If your refugee claim was found ineligible for referral to the Immigration and Refugee Board under Bill C-12, the pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) is likely to be the first, and possibly the only, Canadian decision on whether you need protection. A PRRA is normally decided on paper by an IRCC officer. That means your written declaration, your evidence and your submissions have to do the work that testimony at a Board hearing would otherwise do. This article explains how to build that record.
Key Takeaways
- Bill C-12 added two ineligibility grounds to IRPA s. 101(1): paragraph (b.1), for people who entered Canada after June 24, 2020 and claimed more than one year after entry, and paragraph (b.2), for certain people who crossed the Canada–US land border between ports of entry and claimed late.
- An ineligible claim was never heard. It was not rejected on its merits, and your submissions should say so plainly.
- The new-evidence limit in IRPA s. 113(a) is written for an applicant whose claim “has been rejected.” Some counsel argue it should not cut down the record of a person whose claim was found ineligible instead. Build a complete record either way.
- The PRRA deadline is short: 15 days if you receive the form in person, 22 days if it is mailed. Preparation should start well before the notification arrives.
- If the PRRA is refused, the Federal Court deadline is 15 days, and filing for judicial review does not by itself stop removal.
Why a C-12 PRRA is different from an ordinary PRRA
The PRRA was designed mainly as a safety net at the removal stage. For most applicants, the Refugee Protection Division has already heard the claim, and the PRRA looks at new risk or changed country conditions since that decision.
A person caught by IRPA s. 101(1)(b.1) or (b.2) is in a different position. They asked for refugee protection, but no Board member ever heard their story. At the 2026 CILA conference, refugee counsel Arghavan Gerami described this as a change in the PRRA’s function without a matching change in its procedure: the PRRA now has to serve as a first-instance refugee determination for this group, while it remains, in IRCC’s own words in Guide 5523, a process normally assessed on written information.
The practical consequences are significant:
- No automatic oral hearing. A hearing happens only if the officer decides one is required under IRPA s. 113(b), applying the three factors in IRPR s. 167.
- No appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division after a refusal.
- No automatic stay of removal once a Federal Court application is filed.
Parliament has done things differently before. Under IRPA s. 113.01, a person whose claim was found ineligible solely under paragraph 101(1)(c.1) must be given a PRRA hearing unless the application is allowed without one. No equivalent rule was enacted for the Bill C-12 grounds. The panel pointed to that contrast as a reason to ask expressly for procedural safeguards in each file.
How the PRRA starts and the deadlines that apply
You cannot simply file a PRRA whenever you are ready. Under IRPR s. 160, you apply after the Department notifies you, and notification comes before removal once a removal order is in force. IRCC’s current instructions give you 15 days to submit if you receive the form and guide in person, or 22 days if they are mailed to you.
If the application arrives within 15 days of notification, IRPR s. 162 says it will not be decided until at least 30 days after notification, and the removal order is stayed under IRPR s. 232 while the application is pending. An application filed after that window does not stop removal (IRPR s. 163). Missing the deadline can therefore cost you the stay.
Because the window is so short, the work described below should start as soon as the ineligibility decision is made, not when the PRRA notice arrives.
Start the submissions with the procedural history
The written submissions should open by telling the officer how you got here:
- the date of your refugee claim and the ineligibility provision that was applied;
- the factual basis for the ineligibility finding and the date of the decision;
- a clear statement that the claim was found ineligible, not rejected on its merits;
- whether the ineligibility decision is under judicial review in the Federal Court, with the court file number.
Being found ineligible is not a finding that you lack credibility or fear. That said, the facts behind the finding can still matter. A delay in claiming, trips back home, time spent in another country, or a confusing entry history may all affect how an officer reads your risk. Deal with those facts candidly and in enough detail that the officer understands the chronology.
Where a Charter challenge or judicial review of the ineligibility decision is being pursued, counsel may also note that taking part in the PRRA does not concede that it is an adequate substitute for a Board hearing. That is a strategic choice for your lawyer to make in light of any litigation underway.
Treat your declaration as the hearing you never had
In an ordinary PRRA, a short affidavit focused on new developments may be enough. In a C-12 PRRA, your sworn declaration takes the place of the Basis of Claim narrative and your oral testimony. It should cover:
- a clear chronology of what happened to you;
- who you fear (the agents of harm) and why they target you;
- the link to a Convention ground, such as political opinion, religion or membership in a particular social group;
- the key incidents, with dates, places and details;
- why the people you fear are still interested in you;
- why you cannot get protection from the authorities at home, and why moving elsewhere in your country would not keep you safe;
- what you expect would happen if you were returned now.
The declaration should also explain weak points before the officer finds them: the delay in claiming, return travel, omissions in earlier forms, missing documents, or anything that looks inconsistent.
Audit every earlier statement before you file
Officers compare what you say now with what you said before. Before filing, gather and review every statement you have given to Canadian authorities: port-of-entry and eligibility interview notes, any Basis of Claim form prepared before the ineligibility decision, earlier visa or permit applications, and travel and document dates.
If an earlier narrative was incomplete or inaccurate, do not just repeat it. Go through it line by line, identify what needs to be corrected or added, and explain why, for example because it was prepared quickly, without legal help, or through poor interpretation. The aim is not to rewrite the story but to put a complete and honest account in front of the officer before a discrepancy turns into an adverse credibility finding.
Our guide to writing an immigration submission letter covers the general structure of a persuasive submission.
Corroborate and organize the country evidence
For each important allegation, ask whether supporting evidence could reasonably exist. If it does, get it: police or court records, medical or psychological reports, photographs, messages, membership records, or statements from people with first-hand knowledge. If it cannot be obtained, explain why. Generic support letters carry little weight. A useful witness letter says how the writer knows the facts and speaks to the specific risk.
Country evidence should be organized by what it proves, not filed as a large bundle. IRCC’s own instructions ask applicants to explain why the risk concerns them personally and how their situation compares with the rest of the population. A clear structure is: proposition, then the objective evidence, then how it applies to you. Officers may rely on the Board’s National Documentation Package even if you do not file it, but they will not necessarily draw out the points that matter for your profile. Cite the key documents and connect them to your facts.
Finally, give the officer a separate analysis under IRPA s. 96 (Convention refugee) and s. 97 (person in need of protection), covering state protection and any internal flight alternative.
Ask for the safeguards you need, in writing
The panel’s recommended approach for each safeguard was to identify what is missing, explain why it matters in your case, make a concrete request the officer can grant, and keep a record of the answer. Requests may include:
- an oral hearing, where the three IRPR s. 167 factors are met (a serious credibility issue, evidence central to the decision, and evidence that would justify allowing the application if accepted);
- disclosure of any extrinsic evidence the officer intends to rely on, with a chance to respond;
- participation of witnesses or counsel;
- accommodations for trauma, gender-based violence, disability, interpretation or other needs.
Requesting a hearing does not guarantee one. The test for an oral hearing and what happens at one are covered in our PRRA guide.
After the procedural section, the panel suggested a clear pivot to the merits, so that the officer can allow the application without having to accept any constitutional argument. Your submissions should always give the officer a straightforward route to a positive decision.
If the PRRA is refused
Act quickly:
- Read the reasons right away. Under IRPR s. 174 you can request a copy of the officer’s file notes recording the justification for the decision.
- Confirm your removal status and any removal date.
- Protect the deadline. An application for leave and judicial review of a decision made in Canada must be filed within 15 days (IRPA s. 72(2)(b)).
- Deal with removal separately. Filing for judicial review does not stop removal by itself, so a request to defer removal or a stay motion in Federal Court may be needed.
For background on how the ineligibility letters work and what to say in reply, see our article on Bill C-12 ineligibility letters. Our PRRA 2026 overview explains the wider process.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the “new evidence only” rule apply if my claim was found ineligible?
IRPA s. 113(a) limits new evidence for an applicant whose claim “has been rejected.” A claim found ineligible was not decided on its merits, and some counsel argue the limit should not apply in that situation. This point has not been settled, so the safest approach is to present a complete record and explain why each piece of evidence is relevant.
Will I get an oral hearing in my PRRA?
Not automatically. An officer may hold a hearing if, under IRPR s. 167, there is evidence raising a serious credibility issue that is central to the decision and would justify allowing the application if accepted. You should ask for one expressly and explain which facts the officer needs to hear about in person.
How long do I have to file the PRRA?
IRCC currently allows 15 days if you receive the application in person and 22 days if it is mailed. Filing within 15 days of notification keeps the regulatory stay of removal in place while the application is decided. Confirm the dates on your own notification.
Can I fix mistakes in my earlier Basis of Claim narrative?
Yes. Identify each correction or addition, explain why it is being made, and support it with evidence where possible. Leaving known problems unexplained gives the officer room to draw an adverse credibility finding.
Does a Federal Court application stop my removal after a PRRA refusal?
No. Filing for leave and judicial review does not create an automatic stay. You may need to ask CBSA to defer removal or bring a stay motion in the Federal Court, often on very short notice.
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 refugee protection, pre-removal risk assessments and Federal Court judicial review. Book a consultation with our team in Toronto and Kingston. We work in English, Mandarin, and Cantonese.
