Category: Refugees

Yesterday, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC“) began retroactively closing existing Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (“PRRA“) applications for which Bill C-31’s 12-month bar applies.

Bill C-31 amended the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act’s (“IRPA“) provisions regarding who was ineligible to apply for a PRRA.  IRPA now provides that:

112(2) .. a person may not apply for [a PRRA] if

(b.1) subject to subsection (2.1), less than 12 months have passed since their claim for refugee protection was last rejected — unless it was deemed to be rejected under subsection 109(3) or was rejected on the basis of section E or F of Article 1 of the Refugee Convention — or determined to be withdrawn or abandoned by the Refugee Protection Division or the Refugee Appeal Division;

[or]

(c) less than 12 months have passed since their last application for [a PRRA] was rejected or determined to be withdrawn or abandoned by the Refugee Protection Division or the Minister.

CIC will be closing PRRA and subsequent PRRA applications that are currently in its inventory for which a previous Immigration and Refugee Board (“IRB“) or PRRA decision (rejected, abandoned or withdrawn) has been made within the last 12 months (August 15, 2011 to August 14, 2012) and for which a country exemption does not apply.

The countries that are currently exempted from the 12-month PRRA bar are the following: Central African Republic, Egypt, Guinea-Bissau, Libya, Mali, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria.

However, the list of countries that are exempt from the 12-month bar applies only to cases for which an IRB or PRRA decision (rejected, withdrawn or abandoned) was rendered between August 15, 2011 and August 14,

 » Read more about: Retroactive PRRA Termination Begins  »

Bill C-31, also known as the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act introduced strict timelines to Canada’s refugee determination process.  The Canadian government has now introduced the Regulations which provide specifics as to the new timelines.

Time limits for scheduling the first-level hearing, for filing and perfecting an appeal and for making a decision on an appeal will be as follows:

• The Basis of Claim document shall be submitted not later than 15 days after the referral of the claim to the Immigration and Refugee Board, if the claim is made at a Port of Entry. If the claim is made at an inland office, the required documents and information would have to be submitted at the time of the eligibility interview. Port of Entry claimants would be given an extra 15 days to complete the Basis of Claim, which Inland claimants must submit at the time of the eligibility interview.

• Hearings at the Refugee Protection Division shall be scheduled for a date that is not later than 30 days after the claim is referred for inland Designated Country of Origin claimants, not later than 45 days after the claim is referred for Port of Entry Designated Country of Origin claimants, and not later than 60 days after the claim is referred for non-Designated Country of Origin claimants.

• In the case of all claims entitled to an appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division, appeals shall be filed and perfected not later than 15 working days after the claimant or the Minister receives the notice of a decision and the reasons for the decision from the Refugee Protection Division.
• A decision on an appeal shall be made by the Refugee Appeal Division not later than 90 days after the day on which the appeal is perfected.

 » Read more about: C-31 Regulation Released Regarding Timelines  »

The Federal Court has affirmed in Yang v. Canada, 2012 FC 849 that there is no good faith requirement in refugee claims.

For example, refugee claimants from countries where apostasy is a crime (such as Iran) can credibly claim persecution based on the fact that they converted from Islam regardless of what their motivations for converting were.

Even where claimants convert for opportunistic reasons, they are still entitled to protection if they can establish a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground.

The decision re-iterated the Ghasemian v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1266 ruling which stated that:

Mrs. Ghasemian says that the Board also erred when it looked at her motive for conversion and applied the wrong test by rejecting her claim on the basis that it was not made in good faith i.e. she did not convert for a purely religious motive. She relies on the decision of the English Court of Appeal inDanian v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [1999] E.W.J. No. 5459 online: QL.

In that case, the English Court of Appeal found that even though Mr. Danian’s “refugee sur place” claim was based on outspoken political opinions, allegedly made for the sole purpose of supporting his claim, the tribunal still had the obligation to determine whether he would face persecution if returned to his country of origin.

Although the decision in Danian, above, is not binding on this Court, I find its reasoning quite persuasive and agree that opportunistic claimants are still protected under the Convention if they can establish a genuine and well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention ground.

 I note,

 » Read more about: No Good Faith Requirement in Refugee Decisions  »