Federal Court Rejects Judicial Review of Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Denial

Date: 20260212 Docket: IMM-3138-24 Citation: 2026 FC 205 Ottawa, Ontario, February 12, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [NAME] Applicant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant, Mr. [NAME], seeks judicial review of a decision dated October 24, 2023 [Decision] of a Senior Immigration Officer [Officer] refusing his Pre-Removal Risk Assessment [[NAME]] application and finding that he would not be subject to persecution, to a danger of torture, to a risk of life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if returned to his country of nationality or habitual residence. The Officer assessed the risks identified by [NAME] that he fears harm at the hands of Iranian authorities who will perceive him as an apostate after becoming an atheist convert; as westernized and possibly having ties to foreign interests after having resided in Canada for an extended period; and as a criminal due to his conviction for an offence in Canada. The Officer determined that he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. [ 2 ] On judicial review before the Court, [NAME] submits the [NAME] Decision is unreasonable and raises two issues with the Officer’s Decision: a. Did the Officer err in their treatment of [NAME] ’s evidence of his religious views? b. Did the Officer unreasonably draw a negative inference regarding [NAME] ’s return trips to Iran? [ 3 ] In response, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration [Minister] submits that it is reasonable for the [NAME] to assign third parties statements no weight because they are based on information recounted by [NAME] himself. As for [NAME] return trips to Iran, the Minister submits that it was reasonable to find that these trips, combined with his non-adherence with social pressures, were not consistent with an individual who had expressed a fear of returning to Iran due to being an atheist. [ 4 ] For the reasons that follow, this Court dismisses this application for judicial review. The Officer reasonably assessed the evidence of [NAME] religious views before them and reasonably concluded they were not satisfied with the evidence that he is an atheist that would place him at risk on return to Iran and reasonably drew a negative inference regarding his return trips to Iran. The Officer also reasonably held that [NAME] is not someone having a profile of a political activist who has been openly criticizing the ruling Iranian government in a public sphere or that he has had previous involvement in any political activities advocating dissent against the Iranian state during his time in Canada. Lastly, the Officer reasonably found that [NAME] did not adduce sufficient objective evidence that would demonstrate how Iranian officials would become aware of his criminal record in Canada.

II. Procedural History [ 5 ] [NAME], a citizen of Iran, entered Canada in January 2014 as an international student. Between 2014 and 2018, [NAME] returned to Iran on multiple occasions. [ 6 ] On August 8, 2019, [NAME] was charged with sexual assault. On October 7, 2021, he was convicted, and then sentenced on December 16, 2022, to a conditional sentence order of two (2) years less a day, along with a term of probation to be served consecutively and various ancillary orders. On December 19, 2022, [NAME] filed a Notice of Appeal with the [ADDRESS] of Appeal, challenging both his conviction and sentence. [ 7 ] On January 18, 2023, [NAME] was found inadmissible for serious criminality pursuant to paragraph 36(1)(a) of the IRPA and was issued a deportation order. [ 8 ] On March 6, 2023, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada received [NAME] pre-removal risk assessment [[NAME]] application. In his [NAME] application, [NAME] claimed that he would face risks arising from his intersecting profile as an atheist convert raised in a devout Shia Muslim household, as a Canadian temporary resident since 2014 who would be perceived as a “westernized” returnee to Iran with possible ties to foreign interests, and as a person convicted of a crime in Canada. [ 9 ] On October 24, 2023, [NAME] application was refused and this was communicated to him on December 12, 2023. [ 10 ] On February 7, 2024, [NAME] was issued a Direction to Report for removal. On February 16, 2024, CBSA received [NAME]’s deferral request. [ 11 ] On February 20, 2024, [NAME] served and filed an application for leave and for judicial review of the deferral decision, as well as a motion to stay his removal in Court file Number IMM-3116-24. [ 12 ] On February 23, 2024, [NAME] request to defer his removal scheduled for February 28, 2024, was refused. [ 13 ] On February 26, 2024, the Court stayed on consent [NAME] removal pending final disposition of the application for judicial review of the Deferral Officer’s refusal to defer the Applicant’s removal: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 CanLII 13954 (FC). [ 14 ] On December 20, 2024, [NAME] appeal of his criminal conviction was dismissed although his appeal of his sentence was granted, reducing his conditional sentence order from two (2) years-less-a-day to twenty (20) months: R v [NAME] , 2024 ONCA 930.

III. Decision Under Review [ 15 ] On October 24, 2023, the [NAME] rendered the Decision, which is the subject of this judicial review. [ 16 ] The Officer found that [NAME] did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he was an atheist and that this would place him at risk in Iran. The Officer considered the four signed letters of support, in which the individuals all explained that [NAME] is an atheist and the accompanying circumstances if he returns to Iran but noted that the letters contained unsworn statements and relied on recounted information from [NAME] and ascribed them no weight. [ 17 ] The Officer further found that there was insufficient objective evidence to establish that [NAME] possessed the profile of a political activist who had been openly critical of the Iranian government, or that he had previous involvement in any political activities advocating dissent during his time in Canada. [ 18 ] The Officer also noted that during the removal process from Canada, Iranian authorities do not receive information that an individual has been convicted of a crime that has rendered them inadmissible to Canada and found that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate how Iranian officials would become aware of his criminal record in Canada. [ 19 ] Finally, the Officer considered supporting documentation that included articles and reports from the National Documentation Package for Iran dated March 31, 2023, provided by [NAME]. However, the Officer concluded that evidence of general conditions within Iran was not sufficient to show that [NAME] was personally at risk.

IV. Standard of Review [ 20 ] The presumptive standard of review is reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 [ [NAME] ] at paras 10 , 25. To avoid intervention on judicial review, the decision must bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility: [NAME] at para 99. For the reviewing court to intervene, the party challenging the decision must satisfy the court that “there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency” and that the alleged flaws “must be more than merely superficial or peripheral to the merits of the decision” : [NAME] at para 100. [ 21 ] [ADDRESS] must avoid reassessing and reweighing the evidence before the decision-maker; a decision may be unreasonable, however, if the decision-maker “fundamentally misapprehended or failed to account for the evidence before it” : [NAME] at paras 125-126.

V. Analysis A. Did the Officer err in their treatment of [NAME] ’s evidence of his religious views? [ 22 ] [NAME] submits that the Officer erred in their treatment of the evidence of his religious views and the Officer ascribing them no weight is unreasonable for three reasons. [ 23 ] First, [NAME] submits that the Officer mischaracterized the personal letters as merely recounting information provided by him to the authors and unreasonably discounted them on that basis. [ 24 ] Second, [NAME] submits the [NAME] fails to consider and explain how else these individuals would have come to know about his religious views and departure from Islam if it was not relayed to them by him. [ 25 ] The weight given by a decision-maker are generally not a ground of judicial review. The Officer reasonably weighed the letters from acquaintances, friends and a partner with whom [NAME] had been in a relationship for over three years, noted that they contain unsworn statements recounting information provided by him that he is an atheist. It is reasonable for a decision-maker to attenuate the weight given to evidence from third parties who cannot independently verify the facts to which they testify. Evidence from witnesses with a personal interest in the matter, lacking corroboration, or vague evidence may be given less weight: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2008 FC 1067 at para 27; II v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2009 FC 892 at paras 20–21. [ 26 ] Third, relying on [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 475 [ [NAME] ], [NAME] submits that there is a presumption that statements made in his affidavit are true unless there is a reason to doubt their truthfulness, and that the Officer's finding of insufficient evidence fails to consider what other evidence he could have reasonably been expected to provide, given the challenge of corroborating his identity as an atheist: [NAME] at paras 18-19. [ 27 ] I agree with the Minister that the case of [NAME] does not assist [NAME]. Relying on a sworn statement and the presumption of truthfulness does not absolve [NAME] from providing sufficient evidence to support their claim: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 446 at para 57. In the case before me, the Officer did not discount [NAME] affidavit for lack of corroborative evidence as the officer did in [NAME] . Instead, the Officer assessed the evidence provided by [NAME], including his repeated reavailment to Iran as a non-observant Shia Muslim, which it held undermined his alleged fear of his alleged risk in Iran. [ 28 ] More specifically, the Officer noted that [NAME] transition to atheism began in 2013, while he was still residing in Iran. The Officer considered that while this transition was further expedited when [NAME] came to Canada in 2014, he nevertheless returned to Iran on multiple occasions between 2014 and 2018, while fully aware that returning to Iran as an apostate could draw adverse attention and harsh consequences. The Officer found that [NAME] repeated trips to Iran are not consistent with an individual expressing fear of returning to Iran since the non-adherence to strict rituals required by Shia doctrine would be immediately observable in Iran. Based on this finding, cumulatively with the lack of weight accorded to the letters of support for the reasons stated above, the Officer ultimately found that the evidence tendered by [NAME] was not sufficient to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he is an atheist which would place him at risk on return to Iran. [ 29 ] Given the analysis of the Officer detailed above, I cannot agree with [NAME] argument that the Officer discarded his sworn statement based on a lack of corroborating evidence. The Officer reasonably assessed the evidence before them and concluded that it was insufficient to meet the balance of probabilities legal standard. B. Did the Officer unreasonably draw a negative inference regarding [NAME] ’s return trips to Iran? [ 30 ] [NAME] asserts that the negative inference regarding his return trips to Iran appears to be that he lacks subjective fear and that he is not credible. [NAME] submits that the Officer’s finding regarding his return trips to Iran is unreasonable for three main reasons. (1) [NAME] Rejection of Islamic Religious Practices [ 31 ] First, [NAME] submits that it is difficult to understand how he could be viewed as an apostate if he was not openly expressing his atheist views or publicly rejecting Islamic religious practices while visiting his family in Iran. [ 32 ] In support of his [NAME] application, [NAME] provided an affidavit sworn on April 21, 2023, wherein he stated that if he returned to Iran, he would have to hide the fact that he is an atheist and could not live openly without facing discrimination and stigma, and that he tried to hide it by pretending to continue with all the prayers and rituals: Affidavit of [NAME] at paras 4 and 18 (Redacted Certified Tribunal Record [RCTR] at 81-82, 84). [NAME] also indicated that his family did not know about his beliefs when he visited them: Affidavit of [NAME] at para 18 (RCTR at 81-82, 84) [ 33 ] However, [NAME] then mentioned that, at the beginning of his transition, he had experienced some pressure, from friends and families about changing some of his views: Affidavit of [NAME] at para 32 (RCTR at 87). [NAME] also indicated that he “did not want to continue in the religious practice, because it is always very obvious to everybody when someone is not practicing and has lost their faith” : Affidavit of [NAME] at para 18 (RCTR at 84). [ 34 ] In light of this evidence, I do not see how it was unreasonable for the Officer to conclude that given the non-adherence to the strict rituals and practices as required by Shia doctrine can be immediately observable in Iran, [NAME] repeated return trips to Iran are not consistent with an individual who has expressed a fear of returning to Iran because he is an atheist. [NAME] has himself explained this in his affidavit. (2) [NAME] for his Safety in 2018 [ 35 ] Second, [NAME] submits that the Officer failed to consider the evidence that he stopped returning to Iran out of fear for his safety in 2018, and in doing so, the Officer has not grappled with all the evidence. [ 36 ] I agree that the Officer has not explicitly mentioned in their reasons that [NAME] stopped returning to Iran in 2018. However, I do not agree with [NAME] submission that the Officer is silent on the evidence pointing to the opposite conclusion: [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 1998 CanLII 8667 (FC) at para 17. The evidence showing that [NAME] stopped going to Iran out of fear for his safety in 2018 does not squarely contradict the [NAME]’s finding that, between 2014 and 2018, he returned to Iran on multiple occasions while being fully cognizant that being viewed as an apostate could draw adverse attention from Iranian officials and have harsh consequences for him. The Officer has developed sufficient reasoning to allow me to understand their decision and assess that it was reasonable: [NAME] at para 85. (3) [NAME] of Iran [ 37 ] Finally, relying on the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (FCA), 2005 FCA 1 [ [NAME] ], [NAME] submits that the Officer’s Decision treats subjective fear as almost determinative of his [NAME] application, and in so doing, the Officer failed to consider the fact that subjective fear is only relevant to a determination of risk under section 96 of the IRPA, and not under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA. [ 38 ] The Federal Court of Appeal has stated that, unlike section 96, subsection 97(1) requires an objective assessment or a present or prospective risk: [NAME] at para 33. I agree with the Minister’s position that, in the circumstances of this case, it was reasonable for the Officer to find that [NAME] repeated return trips to Iran from 2014 to 2018, combined with his non-adherence with social pressures, were not objectively consistent with an atheist individual who had expressed a fear of returning to Iran: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 1543 at para 13, citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 1007 para 25.

VI. Conclusion [ 39 ] For the reasons above, the judicial review application is dismissed, as I find the Decision under review to be reasonable. [ 40 ] The parties confirmed that there is no serious question of general importance that ought to be stated. This is a conclusion shared by the Court.

JUDGMENT in IMM-3138-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that: The judicial review application is dismissed. There is no question for certification to be stated pursuant to section 74 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act . "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-3138-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: August 13, 2025

JUDGMENT AND reasons: [NAME] J. DATED: FEBRUARY 12, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [COMPANY], ON For The Applicant ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA TORONTO, ON For The Respondent