how canada's refugee protection system operates? an...
TRANSCRIPT
How Canada's Refugee Protection System Operates?
An Applied Research Project Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the
Degree
Master of Business Administration
By
Milan Karki
Applied Project Supervisor: Dr. Angela Workman-Stark
October 2015
2
Abstract
In this Applied Research Project, I identified, assessed and analyzed the key challenges with Canada's inland refugee protection system with respect to its strategy, HR, operations, technology, ethics and risk management. The paper is based on review and analysis of secondary sources, such as credible web information, government sources, news articles, Government and non-Government statistical and survey data and resources.
I determined in my research, that Canada, being a signatory of the United Nation's 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, has an obligation to receive and protect refugees. As such, Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), a quasi-judicial tribunal, is enacted to adjudicate the refugee claims, while the Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) and the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) receives the refugees in the first place. The IRB has two sub-divisions: the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), who hears and decides upon the refugee claims. The paper identifies the key issues of the refugee protection system, such as Canada's refugee laws and its correlation with the UN treaties, refugee strategy, refugee intake processes, the function of the RPD and the RAD, refugee-family reunification, detention and deportation of the refugees including minor children, and cessation and revocation of the refugee status. The paper also compares the refugee system in Canada and the United States on its module and operational strength.
In addition, I determined, that Canada implemented the refugee protection system more on fulfilling the immigrants' quota than offering safe-haven. The HR management and performance has become a critical issue within the IRB as it failed to appropriately select the refugee judges who could fairly, ethically and competently adjudicate the refugee claims. The ethics and decisions of the refugee judges are questioned as the paper found wide discrepancies of different refugee decisions for several years with consistent manner. The IRB's refugee determination model also failed to maintain FIFO, appropriately manage inventory and quality operation. Lack of appropriate verification of the evidences and contingency plan has put the legitimate refugees at risk allowing the bogus refugees to misuse the system. The lack of inefficient implementation of IT has also impacted to slow down the refugee process.
To conclude my research, I recommended that the refugee system requires a strategic review making it favorable for refugees than a source of the immigrants. Appropriate monitoring and evaluation of the refugee judges and their judgments are essential to reduce discrepancies and quality decision making process. The paper recommends to reform the refugee system by making it more IT based, having first-step decision by the CIC, allowing refugees appropriate deadline to perfect their claims, mandatory verification of the evidences and stopping cruel treatment of the refugees. An amendment to the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) between Canada and the United States, implementation of FIFO queuing method, expedited family reunification and appropriate contingency plans are other key recommendations.
I concluded in my Applied Research that Canada, as a country with strong human rights record, should serve the refugees as a divine service rather than a burden to the country.
3
Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4
Research Purpose ....................................................................................................... 5
Research Questions..................................................................................................... 5
Assumptions, limitations and interpretations ................................................................ 5
Research design and data collection............................................................................... 6
Literature Review ............................................................................................................ 7
Theoretical and regulatory framework .......................................................................... 7
Inland refugee strategy .............................................................................................. 10
Refugee intake process ............................................................................................. 12
The Immigration and Refugee Board and its functions .............................................. 13
Refugee family reunification ....................................................................................... 16
Detention and Deportation ......................................................................................... 16
Refugee cessation and revocation ............................................................................. 18
Refugee Determination System – Canada vs. the United States ............................... 19
Key findings ............................................................................................................... 21
Statement of Results ..................................................................................................... 22
Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 23
Strategy vs. international obligations ......................................................................... 23
Human Resources issues .......................................................................................... 27
Operational issues ..................................................................................................... 30
Inefficient use of information technology .................................................................... 33
Ethical decision making .............................................................................................. 33
Risk management ...................................................................................................... 35
Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 37
Strategic review ......................................................................................................... 37
HR selection process ................................................................................................. 38
Monitoring and evaluation .......................................................................................... 38
Enhanced Refugee System ....................................................................................... 38
STCA amendment ..................................................................................................... 40
Inventory management .............................................................................................. 41
Expedited family reunification .................................................................................... 41
Contingency plan ....................................................................................................... 41
Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 41
References .................................................................................................................... 44
Appendix 1 – Canada's refugees by numbers............................................................ 55
Appendix 2 – Canada: Historical Timeline of Refugees, 1976-2011 .......................... 58
Appendix 3 – IRB Members and Decisions, 2010-2014 ............................................. 61
4
Introduction
The United Nations (UN) Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the
Convention) adopted on July 28th, 1951 defines a refugee as a Person who is
unable or unwilling to return to the country of his nationality due to well-founded fear
of persecution on the basis of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a
particular social group or political opinion. Likewise, a Protocol relating to the Status
of Refugees (Protocol) extends the refugee protection to anybody fleeing
persecution after 1951 (UNHCR, 2011). Like several countries, Canada signed the
Convention and Protocol on June 4th, 1969 committing to protect the refugees, and
so, has an obligation to protect them (CCR, 2015a). Canada's independent quasi-
judicial tribunal, called Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), is primarily
responsible for adjudicating the refugee claims. The IRB has two sub-divisions –
Refugee Protection division (RPD) and Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), who
adjudicate the refugee claims and grant them refugee status (IRB, 2015a). The
Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) and Canadian Border Service Agency
(CBSA) are responsible for receiving and referring the refugee claims to the RPD
(CIC, 2014a). The IRB member (refugee judge) adjudicates whether the refugee
claimant meets the refugee definition on the basis of the Convention and Protocol or
not. The successful refugees may apply for Permanent Residency (PR) status and
Canadian citizenship after on the long run, but the unsuccessful claimants are
deported to the country of nationality (CIC, 2014a).
In December 2012, Canada modified the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
(IRPA), also called Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act (PCISA), speeding
up the refugee determination process within 60 days (IRPA, 2001). The speedy
system categorized the refugees in two groups – pre-2012 refugee claimants
(Legacy claims) those waiting for decision since 2012, and post-2012 refugee
claimants (PCISA claims) those finalized within 60 days (CIC, 2014a). According to
the IRB (2015b), the CIC referred 13,600 refugee claims to the RPD, and the RPD
finalized 19,900 claims in the year 2014. The IRB (2015b) has projected to clear the
backlog of the legacy claims by 2017.
The literature suggests there has been widespread criticism over handling of the refugee claims. The flow of bogus refugee claimants who are misusing the system with fraud and fabrication has also become a primary issue (Baluja, 2012). The efficiency and trustworthiness of the refugee judges are questioned due to their personal behaviour and vast discrepancies of the decisions among different judges (Humphreys, 2014). In July 2015, the Federal Court (FC) found that the Government violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter), and commented on inappropriate and prejudiced treatments to the refugees (G.S. and C.S. v The MCI, 2015). The literatures claim that the refugees are unfairly and unjustly treated since the Government has cut refugee healthcare (Payton, 2014) and also forced the refugees to perfect their claim within 60 days (CIC, 2014a). The Lawyers sued the Government over the mishandling of the refugee claimants, and the case is still pending in the FC (Payton, 2015).
5
Research Purpose
The purpose of the paper was to analyze Canada's inland refugee protection system
and identify whether the system operates in accordance with the management
principles, and whether refugee strategy and operational procedures meet Canada's
international obligations.
Research Questions
Primary question:
Has Canada successfully implemented inland refugee system fulfilling
international obligations and protecting Canadian integrity?
To answer the key question, the following secondary questions are partially answered in
the paper:
a) Does Canada have robust strategy and operational procedures for inland refugee protection system?
b) What are Canada’s international obligations towards protecting refugees? c) Does Canada’s strategy meet international obligations pursuant to the 1951
Refugee Convention? d) How Canada’s inland refugee system operates? e) How the refugees are received, decided and protected? f) What are the procedures of integrating refugees in Canadian societies? g) How their family members abroad are reunited to the refugee in Canada? h) What challenges Canada may face to smoothly operate refugee claims and fulfill
international obligations? i) How should Canada reform the refugee protection system to make it robust, fair,
speedy, and just, and make the system more welcoming to the refugees making it a divine service than a burden to the country?
Assumptions, limitations and interpretations
Following are the key assumptions:
a) Canada will continue to accept the refugee claims;
b) The UN may not modify the refugee conventions; and
c) The refugees will continue to flow to Canada.
The research is based on limited credible resources that are available over the internet.
Most data are based to the Government reports and publications that are used as
authentic. Use of individual names and photographs collected from publicly available
resources were solely intended to complete the purpose of the paper, but not to offend
or defend anybody. The citation of any source is not an endorsement. Even though the
sources were verified for accuracy, the paper does not endorse that all sources are
6
entirely factual. The research is primarily based in Canada and so, the legal references
or data are specifically based in Canada.
The following terms are used throughout this paper:
a) The Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) and the Canadian Border
Services Agency (CBSA) refer to Canada's Federal Government Departments.
b) The Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) refers to the quasi-judicial tribunal of
Canada under the Federal Government. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD)
and Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) are the divisions within the IRB.
c) The Refugee Judge or the Judge is a presiding member of the RPD or RAD who
has an authority to hear a refugee claim and make decisions.
d) The Claim refers to the Refugee Claim, and the Claimant refers to the Refugee
Claimant who files a refugee claim.
e) 'He' or 'his' also refers to 'She' or 'her' to address a female.
f) 'Refugee' also refers to the refugee claimant either accepted or rejected.
g) The Government, Prime Minister or Minister refers to the Federal Government of
Canada and its Prime Minister or the Minister unless otherwise specified.
h) Non-Governmental organization refers to the not-for-profit organizations located
in Canada unless otherwise stated.
Research design and data collection
This is a conceptual paper based upon findings on multiple secondary sources publicly available over the internet. The opinions, interviews, experiences, survey, statistical data and other key information were obtained from the credible secondary sources. The statistical data and information from secondary sources were assessed and analyzed for in-depth understanding of the problems and recommend an appropriate solution. The search engine google.com was primarily used for web researches. The key search terms were: refugee, refugees in Canada, Canada refugee data, making a refugee claim in Canada and problems with the Canadian refugee system. Besides the key terms, several other searches were conducted to identify and analyze different issues.
The paper was completed studying secondary sources, mostly available over the credible and/or official internet resources. Credible literatures officially published by the Government of Canada, the IRB, the United Nations, the UNHCR and several other governmental or non-governmental agencies as well as scholastic literatures were assessed, verified and analyzed to identify and analyze the issues. Similarly, the news articles from multiple authentic news websites were assessed, verified and analyzed. The information collected from one source was verified by additional sources for accuracy and completeness. After reviewing the literatures, the relevant management principles were applied to answer the research questions. Specifically, the management issues such as strategy, human resource, technology, operations and risk management factors were analyzed and applied.
7
The secondary sources have met the following requirements:
Written by academic writers with proper citations and published on the credible web sites, such as University web site, Academic journals.
Published by the Government and its agencies on official websites.
Published by renowned and credible national and international government or non-governmental organizations on their official web sites.
Published by credible news articles detailing the events and properly citing the information.
National and international legal journals and legislations.
After study and analysis of the sources, conclusive outcomes were analyzed to deeply identify and analyze the problems and to find most probable solutions.
Literature Review
The paper has reviewed the existing literatures to identify, assess and analyze the
information so that it could appropriately answer the research questions. The literature
review was essential to understand and identify the problems with Canada's refugee
protection system and also recommend appropriate solution. The literature relevant to
the following themes were reviewed in this section:
Theoretical and regulatory framework
Inland refugee strategy
Refugee intake process
IRB and its function
Refugee family reunification
Detention and deportation
Refugee cessation and revocation
Refugee Determination System – Canada vs. the United States
Theoretical and regulatory framework
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) defines and warrants the
fundamental rights and liberties of a person. The UDHR includes the right to life, liberty
and security; protection against torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment; the right to recognition as a person before the law; and protection from
arbitrary arrest, detention or exile (The United Nations [UN], 1948).
On July 28th, 1951, the UN adopted the Convention relating to the status of the
Refugees (1951), which defines the term 'refugee' as a person who has:-
Well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is
outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is
8
unwilling to avail himself to the protection of that country; or who, not having
a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence
as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to
return to it (Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951).
Since the UDHR warrants the fundamental rights of a person, the Convention
protects him as a refugee when his rights and liberties are compromised. For a
person to become a refugee, he must have well-founded fear of persecution in the
country of his nationality. A phrase 'well-founded fear' has two terms, 'fear' and
'well-founded' – the term 'fear' is a subjective emotion and 'well-founded' are an
objective basis. Therefore, a person must have a subjective emotional fear that is
founded on an objective basis. Failure to establish an objective basis of fear means
a person's fear has not been well-founded, and so, he may not be considered a
refugee. The term 'persecution' constitutes previous or probable threats to life and
liberty, and probabilities of serious human rights violations such as cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment and torture, and also any other forms of severe harm. A
threat to life and liberty outside of the Convention grounds, such as threats of
natural disasters or health hazards, may not be considered probable threats to
become a refugee. The terms 'unable' or 'unwilling' refer to a refugee who is unable
to return to the country of nationality due to previous persecution, or is unwilling to
return fearing future persecution (Hathaway & Hicks, 2005). Similarly, a person who
voluntarily returns to the country of nationality may not be a refugee any further. A
person who previously committed a crime against peace or war crimes, non-political
crimes outside the country of refugee cannot also be considered a refugee
(UNHCR, 2011).
On January 31st, 1967, the UN adopted a Protocol relating to the status of the
refugees, because the Convention only applies to the refugees due to the events
occurring prior to January 1st, 1951, and so, Protocol was warranted to protect the
refugees due to the events afterwards (UNHCR, 2011). Protocol also warrants the
State Parties to cooperate to the UNHCR and other UN agencies and allow them to
supervise the refugee procedures whenever needed. The State Parties should also
inform the UN about the laws and regulations relevant to the protection of the
refugees. The Refugee Protocol came into force on October 4th, 1967 (UNHCR,
2011). Canada signed the Convention and Protocol on June 4th, 1969 (UNHCR,
2015a). The UN Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment (Torture Convention), adopted on December 10th, 1984,
defines the torture as:-
Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is
intentionally inflicted to a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or
a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a
9
third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or
intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on
discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the
instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other
person acting in an official capacity (Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984, art. 1).
Figure 1 - State Parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and/or its 1967 Protocol. Retrieved from http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/505187992.pdf.
Copyright 2015 by the UNHCR.
The State Parties of the Torture Convention are required to protect a victim of
torture or ill treatment in their territories. Canada signed the Torture Convention on
August 23rd, 1985 (CCR, 2015a).
The Convention specifically protects a refugee with personalized risk rather than
generalized risks, the refugee judges have frequently denied refugee claims,
arguing that the refugee is facing the generalized risk in the country of nationality
that is being faced by the majority of people in the same country (Holzer, 2012).
The UNHCR Handbook for Refugees clarifies the definition of refugees fleeing
10
armed conflict as – "Persons compelled to leave their country of origin as a result of
international or national armed conflicts are not normally considered a refugee
under the 1951 Convention or Protocol" (Holzer, 2012, p. 11). In addition to that,
UNHCR states that "While communities may risk or suffer persecution for
Convention grounds. The fact that all members of the community are equally
affected does not in any way undermine the legitimacy of any particular individual
claim" (UNCHR, 2007, p. 113).
Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) legislates the refugee
system in Canada. As a signatory of the Convention and Protocol, Canada has an
obligation to protect refugees seeking protection in its territory. Canada has also an
obligation to protect torture victims in accordance with the Torture Convention.
According to IRPA (2001), Section 97 (1) (a), Canada protects the refugee claimant
who is subject to a danger of torture within the meaning of the Article 1 of the
Torture Convention.
Inland refugee strategy
Canada has two types of refugees – (a) the convention refugee, and (b) a person in
need of protection. The convention refugee status is granted pursuant to the Convention
and Protocol, while the status as a person in need of protection is granted pursuant to
the Torture Convention (IRB, 2013a). The refugee claims are initially received and
assessed by the CIC
or the CBSA (CIC,
2014a). The eligible
refugee claims are
then referred to the
Immigration and
Refugee Board (IRB).
The refugee judge
then hears, analyzes
and accepts or rejects
a refugee claim.
Successful refugees
are allowed to be
integrated into
Canadian society
through the path to
Canadian permanent
residency (PR) status
and citizenship, while unsuccessful refugee claimants may appeal the decision to the
Refugee Appeal Division (IRB, 2013a). If an appeal is rejected, the refugee claimants
Figure 2 - Former Minister of Immigration Jason Kenney discusses Canada's plan to resettle Syrian refugees, in Edmonton, Wednesday, July 3, 2013. Retrieved from
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-to-resettle-1-300. Copyright 2015 by CTV News, Canada.
11
may be deported to their country of origin unless they file a judicial review (JR) to the
Federal Court (FC) and the FC overturns the IRB decision (CIC, 2014a). As of
September 2015, the refugee claims are adjudicated by the RPD within 30 to 60 days
from the date the RPD receives the claim (IRB, 2013a), and the CBSA deports the
failed refugees within 12 months from the date of the original refugee claim. The failed
refugees are barred from applying for Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) for 12
months from the date of the RPD decision (CIC, 2014a).
Since December 2012, the refugee claimants were divided into two groups –
Designated Country of Origin (DCO) and non-Designated Country of Origin (Non-DCO)
claimants. The CIC has designated a list of countries whose refugee claims were
adjudicated within 30 to 45 days. They were also barred from making an appeal to RAD
and applying for work permit, and also disallowed from applying for PRRA for 36
months (CIC, 2013). Several failed refugee claimants from DCO between December 15,
2012 and July 23, 2015 were quickly deported to their country of nationality (Cohen,
2013). Nevertheless, on July 23rd, 2015, the FC nullified the partiality between DCO and
non-DCO refugee claimants and voided the controversial law allowing DCO refugee
claimants to have the same rights and liberties to the claimants from non-DCO. The FC
found that denying right to appeal of DCO claimants infringes their equality rights
pursuant to the Charter. Upon delivering his judgment, Justice Keith Boswell stated,
"The distinction drawn between the procedural advantages now accorded to non-DCO
refugee claimants and the disadvantages suffered by DCO refugee claimants under [the
policy] is discriminatory on its face" (G.S. and C.S. v The MCI, 2015).
Pursuant to IRPA 101 (1), the repeated refugee claim from previously failed, withdrawn
or abandoned claimants are not referred to the RPD, but they are referred to the CBSA
for Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) assessment. Similarly, if a refugee with
Canadian PR status avails to home country, his refugee status may be ceased, and
consequently the PR status may also be revoked leading to deportation (IRPA, 2001).
The US and Canada have different refugee protection system, but Canada has barred
refugee claimants in the US from filing a refugee claim at the US-Canada border. The
US-Canada Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) that came into effect on December
29th, 2004 bars refugee claimants make a refugee claim in Canada unless they have a
close relative. Arbel and Brenner (2013) argue that the STCA denies access to
fundamental protection entitled under international law, leaves a large number of
refugee claimants in the US, and even promotes human smuggling, and most likely
promotes human trafficking across the US-Canada border. While the refugees in the US
are barred from making a refugee claim after one-year of entry to the US unless they
can prove change of circumstances (Arbel & Brenner, 2013), they may claim anytime in
Canada regardless of the period of their last entry to Canada (CIC, 2014d). Moreover,
due to long land border between the US and Canada, the refugee claimants even
12
crossed the border by rowing the river or illegally with the help of smugglers (Sanders,
2015).
One of the crucial elements for an inland refugee claim is that the refugee must be
physically present on Canadian soil, either at the port-of-entry (PoE) or within Canada.
While some refugees may legally enter Canada, some of them may even flee their
country without identity proof. Crepeau & Nakache (2006) suggest that refugees who
flee armed conflict or human rights abuses may seek entry to Canada by illegal means,
such as boats, using others' passports or through smugglers. Canada has placed
migration integrity officers (MIOs) overseas who directly interdict and intercept the
refugees at their country of origin or in third countries where refugees may not find
protection. While Canada has maintained its respect and obligation to the Convention,
Canada's interception and interdiction policies have no effective means of allowing
refugees in legitimate need of protection to come to Canada (Crepeau & Nakache,
2006).
Refugee intake process
A refugee claim is either made at the port-of-entry (PoE) or at inland CIC offices (CIC,
2014a). The Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) and the Canadian Border
Services Agency (CBSA) receive and determine the claimant's eligibility. Those who are
found eligible are referred to the RPD for refugee determination, while those found
ineligible face deportation order and may be immediately removed from Canada (CIC,
2014a). The IRB has sole authority to adjudicate a refugee claim (IRB, 2013a) unless it
is a PRRA application that is decided by the CBSA officer (CIC, 2014a).
One of the controversies with the refugee intake process is detention at the PoE for an
indefinite period if the identity of the refugee cannot be verified or detention is warranted
for security reasons (UNHRC, 2015). On July 20th, 2015, the UN Human Rights
Committee (UNHRC) criticized Canada's arbitrary detention of the irregular refugee
claimants at the PoE. The UN stated in its report:-
The State party should refrain from detaining irregular migrants for an indefinite
period of time and should ensure that detention is used as a measure of last resort,
that a reasonable time limit for detention is set, and that non-custodial measures
and alternatives to detention are made available to persons in immigration
detention (UNHRC, 2015, p. 4).
In June 2015, The Toronto Star reported that an immigration detainee Abdurahman
Ibrahim Hassan, 39, had died on June 11th, 2015 in an immigration holding (Keung,
2015a). The star stated:-
He was also a man who struggled for decades with mental illness and diabetes,
was in and out of trouble with the law and spent the last four years of his life in
13
immigration detention awaiting deportation. But the circumstances of his death —
and even his name — have been shrouded in secrecy (Keung, 2015a, para. 3).
In July 2015, eighty-eight inmates at the Central East Correctional Centre in Lindsay,
where Hassan was detained, signed a letter demanding a public inquest into the death
of Lindsay (Keung, 2015b).
The research conducted by the Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR) and Sojourn
House (SJ) in 2010 concludes that the refugees do not necessarily receive adequate
protection at the port-of-entry (PoE) as they find disappointing and threatening behavior
from the CBSA officers. A refugee from West Africa who entered into Canada on false
passport told that the CBSA officer arrested and handcuffed him, charged for entering
on a false passport, and issued a removal order. He was not allowed access to a lawyer
or the UN representative despite his continued effort to have communication with one of
them. Nevertheless, he was allowed to make a Refuge Claim at a later date (CCR & SJ,
2010). The CIC's Enforcement Policy 6 (ENF6) asks the CBSA officers to determine the
motive of the persons and whether they have any fear of returning to their home country
or not (CIC, 2014b). The ENF6, Section 8 states:-
Where the responses indicate a fear of returning to the country of nationality that
may relate to refugee protection, the Minister's delegate is to inform the subjects
of the definition of a Convention Refugee or a person in need of protection as
found in [Article 96 and Article 97 of IRPA], and ask whether they wish to make a
claim (CIC, 2014b, p. 24).
Nevertheless, the findings of CCR research do not indicate that the CBSA officers
fulfilled those duties.
The Immigration and Refugee Board and its functions
The IRB is an independent quasi-judicial tribunal of Canada responsible for determining
refugee claims as well as several other immigration issues. It is an independent tribunal
that operates at arm's length from the Government (IRB, 2015a). When a refugee claim
is referred by CIC or CBSA, the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) designates a
Refugee Judge to adjudicate the claim. The one-member panel decides upon a refugee
claim after assessing and analyzing the facts, finding a nexus between the claim and
the Convention based on information and documentary evidence provided by the
Claimant as well as the IRB's own disclosures (IRB, 2004). Prior to 2002, the RPD had
a two-member panel, but it was changed to one-member thereafter (IRPA, 2001). The
rejected refugee claimants have an avenue to appeal the rejection to Refugee Appeal
Division (RAD) where the RAD member either allows or rejects an appeal. The IRB
grants a Convention Refugee or a Person in Need of Protection status to the refugee
claimants on account of 1951` refugee convention, 1967 protocol and 1984 UN
14
convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment (IRB, 2004). The rejected refugee claimants from RAD may apply for
judicial review in the FC (CIC, 2014c).
The refugee claimants go through a complex hearing process where the refugee judge,
the counsel and even sometimes the minister's representative, interview the claimant to
identify credibility and several other facts of a refugee claim. According to the research
conducted by CCR (2012), the refugee claimants have mixed reactions to the refugee
judges. While most claimants found the refugee judges to be calm, professional,
diplomatic, nice, well-
educated and easy to
talk, but some also found
the refugee judges as
absent-minded, hostile,
attacking, skeptical,
aggressive or close-
minded. The kind-
hearted refugee judge
could be a great
experience for refugees,
but the hostile refugee
judge may remind them
of the torture they faced
in their home country.
Problems with
Interpreters were also
reported in the CCR
(2012) research as some
Claimants found their
Interpreter less than
perfect or negatively
impacting their hearing.
CCR concludes that the
claimants were hopeful
of their refugee judge becoming attentive and hearing their case as "a human being
going through a stressful and life-determining experience" (CCR, 2012, p. 46). The
research covers interviews of 70 claimants with diverse representation who went
through the refugee hearings.
According to Humphreys (2014), an analysis of refugee decisions during 2013 and 2014
indicates wide variations in outcomes of the refugee decisions determined by different
Judges. In 2013, Refugee Judge Sylvie Roy, in Montreal, rejected all claims out of 23
Figure 3 - IRB hearing where the Refugee Judge on the front, the Lawyer at right and the Refugee Claimant facing
back. Retrieved from http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/refugee-claim-
acceptance-in-canada-appears-to-be-luck-of-the-draw-despite-reforms-analysis-shows. Copyright 2015 by National
News, Canada.
15
cases she decided, while Edward Robinson, in Toronto, accepted only 6.5 per cent of
the refugee claims out of 93 claims he adjudicated. In contrast, in the same year,
Shamash Alidina, in Toronto, had highest acceptance rate with 80 per cent positive
decisions out of 30 claims he heard, while Kevin Fainbloom, also in Toronto, accepted
78.6 per cent claims out of 98 claims. Similarly, in 2014, Edward Robinson accepted
only 3.2 per cent of the refugee claims out of 65 total decisions; David McBean
accepted only 1 out of 21 decisions, and Teresa Maziarz accepted 28.3 per cent of
claims out of 53 decisions. In contrast, Barry Barnes accepted 76.6 per cent of claims
out of 77 decisions, Nina Stanwick accepted 92.1 per cent of cases out of 38 decisions,
and Rabin Tiwari accepted 88.9 per cent of the refugee claims out of 117 decisions in
the same year. Lorne Waldman, the President of the Canadian Association of Refugee
Lawyers (CARL) argued that the vast discrepancy is not simply coincidence, but
showed a level of arbitrariness in the refugee determination system (Humphreys, 2014).
While talking to the National Post in April 2014, Waldman said:-
When we go into a hearing room and face a member with a historically low
acceptance rate, you feel that regardless of the merits of the case our chances
are very low. It is very disheartening. This analysis makes it clear that success
doesn't only depend on the strength of the case, but also who the decision maker
is (Humphreys, 2014, para. 12).
In response to the vast discrepancies of decisions, the IRB spokesperson Melissa
Anderson stated that "acceptance rates of individual IRB members do not reflect the
many factors — besides the alleged country of persecution and the conditions in that
country — that members must consider before making a determination" (Humphreys,
2014, para. 16).
The Refugee Claimants whose claims are rejected by the Refugee Protection Division
(RPD) may appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). Similarly, the CIC may also
file an appeal to RAD against the decision of the RPD. The role of RAD is to hear
refugee appeals, and allow an appeal by either referring them back to RPD for further
determination without contradicting the RAD decision or make a substituted decision
(IRB, 2013a). According to Angus & Rehaag (2015), about one fifth of refugee decisions
made by RPD were found wrong, as their appeals were allowed by RAD. Out of 1,871
refugee appeals finalized by the RAD during 2013-2014, 373 or 19.93 per cent,
including 31 appeals made by CIC were allowed by the RAD, while 534 or 28.5 per cent
of refugee appeals including 18 filed by the CIC were dismissed on procedural grounds.
Angus & Rehaag (2015) conclude that immaturely adjudicated refugee claims who face
negative decisions may face deportation to the country they face risk, while the positive
decisions that is immaturely adjudicated may undermine the integrity of Canada's
refugee system encouraging future unfounded refugee claims, and erodes public
confidence in the overall refugee system.
16
Refugee family reunification
"The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to
protection by society and the State" (United Nations, 1948, art. 16(3)). The UNHCR
Handbook for Refugees identifies immediate families, such as a spouse and minor
children, within the family of the refugee, who should be granted refugee status in
accordance to the principle of family unity (UNHCR, 2011). The United Church of
Canada (2015) reported that refugees are prevented from bringing their immediate
family members only after they qualify for permanent residency, and their family
members face very long processing times and delays. The family members of the
refugees are often at the same risk of persecution that their spouse or parents to be
granted refugee protection (CCR, 2004). Living in risk may endanger education and the
health of the family members, specifically children, and have heavy psychological
impact. CCR (2006) Manifesto on family reunification calls upon Canada to enhance the
refugee system that could favor for speedy reunification of families.
On submission to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in Canadian
Parliament, Citizens for Public Justice (2005) concludes that delay in family re-
unifications of the refugees is a huge burden for both the refugees and their families
abroad, and it also generates unnecessary costs to Canada due to its obligations
towards refugees and their family members who could probably be in vulnerable
situations. In 1999, a report by the Canadian study of Central American and African
Refugees concluded that the average separation for family re-unification, for both
parents and children, was greater than the three year period (Tate, 2011). According to
CIC processing time for PR applicants in Protected Persons and Convention Refugees
category, it may take up to 15 months for initial assessment of the PR application and
additional 10 months for final decisions totaling up to 25 months for refugee's PR
processing (CIC, 2015a). Pursuant to Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (2001),
refugees cannot sponsor their immediate family members abroad, i.e. spouse and
dependent children, unless they obtain PR status.
Detention and Deportation
The refugees receive the conditional departure order at the time of making a refugee
claim, which becomes effective after 15 days of the decision of the RPD unless the
refugee claimants appeal decision to the Refugee Protection Division (RAD) or seeks
Judicial Review (JR) at the Federal Court (IRPA, 2001). If the Refugee fails to apply for
JR and also do not voluntarily returns to the country of nationality, the departure order
becomes deportation order and the CBSA may issue Canada-wide arrest warrant. If the
JR is filed, the departure order is stayed regardless of the outcomes of JR, and
Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) has to re-issue departure order against the
17
claimant. If the refugee claimant is arrested under warrant, he is detained in one of
immigration detention facilities or provincial jails and deported back to home country or
country of former habitual residence within a certain time. Similarly, the refugee
claimants arriving at PoE with or without proper documentations are also arrested and
detained by the CBSA officers (CIC, 2007). CBSA has three immigration detention
centers each in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver with a bedding capacity of 125, 150
and 24 respectively (Keung, 2011a).
The refugee claimants who are non-
criminals, but fleeing due to
persecution in their country of
nationality for exercising their
fundamental rights are treated worse
than the criminals since they are
handcuffed, jailed with criminals in
provincial prisons, and face
unnecessary and disproportionate
restrictions on their liberty (Carman,
2014). Likewise, 200 out of 10,000
immigration detainees were minor
children who suffer similar treatments
like their parents or custodians. CBC
News (2012) reported that 289
migrant children were detained by the
CBSA in 2011 including those held
with parents seeking asylum.
According to Nakache (2011), 27 per
cent of refugees are detained in
provincial prisons while only 6 per cent
out of them are subjected of criminality
and danger to public or security risk.
Between 2004 and 2009, averages of 28 per cent refugees were jailed in provincial
prisons, and approximately 15 per cent of them were detained for more than 90 days.
Nakache (2011) recommends that even if the refugee claimants are detained in
provincial prisons, they should be separated with the criminals and put in lower security
facilities, ensuring their rights and liberties in accordance to established international
laws.
As per Oved (2014), Canada deports over 10,000 people every year, including to some
countries with terrible human rights records. Between 2004 and the end of June 2014,
70 per cent out of 148,057 deportees were the failed refugee claimants. The number of
rejected refugee deportees increased around 8,000 per year compared to a decade ago
Figure 4 - The CBSA stats on minors detained for the fiscal year 2011-2012. Retrieved fro http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/detention-
centres-no-place-for-migrant-children-critics-argue. Copyright 2015 by CBC News, Canada.
18
with over 13,000 in 2012. More importantly, over 500 of the deportees were sent to five
countries where Canada has implemented an official moratorium on deportations: Haiti,
Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe, Iraq and Afghanistan. "Between the
moratorium countries, those with temporary bans and the non-moratorium countries,
Canada has deported more than 1,000 people in 16 of the most dangerous countries in
the world" (Oved, 2014).
Refugee cessation and revocation
Pursuant to IRPA (2001), the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) may cease refugee
status if the refugee voluntarily avails to the country of nationality against which he
made a refugee claim regardless of
his Canadian permanent residency
(PR) status, and the length and level
of establishment. After amendment of
IRPA (2001) in 2012, if refugee
status is ceased for the reasons other
than chance of circumstances, the
PR status is automatically revoked,
and the refugee is deported from
Canada. But, if the refugee has
already obtained Canadian
citizenship, his status cannot be
ceased regardless of return to his
country of previous nationality (IRPA,
2001). If the refugee has not obtained
Canadian citizenship, whenever the
CIC or the CBSA finds that a refugee
voluntarily returned to the country of
nationality or even obtained a new
passport, the CBSA pursues the
cessation application to the RPD, and
the RPD decides whether the refugee
status should be ceased or not. In
some cases, CBSA also files refugee
revocation application to the RPD in finding that the refugee status was obtained out of
frauds (IRPA, 2001).
As per Canadian Council for Refugees (2014), the Government is creating a climate of
fear to established permanent residents and unnecessarily putting more costs to the
taxpayers. In January 2014, the CBSA Operational Bulletin stated that the CBSA is
committed to filing a minimum of 875 cases of refugee cessation or vacation every year
Figure 5 - An Iranian Refugee Jose de Jesus Bermudez, seen here with his Canadian-born
wife and their two children, is fighting to retain his refugee status and the PR. Retrieved from
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/refugees-claim-canadian-policy-
threatens-families-1.3238582. Copyright 2015 by CBC News, Vanessa Myers-Bermudez
(Photographer).
19
to the RPD (Proussalidis, 2014). In a letter to CBSA on March 17th, 2014, the Canadian
Bar Association (2014) criticized the CBSA's aggressive approach to pursue refugee
cessation application against established permanent residents who are well settled with
their Canadian born and sponsored families. In February 2015, Toronto Star editorial
stated:-
People who fled to Canada years or decades ago as a bona fide refugees, and
who have made a home here as permanent, law-abiding residents, worked and
paid taxes and raised a family, should be free to stay in this country. They may
no longer require Canada's protection, strictly speaking, but nor should they be
bounced out (Ourwindsor.ca, 2015).
In March 2012, then Minister of Immigration Jason Kenny promised to the Parliament
that the refugee cessation would apply to those who immediately go back to the country
of origin against which they filed a refugee claim. He stated, "We have clarified in the bill
that, under the current law, the minister may apply to the IRB for an order to cease the
protected person status of someone who does go back right away" (CCR, 2014a, p. 6).
Nevertheless, an Iranian refugee Jose de Jesus Bermudez, living in Canada long time
with his wife and two Canada-born children, was threatened to cease refugee status
and revoke permanent residency status despite the fact that they stayed for over a
decade living as an honest Canadian life (Proctor, 2015). Even though the RPD refused
to cease their refugee status of Bermudez, the Government appealed to the Federal
Court to take away their right to stay in Canada.
Refugee Determination System – Canada vs. the United States
The United States has only signed the 1967 Refugee Protocol while Canada has signed
both the Convention and Protocol (UNHCR, 2015a). However, both follow the UNHCR
handbook to adjudicate refugee claims, and both have established laws to grant
protection to the refugees. After enactment of Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) in
December 2004, Canada and the US consider one-another safe country for refugees
(GC, 2002). Nevertheless, there are significant differences in a refugee claim procedure
between Canada and the US.
Canada receives refugee claims from anybody regardless of the length of entry to
Canada (IRPA, 2001), but the US accepts refugee claims from those who entered to the
US within one year unless there are legitimate grounds to believe that country condition
changed after the refugee entered to the US (USCIS, 2015). Similarly, the US
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) have sole authority to receive inland and
PoE refugee claims. There are typically two types of asylum in the US – affirmative and
defensive. The refugees who are not in removal proceedings may make an affirmative
refugee claim submitting an application for asylum to the USCIS who is then interviewed
by the USCIS asylum officer to decide the refugee claim. In contrast, a refugee who is in
20
removal proceedings may seek asylum defensively, and is then heard by an
immigration judge within the Department of Justice's Executive office for immigration
review (Kerwin, 2011). In Canada, refugee claimants may apply for open work permit
after their case is referred to the RPD (CIC, 2014c), but in the US, the refugee claimants
may only apply for an employment authorization document (EAD) after passing 150
days since the initial asylum application and only if the decision has not been made on
the application (Kerwin, 2011). Similarly, an accepted refugee in Canada may
immediately apply for PR status (CIC, 2014c), but in the US, a refugee must wait for
one year to apply for lawful permanent residence status from the date of grant of asylum
(Kerwin, 2011). Nevertheless, unlike in Canada, refugees in the US may file petition to
bring their family members immediately after they are granted the refugee status.
Indifferent to Canada's multi-year waiting period for family reunification, the overseas
family members in the US may join the principle refugee within a few months (USCIS,
2015).
Figure 6 - Refugee claim process in the US. Retrieved from http://www.rcusa.org/uploads/images/How%20Refugees%20Get%20to%20the%20US.j
pg. Copyright 2015 by Refugee Council USA.
21
According to Kerwin (2011), 31 per cent of asylum seekers during the eleven year
period beginning 1998 to 2009 failed to meet one-year filing deadline, which seriously
impacted their chances being accepted. The detainees in the US immigration detention
centers give up their asylum claim due to their financial inability, and ineffective self-
representation. On account of Kerwin's report, the disparities in approval rates among
immigration judges also exist in immigration courts in the US. The asylum success rates
ranged between 19 per cent and 61 per cent in Arlington (VA); 8 per cent and 55 per
cent in Boston; 2 per cent and 72 per cent in Miami; and between 3 per cent and 93 per
cent in New York City. Kerwin (2011) concludes that the US refugee protection system
needs high-level of policy attention as well as be sharpened and better aligned with
appropriate coordination and evaluation.
Key findings
Based on a review of the literature, the following key findigns are summarized below:
a) Canada respects the refugee as it has ratified most of international treaties on
refugee rights, and has implemented refugee protection system in its
regulatory frameworks;
b) Canada's inland refugee strategy has progressed despite the Court's
interventions and systematic failures;
c) The refugee claimants face obstacles while making a refugee claim at the
port-of-entry;
d) The establishment of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) has strengthened the
refugee determination process, allowing the failed claimants to appeal the
decision;
e) Family reunification of the refugees has become slow and mismanaged that
have put the refugee family members at risk;
f) Lengthy detention of the refugees as well as minors in a manner like a
criminal has disrespected the refugee claimants;
g) Cessation of the refugees and their permanent residency status have
increased fear to the legitimate refugees who return to their country of origin
due to improved circumstances; and
h) The Safe-Third Country Agreement (SCTA) has violated the rights of the
refugee claimants in the US from making a refugee claim in the US-Canada
border in the event they are found ineligible to make a refugee claim in the
US.
22
Statement of Results
Since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1985) is a part of Canada's
Constitution Act, the Government cannot violate it and no laws contrary to the Charter
can be formulated (Canadian Heritage, 2014). The Convention relating to the Status of
Refugees (1951) does not enforce the state parties to take any number of refugees, but
it warrants the state parties to protect refugees in their territory. As Canada is a humane
country, persecuting refugees may jeopardize the Canadian values, and so, Canada is
bound to protect the refugees fleeing insanity in their country of nationality. Given the
flow of millions of refugees in the Middle-East, it may be irrational to have a self-
centered refugee strategy that limits the quota of refugees per annum, because Canada
is lawfully obligated to accept and protect any number of refugees seeking asylum in its
territory. Therefore, it is essential to have qualified and ethical human resources ready
to receive and protect the refugees without prejudicing laws and the UN treaties. Since
refugee protection is connected to humanity, application of ethics could be significant to
identify and analyze the real needs of the refugees. Regardless of how good the
decisions are made by how well decision makers, the chance of error may still occur,
and so, robust risk management strategy may play significant role to correct such
errors.
Following are the key results from the research:
a) Canada partially meets the international obligations to protect the refugees. The
refugee strategy is more concentrated to fulfill own interests rather than offering
actual protection.
b) Despite the recommendation of audits for improvement and widespread criticism
about the competency of the refugee judges, the IRB failed to appropriately
appoint, train, supervise and audit the Refugee Judges and their judgments.
c) Canada is partially successful to implement an appropriate refugee determination
system. However, Canada failed to queue the refugee claimants based upon the
most appropriate queuing method first-in-first-out (FIFO). The IRB could not
manage inventory as planned, and also failed to ensure quality management.
d) Even though the advancing information technology has digitized the world more
efficiently and smoothly, Canada failed to efficiently implement the technology
that could make the refugee system robust, transparent and speedy.
e) Canada failed to apply ethics to refugee adjudication system. The IRB depends
on personal morale of the refugee judges rather than judicial and ethical values
and practices. The ethics are compromised as the refugee policy is more biased
to the Government's negative tendency towards the refugees.
f) The CBSA failed to legitimately screen the refugee claimants, and the IRB lacks
resources to accurately verify the evidence. The PRRA is simply a formality, and
neither the CBSA nor the IRB has contingency plans.
23
Analysis
The analysis is primarily themed on overall operations of Canada's refugee system. As
required to answer the primary and secondary research questions, the paper
investigates whether Canada has fulfilled international obligations and protected
Canadian integrity on its refugee protection system. The functions of the Immigration
and Refugee Board (IRB), a quasi-judicial tribunal of Canada that adjudicates the
refugees, is primarily examined to identify how the IRB's operation impacts Canada's
overall management of the refugees. Similarly, the operations of the Citizenship and
Immigration Canada (CIC) as well as Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) are
also briefly studied to address the research questions. Key management issues, such
as strategy, human resource, operations, technology, ethical decision making and risk
management have been thoroughly examined to correlate the literature review findings
with the overall operation of Canada's refugee system.
Strategy vs. international obligations
Canada's refugee system specifically focuses on:-
a) Offering safe heaven to the people fleeing persecution in their country of
nationality, and
b) Fulfilling annual immigrants' quota and filling population gap.
Safe Heaven
According to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), out of 19.5
million refugees worldwide at the end of 2014, over 86 per cent of the world's refugees
are hosted by developing countries and remaining 14 per cent of them are hosted by
developed countries (UNHCR, 2015b). As of December 2014, there were 149,163
refugees and 16,711 refugee claimants residing in Canada. In 2014, the UNHCR
ranked Canada at the bottom of the world's top-15 refugee receiving countries whereas
Germany and the US were ranked on top first and second positions respectively. In the
year 2014, approximately 866,000 new asylum claims were lodged worldwide (Keung,
2015c). The same year, CIC and CBSA referred 13,600 inland refugee claimants to the
IRB, and the IRB finalized 19,900 claims, including those pending from previous years
(IRB, 2015b). As of the end of 2014, there were 16,500 refugee claims pending in the
IRB. Canada has 4.2 refugees per 1,000 inhabitants and, is ranked 41 of top 50 top-
ranked countries for refugees per capita (Schwartz, 2015). In September 2015, a
devastating picture of a Syrian boy Alan Kurdi whose lifeless body was washed up on a
Turkish beach, brought global criticism to Canada's refugee policy after findings that the
boy's Canadian Aunt's previous attempt to airlift the boy and his family to Canada was
rejected by the CIC (Donnelly & CP, 2015).
24
Figure 7 - Refugee claims finalized and pending in the IRB. Retrieved from http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/Eng/BoaCom/pubs/Pages/rpp1516PartIII.aspx. Copyright 2015
by Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.
Canada is a part of 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol since June 4th, 1969.
Canada is one of 142 state parties to rectify both the Convention and Protocol (UNHCR,
2015a). Pursuant to the UN Convention relating to the status of the refugees (1951), the
State parties have an obligation to accept claims for refugee status of refugees who
arrive in their territory, and for that, Canada has an obligation to adapt the Convention
as well as to follow UNHCR handbook to protect the refugees. The state parties should
equally treat the refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin,
ensure freedom to practice own religion, allow free access to the courts of law, grant
right to engage in wage-earning employment as well as provide public relief and
assistance equivalent to their nationals (UNHCR, 2011).
Canada has been accepting refugees of all nationalities and granting them the
protection for decades. For the first time in 1970, Canada accepted the Tibetan
refugees, the first non-European refugees (CCR, 2015a), and then, continued to accept
the refugees from various countries. However, Canada did not offer rights and liberties
to the refugees until the Supreme Court's (SC) judgment on the Singh Decision. On
April 4th, 1985, the SC, delivering a judgment over the case of seven Indian Refugees
vs. Canada, found that the refugees were entitled to the rights, liberties and
fundamental justices pursuant to Section 7 of the Charter (Singh v. Minister of
25
Employment and Immigration, 1985). The SC judgment, not only entitled fundamental
freedoms to refugee
claimants, but also to
everybody who is
physically present in
Canada. Since that
day, April 4 has been
marked as the
Refugee Rights Day in
Canada (CCR,
2015a).
In 2001, Canada
formally used the term
'refugee' in its
legislation through
enactment of
Immigration and
Refugee Protection
Act (IRPA, 2001),
which became a
primary legislation to
regulate the refugee
system. As the IRPA
(2001), the refugee
claims are finalized by
the Refugee
Protection Division
(RPD) and the claimants were able to appeal the RPD refusal to the Refugee Appeal
Division (RAD). The Government delayed the formation of RAD until 2011 while it was
warranted by the IRPA (2001) after its enactment in June 2002. The enactment of Safe
Third Country Agreement (STCA) between the United States and Canada in January
2004 further brought criticism over Canada's fair refugee policy. Given the significant
differences of refugee adjudication system between Canada and the US (Kerwin, 2011),
the refugees are forced to seek asylum in the US as Canada bars them from making a
refugee claim (GC, 2002). Settlage (2012) argues that when Canada returns the bona
fide refugees to the US, they are refouled as per the US law, and so, Canada is
responsible for indirect refoulement of the refugees and violates the international
refugee laws. In 2007, the Federal Court (FC), upon hearing legal challenge against
STCA, found that the US could not be considered a safe country for refugees due to its
failure to meet international obligations, and the STCA was nulled by the Court (Liptak,
Figure 8 - Refugees admitted to Canada in 2014, top 25 countries. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news. Copyright
2015 by CBC News, Canada.
26
2007). However, the FC Appeal Division turned down the FC decision on separate
grounds (Corrigan, 2009).
The amendment of IRPA in 2012 that expedited the refugee adjudication process to 30
to 60 days, but prevented the refugee claimants of certain nationalities, called
designated country of origin (DCO), from making an appeal to the RAD further
problematized Canada's refugee system. Even though the bonafide-refugees could get
protection within 30 to 60 days of refugee claims, it also opened door to illegitimate
refugees letting them to misuse Canada's refugee system during their brief visit to
Canada. As an example – a visitor visa holder who is generally granted six months of
stay on entry may file a refugee claim fabricating the facts, and test the refugee system.
Even if his claim is failed, he will not lose anything as he could simply return to home,
and continue existing jobs. On July 23rd, 2015, the FC rendered decisions allowing the
refugee claimants from DCO right to appeal to the RAD and equal rights as the non-
DCO claimants have (Levitz, 2015). Nevertheless, the rights of the refugees from DCO
who were barred from appealing and deported prior to July 23, 2015 were apparently
violated.
Based on analysis of whether Canada offered safe-haven to the refugees or not, it may
be fair to conclude that even though Canada offered safe-haven to the refugees in
some context, it also treated the refugees unfairly putting their life and liberty at risk.
Immigrants' quota
Since the refugees are allowed to immediately apply for PR status, they will be in the
process of becoming landed immigrant and then the Canadian citizen in the long run
(CIC, 2014a). Canada wants immigrants to fulfill its labor demands and improve the
economy (GC, 2014a). The birth and total fertility rate, as per Statistics Canada, was
1.61 per woman in 2011, which was declined from 1.66 per woman in 2007 (Statistics
Canada, 2013). The data apparently indicate that the gap between aging and young
population is widening and so, the immigrants are essential elements to fulfill the gap.
For that reason, between 2005 and 2014, Canada granted PR visas to an average of
255,680 foreigners through various immigrants' categories, such as family, economic,
provincial nominee program and more. Among the annual immigrants' count, 26,370 or
10.3 per cent of immigrants were the refugees, the third in row of number of immigrants
per category (CIC, 2015b). The IRB has projected that it will finalize approximately
15,000 refugee claims per year until 2017-18 (IRB, 2015b), and it indicates that annual
refugee immigrants' quota per annum could be same like in prior years. Given the
annual projection of the IRB and the immigrants' quota of the CIC in refugee category,
Canada may accept a limited quota of refugee immigrants per year, regardless of
millions of refugees fleeing from the Middle-East to the Europe and elsewhere. As such,
27
it appears that the refugees do not only come to Canada to get protection, but also
immigrate to Canada to fulfill annual immigrants' quota and help Canadian economy.
Human Resources issues
The refugee claims are adjudicated by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and
Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), the subdivision of the Immigration and Refugee Board
(IRB). The Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) adjudicates that application for
Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) from the refugee claimants whose previous
refugee claim is rejected by the IRB. Given the fact that the refugee claimants flee risk
of life and liberty in their country of nationality, it is apparent to have a good judgment of
their claim to ensure that they are protected in Canada. However, it is also essential to
reject the illegitimate refugee claimants who misuse the system. Therefore, for
appropriate adjudication of the refugee claim, the human resources (HR) play a
significant role.
IRB and HR issues
The IRB is composed of a Chairperson, Executive Director, the deputies and the
members. The executives have central administrative jobs, and the Members have a
primary job of hearing refugee claims and make determinations. The RPD hears the
claims in the first place, and the RAD hears appeals from the claimant or the
Government. The RAD may allow an appeal and return the claim to the RPD for further
adjudication, or may also override the RPD decision. Since June 2010, the RPD
members are the public servants with a mandate to make independent decisions on
refugee claims referred by the CIC and the CBSA. The RAD members are appointed by
the Governor in Council (GIC) for the term not exceeding seven years. The RAD
members are selected among the pool of qualified applicants who are examined for
behavioral competence, previous experiences, educational qualifications and ability and
skills to make impartial decisions. The members take oath of being impartial while
hearing refugee claims and make judgments. As of June 2015, the RPD has 91
members and the RAD has 26 members working in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver
(IRB, 2015c). The IRB members work independently over the given case, solely hear
the case and render decision on their independent assessment. In some complex
cases, the IRB Chairperson may direct for a three-member panel appeal to the RAD
(IRB, 2013b).
Besides the IRB members, the IRB has administrative employees who review the
refugee claims, assigns the claim to a specific member, schedule hearings and
correspond to the claimants and the council. The IRB also retains the services of the
language interpreters to facilitate the refugee claimant in his native language. The
interpreters are directly appointed by the IRB on contractual, occasional or on call basis.
They are required to pass security screening and language knowledge test. While
28
interpreters serve in person during the hearing, they may also interpret over the phone
as required. The interpreters are bound by the code of conduct of the IRB, and follow
the guidelines (IRB, 2015c). In July 2011, a refugee claimant from Kenya was on the
verge of deportation after a language interpreter misinterpreted her answer in the
refugee hearing, which resulted in the refusal of her claim (Humphreys, 2014). The
claim was later on overturned by the Federal Court (FC).
Figure 9 - IRB Member Selection Process. Retrieved from IRB http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/Eng/BoaCom/empl/Pages/MemComMspPsc.aspx. Copyright 2015 by
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.
29
In October 2009, an internal audit by the Public Service Commission of Canada (PSCC)
found that only 21 out of 54 appointments to the RAD had met both merit and the
guiding values, while 33 appointments did not meet either merit or the guideline values
(PSCC, 2009). The Commission found that the IRB failed to monitor the overall
performance of appointment-related authorities, and so, it also failed to identify and
correct deficiencies. During the IRB selection of members for RAD in 2011, the sitting
members of RPD failed in multiple-choice test and written exams, and were even
eliminated in the interview process. In the 2012 selection round, the two times failed
employee was even allowed third chance to apply and become the IRB member. The
refugee judges who were failed to get appointed in RAD were apparently rendering
decisions over the refugee claims for years (Keung, 2012). The failure of practicing
members may raise question upon their decisions on refugee claims they previously
heard. According to the Toronto Star (2010), former RPD member Steve Ellis, who
served IRB for six years, was found guilty of trying to coerce sex with a South Korean
refugee claimant Ji Hye Kim in exchange for approving his refugee claim, and
sentenced to 18 months in prison by Ontario Court. Ellis was also testified as suffering
from a bipolar disorder that leads to an error in judgment (Toronto Star, 2010)
The evidences indicate that the IRB did not only mismanage the members' selection
procedures, but also failed to manage the parity the judgment among the members. The
failure of longtime sitting RPD members for the test of RAD member apparently
questions the expertise of the member for the current job. The refugee claims from the
same country of origin may not have a significant disparity of its outcomes just because
of the change of the decision maker. It may be the failure of the IRB to qualitatively
oversee the conduct of the IRB members, and appropriately educate them to have the
disparity over. With regards to translator problems, the selection process and lack of
appropriate orientation of the language interpreters may be the outcomes of translation
failure during the hearing.
CBSA officer for PRRA cases
Given the fact that a refugee has only one chance of being heard by the IRB, all future
claims were then considered Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) and referred to the
CBSA officers (CIC, 2014d). The CBSA officers are the government employees with
possibly vested interests of the Government's policy, and so, their actions may be
impacted and interfered with the Government's view on refugees. The literatures show
that the Government ministers have publicly called the refugee claimants as bogus
refugees (GC, 2014b). As such, it is apparent that the CBSA officers may follow the
Government trend leading it to a biasness and unfair decision for the refugees.
30
Operational issues
The CIC, CBSA and IRB operate in arms-length to receive and adjudicate refugee
claims. So, the operation of the CIC and the CBSA directly impact the operation of the
IRB and vice-versa. The IRB queues the claimants, plans and control inventory,
processes and finalizes the claims and ensures quality management (IRB, 2015a).
Refugee determination model
Figure 10 - Key timeline in new refugee system. Retrieved from http://ccrweb.ca/en/refugee-reform. Copyright 2015 by Canadian Council for Refugees.
The refugee claimants at the PoE have as little as 15 day period to complete the Basis
of Claim (BOC) form and submit it to the RPD. In contrast, the inland refugee claimants
must complete the BOC as well as the CIC forms at the time of making a refugee claim
at the CIC office (CIC, 2014d). The BOC form consists of details of the claim, including
but not limited to the refugee story (IRB, 2012a), and for that, the claimant may have to
seek advice of the lawyer. For PoE refugee claimants, they have to find a place to live,
apply legal aid, find a good lawyer, finalize the BOC form and submit to the RPD within
15 days deadline. Some of Provincial Governments, i.e. Legal Aid Ontario (2015), pay
the lawyer for working on a refugee claim. If the CIC finds a refugee claim ineligible for
referral to the RPD, either the claimant or the Provincial Government may have spent a
good sum of money paying the lawyer. Once the claim is referred to the RPD, the
claimant must gather documentary evidences and appear for the hearing within 30 to 60
days from the date the claim is referred to the RPD. In the event of refugee claimants
31
from the warn-torn countries like Syria fails to obtain required evidences to prove the
claim within 60 days, the claim may be rejected and the claimants may face deportation.
In December 2013, Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR) criticized the post-2012
refugee system being serious hardship and excessive stress to the claimants due to the
short timeline, putting victims of torture in vulnerable positions since they are cut out of
health program. The system maintained two-tier discriminatory system between
claimants from DCO and non-DCO, enforced complex and confusing system that was
poorly thought, ambiguous and forced the claimant being heavily dependable to the
community organizations (CCR, 2013). Given the widespread criticism of illegitimate
refugee claimants obtaining refugee status (Friscolanti, 2014), the short timeline may
even be insufficient for CBSA to investigate the claim and the RPD to assess, analyze
and deliver a decision. The system, instead of smoothing refugee process, appears to
ease the illegitimate refugee claimants who may fabricate everything within short period
and even get positive judgment, but probably have risked the legitimate claimants since
they may fail to obtain legitimate evidences on time.
Queuing System – FIFO or LIFO
There are currently two groups of refugee claimants that the IRB is adjudicating – (a)
Legacy cases of refugee claimants who filed claim prior to enactment of the new system
in December 2012, and (b) PCISA cases those who filed a refugee claim after
enactment of PCISA in December 2012 (IRB, 2015b). While the PCISA claims are
heard within 30 to 60 days, the legacy claims take several years to get heard. Data
given in Figure 7 indicates that out of 19,000 claims finalized in 2014-15, only 6,000
claims were Legacy cases. The IRB has projected to finalize all legacy claims by 2017-
18 that are pending since 2012 (IRB, 2015b). The new refugee protection system has
reversed long practiced and mostly accepted first-in-first-out (FIFO) queuing method to
last-in-first-out (LIFO). Significant delays in legacy claims may not only put the refugee
claimants in stress, but also put their family members abroad in vulnerable situations.
As an example, a Syrian refugee claimant awaiting refugee hearing since 2011 might
find his family members fleeing across the Syrian border given heightening civil war in
Syria that forced millions of the refugees to flee to the neighboring countries. More
importantly, expediting the refugee adjudication process of PCISA claims while
bypassing the legacy claims of another group of claimants in similar circumstances may
also infringe section 15 (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982).
The Charter states:-
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal
protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular,
without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion,
32
sex, age or mental or physical disability (Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, 1982, s. 15 (1)).
Since the refugees in PCISA and legacy groups are not treated equally before and
under the law, but they are discriminated based on period they made a refugee claim, it
appears that their Charter rights are violated.
Inventory planning and control
The figure 7 indicates that the PCISA cases are significantly increasing from 2013 to
2015, and the IRB (2015b) had only been able to finalize an average of 20,000 claims
per year between 2013 and 2015. Due to the increasing number of accepted refugees
applying for PR status, the processing times for PR is increased to 27 months as of
October 2015 (CIC, 2015a), while the PR processing time for family members abroad
may take years in the visa posts. Smooth inventory management of the PR applications
as well as their family members do not only protects the refugees, but also saves family
members in vulnerable situations.
Quality management
Based on a study of the IRB's case finalization between 2013 and 2014, the claims in
legacy system were significantly rejected compared to the claims in PCISA system. As
illustrated in figure 11, in 2013, only 31 per cent of claims were accepted in legacy
system while the acceptance rate was 55.5 per cent in PCISA system (CCR, 2014b).
Similarly, in 2014, only 30.5 per cent of claims were accepted in legacy system while the
rate of acceptance into PCISA system increased to 58.2 per cent (CCR, 2015b).
Figure 11 - IRB Case acceptance rate in Legacy and New System. Data Source: Canadian Council for Refugees (2015b).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2013 2014
Legacy System
New System
33
Moreover, given wide discrepancies of rate of refugee acceptance between new and
legacy system and the wide variance of the acceptance rate by different IRB members,
the IRB is broadly criticized over the quality of decisions the members make
(Humphreys, 2014). Even though the IRB and the CIC claim that every refugee case
unique and the decisions were rendered individual case merits (Humphreys, 2014), the
variance among the judges have created fears to the claimants since they may be
praying for good refugee judge than the bad one.
Inefficient use of information technology
The official websites of the Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), the Canadian
Border Services Agency (CBSA) and the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) have
limited amount of information for refugee claimants, and the claimants cannot
sufficiently rely on them. Despite the refugee process has several legal complexities and
claimants are encouraged to retain legal assistance, timely flow of sufficient information
could educate the claimants and help them to make decisions. The refugee claim forms
are readily available on the website of the CIC and the IRB, but the CIC's application
guide does not necessarily inform the claimants about the CIC locations a refugee claim
should be made, and the steps the claimants should follow (CIC, 2014d). There is no
way of filing a refugee claim by mail, email or online, and so, the claimant must
physically visit the local CIC office to initiate a refugee claim. The communications are
made by physical mail, and the claimants cannot communicate with Government bodies
by email. There is no way for the claimants to check their refugee claim status over the
internet given the multi-year processing period for the legacy claims (CIC, 2014a). The
CIC has Facebook and Twitter pages with a good number of followers, and the IRB has
only twitter account with as little as 394 followers and 56 tweets as of October 30, 2015.
The IRB members are allowed to access social media from a Government network, and
they may also consult social media in the adjudication of the refugee claim proceedings
(IRB, 2015d). Given the importance and effectiveness of electronic form of information
management system, the failure to efficient use may have resulted to insufficient or
partial information flow to the claimants creating confusions.
Ethical decision making
In modern justice system, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the court
of justice. In the same manner, a refugee claimant may also be a legitimate refugee
unless his claim is rejected. However, it appears that the Government already has set
up the view that the refugee claimants are guilty of making a false claim even prior to
their claim is adjudicated. While justifying his stand on refugee healthcare termination
on January 12th, 2014, then Minister for CIC Chris Alexander said, "Bogus asylum
seekers are not entitled to the same benefits as taxpaying Canadians or genuine
refugees" (GC, 2014b, 2014, para. 29). The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
34
(1982) protects everyone from being subject to any cruel and unusual treatment or
punishment. A refugee claimant may be subjected to an unusual treatment if another
claimant in similar circumstances having equivalent weight of evidence gets protection
while he does not. Given the wide discrepancy of refugee decisions by the IRB
members, a refugee may be subject to unusual treatment when he faces a bad judge
and gets negative decision while another claimant in same circumstances faces a good
judge and gets positive decision. Therefore, a question is obvious over the ethics of the
Government and the IRB over the refugee handling process.
Wide variance of refugee decisions
The IRB "members are expected to act honestly and in good faith, in a professional and
ethical manner" (IRB, 2012b, s. 8). The IRB code of conduct warrants the members to
make decisions on the merits of each refugee claim, assess the evidences with the
systematic application of the relevant laws, and without interference or influence of
intruders. Quality decision-making relevant to the principles of natural justice and
timeliness are key elements of the IRB codes (IRB, 2012b).
The figure 12 shows that the rate of refugee acceptance in 2014 in legacy system
remained well above 75 per cent for m1-judge while it fell well below 5 per cent for m51-
judge. Similarly, for new system in the same year, the m1 - judge had an acceptance
rate well above 90 per cent, while judge m87-judge's acceptance rate fell well below 30
per cent (CCR, 2015b). Even in 2010, prior to enactment of a new system, 31 judges
who adjudicated 166 Albanian's refugee claims had a grant rate ranging from zero to
100 per cent (Keung, 2011b).
Figure 12 - Refugee acceptance rate by IRB member over the refugee claims in 2014. Note: m followed by the number represents the IRB member number. Data source:
Canadian Council for Refugees (2014b).
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
m1 m21 m51 m87
NewSystem
Legacyclaims
35
In a response to the CBC news, IRB spokesperson Melissa Anderson wrote that "Each
refugee protection claim is unique and determined by members on its individual merit"
(Elliott, 2015, para. 17). So, were ethics effectively and equally applied by the judges in
their decision making process? If each case were impartially and ethically adjudicated
on an individual merit basis, should there be such variance in the outcomes? Sean
Rehagg at Osgood Hall Law School who is researching on variance of refugee
decisions over several years told to the CBC news, "This raises obvious fairness
concerns given the stakes involving the refugee determinations" (Elliott, 2015, para. 6).
Rehagg claimed that vast disparities are consistent over several years based on his
analysis of data (Elliott, 2015). In short, decision variance may be an outcome of
inappropriate application of ethics and judicial practices.
Refugee healthcare termination
On July 4th, 2014, the Federal Court (FC) found that the termination of federal health
coverage to the refugee claimants was cruel and unusual treatment, and it violated
section 12 and 15 of the Charter (Janus, 2014). The FC reversed the termination, and
ordered the Government to commence health care service to the claimants. However,
the Government appealed the FC decision, and the case is pending in an appellate
division as of September 2015 (Gulli, 2015). Speaking to CBC news, New Democrat MP
Jinny Sims said, "By cutting health care, we have put some of the most vulnerable in a
very, very difficult position" (Payton, 2014, para. 31). It appears that Government is
risking the health of the refugee claimants and putting Canadian values in question.
Risk management
There are essentially two types of refugees who may pose a risk to Canada: (a)
Terrorists and Criminals, and (b) Bogus refugees. The terrorists such as Islamic State
(ISIS) and Al Qaeda may send the terrorists as refugees who may be a danger to the
Canadian public. Similarly, the bogus refugees legally or illegally arriving may make a
refugee claim fabricating the story and the evidence. These bogus refugees may easily
get through the system, because they may make any story and produce any evidence
to prove their claim.
Security screening
While risks are involved in receiving the refugees belonging from different countries and
having different backgrounds, the robust screening process may ensure that refugees
are not an immediate risk to the Canadian public. Canada collects biometric information
from the refugees and records in a central database (CIC, 2014a), but it may be
impossible to verify historical information of the claimants solely based on biometric
information unless the refugee claimants truly disclose them. As an example, a failed
refugee claimant from Europe may fabricate his background information and make a
36
refugee claim in Canada unless Canada has mechanism to check biometric information
available in Germany. As of June 2015, Canada expanded biometric collection for all
travelers from 151 countries, regardless of the type of visa they are issued, and the
information is verified by the CBSA at the PoE (Chase, 2015). In 2011, Canada and the
US signed information sharing plan, and started sharing biometric information of
refugee claimants (CIC, 2012). Given improving initiative for security screening, does
Government ensure that screening process is robust and foreign criminals may not
make Canada a safe heaven? Are failed refugees with criminal background are timely
removed from Canada? In January 2014, a failed refugee claimant Iqbal Singh, ordered
removal a decade ago, but never removed, was charged for double stabbing in
Brampton, Ontario for killing Anita Summan and attempted murder of another victim
Gurkharan Doal (Friscolanti, 2014). Singh's refugee claim was rejected in 2004 and he
was convicted of drunk and dangerous driving in 2008. Given the current scenario, it
appears that foreign criminals or terrorists may possibly get through the security
screening resulting to a danger to the public.
Credibility finding and verification
The refugee judges are bound to presume the sworn information and evidences
provided by the refugee claimant to be true unless the member has a valid reason to
doubt on its truthfulness (IRB, 2004). Pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act (2001), the refugee judge may consider any evidence provided by the
claimant regardless of legal or technical validity, because the RPD is not bound by any
legal or technical rules of evidence. Even if the judge may presume that the information
and evidence to be untruthful, he may not simply justify on the basis of presumption
unless justified on evidences. The credibility findings are based on consistency of
information and examination of the evidences, and the decisions are made on the
balance of probabilities rather than certainties (IRB, 2004). While assessing evidence,
the judge is not generally required to have forensic testing the evidences. The judge
may not simply reject the claimants' evidences on the finding of widespread availability
of fraudulent documents in the country of claimants' origin (IRB, 2004). In 2007, CBSA
found that the RPD had accepted a refugee claim of a Pakistani taxi driver Ghulam
Mustafa Raja who had fabricated his name, religion, marital status, date of birth and
cooked the refugee story with a help of a lawyer in 2003 (Bell, 2007). The refugee
status of Ghulam was vacated by the RPD on April 12th, 2007. In June 2007, Toronto
Star's sting operation found an immigration consultant advised a refugee client about
cooking up the refugee story and winning the case (Keung, Bhattacharya & Rankin,
2007). The evidences suggest that either the IRB failed to ensure credibility of the
refugee claims, or it is bound by the rules that prevent it from appropriately verifying
evidences.
37
Contingency plan
The failed refugee claimants may appeal to the RAD, seek judicial review and even
apply for Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) prior to removal from Canada (CIC,
2014a). If a legitimate refugee is deported, neither CIC nor CBSA has any contingency
plan to get him back to Canada. Prior to administrative deferral of removals in March
2015, CBSA continued to deport failed Libyan refugee claimants back to Libya despite
widespread violence in the country (Oved, 2014). In January 2015, a gay Palestinian
refugee claimant John Calvin who is under a deportation order told that he could be
killed in the hand of the terrorist organization Hamas if deported (Miller, 2015). An
Iranian woman Fatemeh Derakhshandeh Tosarvandan facing deportation in September
2012 claimed that she could be stoned to death as her husband accused her of adultery
(Keung, 2012). It is possible that a legitimate refugee claimant may not sometimes be
able to prove a refugee claim and could also be deported, and so, contingency plan to
rescue those claimants is important to protect the integrity of the refugee system.
Recommendations
"In Canada, better is always possible." – Justin Trudeau
The paper has identified significant problems with Canada's inland refugee protection
system with respect to strategy, human resources, ethics, operation, inventory
management, family reunification and risk management. Despite Canada's obligation to
protect the refugees pursuant to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
(1951), Canada cannot ignore its values of fairness, diversity, equity, health, safety,
democracy and sustainability. Making a judgment of a refugee claim is apparently to
decide whether give life or death to a human being who is fleeing persecution in the
country of his nationality. Taking Canadian values and integrity in consideration,
honoring the rights and liberties of the refugees, and making the refugee protection
system better than before, following are the key recommendations:
Strategic review
Canada should modernize the refugee system, making it more caring and unprejudiced
for the refugees rather than using it as a tool to fulfill the immigrants' quota. The annual
quota system for refugees should be eliminated and Canada should be offering safe
haven to a significant number of refugees arriving in its border. It is possible to limit the
number of permanent residency applications from the refugee category, but protecting
refugees in the first place are very crucial. Like hundreds of thousands of Syrian
Refugees walking to the border were accepted by European countries in August 2015,
Canada should also be open and flexible to offer protection to the refugees in equivalent
manner. It is also apparently important to protect Canada from terrorists who may
38
possibly seek entry as refugees, but still, Canada should not disallow the refugees, like
3-year old Syrian boy Alan Kurdi, to face catastrophic death. It is important to protect
lives that are dying at present than fearing of future hypothetical threats that might not
even occur.
HR selection process
The Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) should have a process of screening refugee
judges for their individual morale, ethical behavior and psychological portfolio. The
judge should be unbiased to any political influence. The judge's individual perception to
the refugees may play significant role on decision making process. Some judges may
also be more sympathetic to the people of certain culture or nationalities, and so, the
sympathy may prejudice the judgment. Wide discrepancies of refugee decisions among
different refugee Judges could probably be the outcomes of individual judge's
psychological feelings, motives or sympathetic attitudes rather than lack of evidences or
merits.
Monitoring and evaluation
The decisions of the refugee judges should be appropriately monitored to ensure that
they meet the legislative requirements. It may be inappropriate for the IRB to disregard
wide discrepancies of the refugee decisions simply considering that a refugee case is
based on individual merits. Even though it's important to stop bogus refugee claimants,
it is more essential to ensure that the legitimate refugee claimants are not rejected.
Timely evaluation of refugee policy will not only smoothen and strengthen the system,
but also prevents interference or orders from the FC or the Supreme Court.
Enhanced Refugee System
The refugee system should be amended and enhanced in a way that meets the
technology demand of the 21st century and also grant immediate protection for the
highly legit claims. Following are the key steps Government should implement:
a) Electronic form submission – The refugee claimants should be allowed to
electronically transmit the information and identity documents to the CIC office.
The CIC then should review the information, verify for accuracy, and determine
principle eligibility using the information and previously collected biometric
information on file. Then, the claimant should be scheduled for a screening and
an interview. In the event of a refugee claim is made at PoE, the claimant's
personal information and identity documents should be entered into the system,
and then, a refugee should be allowed to temporarily enter into Canada while the
process goes on. Then, the claimant should be scheduled an appointment for
screening and an interview.
39
b) First step decision – The Immigration Officer should be granted authority to
approve the highly legit refugee claims based on information, evidences and
ministerial policies. The first-step decision should be based on legitimate merit of
the case, public policy for a particular country, and available information on file.
For example: a refugee claimant from war-torn countries like Syria could be
instantly accepted as long as the claimant passes security screening, the identity
is verified, and the nexus between the claim and the Convention is identified.
Similarly, refugees from countries where the Government has temporarily
suspended a removal (TSR) could also be accepted as long as the case is legit
and pass the merit. Referring such claims to the Refugee Protection Division
(RPD) may be a waste of time and taxpayers' money. All claims that fail on first-
step decision should automatically be referred to the RPD for full hearing.
c) Deadline extension – Even though the hearing date may be scheduled within 60
days, the RPD should extend deadline and postpone the hearing date so that the
claimant is able to collect evidence. By doing so, a legitimate refugee claimant is
allowed sufficient time to perfect a claim. It is highly unlikely that the bogus
claimants are benefitted from extension, because gathering fraudulent or falsely
obtained documents could be a matter of days for bogus claimants, and so, they
might not even ask for an extension.
Figure 13 - Proposed Refugee Determination Process
•Electronic form and document submission
•Scheduling for physical appointment, biometric screening, and case review.
•Approve straightward claims on merits or Refer to the IRB.
CIC
•RPD hearing - schedule hearing date allowing sufficient time to submit documentary evidences if the claimant asks for
•Verificaion - use third party support to verify the documentary evidences.
IRB •Elimination of one-year bar for PRRA for first time
•Oral interview for PRRA decisions
•Written and justifiable reasons while delivering decision.
CBSA
40
d) Mandatory verification of the evidence – The IRB should have mandatory
verification of the evidence. Even though the IRB is bound to obtain written
consent and assess the risk the claimant or his family members may face while
conducting verification, it might not be any problem to verify key evidences using
a third party. The evidences like a news report, documents issued by the
Government, hospital reports and human rights reports could take little effort and
lesser cost for verification. This way, the chance of refusal of legitimate claims is
reduced, while the bogus claimants may have a higher chance of rejection. The
mandatory verification process will ultimately panic the bogus refugee claimants,
and they may not even make a refugee claim.
e) PRRA process - Though one year bar for Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA)
is not entirely inappropriate, the bar should be eliminated for first-time applicants
so that the legitimate claimants should have the ultimate chance of protection
prior to removal. It is possible that illegitimate claimants may also benefit from the
removal, but their extended stay during PRRA process carry less importance
than the protection of legitimate refugee claimants.
f) Refugee cessation – Given the fact that the refugees are integrated into
Canadian society as permanent resident (PR), their PR status should not be
ceased on the basis of refugee cessation. It is apparent that the country or
personal circumstances of the refugees may progress over time, and the
refugees may feel free to return to their country of nationality. Therefore,
threatening them with PR revocation could be an unusual, inhuman and cruel
treatment. Once the refugee cannot be always the refugee and so, Canada
should not bar them from returning to their home country. More importantly, the
legislation should allow the refugees to apply for self-cessation of refugee status
when they feel safe to return to their home country.
STCA amendment
The Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) should be amended to allow the claims of
the refugees in the United States who have never made a refugee claim in the US and
who are otherwise ineligible to do so. Given the refugees in the US face difficulty to file
a claim after one year of entry, they should be able to make a refugee claim in Canada
regardless of family ties. Since Canada has expedited the refugee adjudication process,
it is highly unlikely that the bogus refugees from the US could risk by misusing the
Canada's refugee system, because by doing so, they may risk of being removed from
Canada permanently.
41
Inventory management
As recommended for enhanced refugee determination system in paragraphs 6.4, the
inventory could be significantly reduced for the IRB. More importantly, the IRB should
strictly implement first-in first-out (FIFO) queuing method, and so, the refugee claims
made prior to 2012 should be finalized prior to finalization of new claims. This way, the
new refugee claimants will have extended deadline for hearing dates, but this extension
will neither create a backlog nor be unjust for refugee claimants.
Expedited family reunification
The immediate family members of accepted refugees should be quickly granted refugee
status and allowed to enter to Canada as early as possible. The processing of the
permanent residency (PR) status apparently takes a lengthy processing period, and
more importantly, the PR should be an alternative choice rather than enforcement. The
refugees should not be forced to apply and obtain PR status to unite with their family
members. The refugee and PR status are unique and independent of its own merit and
governing laws. Given the fact that refugees are allowed to permanently stay in
Canada, be able to freely travel outside of Canada and return using Canadian travel
documents, why should they be forced to apply and obtain Canadian PR status to unite
with immediate family members? The UNHCR Handbook Section 184 clearly states that
"if the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition [becomes refugee]; his
dependents are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family
unity" (UNCHR, 1992, p. 26). Therefore, not granting refugee status to immediate family
members and preventing family unity also infringe the principle of family unity.
Contingency plan
Canada should follow up the deported refugee claimants until they reach to their home
country and start a normal life to ensure that they are not facing any risk. This could be
done through the Canadian Embassy or Consulate abroad who may simply record the
information of refugee claimants and follow up to their home address. If any refugee
faces risk, Canada should take necessary steps to bring the refugee back to Canada.
Conclusions
"Migrants and refugees are not pawns on the chessboard of humanity.
They are children, women and men who leave or who are forced to leave
their homes for various reasons, who share a legitimate desire for knowing
and having, but above all for being more." – Pop Francis
The refugees are the sovereign human beings having God's inherited rights and
liberties equivalent to any other human being on the earth. The only reason they are
42
transformed to refugees from a respected citizen of their country is the situation when
their rights and liberties are compromised due to threats and persecution, and they must
escape their country of nationality to save their own life and the lives of their family
members. They are refugees not by intention, but due to the situation that are beyond
their control. An American Christian evangelist and missionary Franklin Graham said
that Jesus Christ was a refugee due to the fact that his parents, after his birth, had to
take him and flee to Egypt to escape the murderous ruler, King Herod (Ong, 2015).
Either they flee due to an anarchist ruler or the civil war, they are considered refugees
as long as they leave their country of nationality and seek asylum in another country
where they do not have right to reside. So, humane treatment of the refugees is as
important as being a human, and vice-versa.
Having a refugee protection system that receives and protects the refugees might not
be a humane way of treating refugees as long as the refugees are not served as a
divine work rather than a burden. Undoubtedly, Canada has a functional refugee system
that allows anybody to make a refugee claim and be heard by an independent tribunal,
however, the refugees might not have been humanely treated considering it a divine
service, but they might have been considered a burden to the country and even
possible threats to the Canadian public. It is obviously crucial to protect the Canadian
public from possible threats, but isn't it important to protect legitimate refugees whose
life would be in danger if they are returned to the country of their nationality? Eighteenth
century English Jurist Sir William Blackstone said that "It is better that ten guilty persons
escape, than that one innocent suffer" (Blackstone, n.d., para. 3). So, should Canada let
to suffer thousands of refugees simply fearing of few terrorists who may enter the
country as refugees? The refugees might not enter into Canada with guns and bombs
on hand, and so, even if a few terrorists entered Canada as refugees, Canadian
security forces may track and stop them.
There is no doubt that the refugee system is misused by the bogus claimants, and it
would be imprudent to blame the refugees for misuse. For example: it is important to
close our doors carefully so that the thieves may not enter our house, and if we keep
our doors open and let the thieves easily enter, it would be foolish to blame the thieves
for stealing our house. There are severe loopholes in the refugee system that anybody
can easily misuse it for own benefit, and so, it's possible that bogus refugees may have
misused the system for years. It is important to correct errors by appropriately handling
the refugees in future than persecuting previously accepted refugees. As such, it is
irrational and unjust for the established refugees and Canadian permanent residents
(PR) to cease their refugee and PR status through refugee cessation provision.
Two claimants having similar background with equivalent evidence, and both
equivalently face the refugee hearing, one gets accepted and the other gets rejected,
because they face two different refugee judges who see them differently. In this
43
scenario, the perception of the judge, but not the law may have applied. The vast
discrepancy of the refugee decisions is nothing than different perceptions of the judges,
because if laws and legal practices were legally applied, it would be impossible to have
discrepancy ranging from zero to 90 per cent among the judges. As such, the notion of
the refugee judges rather than the system is functioning, and neither the Government
nor the IRB is willing to correct it, because, the refugee protection is considered a
burden rather than a divine service.
In the name cracking the bogus refugees, it is irrational for Canada to push pre-2012
refugee claims for several years in a queue, and prioritize post-2012 claims within 60
days of processing period. Similarly, the pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) has been
just a regulatory indication that Canada has a robust refugee protection system, but not
an actual protection mechanism, because the PRRA hardly accept any refugee claim as
compared to the acceptance rate of the IRB. Moreover, it is against the UNHCR's notion
of family unity that the family members of the accepted refugees, who should be
subsequently granted refugee status and allowed to enter to Canada pursuant to the
Convention, are forced to wait several years waiting for the principle refugee to become
Canadian permanent resident and sponsor them.
In conclusion, for Canada to be strong on its human rights record, it is imperative to
have the refugee system be more welcoming to the refugees offering them the
protection they would not get anywhere else. As identified in the preamble of the
Charter, Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and
the rule of law (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982), the refugees are the
outcomes of the rulers or the persecutors who do not recognize the supremacy of the
God and fundamental freedoms, and so, the refugee protection should be considered
as a divine service rather than a burden. As such, as recommended by the paper and
based on suggestion of several literatures, the Canada's refugee system needed
immediate reform to make it better.
44
References
Angus, Grant and Rehaag, Sean. (2015, August 21). Unappealing: An Assessment of
the Limits on Appeal Rights in Canada's New Refugee Determination System.
Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2647638
Arbel, Efrat & Brenner, Alletta. (2013, November). Bordering on failure Canada-US
border policy and the politics of refugee exclusion. Retrieved from
https://harvardimmigrationclinic.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/bordering-on-
failure-harvard-immigration-and-refugee-law-clinical-program1.pdf
Bechard, Julie and Elgersma, Sandra. (2013, July 15). Refugee Protection in Canada.
Ottawa: Library of Parliament, Canada.
Bell, Steward. (2007, May 8). Taxi driver fabricated refugee claim: IRB. National Post.
Retrieved from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1830131/posts
Blackstone, Sir William. (n.d.). Quotes. Retrieved from
https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Blackstone/article-supplemental-
information
Canada.com. (2007, May 8). Taxi driver fabricated refugee claim: IRB. Retrieved from
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e3f0ddec-d18e-450b-
9fb3-be8ff36103ca
Canadian Bar Association (CBA). (2014, March 17). Retrieved from
http://www.cba.org/Dev/CBA/submissions/pdf/14-17-eng.pdf
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 2, Part I of theConstitution Act,
1982, being Schedule B to theCanada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.
Canadian Council for Refugees & Sojourn House. (2010, November). Welcome to
Canada: The experience of Refugee Claimants at the Port-of-Entry interviews.
Retrieved from http://ccrweb.ca/files/poereport.pdf
Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR). (2004, November). More than a Nightmare
Delays in Refugee Family Reunification. Retrieved from
http://ccrweb.ca/sites/ccrweb.ca/files/static-files/nightmare.pdf
Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR). (2006, April). Manifesto on Family Reunification.
Retrieved from http://ccrweb.ca/en/manifesto-family-reunification
Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR). (2013, December 9). New refugee system – one
year on. Retrieved from http://ccrweb.ca/files/refugee-system-one-year-on.pdf
Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR). (2014a, May). Cessation: stripping refugees of
their status in Canada. Retrieved from
http://ccrweb.ca/sites/ccrweb.ca/files/cessation-report-2014.pdf
45
Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR). (2014b, April 14). 2013 Refugee Claim Data and
IRB Member Recognition Rates. Retrieved from http://ccrweb.ca/en/2013-
refugee-claim-data
Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR). (2015a, October). Brief history of Canada's
responses to refugees. Retrieved from
http://ccrweb.ca/sites/ccrweb.ca/files/static-files/canadarefugeeshistory5.htm
Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR). (2015b, May 8). 2014 Refugee Claim Data and
IRB Member Recognition Rates. Retrieved from http://ccrweb.ca/en/2014-
refugee-claim-data
Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR). (n.d.). Family reunification. Retrieved from
http://ccrweb.ca/en/family-reunification
Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR).( 2012, January). The Experience of Refugee
Claimants at Refugee Hearings at the Immigration and Refugee Board. Retrieved
from http://ccrweb.ca/files/irb_hearings_report_final.pdf
Canadian Council for Refugees, Canadian Council for Churches, Amnesty International
and John Doe vs. Her Majesty the Queen, 1262 Federal Court (2007, November
29). Retrieved from http://www.statewatch.org/news/2008/jan/canada-judg-third-
countries.pdf
Canadian Heritage. (2014, January 9). The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freesoms.
Retrieved from http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1355260548180/1355260638531
Carman, Tara. (2014, August 29). Detained refugees treated worse than criminals:
lawyer. The Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from
http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Detained+refugees+treated+worse+than+crimi
nals+lawyer/10158286/story.html
CBC News. (2012, December 13). Detention centers no place for migrant children,
critics argue. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/detention-centres-
no-place-for-migrant-children-critics-argue-1.1169993
Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). (2002, May). Canada's Asylum System: A threat
to American Security?. Retrieved from http://cis.org/articles/2002/back402.html
Chase, Steven. (2015, June 4). Foreign traveller data collection to expand. The Globe
and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-
to-expand-biometric-data-collection-on-incoming-foreigners/article24793480/
Citizens for Public Justice. (2005, April 12). Delays in Family Reunification of Protected
Persons in Canada – A submission to the Standing Committee on Citizenship
46
and Immigration. Retrieved from
http://www.cpj.ca/files/docs/brieftoimmigrationcommittee05.pdf
Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). (2007, September 26). ENF 20 Detention.
Retrieved from http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf20-eng.pdf
Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). (2012, December 13). Immigration
Information Sharing Treaty. Retrieved from
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/backgrounders/2012/2012-12-
13.asp
Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). (2013, February 2). Backgrounder —
Designated Countries of Origin. Retrieved from
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/backgrounders/2012/2012-11-
30.asp
Citizenship and immigration Canada (CIC). (2014a, September 8). Procedures at inland
offices regarding in-Canada claims for refugee protection. Retrieved from
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/refugees/canada/intake/canada.asp
Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). (2014b, September 4). ENF 6 – Review of
Reports under A44(a). Retrieved from
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf
Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). (2014c, September 19). In-Canada claims
for refugee protection. Retrieved from
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/refugees/canada/index.asp
Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). (2014d, August 1).Applying for Refugee
Protection from within Canada. Retrieved from
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/guides/5746ETOC.asp
Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). (2015a, August 7). Processing times:
Permanent Residence – Other applications. Retrieved from
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/times/perm-other.asp
Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). (2015b, August 1). Facts and figures 2014 –
Immigration overview: Permanent residents. Retrieved from
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2014/permanent/02.asp.
Cohen, Tobi. (2013, August 22). Refugee advocates raise concerns about inhuman
deportations. Canada.com. Retrieved from
http://o.canada.com/news/national/refugee-advocates-raise-concerns-about-
inhumane-deportations
47
Collom, Mark. (2015, September 4). Canada's refugee policy questioned after Syrian
boy's drowning. CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/syria-
refugees-canada-immigration-alan-kurdi-1.3214850
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, opened for signature 10 December 1984. 1465 UNTS 85 (entered
into force 26 June 1987). Available from
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/cat.pdf
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 28 July 1951, 189
UNTS 137 (entered into force 22 April 1954). Available from
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/refugees.pdf
Corrigan, Edward C. (2009, March 17). Courts allow Safe Third Country Agreement to
operate. Retrieved from http://rabble.ca/news/courts-allow-safe-third-country-
agreement-operate
Crepeau, Francois & Nakache, Delphine. (2006). Controlling Irregular Migration in
Canada. Retrieved from http://irpp.org/wp-
content/uploads/assets/research/diversity-immigration-and-integration/new-
research-article-4/vol12no1.pdf
Donnelly, Aileen & the Canadian Press [CP]. (2015, September 10). Alan Kurdi’s father
blames Canada for death of his family as PM suggests he will expedite refugee
applications. National Post. Retrieved from
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/alan-kurdis-father-blames-canada-for-
death-of-his-family-as-pm-suggests-he-will-expedite-refugee-applications
Elliott, Louise. (2015, May 16). Refugee board members' ruling varied widely in 2014,
data suggests. CBC News. Retrieved from
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/refugee-board-members-rulings-varied-widely-in-
2014-data-suggests-1.3076080
Federal Court of Canada. (2015, July 23). 2015 FC 892 Y.Z. v. Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration). Retrieved from http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-
cf/decisions/en/item/110850/index.do
Francis, Pope. (2013, August 5). Message of His Holiness Pope Francis for the World
Day of Migrants and Refugees (2014). Retrieved from
https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/messages/migration/documents/papa-
francesco_20130805_world-migrants-day.html
Friscolanti, Michael. (2014, July 7). Bogus refugee claimant accused of murder.
Maclean's. Retrieved from http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/bogus-refugee-
claimant-accused-of-murder/
48
G.S. AND C.S. v The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (MCI), 892 Federal Court
(2015, July 23). Retrieved from http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-
cf/decisions/en/item/110850/index.do
Goodwin-Gill, Guy S. and Kumin, Judith. (2000, September). Refuges in Limbo and
Canada's International Obligations. Retrieved from
http://maytree.com/PDF_Files/summaryrefugeesinlimboandcanadasinternational
obligation2000.pdf
Government of Canada (GC). (2002, December 5). Final Text of the Safe Third Country
Agreement. Retrieved from http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/laws-
policy/safe-third.asp
Government of Canada (GC). (2014a, November 6). Notice – Supplementary
Information to the 2015 Immigration Levels Plan. Retrieved from
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/notices/2014-11-06.asp
Government of Canada (GC). (2014b, March 28). Archived - Speaking notes for Chris
Alexander, Canada's Citizenship and Immigration Minister at the News
Conference Regarding Canada's Asylum System. Retrieved from
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=831769
Gulli, Cathey. (2015, September 11). Courting troubles: Why are we denying some
refugee health coverage?. Retrieved from
http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/courting-trouble-why-are-we-denying-some-
refugees-health-coverage/
Hathaway, James C. & Hicks, William S. (2005). Is there a Subjective Element in the
Refugee Convention's Requirement of 'Well-Founded Fear'?
. Mich. J. Int'l L. 26, no. 2 (2005): 505-62. Retrieved from
http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2481&context=articles
Holzer, Venessa. (2012, September). The 1951 Refugee Convention and the Protection
of People Fleeing Armed Conflict and Other Situations of Violence. Retrieved
from http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/50474f062.pdf.
Humphreys, Adrian. (2011, July 18). Translator error sinks woman's refuge hearing.
Natinoal Post. Retrieved from
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/translator-error-sinks-womans-
refugee-hearing
Humphreys, Andrian. (2014, April 15). Refugee claim acceptance in Canada appears to
be luck of the draw despite reforms, analysis shows. National Post. Retrieved
from http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/refugee-claim-acceptance-in-
canada-appears-to-be-luck-of-the-draw-despite-reforms-analysis-shows
49
Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). (2004, January 31). Refugee Protection Division
– Assessment of Credibility in Claims for Refugee Protection. Retrieved from
http://www.irb-
cisr.gc.ca/Eng/BoaCom/references/LegJur/Documents/Credib_e.pdf
Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). (2012a, November). Basis of Claim Form.
Retrieved from http://www.irb-
cisr.gc.ca/Eng/res/form/Documents/RpdSpr0201_e.pdf
Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). (2012b, December 15). Code of Conduct for
Members of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Retrieved from
http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/eng/BoaCom/empl/Pages/MemComCode.aspx
Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). (2013a). Claimant's Guide. Retrieved from
http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/Eng/RefClaDem/Pages/ClaDemGuide.aspx
Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). (2013b, April 12). Designation of Three-Member
Panels. Retrieved from http://www.irb-
cisr.gc.ca/Eng/BoaCom/references/pol/pol/Pages/PolRadSar3MemCom.aspx
Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). (2015a, August 21). About the Board. Retrieved
from http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/Eng/BoaCom/Pages/index.aspx
Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). (2015b, August 27). Refugee Claims – Statistics,
Trends and Projections. Retrieved from http://www.irb-
cisr.gc.ca/Eng/RefClaDem/Pages/RefClaDemStat.aspx
Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). (2015c, August 10). Standard Interpretation
Service Contractor Clauses and Conditions. Retrieved from http://www.irb-
cisr.gc.ca/Eng/BoaCom/interpret/Pages/SiscccCtcesi.aspx
Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). (2015d, March 27). Policy on the use of social
media by authorized individuals at the Immigration and Refugee Board of
Canada. Retrieved from http://www.irb-
cisr.gc.ca/Eng/BoaCom/references/pol/pol/Pages/PolSocMedia.aspx/Eng/BoaCo
m/references/pol/pol/Pages/PolSocMedia.aspx#s1
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c. 27. Retrieved from the
Department of Justice Canada web site: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-2.5/
Janus, Andrea. (2014, July 4). Court: Gov't cuts to refugee health care 'cruel and
unusual' treatment. CTV News. Retrieved from
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/court-gov-t-cuts-to-refugee-health-care-cruel-and-
unusual-treatment-1.1898922
50
Kerwin, Donald M. (2011, May). The faltering US Refugee Protection System: Legal and
Policy Responses to Refugees, Asylum Seekers, and Others in Need of
Protection. Washington: Migration Policy Institute
Keung, Nicholas, Bhattacharya, Surya & Rankin, Jim. (2007, June 17). How to stay in
Canada by cooking up a story. Toronto Star. Retrieved from
http://www.thestar.com/news/2007/06/17/how_to_stay_in_canada_by_cooking_u
p_a_story.html
Keung, Nicholas. (2011a, December 23). Refugee detention up in Canada, says UN
report. Toronto Star. Retrieved from
http://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2011/12/23/refugee_detention_up_in
_canada_says_un_report.html
Keung, Nicholas. (2011b, March 4). Getting asylum the luck of the draw?. Toronto Star.
Retrieved from
http://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2011/03/04/getting_asylum_the_luck
_of_the_draw.html
Keung, Nicholas. (2012, May 6). Failed candidates for Canada's refugee judge jobs get
third chance. Toronto Star. Retrieved from
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/05/06/failed_candidates_for_canadas
_refugee_judge_jobs_get_third_chance.html
Keung, Nicholas. (2014, September 26). Deportation to Iran: Woman facing possible
stoning still in limbo. The Toronto Star. Retrieved from
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/09/26/deportation_to_iran_woman_fa
cing_possible_stoning_still_in_limbo.html
Keung, Nicholas. (2015a, June 18). Secrecy surrounds death of troubled man in
immigration detention. The Toronto Star. Retrieved from
http://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2015/06/19/secrecy-surrounds-death-
of-troubled-man-in-immigration-detention.html
Keung, Nicholas. (2015b, July 22). Detainees demand answers in death of a man in
immigration custody. Toronto Star. Retrieved from
http://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2015/07/22/detainees-demand-
answers-in-death-of-man-in-immigration-custody.html
Keung, Nicholas. (2015c, March 26). Global asylum claims rise 45%, but Canada lags
in receiving refugees. Toronto Star. Retrieved from
http://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2015/03/26/global-asylum-claims-rise-
45-but-canada-lags-in-receiving-refugees.html
51
Legal Aid Ontario (LAO). (2015, October 24). Services for Refugee Claimants.
Retrieved from
http://www.legalaid.on.ca/en/getting/type_immigration_supportref.asp
Levitz, Stephanie. (2015, July 23). Conservatives' refugee system overhaul dealt
another blow by Federal Court. CBC News. Retrieved from
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservatives-refugee-system-overhaul-dealt-
another-blow-by-federal-court-1.3165544
Litpak, Adam. (2007, December 10). U.S. Is No Haven, Canadian Judge Finds. The
ENw York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/us/10bar.html?_r=0
Maurrens, Steven. (2014, August 26). Government commits to initiate proceedings
against 875 refugees per year. The Times of India. Retrieved from
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/Government-commits-to-initiate-
proceedings-against-875-refugees-per-year/articleshow/40921400.cms
Miller, Adam. (2015, June 2). Gay Palestinian seeking asylum in Canada set to be
deported despite death threats. Global News. Retrieved from
http://globalnews.ca/news/2032218/gay-palestinian-seeking-asylum-in-canada-
set-to-be-deported-despite-death-threats/
Nakache, Delphine. (2011, December). The Human and Financial Cost of Detention of
Asylum-Seekers in Canada. Retrieved from: http://www.unhcr.ca/beta/wp-
content/uploads/2014/10/RPT-2011-12-detention_assylum_seekers-e.pdf
Ong, Czarina. (2015, September 10). Jesus Christ was Himself a refugee, says Franklin
Graham as he urges compassion for the thousands flooding into Europe.
Retrieved from
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/jesus.christ.was.himself.a.refugee.says.fran
klin.graham.as.he.urges.compassion.for.the.thousands.flooding.into.europe/6440
0.htm
OurWindsor.ca. (2015, February 25). Toronto Star's View: Ottawa's perverse crackdown
on refugees. Retrieved from http://www.ourwindsor.ca/opinion-story/5447186-
toronto-star-s-view-ottawa-s-perverse-crackdown-on-refugees/
Oved, Marco Chown. (2014, August 20). Canada deports people to wars, repressive
regimes. Toronto Star. Retrieved from
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/08/20/canada_deports_people_to_wars_r
epressive_regimes.html
Payton, Laura. (2014, July 4). Federal government to appeal ruling reversing 'cruel' cuts
to refugee health. CBC News. Retrieved from
52
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-government-to-appeal-ruling-reversing-
cruel-cuts-to-refugee-health-1.2696311
Payton, Laura. (2015, January 21). Refugee health-care advocates criticize government
inaction. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/refugee-health-care-
advocates-criticize-government-inaction-1.2921799
Proctor, Jason. (2015, September 23). Refugees claim Canadian policy threatens
families. CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-
columbia/refugees-claim-canadian-policy-threatens-families-1.3238582
Protocol relation to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 31 January, 606 UNTS
267 (entered into force 4 October 1967). Available from
https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=V-
5&chapter=5&lang=en
Proussalidis, Daniel. (2014, January 16). Border services set quota for stripping refugee
status. Ottawa Sun. Retrieved from
http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/01/16/border-services-set-quota-for-stripping-
refugee-status
Public Service Commission of Canada (PSCC). (2009, October). Audit of the
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.psc-
cfp.gc.ca/adt-vrf/rprt/2009/airb-vcisr/airb-vcisr-eng.pdf
Regaah, Sean. (2000). Troubling Patters in Canadian Refugee Adjudication. Ottawa
Law Review 39.2 (2008):335-365. Retrieved from
http://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10315/9958/Rehaag-
Troubling-Patterns.pdf?sequence=1
Sanders, Carol. (2015, August 8). Two Somalian refugees reach Winnipeg after
swimming down the Red. Winnipeg Free Press. Retrieved from
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/long-perilous-journey-to-safety-
321124011.html
Schwartz, Daniel. (2015, September 10). Canada's refugee acceptance falls far short of
Stephen Harper's claims. CBC News. Retrieved from
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-refugees-harper-numbers-accepted-
1.3222918
Settlage, Rachel Gonzalez. (2012, November 27). Indirect Refoulement: Challenging
Canada's Participation in the Canada-United States Safe Third Country
Agreement. Retrieved from
http://hosted.law.wisc.edu/wordpress/wilj/files/2013/01/Settlage.pdf
53
Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, 177 Supreme Court of Canada
(1985, April 4). Retrieved from http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-
csc/en/item/39/index.do
Statistics Canada. (2013, March 19). Births and total fertility rate, by province and
territory. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-
som/l01/cst01/hlth85b-eng.htm
Tate, Ellen. (2011, September). Family Separation and Reunification of Newcomers in
Toronto – What does the literature say?. Retrieved from
http://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_toronto/toronto_public_health/healthy_communitie
s/mental_health/family_separation/files/pdf/fsr_newcomers.pdf
Toronto Star. (2010, April 21). Former refugee board member appointed by the Liberals.
Retrieved from
http://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2010/04/21/former_refugee_board_
member_appointed_by_the_liberals.html
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). (2015, August 6). Alert: Asylum
division affirmative asylum scheduling bulletin. Retrieved from
http://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum
UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC). (2015, July 20). Concluding observations on
the sixth periodic report of Canada. Retrieved from
http://nupge.ca/sites/nupge.ca/files/images/pdf/ccpr_c_can_co_6_21189_e_1.pdf
United Church of Canada. (2015, September 3). The United Church Urges Canada to
Sponsor Syrian Refugees. Retrieved from http://www.united-
church.ca/communications/news/general/150903
United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). (2004, December 22).
Advisory Opinion by UNCHR on the interpretation of the refugee definition.
Retrieved from http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4551c0374.pdf
United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). (2007, August). UNCHR's
eligibility guidelines for assessing the international protection needs of Iraqi
Asylum-Seekers. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/46dec4da2.pdf
United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). (2011, December). Handbook
and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status
under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the status of
Refugees. Geneva: UNCHR The UN Refugee Agency.
United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). (2015a, October 24). States
Parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967
Protocol. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/3b73b0d63.html
54
United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). (2015b, October 24) Facts
and Figures about Refugees. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org.uk/about-
us/key-facts-and-figures.html
United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Y.Z. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration). 2015 FC 892. Retrieved from
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/110850/1/document.do
55
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Canada's refugees by numbers
Source: CBC.CA. (2015, Oct 4). Canada's refugees by the numbers: the data. Retrieved
from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-s-refugees-by-the-numbers-the-data-
1.3240640
a) Refugee arrivals in Canada 2005 - 2014
Category 2005-2014
Government-assisted refugees 70,315
Privately sponsored refugees 43,920
Blended Visa Office-Referred refugees 330
Refugees landed in Canada 105,866
Refugee dependents 43,271
Total Refugees 263,702
b) Top ten source countries for refugees landed in Canada, 2004-2013
Source Country Number of Refugees
Colombia 17,381
China 15,344
Sri Lanka 12,326
Pakistan 10,641
Haiti 7,872
Mexico 6,512
India 4,988
United States 4,451
Nigeria 4,441
56
Zimbabwe 3,969
c) IRB refugee status determinations, 1989-2015
Year % Accepted
Accepted
Rejected
Abandoned
Withdrawn
Finalized
1989 84% 4,848
762
46
88 5,744
1990 77% 10,775
2,836
211
205 14,027
1991 68% 19,611
7,645
658
723 28,637
1992 60% 17,591
9,996
830
1,079 29,496
1993 46% 14,220
11,787
2,330
2,611 30,948
1994 60% 15,287
6,534
2,049
1,672 25,542
1995 56% 9,692
4,100
2,116
1,249 17,157
1996 44% 9,625
7,074
3,423
1,870 21,992
1997 40% 10,003
8,995
3,339
2,373 24,710
1998 44% 12,931
10,254
4,078
2,133 29,396
1999 46% 12,978
9,396
3,605
2,006 27,985
2000 48% 14,002
10,205
2,678
2,033 28,918
2001 47% 13,388
9,582
2,653
2,819 28,442
2002 47% 15,234
11,142
3,093
3,262 32,731
2003 42% 17,779
18,065
3,927
2,958 42,729
2004 40% 16,042
19,262
2,839
2,436 40,579
2005 44% 12,113
11,870
1,650
1,691 27,324
2006 47% 9,299
8,144
969
1,504 19,916
2007 43% 5,951
5,443
765
1,798 13,957
2008 42% 7,642
6,853
1,055
2,773 18,323
2009 42% 11,186 26,842
57
9,887 1,388 4,381
2010 38% 12,338
13,760
1,645
4,911 32,654
2011 38% 12,925
16,081
1,777
3,467 34,250
2012 35% 10,311
14,486
1,272
3,463 29,532
2013 38% 7,817
9,897
849
2,071 20,634
2014 49% 9,869
7,756
864
1,471 19,960
2015 Jan-June
56% 5,006
3,091
280
509 8,886
d) IRB refugee acceptance from top 10 countries, 2010-2014
Number of refugees accepted
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Haiti 2,490
Haiti 1,440
China 626 Pakistan 690 China 907
Colombia 1,266
Mexico 1,042
Colombia 482 China 535 Pakistan 858
China 881 China 957 Haiti 571 Syria 440 Syria 678
Mexico 653 Nigeria 840 Hungary 448 Hungary 406 Colombia
409
Nigeria 593 Somalia 646 Mexico 568 Colombia 386 Afghanistan
395
Sri Lanka 513 Colombia 639 Nigeria 521 Sri Lanka 286 Hungary 339
Afghanistan
412 Pakistan 433 Pakistan 500 Afghanistan
275 Nigeria 331
Somalia 382 Afghanistan
392 St. Vincent
308 Egypt 247 Iraq 324
Iran 270 Iran 329 Somalia 354 Iran 227 Egypt 297
Pakistan 255 St. Vincent
288 Sri Lanka 371 Haiti 216 Iran 255
58
Appendix 2 – Canada: Historical Timeline of Refugees, 1976-2011
Source: Citizenship and Immigration Canada
(http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/timeline.asp).
1776: 3,000 Black Loyalists, among them freemen and slaves fled the
oppression of the American Revolution, settled to Canada.
1781: Butler’s Rangers, a military unit loyal to the Crown and based at Fort
Niagara, settled some of the first Loyalist refugees from the United States in the
Niagara peninsula, along the northern shores of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.
1783: Sir Guy Carleton, Governor of the British Province of Quebec, and later to
become Lord Dorchester, safely transported 35,000 Loyalist refugees from New
York to Nova Scotia. Some settled in Quebec and others in Kingston and
Adolphustown in Ontario.
1789: Lord Dorchester, Governor-in-Chief of British North America, gave official
recognition to the ―First Loyalists‖ – those loyal to the Crown who fled the
oppression of the American Revolution to settle in Nova Scotia and Quebec.
1793: Upper Canada became the first province in the British Empire to abolish
slavery. In turn, over the course of the 19th century, thousands of black slaves
escaped from the United States and came to Canada with the aid of the
Underground Railroad, a Christian anti-slavery network.
Late 1700s: Scots Highlanders, refugees of the Highland Clearances during the
modernization of Scotland, settled in Canada.
1830: Polish refugees fled to Canada to escape Russian oppression. The year
1858 marked the first significant mass migration of Poles escaping Prussian
occupation in northern Poland.
1880-1914: Italians escaped the ravages of Italy’s unification as farmers were
driven off their land as a result of the new Italian state reforms.
1880-1914: Thousands of persecuted Jews, fleeing pogroms in the Pale of
Settlement, sought refuge in Canada.
1891: The migration of 170,000 Ukrainians began, mainly to flee oppression from
areas under Austro-Hungarian rule, marking the first wave of Ukrainians seeking
refuge in Canada.
59
1920-1939: The second wave of Ukrainians fled from Communism, civil war and
Soviet occupation.
1945-1952: The third wave of Ukrainians fled Communist rule.
1947-1952: 250,000 displaced persons (DPs) from Central and Eastern Europe
came to Canada, victims of both National Socialism (Nazism) and Communism,
and Soviet occupation.
1950s: Canada admitted Palestinian Arabs, driven from their homeland by the
Israeli-Arab war of 1948.
1950s-1970s: A significant influx of Middle Eastern and North African Jews fled
to Canada.
1951: The United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees was
created.
1956: 37,000 Hungarians escaped Soviet tyranny and found refuge in Canada.
1960: Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, whose grandfather was a German
refugee of the Napoleonic Wars, introduced Canada’s first Bill of Rights.
1960s: Chinese refugees fled the Communist violence of the Cultural Revolution.
1968-1969: 11,000 Czech refugees fled the Soviet and Warsaw Pact Communist
invasion.
1969: Canada signed the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of
Refugees, and it's Protocol, agreeing not to return a person to their country of
origin if that person had grounds to fear persecution.
1970s: 7,000 Chilean and other Latin American refugees were allowed to stay in
Canada after the violent overthrow of Salvador Allende’s government in 1973.
1970-1990: Deprived of political and religious freedom, 20,000 Soviet Jews
settled in Canada.
1971: After decades of being denied adequate political representation in the
central Pakistani government, thousands of Bengali Muslims came to Canada at
the outbreak of the Bangladesh Liberation War.
60
1971-1972: Canada admitted some 228 Tibetans. These refugees, along with
their fellow countrymen, were fleeing their homeland after China occupied it in
1959.
1972-1973: Following Idi Amin’s expulsion of Ugandan Asians, 7,000 Ismaili
Muslims fled and were brought to Canada.
1979: Iranian refugees fled Iran following the overthrow of the Shah and the
imposition of an Islamic Fundamentalist regime.
1979 -1980: More than 60,000 Boat People found refuge in Canada after the
Communist victory in the Vietnam War.
1980s: Khmer Cambodians, victims of the Communist regime and the
aftershocks of Communist victory in the Vietnam War, fled to Canada.
1982: The Constitution of Canada was amended to entrench the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
1986: The United Nations awarded Canada the Nansen Medal for its outstanding
humanitarian tradition of settling refugees.
1990s: By the 1990s, asylum seekers came to Canada from all over the world,
particularly Latin America, Eastern Europe and Africa.
1992: 5,000 Bosnian Muslims were admitted to Canada to escape the ethnic
cleansing in the Yugoslav Civil War.
1999: Canada airlifted more than 5,000 Kosovars, most of Muslims, to safety.
2006: Canada resettled over 3,900 Karen refugees from refugee camps in
Thailand.
2008: Canada began the process of resettling more than 5,000 Bhutanese
refugees over five years.
2010: Refugees from more than 140 countries were either resettled or were
granted asylum in Canada.
2011: Canada expands its refugee resettlement programs by 20% over three
years.
Each year, Canada provides asylum to more than 10,000 persecuted persons and
welcomes another 12,000 refugees from abroad.
61
Appendix 3 – IRB Members and Decisions, 2010-2014
Data source: Canadian Council for Refugees (http://ccrweb.ca/).
a) Top and bottom 10 IRB Members with refugee acceptance rate in 2014 for IRB
member who adjudicated 20 or more claims (New System – Refugee claims of those
who filed after December 2012)
Member Negative Positive Total Recognition Rate (%)
Top 10 IRB Members with highest refugee acceptance rate Stanwick, Nina 3 35 38 92.1
Tiwari, Rabin 13 104 117 88.9
Pike, Katrina 5 38 43 88.4
Modi, Neil 5 33 38 86.8
Marcinkiewicz, Christopher 4 24 28 85.7
Boissonneault, Christian 9 51 60 85.0
Roche, Patrick 22 104 126 82.5
Figg, Lois 18 80 98 81.6
Bousfield, Joel 25 107 132 81.1
Vega, Maria 14 53 67 79.1
Bottom 10 IRB Members With Lowest Refugee Acceptance Rate
Cassano, Natalka 43 31 74 41.9
Railton, James 42 30 72 41.7
Alary, Suzanne 51 36 87 41.4
Thibault, Marie-Lyne 48 29 77 37.7
Wittenberg, Claire 29 17 46 37.0
Gullickson, Jeffrey Brian 59 34 93 36.6
Bardin, Anne 42 24 66 36.4
Dortelus, Harry 61 32 93 34.4
Lloyd, Brenda 45 19 64 29.7
Maziarz, Teresa 38 15 53 28.3
b) Top and bottom 10 IRB Members with refugee acceptance rate in 2014 2014 for IRB
member who adjudicated 20 or more claims (Legacy System – refugee claims of
those who filed before December 2012)
Member Negative Positive Total Recognition Rate (%)
Top 10 IRB Members with highest refugee acceptance rate Barnes, Barry 18 59 77 76.6
Fainbloom, Kevin 22 53 75 70.7
Lowe, David 25 55 80 68.8
62
Atallah, Sherif 38 69 107 64.5
Chevrier, Marie 13 22 35 62.9
Wong, Bing 17 27 44 61.4
Yaacov, Marie-Claude 40 56 96 58.3
Tshisungu, Jose W.T. 22 29 51 56.9
Rudin, Stephen 15 19 34 55.9
Kawun, Walter 33 41 74 55.4
Bottom 10 IRB Members With Lowest Refugee Acceptance Rate
Fiorino, Pasquale A. 36 8 44 18.2
Garner, Robert S. 49 10 59 16.9
Hadaya, Marie-Josee 50 10 60 16.7
Sterlin, Michael 54 10 64 15.6
Andrachuk, Rose 34 6 40 15.0
Mccaffrey, Michael 29 5 34 14.7
Mcrae, Gordon C. 77 13 90 14.4
Lewis, Judy 42 4 46 8.7
Mcbean, David 20 1 21 4.8
Robinson, Edward 63 2 65 3.1
c) Top and bottom 10 IRB Members with refugee acceptance rate in 2013 for IRB
member who adjudicated 20 or more claims (New System – Refugee claims of those
who filed after December 2012)
Member Negative Positive Total Recognition Rate (%)
Top 10 IRB Members with highest refugee acceptance rate
Marcinkiewicz, Christopher 9 76 85 89.4
Vega, Maria 3 22 25 88.0
Seyan, Ravi 15 84 99 84.8
Dalrymple, Joseph 16 83 99 83.8
Roche, Patrick 15 73 88 83.0
Tiwari, Rabin 20 88 108 81.5
Somers, Michael 17 73 90 81.1
Goff, Dechen 14 57 71 80.3
Khamsi, Khamissa 19 60 79 75.9
Genjaga, Kristina 11 32 43 74.4
Bottom 10 IRB Members with lowest refugee acceptance rate
Davidson, Jesse 33 23 56 41.1
Wittenberg, Claire 13 9 22 40.9
Thibault, Marie-Lyne 27 18 45 40.0
Lagace, Sylvie 21 13 34 38.2
63
Dortelus, Harry 49 28 77 36.4
Ryan, Caroline 42 24 66 36.4
Gullickson, Jeffrey Brian 32 18 50 36.0
Buttigieg, Coralie 27 14 41 34.1
Lloyd, Brenda 58 15 73 20.5
Morin, Stephane 42 8 50 16.0
d) Top and bottom 10 IRB Members with refugee acceptance rate in 2013 for IRB
member who adjudicated 20 or more claims (Legacy System – refugee claims of
those who filed before December 2012)
Member Negative Positive Total Recognition Rate (%)
Top 10 IRB Members with highest refugee acceptance rate
Alidina, Shamshuddin 6 24 30 80.0
Fainbloom, Kevin 21 77 98 78.6
Tiwari, Rabin 6 21 27 77.8
Roche, Patrick 7 24 31 77.4
Lowe, David 29 87 116 75.0
Waters, James 12 35 47 74.5
Setton, Dominique 35 97 132 73.5
Narula, Bindu 21 52 73 71.2
Shecter, Trudy 20 48 68 70.6
Markovits, Robert 20 43 63 68.3
Bottom 10 IRB Members with lowest refugee acceptance rate
Ariemma, Paul 33 5 38 13.2
Delisle, Ruth 28 4 32 12.5
Mcrae, Gordon C. 84 12 96 12.5
Favreau, Leonard 39 5 44 11.4
Jobin, Michel 48 5 53 9.4
Dickenson, Kirk 82 8 90 8.9
Fiorino, Pasquale A. 53 5 58 8.6
Mcmillan, Karen 27 2 29 6.9
Robinson, Edward 87 6 93 6.5
Roy, Sylvie 23 0 23 0.0
e) Top and bottom 10 IRB Members with refugee acceptance rate in 2012 for IRB
member who adjudicated 50 or more decisions
Member Negative Positive Total Recognition Rate (%)
64
Top 10 IRB Members with highest refugee acceptance rate
Forbes, Cathryn 0 54 54 100.0 Guenette, Gilles 0 572 572 100.0 Morrish, Deborah 3 131 134 97.8 Fortin, Jacques 6 114 120 95.0 Freilich, Miriam 5 66 71 93.0 Badowski, John 31 195 226 86.3 Fainbloom, Kevin 23 100 123 81.3 Gobeil, Marc 25 99 124 79.8 Barnes, Barry 36 110 146 75.3 Alidina, Shamshuddin 40 116 156 74.4
Bottom 10 IRB Members with lowest refugee acceptance rate
Hadaya, Marie-Josee 107 15 122 12.3 Roy, Sylvie 86 12 98 12.2 Robinson, Paul 57 7 64 10.9 Fiorino, Pasquale A. 82 10 92 10.9 Robinson, Edward 68 7 75 9.3 Lewis, Judy 102 8 110 7.3 Pettinella, Michele 130 10 140 7.1 Jobin, Michel 100 6 106 5.7 Mcbean, David 50 1 51 2.0 Mcsweeney, Daniel 79 1 80 1.3
f) Top and bottom 10 IRB Members with refugee acceptance rate in 2011 for IRB
member who adjudicated 50 or more decisions
Member Negative Positive Total Recognition Rate (%)
Top 10 IRB Members with highest refugee acceptance rate
Pinkney, Thomas 10 736 746 98.7
Morrish, Deborah 6 314 320 98.1
Gauthier, Lyne 8 274 282 97.2
Freilich, Miriam 4 122 126 96.8
Forbes, Cathryn 5 150 155 96.8
Guenette, Gilles 10 201 211 95.3
Gobeil, Marc 66 296 362 81.8
Fortin, Jacques 63 277 340 81.5
Wolman, Harriet 37 150 187 80.2
Barnes, Barry 67 204 271 75.3
Bottom 10 IRB Members with lowest refugee acceptance rate
Brychcy, Anna 218 39 257 15.2
Mcrae, Gordon C 183 30 213 14.1
Pellatt-Caron, Karyn Lesley 238 27 265 10.2
65
Pettinella, Michele 358 39 397 9.8
Robinson, Edward 224 17 241 7.1
Greenside, Patricia 121 9 130 6.9
Lewis, Judy 174 11 185 5.9
Fiorino, Pasquale A. 246 10 256 3.9
Mcbean, David 87 1 88 1.1
Mcsweeney, Daniel 129 0 129 0.0
g) Top and bottom 10 IRB Members with refugee acceptance rate in 2010 for IRB
member who adjudicated 50 or more decisions
Member Negative Positive Total Recognition Rate (%)
Top 10 IRB Members with highest refugee acceptance rate
Chevrier, Marie 32 518 550 94.18
Mutch, Stuart 32 139 171 81.29
Setton, Dominique 46 197 243 81.07
Guenette, Gilles 47 201 248 81.05
Dasilva, Anthony 12 45 57 78.95
Makonnen, Yilma 29 108 137 78.83
Wolman, Harriet 27 93 120 77.50
Gobeil, Marc 67 200 267 74.91
Fortin, Jacques 65 176 241 73.03
Sajtos, Joanne 44 118 162 72.84
Bottom 10 IRB Members with lowest refugee acceptance rate
Pellatt-Caron, Karyn 45 6 51 11.76
Volpentesta, Berto 99 13 112 11.61
Mcsweeney, Daniel 94 12 106 11.32
Wedgbury, Carolyne B 131 14 145 9.66
Zuk, Colleen 67 7 74 9.46
Fiorino, Pasquale A. 94 7 101 6.93
Pettinella, Michele 168 12 180 6.67
Brychcy, Anna 58 4 62 6.45
Robinson, Edward 134 6 140 4.29
Mcbean, David 62 0 62 0.00