Unreasonable PRRA Evidence Analysis Sends Case Back

The Federal Court granted Thierno Diallo’s judicial-review application and sent his pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) back for redetermination. Justice A. Grant found the PRRA evidence analysis unreasonable, including its treatment of sworn evidence and corroborating documents.

Case Summary

• Case & citation: Diallo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1318, Court file IMM-16854-25.
• Decision date & judge: October 27, 2026, by The Honourable Mr. Justice A. Grant.
• Issue: The applicant challenged the refusal of his PRRA application, which was his first assessment of his protection claim.
• Outcome: Judicial review was granted and the matter was remitted to a new decision-maker for redetermination, without costs.

PRRA refusal concerned political-risk claim from Guinea

Mr. Diallo, a citizen of Guinea, alleged that he feared persecution because of his political opinion and his membership in the opposition Union of Democratic Forces of Guinea party. His affidavit described his participation in May 2023 protests, arrest, detention and mistreatment, as well as vandalism at his store.

The Senior Immigration Officer rejected the PRRA application, finding that the personal evidence did not sufficiently establish key events or show that Mr. Diallo was currently wanted by police or otherwise of interest to authorities because of his political opinion.

The officer accepted that opposition members, including UDFG members, had faced repression by authorities, including arbitrary arrests, detention and mistreatment during demonstrations. However, the officer concluded that the evidence did not establish that Mr. Diallo had a profile likely to attract that treatment. The officer also considered his travel through several countries without making refugee claims as raising concerns about his subjective fear.

Judge found flaws in treatment of sworn evidence

Justice Grant reviewed the decision on a reasonableness standard and held that the officer’s assessment of risk was unreasonable. The judge said that, in refugee-protection proceedings, sworn testimony is presumed true unless there is a valid reason to doubt its truthfulness.

The Court found it was not intelligible for the officer to discount evidence of events within Mr. Diallo’s personal knowledge—such as his arrest and mistreatment—because people who wrote supporting letters had not personally witnessed those events. The judge distinguished between facts an applicant can directly attest to and matters that may require further evidence because they are not necessarily within the applicant’s knowledge.

In the Court’s view, the officer either relied on a flawed evidentiary approach or made an inadequately explained credibility finding. Justice Grant held that the reasoning therefore lacked the transparency, intelligibility and justification required of a reasonable decision.

Corroborating documents were not reasonably assessed

The Court also found that the officer erred by focusing on information perceived to be absent from corroborating documents rather than assessing the information the documents contained.

For example, Mr. Diallo and his sister provided evidence that gendarmes searched for him at his home, injured his sister and that she suffered a miscarriage. A medical report stated that she was mistreated by gendarmes and suffered a post-traumatic miscarriage. Although the officer accepted that a miscarriage occurred, the officer found the evidence insufficient to establish that gendarmes caused it.

Justice Grant said that, given the information before the officer and the absence of any challenge to that information, it was difficult to see what further evidence could have satisfied the officer. The Court also noted an internal inconsistency in the officer’s documentary-evidence analysis concerning repression of opposition members and the treatment of ordinary party activists.

Matter returns for a new PRRA decision

The Court did not grant protection status or make a new risk finding. Instead, it ordered a fresh determination by a new decision-maker.

Justice Grant noted that if the officer had credibility concerns about the evidence, an oral hearing likely would have been appropriate, particularly because this was Mr. Diallo’s first risk determination. No question was certified for appeal, and no costs were awarded.

Source: Federal Court Decisions