PRRA Refusal Unreasonable for Failing to Properly Assess Risk for Tamil Applicant
- Citation
- 2025 FC 1862
- Decided
- Court file
- IMM-21692-24
- Full judgment
- Read the decision
Case Law Overview
Selvanayagam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1862
The applicant, a Tamil from Sri Lanka, sought judicial review of a refused Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). The immigration officer concluded he was not at risk because he did not fit the specific profile of a high-risk individual, despite accepting the applicant's credible history of detention, family loss during the civil war, and participation in memorial events.
Court Ruling
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to properly grapple with evidence showing that even individuals outside high-risk profiles could still face risk upon return to Sri Lanka.
Key Quote from the Court
While the Officer found that Mr. Selvanayagam did not fit the profile of individuals that are of “particular” interest to the authorities, this is not evidence that he faces no risk at all. Rather, I agree with Mr. Selvanayagam that while he does not “fit” into the profiles of those most at risk, he may still be at risk. The Decision thus clearly fails to grapple with this key evidence...
Expert Takeaways
-
Decision-Makers Must Grapple with All Evidence An officer cannot simply state that an applicant doesn't fit a high-risk profile and end the analysis. They must meaningfully engage with all credible evidence, including personal history and broader country conditions, to properly assess the actual level of risk.
-
Absence of High-Risk Profile Does Not Equal No Risk This case highlights a common officer error. The fact that an applicant is not a journalist, activist, or LTTE leader does not mean they face zero risk. The risk assessment must be nuanced and consider the cumulative effect of all factors.
-
Implicit Analysis is Not Enough The Court rejected the Minister's argument that the officer's analysis was 'implicit'. Reasons for a decision must be transparent and explicitly show how central issues and key pieces of evidence were considered, especially when that evidence contradicts the final conclusion.
-
Lapse of Time Requires Context An officer cannot dismiss ongoing risk simply due to the passage of time without considering the context. In this case, the officer failed to grapple with the fact that authorities knew the applicant had left the country, which explained the lack of recent searches for him.
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.
Refused again after reconsideration?
The Federal Court can still review your case — let's talk about your options.
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)