confidential. In addition to not being accessible by the public generally, this information ordinarily is not accessible even by those directly affected; that is, in particular, even the individual who is the subject of investigation is not entitled to information revealing they are the subject of an investigation (similar to how law enforcement does not give the target of a criminal investigation any
heads-up notice, there is
NO "
hey, we're watching you, going through your trash, listening to your phone calls, checking your bank records" notice to suspected drug dealers for example).
Nonetheless, many PR-refugees who have traveled to their home country (who thus should be aware they are likely to be investigated for cessation) and who are the subject of a cessation investigation, may know or readily discern they are the subject of investigation as a result of interviews with CBSA officers, either attendant returning to Canada at a Port-of-Entry or later contact. Even if there has not been an interview that was overtly cessation-related attendant a PoE examination, some might surmise there is an investigation in progress based on the questions asked at a PoE after they have traveled to their home country.
Some PR-refugees may have the skill (or assistance from someone with the skill) to compose crafty ATIP requests which can probe into more details than the generic requests; it is not likely this will directly reveal there is an ongoing investigation but could reveal some clues indicating the probability there is an investigation happening.
Bottom-line, nonetheless, a PR-refugee who has traveled to their home country should anticipate not just the likelihood of investigation but the significant risk of cessation proceedings.
Something I do NOT know but very much suspect (in the sense that I think it is very likely), is that IRCC is screening the travel history of PR-refugee citizenship applicants and making referrals to CBSA for investigation if travel to the home country is indicated.
Other Catching Up:
I’ve just submitted my citizenship applications for myself and my kids, despite the potential risks. I firmly believe that I must face any challenges head on, as waiting a few more years would only prolong the inevitable. Delaying now could mean facing the same proceedings and delays later on.
Interestingly, my brother recently received a letter at my old address in my home country. The letter stated that, based on intelligence reports, my citizenship there has been "doubtfully revoked," and I was instructed to appear at an office in the capital city. When I checked their online portal using my passport and citizenship numbers, it showed my status as “blocked.”
To be honest, I would never consider returning to that country under any circumstances. I’ve also consulted a lawyer here in Canada, who assured me that I have strong grounds, substantial evidence, and solid reasons to proceed. Ultimately, the decision was mine to make, and I’ve chosen to be proactive and take this step.
I feel confident and happy that I’ve finally applied. Whatever happens next, I’m prepared to face it. Fingers crossed...let’s see what the future holds. Wish me Luck and send good vibes.
I generally will not second-guess advice from a lawyer (absent strong cause) and will not second-guess the lawyer you consulted with. The best I could offer I already posted late last year, back on December 19. That and the comment I make above about suspecting that IRCC is screening PR-refugee applications and making investigatory referrals if grounds for cessation are indicated, which would include any travel to the home country.
Please keep the forum advised as to how this goes.
At the risk of being flippant, coming across callous, "
another one bites the dust."
Here again there is not much new in this decision: Telet v. Canada, 2025 FC 186,
https://canlii.ca/t/k96hr (many long trips to home country; cessation upheld)
Message is clear: PR-refugees who travel to the home country can (and apparently many if not most will) have protected status ceased resulting in loss of PR status and, for those with a citizenship application pending, that application denied.
Justice Norris does dive further into the issue about how the RPD should consider, and whether it should apply, cessation under section 108(1)(e) (the reasons for which the person sought refugee protection have ceased to exist) rather than section 108(1)(a) (reavailment of home country protection). Remember that if refugee status is ceased under 108(1)(e) that has NO effect on the individual's status as a Canadian PR, but if ceased under 108(1)(a) that automatically terminates PR status in addition to the cessation of protected person status. The difference in which section cessation is based on is a BIG BIG DEAL.
The claim that the RPD should have ceased protected status under 108(1)(e), not 108(1)(a), has been what I would call a "
defense strategy" showing up in a number of the cessation cases the last few years. Rarely successful.
One exception is another case decided by Justice Norris back in late 2023 (Taji v. Canada, 2023 FC 1587,
https://canlii.ca/t/k1f24 and a case I discussed some here around a year plus or so ago). That is a case in which the judge found that since the RPD failed to address the PR-refugee's submissions on the issue, that cessation should be based on 108(1)(e), the PRP's determination of cessation based on reavailment, that is 108(1)(a), was unreasonable.
That's a weedy subject. Analysis and discussion of this is very interesting to me (I find, for example, Justice Norris' approach at least a bit tortured, reasoning fashioned to support a conclusion already reached) but for purposes of this forum the take away is that (with isolated exception) it appears that the defense strategy
it-should-be-cessation-based-on-changed-circumstances (section 108(1)e) IRPA), not reavailment, is NOT getting much traction. That said, perhaps it has been successful before the RPD and the Minister has not appealed those cases, so we do not see published results from these cases.
Meanwhile . . . I still plan (eventually) to comment further (more editorial than informational) about the Deochan v. Canada, 2024 FC 2088,
https://canlii.ca/t/k8hcj decision, and the underlying issue in the discussion between
@canuck78 and
@armoured (the extent to which an underlying suspicion of fraud or misrepresentation has an impact in cessation related cases), including how I think both those are related.
