Date: 20090303
Docket: IMM-3223-08
Citation: 2009 FC 221
Toronto, Ontario, March 3, 2009
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
BETWEEN:
HUSSEIN
ABUALI
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
&
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Mr.
Hussein Abuali (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of the
Refugee Protection Division, Immigration and Refugee Board (the “Board”), made
on June 27, 2008. In that decision, the Board refused the Applicant’s motion to
reopen his claim for refugee protection after it had been declared abandoned.
Background
[2]
The
Applicant is a forty year old stateless national of the West Bank of Palestine. He fled the
West Bank in 1989 and went to the United States where he eventually
obtained permanent residence. However, after being convicted of conspiracy to
commit theft, he was returned to the West Bank in July 2005. On June
16, 2006, he fled the West Bank again and arrived in Canada on June 17,
2006. He applied for refugee protection on July 5, 2006.
[3]
When
he completed his Personal Information Form, he was living with a friend,
Mohammad Saleh, in Mississauga. He later moved, but he did not notify the
Refugee Protection Division of his change of address. He continued to have his
mail delivered to his friend’s home. He could be notified by his friend of any
mail and he would then collect it. On April 17, 2008 the Applicant filed a
change of address form with Canada Post.
[4]
The
Applicant alleges that he recently learned that in August 2007, his former
counsel removed himself from the record at the Board, without informing the
Applicant.
[5]
In
March 2008, the Applicant received a notice from the Canada Border Services Agency
(the “CBSA”) directing him to report to the Greater Toronto Enforcement Centre
for an interview. At that interview, the Applicant was told that his refugee
claim had been dismissed and that he would be deported. He was also told of his
right to make a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Application (“PRRA”) before his
removal.
[6]
The
Applicant retained new counsel to assist in preparing his PRRA and to make an
application to reopen his refugee claim. According to the Refugee Protection
Division Rules, SOR/2002-228 (the “RPD Rules”), the test upon a motion to
reopen a claim that has been found to be abandoned is whether a breach of
natural justice occurred.
[7]
In
rejecting the reopening motion, the Board identified the issue as being whether
the Board had met its onus in mailing the NTA to the Applicant’s last known
address. The Board referred to the fact that the NTA letter for a hearing set
for October 30, 2007 had been returned, bearing a notice from Canada Post that
the Applicant was no longer living at his listed address. The Board noted that
the NTA is deemed to have been delivered after it has been deposited in the
mail.
[8]
The
Applicant submitted two affidavits with his reopening motion, his own and that
of his friend whose address he had provided to the Board. The Board did not
question the Applicant’s credibility but rejected his argument that he, the
Applicant, had satisfied his onus to keep the Board informed about his address
by arranging to have his mail redirected, rather than notifying the Board of
his new mailing address.
[9]
Likewise,
the Board did not make adverse credibility findings relative to the friend’s
affidavit but gave it little weight, saying the issue was not whether a
resident in the friend’s house had inadvertently caused the second NTA to be
returned, rather than advising the Applicant of its receipt. The Board found
that the main issue was whether deemed delivery had occurred. The Board found
that such deemed delivery had in fact taken place.
Submissions
[10]
The
Applicant argues that the Board erred in failing to find that no breach of
natural justice had occurred as a result of the lack of notice to him that an
abandonment hearing had been scheduled.
[11]
The
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”), for his part,
submits that no breach of natural justice resulted from the actions of the
Board in finding that the mailing of the NTA, in accordance with RPD Rules,
satisfied the Notice requirement. The Respondent acknowledges that in
determining whether a breach of natural justice has occurred, regard must be
given to any explanation provided as to why notice was not received, relying in
this regard on the decision in Gutierrez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration) (2005), 47 Imm L.R. (3d) 238.
[12]
The
Respondent also argues that the actions of the Applicant are also a relevant
factor. He was responsible for advising the Board of any change in contact
details and he did not do so. The fact that he did not receive the NTA is not per
se a breach of natural justice.
[13]
In
his Reply, the Applicant acknowledges that the lack of notice alone will
automatically lead to a reopening of a claim. He submits, however, that he was
not at fault for the lack of notice.
Discussion and
Disposition
[14]
The
only question arising in this application for judicial review is whether the
Board committed a reviewable error in finding that no breach of natural justice
was committed by the Abandonment Panel. Since this is essentially a matter of
procedural fairness, the standard of correctness will apply. In this regard, I
refer to the decision in Ha v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), (2004), 34 Imm. L.R. (3d) 157.
[15]
Subsection
161(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27
authorizes the Chairperson of the Board to make rules of practice and procedure
of each Division of the Board and provides as follows:
|
161. (1) Subject to the approval of the Governor in
Council, and in consultation with the Deputy Chairpersons and the Director
General of the Immigration Division, the Chairperson may make rules
respecting
(a) the activities, practice
and procedure of each of the Divisions of the Board, including the periods
for appeal, the priority to be given to proceedings, the notice that is
required and the period in which notice must be given;
(b) the conduct of persons in
proceedings before the Board, as well as the consequences of, and sanctions
for, the breach of those rules;
(c) the information that may be
required and the manner in which, and the time within which, it must be
provided with respect to a proceeding before the Board; and
(d) any other matter considered
by the Chairperson to require rules.
|
161. (1) Sous réserve de l’agrément du gouverneur en conseil et en
consultation avec les vice-présidents et le directeur général de la Section
de l’immigration, le président peut prendre des règles visant :
a) les travaux, la procédure et la pratique des sections, et
notamment les délais pour interjeter appel de leurs décisions, l’ordre de
priorité pour l’étude des affaires et les préavis à donner, ainsi que les
délais afférents;
b) la conduite des personnes dans les affaires devant la
Commission, ainsi que les conséquences et sanctions applicables aux
manquements aux règles de conduite;
c) la teneur, la forme, le délai de présentation et les modalités
d’examen des renseignements à fournir dans le cadre d’une affaire dont la
Commission est saisie;
d) toute autre mesure nécessitant, selon lui, la prise de règles.
|
[16]
The
RPD Rules also address the obligation of a claimant, such as the Applicant, to
provide the contact information and any changes in that information to the
Board. Rule 4 provides as follows:
|
Claimant’s contact information
4.(1) The claimant
must provide the claimant’s contact information in writing to the Division
and the Minister.
Time limit
(2) The claimant’s contact information
must be received no later than 10 days after the claimant received the
Personal Information Form.
Change to contact information
(3) If the claimant’s contact
information changes, the claimant must without delay provide the changes in
writing to the Division and the Minister.
Claimant’s
counsel
(4) A claimant who is represented by counsel must, on obtaining counsel,
provide the counsel’s contact information in writing to the Division and the
Minister. If that information changes, the claimant must without delay
provide the changes in writing to the Division and the Minister.
|
Coordonnées du
demandeur d’asile
4.(1) Le
demandeur d’asile transmet ses coordonnées par écrit à la Section et au
ministre.
Délai
(2) Les coordonnées
doivent être reçues par leurs destinataires au plus tard dix jours suivant la
réception, par le demandeur d’asile, du formulaire sur les renseignements
personnels.
Changement des coordonnées
(3) Dès que ses
coordonnées changent, le demandeur d’asile transmet ses nouvelles coordonnées
par écrit à la Section et au ministre.
Coordonnées du conseil
(4) Dès qu’il retient les services d’un conseil, le
demandeur d’asile transmet les coordonnées de celui-ci par écrit à la Section
et au ministre. Dès que ces coordonnées changent, le demandeur d’asile
transmet les nouvelles coordonnées par écrit à la Section et au ministre.
|
[17]
Rule
22 provides that a claimant be given notice of a proceeding, as follows:
|
22. The
Division must notify a party in writing of the date, time and location of a
proceeding.
|
22. La Section avise les
parties par écrit des date, heure et lieu d’une procédure.
|
[18]
Rule
55(4) sets out the test to be applied when a motion is made to reopen a claim
that has been found to be abandoned, as follows:
|
Factor
55.(4) The Division must allow the application if it is established that
there was a failure to observe a principle of natural justice.
|
Élément à considérer
55.(4) La Section accueille la demande sur preuve du
manquement à un principe de justice naturelle.
|
[19]
Rule
58 governs abandonment hearings and provides as follows:
|
Abandonment without hearing the claimant
58.(1) A claim may be declared abandoned, without giving the
claimant an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be declared
abandoned, if
(a) the Division has not received the claimant’s
contact information and their Personal Information Form within 28 days after
the claimant received the form; and
(b) the Minister and the claimant’s counsel, if
any, do not have the claimant’s contact information.
Opportunity to explain
(2) In every other case, the Division
must give the claimant an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be
declared abandoned. The Division must give this opportunity
(a) immediately, if the claimant is present at the
hearing and the Division considers that it is fair to do so; or
(b) in any other case, by way of a special hearing
after notifying the claimant in writing.
Factors
to consider
(3) The Division must consider, in
deciding if the claim should be declared abandoned, the explanations given by
the claimant at the hearing and any other relevant information, including the
fact that the claimant is ready to start or continue the proceedings.
Decision to start or continue the proceedings
(4) If the Division decides not to declare the claim abandoned, it must
start or continue the proceedings without delay.
|
Désistement sans
audition du demandeur d’asile
58.(1) La
Section peut prononcer le désistement d’une demande d’asile sans donner au
demandeur d’asile la possibilité d’expliquer pourquoi le désistement ne
devrait pas être prononcé si, à la fois :
a) elle n’a reçu ni les coordonnées, ni le formulaire sur
les renseignements personnels du demandeur d’asile dans les vingt-huit jours
suivant la date à laquelle ce dernier a reçu le formulaire;
b) ni le ministre, ni le conseil du demandeur d’asile, le
cas échéant, ne connaissent ces coordonnées.
Possibilité de s’expliquer
(2) Dans tout autre
cas, la Section donne au demandeur d’asile la possibilité d’expliquer
pourquoi le désistement ne devrait pas être prononcé. Elle lui donne cette
possibilité :
a) sur-le-champ, dans le cas où il est présent à
l’audience et où la Section juge qu’il est équitable de le faire;
b) dans le cas contraire, au cours d’une audience spéciale
dont la Section l’a avisé par écrit.
Éléments à considérer
(3) Pour décider si
elle prononce le désistement, la Section prend en considération les
explications données par le demandeur d’asile à l’audience et tout autre
élément pertinent, notamment le fait que le demandeur d’asile est prêt à
commencer ou à poursuivre l’affaire.
Poursuite de l’affaire
(4) Si la Section décide de ne pas prononcer le
désistement, elle commence ou poursuit l’affaire sans délai.
|
[20]
Rules
31 to 35 deal with the manner of providing a document. Rule 35 is relevant to
the within matter and provides as follows:
|
35. (1) A document
provided to the Division is considered to be received by the Division on the
day the document is date stamped by the Division.
When a document provided by regular mail is considered
received by a party
(2) A document provided by regular mail to a party is considered to be
received seven days after the day it was mailed. If the seventh day is a
Saturday, Sunday or other statutory holiday, the document is considered to be
received on the next working day.
|
35.(1) Tout
document transmis à la Section est considéré comme ayant été reçu le jour où
la Section y appose la date de réception au moyen d’un timbre dateur.
Date de réception
d’un document envoyé par courrier ordinaire à une partie
(2) Tout document envoyé par courrier ordinaire à une
partie est considéré comme ayant été reçu sept jours après sa mise à la
poste. Si le septième jour est un samedi, un dimanche ou un autre jour férié,
le document est alors considéré comme
ayant été reçu le premier jour ouvrable suivant.
|
[21]
The
Applicant’s principal argument is that he did not receive notice of the
abandonment hearing and this circumstance denied him the right to a hearing
prior to the decision that his claim had been abandoned. He submits that denial
of a hearing is a fundamental breach of natural justice, relying in that regard
upon the decision in Matondo v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration) (2005),44 Imm. L.R. (3d) 225.
[22]
The
sole issue arising here is whether the Board committed a reviewable error in
dismissing the Applicant’s motion to reopen his refugee protection claim. It is
clear from the RPD Rules that the test upon a motion to reopen a claim that has
been declared abandoned is whether a breach of natural justice occurred. That
test is set out in Rule 55 (4).
[23]
I
agree with the position of the Applicant that the non-receipt of the notice is
insufficient, by itself, to justify an abandonment finding. However, I do not
agree that his demonstrated non-receipt of the notice gives rise to a finding
that he was denied a hearing.
[24]
The
relevant fact is that the Applicant did not notify the Board of his change of
address. That is the root of the problem, a problem created by the Applicant.
The error made by the Abandonment Panel concerning his representation by
counsel is not under review in the current proceeding and is not relevant to
the Board’s decision to reject his re-opening motion.
[25]
Upon
the facts and the evidence and having regard to the RPD Rules and the Act, the
Board’s decision is correct. There is no basis for judicial intervention and
this application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for
certification arising.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that the
application for judicial review is dismissed, no question for certification
arising.
“E. Heneghan”
Email this Content