PRRA and international law

Printer-friendly version
Resolution number: 
16
November 2004
Whereas: 
  1. PRRA is not a substitute for an appeal on the merits of the case;
  2. The PRRA process is dysfunctional and demonstrates a lack of respect for international human rights norms and for the Suresh decision of the Supreme Court of Canada;
  3. There is inconsistent application by PRRA decision-makers in the consideration of what constitutes sufficient evidence and expert evidence.
  4. There are insufficient guidelines for PRRA decision-makers with respect to how they are to evaluate evidence.
Therefore be it resolved: 

That the CCR:

  1. Call on CIC to develop guidelines on what constitutes “sufficient” evidence for the purposes of PRRA decision-makers.
  2. Call on CIC to develop guidelines on what constitutes expert evidence or testimony for PRRA decision-makers.
  3. Propose that CIC form a consultative committee with CCR, other NGOs and lawyers to analyze and make recommendations on the PRRA system.
  4. Ask the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to study the overall effectiveness of the PRRA process in light of Canada’s international human rights obligations.
Subject: 
Working Group: 
Inland Protection