Date:
20130920
Docket:
IMM-2871-13
Citation:
2013 FC 968
Ottawa, Ontario,
September 20, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Manson
BETWEEN:
|
|
KULBIR SINGH BAGRI
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review of the decision of James Railton, a
member of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board
[the Member], pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [the Act]. The Member refused to reopen the
Applicant’s claim for refugee protection.
I. Background
[2]
The
Applicant is a citizen of Indian who arrived in Canada on February 10, 2013. He
was interviewed at his port of entry, initiated a refugee claim, and was placed
in immigration detention. Notes from his port of entry interview indicate he
spoke to counsel the same day. On February 12, 2013, he was interviewed by a
Minister’s Delegate. Notes of that interview indicate that the applicant was
told:
…to provide the Immigration and Refugee Board with
contact information within 10 days, to submit a completed Claim of Basic (sic)
within 15 days, right to counsel and to obtain a medical exam within 60 days.
[3]
The
Applicant signed a document entitled “Declaration of the Person Concerned,”
which confirmed, among other things, that he understood the verbal exchange
between the officer and himself during the examination. An interpreter was
used.
[4]
On
February 13, 2013, the Applicant was released from detention.
[5]
On
March 19, 2013, the Applicant’s refugee claim was declared abandoned pursuant
to section 65 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012-256
[the Rules] on the basis that the Applicant had never provided his Basis of
Claim [BOC] form within the allotted time.
[6]
On
April 3, 2013, the Applicant submitted an application to reopen his refugee
claim.
[7]
In
a decision dated April 9, 2013, the Applicant’s application to reopen his
refugee claim was denied. There were no reasons provided at that time.
[8]
The
content of a Request Record, Refugee Protection Division, was sent to the
Applicant on April 30, 2013. This record contained notes by the Member written
on April 5, 2013, and act as the reasons for his decision:
The claimant received a BoC kit at the time of the
referral. The officer’s notes indicate that the claimant was told that he must
file his BoC within 15 days of the referral.
The claimant failed to file a BoC on time or at all.
The Claimant’s Counsel did not provide a completed BoC with the application to
re-open. Although if he had, the RPD might have dismissed the application to
re-open anyway, the fact that there is still no BoC does not show due diligence
or otherwise advance the claim or the application to re-open.
II. Issue
[9]
The
issue raised in the present application is as follows:
A. Was
the member’s decision reasonable?
III. Standard of review
[10]
The
Applicant does not make a submission on the standard of review.
[11]
The
question of whether the Applicant’s claim should be re-opened is reviewable on
the standard of reasonableness (Yan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2010 FC 1270 at para 20).
IV. Analysis
[12]
The
application must fail for the reasons that follow.
[13]
The
Applicant asserts that the Applicant never received his refugee file, despite
requesting it. Without the file, he states that he did not know on which date
he had to file his BOC. As well, the Applicant asserts that detailed reasons
must be given for refusal of an application to re-open, citing Javed v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1458 at para 20 [Javed].
[14]
The
evidence in the record shows that the Applicant was made aware of the relevant
filing dates and had an opportunity to speak to counsel. He also had access to an
interpreter and signed a declaration acknowledging that he understood the
verbal exchanges in respect of the filing dates.
[15]
Even
after the Applicant’s claim had been declared abandoned, he failed to provide
his BOC form in a timely manner.
[16]
While
Javed, above, recognizes the significance of an abandonment decision, it
does not state that detailed reasons must be provided, only that meaningful
reasons are required. If adequate or sufficient reasons are provided, that is
enough.
[17]
In
the instant application, the reasons provided in response to the Applicant’s
request were sufficient. Most notably they articulate the fact that the
Applicant was given notice of his filing deadline and did not act with due
diligence in failing to follow up. I would distinguish these reasons from Javed,
where the reasons amount to an assertion that the claimants did not meet the
requirements of natural justice.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
1.
This
Application is dismissed;
2.
Counsels
agree that there is no question to certify.
"Michael D.
Manson"
Email this Content