The Federal Court has ordered a new determination after granting judicial review of a PRRA refusal over same-sex marriage evidence. In Kayaga v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1248, Justice A. Grant found the officer’s treatment of new evidence was not coherent or transparent.
Court grants review of second PRRA refusal
The decision, released October 15, 2026, concerns Esther Nyende Kayaga’s second application for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). An IRCC officer refused the application on February 7, 2025.
Kayaga, a Ugandan citizen, had made a refugee claim after arriving in Canada in 2017. The Refugee Protection Division found her not credible, the Refugee Appeal Division confirmed that outcome, and her first PRRA application was refused.
For her later PRRA application, Kayaga submitted a marriage certificate showing that she had married Deborah Namakula. Her supporting statement said they met at an LGBTQI+ organization in 2018, moved in together in 2020, began a relationship in 2021 and married in June 2023. She also submitted country-condition information concerning sexual minorities in Uganda, including a copy of the 2023 Anti-Homosexuality Act.
Officer did not assess accepted new information
The officer did not question the veracity of the new documents, but gave them limited weight. The officer found that the evidence did not overcome earlier credibility concerns and concerned the same risk previously raised before the Refugee Protection Division.
Justice Grant reviewed the decision on the reasonableness standard. He found that, if the officer accepted the marriage and relationship as genuine, the officer did not explain why that information would not unsettle the earlier Refugee Protection Division and Refugee Appeal Division conclusions.
The Court held that, if the new information was accepted as genuine, it had to be assessed against conditions in Uganda. This included the documentary evidence regarding the persecution of people in same-sex relationships and the provisions of the Anti-Homosexuality Act identified in the record. The Court said that assessment was not done.
Alternatively, the Court found that the decision would be unreasonable if the officer had doubts about the relationship but did not say so. The officer was silent on the bona fides of the marriage while concluding that the evidence was insufficient to undermine the earlier credibility findings. Justice Grant held that this approach lacked transparency.
New officer must redetermine the application
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review and remitted the matter to a new decision-maker for redetermination. There was no certified question and no costs order.
Justice Grant did not make a definitive finding that the failure to hold an oral hearing was a separate error. However, he stated that if the new PRRA officer doubts the veracity of the evidence, the officer should transparently articulate that finding and consider the hearing-related criteria in section 167 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.
The decision does not determine the merits of Kayaga’s PRRA application. It requires a new assessment that addresses the new evidence and, if credibility concerns arise, explains them clearly.
Source: Federal Court Decisions