Federal Court Overturns PRRA Decision Due to Officer Oversight

OUTCOME: Allowed

Date: 20260619 Docket: IMM-7242-25 Citation: 2026 FC 840 Toronto, Ontario, June 19, 2026 PRESENT: Mr. Justice Southcott BETWEEN: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] This is an application for judicial review of a decision dated January 31, 2025, by a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment [PRRA] Officer [the Officer], refusing the Applicant’s PRRA application and finding that the Applicant would not be subject to risk of persecution, torture, risk to life, or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, as defined in sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27, if he were to return to Sri Lanka. [ 2 ] This application for judicial review is allowed because, for the reasons explained below, I find that the Decision is unreasonable.

II. Background [ 3 ] The Applicant is a citizen of Sri Lanka, of Tamil ethnicity, who first entered Canada from the United States in October 2021 and attempted to make a claim for refugee protection. He was found ineligible to do so, pursuant to the [NAME]. The Applicant entered Canada again in September 2023, was again found ineligible to claim refugee protection, and was made the subject of an Exclusion Order. He was subsequently invited to apply for a PRRA, which application the Applicant submitted on May 2, 2024. [ 4 ] The Applicant alleges that, on multiple occasions in 2018 (initially following his participation in Mullivaikkal Remembrance Day event on May 18, 2018 [the Remembrance Day Event]) and 2019, he was detained, questioned, and beaten by the [NAME] [the [NAME]]. He asserts that this questioning included accusations of (and efforts to make him confess to) being a supporter of the [NAME] [[NAME]]. The Applicant alleges that he was also questioned as to the whereabouts of his father, who successfully claimed refugee protection in Canada following accusations by the [NAME] in 2012 that he was connected to the [NAME], as a result of the [NAME] finding a cache of arms and ammunition hidden beneath land that his father had leased. The Applicant left Sri Lanka in 2019.

III. Decision under Review [ 5 ] In the Decision that is the subject of this application for judicial review, the Officer recounted the Applicant’s immigration history and narrative. The Officer then identified the Applicant’s allegation that he faced risk in returning to Sri Lanka due to his profile as a Tamil male from northern Sri Lanka, with perceived or suspected links to the [NAME], and his profile as an involuntary returnee, as summarized in the following submissions from the Applicant’s counsel: [redacted] [ 6 ] The Officer noted that the Applicant’s evidence included a letter from his mother, dated June 8, 2024, which reiterated the events that led to his departure from Sri Lanka. However, the Officer noted that the letter did not indicate if the [NAME] or other authorities had come to their home seeking the Applicant since he departed the country in 2019. [ 7 ] The Officer found, based on the evidence presented, that it had not been objectively demonstrated that the [NAME] or others in Sri Lanka had a continued vested interest in the Applicant or that he faced a personalized, forward-looking risk, as a result of his participation in the Remembrance Day Event or any other reason. Nor was the Officer convinced that the Applicant demonstrated that his past experiences in Sri Lanka would translate to a personalized forward-looking risk should he be required to return. [ 8 ] In reviewing country condition evidence [CCE] related to Sri Lanka, the Officer arrived at the following further conclusions: It may be accurate that some discrimination against Tamils may occur in Sri Lanka. However, as the applicant was not a member of the [NAME], the evidence indicates that it is unlikely that he will experience further issues beyond those faced by the general Tamil population. Records indicate that the [NAME] is primarily focused on the [NAME] and its supporters. In order to identify these individuals, the government reviews activities taken in the country, family connections, and [NAME]. The applicant has not indicated that he has taken on any sort of official role in the [NAME] while in Sri Lanka, he has not identified any close family connections within the [NAME], and he has not indicated that he joined any [NAME]. As such, the evidence presented does not demonstrate that the applicant’s profile would likely draw the interest of the [NAME]. [ 9 ] Similarly, in connection with the Applicant’s risk of questioning and detention at the airport upon his return to Sri Lanka, the Officer reviewed relevant CCE and concluded as follows: The applicant has not indicated that he has criminality in Sri Lanka or that he is affiliated with [NAME]. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that the questioning he may face up on return to Sri Lanka would likely be consistent with the same questioning that all returnees may face and that he may not face heightened scrutiny or difficulties. [ 10 ] The Officer ultimately found that the Applicant had not established that he met the requirements of section 96 or 97 of the IRPA and therefore refused the Applicant’s PRRA application.

IV. Issue and Standard of Review [ 11 ] While the Applicant raises a number of arguments in this application, the sole issue for the Court to determine in considering the Applicant’s arguments is whether the Decision is reasonable. As is implicit in that articulation, the Decision is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness, as informed by Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65.

V. Analysis [ 12 ] My decision to allow this application for judicial review turns on the Officer’s failure to take into account, when considering whether the Applicant’s profile would cause him to be of interest to [NAME], the fact that his father has been accused of having connections to the [NAME]. [ 13 ] In the Applicant’s materials submitted to the Officer, and again in his arguments before the Court, the Applicant emphasized the relevance of the events involving his father to the Applicant’s own risk. In his narrative in support of his PRRA application, the Applicant explained the events in 2012, in which the [NAME] suspected that the arms and ammunition that they found on the land leased by the Applicant’s father belonged to the [NAME], as a result of which the [NAME] accused his father having connections to the [NAME]. The Applicant also explained that, when he was detained and beaten in May 2018, the [NAME] questioned him about his father’s whereabouts. The Applicant’s counsel’s submissions to the Officer emphasized these events as relevant to the assessment of the Applicant’s risk profile and, by way of supporting documentation, included a copy of the father’s Basis of Claim form, which narrated the events of 2012. [ 14 ] In analysing the Applicant’s risk if he were to return to Sri Lanka, the Officer canvassed relevant CCE and concluded based thereon that there were certain profiles of persons in whom [NAME] were likely to take an interest. The Officer noted that the [NAME] is primarily focused on the [NAME] and its supporters and that, in order to identify these individuals, it would review activities in Sri Lanka, family connections , and [NAME] (my emphasis). However, immediately after stating these conclusions based on the CCE, the Officer described elements of the Applicant’s profile, including that he had not identified any close family connections within the [NAME], and found that the evidence therefore did not demonstrate that his profile would likely draw the interest of the [NAME]. [ 15 ] The Officer’s statement that the Applicant had not identified any close family connections within the [NAME] may be technically accurate, as I do not understand him to be asserting that his father actually had connections within the [NAME]. However, for purposes of the profiles that the CCE indicated (and the Officer concluded) would attract attention from the [NAME], presumably it is the perception or belief of the authorities that matters. [ 16 ] As noted earlier in these Reasons, the Decision quotes a summary of the Applicant’s risk allegations set out in his counsel’s submissions, which summary includes the Applicant being considered to have a pro-[NAME] father. In that context, and given the evidence and submissions surrounding the [NAME] accusing the Applicant’s father of having connections to the [NAME], the [NAME] having questioned the Applicant about his father, and his father having been granted refugee protection, it is difficult to understand how the Officer concluded that this component of the Applicant’s profile did not figure in the assessment of his risk. [ 17 ] This is not to say that the Officer was obliged to conclude that the evidence and submissions involving the Applicant’s father, in combination with the other aspects of the Applicant’s profile, placed him at risk. However, the Officer’s failure to consider this aspect of the Applicant’s profile, particularly in the context of the Officer’s findings as to the profiles that would be of interest to [NAME], renders the Decision unintelligible and therefore unreasonable. [ 18 ] As a result of this conclusion, this application for judicial review must be allowed, and it is unnecessary for the Court to address the Applicant’s other argument surrounding the reasonableness of the Decision. [ 19 ] Neither party proposed any question for certification for appeal, and none is stated.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-7242-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that this application for judicial review is allowed, the Decision is set aside, and this matter is returned to a different PRRA officer for redetermination. No question is certified for appeal. "Richard F. Southcott" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-7242-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: June 17, 2026

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS: [NAME] J. DATED: June 19, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] [NAME] [NAME] [APPELLANT] [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [COUNSEL] [NAME], [NAME] of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent