Published
Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha is a lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation, called to the BC bar in 2019, and a member of the Law Society of British Columbia.
Updated November 10, 2026: sections 40.1, 46 and 108 of the Act and the Federal Court’s 2026 decision in Asrat checked that day.
The fix: a full response at the Refugee Protection Division hearing showing you did not intend to put yourself back under your home country’s protection. After a cessation decision, judicial review in the Federal Court.
The deadline: 15 days from the cessation decision to apply to the Federal Court (IRPA s.72). There is no appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division.
Why a lawyer: a cessation finding can end permanent residence automatically. The hearing is often the only real chance to explain the trips. Why a lawyer
The lawyers who review these refusals
Sundeep S. GrewalBarrister and Solicitor
Prabhpreet Kaur SanghaBarrister and Solicitor
Pardeep S. GrewalBarrister and SolicitorAbout our lawyers
Sundeep S. Grewal founded Lawgical Law Corporation and argues immigration cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court of Canada.
Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha focuses on refugee claims, immigration appeals, inadmissibility, detention reviews and Federal Court cases, and has presented at Continuing Legal Education seminars and the National Immigration Conference.
Pardeep S. Grewal is an immigration and estates lawyer known for clear communication and practical strategy.
If you came to Canada as a refugee and later travelled back to your home country, or renewed or used its passport, the Minister can ask the Refugee Protection Division to find that your refugee protection has ceased. If the Division agrees on the basis that you put yourself back under your country’s protection, you lose permanent residence automatically, even if you have lived here for years. The test looks at whether you acted voluntarily, whether you intended to rely on your home country’s protection, and whether you actually got it. Reasons such as caring for a dying parent can matter, and the Federal Court has sent cases back where the Division did not weigh them properly.
Lawgical Law Corporation, an immigration law firm in Surrey, Abbotsford and Vancouver, BC, represents refugees and permanent residents at cessation hearings and in the Federal Court; this guide is by Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha.
Leave your details and our team will contact you to arrange a time with a lawyer. Or call (778) 598-3785.
Thank you, we have your request
A member of our team will contact you to arrange a time. If your matter is urgent, call us at (778) 598-3785, Monday to Friday, 9:00 am – 5:00 pm.
What does section 108 say?
Under section 108(1), refugee protection ends if, among other things, “the person has voluntarily reavailed themself of the protection of their country of nationality”, has voluntarily reacquired that nationality, or has “voluntarily become re-established” in that country. Under section 108(2), the Division decides this “on application by the Minister”. If it agrees, the claim “is deemed to be rejected” (section 108(3)).
Why can I lose PR?
Under section 46(1)(c.1), a person loses permanent resident status on a final cessation decision “for any of the reasons described in paragraphs 108(1)(a) to (d)”. Section 40.1 then makes the person inadmissible. A cessation based only on changed conditions in your home country (section 108(1)(e)) does not take away PR.
In Slepcsik v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1840, the Federal Court upheld the automatic loss of PR against Charter challenges. That remains the law.
Why this needs a lawyer
One lawyer, one file, every step:
- reviewing every trip, passport and visa before the hearing;
- evidence and testimony on why you travelled and how you protected yourself;
- judicial review within 15 days if protection is found to have ceased;
- status options afterwards, including a stay of removal.
Immigration lawyers are members of a provincial law society (in our case, the Law Society of British Columbia), and only lawyers can appear for you in the Federal Court.
How does the Division decide?
The Federal Court of Appeal set out the approach in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Galindo Camayo, 2022 FCA 50. Reavailment has three parts, and all three must be met:
- Voluntary: you chose to do it, without compelling pressure.
- Intent: you meant to rely on your home country’s protection.
- Actual protection: you in fact obtained it, for example by using its passport to travel.
Getting or using a home country passport creates a presumption that you intended to reavail. The presumption can be rebutted with evidence: why you travelled, how long you stayed, whether you hid, and whether you understood the consequences.
What did the Court say in Asrat?
In Asrat v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 FC 476, a refugee from Ethiopia had renewed her passport and made two trips home of about a month each to care for her critically ill sister in hospital. The Division found she had reavailed. On April 10, 2026, the Federal Court set that decision aside: the Division had not properly weighed her evidence that she was the only one able to give day-and-night care, and its credibility findings did not hold up.
The lesson I take from Asrat is that the reason for the trip has to be proven in detail: who was ill, why only you could go, and what you did to stay safe while there.
Cessation risk at a glance
| What you did | Why it matters | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Renewed or applied for a home country passport | Presumption of intent to reavail | Galindo Camayo, 2022 FCA 50 |
| Travelled to your home country on that passport | Can show protection actually obtained | IRPA s.108(1)(a) |
| Reacquired your old nationality | A separate ground | IRPA s.108(1)(b) |
| Moved back to live there | Re-establishment | IRPA s.108(1)(d) |
| Cessation found for (a) to (d) | PR lost; inadmissible | IRPA s.46(1)(c.1), s.40.1 |
| Appeal | No RAD appeal; Federal Court within 15 days | IRPA s.110(2)(e), s.72 |
Worked example: before you travel
Example. A permanent resident in Surrey who came as a refugee hears that her father is dying. She is thinking of renewing her old passport to fly home. Before she does anything, she gets advice on the risk, on other ways to see her father, and on how her citizenship application would be affected. If she still goes, she keeps records of the medical emergency, the length of her stay and what she did to keep a low profile.
Mistakes I have seen
- I have seen people renew a home country passport “just for ID” without knowing the presumption it creates.
- I have seen people make several holiday trips home and then apply for citizenship.
- I have seen people go to the cessation hearing without evidence of why they travelled.
Frequently asked questions
I am already a Canadian citizen. Does this apply to me?
No. Cessation applies to refugees and permanent residents who were protected persons, not to citizens. Separate rules on revoking citizenship apply only to things like misrepresentation.
Does one short trip mean I lose PR?
Not automatically. The Division must consider all three parts of the test and your reasons for travelling.
Can I appeal a cessation decision?
Not to the Refugee Appeal Division. The route is judicial review in the Federal Court within 15 days.
Related guides
See our guides on the refugee claim process in Canada, a citizenship revocation notice and removal from Canada.
What should I do right now?
If you have received a notice of a cessation application, write down the hearing date and list every trip, passport and visa since you were protected. If you are only thinking of travelling home, get advice before renewing any passport.
Book a consultation with our immigration lawyers in Surrey, Abbotsford or Vancouver, or online from anywhere.
Ready to book? Open the booking form ↑
Sources (official)
- Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s. 108 (current to October 19, 2026), s. 46, s. 40.1, s. 110 and s. 72
- Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Galindo Camayo, 2022 FCA 50
- Slepcsik v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1840
- Asrat v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 FC 476 (April 10, 2026)
This article is general information, not legal advice. Every case depends on its own facts.