Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will focus my intervention today on the IRB's paper-based decision-making, or file review, process.
Before I start, and in order to situate the process, let me say that every adult making a refugee claim is interviewed by an officer of IRCC or CBSA when they make their claim. This is the first step of the in-Canada asylum system towards refugee status or removal, where CBSA or IRCC decides if a claim is ineligible to be referred to the board due to security, violating human rights or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality.
CBSA or IRCC questions the claimant, gathers identity and biometric information, and conducts criminal record checks through the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as well as security checks through the CBSA and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Based on the results, IRCC or CBSA decides if the claim is eligible to be referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board and, if it is eligible, whether the minister should intervene on the case.
Once a claim is referred to the IRB, our role is to decide whether it is well founded. We do not duplicate the work of IRCC or CBSA, but if at any stage of our process we detect something that should be raised to the attention of the minister, we formally notify them.
This takes me to the file review process. The file review process was not a response to the Yeates report, although recommendation 26 did suggest that paper-based decision-making should be considered in as many cases as is feasible.
The board's authority to accept asylum claims without a hearing dates back to 1993, under subsection 69.1(7.1) of the former Immigration Act. It is now found in paragraph 170(f) of IRPA.
How and when we consider triaging a claim for the file process is the other point I'd like to clarify. We start by looking for a notice that the minister intends to intervene in the case. If there is one, the file is screened to a full hearing. Then we confirm that a front-end security screening, the FESS, has been completed. If not, the file won't proceed in any stream until it is.
When we look at files for suitability in the file review process, we look at countries or claim types with an acceptance rate of 80% or higher, based on outcomes of regular hearings; those in which identity is established by reliable documents; those in which the evidence is not ambiguous about the risks faced by claimants; and those in which complex issues do not often arise at the hearing.
There then needs to be claimant-specific evidence—a passport, a birth certificate, membership cards, police reports, medical reports—in support of the claimant's specific allegations. If the requirements are met, we inform the minister of our intention to proceed, and the minister may choose to intervene. If they do, the case will proceed to a hearing. Remember, triaging is an administrative transaction, not a decision. It allows us to use our resources in proportion to the nature and complexity of the case at hand.
When a case is referred to a member for a file review, the member exercises their discretion and, if they believe it's necessary, they can refer the case to a full hearing.