Roman Slepcsik’s plight shows how people become embedded in families, communities and workplaces in ways immigration categories alone cannot capture.

First few paragraphs for context:

Roman Slepcsik has lived in Canada for almost three decades. Federal Court records show he arrived from the Czech Republic in 1997 after fleeing persecution as a Roma man, was recognized as a refugee the following year and became a permanent resident in 1999.

He built a life in Canada. Slepcsik worked in Ontario’s construction industry for more than two decades. His wife and two daughters joined him in Canada, his daughters are Canadian citizens and he has grandchildren in Canada.

Slepcsik has said⁠ that, as a refugee claimant, he was ineligible for English classes and later struggled to find time to study while working long hours. He planned to apply for citizenship at 55, when applicants are no longer required to prove their language skills or take the citizenship test⁠, but by then proceedings to end his refugee protection had already begun.

So now, at 58, he is facing removal from the country in which he has spent most of his adult life.

His case asks what we mean when we call immigration status “permanent,” and whether the passage of time should change how we understand belonging.

After becoming a permanent resident, Slepcsik travelled repeatedly to the Czech Republic and obtained or renewed Czech passports. According to recent reporting by the Toronto Star, some trips were connected to family obligations, including helping his wife and daughters come to Canada, caring for an injured brother, attending family funerals and later visiting a brother with cancer.

Canadian immigration authorities concluded that his passport use and travel amounted to voluntarily “reavailing” himself of Czech protection. Under Section 108 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, refugee protection can cease when a person voluntarily reavails themselves of the protection of their country of nationality.

Reavailment is not the same as a finding that someone fraudulently obtained refugee protection. It concerns later conduct and whether the person has again sought the protection of their country of nationality.

In 2012, Parliament updated Canadian immigration law so that refugees who lose their protected status — often by re-establishing ties with their home country — automatically lose their permanent residency, too. Slepcsik had already been a permanent resident for more than a decade when those provisions were introduced.

In 2025, the Federal Court upheld the decisions in his case and rejected constitutional challenges to the new legislative rules. The case is now before the Federal Court of Appeal.

There are important legal questions here about refugee protection, permanent residence and legislation introduced years after Slepcsik became a permanent resident. But there is another question law does not answer so easily: what should nearly 30 years of living somewhere mean?