Blog Post.
Yes, a refugee can be deported from Canada, but only in limited circumstances.
Most people who hold refugee protection in Canada will never face removal. The risk appears when the government applies to end that status, or when a criminal conviction opens a door that protection would otherwise keep shut.
You may have read that a recognized refugee simply cannot be deported. That is a comforting summary, and it is not quite right.
Kingwell Immigration Law acts for people in exactly those circumstances, where protected status has been challenged, taken away, or was never enough on its own to stop a removal order.
A person with refugee protection can be deported from Canada in three broad situations.
Each situation follows a different legal path, and each carries different rights along the way. The distinction matters because the options open to a failed claimant are not the options open to a permanent resident facing a cessation application.
We work out which of these applies at the outset, because it governs every option that follows.
💡 Additional reading: can Canada deport citizens
Our Toronto immigration lawyers act at the enforcement end of the system, where deadlines are short, and the consequences are permanent. We take on cessation and vacation applications, danger opinions, detention reviews, judicial review at the Federal Court, and emergency motions to stop a removal that has already been scheduled.
Daniel Kingwell, our founder, describes this side of the practice plainly: “I’m sort of the fire department.” He has practised immigration law since 2001 and holds the Certified Specialist designation in Citizenship and Immigration Law awarded through the Law Society of Ontario.
Our team brings together lawyers and registered immigration consultants, and we act for people right across Canada. Hearings at the Immigration and Refugee Board and appearances at the Federal Court are conducted remotely, so distance is not a barrier to being represented.
Non-refoulement is the rule that a protected person will not be sent to a country where they face persecution, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment. It is set out in section 115 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and it is real protection, but it is not unlimited.
The rule attaches to the status, not to the person. If protected status ends, the shield ends with it, and the person becomes an ordinary foreign national subject to removal like anyone else.
The law also writes in narrow exceptions covering serious criminality, security, human rights violations, and organized criminality. We assess early whether any of them realistically applies to a file, because that single question shapes the entire strategy.
Protected person status is not permanent in the way many people assume. The government can take it away through two formal applications to the Refugee Protection Division, and there is a third route that leaves the status intact while removing the practical benefit it provides.
Our lawyers respond to these applications on behalf of clients, including people who first learn of the case against them when the notice lands.
Cessation is an application by the Minister asking the Refugee Protection Division to declare that a person no longer needs protection. It succeeds where the person has voluntarily relied on their home country’s protection, reacquired their nationality, gained a new one, resettled there, or where the original danger has gone.
The most common trigger is travel. Renewing a home country passport, or returning there for a wedding, a funeral, or a family emergency, can be read as voluntarily re-availing yourself of that country’s protection.
Where cessation is granted on any of the first four grounds, a permanent resident automatically loses permanent residence as well as refugee status, and becomes inadmissible to Canada. Where it is granted only because home country conditions have changed, permanent residence survives, and we build the response around which ground the Minister is actually pursuing.
Vacation is a separate application asking the Refugee Protection Division to set aside the original decision granting protection, on the basis that it was obtained by misrepresenting or withholding material facts. If it succeeds, the claim is treated as rejected and the original decision is nullified.
A permanent resident who loses a vacation application also loses permanent residence and becomes inadmissible for misrepresentation. There is a defence, since the Division may reject the application if the remaining evidence still justified protection at the time of the original decision.
Daniel’s position on cases like these is consistent, and he puts it bluntly: “Live in the real world. If you’ve got a problem, present it. Be upfront and deal with it.” That is how we advise clients here, because concealment rarely survives contact with the government’s own records.
A danger opinion is the mechanism that allows removal despite a person still holding protected status. A Minister’s delegate assesses whether the person poses a danger to the public in Canada, or a danger to national security, and weighs that against the risk they face abroad.
These decisions are among the most consequential in immigration law, and they are reviewable at the Federal Court. They are also fact-heavy, so we put the work into the submissions at the assessment stage rather than waiting to argue about them afterwards.
A refugee who has become a permanent resident is not immune from removal for criminality. A conviction in Canada for an offence punishable by a maximum of at least ten years, or one where more than six months of imprisonment was actually imposed, creates inadmissibility for serious criminality.
What surprises people most is the appeal bar. If the sentence imposed in Canada is six months or more, there is no appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division at all, and the only remaining recourse is judicial review at the Federal Court on a limited standard.
Immigration advice belongs in the room during criminal sentencing, not after it. We advise on immigration consequences where we are brought in early, because the gap between a five-month sentence and a six-month sentence can decide whether an appeal exists at all.
💡 Additional reading: can you get deported from Canada if you are a permanent resident
When a refugee claim is referred to the Refugee Protection Division, a conditional removal order is usually made at that same point. It sits dormant in most cases and only becomes enforceable once the claim has failed and the time to challenge that refusal has passed.
The table below sets out the three order types and how each one tends to arise for someone whose refugee claim has been refused.
Order type | What it requires | Effect on returning | How it usually arises after a refused claim |
Departure order | Leave Canada within 30 days and confirm departure with CBSA | May return if entry requirements are met | The standard conditional order made when a claim is referred to the Refugee Protection Division |
Exclusion order | Leave immediately, confirm departure, one year bar, or five years for misrepresentation | Authorization to Return to Canada needed within the bar period | Less common after a claim, more often from a separate inadmissibility finding |
Deportation order | Leave immediately and confirm departure | Permanent bar, Authorization to Return to Canada always required | Automatic if a departure order is not complied with in 30 days, or issued directly for serious criminality or security grounds |
The last row does most of the damage in practice. Ignoring a departure order for a few months converts a recoverable order into a permanent bar, and we would far rather be consulted before that clock runs out than after it.
Refusal is not removal, and there is usually a gap of several months between the two. Most claimants can appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division, and a negative decision there can then be challenged by seeking leave for judicial review at the Federal Court of Canada.
Once appeals are exhausted, the border agency schedules a removal interview, where an officer checks for obstacles and arranges travel documents if the person has none. A direction to report for removal on a fixed date follows, and missing it can trigger a Canada-wide arrest warrant and detention.
Most removals are unescorted, with around eight percent needing officers to accompany the person, according to figures published by the Canada Border Services Agency. We use the months between refusal and that final date to file, since each of the remaining options carries its own deadline.
💡 Additional reading: Canada deportation
Canada suspends removals to some countries when conditions there endanger the whole civilian population. Two measures do this work: an Administrative Deferral of Removal, imposed by the border agency in a fast-moving crisis, and a Temporary Suspension of Removal, imposed by the Minister of Public Safety.
Both lists change, sometimes with very little notice, so the position on any given day needs to be checked rather than assumed. A pause is also not a status, and it can be lifted once the situation stabilizes.
The exclusion is the part that gets missed. People found inadmissible on serious criminality or security grounds do not benefit from these suspensions, so we check a client’s inadmissibility position before treating a country pause as protection.
Three tools do most of the work once a removal is on the horizon, and they operate on very different timelines. We advise on which one fits a file and in what order it should be filed, because that sequencing is often the difference between staying and boarding a flight.
A pre-removal risk assessment lets a person raise risk that has not already been assessed, usually based on evidence that arose after the refusal. There is generally a twelve-month bar following a refused, withdrawn, or abandoned claim before a new application can be made.
A restricted version applies to people inadmissible on serious criminality or security grounds, and even a positive decision in that stream produces only a stay of removal rather than protected person status. We set that distinction out at the start, so nobody files expecting an outcome the provision cannot deliver.
A deferral request asks the border services officer handling the file to postpone a removal that has already been scheduled. The discretion involved is narrow, and most requests fail in practice because they are built on the wrong grounds rather than because they were argued badly.
Our approach reflects Daniel’s assessment of what actually works. Two factors carry real weight: children who are settled in Canada and enrolled in school, and physical risk in the home country that the system has not properly assessed.
Separation from a spouse or family, on its own, does not succeed, because the courts have repeatedly described that outcome as the normal result of removal. Where neither factor is present, we will say so, rather than take a fee for a filing that is bound to fail.
A stay motion asks the Federal Court to halt a removal while an underlying case is decided. It is argued on three points: whether there is a serious issue to be tried, whether the person would suffer irreparable harm, and where the balance of convenience lies.
These motions are frequently heard within days of a scheduled flight. Affidavits, exhibits, and the application for leave all have to be assembled at speed, which is work we would rather begin the day a removal date is served than the night before it.
Two people can hold identical protected status and end up in very different positions, because cessation turns on which country’s protection a person is found to have relied on. Renewing a home country passport points to that country, while travelling on a Canadian refugee travel document does not.
The reason for the trip carries far less weight than most people expect. A funeral, a sick parent, or a brief visit can still support a cessation finding where the home country’s documents or consular services were used to make it happen.
We advise on travel before it happens wherever we are given the chance, and we defend cessation applications where it has already taken place.
The three cases below are drawn from our own files at Kingwell Immigration Law. Each one involves a pre-removal risk assessment or a refugee determination that was overturned on judicial review at the Federal Court, sending the decision back to be made again by the original decision maker.
PRRA applicant wins appeal to Federal Court after IRCC rejected her application.
O.J. v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2019 FC 684)
Pre-Removal Risk Assessment applicant. She claimed to be threatened in Nigeria due to her LGBT identity. IRCC rejected her application, rejecting her evidence. We appealed the decision to the Federal Court, and the Court overturned the decision, finding that the officer had failed to consider important evidence of threats to her from her husband, and had also failed to hold a PRRA interview. Her application was returned for review.
Federal Court orders IRCC to reconsider PRRA application of Iranian man.
A.M. v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2019 FC 270)
Pre-Removal Risk Assessment applicant from Iran. He maintained that he was at risk in Iran for attending political demonstrations. IRCC refused his application, finding that he had not provided sufficient evidence of risk. We appealed to the Federal Court and the decision was overturned, the Court agreeing that the officer had improperly rejected new evidence of ongoing danger. The Court ordered IRCC to reconsider the PRRA application.
Doresi v Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (2022 FC 1300)
Refugee Protection Division ordered to redetermine refugee claim from Albania because of wrongful criminal conviction.
Refugee claimant from Albania. For a decade, he fought his case with the Minister at the Refugee Protection Division, who argued that he should be excluded from protection because of a criminal conviction. We successfully appealed the decision to the Federal Court on the basis that he was wrongfully convicted in his absence, and the RPD was ordered to redetermine his claim.
Note: Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not predict the outcome of any other matter.
A scheduled removal feels final, and it rarely is. Our lawyers read the file, identify which avenue is still open, and act on it, whether that means answering a cessation application, filing a risk assessment, requesting a deferral, or moving the Federal Court for a stay.
We never apply a one-size-fits-all approach, because two people holding the same status can need completely different strategies. Our role is to work out which route is genuinely open to you, and then move on it quickly.
A Canadian-born child cannot stop a parent’s deportation, though Kingwell Immigration Law raises the child’s interests in removal cases. The child is a Canadian citizen and cannot be removed. Officers must weigh the best interests of the child, and will arrange travel documents if parents take the child with them.
You normally pay for your own removal flight, and Kingwell Immigration Law flags this cost early with clients. Where a person cannot or will not pay, the Canada Border Services Agency covers it so the removal proceeds, then recovers that debt before approving any future return to Canada.
Returning after deportation requires an Authorization to Return to Canada, and Kingwell Immigration Law prepares these applications. Approval is discretionary rather than automatic. Officers weigh the reason for the original removal, the time that has passed since, your current circumstances, and whether any removal costs were repaid.
Immigration detention has no fixed maximum length, but it is reviewed regularly, and Kingwell Immigration Law appears at these hearings. The Immigration Division reviews the reasons for detention within 48 hours, again within seven days, and then every 30 days, with legal representation permitted throughout.
Yes, you can file a humanitarian and compassionate application with a removal order outstanding, and Kingwell Immigration Law prepares these. Filing does not pause the removal by itself. A deferral request to CBSA or a Federal Court stay motion is usually needed to hold the flight while it is decided.
