The Federal Court dismissed a judicial review of a refused Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) application by two Polish citizens of Roma ethnicity. In Pawlowska v. Canada, 2026 FC 1223, the Court found the immigration officer reasonably concluded that the applicants had not rebutted the presumption of state protection in Poland.
Case background and PRRA refusal
The applicants, spouses Leslaw Pawlowski and Danuta Pawlowska, alleged they would face discrimination amounting to persecution in Poland because of their Roma ethnicity and that state protection would not be available.
They first came to Canada in April 2011 and made refugee claims that were ultimately denied by the Refugee Protection Division in December 2019. They returned to Poland in 2020, lived there for three years, and re-entered Canada through the United States on May 27, 2023, when they made another refugee claim.
A Senior Immigration Officer refused their PRRA application, finding that the applicants had provided little evidence that they had sought state protection or that protective measures in Poland were inadequate.
Applicants challenged the state protection assessment
The applicants argued that the officer improperly relied on the 2019 Refugee Protection Division decision and did not meaningfully assess their post-2019 experiences in Poland alongside the country-condition evidence submitted with the PRRA application.
They also argued that the officer selectively relied on the 2024 Poland Country Report from the European Commission. In their submission, the report identified continuing systemic problems affecting Roma people, including poor housing and living conditions, extreme poverty, persistent discrimination and limitations in addressing housing problems and hate crimes.
The applicants further relied on a 2019 United Nations report concerning racial discrimination, arguing that Roma people were frequently subject to hate speech and hate crimes and often did not receive adequate protection.
Court found the officer considered operational adequacy
Justice Go reviewed the decision on the reasonableness standard. The Court accepted that the relevant question in assessing whether the presumption of state protection has been rebutted is whether protection is adequate at an operational level.
However, the Court found that the officer had considered the applicants’ post-2019 experiences, including their evidence of living in tents with other Roma families, an attack by skinheads, and difficulties accessing health care. The officer also acknowledged ongoing discrimination and social and economic exclusion affecting Roma people in Poland.
The Court found the officer considered both the limits of the measures described in the 2024 Poland Country Report and evidence of steps by Poland to address structural problems and improve the effectiveness of prosecutions for crimes based on racial, religious, national or ethnic hatred. The officer was entitled to rely on more recent country-condition evidence without specifically quoting the 2019 United Nations report.
A critical factor was the lack of evidence that the applicants sought state protection while living in Poland during the relevant period. The Court held that they also had not shown that seeking protection would have been unreasonable because it would put them at risk of harm.
Judicial review dismissed
The Court concluded that it was reasonable for the officer to find the applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of state protection. The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Justice Go issued the decision in Toronto on October 2, 2026. No question was certified.
What the decision means
This decision turns on the evidence in this PRRA record. The Court emphasized that seeking and being denied state protection is not a legal requirement in every case, but it will typically be relevant to whether a claimant has met the evidentiary burden to rebut the presumption of state protection.
The ruling does not establish a general finding on conditions for Roma people in Poland. Rather, it upholds the reasonableness of the officer’s assessment of the applicants’ evidence and the available country-condition material.
Source: Federal Court Decisions