Federal Court Dismisses Refugee Protection Status Challenge

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260611 Docket: IMM-9443-25 Citation: 2026 FC 781 Montréal, Québec, June 11, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP [RESPONDENT] Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant is a [NAME] national. She was recognized by Canada as a Convention Refugee and awarded protection against Syria pursuant to subsection 95(1)(a) of the [RESPONDENT] and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA], through the CRS (private sponsorship) program. [ 2 ] The application for judicial review was heard in Montréal, Québec on June 10, 2026, at 11:00 am. [ 3 ] After hearing submissions, I advised counsel for the parties that the application was dismissed, with written reasons to follow. These are those reasons.

II. Facts [ 4 ] On September 22, 2017, the Applicant arrived in Canada and obtained permanent residence upon her arrival. [ 5 ] Four months after being granted refugee status, the Applicant returned to Syria to pursue a legal dispute against her alleged persecutor and ex-husband regarding the ownership of a bookstore. She did not return to Canada when the dispute was resolved in March 2018. She instead remained in Syria, lived in a house awarded to her by a [NAME], worked as an English tutor and got married. [ 6 ] In November 2021, the Applicant applied for the renewal of her [NAME] passport. [ 7 ] Upon the Applicant’s return to Canada on October 22, 2022, a s. 44(1) report was issued to the Minister’s Delegate, recommending the Applicant be referred to the [RESPONDENT] for an admissibility hearing for her failure to comply with her residency requirements. [ 8 ] The Applicant challenged this decision before the [RESPONDENT] and her appeal was dismissed in May 2023. [ 9 ] On May 17, 2023, the Minister filed an application before the Refugee Protection Division [[NAME]] for cessation of the refugee protection granted to the Applicant on the grounds that she was a person described in the IRPA at paragraph 108(1)(a), a person who has voluntarily reavailed herself of the protection of her country of nationality, and paragraph 108(1)(d), a person having voluntarily become reestablished in the country that she left or remained outside of, and in respect of which you claimed refugee protection in Canada. [ 10 ] On April 8, 2025, the Minister’s application was granted by [NAME] based on the second ground. [ 11 ] The Applicant submits that [NAME]’s decision leading to the cessation of her refugee protection is unreasonable because [NAME] gave no value to a letter written by a [NAME] stating the urgency and necessity of the Applicant’s presence in Syria in order to make sure that the ownership dispute lawsuit over a bookstore could be resolved. [ 12 ] According to the Applicant, it was not open to [NAME] to simply reject a signed and sworn letter from a lawyer and discredit his statement without giving specific reasons. [ 13 ] There is no merit to the argument. A. [NAME] [ 14 ] [NAME] found on the record before it that the Applicant voluntarily returned to her country of persecution. It also found the Applicant’s allegations to be not credible concerning her legal dispute and the operation of a bookstore in Syria. [NAME] noted that in 2012, a court in Syria rejected the Applicant’s ex-husband’s application to transfer the bookstore to his name and did not allow any witness to contest the official record. [NAME] found the [NAME]’s letter to be vague and failed to explain why the Applicant’s presence in Syria was required for an appeal hearing before the Civil Appeal Court in Latakia. [ 15 ] [NAME] also noted that there was nothing in the legal evidence showing that the Applicant’s presence was required for proceedings after March 2018 in Syria. [NAME] found on a balance of probabilities that the Applicant could have left Syria and only returned when needed but chose instead to continuously stay in Syria. [ 16 ] [NAME] noted that during her four-year absence, she had no ties with Canada, no assets in Canada and went to Syria without a return ticket. [NAME] found this showed that the Applicant voluntarily returned and re-established herself in Syria. [NAME] found that none of the Applicant’s actions were consistent with a refugee fearing persecution in Syria, which called her protected person status into question. [NAME] summed up its findings as follow: The evidence shows on a balance of probabilities that you reestablished yourself voluntarily in Syria during the period of January 2018 until March 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic forced all countries to close their borders. In doing so, you demonstrated that you no longer required international protection from persecution there. As such, the refugee protection conferred on you ceases.

III. Analysis [ 17 ] [NAME]’s analysis of the evidence is reasonable and based on sound legal principles. While the Applicant may not agree with [NAME]’s findings or assessment of the evidence, the Court’s role in judicial review is not to agree or disagree with the decision under review, reassess the merits or reweigh the evidence, but rather to determine if the decision maker made a reviewable error. None was established here. [ 18 ] As for the Applicant’s argument that [NAME] may have confused itself by referring to paragraph 120 in the UNHCR Handbook, which concerns the voluntary reavailment of national protection, in rendering its decision, I fail to see an error on its part. [NAME] simply noted that a return to a country of persecution may be deemed involuntary when it is made to complete a divorce procedure, such that it would have allowed the Applicant to go on with her life and remarry, but that this was not the case before it.

IV. Conclusion [ 19 ] In my view, the Decision possesses all the hallmarks of a reasonable decision. The application is accordingly dismissed. [ 20 ] The parties confirmed that there is no question to certify. I agree.

JUDGMENT in IMM-9443-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application is dismissed. There is no question to certify. “[NAME]” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-9443-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP [RESPONDENT] OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: June 10, 2026 reasons and

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: JUNE 11, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] For The Applicant [APPELLANT] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [RESPONDENT] and Solicitors Montréal, Quebec For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec For The Respondent