Background
Haci Selcuk sought protection in Canada, alleging that he faced persecution in Türkiye because of his Kurdish ethnicity and political activities with the People’s Democratic Party. His evidence included claims that Turkish police had attacked and tortured him on at least three occasions and that his father had also been persecuted for his political views.
Because Selcuk was found ineligible to make a refugee claim, he did not receive an oral hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board. His first and only refugee-risk assessment instead occurred through a written pre-removal risk assessment. An immigration officer refused that application on December 31, 2024, finding insufficient evidence of probative value to establish a risk under sections 96 or 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Selcuk obtained a stay of removal and sought judicial review.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Sadrehashemi allowed the application, holding that the officer’s decision was unreasonable. The officer focused excessively on missing corroboration and the absence of “exact” dates, roles, locations, and other narrative details, without explaining why those details were necessary or meaningfully assessing the evidence concerning Selcuk’s prospective risk. Merely listing evidence or particulars that could have been supplied was not a substitute for analyzing the protection claim itself.
The Court also found that the officer assumed corroborative evidence was required without justification and appeared to demand proof that someone in Selcuk’s circumstances would be “automatically” targeted. That was not the applicable standard: section 96 required a risk of persecution amounting to more than a mere possibility, not certainty. Given the grave interests engaged by a pre-removal risk assessment, the officer’s minimal reasoning failed to provide the required justification, intelligibility, and transparency.
The Court set aside the refusal and returned the matter for redetermination by a different decision-maker. It certified no serious question of general importance.
Key Takeaways
- A pre-removal risk assessment officer must address the substance of an applicant’s forward-looking risk rather than concentrate exclusively on omitted details or perceived evidentiary weaknesses.
- Corroborative evidence cannot be treated as automatically required in a refugee-protection assessment without an explanation grounded in the record.
- Sections 96 and 97 do not require an applicant to prove that persecution or harm is certain or that similarly situated people are automatically targeted.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the heightened obligation to give responsive reasons when an administrative decision may result in a claimant’s removal to alleged persecution or serious harm. Written protection proceedings must still provide a genuine assessment of the evidence, particularly when they are the claimant’s only refugee determination.
For counsel, the ruling provides a basis to challenge risk decisions that elevate requests for exhaustive detail or corroboration above the governing statutory tests and fail to explain how evidentiary gaps affect the central question of prospective risk.