ARCHIVED – Formative Evaluation of the Pre–Removal Risk Assessment Program

Executive Summary

Introduction

This is the final report on the evaluation study of the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) Program. Part of Canada’s humanitarian tradition, adhering to the principle of non-refoulement, is to ensure that people are not returned to a country where they would be at risk of persecution, torture, risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. The 2002 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) provides that, with certain exceptions, persons in Canada may apply for protection if they are subject to a removal order that is in force. PRRA is the mechanism provided for the evaluation of such applications. Any person awaiting removal from Canada who alleges risk will not be removed prior to a risk assessment.

The objective of the study was to evaluate the program in terms of relevance, design and delivery, program integrity, program success and cost-effectiveness, and to examine consistency across regional PRRA offices. The research for this evaluation was conducted between January and June 2007.

The PRRA Program

The PRRA Program is a risk assessment mechanism that is triggered once a person has been ordered removed from Canada. Persons who are subject to an in-force removal order are eligible to apply for PRRA. There are two main categories of eligible applicants for PRRA: those whose claim for refugee protection has been denied by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) and are applying for protection again based on a change in country conditions or circumstances (failed refugee claimants); and those who request protection for the first time (based on alleged risk of return) after they have been ordered removed (non-refugee claimants). For failed refugee claimants, PRRA is one part of the in-Canada refugee status determination system.

In cases where the applicant had a refugee hearing before the IRB, the PRRA is restricted to new evidence that arose since the negative IRB decision or evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the decision.

Non-refugee claimants may submit any documentary evidence in support of their risk assessment.

Applications must be made within 15 days from receipt of the PRRA notification (by CBSA) to be afforded a regulatory stay of removal and applicants have a further 15  days to provide written submissions. An individual may chose to waive his/her right to a PRRA and in such a case, removal arrangements will proceed. Once a decision is rendered, an applicant may request a judicial review of a negative PRRA decision, while persons who receive a positive PRRA decision may apply for permanent residence in Canada.

Policy development and direction for the PRRA program is the responsibility of the Asylum Division of the Refugees Branch in CIC, while operational guidance and program delivery for the six CIC regional PRRA offices is managed by the Operational Management and Coordination (OMC) Branch. There are currently 76 PRRA officers across Canada.

Key Findings

Program Relevance

The PRRA program is a legislated requirement and its objectives with respect to offering protection to those in need are consistent with Government of Canada and CIC objectives, as the program offers individuals the opportunity to undergo an assessment of the risk they would face upon removal Canada. The program is also consistent with Canada’s international obligations and with Canada’s commitment under several conventions.

There is a need to provide an assessment of risk prior to removal , however, the PRRA program is not providing an efficient response to this need. In effect, it has shifted from its original intent of being a ‘safety-net’ to capture exceptional cases where country conditions or circumstances have recently changed, becoming an additional step in the refugee status determination process:

  • Program uptake has been increasing; in 2006, 78 percent of all eligible individuals submitted a PRRA application, increasing from 44 percent in 2003.
  • Nine percent of all applications came from 89 countries for which there has been a zero rate of acceptance and 53 percent of applications originate from countries with an acceptance rate below 1 percent.
  • For the period 2002-2006, the average PRRA acceptance rate was 2.7 percent.

For non-refugee claimants, the PRRA program provides an avenue for those who have not had an assessment of risk and who have not made a claim before the IRB. These individuals have not had their situations or country conditions previously reviewed, yet allege some form of personal risk of return and PRRA provides a mechanism for this assessment. Approximately 12 percent of applicants are non-refugee claimants.

Program Design and Delivery

PRRA program staff has access to a range of training and resources. Although it varies across regions, common tools have been provided to ensure consistency with the application of PRRA policies and procedures, and are being consistently used. However, there was some variation with respect to how offices prioritize or sort their cases and with how H&C with risk cases are handled.

There is a need for improved communication and coordination between PRRA offices and NHQ, with NHQ taking a more proactive role in facilitating information sharing and centralizing information resources (e.g., best practices, important case decisions, jurisprudence, etc.).

Often informal and irregular communication between CIC and CBSA at the NHQ level was cited by respondents as contributing to challenges in planning and managing the PRRA workload effectively, particularly in the Ontario region, where CBSA increased removals targets for this area but the CIC did not increase the PRRA resources allocated to its Mississauga office.

Program Integrity

Program integrity has been sound, as measured by the Crown success in defending challenges to PRRA decisions: a total of 2,227 challenges were made against 30,590 PRRA decisions, a rate of appeal of 6.9 percent. Of the challenges made, 1,737 PRRA decisions were upheld by Federal Court, giving the Crown a success rate of 85 percent.

Program integrity was also demonstrated by the results of a Quality Assurance (QA) assessment that was undertaken. In terms of overall quality, the small sample of PRRA decisions reviewed for the QA exercise were supported by objective evidence (97 percent), were considered logical and well-structured (97 percent), and used non-judgemental and respectful language (100 percent). They also presented results in a clear and concise presentation manner (91 percent).

Between 2003 and 2006, the time required to process a case increased from 125 to 202 days, with some offices seeing larger increases than others. During this same period, there has been a 59 percent increase in the number of cases in inventory, although 65 percent of those cases are less than six months old. The major increases took place in three of the six PRRA offices (Quebec, Niagara Falls, and Mississauga), with the Mississauga office accounting for 49 percent of the year-end inventory in 2006.

The NCMS system captures an array of information, program data is extensive and a limited number of pre-defined tables are available. However, significant time and manipulation is required to obtain a full set of information to support on-going monitoring and analysis. There is a need for improved accessibility to the data and/or additional pre-defined reports.

Program Results

While the resources dedicated to PRRA have increased, program uptake has risen steadily, inventories have grown and processing times increased.

The PRRA program is a factor in the increasing time lapse between the rendering of a negative IRB decision (removal order becomes effective) and removal from Canada (confirmed departure), which has increased from approximately 437 days prior to 2002 to 611  days post 2002. The time required to remove individuals who do not submit a PRRA application is about 200 days. While other elements such as availability of travel documents, and medical or security issues may delay removal, the increasing PRRA processing times suggests that PRRA is contributing to this delay.

Cost-Effectiveness

Additional FTEs have been allocated to PRRA offices that have had high application volumes, however, two offices (Mississauga and Niagara Falls) still receive high volumes of applications relative to FTEs.

Page details

Date modified: