Overview
Written by Henry Li, Articling Student at Sinclair Centre Law
People make mistakes.
Sometimes the mistake is your own. You miss a deadline, submit the wrong form, or leave out critical information. Other times, the mistake belongs to someone else. The most devastating mistakes, however, are those made by another person when you are the one left to bear the consequences.
In immigration law, those consequences can be devastating. A single legal error can result in a removal order, immigration detention, or deportation before a court can determine whether the decision was made lawfully. When that happens, there is no pause button. The Canada Border Services Agency continues to enforce removal orders, court deadlines continue to run, and correcting the mistake often depends on urgent legal work carried out behind the scenes through research, advocacy, negotiation, and emergency court applications.
That is why the reasons given by an immigration officer matter. A refusal is not necessarily the end of the story. Sometimes, the written reasons themselves reveal that the decision-maker failed to follow the law, misunderstood the evidence, or denied an applicant a procedural protection that Parliament intended them to receive.
This is precisely what happened in a recent matter handled by Cyrus Haghighi, a partner at Sinclair Centre Law.
Our client was a former teacher from Cameroon who found himself in Canada after seeking protection from alleged persecution by both government authorities and armed separatist groups. Because he had previously made an asylum claim in the United States, his Canadian refugee claim was found ineligible to be heard by the Refugee Protection Division. As a result, the only avenue available to assess his risk before removal was a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA).
Following an initial screening, the client’s PRRA application was refused. Upon review, we discovered that the refusal appeared to have overlooked a mandatory procedural safeguard contained in section 113.01 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. That provision requires an oral hearing for applicants whose refugee claims were found ineligible solely because of a prior asylum claim in another country confirmed through Canada’s information-sharing agreements, unless the PRRA is granted without one. In our client’s case, no hearing was held, despite the application being refused.
The serious concerns did not end there. The initial decision letter indicated that it had been copied to our client’s former lawyer, yet former counsel was never sent the decision. As a result, our client did not receive the complete reasons until weeks later. Once he obtained legal assistance from our firm, an application for leave and judicial review was filed in the Federal Court.
While that application was pending, CBSA instructed our client to travel to Ottawa to obtain travel documents from the Cameroon High Commission. He fully complied with every direction. However, instead of returning home after attending the appointment, he was detained by CBSA in Ottawa and informed that his removal from Canada had been scheduled. It was only through urgent legal efforts that Mr. Haghighi obtained the complete reasons for the PRRA refusal and brought an emergency motion to stay the client’s removal pending judicial review.
This case illustrates why the reasons supporting a PRRA refusal deserve careful scrutiny. A negative decision is not necessarily the end of the matter. Sometimes, the reasons themselves reveal that a mandatory statutory safeguard may have been overlooked, that important evidence was misunderstood, or that procedural fairness was compromised. Identifying those issues can make the difference between an immediate removal and an opportunity for the Federal Court to determine whether the decision was made according to law.