Immigration and Refugees Law
Reading Time
5 MINUTE READ
Navigating the PRRA timeline Canada mandates is absolutely essential for individuals facing an enforceable removal order. Failing to file your Pre-Removal Risk Assessment within the strict statutory windows can have severe consequences on your ability to legally remain in Canada during the review. Below, we break down the vital regulatory framework and key judicial interpretations governing this process.
In most immigration cases, you are only permitted to apply for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment after receiving an official notification from the Department. The statutory language explicitly ties the start of the PRRA timeline Canada relies upon to this specific notice:
“a person may apply for protection after they are given notification to that effect by the Department.” — Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR), s. 160(1)
Furthermore, regarding the precise timing of this required notification, the regulations state:
“Notification shall be given … in the case of a person who is subject to a removal order that is in force, before removal from Canada” — IRPR, s. 160(3)(a)
Consequently, the Federal Court has interpreted this to mean that the Department’s legal obligation to provide a notice is only triggered when a person is actively facing removal. Therefore, simply having an enforceable removal order on file is not enough to start the clock. As firmly held in Shaka v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 798 (at para 50):
“…an interpretation of paragraph 160(3)(a) of the IRPR which triggers the obligation to give notification of the opportunity to submit a PRRA application only when the person concerned is facing removal is consistent with the words of the provision”
Once you receive your official notification, the most crucial phase of the PRRA timeline Canada establishes begins. Submitting the application within exactly 15 days triggers an automatic, statutory stay of enforcement on your removal order:
“An application received within 15 days after notification was given under section 160 shall not be decided until at least 30 days after notification was given. The removal order is stayed under section 232 …” — IRPR, s. 162
This statutory protection is mirrored in the enforcement rules, which confirm that the notice initiates a temporary freeze that is successfully preserved by a timely submission:
“A removal order is stayed when a person is notified by the Department under subsection 160(3) that they may make an application under subsection 112(1) of the Act” — IRPR, s. 232
However, if you miss this 15-day application window, the automatic statutory stay is permanently lost. In the recent case of Cunha Perez v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), (2025) FC, the Federal Court confirmed this risk:
“…the Applicant’s late application resulted in the loss of a statutory stay under sections 162 and 232 of the Regulations”
Need Urgent Legal Assistance? Because missing these strict deadlines can result in immediate deportation, you should not risk your status. If you need help calculating your deadlines or preparing your application, you can quickly Book a Consultation with Pax Law’s Experienced Immigration Lawyers today.
Fortunately, missing the initial 15-day deadline does not entirely bar you from applying, provided you are still physically present in the country. However, under the regular PRRA timeline Canada framework, late submissions lose the massive benefit of an automatic stay of removal:
“A person who has remained in Canada since being given notification under section 160 may make an application after a period of 15 days has elapsed … but the application does not result in a stay of the removal order.” — IRPR, s. 163
Even when removal is imminent, the law imposes temporary bans—known as waiting bars—during which an application cannot be legally filed. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), s. 112(2)(b.1), an application is strictly barred if:
“less than 12 months, or, in the case of a person who is a national of a country that is designated under subsection 109.1(1), less than 36 months, have passed since …”
A identical restriction applies under s. 112(2)(c) if your previous assessment was rejected, withdrawn, or abandoned:
“less than 12 months, or, in the case of a person who is a national of a country that is designated under subsection 109.1(1), less than 36 months, have passed since … their application for protection was rejected or determined to be withdrawn or abandoned …”
The Federal Court of Appeal clarified the operation of these bars in Peter v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2016 FCA 51:
“paragraph 112(2)(b.1) … prohibits a person from applying for a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) if a specified period of time has not elapsed since the person’s claim for refugee protection was last rejected. The specified period of time is 12 months, unless the person is a national of a designated country of origin. For nationals of designated countries of origin, 36 months must elapse …”
Although the statutory text outlines a 36-month bar for nationals of Designated Countries of Origin (DCO), this rule was struck down by the Federal Court in Feher v. Canada, 2019 FC 335 for violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
“paragraph 112(2)(b.1) of the IRPA is inconsistent with subsection 15(1) of the Charter insofar as it concerns nationals of countries designated under subsection 109.1(1) of the IRPA”
As a direct result of this judicial authority, the 36-month rule is unconstitutional and has no legal force. Therefore, it can no longer be cited as a valid rule for DCO nationals today.
If your previous assessment was rejected but you have continuously remained in Canada, you are allowed to file a subsequent application under section 165 of the IRPR. However, subsequent applications never grant an automatic stay of removal, and there is no legal requirement for the Department to serve you a new notice:
“A person whose application for protection was rejected and who has remained in Canada since being given notification under section 160 may make another application… For greater certainty, the application does not result in a stay of the removal order.” — IRPR, s. 165
In Foster v. Canada, 2023 FC 721 (at para 28), the Federal Court explicitly confirmed the absence of a fresh notice requirement for later applications:
“A person whose application for protection was rejected and who has remained in Canada since being given notification under section 160 may make another application… For greater certainty, the application does not result in a stay of the removal order.”
The Court reiterated at paragraph 29 that section 165 of the IRPR is completely clear that a subsequent application does not result in a stay of the removal order.
You must be physically present in Canada and subject to an enforceable removal order (IRPA, s. 112(1)).
Generally, you can only apply after receiving formal notification from the Department (IRPR, s. 160(1)).
Applying within the first 15 days after notification ensures your automatic stay of removal remains active (IRPR, s. 162).
You can still file an application later if you remain in Canada, but it will not stay your removal order (IRPR, s. 163).
You are legally blocked from applying if you fall within the 12-month statutory waiting period following a refugee or PRRA refusal.
ناوبری در سیستم پناهندگی کانادا نیازمند درک دقیق این موضوع است که چه کسانی از نظر قانونی صلاحیت ارائه مشاوره و وکالت را دارند. در تورنتو، یک وکیل پناهندگی در تورنتو معمولاً وکیلی است که
Canada H&C Application Fees: A Comprehensive Guide to the Legal and Financial Framework Navigating Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) applications in Canada requires a clear understanding of both the procedural requirements and the underlying statutory financial
This article details the legal criteria and statutory conditions evaluated by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) when deciding to stay a removal order on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. It explains how the tribunal balances diverse factors, such as the best interests of affected children, the depth of an individual’s establishment in Canada, and their potential for rehabilitation.
0 Comments