The Federal Court has ordered a PRRA redetermination after the parties agreed that an IRCC officer made unsupported findings in refusing Imran Khan’s second pre-removal risk assessment application. The refusal was set aside and returned to a different officer, but the Court declined to require an oral hearing or award costs.
Case details and immigration context
In Khan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1238, Justice Giuseppina D’Agostino granted the application for judicial review on consent. The decision was issued in Toronto on October 7, 2026.
Khan, a citizen of Pakistan, was ineligible to make a refugee claim in Canada because he had previously sought refugee protection in Australia. He was nevertheless eligible to apply for a pre-removal risk assessment, or PRRA.
His first PRRA application was refused on July 31, 2024. That decision was previously set aside on consent and returned for redetermination. A second PRRA refusal, dated February 28, 2025, was the decision before the Court in this proceeding.
Parties agreed the PRRA refusal was unreasonable
The parties agreed that the officer had made unsupported findings, making the second PRRA refusal unreasonable. They also agreed that the appropriate basic remedy was to quash the decision and send the matter to a different immigration officer for a new determination.
The remaining dispute concerned further relief. Khan sought directions requiring a new mandatory hearing and preventing the new officer from relying on notes made by previous officers. He also sought costs.
Court declines to require an oral hearing
Justice D’Agostino found no basis to depart substantially from the usual judicial-review remedy of remitting the matter to the administrative decision-maker. The Court noted that the new officer, rather than the reviewing court, remains responsible for deciding the merits of the PRRA application.
The Court held that it would not be appropriate to direct the new officer to conduct an oral hearing. The record, jurisprudence and statutory framework did not support that direction, and the new decision-maker must determine whether a hearing is warranted.
However, the judgment advises the new officer to consider shortcomings identified by Justice Little in Khan v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2025 CanLII 47890 (FC), so that previous errors are not repeated. The Court did not require the new officer to follow the applicant’s proposed directions.
No costs awarded
The Court also declined to award costs. Under the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, costs may be awarded only where special reasons exist.
Justice D’Agostino found that the circumstances did not disclose special reasons. The Court distinguished the case relied on by Khan and noted that he had not advanced further arguments supporting a costs award.
Outcome and practical significance
The application for judicial review was granted without costs. The February 2025 PRRA refusal was set aside and the matter was returned to a different decision-maker for redetermination.
The decision does not determine whether Khan is entitled to PRRA protection. It requires a new assessment by a different officer, with the benefit of the Court’s reasons and the identified shortcomings in the earlier PRRA assessments.
Source: Federal Court Decisions