Court Confirms Risk is Judged Through Persecutor's Eyes, Not Officer's
- Citation
- 2026 FC 303
- Decided
- Court file
- IMM-12889-23
- Full judgment
- Read the decision
Case Law Overview
HIJM v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 303
An applicant from Bangladesh, a member of the opposition BNP party, had his Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) refused. The immigration officer dismissed the significance of Bangladeshi media reports that named him as a BNP activist, arguing the reports contained factual errors and misspelled his name.
Court Ruling
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's assessment unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer improperly focused on minor inaccuracies instead of the crucial question: how would these reports, true or not, be perceived by potential persecutors in Bangladesh and increase the applicant's risk.
Key Quote from the Court
The relevant inquiry with respect to the Media Reports is not whether the Officer thinks that the Applicant, in fact, had a sufficient level of activity with the BNP to be described as an “activist”, but whether in reading the articles, the agents of persecution may attribute to the Applicant a level of activism sufficient to put him at risk. (at para 20)
Expert Takeaways
-
Focus on the Persecutor's Perspective Evidence in risk assessments must be evaluated based on how potential persecutors would view it. Even factually incorrect information, such as false reports of terrorist links, can significantly increase an applicant's risk and must be given proper weight.
-
The Purpose of Evidence Matters When submitting evidence like news articles, the goal may not be to prove their factual accuracy, but to demonstrate an increased public profile and risk. Submissions should clearly explain this distinction to the officer.
-
Challenge Illogical Reasoning An officer's decision to assign 'little weight' to evidence based on tangential or irrelevant errors (like a misspelling) can be a fatal flaw. The reasoning must be coherent and address the core risk presented by the evidence.
-
Imputed Opinion is Key This case reaffirms the principle from the Supreme Court's decision in Ward
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 for misrepresentation or credibility?
These findings can be challenged at the Federal Court. Speak with an immigration litigator today.
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)