Court Upholds Refugee Cessation for Returning to Home Country on National Passport
- Citation
- 2026 FC 975
- Decided
- Court file
- IMM-4483-23
- Full judgment
- Read the decision
Case Law Overview
Camayo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 975
The applicant, who was granted refugee protection from Colombia as a minor, had her status ceased after she returned to Colombia five times (four as an adult) using a Colombian passport. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found she had voluntarily re-availed herself of Colombia's protection.
Court Ruling
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the RPD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that repeated, voluntary travel to one's country of nationality on that country's passport creates a strong presumption of reavailment, which the applicant failed to rebut.
Key Quote from the Court
As noted earlier, there is a presumption that refugees who acquire and travel on passports issued by their country of nationality to travel to that country or to a third country have intended to avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality. This is because passports entitle the holder to travel under the protection of the issuing country. This presumption is even stronger where refugees return to their country of nationality, as they are not only placing themselves under diplomatic protection while travelling, they are also entrusting their safety to governmental authorities upon their arrival. (at para 24, quoting Camayo FCA at para 63)
Expert Takeaways
-
Strong Presumption of Reavailment Using a passport from your country of persecution to travel, especially back to that country, creates a very strong legal presumption that you no longer need Canada's protection. This action is seen as entrusting your safety to your home country.
-
Conduct Trumps Stated Intent The court's focus is on your actions, not just your words. Claiming ignorance of the consequences or that you didn't intend to reavail yourself of protection is often insufficient, as the court will infer intent from your conduct of voluntarily traveling on the passport.
-
Purpose of Travel is Scrutinized Reasons for returning home must be exceptionally compelling. In this case, visiting a sick father (who could travel to Canada) and volunteering for a humanitarian mission were not considered sufficient to overcome the presumption of reavailment.
-
Involuntary Passport Acquisition vs. Voluntary Use Even if a passport was obtained involuntarily (e.g., as a minor or under duress to exit the country), its subsequent voluntary use for multiple trips as an adult can still trigger cessation. The focus shifts from how you got the document to how you used it.
There is a deadline on this
That is the window to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review at the Federal Court, counted from the day you were notified of the decision. An extension can be requested, but it is granted at the Court's discretion - it is not automatic.
Check my deadlineDoes this ruling apply to your situation?
Tick whatever is true for you. Nothing is sent anywhere - this stays in your browser.
That combination is worth a proper look. It does not mean you have a case - only a lawyer reading your actual documents can say that - but it does mean the question is worth asking before your filing window closes.
Disclaimer
The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is complex and subject to change. For advice specific to your situation, please schedule a consultation with a qualified legal professional.
Disagree with your IRCC decision?
Find out whether your refusal can be challenged at the Federal Court of Canada.
No obligation - we review your documents and tell you if a Federal Court application is realistic.
Questions people ask after reading a case like this
Does this mean my own case will succeed?
No. Every application is decided on its own record. A reported decision shows how the Federal Court has reasoned about a particular kind of error - it does not predict the result of a different file. What it can tell you is whether the problem in your refusal is the kind of problem the Court has been willing to intervene on.
How long do I have to challenge a refusal?
Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act you generally have 15 days to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review if the decision was made inside Canada, and 60 days if it was made outside Canada, counted from when you were notified. The Court can extend that period, but an extension is discretionary - it is not automatic.
What actually happens at the Federal Court?
Judicial review has two stages. You file the application and a written record, and a judge decides on paper whether to grant leave - permission for the case to proceed. If leave is granted, there is a hearing. The Court does not re-decide your immigration application; it decides whether the officer's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. If you succeed, the file is normally sent back to be decided again by a different officer.
Do I have to be in Canada to bring an application?
No. Applicants outside Canada regularly bring judicial review applications, which is why the longer 60-day deadline exists for decisions made abroad. Applicants are not normally required to attend in person.
What happens in the free 15-minute review?
You explain what was refused or delayed and when you were notified. We tell you whether your filing window is still open, which issues in the decision look arguable, and what the realistic options are - including reapplying instead of litigating, where that is the better route. There is no obligation to retain us afterwards.
More Cessation / Vacation of Refugee Status rulings
Federal Court: RPD Wrong to Apply 'Necessity' Test to Refugee's Family Visit
Federal Court: RPD Erred by Using Wrong Test for Refugee Status Cessation
Federal Court: Returning to Home Country Ends Refugee Status
Federal Court: Returning Home Voids Refugee Status, Even to Face Arrest
Written by
Ali Dadkhah
Ali Dadkhah is a litigator whose practice is dedicated to challenging government decisions at the Federal Court of Canada. He specializes in judicial review, providing a crucial avenue for recourse for individuals and businesses who have faced unfair or unreasonable administrative outcomes. Bilingual legal support in English and Persian (Farsi)