Last updated on July 22nd, 2018
A Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (“PRRA“) application by a refused refugee claimant is not an appeal or reconsideration of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division to the failed refugee claim.
Section 113(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA“) provides that an applicant whose claim to refugee protection has been rejected may present only new evidence that arose after the rejection or was not reasonably available, or that the failed refugee claimant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances of the refugee claim to have presented. Specifically, IRPA s. 113(a) states:
113. Consideration of an application for [a PRRA] shall be as follows:
(a) an applicant whose claim to refugee protection has been rejected may present only new evidence that arose after the rejection or was not reasonably available, or that the applicant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection;
Accordingly, as the Federal Court of Appeal noted in Raza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), PRRA officers must respect the negative refugee determination unless there is new evidence of facts that might have affected the outcome of the Refugee Protection Division hearing.
There are numerous factors that PRRA officers must consider when determining whether to admit new evidence. These include:
- Credibility: Is the evidence credible, considering its source and the circumstances in which it came into existence? If not, the evidence need not be considered.
- Relevance: Is the evidence relevant to the PRRA application, in the sense that it is capable of proving or disproving a fact that is relevant to the claim for protection?