The Federal Court dismissed a judicial review challenging the cessation of refugee protection for Turkish nationals who made three return trips to Turkey using Turkish passports. In Sunbul v. Canada, the Court found the Refugee Protection Division’s refugee re-availment analysis was reasonable.
Case concerns cessation of refugee protection
The decision, Sunbul v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1251, was released in Toronto on October 9, 2026. Justice Richard F. Southcott heard the application for judicial review.
The applicants had been accepted as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection on May 29, 2018, after claiming fear of persecution in Turkey based on anti-government political opinions, Kurdish ethnicity and Alevi faith. They later received permanent resident status on September 4, 2019.
On January 7, 2025, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness applied to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) to cease their refugee status under subsection 108(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The application was based on the applicants’ use of Turkish passports for three return trips to Turkey.
RPD found applicants had re-availed themselves of protection
The RPD concluded that the applicants had voluntarily re-availed themselves of the protection of Turkey under paragraph 108(1)(a) of the IRPA. It allowed the Minister’s cessation application.
The RPD acknowledged that cessation would result in the applicants losing permanent resident status and being issued removal orders. It also noted that a re-availment finding would bar them from seeking a pre-removal risk assessment or applying for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds for one year.
Applicants challenged voluntariness and intention
The applicants did not dispute the legal test applied by the RPD. Their challenge focused on whether their travel was voluntary and whether they intended to avail themselves of Turkish state protection.
They said their first trip was to visit the principal applicant’s ailing father, who died during the visit. They said later trips were for the principal applicant’s prostate surgery and recovery, and for dental surgery for both applicants. They argued that the first visit had a compelling humanitarian character and that they had no other option for the medical treatment.
They also relied on guidance in the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Handbook and earlier Federal Court decisions addressing temporary visits to a former home country. The respondent argued that the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Galindo Camayo did not require an intention to permanently reside in a country before re-availment could arise.
Court found RPD reasonably weighed the evidence
Justice Southcott reviewed the decision on the reasonableness standard. The Court noted the rebuttable presumption that refugees who use passports issued by their country of nationality to travel there intended to avail themselves of that country’s protection. The refugee bears the onus of providing sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption.
The Court accepted that the purpose of travel, including travel to visit a seriously ill family member, can be relevant. However, it noted that no individual factor is necessarily determinative and that the relevant evidence must be assessed and balanced.
The RPD had considered the applicants’ education and sophistication, their lack of awareness of immigration consequences, the reasons for their visits, their return to the village and house where they had experienced persecution, the limited precautions they took, the cost savings associated with surgery, the timing of their travel after obtaining permanent residence, and the length and number of their stays in Turkey.
The Court found that the RPD had considered the applicable criteria and relevant factors, then reasonably concluded that the applicants had not rebutted the presumption of re-availment. The Court said it was not its role to revisit the RPD’s weighing of that evidence.
Judicial review dismissed
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review and did not certify a question for appeal.
The decision illustrates that reasons for return travel may be relevant in a refugee re-availment assessment, but the RPD may weigh those reasons alongside the full circumstances of the travel and the refugee’s use of a national passport.
Source: Federal Court Decisions