At Kingwell Immigration Law, we know that the PRRA approval rate for failed refugee claimants in Canada is very low — a 2022 Government of Canada briefing to Parliament reported a five-year average approval rate of around 6% for this group, meaning IRCC reaches the same conclusion as the Immigration and Refugee Board roughly 94% of the time.
That number can feel discouraging, but it does not tell the whole story. Your individual circumstances, the evidence you submit, and whether you have legal representation on your side all play a significant role in your outcome.
Speak with our deportation lawyer in Canada today.
A Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) is a protection mechanism for people in Canada who are facing removal. It gives eligible individuals the opportunity to show that returning to their home country would put them at risk of persecution, torture, risk to life, or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
Under sections 112 to 115 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the following people may be eligible to apply:
You cannot apply on your own initiative. The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) must notify you that your removal order is being enforced and issue you a PRRA application form. Once you receive that notification, you have 15 days to submit the form if it was given to you in person, or 22 days if it arrived by mail.
From there, you have a further 15 days to file your written submissions and supporting documents. Deadlines in PRRA are strict — missing the initial window means losing the automatic stay of removal. Our team can help you move quickly and build the strongest possible submission within that window.
💡 Additional reading: PRRA eligibility
The overall PRRA approval rate is low, but the numbers vary significantly depending on how you came to be applying.
The figures below draw on two Government of Canada sources — a 2022 briefing to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM) for the failed claimant figure, and 2019 IRCC data for the remaining categories, as no more recent disaggregated breakdown has been publicly released:
| Applicant Type | Approximate Approval Rate | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals ineligible to be referred to the IRB | ~30% | IRCC, 2019 |
| Failed refugee claimants (previously heard at IRB) | ~6% (five-year average) | Government of Canada, CIMM 2022 |
| Non-refugee claimants (e.g., individuals under a removal order who never claimed refugee status) | ~1% | IRCC, 2019 |
A formative evaluation of the PRRA program by the Government of Canada found that of over 30,000 PRRA decisions reviewed, only around 2.7% resulted in protection being granted. By comparison, Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) applications are approved at roughly 40%, and refugee claims at the IRB succeed at approximately 55–70%.
These numbers exist because most PRRA applicants are failed refugee claimants who have already had their case heard at the IRB. A PRRA is not a second hearing — it is a narrow, paper-based assessment focused almost entirely on what has changed since that decision was made.
We work with clients to identify exactly what those changes are and how to present them effectively.
The low approval rate is a direct result of how the PRRA program is designed. For failed refugee claimants, it is not meant to be a fresh start.
Under section 113(a) of IRPA, failed refugee claimants can only submit new evidence — evidence that:
An IRCC protection officer will assess that new evidence against a four-part test established in Raza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385: the evidence must be credible, relevant, new, and material — meaning that the original claim would likely have succeeded if this evidence had been available.
An officer is not reconsidering the original decision. They are asking one question: has something changed that now puts this person at genuine risk? We help clients answer that question as clearly and compellingly as possible.
PRRA officers assess risk under the same legal framework used at the IRB. For most applicants, this involves two core protection provisions of IRPA:
For applicants who are inadmissible on serious grounds (such as security concerns, organized crime, or certain criminal convictions), a “restricted” PRRA applies, which only considers risks under section 97 — a more limited form of assessment.
The PRRA is almost always a paper-based review. A hearing can be ordered in limited circumstances — typically where credibility of new evidence is central to the decision — but most applicants will never appear before an officer in person. This makes the written submission the single most important element of the entire application, and where our team’s experience has the greatest impact.
To discuss your situation, book a consultation with our team.
For most PRRA applicants, the new evidence rule is the central obstacle. Submitting evidence that was already before the IRB — even if it was not included at the original hearing — will not succeed. A PRRA officer has no legal obligation to consider it, and an application built around previously available material is very likely to fail.
What can succeed is documented change: worsening country conditions, new threats received after the IRB hearing, family members targeted because of a claimant’s profile, or political activities undertaken in Canada that would create risk upon return.
These are the kinds of developments that we help clients identify, document, and present in a way that directly addresses the legal tests the officer must apply.
For non-refugee claimants — people who never had an IRB hearing — the new evidence restriction does not apply. They can submit a full evidentiary record and have their risk assessed for the first time, which is one reason approval rates in some of these categories run higher than for failed claimants.
We advise clients in both situations on the best approach for their specific circumstances.
Given how low the approval rate is, the quality of the application matters enormously. There is no single formula, but our experience shows that the strongest PRRA submissions share several common qualities.
The single most important step for failed refugee claimants is pinpointing what has changed since the IRB decision. This might be a new arrest warrant, targeted violence against a family member, deteriorating country conditions in a specific region, or activities undertaken in Canada — such as political organizing or public LGBT advocacy — that would create a real risk on return. Each piece of new evidence must be clearly identified and explained in your submissions, with the date it arose and why it was not available at the original hearing.
Officers assess risk based on what the situation looks like now, not at the time of the original IRB hearing. Up-to-date country condition reports, news coverage, human rights documentation, and reports from organizations such as Amnesty International or the UN Refugee Agency can all support a claim — provided they are relevant to your specific risk profile, not just general evidence of instability.
Officers are looking for a personalized risk, not a generalized one. Vague claims that a country is dangerous rarely succeed. The submission needs to connect country conditions directly to your individual circumstances — your identity, your profile, your history — and explain clearly why you personally would face harm.
One of the most common grounds for successful Federal Court challenges is that an officer failed to consider key evidence. We have seen this pattern directly in our own cases.
📌 In Musa v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, a PRRA application involving an Arab-Israeli LGBT couple, the Federal Court overturned IRCC’s refusal after finding that the officer had failed to consider a news report of an honour killing within the applicant’s own family.
We successfully appealed to the Federal Court, which ordered IRCC to reconsider the application. That outcome turned not on whether the risk was real, but on whether the officer had actually engaged with the evidence provided. A well-organized submission ensures that the most critical documents are clearly identified and impossible to overlook.
The PRRA process moves quickly, deadlines are strict, and the standard for new evidence is demanding. Having legal support from the outset — rather than after a refusal — gives an application its strongest possible foundation.
We work with clients to assess their evidence, structure their submissions, and build the clearest possible case within the time available.
If a PRRA is approved, the applicant receives protected person status under section 114(1)(a) of IRPA. In practical terms, this means:
A positive PRRA is one of the few outcomes that can stop removal and create a genuine path to permanent status in Canada. We guide clients through every step that follows — from applying for permanent residence to supporting family members included in the decision.
A negative PRRA decision means removal can proceed. There is no appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). The only avenue for review is an application for leave and judicial review at the Federal Court of Canada under section 72(1) of IRPA.
This involves two stages:
At Kingwell Immigration Law, we have successfully challenged negative PRRA decisions at the Federal Court.
📌 In O.J. v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2019 FC 684), we appealed a refused PRRA application for a woman who claimed risk due to her LGBT identity in Nigeria. The Federal Court overturned the decision, finding that the officer had failed to consider important evidence of threats to her from her husband, and had also failed to hold a PRRA interview. Her application was returned for review.
📌 In A.M. v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2019 FC 270), we successfully appealed a PRRA refusal for an Iranian national who maintained he was at risk due to attending political demonstrations. The Court agreed that the officer had improperly rejected new evidence of ongoing danger and ordered IRCC to reconsider the PRRA application.
If your PRRA has been refused, we can assess whether grounds exist for a judicial review and act quickly to meet the 15-day filing deadline.
💡 Additional reading: what happens if PRRA is refused
When a removal order is being enforced, every day matters. Our team at Kingwell Immigration Law has direct experience representing clients at every stage of the PRRA process — from preparing initial written submissions to challenging negative decisions at the Federal Court.
We assess each situation carefully: what has changed since the last decision, what evidence is available, what legal arguments apply, and whether parallel options — such as a motion to stay removal or a Humanitarian and Compassionate application — should be pursued at the same time.
Our firm was built on the principle that every case deserves a thorough, personalized strategy — and nowhere is that more important than when someone’s ability to remain in Canada is at stake.
Book a consultation with Kingwell Immigration Law today, or call us at 416.988.8853.
Yes — people who have never had a refugee claim heard at the IRB may still qualify for a PRRA if they are facing removal. This includes individuals who overstayed a visa or were ordered removed for non-compliance. Unlike failed refugee claimants, these applicants face no new evidence restriction and can submit a complete record of their circumstances.
Yes, submitting a PRRA application on time triggers an automatic stay of removal under Canadian immigration law, but only if the form is submitted within the deadline — 15 days if you received it in person, or 22 days if it arrived by mail. Miss that window, and the stay does not apply. The stay also ends once a negative decision is issued, unless further legal steps — such as a Federal Court application — are taken promptly.
Possibly, if your personal risk profile has changed. Section 113(a) of IRPA requires failed refugee claimants to submit only new evidence — but that evidence does not have to relate to country-wide conditions. New threats directed at you personally, harm to a family member tied to your profile, or political activities undertaken in Canada since your hearing can all qualify as new evidence, even when the broader country situation has not shifted.
A restricted PRRA applies when an applicant is inadmissible on serious grounds — such as security risks, organized crime, or certain serious criminality. Rather than the full section 96 and 97 assessment, the officer only considers section 97 of IRPA: danger of torture, risk to life, or risk of cruel and unusual treatment. This narrower test excludes persecution-based grounds entirely, making it significantly more difficult to establish protection.
Some failed refugee claimants with a pending PRRA may be eligible to apply for a work permit, but eligibility is not automatic and depends on individual circumstances and the stage of proceedings. Canadian immigration rules around work authorization during PRRA processing are specific and can shift. Our team can assess your eligibility early — ideally before your PRRA submission — so no available options are missed.
