Federal Court dismisses judicial review of PRRA decision

Date: 20260416 [NAME] : IMM-2815-25 Citation: 2026 FC 511 Toronto, Ontario , April 16, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice McDonald BETWEEN: [NAME] A.K.A. [NAME] A.K.A. Elnatan Haile Applicants and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS [ 1 ] The Applicants seek judicial review of a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment ([NAME]) decision that found they would not face a risk of harm if returned to Sweden. [ 2 ] As background, the Applicants entered Canada in 2017 and were granted refugee status by the Refugee Protection Division ([NAME]) based on the Adult Applicant’s account of events in Eritrea. [ 3 ] In 2021, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Minister) learned from Swedish authorities via [NAME] that the Applicants are Swedish nationals. Based upon this information, the Minister filed an application with the [NAME] to vacate the Applicants’ refugee protection, based on the Applicants’ misrepresentations. [ 4 ] The [NAME] determined that the Applicants were nationals of Sweden and vacated their refugee status. The Applicants’ judicial review of this decision was dismissed in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 1372. [ 5 ] The Minister prepared a report finding the Applicants inadmissible to Canada, pursuant to paragraph 40(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [ IRPA ]. Their application for leave to judicially review this decision was dismissed by the Federal Court.

I. Issues and standard of review [ 6 ] The Applicants challenge the reasonableness of the [NAME] decision. They also argue that they were denied procedural fairness. [ 7 ] Reasonableness requires a decision to have justification, transparency, and intelligibility, be based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis, and be justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 at paras 85-86). [ 8 ] Procedural fairness is evaluated on a correctness-like standard, where the Court asks “whether the procedure was fair having regard to all of the circumstances, including the Baker factors” ( Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 at para 54).

II. Analysis [ 9 ] The Applicants argue that the Officer erred by assessing their risk of harm in Sweden, rather than Eritrea. The Applicants claim they provided credible evidence of their Eritrean nationality, and that they were not Swedish nationals. [ 10 ] This argument is effectively a collateral attack on the [NAME] decision that considered the Applicants’ arguments that they do not hold Swedish nationality. This evidence was considered by the [NAME] and the [NAME] decision was upheld by this Court. It is not appropriate for the Applicants to attempt to relitigate that issue in the context of a judicial review of the [NAME] decision. [ 11 ] Turning to the [NAME] decision, the Officer correctly noted that risks are assessed against the country of removal, in this case, Sweden. The Applicants bore the burden of demonstrating they faced risk in Sweden but failed to raise any risks, or present evidence that they would face risks in Sweden ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 812 at para 19 [ [NAME] ]). [ 12 ] Accordingly, the [NAME]’s finding that they did not face a risk of harm in Sweden is reasonable. [ 13 ] On procedural fairness, the Applicants argue that they should have had an oral hearing before the [NAME]. [ 14 ] An oral hearing is not automatic in the [NAME] process and is generally only required if there is a credibility issue regarding evidence central to the application ( [NAME] at para 28). Here the [NAME]’s decision was not based on any credibility concerns, but rather a lack of evidence and submissions regarding risk in Sweden. [ 15 ] Further, the Applicants’ submissions, that the [NAME] relied on “allegations” that they hold Swedish nationality, are without merit. The [NAME] relied upon a finding by the [NAME], an expert decision-maker, based on credible evidence from the Swedish government, which was upheld by the Federal Court. The Applicants provided no new evidence to suggest otherwise, therefore the Officer was entitled to rely on the [NAME]’s findings ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FC 359 at paras 11-12, citing IRPA , subsection 113(a)). [ 16 ] No procedural fairness issues arise.

III. Conclusion [ 17 ] The Applicants have failed to demonstrate that the [NAME] decision lacks transparency, justification, or intelligibility, or was beyond a range of acceptable outcomes based on the facts and law. The decision is reasonable and there were no breaches of procedural fairness. [ 18 ] This judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-2815-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : This judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification. blank "Ann Marie McDonald" blank Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF [NAME] : IMM-2815-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] et al v mci PLACE OF HEARING : Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: april 2, 2026

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS : McDonald J. DATED: April 16, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] FOR THE APPLICANTS [NAME] FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], Ontario FOR THE APPLICANTS Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT