Docket: IMM-13689-23
Citation: 2024 FC 1843
Ottawa, Ontario, November 19, 2024
PRESENT: Mr. Justice Norris
BETWEEN: |
QSAI WA’EL ATIEH YACOUB |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] The applicant is a citizen of Jordan. After entering Canada as a visitor in August 2018, the applicant made a claim for refugee protection on January 9, 2019. The claim was referred to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. In October 2020, however, the RPD suspended proceedings in relation to the claim under subsection 103(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (IRPA) because the applicant had been charged with a criminal offence that may be punished by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years. The applicant was convicted of the offence on December 6, 2022. On May 18, 2023, he was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and to probation for one year. The sentencing judge imposed certain other ancillary orders as well.
[2] On July 13, 2023, the RPD issued a letter to the applicant informing him that, pursuant to paragraph 104(2)(a) of the IRPA, his claim for refugee protection had been terminated because the RPD had been informed by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) that, as a result of the criminal conviction, the applicant’s claim for protection is ineligible to be determined by the RPD.
[3] The applicant has applied for judicial review of the RPD’s decision under subsection 72(1) of the IRPA. The sole basis on which he challenges the decision is that he received ineffective assistance from his former counsel in the proceedings before the RPD. In my view, it would not be appropriate to consider this ground of review because the applicant failed to give proper notice to his former counsel, as required by the jurisprudence and by the Court’s Consolidated Practice Guidelines for Citizenship, Immigration, and Refugee Protection Proceedings (last amended October 31, 2023), at paragraphs 49 to 63.
[4] On the other hand, the respondent suggests, and I agree, that the July 13, 2023, decision terminating the applicant’s refugee claim should be set aside because of irregularities in communications between the CBSA and the RPD. It appears that the RPD’s decision to terminate the applicant’s refugee claim at that time was based on, at best, incomplete information from the CBSA and the decision was made prematurely.
[5] It appears that the RPD has addressed the question of the applicant’s eligibility to pursue his claim for refugee protection again since the July 13, 2023, decision that is the subject of this application for judicial review. Specifically, it appears that on July 17, 2024, the RPD terminated the applicant’s refugee claim again. It also appears that, despite this, the RPD did not send a new termination letter to the applicant. The disposition of the present application does not affect the validity of any subsequent determination concerning the applicant’s eligibility to pursue his refugee claim, one way or the other.
[6] The applicant seeks costs. This request was made for the first time in correspondence from counsel for the applicant dated November 15, 2024. The applicant did not seek costs when he commenced this application, he did not raise the issue of costs in his Memorandum of Argument, and he did not file a further Memorandum of Argument after leave was granted. The applicant has known of the circumstance on which he seeks costs (the respondent’s shifting position at the leave stage) since at least August 30, 2024. The proper place to raise the issue of costs would have been in a further Memorandum of Argument. The applicant has not offered any explanation for why he did not raise this issue sooner than he did. I agree with the respondent that it is too late to raise it now.
[7] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be allowed without costs. There is no question for certification under paragraph 74(d) of the IRPA.
Email this Content