Skip to main content

Inland Protection

Guidelines to replace DROC

Resolution number
14
Whereas
  1. The DROC regulations have been eliminated;
  2. Chapter 1E 9 of the Immigration Manual has been changed to include guidelines dealing with applicants who have not been removed from Canada for a considerable period of time;
  3. The emphasis in the guidelines is placed on economic self-sufficiency by requiring that applicants be successfully established under the criteria used for Illegal De Facto Residents (listed in IE 9.15(3));
  4. These establishment criteria may discriminate against vulnerable groups (such as the elderly, women and children);
  5. Unlike the former DROC regulations, the guideline requiring full cooperation of the applicant with the department places too great an onus on the applicant and too much potential for inconsistent interpretation by the department;
  6. The new guidelines are very restrictive and apply only to those few countries where removals have been suspended or where the applicant has had to go and apply to their government for travel documents and does not include individuals who have just not been removed;
Therefore be it resolved

That CCR urge the government to amend the guidelines to:

  1. Ensure that people who through no fault of their own have not achieved economic self-sufficiency but have otherwise become successfully established are not excluded from being accepted for permanent residence;
  2. Clarify that full cooperation means that applicants have done nothing to interfere with their removal;
  3. Delete the reference in paragraph (a)(i) and (ii) of the guidelines to ensure that the policy applies to anyone who has remained in Canada.
Working Group
Inland Protection

PDRCC review

Resolution number
13
Whereas
  1. There have been recent changes to the Post Determination Refugee Claimants in Canada Class (PDRCC) instituting a rigid fifteen day deadline for application;
  2. The PDRCC review process will be simultaneous with the judicial review process before the Federal Court and as such is a duplication of cost and expense which may not be necessary if the judicial review is successful;
  3. It is onerous for counsel to do both the judicial review and the PDRCC submissions at the same time, which may result in a reduction in quality of representation;
  4. Changes in country conditions may occur after the PDRCC decision is made and before deportation, putting the applicant at risk if returned to his/her country of origin;
Therefore be it resolved

That that the CCR urge that:

  1. The PDRCC review be applied to all rejected refugee claimants whether they apply for it or not;
  2. The PDRCC review be done shortly before removal, rather than after a negative CRDD decision or after a negative Federal Court decision;
  3. The PDRCC decisions be made under the auspices of the Immigration and Refugee Board, instead of by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and by qualified personnel with expertise in specific country conditions and international human rights standards and standards of procedural fairness.
  4. People with criminal convictions not be excluded from consideration for the PDRCC as it is against Canada's international obligations, and specifically against Canada's obligations as a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture.
Working Group
Inland Protection

Federal Court and international human rights obligations

Resolution number
12
Whereas
  1. The Federal Court of Canada has been extremely reticent to apply the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and international human rights obligations in the judicial review process for refugee claimants and non-residents;
  2. Immigration and refugee practitioners are frustrated with the negative attitude of the Federal Court to refugee and immigration issues;
  3. The Federal Court leave requirements and the process for certification for appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal afford less access to the Court by refugee claimants and immigrants than the average Canadian has to appeal a conviction for a traffic ticket;
  4. The news media and notes produced before the Supreme Court of Canada have shown that there have been improper contacts between the Ministry of Justice and the Federal Court and there are currently inquiries by the Canadian Judicial Council and the Ministry of Justice;
Therefore be it resolved

That the CCR:

  1. Demand that the independence of the Federal Court be reaffirmed and that, more particularly, contacts between the government and its quasi-judicial bodies and the Federal Court without the presence of the opposing parties or non-governmental organizations cease immediately and that the current inquiries be expanded to include such contacts;
  2. Express its concern to the Minister of Justice that the Federal Court is not consistently applying the Charter and our international human rights obligations and that it is overly restrictive in its application of judicial review in its handling of immigration and refugee matters and ask the Minister of Justice to commission an independent study on the effectiveness of the judicial review remedy;
  3. Ask that the federal government appoint judges to the Federal Court who have an immigration and refugee law background, particularly those who are members of the immigration bar.
Working Group
Inland Protection
Subject
Human rights treaties

Expedited hearing process - Vancouver pilot project

Resolution number
11
Whereas
  1. The Convention Refugee Determination Division intends to introduce a pilot project in Vancouver requiring that all refugee claimants go through the expedited process interview with an RCO that would be tape recorded, with the transcripts available should the case go to full hearing;
  2. The process will unnecessarily complicate the hearing process for those cases which are required to proceed to full hearing;
  3. The process will prejudice the claimants who go to full hearing by making it known to the Board members conducting the full hearing that the claimant has not been recommended by the expedited process;
  4. Use of the recording of the pre-hearing conference or RCO notes at the full hearing will create a hearing process which overly focuses on contradictions between the PIF, the transcript of the pre-hearing conference and the full hearing and create an overly adversarial environment during the hearing;
Therefore be it resolved

That the CCR:

  1. Oppose the introduction of the Vancouver Immigration and Refugee Board pilot project of holding obligatory pre-hearing conferences which will be recorded;
  2. Urge that the expedited hearing process conserve its administrative autonomy and remain completely separate from the full hearing process;
  3. Urge that the existence of the expedited hearing process continue not to be disclosed to the Board members conducting the full hearing process.
Working Group
Inland Protection

IRB presumption against certain claims

Resolution number
10
Whereas
  1. The Immigration and Refugee Board has been handling all claims to Convention refugee status from Chileans, Mexicans and other nationalities as if all such claims were manifestly unfounded claims (MUCs);
  2. This practice of the IRB denies the individuality of claims and goes against the policy of case by case determination;
  3. This practice by the IRB may lead to the rejection of valid claims;
  4. This practice of the IRB may be applied to refugee claimants from other countries;
Therefore be it resolved

That the CCR demand that the IRB take steps to stop the practice of treating all claims from particular countries as if they were all manifestly unfounded.

Working Group
Inland Protection
Subject
IRB

IRB scheduling

Resolution number
9
Whereas
  1. The IRB in Montreal has adopted a new policy on scheduling refugee claims and as a result will be hearing a large percentage of more recently arrived refugee claimants ahead of claims that have been waiting for a longer time;
  2. This policy will increase the hardship of many refugee claimants who have already been suffering the effects of long delays;
  3. Administrative needs should not be put ahead of the rights of refugees to a just and speedy hearing of their claims;
Therefore be it resolved

That the CCR:

  1. Is opposed to the implementation of the new IRB policy, which will put recent claims ahead of pre-existing claims for their own administrative purposes;
  2. Express to the IRB our deep concerns and opposition to this policy.
Working Group
Inland Protection
Subject
IRB

Safe third country agreement and U.S. standards

Resolution number
8
Whereas
  1. The CCR has adopted a resolution strongly opposing any Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)/Safe Third Country Agreement (STC) between the United States and Canada;
  2. The United States government has recently passed regressive immigration legislation;
  3. This legislation has resulted in the summary removal of approximately 4,000 people from the US between April 1 and May 13, 1997, as a result of lack of identity documents;
  4. Some of the people who have been summarily removed have been en route to Canada to make refugee claims;
  5. These summary removals provide conclusive evidence that the United States is not meeting standards of protection articulated in the Geneva Convention;
  6. The Québec Ministre des Relations avec les citoyens et de l'Immigration has publicly supported the implementation of the MOA/STC agreement;
Therefore be it resolved

That the CCR:

  1. Condemn this shift in US immigration policy and procedure and reiterate its strong opposition to the negotiation of any MOA or STC agreement;
  2. Write to the Québec Ministre des Relations avec les citoyens et de l'Immigration explaining our position on this issue and urging him to withdraw his support for the MOA/STC agreement.
Working Group
Inland Protection
Subject
Safe third country

New mail-in system for refugee claimants at ports of entry in Ontario

Resolution number
7
Whereas
  1. The Pilot "Mail-In" Project first implemented by CIC at Pearson Airport about 6 months ago is being implemented in Fort Erie and Niagara Falls, Ontario as of May 15, 1997;
  2. There is no public knowledge of any evaluation regarding its value nor was there any consultation or discussion with NGOs or organizations working with refugees previous to its initial implementation or extended implementation in Fort Erie and in Niagara Falls;
  3. Refugee claimants no longer have the same access to assistance from Canadian legal counsel nor Canadian refugee support workers familiar with Canadian law and process;
  4. American refugee support workers are being overwhelmed with paperwork, lack needed resources and are unfamiliar with the Canadian system and the after-effects of what may be written on these forms;
Therefore be it resolved

That the CCR:

  1. Request a public evaluation of the project at Pearson International Airport involving NGOs, legal workers and organizations working with refugees which would include the following:

    a)the criteria on which the decision was made to extend this project to Niagara Falls and Fort Erie;

    b)the consideration of the extent to which Canada Immigration considers this policy to be beneficial to refugee claimants;

  2. Oppose the extension of this "write-in" process to ports of entry in other provinces of Canada.
Working Group
Inland Protection
Subject
Port of entry

Port of entry

Resolution number
6
Whereas
  1. Section 44 of the Immigration Act prevents a person from making a claim if they have been issued an exclusion order;
  2. Senior Immigration Officers were given the power to issue exclusion orders under the former Bill C-86;
  3. Some Senior Immigration Officers (SIOs) have not been ensuring that persons concerned are aware that they must claim refugee status or they are ineligible and barred from later making a refugee claim;
  4. Many refugees believe wrongly that they must be admitted to Canada before they can make a refugee claim;
  5. Due to poor interpretation, inadequate or poor explanation or undue pressure persons at risk have been removed or detained;
  6. There have been many incidents such as the recent case of stowaways in Halifax where the SIO appears to have failed to ensure that the applicants knew of their right to claim refugee status;
Therefore be it resolved

That the CCR:

  1. Write the Minister and explain how Section 44 is being abused by SIOs and request an amendment to ensure that a person may be able to make a refugee claim even if an exclusion order has been issued;
  2. Write to the Director General of Enforcement, CIC, and demand that he issue guidelines to SIOs that ensure that refugee claimants are cautioned that they must make their claim before they issue an exclusion order and that they make sure that the person concerned has a full and fair opportunity to make an informed decision.

 

Working Group
Inland Protection
Subject
Port of entry

Family reunification

Resolution number
17
Whereas
  1. There is an interdepartmental committee of CIC considering new measures to speed up family reunification for refugees;
  2. The CCR supports a policy which would allow the dependants of refugees who are overseas to come into Canada and be processed within for landing;
  3. The CCR has recommended measures promoting speedy family reunification in Res. 13, November 1995;
Therefore be it resolved

That the CCR write to CIC in support of measures allowing dependants abroad to be processed in Canada and requesting that CCR be consulted and allowed to make representations on such changes.

Working Group
Inland Protection
Subject
Family reunification
Subscribe to Inland Protection