Background
Levente Kiss and Leventene Kiss, a married couple and citizens of Hungary, sought refugee protection through a pre-removal risk assessment. They alleged that they faced persecution because of their Roma ethnicity. An Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officer rejected their application.
The applicants sought judicial review, arguing that the decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair. Their evidence included a lengthy affidavit describing multiple incidents in Hungary, particularly a January 2023 incident in which police allegedly detained, threatened and beat Mr. Kiss, prompting the couple’s latest departure from Hungary. They also submitted country-condition evidence concerning disproportionate police targeting and violence against Roma people.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Sadrehashemi allowed the application, holding that the officer’s assessment was unreasonable because the reasons did not respond to key evidence and submissions. Although the January 2023 police incident was described in detail and was central to the claim, the officer did not mention or apparently evaluate it. A general statement that the evidence was insufficient did not demonstrate that the officer had considered this pivotal event.
The officer also failed to explain why evidence of police violence and disproportionate targeting of Roma people was not linked to the applicants’ personal circumstances. That omission called into question whether the officer was alert and sensitive to the central claim. The Court set aside the June 2024 decision and returned the matter for redetermination by a different decision-maker.
Because the unreasonable treatment of the evidence was sufficient to dispose of the application, the Court did not decide whether the officer had breached procedural fairness by making a credibility finding without holding an oral hearing. It certified no serious question of general importance.
Key Takeaways
- A PRRA officer must meaningfully address evidence concerning an event that is central to an applicant’s alleged risk of persecution.
- A global statement that evidence is insufficient may not cure a failure to evaluate detailed, material evidence and directly relevant country-condition documentation.
- Given the non-refoulement interests at stake, PRRA decisions require responsive reasons showing that the decision-maker considered the serious issues raised.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that deference on reasonableness review does not permit courts to infer that a PRRA officer considered decisive evidence when the reasons do not reveal a clear connection. Officers must explain how central personal evidence and relevant country conditions bear on the claimed risk.
For protection applicants and counsel, the ruling underscores the importance of identifying how country evidence maps onto the applicant’s experiences—and of challenging reasons that fail to engage with that connection.