Introduction
In the recent judicial review case “Noory v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),” the Applicant, Ghulam Samad Noory, sought to challenge a refusal under the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). This case sheds light on critical issues surrounding the assessment of risks faced by individuals seeking protection in Canada, particularly those fleeing conflict and persecution in Afghanistan.
Background of the Case
Ghulam Samad Noory, a citizen of Afghanistan, fled his home country approximately 24 years ago after being detained and tortured by the Taliban. He eventually made his way to the United States, where he worked for nearly ten years as a driver and a cook at the Afghan Embassy in Washington, DC. Noory claimed that he was at significant risk from the Taliban due to his past activities, including educating girls in Afghanistan and working for the former Afghan government.
Despite these claims, he was found inadmissible under paragraph 34(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) for “engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government.”
The Legal Challenge: Assessing the Risk
The core issue in this judicial review was whether the PRRA officer reasonably applied the section 97 test. This test evaluates whether a person would be subjected to torture, a risk to life, or cruel and unusual treatment if removed to their country of origin.
Justice Sadrehashemi, who presided over the case, emphasized that certainty is not required under the section 97 test. The standard is a balance of probabilities regarding the danger and risk of specific harms, rather than certainty that these harms will occur. This distinction is crucial, as it broadens the scope of protection for individuals who may not have direct evidence of being targeted but still face significant risks.
Implications for Future PRRA Decisions
This case underscores the importance of a thorough and fair assessment in PRRA decisions. It highlights the challenges faced by individuals from conflict zones like Afghanistan, where obtaining concrete evidence of threats can be difficult. The Court’s decision serves as a reminder that the assessment of risk should be based on a comprehensive understanding of the conditions in the applicant’s country of origin, rather than a strict requirement for direct evidence.
The case of “Noory v. Canada” is a significant example of the complexities involved in immigration law and the protection of individuals at risk. It underscores the necessity for a nuanced approach in assessing claims under the PRRA and highlights the ongoing challenges faced by those fleeing persecution and conflict. As global conditions continue to evolve, the principles established in this case will remain relevant in ensuring fair and just outcomes for vulnerable individuals seeking refuge.