Evidence of meeting #46 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was iad.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Gilbert, I thank you for coming again as a regular attendee to the committee.
Mr. Versteegh and your colleagues in Hong Kong, I thank you for staying up late to provide us with the information you have. It's appreciated.
This committee will suspend for a few minutes.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We will continue.
We have representatives from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada with us this morning. Good morning to all of you.
Mr. Simon Coakeley is the executive director. Ms. Hazelyn Ross is the assistant deputy chairperson of the IAD. We have the legal advisor, Mr. Joel Rubinoff.
We have up to seven minutes for one of you to make the presentation to us. I don't know which one; it'll be a surprise.
Go ahead, Mr. Coakeley.
9:25 a.m.
Simon Coakeley Executive Director, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, everyone.
My name is Simon Coakeley. I am the Executive Director of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, or IRBC. I am the Board's Chief Operating Officer and I am responsible for the performance of the Board's adjudicative support, registry and corporate support services. I report directly to the Chairperson, Mr. Brian Goodman.
As has been mentioned, I am joined today by Ms. Hazelyn Ross, our acting Deputy Chairperson of the Immigration Appeal Division, or IAD, as it is known, and Mr. Joel Rubinoff, one of our legal advisors who focuses primarily on the IAD.
We are very pleased to be here to try to help the committee with its study of immigration application process wait times. I would however like to note that one of the focuses of the committee, business applications, is an area where IRBC has no jurisdiction.
As the committee is probably aware, the Board is currently composed of three divisions, the Refugee Protection Division, the Immigration Appeal Division and the Immigration Division. In the last fiscal year, our divisions finalized more than 55,000 cases, 7,200 of which were at the IAD.
The IAD hears appeals from decisions that have been made by Citizenship and Immigration Canada at a visa post in the case of refused sponsorships; by officers of CIC or the Canada Border Services Agency in the case of residency obligation determinations; and by the Immigration Division in the case of removal orders. Rarely, the IAD hears appeals brought by the minister against a decision made by the Immigration Division.
Hearings at the IAD are adversarial and appellants are often represented by a counsel. The minister, represented by the Canada Border Services Agency, is always a party. In sponsorship appeals, CBSA represents the minister of CIC, and in removal appeals, CBSA represents the minister of Public Safety.
When a sponsorship application is refused by CIC, the sponsor may appeal to the IAD. The family member and the sponsor will have to prove that they meet the legal requirements in order to immigrate, and in the case of marriage appeals, the spouses will have to establish that their marriage is a genuine one that was not entered into primarily for immigration purposes.
The IAD cannot issue a permanent resident visa; only CIC can issue visas. So, if the sponsorship appeal is successful, the application must go back to the visa post for further processing. Therefore, the delays in the processing of permanent resident visa applications are independent of the will of the IAD.
In the case of removal order appeals, the IAD is responsible for hearing the appeal of a foreign national, protected person or permanent resident who is facing removal because of a contravention of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or for criminality. The original removal order is made by an officer of CIC or of the Canada Border Services Agency or by the Immigration Division.
The IAD determines if the decision to remove the appellant is legally correct and also considers if there are humanitarian and compassionate reasons why the appellant should not be removed. In deciding whether to allow an appeal based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, the IAD always bears in mind its obligation to protect public safety, as well as its obligations to apply existing law on humanitarian factors, including the obligation to consider the best interests of a child.
In the event that the IAD confirms the removal, the timing and execution of removal orders is the Canada Border Services Agency's responsibility, and not that of the IAD.
As the committee is aware, permanent residents are required to be physically present in Canada for a minimum period of time, which is generally 730 days over a five-year period. If an officer of CIC or CBSA determines that a permanent resident has not lived up to this obligation, the permanent resident may appeal that determination to the lAD. These appellants are almost always abroad at the time their appeal is heard. For their appeal to be successful, they need to establish that they have complied with the residency requirement or that there are humanitarian or compassionate grounds to maintain the permanent residency status.
Since the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act came into effect in 2002, there has been a 60% increase in appeals filed at the lAD, and sponsorship appeals account for approximately 70% of the caseload. For a number of years the lAD did not have a full complement of members; consequently, a backlog of cases developed.
The lAD sets very clear productivity targets for its members, which are routinely met and often exceeded, and we now have close to a full complement of 37 members; however, even with our members meeting or exceeding their target of finalizing 150 cases per year, we are not going to be able to eliminate the backlog within our current funding model.
To handle its caseload in the most efficient way possible, the IAD has developed different resolution streams for dealing with appeals, based on their complexity and the probability of quick resolution. In addition to oral hearings, these streams include early informal resolution--which includes alternative dispute resolution, or ADR--and written proceedings. Early informal resolution is a process that encourages parties to make early disclosures of relevant materials. This process assists in narrowing the issues and in focusing the appeal, and it contributes to a quicker hearing.
ADR is used in selected marriage appeals. It is a form of early informal resolution through which the IAD brings the parties together and encourages them to look realistically at the strengths and weaknesses of their positions so that appellants can withdraw weak appeals and the minister can consent to appeals when the facts are strongly in the appellants' favour.
While the parties are brought together by the IAD, it is important to note that an appeal can only be allowed at ADR if the minister agrees.
The opportunity given to appellants to realistically assess their appeals and to withdraw weak ones is beneficial to the parties and to the division, as it allows appellants to save time and money if the outcome is almost certain failure. It also allows both CBSA and the IAD to direct limited resources elsewhere.
Another advantage of ADR to both the IAD and the parties is the fact that the average processing time for sponsorship appeal resolved through a normal hearing is 13 months, while the average processing time for an appeal resolved in ADR is six months.
To avoid unnecessary oral hearings, appeals concerning a single issue can often be resolved in chambers via written arguments and submissions. In these cases the IAD member renders a decision in the matter based on the written record. The IAD regularly engages with the counsel community and with CBSA to seek out and promote more efficient ways of processing appeals. The IAD is committed to maintaining high levels of productivity while running fair and efficient proceedings in which we carry out the objectives of IRPA, which include seeing that families are reunited and that the health, safety, and security of Canadians are protected.
We provided additional statistics and information to the committee ahead of time on the work of the IAD.
Mr. Chair, thank you again for inviting us to meet with you today. My colleagues and I would be very pleased to answer your questions.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
You covered a lot of ground in seven minutes. Congratulations to you.
The committee has some questions.
Go ahead, Mr. Oliphant.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for your report, Mr. Coakeley.
I want to focus a little on sponsorship appeals so that we can get our heads around that.
I'm less interested in the number of appeals filed and the number of verdicts or decisions reached than in the quality or the nature of the decisions reached. That relates to wait times and whether wait times are appropriate or inappropriate.
I don't know if you have the numbers for 2010 or not. In 2010, how many sponsorship appeals would have been returned as decisions or as finalized cases in 2010?
9:35 a.m.
Executive Director, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
The numbers I have go by fiscal year, I'm afraid, not by calendar year.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Would you give us the numbers for fiscal year 2009-10, then?
9:35 a.m.
Executive Director, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
In 2009-10, 4,423 sponsorship appeals were filed and 4,629 would have been finalized. The ones finalized would probably have come in this fiscal year.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Thye'd be from another year, so they would have been there for a while.
There were 4,629 filed. Do you have a breakdown in the different classes? How many of those would be spousal and how many would be parent and grandparent?
9:35 a.m.
Executive Director, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
I do not have that information here. Perhaps Ms. Ross might have a sense.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Approximately how many would it be? Would it be 10%, 90%, 20%, 80%, 30%, 70%?
9:35 a.m.
Hazelyn Ross Assistant Deputy Chairperson (IAD), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
I would say that at least 80% of our sponsorship appeals are spouses.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
So it's about 80% spousal and 20% family and grandparent. Of those 4,629 cases that were finalized, how many of the decisions of CIC officials were upheld and how many were overturned?
9:35 a.m.
Executive Director, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
I'm afraid I don't have that information here with me.
Perhaps Ms. Ross could tell you something, just from a sense of the hearings.
9:35 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Chairperson (IAD), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Yes, I could give you a sense of the hearings. I believe that roughly 30% of the sponsorship appeals are allowed, about 40% are dismissed, and the remainder are withdrawn or abandoned. Those were probably weak appeals.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Of the 30% that are upheld, would they mostly be family, grandparents, and parents?
9:35 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Chairperson (IAD), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
No, they would be mostly spousal. It would be the whole gamut, but the bulk of the appeals are spousal appeals.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
If 30% are allowed, it means that three times out of ten, a decision made by the officials has been wrong.
9:35 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Chairperson (IAD), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
I wouldn't say that the decisions made by the officials were wrong. In most cases, the decision made by the visa officer, the immigration officer, is correct, because the decision was based on the facts that were before him. The facts in front of the IAD may be quite different, because by this point the appellant and the applicant have been together for a longer time. They provide us with more information and sometimes different information than what was before the immigration officer.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
All right, so one of the problems on wait times is perhaps that the applicant is not supplying the right information in a timely fashion to the officials.
9:35 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Chairperson (IAD), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
It may well be, but I can't say. They are providing sufficient information for us to be able to make an appropriate decision.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
My worry would be that the questions aren't being asked appropriately. I don't know whether the onus is on the applicant. It's a Canadian citizen trying to sponsor a parent, a grandparent, or a spouse, and they're attempting in good faith to do that. I'm wondering where the problem is. This is a problem with wait times. If I'm rejected and then I have to appeal, and the appeal procedure takes a considerable time, this is a concern. Your appeals have gone up significantly since 2002, and we don't have infinite resources.
I would like to say that my thoughts of efficiencies are not so much on cases brought in and cases resolved. My concept of efficiency goes beyond the appeal division to the whole system. I am concerned with how well we are doing at processing people from the time they apply until an ultimate decision is made in Federal Court. I would like some statistics. When I was on veterans, we got the Veterans Review and Appeal Board statistics on how many appeals were allowed or dismissed. It would be helpful if we could get some numbers.
9:35 a.m.
Executive Director, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
We should be able to provide that information. I'm sure you can appreciate, though, that what happens before and what happens after....
Our focus must be on those files that are on our shelves. We have an obligation to deal with them.