Federal Court Upholds PRRA Refusal Despite Mental Health Diagnosis
- Citation
- 2025 FC 1402
- Decided
- Court file
- IMM-7945-24
- Full judgment
- Read the decision
Case Law Overview
Saleh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1402
The Applicant, a Nigerian citizen born in Saudi Arabia, sought judicial review of a rejected Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). He argued that removal to Nigeria, a country he has never visited, would cause his diagnosed psychotic disorder to recur, leading to a risk of persecution and cruel and unusual treatment.
Court Ruling
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the Senior Immigration Officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the officer properly assessed the evidence, including the Applicant's remission status and the availability of outpatient mental healthcare in Nigeria, and concluded the risk of harm was not personalized or sufficiently likely.
Key Quote from the Court
The Officer's assessment of the evidence and of the risk of in-patient care being required by the Applicant or forced upon him were logical, took the evidence into account, and were open to the Officer to make. The Applicant's argument on this issue is in essence a request for the Court to reassess the evidence that was before the Officer and to come to a different conclusion. (at para 39)
Expert Takeaways
-
PRRA Risk Must Be Personalized and Specific General evidence of country conditions, such as challenges in the healthcare system or societal stigma against mental illness, is insufficient. Applicants must demonstrate a personalized, forward-looking risk of persecution or harm directly linked to their specific circumstances.
-
PRRA is Not an H&C Application The Court reinforced that a PRRA is strictly focused on risks under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA. Broader humanitarian and compassionate factors, like the general hardship of removal on mental health, are assessed under a different type of application and cannot simply be 'parachuted into' a PRRA.
-
Current Health Status is Crucial The officer placed significant weight on the fact that the Applicant's mental health condition was in remission at the time of the application. This highlights the importance of providing current and detailed medical evidence that clearly establishes a future risk, not just a past or potential one.
-
Arguing Prior Decisions Requires More Than a Footnote Simply footnoting prior administrative decisions without developing a clear argument on how they establish a 'longstanding practice' is ineffective. To argue that an officer has unreasonably departed from precedent, the prior decisions must be central to the submissions and properly argued.
There is a deadline on this
That is the window to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review at the Federal Court, counted from the day you were notified of the decision. An extension can be requested, but it is granted at the Court's discretion - it is not automatic.
Check my deadlineDoes this ruling apply to your situation?
Tick whatever is true for you. Nothing is sent anywhere - this stays in your browser.
That combination is worth a proper look. It does not mean you have a case - only a lawyer reading your actual documents can say that - but it does mean the question is worth asking before your filing window closes.
Disclaimer
The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is complex and subject to change. For advice specific to your situation, please schedule a consultation with a qualified legal professional.
Facing an immigration refusal?
Talk to a Federal Court lawyer about challenging the decision through judicial review.
No obligation - we review your documents and tell you if a Federal Court application is realistic.
Questions people ask after reading a case like this
Does this mean my own case will succeed?
No. Every application is decided on its own record. A reported decision shows how the Federal Court has reasoned about a particular kind of error - it does not predict the result of a different file. What it can tell you is whether the problem in your refusal is the kind of problem the Court has been willing to intervene on.
How long do I have to challenge a refusal?
Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act you generally have 15 days to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review if the decision was made inside Canada, and 60 days if it was made outside Canada, counted from when you were notified. The Court can extend that period, but an extension is discretionary - it is not automatic.
What actually happens at the Federal Court?
Judicial review has two stages. You file the application and a written record, and a judge decides on paper whether to grant leave - permission for the case to proceed. If leave is granted, there is a hearing. The Court does not re-decide your immigration application; it decides whether the officer's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. If you succeed, the file is normally sent back to be decided again by a different officer.
Do I have to be in Canada to bring an application?
No. Applicants outside Canada regularly bring judicial review applications, which is why the longer 60-day deadline exists for decisions made abroad. Applicants are not normally required to attend in person.
What happens in the free 15-minute review?
You explain what was refused or delayed and when you were notified. We tell you whether your filing window is still open, which issues in the decision look arguable, and what the realistic options are - including reapplying instead of litigating, where that is the better route. There is no obligation to retain us afterwards.
More Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) rulings
Federal Court: Winning Judicial Review Doesn't Guarantee Legal Costs
Court: Officers Can't Demand 'Exact' Details While Ignoring Real Refugee Risk
Federal Court: Refusal Based on "Insufficient Evidence" is a Credibility Finding
Federal Court Overturns PRRA Refusal for Relying on Outdated Country Information
Written by
Ali Dadkhah
Ali Dadkhah is a litigator whose practice is dedicated to challenging government decisions at the Federal Court of Canada. He specializes in judicial review, providing a crucial avenue for recourse for individuals and businesses who have faced unfair or unreasonable administrative outcomes. Bilingual legal support in English and Persian (Farsi)