Most pre-removal risk assessments (PRRAs) are decided on the written record, but you can ask for an oral hearing, and the officer must consider the request against three factors set out in section 167 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR). A hearing is most likely where the decision turns on whether the officer believes you, the evidence in question is central, and the PRRA would succeed if that evidence were accepted. The most common mistake is a vague request. The Federal Court has repeatedly looked past refusals labelled “insufficient evidence” when the real reason was that the officer did not believe the applicant.
This article draws on the PRRA paper, slides and checklist presented by refugee counsel Arghavan Gerami at the October 2026 CILA immigration law conference, checked against the current text of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and IRPR.
Key Takeaways
- IRPA s. 113(b) says a PRRA hearing “may be held” where, on the basis of prescribed factors, a hearing is required. The prescribed factors are in IRPR s. 167.
- All three factors matter: a serious credibility issue tied to ss. 96 or 97, evidence central to the decision, and evidence that would justify allowing the PRRA if accepted.
- An officer who rejects your sworn evidence as “insufficient” may in substance be making a credibility finding. The Federal Court looks at substance, not labels.
- Identify the exact facts that put your credibility in issue. A general statement that “credibility is at issue” rarely helps.
- If your refugee claim was found ineligible under Bill C-12 and never heard by the Refugee Protection Division, say so: the PRRA may be the first time anyone assesses your account.
What the law says about PRRA hearings
The starting point is IRPA s. 113(b): a hearing may be held if the Minister, on the basis of prescribed factors, is of the opinion that a hearing is required. IRPR s. 167 sets out those factors:
- whether there is evidence that raises a serious issue of the applicant’s credibility and is related to the factors in sections 96 and 97 of IRPA (refugee and person-in-need-of-protection grounds);
- whether the evidence is central to the decision on the application; and
- whether the evidence, if accepted, would justify allowing the application.
Compare this with the Refugee Protection Division, which must ordinarily hold a hearing. In a PRRA the hearing is the exception. There is one statutory exception to the exception: under IRPA s. 113.01, a hearing must be held, unless the application is allowed without one, for a person whose claim was found ineligible solely under s. 101(1)(c.1) (a previous claim in a country with an information-sharing agreement). The speaker noted that during the passage of Bill C-12, proposals to extend that mandatory hearing to the new ineligibility grounds were not adopted.
Credibility versus sufficiency: the distinction that decides most requests
Officers often refuse PRRAs without a hearing on the basis that the evidence is “insufficient”, “vague” or “lacking in detail”. The Federal Court draws a line here.
- A true sufficiency finding. In Ferguson v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 1067, the Court accepted that an officer can decide that evidence, even if believed, does not carry enough weight to meet the burden of proof. No hearing is required for that kind of finding.
- A veiled credibility finding. Where the officer’s reasoning only works if the officer disbelieves the applicant, calling it “insufficiency” does not change what it is. The speaker cited a line of cases including Chekroun v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 737, where unexplained rejection of sworn identity evidence as “insufficient” was in substance a credibility finding and the s. 167 factors were met.
Two 2026 decisions apply the same idea. In Benson v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 FC 839, the Court set aside a PRRA refusal where the officer treated central sworn evidence as insufficient and required corroboration without holding a hearing. In Derdak v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 919, the Court treated the rejection of core sworn evidence as “insufficient” as engaging credibility.
The speaker suggested a practical test: could the officer reach the adverse conclusion while accepting your sworn account as true? If the answer is no, the issue is credibility, and s. 167 is engaged.
How to write the hearing request
A request that simply asks for a hearing “because credibility is at issue” gives the officer nothing to work with. The CILA materials recommended a structured approach.
Name the specific facts
Identify each point where the officer may have to decide whether you are telling the truth: an apparent inconsistency with an earlier statement, an omission, a delay in leaving or claiming, a return trip, a document whose authenticity may be questioned, or an explanation that depends on your word. For each one, explain why it is central to your risk.
Walk through all three factors
Tie the facts to s. 167 in order. Show the credibility issue relates to s. 96 or s. 97 risk, explain why it is central rather than peripheral, and show that if the officer accepts your evidence, the PRRA should be allowed.
Explain why paper is not enough
Courts have long recognized that where a serious issue of credibility is involved, credibility may need to be determined on the basis of an oral hearing (Singh v Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 SCR 177). The speaker also pointed to Cho v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 1299, on the added significance of a hearing where the applicant has never had credibility assessed orally.
Add the first-instance context if it applies
If your refugee claim was found ineligible under the Bill C-12 amendments and never reached the Refugee Protection Division, state it plainly: no tribunal member has heard you, and a negative decision on paper may be the only merits decision before removal. We explain the overall structure of a C-12 PRRA in our article on PRRA submissions after a Bill C-12 ineligibility finding.
Fix what you can before you file
A hearing request does not replace a strong written record. The CILA checklist advised comparing your declaration against every earlier statement (border notes, portal answers, prior applications) and explaining any inconsistency before the officer finds it. Where a gap can be filled with corroboration, fill it; where it cannot, explain why. That reduces the room for a pure sufficiency refusal.
If the officer refuses without a hearing
You can request a copy of the officer’s file notes under IRPR s. 174, which entitles you to the notes recording the justification for the decision. Those notes, together with your written hearing request, are what a Federal Court judge will compare on judicial review. The speaker stressed that a clear, particularized request makes it easier to show the officer failed to engage with it.
Deadlines are short. An application for leave and judicial review of a PRRA decision made in Canada must be filed within 15 days (IRPA s. 72(2)(b)). Filing does not automatically stop removal; a separate stay motion may be needed. See our guide to the Federal Court stay of removal test.
If a hearing is granted, our companion article on what happens at a PRRA hearing explains the format, the role of counsel and how witnesses give evidence. For the PRRA process as a whole, see our PRRA guide.
Frequently Asked Questions
Am I entitled to an oral hearing in my PRRA?
Not automatically. IRPA s. 113(b) says a hearing may be held, and the officer applies the three IRPR s. 167 factors. The exception is a claim found ineligible solely under s. 101(1)(c.1), where IRPA s. 113.01 requires a hearing unless the PRRA is allowed on paper.
The officer said my evidence was “insufficient”. Can that be challenged?
Possibly. If the officer could not have reached that conclusion while believing your sworn account, the Federal Court may treat it as a veiled credibility finding that required a hearing, as in Benson (2026 FC 839) and Derdak (2026 FC 919). Each case depends on the reasons and the record.
When should I ask for a hearing?
In your written PRRA submissions, with specific reasons tied to s. 167. A request made in general terms, or not made at all, is harder to rely on later.
Does asking for a hearing delay my PRRA?
It may add time if a hearing is scheduled. It does not change the deadlines for filing your submissions or for any judicial review.
Ask us about your matter
Tell us where your file stands and we will reply within two business days. Please do not send documents or identification numbers in this first message.
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Immigration law and IRCC/ESDC policy change frequently, and every case turns on its own facts. Reading this article does not create a lawyer–client relationship. Obtain advice tailored to your situation before you act.
Talk to a Canadian immigration lawyer. BridgePoint Law advises individuals and businesses across Canada — and on Canada–US–China cross-border matters — on pre-removal risk assessments and refugee protection. Book a consultation with our team in Toronto and Kingston. We work in English, Mandarin, and Cantonese.