Repatriation is one of the permanent solutions under the UN Refugee Convention 1951. This is also considered as the most desirable solution, as the refugees return to their country of origin. Unfortunately, the examples of repatriation are rarely heard, because refugees tend not to leave the host country due to the fear of persecution or irreparable harm, and the origin countries pose inadvertence to take them back. Lack of international attention also plays an important role in the implementation of repatriation in the history of refugee crises. Token repatriation has emerged from this lack of attention. When the refugee origin state is not willing to take back the refugees, they take a nominal number of refugees by setting the requirements of documents. This approach is called token repatriation. The term is less known and discussed, even though states practice it very often in refuge crises. This article will explore the legal and political dimensions of token repatriation. It will endeavor to point at the escapist nature of refugee origin states and token repatriation’s role in it. Lastly, the article will advocate for rights-based protection approaches rather than adopting token repatriation to ensure a safe future for refugees, where they will be entitled to dignified return.