The Federal Court dismissed a Nigerian family’s application for judicial review of a refused pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA), finding the officer reasonably concluded that Lagos remained a viable internal flight alternative (IFA). Justice Aylen issued the decision on September 16, 2026.
PRRA refusal followed earlier refugee decisions
The applicants were a mother, her son and her daughter, all Nigerian citizens. They claimed refugee protection in Canada in 2019 based on fears connected to the husband’s political opinions and the daughter’s risk of female genital mutilation (FGM) by the husband’s family and a Chief Priest.
In June 2021, the Refugee Protection Division rejected the claim, finding the allegations credible but determining that Lagos was an IFA. The Refugee Appeal Division dismissed the family’s appeal in December 2021, finding the proposed location objectively reasonable. Their subsequent application for leave and judicial review of the RAD decision was dismissed at the leave stage in August 2023.
The family applied for a PRRA in October 2024 on the same asserted risks. They submitted new evidence, including affidavits, an Ibadan police report filed by the husband in March 2024, a report concerning his December 2023 kidnapping, and a report from a Nigerian civil-society organization.
Officer found new evidence did not displace Lagos IFA
The PRRA officer refused the application on January 17, 2025. The officer acknowledged and assessed the new materials, but found they did not materially change the prior assessment that the applicants could relocate to Lagos.
In particular, the officer found little evidence about the means, motivation or ability of the husband’s family members or the Chief Priest to locate the applicants throughout Lagos. The officer also found insufficient evidence that the family could not escape the husband’s extended family by relocating there.
The applicants argued on judicial review that the officer improperly assessed the new evidence, mischaracterized the seriousness of their risks and failed to adequately consider evidence concerning FGM, gender-based violence, state protection and country conditions. They also challenged the conclusion that Lagos was a viable IFA.
Court applied reasonableness review
The parties agreed that reasonableness was the applicable standard of review, and Justice Aylen concurred. The Court assessed whether the PRRA decision’s reasoning and outcome were transparent, intelligible and justified.
Justice Aylen found that the applicants had mischaracterized the PRRA decision by asserting that the officer found there was no new or relevant evidence. In the Court’s view, the officer itemized and considered each new item, then reasonably concluded that it did not undermine the earlier IFA findings.
The Court accepted that some new evidence arose after the RAD decision and supported the asserted risks. However, it found that the evidence did not explain how the alleged agents of persecution could locate the applicants in Lagos. The husband’s kidnapping and the police response occurred in Ibadan, not Lagos, and did not address the ability of the alleged agents of harm to pursue the family in Lagos or the adequacy of police protection there.
The Court also noted that the husband’s evidence referred to family members connected to FGM rituals living in Lagos State, rather than Lagos City. The PRRA officer reasonably found there was no evidence showing how those individuals could track the family in Lagos City.
Limited second-prong analysis was not unreasonable
The applicants also submitted that the officer failed to assess the cumulative effect of their risks and country conditions, including information concerning safety, security and state protection in Nigeria. Justice Aylen found that the officer’s focus on the IFA was reasonable because its viability had been determinative before both the RPD and RAD.
The Court found that the officer stated the risk evidence, including country-condition material, had been considered both globally and individually. While the officer’s reasons on the second prong of the IFA test were brief, the Court held that the applicants had not identified new evidence that could have affected the prior RPD and RAD determinations on that issue.
Justice Aylen concluded that the new evidence was directed to the motivation of the alleged agents of harm rather than concrete conditions that would jeopardize the applicants’ life or safety if they relocated to Lagos.
Judicial review dismissed
The Court held that the applicants had not shown the PRRA officer’s decision was unreasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question for certification, and the Court found that none arose.
The decision concerns the sufficiency of the evidence before the PRRA officer in this case. It does not alter the general IFA framework, but shows the importance of evidence addressing how alleged agents of harm could locate an applicant in the proposed relocation city.
Source: Federal Court Decisions