Andrade v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 441

REASONS AND JUDGMENT

[1] Ms. Adriana Bacelar Guimaraes Andrade (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of an Officer (the “Officer”), refusing her Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (“PRRA”) application for status either as a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S. C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”).

[2] The Applicant is a citizen of Brazil. She entered Canada on an electronic travel authorization in July 2022, accompanying her then 17 year old daughter who is a student at Laurentian University.

[3] On December 16, 2022, the Applicant went to Vermont, United States of America, to celebrate her birthday. She was denied entry into Canada on December 17, 2022 by a CBSA Officer, and a removal order was issued against her.

[4] The Applicant attempted to make a refugee claim. She was found ineligible to make a refugee claim because she entered from the United States of America, a designated country under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR 2002-227 (the “Regulations”). Because her daughter was under the age of 18, she did not qualify as an “anchor relative” in Canada, pursuant to subsection 159(d) of the Regulations.

[5] The Applicant subsequently re-entered Canada.

[6] The Applicant was given the opportunity to make a PRRA application. She submitted her application on February 17, 2023, alleging risk to her life from her ex-husband if forced to return to Brazil. She recounted a history of abuse during her marriage, including impacts upon her mental health. She provided a police report from the Women’s Protection Service in Brazil. She also provided a report from a doctor in Ottawa, as well as two reports from the Ottawa Hospital Civic Campus in Ottawa.

[7] The Applicant obtained a decree of divorce from a Brazilian court on June 13, 2023. She obtained a restraining order against her former husband on November 8, 2022.

[8] The Applicant submitted her PRRA application on February 17, 2023. According to her affidavit, she prepared that application without legal assistance. She provided submissions in support of her claim that she would be killed by her ex-husband if forced to return to Brazil.

[9] The PRRA application was refused. The Applicant filed an application for leave and judicial review of that negative decision in cause number IMM-5448-23.

[10] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) agreed to remit the matter for re-determination and to allow the Applicant to file further submissions.

[11] The Applicant did file further submissions. As noted in the reasons of the Officer, submissions dated June 5, 2023, June 16, 2023, July 17, 2023, July 19, 2023 and September 1, 2023 were considered.

[12] The Officer concluded that the Applicant had failed to show objective grounds of a forward-looking personalized risk to her life if returned to Brazil.

[13] The Applicant now argues that the decision of the Officer is unreasonable and fails to take into account the evidence she presented about a real and continuing risk in Brazil to women who are victims of domestic violence. She contends that she is such a woman and remains at risk to her life, from her ex-husband.

[14] In addition to a judgment setting aside the decision of the Officer, the Applicant seeks costs on the grounds that the Minister’s continued litigation has been unfair, oppressive, improper, and unsafe.

[15] The Respondent submits, among other things, that the Applicant is improperly raising a new risk in her application for judicial review, that is a risk related to her mental health. He argues that the Court should ignore the arguments in that regard.

[16] Following the decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653, the Officer’s decision is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness.

[17] In considering reasonableness, the Court is to ask if the decision under review "bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on that decision"; see Vavilov, supra at paragraph 99.

[18] I note that the Respondent erroneously characterizes the Applicant’s emphasis upon the negative effects upon return to Brazil as a “new issue”, raised for the first time in this application for judicial review.

[19] The record belies this argument.

[20] From review of the Certified Tribunal Record (the “CTR”), including the submissions made upon the redetermination of the Applicant’s PRRA application, her mental health was “always” an issue, relative to her status as an abused woman.

[21] The decision of the Officer responds to the evidence that was submitted by the Applicant. The CTR contains lengthy materials about the prevalence of domestic abuse both in Brazil and in Canada.

[22] The test upon a PRRA application is that an applicant is at personalized risk in the country of nationality; see the decision in Tapambwa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2020] 1 F.C.R. 700.

[23] The Officer assessed the various headings of the Applicant’s claim. The Officer, not the Court, is authorized to assess the evidence.

[24] The Officer addressed the evidence submitted, both the subjective evidence on behalf of the Applicant’s personal circumstances and the objective country condition documents.

[25] The Officer accepted that the Applicant had been abused by her former husband. The marriage of the Applicant to her former husband has been terminated by divorce and according to the evidence submitted, the former husband is now in a new relationship.

[26] The Officer considered the Applicant’s evidence about her efforts to obtain protection from the police in her home town.

[27] The Officer considered the country condition evidence about the availability of assistance from the police and concluded that the Applicant had not been refused protection, and had been able to obtain a restraining order against her former husband.

[28] The Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant had established a personalized risk.

[29] I am not persuaded that the Applicant has shown that the reasons of the Officer do not meet the applicable standard of review. The reasons are “transparent, justified, and intelligible”.

[30] The Applicant seeks costs upon this application for judicial review, on the grounds that she has been forced to re-litigate the same issue twice, that is her application for protection under subsection 97(1) of the Act.

[31] The Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/93-22, allow for awarding costs in “special circumstances”; see the decision in Jones v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FCA 279.

[32] It is to be noted that a remedy upon an application for judicial review is discretionary; see subsection 18.1(3) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7.

[33] Following the first refusal of her PRRA application, the Applicant filed an application for leave and judicial review in cause number IMM-5448-23. That matter was settled, the initial negative decision was set aside, the Applicant was given the opportunity to make further submissions and did so, and the matter was sent to another officer for determination.

[34] There is nothing irregular in this process. When the Respondent agreed to “settle” the first application for leave and judicial review, the Applicant obtained the “usual” remedy upon an application for judicial review: the challenged decision was set aside and the matter was redetermined by a different decision-maker.

[35] I see no “special circumstances” justifying the award of costs in this case, even if the Applicant had succeeded in her application for judicial review.

[36] The Applicant remains in Canada. Other options are available to her pursuant to the Act, to regularize her status in Canada. I refer to the recent decision in Howlader v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 274, where Justice Battista reviewed the broad authority of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to issue Temporary Residence Permits when justified in the circumstances.

[37] In the result, this application for judicial review will be dismissed, without costs. There is no question for certification.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-12610-23

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed, without costs. There is no question for certification.

"E. Heneghan"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: