The Federal Court has dismissed a Pakistani citizen’s challenge to the cessation of her refugee protection, finding the Refugee Protection Division’s refugee re-availment analysis was reasonable and procedurally fair. The Court upheld the RPD’s findings arising from the applicant’s renewed Pakistani passport and three trips to Pakistan between 2015 and 2017.
Case and decision under review
In Asghar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1260, Justice Thorne dismissed the application for judicial review on October 13, 2026. The applicant challenged a February 24, 2023 Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision that allowed the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness’ application to cease her refugee protection.
The applicant had been recognized as a Convention refugee or person in need of protection in June 2012. Her original claim was based on fear that male relatives in Pakistan would persecute her or subject her to an “honour killing” after she refused a marriage they had chosen.
The Minister sought cessation after learning that the applicant had obtained a new Pakistani passport and travelled to Pakistan in 2015, 2016 and 2017. The three visits lasted 40, 65 and 23 days. The RPD found that her travel, conduct during the visits and contact with family members demonstrated re-availment of Pakistan’s protection.
Applicant challenged intent and hearing fairness
The applicant argued that the RPD unreasonably assessed whether she subjectively intended to re-avail herself of Pakistan’s protection. She said her returns were driven by filial duty, pressure from controlling relatives and family circumstances, including reconciling with her father, introducing her child to her mother-in-law and seeking non-medical treatment for her autistic child.
She also argued that the hearing was procedurally unfair because she was unrepresented at the December 2022 cessation hearing and the RPD did not sufficiently explore her testimony about pressure from her husband and mother-in-law.
The Minister responded that the applicant chose to proceed without counsel, that the RPD took steps to ensure she understood the proceeding, and that she retained counsel after the hearing to make written submissions before the RPD issued its decision.
Court finds RPD considered the evidence reasonably
Justice Thorne reviewed the merits under the reasonableness standard and the fairness issue on a correctness-like standard. The Court found that the RPD had provided detailed reasons for concluding that the applicant had voluntarily returned to Pakistan multiple times after obtaining a Pakistani passport and had not shown that she was compelled to travel or faced circumstances beyond her control.
The RPD had considered the length and frequency of the trips, the applicant’s public social media posts, her travel to Lahore, sightseeing, and her meetings with her father and a brother—people she had previously identified as agents of persecution. The Court found it reasonable for the RPD to conclude that this conduct did not demonstrate subjective fear.
The Court rejected the argument that the RPD had treated the applicant’s education as proof of technical immigration knowledge. It found that the RPD had instead asked whether she had used her journalistic background and skills to clarify the consequences of her situation. The RPD also considered her claimed lack of knowledge of the immigration consequences alongside the other evidence.
The Court noted that a refugee who obtains and travels on a passport issued by their country of nationality is presumed to have intended to avail themselves of that country’s protection. While that presumption can be rebutted, the Court found that the RPD reasonably explained why the applicant had not rebutted it on the evidence before it.
No procedural unfairness established
On procedural fairness, the Court found no evidence that the RPD prevented the applicant from understanding the case or presenting her position. The record showed that the RPD confirmed she wished to proceed without representation and explained the consequences of doing so.
No transcript of the RPD hearing was filed, and the applicant did not identify specific examples showing that the panel acted improperly or failed to give her an opportunity to respond. The Court also considered it significant that counsel made submissions for the applicant after the hearing and before the RPD rendered its decision.
Application dismissed without certified question
The Court dismissed the application for judicial review and certified no question of general importance. The judgment leaves the RPD’s cessation decision in place.
The Court noted that a cessation finding under paragraph 108(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act can have serious consequences, including the loss of refugee protection and permanent resident status. In this case, however, the Court concluded that the RPD’s analysis was transparent, intelligible and justified in light of the evidence.
Source: Federal Court Decisions