PRRA 의 이민관은 접수된 파일을 열어 보면서 고민을 하기 시작 한다. 자신이 훈련 받아온  기준령으로 신청인의 사건을 접수 받으면서 허가인지 거절인지를 고민을 시작한다. 모든 사항은 인도주의 정상참작의 기준을 가지고 보는 것이 아니기에 어떻게든 신청인의 과거 기록을 보면서 FOSS 의 과거의 기록서를 보면서 이래서 아니었는데 무엇을 더 고려 하라는 것인지 불만을 가지기 시작한다. 그에게 들어찬 생각은 기각된 사유의 난민신청 케이스 인지 아닌지가 관심사가 아닐 것이다. 그는 처음부터 각각의 신청인의 사유에서 더 나아가서 새로운 증거와 새로운 위험도를 보고 있기 때문 일 것이다. 그러나 마직막의 결정권은 PRRA 이민관의 전격적인 판단의 기준에 오로지 의존하는 것이 아니기에 이민관은 참으로 심각한 생각에 잠기게 되는 것이다.    그런데 그나마 새로운 기회를 부여 받았음에도 불구하고 서류준비의 미비는 참으로 어처구니 없는 시간적인 손해 내지는 시간을 벌자는 식의 서류준비는 PRRA 이민관들에게 부정적인 생각을 불어 넣는 어리석은 신청원 이라 하겠다. 마지막의 추방 전 재고 심사를 위하여 혼신의 힘을 다하여 서류를 준비하여야 하는 것이다. 캐내다 이민법 A112(3) - R172(2)(a) 은 결정서한을 긍정적이든지 부정적이든지 결정권을 받게 되는 중요한 이민법률의 중차대한 부분인 것이다. 

이를 고려하는 기준은 변화된 마음, 법률적인 해석의 실수, 불평 부당한 결정권, 사실적이지 못한 객관적인 결정사항, 새로운 증거의 가치와 그 기준, 무엇이 미래의 신청원의 삶의 변화인지의 고려, 그리고 결정서한의 특수한 사유서 이지만 추방 전 재고 심사의 이민관은 과거 난민 이든 아니든지 그 어떠한 마지막의 이민국의 결정서한을 바꿀 수 있는 마직막의 기회라 하는 것이다. 추방 전 재고 심사의 고려 사항은 깨끗하지 못한 결정서한의 법률적인 종전의 이민관의 실수, 판사의 결정권의 실수, 충족되어지지 않는 결정서한과 증거, 그리고 종전의 신청원의 과거의 본국으로부터 연류된 사기성을 보여주는 신청원의 피해 사례, 범죄의 피해자 그리고 그것을 증명 할 수 있는 증거 서류, 그리고 그 증거서류가 종결되어지지 않았다는 미 종결의 실례, 실제적으로 범죄의 피해가 결정이 내려지지 않았지만 지속적으로 신청인의 미래의 삶에 두려움으로 증명이 되어질 경우 등의 증거서류는 추방 전 재고 심사를 결정을 더욱더 확실하고 명확히 하여 주는 증거가 될 것이다. 종종 신청인은 과거의 자신의 망명의 사유가 거짖 이었다고 재주장을 펼치는 경우를 볼 수 있겠다. 그렇다면 이러한 경우에 이것이 추방 전 재고 심사의 기준에 들어가는가 인데 절대적으로 이것은 아니라는 것이다. 흔히들 이민법에 해당이 되어지는 심사 대기자는 작은 하나의 기회라도 있다면 그것이 기준이 어디에 말든 잡고 늘어지는 것이 상례인데 이러한 경우 이민국의 추방 명령국의 추방 전 재고 심사의 기준은 과거 FOSS 의 과거의 서류를 다시 모두 종합을 하여 볼 것이고 각각의 신청인 가족 구성원의 케이스를 별도로 기준을 삼아서 가족 구성원 한 사람의 범죄 기록은 모든 가족 구성원의 추방 전 재고 심사 든 난민 심사이든 거절을 하는 것은 당연한 것이라 할 것이다. 그럼에도 불구 하고 범죄인 양도 협정 국가인 캐나다와 한국의 기준령을 고려하여서 나만은 피해자이니까. 고려하여 달라는 사유가 증거도 없이 서면으로만 받아 들여 질 것 이라는 것은 착각에 지나지 않을 것이다. 

그래서 Submissions 이라는 최종적인 서명 어필의 경우를 들어 볼때에 판례상 연방 항소 케이스 중에서 Federal Court, in Chudal [2005 FC 1073] 의 경우를 들어 보아서 반드시 최종적인 증거 외의 서면 결정 어필의 글은 반드시 필요한 부분이라고 할 것 이다.

그러나 이것을 너무나도 조잡하게 작성을 하였거나 인도주의 차원으로 착각이 되어진 어필은 추방전 재고 심사의 이민관에게 혼란을 일으킬 것이며 이렇게 작성이 되어진 서류는 과거 거절된 난민 신청원 내지는 인도주의 정상참작의 기준 케이스와 다를 것이 없기에 즉각적인 기각의 사유가 될것이며 이렇게 내려지는 서한은 6개월 이내에 결정 되어지고 시행이 되어 질 것이다.  

*Humanitarian and compassionate considerations and risk 
인도주의적 정상참작의 변화와 위험도

그렇다면 추방 전 재고 심사는 전혀 인도주의적 고려를 하지 않는다는 것인지 스스로 질문을 할 것이나 모든 사항은 나무의 가지와 뿌리처럼 비교를 하여도 무방 할 것이다. 당신은 무엇인가 끊임없이 나는 얻어야 하고 나를 도와주는 주위는 불신으로 의심으로 가득 차서 믿지를 못하겠으니까. 혁명적으로 바꾸어 보자는 생각은 실수이구나 라고 느끼는 그 순간은 이미 늦은 것이라 보여진다. 오히려 한번 결정이 되어진 계획을 수정하지 않고 꾸준히 한길로서 새로운 증거를 제시하는 것이 현명한 것이며 그렇지 않다는 것 그 자체가 이미 신청인은 과거의 신청인의 의뢰인으로서의 자격을 상실하였다는 의미이다. 의심을 하면서 케이스를 시작할 이유가 없는 것이기에 불필요한 생각의 생각은 필요가 없다는 의미이다. 
PRRA 추방 전 재고 심사는 그러므로 H&C decision-maker are outlined in sections 13.1 to 13.6 of IP 5,Immigrant Applications in Canada made on Humanitarian or Compassionate Grounds 의 기준에 따라서 잘 정서 되어지고 준비되어진 서류를 요구 하는 것이다. 이민관은 A25(1): 의 기준령을 가지고 사유상황에서 가장 우선적으로 처리가 되어지어야 하는 아동의 보호에 대한 이민법기준의  관심과 대안 기준을 먼저 고려를 할 것 이며 캐나다 영주권을 취득하지 못한 상황에서 이러한 인도주의적 정상참작의 기준으로 어필을 하는 신청인에게 가장 고려되어져야 하는 상황의 순서를 정하게 되는 것이다. 이러한 예는 이민성 장관을 대리하는 이민관의 예리한 판단력을 요구하는 것이며 연방항소심의 케이스 중에서 Kim v MCI [2005] FCJ No. 540 의 인도주의적 정상참작의 기준에 따른 삶의 변화를 심각히 고려 할 것이라는 실례를 보여주는 케이스라 하겠다. 

분류된 케이스의 판결

예를 들어서 다섯명의 한 가족의 추방 전 재고 심사의 기준은 추방전 재고 심사 이민관의 다섯번의 Example: Five family members, one decision as a family unit, the decision is entered five times.
The only exception to this rule is if a spouse or older child makes an independent application and
presents separate risks from that of the family.
The inventory of removal ready case files will require careful management between CIC and the
CBSA

5.27. Notifications and letters
In order to maintain a consistent and uniform approach to program delivery, all offices will use the
standard forms. Substantive changes to the letters provided must be made through Operational
Management and Coordination (OMC).
The following two notifications are provided to the potential PRRA applicant:

23
. . . any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information
or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person committed or is suspected
of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason
based on discrimination of any kind when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the
instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting
in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or
incidental to lawful sanctions.
According to the U.N. General Assembly’s Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being
Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of
December 9, 1975 at Article 1:
(2) Torture constitutes an aggravated and deliberate form of cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.
It is difficult to provide a rigorous definition of what conduct would amount to torture. Some
international decisions provide examples. The European Court of Human Rights found the
following treatment to constitute torture:
• “Palestinian hanging”: the applicant was stripped naked and suspended by his arms that had
been tied together behind his back, resulting in severe pain and in paralysis in both arms that
lasted for some time. Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 Dec 1996.
• Rape in custody. Aydin v. Turkey, 25 Sept 1997.
• Beatings that kept the applicant in a constant state of physical pain and mental anguish over a
three-day period while she was blindfolded. She was also paraded naked and pummelled with
high-pressure water while being spun around in a tire. The Court held that the cumulative
effect of this treatment amounted to torture (although not necessarily the beatings alone).
Aydin v. Turkey, 25 Sept 1997.
• In the cases of Ireland v. United Kingdom, 13 Dec 1977, and Tomasi v. France, 27 Aug 1992,
the European Human Rights Court concluded that beatings while in custody constituted
inhuman or degrading treatment, but not torture. The Court revisited this issue in 1999 and
noted that the European Convention is a living instrument that must be interpreted in light of
current conditions. Acts that were not classified as torture in the past could be so classified in
the future because of an increasingly high standard set for the protection of human rights. The
Court concluded that a severe beating that inflicted a large number of blows and caused
substantial pain constitutes torture. Selmouni v. France, 28 Jul 1999.
• The following techniques used by the Greek military junta: mock executions, death threats,
electric shock, the use of insulting language, being compelled to be present at the torture or
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of relatives or friends [Denmark et al. v. Greece (3321-
3/67; 3344/67 Report: YB 12 bis)].
• The following techniques when used in combination by British Security Forces in Northern
Ireland against detainees: being forced to stand for long periods of time, hooding, subjection
to noise, deprivation of sleep, food and drink [Ireland v. United Kingdom].
• The infliction of mental suffering through the creation of a state of anguish and stress by
means other than bodily assault (e.g., threatening to kill or hurt family members) [Ireland v.
United Kingdom, supra].
• Beatings in police custody. The requirements of the investigation and the undeniable
difficulties inherent in the fight against crime, particularly with regard to terrorism do not
change the nature of torture [Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992 (Series A,
no. 241)].
There is no need to demonstrate that the applicant would face torture for one of the five
enumerated grounds set forth in the refugee definition. The 1951 Refugee Convention requires
that the fear of persecution be based on specified grounds (i.e., race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group or political opinion). Under the Convention against

PP 3 – Pre-removal Risk Assessment (PRRA)

2009-07-24

1. (c) a country of which they are a national or citizen; or
각각의 신청원의 시민권이 속해진 국가 명를 확인 합니다.

긍정적 – 신청인의 국가가 유엔에 협약으로 볼 때에 전쟁과 난민 협약의 순서에 입각하여 속한 것인지 확인하는 것이다.

부정적 – 대한민국은 선진국의 대열에 있는데 신청원의 사유는 거짖인지 아닌지 의심 하는 것. 
         때때로 어떤 신청인은 국가 명을 속이는 경우도 있다. 

2.  (d) the country of their birth. 출생과 국가

긍정적 – 신청인의 사건의 시간적인 배경을 계산을 하려는 의지 
부정적 – 적응을 잘 못했을 것 이라는 의심

3.  (2) If none of the countries referred to in subsection (1) is willing to authorize the foreign
national to enter, the PS Minister shall select any country that will authorize entry within a
reasonable time and shall remove the foreign national to that country.
이 수속을 진행함에 있어서 결정권에 대한 거절이든 성사이든 추방 전 재고 심사의 기준상에서 기간을 얼마나 각각의 케이스에 줄 것인가를 심사

긍정적 – 그렇기 때문에 신청인은 극박한 상황전개를 만들어야 한다. 
부정적 – 그렇기 때문에 견해를 생각지 말고 서류도 자세히 보지 말자. – 항소의 사유

(3) Despite section 238 and subsection (1), the PS Minister shall remove a person who is
subject to a removal order on the grounds of inadmissibility referred to in paragraph
35(1)(a) of the Act to a country that the PS Minister determines will authorize the person
to enter. 이민관은 신청인의 사유 내지는 출입국의 기록에서 입국 거부사항의 중대 범죄가 있는지를 검사 한다.

긍정적 – 신청인의 사유가 이렇게 까지 힘들어야 하는 이유가 있을 것이다.
부정적 – 신청인의 부정직하다.

5.26. Humanitarian and compassionate considerations and risk

Applications for humanitarian and compassionate consideration where a risk of return has been
raised will be referred to a PRRA decision-maker as a departmental expert in matters of risk. The
steps to be considered by the H&C decision-maker are outlined in sections 13.1 to 13.6 of IP 5,
Immigrant Applications in Canada made on Humanitarian or Compassionate Grounds.
The authority for officers to consider humanitarian and compassionate applications is stated in
A25(1):
A25. (1) The C&I Minister shall, upon request of a foreign national who is inadmissible or
who does not meet the requirements of this Act, and may, on the C&I Minister’s own
initiative, examine the circumstances concerning the foreign national and may grant the
foreign national permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or
obligation of this Act if the C&I Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by humanitarian
and compassionate considerations relating to them, taking into account the best interests
of a child directly affected, or by public policy considerations.
Kim v MCI [2005] FCJ No. 540 supports the proposition that PRRA officers are not mandated to
consider humanitarian and compassionate factors in making their decisions, in the absence of an
H&C application. The PRRA inquiry and decision making process does not take into account
factors other than risk.
Case inventory control
Case inventory control will be the responsibility of the individual PRRA offices. The priority
assigned to each case will be the responsibility of the PRRA manager or co-ordinator. Requests
from removals offices or CICs to expedite processing of cases should be on a manager to
manager or manager-coordinator basis. To ensure the independence of the PRRA decisionmaker
and avoid any apprehension of bias, there should be no direct contact between removals
officers and PRRA officers.
To maintain consistency and the integrity of the PRRA, inventory cases involving families are to
be entered for each family member. Although only one decision is taken, it must be entered for
each family member in NCMS and FOSS.
Example: Five family members, one decision as a family unit, the decision is entered five times.
The only exception to this rule is if a spouse or older child makes an independent application and
presents separate risks from that of the family.
The inventory of removal ready case files will require careful management between CIC and the
CBSA
5.27. Notifications and letters
In order to maintain a consistent and uniform approach to program delivery, all offices will use the
standard forms. Substantive changes to the letters provided must be made through Operational
Management and Coordination (OMC).
The following two notifications are provided to the potential PRRA applicant:

PP 3 – Pre-removal Risk Assessment (PRRA)
2009-07-24 21
1. Advance Information - provided primarily by the IRB to failed refugee claimants, this
notice introduces the PRRA and informs the recipient that they may later be found entitled
to apply.
2. PRRA Notification - provides PRRA candidates with an application form and the time
frames to be met.
See section 3.1 for links to these documents.
5.28. National Case Management System (NCMS)
PRRA appears on the Case Tracing tree under a tab called PRRA. There is a complete set of
Business Rules created for PRRA, as well as updates to the Risk Review business rules. It is
mandatory that PRRA officers complete the case tracing in NCMS to ensure an up-to-date
computer reference. One of the important aspects of PRRA in NCMS is the linking of the PRRA
process to other processes in the system, particularly the removals process. These important links
are clearly identified in the PRRA business rules.
5.29. Field Operations Support System (FOSS)
FOSS remains operational in all offices. Until NCMS is available in all offices, officers or support
staff will be required to make entries into both systems. This will enable offices without NCMS to
follow the history of a PRRA application and determine the PRRA officer’s decision. It is vital that
these systems are updated immediately.
5.30. Quality assurance
The PRRA managers or co-ordinators, as well as NHQ staff, review a sample of the decisions of
PRRA decision-makers on a regular basis. The purpose of this review is to ensure the integrity of
the written decisions. The review is not meant to influence or change the decision of the PRRA
officer but only to determine if the PRRA decision-maker has met the guidelines on decision
writing and notes suggested in this chapter in sections 5.16 and 5.17 above. The review will
confirm that:
• the applicant is eligible for PRRA;
• the time frames for applications and submissions were honoured;
• all of the risks stated by the applicant or counsel were given full consideration;
• the decision is supported by objective evidence available on the file;
• although not submitted, applicable risks were considered;
• the language of the decision is non-judgmental and respectful;
• the decision was not taken in a capricious manner;
• the decision of the PRRA decision-maker has been recorded in both FOSS and NCMS
correctly and in a timely manner, and a copy remains on file;
• files are promptly forwarded to the Removals Unit;
• if an oral hearing was held, the three criteria required for an oral hearing were present.

6. Definitions 정의

6.1. Agent of torture 
An important element of the definition of torture is that the pain or suffering amounting to torture
must be inflicted by or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official
or other person acting in an official capacity. However, the risk of torture need not be from the
State government itself, and may arise, for instance, from an errant police force, the military or
quasi-public actors (e.g. Tribes responsible for enforcing locally accepted customs, particularly in
countries where the rule of law is non-existent).

6.2. Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment
The concept of “cruel and unusual treatment or punishment” is found in section 12 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, jurisprudence interpreting section12 is
applicable. Notions familiar to section12 of the Charter are also present in international
conventions that Canada has signed, such as the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, known as the Convention against Torture (CAT)
and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Thus, international
jurisprudence, while not binding, can provide helpful guidance.
The following propositions, taken from Charter jurisprudence, are applicable:
• the treatment or punishment is of such character or duration that it would outrage the
conscience of Canadians or be degrading to human dignity to remove someone to face such
treatment or punishment;
• the treatment or punishment is disproportionate to the achievement of a valid social aim, is
arbitrarily imposed or is excessive as to not be compatible with human dignity.
These risks include actions that would constitute violations of fundamental human rights, such as
– but not limited to – serious affronts the physical and psychological integrity of the individual.
In Cruz Varas and others v. Sweden (15576/89 [1991] ECHR 26 20 March 1991), the European
Court of Human Rights explained the minimum threshold of what constitutes inhuman treatment in
the following words:
“It is recalled that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity…The assessment
of this minimum is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of
the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment, the manner and method of its
execution, its duration, its physical or mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age,
and state of health of the victim.”

6.3. Inadmissibility

Applicants who are referred to in A112(3) are those determined, following the making, pursuant to
A44(1), of a report with respect to a ground of inadmissibility referred to in A112(3), to be
inadmissible based on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious
criminality or organized criminality, as well as those whose claims for refugee protection were
rejected by the Refugee Protection Division on the basis of Article 1F of the Refugee Convention.

6.4. Persecution

The courts have defined persecution by relying on the dictionary definitions: “To harass or afflict
with repeated acts of cruelty or annoyance.” It will be necessary to determine whether or not the
harassment or sanctions that the applicant fears are sufficiently serious to constitute persecution.
Threats to a person’s life and freedom for one of the reasons in the definition will constitute
persecution and so would be violations of other fundamental human rights. Other sanctions
against the individual may or may not be persecution. In some cases, the cumulative effect of
discrimination or a series of incidents constitutes persecution. The sanctions need not be against
the individual, but can also encompass acts committed against the individual’s family or similarly
situated persons. Minor forms of harassment, such as in employment discrimination, may not be
sufficiently serious to constitute persecution. The jurisprudence illustrates situations where
harassment does not amount to persecution.

6.5. Torture

The protection against torture is restricted in its scope. Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture,
which has been incorporated into IRPA, defines torture as follows:
. . . any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information
or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person committed or is suspected
of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason
based on discrimination of any kind when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the
instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting
in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or
incidental to lawful sanctions.
According to the U.N. General Assembly’s Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being
Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of
December 9, 1975 at Article 1:
(2) Torture constitutes an aggravated and deliberate form of cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.
It is difficult to provide a rigorous definition of what conduct would amount to torture. Some
international decisions provide examples. The European Court of Human Rights found the
following treatment to constitute torture:
• “Palestinian hanging”: the applicant was stripped naked and suspended by his arms that had
been tied together behind his back, resulting in severe pain and in paralysis in both arms that
lasted for some time. Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 Dec 1996.
• Rape in custody. Aydin v. Turkey, 25 Sept 1997.
• Beatings that kept the applicant in a constant state of physical pain and mental anguish over a
three-day period while she was blindfolded. She was also paraded naked and pummelled with
high-pressure water while being spun around in a tire. The Court held that the cumulative
effect of this treatment amounted to torture (although not necessarily the beatings alone).
Aydin v. Turkey, 25 Sept 1997.
• In the cases of Ireland v. United Kingdom, 13 Dec 1977, and Tomasi v. France, 27 Aug 1992,
the European Human Rights Court concluded that beatings while in custody constituted
inhuman or degrading treatment, but not torture. The Court revisited this issue in 1999 and
noted that the European Convention is a living instrument that must be interpreted in light of
current conditions. Acts that were not classified as torture in the past could be so classified in
the future because of an increasingly high standard set for the protection of human rights. The
Court concluded that a severe beating that inflicted a large number of blows and caused
substantial pain constitutes torture. Selmouni v. France, 28 Jul 1999.
• The following techniques used by the Greek military junta: mock executions, death threats,
electric shock, the use of insulting language, being compelled to be present at the torture or
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of relatives or friends [Denmark et al. v. Greece (3321-
3/67; 3344/67 Report: YB 12 bis)].

• The following techniques when used in combination by British Security Forces in Northern
Ireland against detainees: being forced to stand for long periods of time, hooding, subjection
to noise, deprivation of sleep, food and drink [Ireland v. United Kingdom].

• The infliction of mental suffering through the creation of a state of anguish and stress by
means other than bodily assault (e.g., threatening to kill or hurt family members) [Ireland v.
United Kingdom, supra].

• Beatings in police custody. The requirements of the investigation and the undeniable
difficulties inherent in the fight against crime, particularly with regard to terrorism do not
change the nature of torture [Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992 (Series A,
no. 241)].

There is no need to demonstrate that the applicant would face torture for one of the five
enumerated grounds set forth in the refugee definition. The 1951 Refugee Convention requires
that the fear of persecution be based on specified grounds (i.e., race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group or political opinion). Under the Convention against
Torture, however, the sole question is whether there is a substantial risk of torture, regardless of
whether it is based on any of the grounds specified in the definition of Convention refugee.

7. Roles and responsibilities

The PRRA office is structured in such a way to ensure that the independence of the PRRA
decision-maker is safeguarded. For more information, see the following table.

Table: Roles and responsibilities
Role Responsible for:

PRRA Director • The overall operation of the office ensuring that it is adequately resourced to maintain the timely and effective flow of applications and removal needs.

• Directly or through the coordinators identifying the needs, concerns and issues of the PRRA Unit, addressing any concerns or issues involving removals with the removals manager.

• Addressing, with senior regional Managers of CBSA, any concerns or issues involving expectations of CBSA with respect to removals, within the resource limitations of CIC.

• Interacting with National Headquarters to resolve major issues that may affect the integrity of the PRRA program nationally. Upon resolution the changes are adopted to maintain the consistency of PRRA program.
PRRA coordinator

• In the major centres, assisting the Director in the day to day operation of the PRRA Unit.

• Being the contact for the Removals Unit supervisors. By maintaining this level of interaction the establishment of case priorities and a viable inventory flow can be attained.

• The coordinator or manager will assign the cases and communicate with the removals manager or supervisor if
issues arise, preserving the independence of the PRRA decision-maker.

PRRA officer • Speaking with the PRRA Director or coordinator, if errors are discovered in applications assigned to them.

• It is inappropriate for the PRRA officer to have direct contact with a removals officer and all communication must take place through the established lines of communications.

7.1. Bias

As independent decision makers, PRRA officers have an obligation to ensure that they are not only unbiased in making their decisions, but also that they do not appear to be biased.
PRRA officers should inform PRRA coordinators of personal circumstances that may give rise to an apprehension of bias such as previous involvement in an applicant's case by the PRRA officer or by a family member. A family relationship between officers who work on cases involving the same client, on its own, would not necessarily require consideration of recusal, unless an allegation of bias is made.

Applicant described in A97

If the PRRA officer finds the applicant described in A97, the officer prepares the assessment referred to in R172(2)(a) and sends it and any supporting documentation to the CBSA removals office.
The removals officer prepares supporting documentation regarding the restrictions set out in
A112(3)(a), (b), (c), or (d), and A113(d)(i) or (ii), as applicable, and sends it, as well as the PRRA
assessment and supporting documents, to the Coordinator, Danger to the Public/Rehabilitation,
Case Review, Case Management Branch (CMB), CIC. CMB will manage these cases, and forward the security, organized crime, and modern war crime cases to National Security Division, CBSA, for assessment.
An analyst at Danger to the Public/Rehabilitation, Case Review, or National Security Division, as
applicable, prepares an assessment, in accordance with R172(2)(b), with respect to whether the
applicant’s presence in Canada is a danger to the public, or a danger to the country’s security, or
the nature or severity of the acts committed by the applicant are such that the application should
be refused. The assessment referred to in R172(2)(b), including the supporting documentation, is
returned to the CBSA removals office. The removals officer delivers the assessments referred to in R172(2)(a) and (b), and the supporting documentation, to the applicant. Any new extrinsic evidence that is related and central to the assessment is disclosed.

The applicant then has 15 days to respond in writing. The applicant is instructed to send any
submissions directly to the removals office. The applicant may request an extension of time to
respond. The granting of an extension is discretionary, but a request cannot be unreasonably
refused.

Upon receipt of the applicant’s submissions, the removals officer returns the two assessments
and the supporting documentation, as well as the applicant’s submissions, to the Coordinator,

Danger to the Public/Rehabilitation, Case Review, CMB. An analyst adds a covering memo to the
package confirming that the applicant has seen the assessments, ensure that the applicant's
submissions, if any, are included, and forwards the file to the C&I Minister's delegate.
The C&I Minister’s delegate considers the assessments, the supporting documentation, and the
applicant’s submissions, and renders a decision on the application. The decision is then returned
to the CBSA removals office; concurrently, if NSD prepared an R172(2)(b) assessment, NSD will
be notified of the decision. The removals officer calls in the applicant and delivers the decision by
hand.

9.5. Special rules for security certificates

Instructions in light of Bill C-3 are under development. Please contact Operational Management
and Coordination (OMC) for guidance on security certificate cases.

9.6. Ministerial Stay of Removal

A Ministerial stay under A114(1)(b) results if it is determined that the need for protection for a
person described in A112(3) outweighs the danger to the public in Canada, the danger to the
security of Canada, or the nature or severity of the acts committed by the applicant. Such stays
may be reviewed. If the circumstances surrounding a stay have changed, the grounds on which
the decision was based may be re-examined. See section 17 for more information on stays under
A114(1)(b).

10. Procedures and guidelines applicable to all cases

When assessing an application, all applicable protection grounds must be considered and
applied. Reasons must be given in respect of all applicable grounds in coming to a determination
that the application be rejected. Where the application is allowed on the basis of one of the
grounds, it is not necessary to consider the application of other grounds.

10.1. Accepting new evidence only

A113(a) provides that persons whose claim to refugee protection has been rejected may only
present new evidence that arose after the rejection, that was not reasonably available or that the
applicant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented.
Where the Refugee Protection Division panel did not have or take jurisdiction with respect to the
protection issue raised, and did not consider the evidence available to the applicant, the “new
evidence” rule does not prevent the applicant from submitting that evidence in support of their
application. Examples of this situation would include “transitional” cases where the former
Convention Refugee Determination Division did not have jurisdiction with respect to assertions of
torture, or of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment, or where the RPD excluded the claimant
without considering whether the claimant had a well-founded fear of persecution.
When refugee protection has been vacated by the IRB, the refugee claim is deemed to have been
rejected [A109(3)]. It may be inferred that the date of the vacation decision is the relevant date for
purposes of A113(a). However, evidence that post-dates the original refugee claim is not
admissible in vacation proceedings, as the purpose of this proceeding is to determine whether
refugee protection was obtained by misrepresentation or withholding information, and if so,
whether there was sufficient other evidence before the original panel by which the person could
have been found to be a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Because the
applicant could not have presented evidence at the vacation hearing that post-dates the original
decision, evidence of this nature could not reasonably have been expected to have been
presented at the vacation hearing, and the PRRA applicant is not precluded from presenting such
evidence.