Alabi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 475 : PRRA Refusal – Officer Conflated Personalized Risk and Improperly Required Corroboration

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a Nigerian family’s PRRA application. The applicants alleged risks arising from female genital mutilation and persecution by the principal applicant’s family. The Court granted judicial review because the officer improperly required a personalized risk under the persecution analysis and demanded corroboration of sworn evidence without adequate justification.

Key Principle

A PRRA officer must keep the legal tests for persecution and personalized risk distinct. General country-conditioning evidence may support a persecution claim where it is relevant to the applicants’ circumstances. An officer also cannot reject or discount a sworn affidavit for lack of corroboration without providing independent reasons, such as identified credibility, plausibility, or evidentiary concerns.

Background

The applicants submitted that they faced persecution and other harm arising from FGM and threats from the principal applicant’s family. The officer concluded that the evidence established only generalized risk and that insufficient evidence showed they would be personally targeted.

Court Findings

• Personalized-Risk Requirement Was Misapplied

The officer repeatedly distinguished between generalized and personalized risk when assessing persecution. The Court found that this improperly imported a personalized-risk threshold into the persecution analysis.

• General Country Evidence Could Support Persecution

The applicants relied on documentary evidence showing that FGM remained prevalent. The officer was required to determine whether that general evidence was relevant to their particular circumstances rather than dismissing it simply because it was generalized.

• Sworn Affidavit Was Entitled to Meaningful Consideration

The principal applicant provided a sworn affidavit supporting the family’s alleged risks. The officer required further corroboration but did not identify a proper basis for treating the affidavit as insufficient.

• Corroboration Requirement Was Unexplained

The officer did not identify credibility, plausibility, or hearsay concerns that would justify demanding independent corroborating evidence. The Court held that requiring corroboration without such reasons undermined the reasonableness of the decision.

• Officer Implicitly Rejected Sworn Evidence

By treating the affidavit as insufficient unless corroborated, the officer effectively rejected its contents without explaining why its presumed truthfulness should not be accepted. This was inconsistent with the governing approach to sworn evidence in PRRA proceedings.

• Oral Hearing Issue Was Not Determinative

The Court clarified that an oral hearing was not automatically required merely because credibility-related concerns could arise. The central problem was the unexplained corroboration requirement, and the Court therefore did not need to decide the separate procedural fairness issue.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the PRRA refusal, and returned the matter to a different officer for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Alabi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 475 (CanLII)