PRRA Decision Overturned for Misinterpreting Evidence

OUTCOME: Allowed

Date: 20260601 Docket: IMM-9067-25 Citation: 2026 FC 707 Toronto, Ontario, June 1, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Battista BETWEEN: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP [RESPONDENT] Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant is a Tamil male from Sri Lanka who challenges the negative decision rendered on his application for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). For the reasons that follow, the application for judicial review is granted based on the PRRA Officer’s disregard and misapprehension of relevant evidence presented by the Applicant.

II. Background [ 2 ] The Applicant fled from Sri Lanka based on his fears of government authorities. Upon his arrival in Canada, he was detained on suspicion of belonging to the [NAME] ([NAME]) after he revealed that he was forced to work for them. Following a hearing before the [RESPONDENT] ([RESPONDENT]), he was found to be inadmissible for being a member of an organization involved in terrorism pursuant to ss. 34(1)(f) and (c) of the [RESPONDENT] Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 ( IRPA ). [ 3 ] The [RESPONDENT] found that the Applicant was forcibly recruited and coerced to work for the [NAME] based on his fear that he and his parents would be harmed if he resisted. However, the [RESPONDENT] determined that the defence of duress did not apply to the Applicant’s involvement with the [NAME] because there was an insufficient temporal link between the Applicant’s believed threat of harm versus the actual threat of harm. [ 4 ] As a result of the [RESPONDENT]’s determination, the Applicant was denied the opportunity to be recognized as a refugee and denied a hearing before the Refugee Protection Division of the [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] ( IRPA , s 101(1)(f)). His risks in returning to Sri Lanka were considered without a hearing through a PRRA assessment which was limited to determining whether the Applicant would be at risk of death, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in Sri Lanka ( IRPA, ss 112(3) and 113(d)). [ 5 ] In support of his PRRA application, the Applicant submitted an affidavit attesting to his personal experiences of torture, mistreatment, arbitrary detention and threats from the [NAME] and [NAME] between 2008 and 2023. His counsel provided recent documentary evidence regarding human rights abuses in Sri Lanka as well as written submissions arguing that the Applicant’s experiences and country conditions in Sri Lanka provided the basis for his continued risk. [ 6 ] In refusing the PRRA application, the Officer focused entirely on documentary evidence regarding country conditions in Sri Lanka. The Officer concluded that while Tamils and associates of the [NAME] might be at risk of discrimination and surveillance in Sri Lanka, there was insufficient evidence to establish risks of death, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment [NAME]. The PRRA Officer also found there was no evidence of mistreatment of those returning to Sri Lanka as failed asylum seekers.

III. Issue [ 7 ] The Applicant challenges the PRRA refusal solely on the basis that it was not responsive to the evidence and submissions that were before the Officer. As such, the issue is whether the reasons offered for the refusal are reasonable pursuant to the description of that standard in Canada (Minister of Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) v [NAME], 2019 SCC 65 [ [NAME] ].

IV. Analysis [ 8 ] The factual evidence underlying the PRRA application consisted of the Applicant’s personal history in Sri Lanka and documentary evidence regarding Sri Lankan country conditions. Neither form of evidence was treated reasonably, leading to an unreasonable decision. [APPELLANT]. The Officer unreasonably disregarded the Applicant’s evidence of his personal history and his central submissions [ 9 ] The Officer’s analysis of the Applicant’s sworn personal history of harm at the hands of the [NAME] is contained in the following sentence: “The applicant has also not provided sufficient objective evidence that demonstrates he was arbitrarily detained and beaten by the [NAME] [[NAME]] in the past due to suspected association with the [NAME].” [ 10 ] The Applicant’s affidavit attested to the following experiences of arbitrary detention and beatings by the [NAME] ([NAME]): ˗ A two-day detention and torture by the [NAME] in May, 2009, ˗ A further 7-month detention by the [NAME] following the May 2009 detention; ˗ Detention and beating by the [NAME] in February 2016 based on suspicions that that Applicant was a supporter of the [NAME]. His release was granted after the payment of a bribe, subject to monthly reporting conditions; ˗ Questioning and beating by the investigative police during a 7-day detention in May, 2019, resulting in the dislocation of the Applicant’s right shoulder; ˗ Detention and beating by the [NAME] in July 2023 while being “falsely accused” of being a supporter of the [NAME]. [ 11 ] The contents of the Applicant’s sworn affidavit was presumed to be true ( [APPELLANT] v Minister of Employment [RESPONDENT] , 1979 CanLII 4098 (FCA), [1980] 2 FC 302 at 305) and it was unreasonable for the Officer to require corroboration of these facts in the absence of any reason to doubt them ( [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]), 2020 FC 968 at para 27; [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]), 2022 FC 1341 at paras 33-34). [ 12 ] The Applicant’s counsel argued that the Applicant’s personal history of arbitrary detention, interrogation and beatings provide the basis for recognizing his future risk. Counsel pointed out that the Applicant’s National Identity Card was confiscated by the [NAME], he was warned to report to the [NAME] each week and was listed as an anti-government activist in government and army facilities throughout the country, which placed him at higher risk. This submission regarding the basis of the Applicant’s risk is not mentioned by the Officer. [ 13 ] Evidence of past persecution is one of the most effective means of establishing the well-founded nature of future risk ( [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2004 FC 914 at para 71). A reader of the PRRA decision is left to wonder whether the Applicant’s evidence of personal experiences was overlooked or disbelieved, and whether his counsel’s submissions were understood or overlooked. This is a failure of transparency and intelligibility which renders the decision unreasonable ( [NAME] , at paras 99, 102-103). B. The Officer misapprehended the documentary evidence regarding country conditions [ 14 ] As stated above, the PRRA refusal was based exclusively on documentary evidence regarding country conditions in Sri Lanka. However, the Officer misapprehended this evidence by using it selectively. I agree with counsel [NAME] that the Officer appeared to use the documentary evidence as a checklist for eliminating evidence of the Applicant’s risk. [ 15 ] The Officer relied heavily on the Australian Government’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade report for 2024 (Report), citing a section of the Report that stated that extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and kidnappings for ransom of real or perceived [NAME] members “are no longer common.” Other sections of the Report cited by the Officer did not address the Applicant’s risk of torture and cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. However, the Report did contain relevant evidence of these risks. [ 16 ] For example, the Report documented the “beating, burning, suffocation and sexual assault of 15 Tamils in police and military custody between 2020 and 2021.” It cited the fact that the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) received hundreds of complaints of physical and/or mental torture in custody annually, with 560 complaints received in 2022. It confirmed that arbitrary arrest and detention do occur, and that the HRCSL received 919 complaints of arbitrary arrest and detention in 2022. None of this evidence was mentioned by the Officer. [ 17 ] After citing marginally relevant selections from the documentary evidence, the Officer acknowledged a risk of discrimination for Tamils. The Officer either overlooked the Report’s evidence of serious human rights abuses, ignored this evidence, or unreasonably considered these abuses to merely constitute discrimination. In any case, the documentary evidence was misapprehended, rendering the decision unreasonable ( [APPELLANT] , at para 126).

V. Conclusion [ 18 ] The Applicant’s personal history and documentary evidence were critical factual constraints in the PRRA application. However, the Officer did not reasonably assess the Applicant’s personal history and misapprehended the documentary evidence. As such, the decision is unreasonable.

JUDGMENT in IMM-9067-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is granted, the refusal of the Applicant’s Pre-Removal Risk Assessment is set aside, and the matter is remitted to a different officer for redetermination. There is no question for certification and no order regarding costs. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-9067-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP [RESPONDENT] OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: may 28, 2026

REASONS and judgment: BATTISTA J. DATED: June 1, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] [NAME] [NAME] [APPELLANT] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [COUNSEL] [NAME] and Solicitor Toronto, [NAME] of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent