Skip to main content

IRB

Exclusion clause guidelines

Resolution number
7
Whereas
  1. The UNHCR exclusion clause guidelines of December 1996 provide that:
    a) in principle, the applicability of the exclusion clauses should be considered only after the adjudicator is satisfied that the individual fulfils the criteria for refugee status (guidelines 9).
    b) an assessment of a claim requires that the nature of the crime and the claimant’s role in it be weighed against the gravity of the persecution feared (guideline 9).
    c) the exclusion clauses need to be interpreted restrictively (guideline 8);
  2. The Federal Court has said that:
    a) it is not legally necessary to decide inclusion before exclusion, but it is desirable to do so.
    b) the refugee definition does not require that the gravity of the crime be balanced against the gravity of the persecution feared.
    c) the Board must be extremely cautious in its application of the exclusion clauses, but also that the standard of proof is less than the balance of probabilities;
  3. The Immigration Act gives the Chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board power to issue guidelines to the Board;
Therefore be it resolved

That the CCR ask the Chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board to issue guidelines to its Refugee Division on the exclusion clauses that would include the principles that:

  1. Inclusion should precede exclusion;
  2. The gravity of the offence should be balanced against the gravity of the persecution feared;
  3. The standard of proof should be higher than a balance of probabilities.
Working Group
Inland Protection
Subject
IRB

Access to the IRB for Repeat Claims Presently Before the IRB

Resolution number
6
Whereas
  1. More than a thousand people are presently awaiting a hearing at the IRB for a repeat claim;
  2. The transitional measures will have the consequence of depriving these claimants of their repeat claim by deeming them ineligible under IRPA;
  3. IRPA bars access to PRRA for repeat claimants who have returned to Canada less than 6 months after their departure;
  4. Many of these repeat claimants returned to Canada more than 3 months but less than 6 months after their departure, and would thus be ruled ineligible for PRRA;
  5. A significant number of repeat claims are determined to be refugees;
Therefore be it resolved

That the CCR write to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and to the Chairperson of the IRB urging them to allow all persons presently awaiting a repeat claim a hearing at the IRB.

 
Working Group
Inland Protection
Subject
IRB

Extensions for filing PIFs and abandonments

Resolution number
12
Whereas
  1. The IRB is denying extensions of time for filing PIFs and where extensions are granted they are for 1-2 weeks maximum;
  2. This does not allow for difficulties claimants experience when they:
    a)are detained; b)require translation (language issues);
    c)require an experienced counsel (e.g. gender, sexual orientation);
    d)face delays in obtaining legal aid;
    e)reside in smaller centres with no easy access to counsel;
    f)are survivors of torture and trauma;
  3. The IRB is declaring abandonment even where a claimant has produced a PIF and has a reasonable explanation for the delay;
Therefore be it resolved

That the CCR:

  1. Ask the Chairperson of the IRB to issue a directive to allow for longer (1 month or more) extensions for filing of PIFs;
  2. Ask the IRB Chairperson to issue a directive that cases not be declared abandoned if the PIF is filed in advance of or at an abandonment hearing.
Working Group
Inland Protection
Subject
IRB
Mental health

Guidelines for conduct of hearings

Resolution number
23
Whereas
  1. The IRB has implemented new guidelines related to the conduct of hearings;
  2. Many of the provisions contained in these guidelines will result in a denial of refugee claimants' right to be heard and right to counsel;
  3. The IRB has implemented these guidelines in a clear attempt to increase the efficiency of the Board without consideration of the negative impact these guidelines will have on claimants' ability to get a fair hearing;
  4. The CCR has previously passed a resolution (15, Nov. 1998) on video-conferencing of refugee hearings;
Therefore be it resolved

That the CCR call upon the IRB to:

  1. Withdraw the requirement that the Refugee Protection Officer or Member examine a claimant prior to the claimant's counsel.
  2. Withdraw the ability of the IRB to schedule hearings without regard to counsel's calendars.
  3. Direct Members not to impose a video-conferencing hearing on a claimant in the face of a claimant's objection.
  4. Amend the guidelines to delete the direction to Board members to restrict the length and content of a claimant’s counsel’s submissions.
  5. Add clear guidelines on the treatment of vulnerable claimants in the Guidelines on the Conduct of Hearings.
Working Group
Inland Protection
Subject
IRB

Change of venue

Resolution number
22
Whereas
  1. The Montreal Immigration and Refugee Board has been routinely refusing to grant any change of venue to refugee claimants despite proof of hardship;
  2. The refusals of requests for changes of venue have caused hardships for refugee claimants;
Therefore be it resolved

That the CCR:

  1. Call on the Immigration and Refugee Board to ensure that in all of its regions a request for change of venue not be rejected where a claimant can show that hardship would result from such a rejection.
  2. Call on the IRB and CIC to allow persons to choose their place of hearing where hardship would result from a refusal to grant this choice.
Working Group
Inland Protection
Subject
IRB

Palestinian refugee claims before the IRB and PRRA

Resolution number
21
Whereas
  1. There is demonstrable confusion within IRB and PRRA regarding the status of stateless Palestinian refugees, and the conditions they have fled.
  2. This lack of understanding has led to inconsistent and ill-informed decision-making.
Therefore be it resolved

That CCR, together with other organizations and coalitions working for the rights of Palestinian refugees, raise with the IRB and with PRRA officials the need for better and more consistent information regarding the legal status of Palestinian refugees and the rights violations they face.

Working Group
Inland Protection
Subject
IRB
Statelessness
PRRA

Delaying the day

Resolution number
14
Whereas
  1. The IRB will not conduct any refugee determination hearings until claimants have received security clearances;
  2. IRPA requires that hearings be held expeditiously;

Therefore be it resolved

That the CCR request the IRB to set a strict 6 month time limit for delaying a hearing to allow for the security clearance, so that refugee claimants who are ready to proceed can have their hearings in a timely manner as required by IRPA.

Working Group
Inland Protection
Subject
IRB
Security inadmissibility

IRB regional offices

Resolution number
1
Whereas
  1. The Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) is closing its regional offices at yearend;
  2. This will result in further reduction in quality of access to protection;
Therefore be it resolved

That the CCR:

  1. Call upon the Canadian government and the IRB to enable the continued operation of these regional offices;
  2. Request that the IRB provide full access to their resources and facilities to all claimants in all regions.
Working Group
Inland Protection
Subject
IRB

Mailing PIFs

Resolution number
10
Whereas
  1. The IRB offices are now located in only 3 cities (Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto);
  2. PIFs must be received within 28 days;
  3. Claimants living in cities far from IRB offices have seriously reduced time to complete their PIFs because mailing can take 7 to 12 days;
Therefore be it resolved

That the CCR urge the IRB to change the 28 days rule for PIFs to the date the PIF is posted, not the date it is received (even when it becomes possible electronically).

Working Group
Inland Protection
Subject
IRB

Persons with mental health issues before the IRB

Resolution number
9
Whereas
  1. The needs of persons with mental health issues are not being adequately addressed by any of the divisions of the IRB;
  2. The guidelines for vulnerable persons do not meet these needs;
Therefore be it resolved

That the CCR advocate for the creation and implementation by the IRB of specialized mental health tribunals modelled upon the mental health courts in the criminal justice system.

Working Group
Inland Protection
Subject
IRB
Health
Mental health
Subscribe to IRB