Should People Who Lose Their Refugee Status Be Deported?

Meurrens LawInadmissibility, Refugees

Much of the media attention towards Bill C-31 – the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act – has been focused on its shortening of the time periods for processing refugee claims and its removal of some appeal rights for refugee claimants that were supposed to be introduced under the Balanced Refugee Reform Act.  This past week, members of the immigration bar raised concerns about another questionable change.  In short, Bill C-31 will make it so that refugees who became permanent residents of Canada will lose their permanent residence status if their refugee status ceases. Currently, the Immigration and Refugee Board may cease a person’s refugee status.  Amongst other reasons, it may do so if the reasons for which the person sought refugee protection have ceased to exist, or if the person reavails himself to the protection of his country of origin. Until now, the cessation of refugee status did not result in the loss of permanent resident status.  Accordingly, ceasing a refugee’s refugee status was rarely pursued where the refugee had become a permanent resident. Bill C-31, however, changes this.  It provides that when the IRB ceases a refugee’s refugee status, then the former refugee also loses his/her permanent resident status.  … Read More

Certified Question on Section 7 Charter Rights

Meurrens LawJudicial Reviews

Does the Immigration and Refugee Board (“IRB”) violate the provisions of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”) if it declines to postpone a hearing based on risk to life where there is a pending humanitarian and compassionate application also based on risk to life? The above question was certified by the Federal Court in Laidlow v. Canada, 2012 FC 144, released today.  The Federal Court of Appeal will soon answer the question. The facts in Laidlow giving rise to the question were essentially that an individual had a pending H&C claim which was based on risk to life (availability of medical treatment reasons) at the time that he appeared for his refugee hearing.  He asked that the refugee hearing be adjourned until the H&C application was determined.  The IRB refused to do so, and heard the refugee claim, which was dismissed. The Court’s answer to the question was that refusing to adjourn the hearing did not breach section 7 of the Charter.  Relying on Poshteh v. Canada, [2005] 3 FCR 487, and Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General of Canada), [2005] 4 SCR 429, the Court articulated the following principles: A finding of inadmissibility does … Read More

Judicial Review of Refugee Decisions

Meurrens LawJudicial Reviews, Refugees

It is devastating for a refugee claimant than when the Refugee Protection Division rejects their claim.  At that point, the person essentially has two main options: make a pre-removal risk assessment application or seek judicial review. The objective of a judicial review is to convince a judge that the Refugee Protection Division’s rejection of your claim was either unreasonable or incorrect in law.  Applicants cannot introduce new evidence, and are limited to the evidence that was before the Refugee Protection Division Member that heard your case. In this post, I outline some possible grounds that you may use to successfully seek judicial review of a decision.  While I strongly recommend that you hire a lawyer to conduct your judicial review, I hope that this post will provide you with some initial ideas to discuss with your counsel. Did the RPD misapply credibility during the section 97 analysis? Under section 96 of IRPA, a claimant must establish the existence of a well-founded fear of persecution tied to a 1951 Convention ground.  However, under section 97 of IRPA, a claimant must show on a balance of probabilities that removal from Canada would subject them personally to specified dangers and risks. The evidence … Read More

The Bill C-11 Changes – What is Now in Effect

Meurrens LawRefugees

On June 29, 2010, Bill C-11, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, received Royal Assent.  This Bill provided the most significant changes to Canada’s refugee law in several years.  Getting it through Parliament proved to be extremely contentious, and it took a last minute deal between the Conservatives, the NDP, and the Bloc to pass it. It is now law, though many of its provisions have yet to take effect. The Bill introduced significant changes to Canada’s refugee system, including: Replacing the 28 days to prepare a Personal Information Form with an information-gathering interview which will occur no sooner than 15 days after a claim has been made; Reducing the wait for a hearing from approximately 18 months after arrival to 90 days after the informational interview for most claimants; Allowing the government to designate certain countries of origin. Whether a country is designated or not will depend on the approval rate of refugee applications from that country. If a claimant comes from a designated country, than their hearing will occur 60 days after the informational interview; Creating a Refugee Appeal Division. Decisions on appeals will be held within 120 days of the original decision unless a hearing is held. Decisions … Read More

Singh v. Canada: The Charter Applies to Refugee Claimants

Meurrens LawRefugees

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1985] 1 SCR 177  was a 1985 Supreme Court of Canada decision that is to this day arguably the most significant decision that Canada’s Supreme Court has made in the area of Canadian immigration and refugee law. The Facts The Appellants were a mixture of Sikh and Guyanese individuals who sought refugee status in Canada during the late 1970s and early 1980s. At the time, the Immigration and Refugee Board did not yet exist.  Rather, asylum claimants submitted refugee claims directly to Canada’s immigration department, who would determine whether someone was a refugee based on advice received from the Refugee Status Advisory Committee.  If the claimant was unsuccessful, they could appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board.  Both the initial claim and the appeal were based on written submissions, and at the initial petition for asylum a claimant would also be questioned under oath by an immigration officer.  Applicants were not allowed to make oral appeals.  Nor could they respond to arguments made against them by the Refugee Status Advisory Committee. The Appellants in Singh argued that the lack of a hearing violated Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The Supreme Court’s Decision The Supreme Court of … Read More