The Federal Court of Canada has issued an important ruling in the case of a Ukrainian citizen who was previously denied a pre-removal risk assessment. This concerns the PRRA (Pre-Removal Risk Assessment) procedure, which is undergone by individuals against whom a deportation order may already be in effect but who claim that returning to their country of origin is dangerous.
The case is significant not only for this one applicant. It may also be important for other Ukrainians in Canada who face complex immigration situations, have lost their status, received a removal order, or are trying to prove that returning to Ukraine during the war poses a real risk to them.
What Happened
A Ukrainian citizen arrived in Canada back in 2015. Later, due to criminal offenses, he became subject to a deportation order. Facing possible removal from Canada, the man filed a PRRA application. He did so on his own, without legal representation.
In his application, he explained that returning to Ukraine during a full-scale war could pose a threat to his life and safety. However, the immigration officer denied the application. The main rationale for the denial was as follows: while there is indeed a war in Ukraine and civilians are indeed suffering from violence and attacks, the danger is general to the population, and the applicant failed to prove that he was being personally targeted.
It was precisely this logic that the Federal Court found problematic.
What the Court Said
Judge McDonald concluded that the officer’s decision was unfounded. In the court’s view, the officer had no right to simply state that the risk was “general” and close the matter on that basis. The case file contained materials regarding the situation in Ukraine that required a much more serious analysis.
In particular, the court drew attention to information from official country conditions evidence—documents describing the situation in the country. These materials did not merely refer to the war as a general danger. They also mentioned that the Russian authorities were openly attempting to destroy Ukrainian statehood, and independent legal experts saw grounds to speak of incitement to genocide against the Ukrainian national group.
Against this backdrop, the court deemed the officer’s conclusion that Ukrainians are not persecuted specifically as Ukrainians to be unacceptable.
Why This Matters
Under Canadian law, refugee status under Section 96 of the IRPA is linked not simply to danger in the country, but to persecution based on a specific ground: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
In many cases, immigration officers and tribunals deny people refugee status precisely because of the argument of “generalized risk”—that is, a general danger that supposedly threatens everyone equally.
But the Federal Court in this case effectively reminded us: if an entire group of people is targeted because of their nationality, one cannot simply dismiss it with the phrase “this is a general risk.”
In other words, a person does not always need to prove that they personally are a greater target than other Ukrainians. If the evidence shows that Ukrainians as a national group are under a targeted threat, this may be relevant to refugee protection.
Who This May Affect
First and foremost, this decision may be important for Ukrainians in Canada who:
- have status issues;
- have received a deportation order;
- are undergoing the PRRA process;
- have had their risk assessment denied;
- are planning a judicial review of an immigration decision;
- are in a difficult situation due to the expiration of temporary programs or the inability to transition to permanent status.
Those whose cases were rejected specifically on the grounds that the war in Ukraine constitutes a “general danger to all civilians” should pay particular attention to this decision.
What’s next in this case
The Federal Court did not automatically grant the applicant refugee status nor did it make a decision in place of the immigration officer. The court overturned the previous denial and remanded the case for reconsideration by another officer.
This means that the application must be reconsidered, taking into account the points raised by the court. The other officer will have to seriously evaluate the evidence regarding the situation in Ukraine and the issue of persecution of Ukrainians as a national group.