Published
Sundeep S. Grewal is a lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation, called to the BC bar in 2018, and a member of the Law Society of British Columbia.
The fix: judicial review in the Federal Court, after a lawyer reviews the result letter and the officer’s notes. A judge can set the refusal aside and send your PRRA back to a different officer.
The deadline: 15 days from notice of the refusal (IRPA s.72). Reconsideration is discretionary, rarely changes the result and does not stop this clock.
Why a lawyer: only a lawyer can take this to the Federal Court. If CBSA sets a removal date, the motion to stay removal is a court step too. Why a lawyer
The lawyers who review these refusals
Sundeep S. GrewalBarrister and Solicitor
Prabhpreet Kaur SanghaBarrister and Solicitor
Pardeep S. GrewalBarrister and SolicitorAbout our lawyers
Sundeep S. Grewal founded Lawgical Law Corporation and argues immigration cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court of Canada.
Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha focuses on refugee claims, immigration appeals, inadmissibility, detention reviews and Federal Court cases, and has presented at Continuing Legal Education seminars and the National Immigration Conference.
Pardeep S. Grewal is an immigration and estates lawyer known for clear communication and practical strategy.
If IRCC refused your pre-removal risk assessment because the officer found that the evidence did not show a personal risk to you, the fix is usually judicial review in the Federal Court. The application must be filed within 15 days of being notified of the refusal, the automatic stay of removal ends when the PRRA is refused, and only a lawyer can represent you in the Federal Court. This guide uses a PRRA after a rejected refugee claim as the example, but I also review restricted PRRAs and PRRAs after an ineligible refugee claim.
Lawgical Law Corporation, an immigration law firm in Surrey, Abbotsford and Vancouver, BC, challenges these PRRA refusals in the Federal Court for people facing removal across Canada; this guide is by Sundeep S. Grewal.
Leave your details and our team will contact you to arrange a time with a lawyer. Or call (778) 598-3785.
Thank you, we have your request
A member of our team will contact you to arrange a time. If your matter is urgent, call us at (778) 598-3785, Monday to Friday, 9:00 am – 5:00 pm.
What does a PRRA refusal under section 113 say?
In these refusals, the officer usually accepts that conditions in your country are dangerous for people in your group, but finds that the evidence does not show the risk applies to you personally. You get two documents: a one-page result letter that does not say why, and the officer’s “Notes to file”, which open with tick boxes for the earlier RPD, RAD or PRRA decisions, new evidence under section 113(a), state protection and internal flight alternative, whether a hearing was held, and the section 96 and 97 assessment. If you only have the letter, you are entitled to copies of the notes recording the reasons (section 174 of the Regulations).
You will often see phrases like these in the result letter and the notes to file:
- “It has been determined that you would not be subject to risk of persecution, torture, risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if returned to [..]”
- “While I have consulted relevant country documentation to validate his risk vector, I am unable to consider his risk as applying personally to him, based on the evidence provided”
- “In the absence of concrete, individualized examples, the evidence provided does not establish that the Applicant would face a personalized risk upon return”
- “the applicant must demonstrate a personalized risk, rather than relying solely on generalized reports”, or “they describe generalized conditions rather than risks specific to this Applicant”
Other wording that appears in these notes to file:
- “Overall, I assign the letter little weight in this assessment”
- “the applicant failed to provide documentary evidence to corroborate the medical attention required, such as hospital notes or a discharge summary”
- “I am not satisfied that the applicant has rebutted the presumption of adequate state protection”
- “the applicant submitted little new evidence to rebut the RPD and RAD decisions of a viable IFA”
- “[documents] are not considered new evidence as the applicant has not provided an explanation as to why they were not reasonably available”
- “victims of crime, corruption or vendettas, including blood feuds, do not generally establish a nexus to a Convention ground”
In other words, the officer accepts the danger but not that it is shown for you, and the automatic stay of removal ends with the refusal (section 232 of the Regulations), so if CBSA sets a removal date, you also need a stay of removal in the Federal Court.
Why this refusal needs a lawyer
One lawyer, one file, every step:
- reviewing the refusal and the officer’s notes;
- filing the judicial review within the deadline (15 days);
- arguing it in the Federal Court, with a motion to stay removal if CBSA sets a date;
- a second PRRA or an H&C application, if that turns out to be the faster route.
A refusal like this turns on administrative law and refugee law: reading the notes against your PRRA as filed, and showing whether the officer applied the right test under section 96 or 97, weighed the evidence that mattered, or doubted you without saying so. There is no appeal from a PRRA refusal, so judicial review is the court route.
Immigration lawyers are members of a provincial law society (in our case, the Law Society of British Columbia), and only lawyers can represent you in the Federal Court. Once the PRRA is refused, CBSA can set a removal date, and the stay motion that answers it is a court step as well.
Some articles about these refusals mention judicial review as an option. A consultant cannot file it, argue it, or bring the motion to stay removal that often has to go with it.
What are my options after a PRRA refusal?
- Have a lawyer review the refusal and the officer’s notes. Ask for the notes under section 174 if you only have the letter; in the refusals I have reviewed, the letter never gave the reason, and the notes did.
- Judicial review in the Federal Court. You must file within 15 days of being notified of the refusal under section 72 of the Act, and a judge can extend time only “for special reasons”. If the Court finds the decision unreasonable or unfair, the usual result is a new decision by a different officer.
- A motion to stay removal. Filing for judicial review does not stop removal; if CBSA sets a date, the Court must be asked to stay it.
- A deferral request to CBSA. This is for a short, dated, documented reason, such as a medical appointment, and it is not a second risk assessment.
- A second PRRA or an H&C application. A second PRRA is usually barred for 12 months after the last refusal, or 36 months for some countries (section 112(2) of the Act), and it does not stay removal (section 165 of the Regulations); an H&C application does not stop removal by itself.
- Reconsideration request. You can ask IRCC to reconsider, but it is discretionary, rarely changes the result, and does not stop the court deadline. The usual reply is “I have exercised my jurisdiction not to reconsider your application.” Reconsideration is often suggested by people who cannot represent you in the Federal Court.
The court deadline does not wait for the other options.
| Route | Deadline | Stops removal? | Rule |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial review in the Federal Court | 15 days after you are notified of the refusal | No, not by itself | IRPA s.72(2)(b) |
| Motion to stay removal | Served and filed at least three days before the hearing of the motion, or on shorter notice if urgent | Only if a judge grants it | Federal Courts Rules r.362 |
| Deferral request to CBSA | Before the removal date | Only if granted | IRPA s.48(2) |
| A second PRRA | Usually not for 12 months (36 for nationals of some designated countries) | No | IRPA s.112(2)(b.1), (c); IRPR s.165 |
| An H&C application | No deadline | Only if the Minister decides the grounds justify it | IRPR s.233 |
| Reconsideration request | No deadline, but it does not stop the 15 days | No | None |
| Stage | Time limit | Rule |
|---|---|---|
| Application for leave and judicial review filed and served (Form IR-1; court filing fee $50 as of November 9, 2026) | 15 days after you are notified of the refusal (60 days if the matter arose outside Canada). A judge can extend this only for special reasons | IRPA s.72(2)(b)–(c) |
| Stay motion, if a removal date is set | At least three days before the hearing of the motion; shorter notice only if urgent | Federal Courts Rules r.362 |
| The Court asks the officer for the decision and reasons, if you did not receive them | Without delay | Immigration Rules r.9 |
| Your applicant’s record (affidavit and written argument) | 30 days after filing, or 30 days after you receive the reasons if you did not have them | r.10(1) |
| The government’s memorandum | 30 days after your record is served | r.11 |
| Your reply | 10 days after the government’s memorandum is served | r.13 |
| Leave decision | A judge decides on the papers, without a hearing unless the judge directs one. There is no appeal from the leave decision | IRPA s.72(2)(d)–(e); r.14 |
| Hearing, if leave is granted | No sooner than 30 days and no later than 90 days after leave, unless both sides agree to an earlier day | IRPA s.74(b) |
| Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal | Only if the judge certifies a serious question of general importance | IRPA s.74(d) |
Counting the 15 days (example). The 15 days run from the day after you are notified of the refusal. If CBSA handed you the decision on Monday, November 2, day 1 is November 3 and day 15 is Tuesday, November 17, the last day to file and serve the application. If the last day falls on a weekend or holiday, ask a lawyer how the count works for your file; do not plan to file on the last day.
Could the refusal be challenged in court?
The strongest argument, in my view, is often that the officer applied the wrong test: section 96 asks whether there is a serious possibility of persecution for a Convention reason, and an officer who demands proof that you were personally targeted, or are “being sought”, may have asked too much.
A second argument is disbelief hidden behind “insufficient evidence”: a veiled credibility finding, explained below. The same applies when “little weight” on a support letter really means the officer did not believe you, and a central credibility doubt calls for a hearing, or reasons for not holding one.
In the refusals I have reviewed, the officer rarely said the country was safe; the officer said the evidence was not about you. Other arguments come up too: country reports that describe your exact profile but were read selectively, a presumption of state protection applied where the state or someone close to it is the danger, a narrow reading of “new evidence” (in Abdullahi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1566, a relationship that became serious after the refugee hearing was new evidence, though time passing alone is not), and reliance on material you never saw.
The Court asks whether the decision was reasonable and fair. The more important the evidence against the officer’s conclusion, the more the officer has to explain why it does not apply, and private disputes such as vendettas or blood feuds are assessed only under section 97, on a balance of probabilities.
Whether this argument fits your case depends on the evidence you filed, what the notes say and which finding decided the case. Some errors do not change the result: if another finding, such as state protection or an internal flight alternative, decides the case on its own, the refusal can stand. Any procedural fairness issue, such as whether the officer should have held a hearing or shown you the material relied on, is a separate question that depends on your file.
| The Federal Court can set a decision aside if the decision-maker… | In a refusal case, this usually means | Federal Courts Act |
|---|---|---|
| acted without jurisdiction, beyond it, or refused to exercise it | The officer had no power to decide the point, or would not decide it | s.18.1(4)(a) |
| failed to observe natural justice, procedural fairness or a required procedure | For example, a concern was decided against you without giving you a fair chance to answer it | s.18.1(4)(b) |
| erred in law | The officer applied the wrong legal test | s.18.1(4)(c) |
| based the decision on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard to the material | A key finding ignored or misread the evidence you filed | s.18.1(4)(d) |
| acted, or failed to act, because of fraud or perjured evidence | Rare in refusal cases | s.18.1(4)(e) |
| acted in any other way contrary to law | Any other unlawful decision | s.18.1(4)(f) |
What do the PRRA rules require?
Section 113 of the Act limits what a rejected refugee claimant can present: only evidence that arose after the rejection, was not reasonably available, or could not reasonably have been presented then (s.113(a)). The officer may hold a hearing where a serious credibility issue is central to the decision (s.113(b); section 167 of the Regulations), which is why disbelief dressed as “insufficient evidence” matters.
Removal is stayed only until the application is rejected (section 232 of the Regulations), and CBSA then serves a direction to report for removal. Unless a hearing is held, the officer decides on the written record. For how a PRRA works from the start, see our guide to the pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA).
How does an officer decide a PRRA?
The officer applies two tests and two limits:
- section 96, a serious possibility of persecution for a Convention reason;
- section 97, a personal risk of torture, to life, or of cruel and unusual treatment, on a balance of probabilities;
- new evidence only under the section 113(a) test, for a rejected refugee claimant;
- the earlier RPD or RAD findings, including any internal flight alternative, unless the new evidence answers them.
What answers a “not about you” refusal is detail: a sworn statement, incidents with dates and places, and documents linking you to the profile. Support letters that only say a person “has suffered”, and injuries described with no hospital or police records, carry little weight.
Filing the refugee claim story again, with nothing new, rarely meets the section 113(a) test, and an internal flight alternative found by the RPD has to be dealt with directly.
What a support letter should include to carry weight: who the writer is and how they know you; what they saw or heard themselves, with dates and places; how they know about any events after you left; why they are writing now; and their signature and a copy of their identity document. Your submissions should say which evidence is new and how it relates to you, as the Regulations require.
What is a veiled credibility finding, and why does it matter?
A veiled credibility finding is disbelief written up as missing evidence. The notes call your sworn statement “insufficient” or give a support letter “little weight”, when the real reason is that the officer did not believe it. In Magonza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 14, the Court warned that an “insufficient evidence” conclusion is often a way of disguising an unexplained credibility finding (para 35).
A refusal like that is in a different position:
- The Court assumes your evidence is true. If it would likely justify protection and the PRRA was still refused, the officer probably doubted it (Ahmed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1207, para 31).
- It may need a hearing. A serious credibility doubt central to the decision can call for a hearing under section 113(b) and section 167 of the Regulations, or reasons for not holding one; in Ahmed, disbelief presented as sufficiency, with no chance to answer it, was unfair (para 38).
- Your letter shows it. Look for sworn facts given “little weight” with no reason, or a demand for documents to back up what you swore to.
Not every “insufficient” finding hides disbelief; sometimes the statement really lacks who, what, when and where. In my experience, whether the officer doubted you or just wanted more shapes the court argument.
Refused on a restricted PRRA, or after an ineligible refugee claim?
I review these refusals too, including restricted PRRAs, PRRAs after an ineligible refugee claim and PRRAs filed with no submissions. A restricted PRRA is limited to “the factors outlined in Section 97(1)(a) and (b)”, and in Ramsuchit v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1164, the officer’s errors about section 96 and personal threats did not matter because the state protection finding decided the case. A claim found ineligible only under section 101(1)(c.1) needs a hearing before the PRRA is refused (s.113.01), and where the refusal says “no submissions or supporting documentation have been received”, a second PRRA is usually barred for 12 months, so judicial review may be the main route.
Why PRRA applications get refused
I have seen PRRA applications refused for reasons like these:
- Repeating the refugee claim. After a refugee claim is rejected, the officer can consider only new evidence that arose after the rejection or that you could not reasonably have presented before. A PRRA that retells the claim with the same documents gives the officer nothing new.
- Country reports with no link to you. General reports about a country show risk to a group, not to you. The officer looks for evidence that you personally face the risk.
- No explanation for missing evidence. When a document could not be obtained, the application should say why; otherwise the officer may give the claim little weight.
- Missing the 15-day window. An application received after the 15 days can still be decided, but the automatic stay of removal does not protect you while it is pending.
Frequently asked questions
If I apply for judicial review, can CBSA still remove me?
Yes. The automatic stay that came with your PRRA ends when the PRRA is refused, and filing in the Federal Court does not create a new one. To stop removal you need a deferral from CBSA or a stay ordered by a Federal Court judge.
Can I apply for another PRRA?
Usually not for 12 months after the refusal, or 36 months for nationals of some designated countries. The Minister can exempt nationals of particular countries from this bar.
Can I ask IRCC to reconsider the refused PRRA?
You can ask, but reconsideration is discretionary, rarely changes the result and does not stop the 15-day court deadline. Judicial review is the route a judge must decide.
Can I make an H&C application after a PRRA refusal?
Yes, if no bar applies, but it does not stop removal on its own. Removal is stayed only if the Minister decides that humanitarian and compassionate grounds justify it.
What happens after the judicial review is filed?
Within 30 days you file the applicant’s record, with the affidavit and written argument. A judge then decides on the papers whether to grant leave; if leave is granted, the case goes to a hearing.
How much does it cost to file in the Federal Court?
The court’s filing fee for an application for leave and judicial review is $50 (as of November 9, 2026). Lawyer’s fees are separate.
What should I do right now?
Note the date you were notified of the refusal, and gather the result letter and notes to file, your PRRA application and submissions as filed, the RPD and RAD decisions, any CBSA call-in letter or direction to report, and new dated documents about your risk. Report to CBSA whenever you are told to; fifteen days passes fast.
Book a consultation with our immigration lawyers in Abbotsford, Surrey or Vancouver to review the refusal and the deadline that applies.
Ready to book? Open the booking form ↑
Sources (official)
- Justice Laws Website: IRPA s.72
- Justice Laws Website: section 174 of the Regulations
- Justice Laws Website: section 232 of the Regulations
- Justice Laws Website: section 112(2) of the Act
- Justice Laws Website: section 165 of the Regulations
- Justice Laws Website: Section 113 of the Act
- Justice Laws Website: section 167 of the Regulations
- Federal Court: Magonza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 14
- Federal Court: Ahmed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1207
- IRPR s.162
- IRPR s.233
- Federal Court: application for leave and judicial review (immigration) checklist
This article is general information, not legal advice. Every case depends on its own facts.