The Federal Court recently set aside a Pre‑Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) refusal, confirming that Ukrainian nationality alone may establish a nexus to refugee protection under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The case is a big win for Green and Spiegel’s Cansu Aydemir and for clarifying the concept of impact of war on a particular citizen of a foreign country.
In Katana v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), Justice McDonald found that the PRRA officer’s analysis was unreasonable, largely because it failed to properly engage with country‑conditions evidence arising from the war in Ukraine.
The applicant, a Ukrainian citizen who arrived in Canada in 2015, became subject to a deportation order following criminal convictions. Prior to removal, he applied for a PRRA, explaining that returning to Ukraine during the ongoing conflict would place his life at risk. The application was completed without the assistance of counsel.
The PRRA officer acknowledged the realities of the conflict, including widespread violence, indiscriminate attacks, and harm to civilians. Nonetheless, the application was refused on the basis that the risk was faced by the general population, that the applicant was not personally targeted, and that there was therefore no nexus to a Convention ground.
The Federal Court rejected that reasoning.
Justice McDonald held that the officer failed to meaningfully address contradictory evidence within the National Documentation Package (NDP), which the officer had relied upon in reaching the decision. That same country‑conditions evidence noted that Russian authorities had openly sought to extinguish Ukrainian statehood and that independent legal experts had identified reasonable grounds to believe the Russian state had engaged in incitement to genocide against the Ukrainian national group.
Against that evidentiary backdrop, the Court found the officer’s conclusion—that Ukrainians were not persecuted as Ukrainians—to be untenable.
The Court reaffirmed that section 96 does not require an applicant to demonstrate a risk greater than that faced by the rest of the population, where the evidence shows that a protected group is being collectively targeted. Labeling the harm as “generalized” did not answer the legal question and could not justify the refusal.
The Court also noted that recent Refugee Appeal Division jurisprudence has recognized that Ukrainians may be targeted on the basis of nationality alone, even in the absence of individualized evidence of persecution.
As a result, the PRRA decision was set aside and sent back for redetermination by a different officer. No question was certified.
This decision underscores that nationality‑based persecution remains a central feature of refugee protection, particularly in the context of the ongoing war in Ukraine and serves as a reminder that decision‑makers must meaningfully grapple with the country‑conditions evidence before them.
If you are considering a judicial review application, please contact us for guidance.
