The Federal Court dismissed a challenge to the refusal of a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) application, finding that a PRRA oral hearing was not required. In Lenga Et Al. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1261, Justice Anne M. Turley found the officer had assessed insufficient evidence of risk rather than made an adverse credibility finding.
Case concerns risk claims tied to Zimbabwe
The decision, issued in Ottawa on October 13, 2026, concerned a Congolese couple who came to Canada in December 2022. They had previously fled the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in 2012 and been granted asylum in Zimbabwe.
Their refugee claim in Canada was deemed ineligible because they held Convention Refugee status in Zimbabwe, and the Refugee Protection Division proceedings were terminated. The couple later applied for a PRRA, alleging risks in both the DRC and Zimbabwe.
The principal applicant said he had been threatened after refusing to support Zimbabwe’s ruling party during election campaigns. The applicants also alleged that the associate applicant was kidnapped and tortured in July 2022. A senior immigration officer refused their PRRA application after finding insufficient evidence that they would face a risk under sections 96 or 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act if returned to Zimbabwe.
Court finds no entitlement to a PRRA oral hearing
The applicants argued that the officer should have held an oral hearing and that the failure to do so was procedurally unfair. They submitted that the officer had effectively made a credibility finding.
Justice Turley held that the standard of review akin to correctness applied to the procedural-fairness issue, relying on the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v Rodas Tejeda, 2026 FCA 115. The judge added that the result would have been the same under a reasonableness standard.
Under paragraph 113(b) of the IRPA and section 167 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, a PRRA hearing must be held where evidence raises a serious credibility issue related to sections 96 or 97, is central to the decision, and, if accepted, could justify allowing the application.
Officer assessed evidentiary sufficiency, not credibility
The Court found that the officer’s findings did not amount to a veiled adverse credibility determination. Instead, the officer concluded that the applicants had not met their burden to provide enough evidence supporting their claimed prospective risk.
Justice Turley said the findings concerned the probative value, corroboration and detail of the evidence, as well as the connection between that evidence and the alleged risk. The Court noted that distinguishing an insufficiency-of-evidence finding from a credibility determination is fact specific, and an officer’s wording alone is not determinative.
The Court also rejected the argument that the officer had failed to engage with key evidence. The officer considered the country-condition evidence, a 2010 article concerning the Pentecostal Assemblies of Zimbabwe, a letter from that organization and a police report concerning the reported kidnapping.
The officer reasonably found that the applicants had not established a personal link to the objective country-condition evidence and that the alleged risk was generalized. The police report recorded that a report had been made and was under investigation, but did not specify the allegations or establish the identity of the kidnappers or the treatment alleged.
Judicial review dismissed
The Court found no reviewable error in the officer’s assessment of the evidence or in the application of sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA. Justice Turley held that the officer was alive to the different legal standards for persecution and for risk to life, cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or danger of torture.
The application for judicial review was dismissed. Neither party proposed a question for certification, and the Court found that none arose.
The decision is a fact-specific Federal Court ruling. It shows that an applicant challenging the absence of a PRRA oral hearing must establish that the officer’s reasoning was, in substance, a credibility assessment meeting the applicable regulatory conditions, rather than an assessment that the evidence was insufficient.
Source: Federal Court Decisions