Operational Bulletin 551 – October 01, 2013

Potential Claims Under Article 1(F) (a) of the Refugee Convention and Potential Cases of Persons Described Under Paragraph 35(1) (a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

Summary

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) had rendered its decision to allow the appeal of Mr. Rachidi Ekanza Ezokola on July 19, 2013. In its decision, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) had:

• Proposed a new “contribution-based test” for determining complicity and,
• Remitted the matter back to the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) for a new hearing

In addition, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) also rejected the notion that the authorities could base exclusion under article 1F (a) of the Refugee Convention on the concept of “mere association”. Rather, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) announced that it required evidence that an individual had made “a significant contribution to the crime or criminal purpose of a group”.

This decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) will affect the approach that officers take. This is especially so in situations where the officers process claims and argue cases before the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB).

Officers of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) continue to review and assess the ruling at their headquarters. Based on their observations, they will publish the appropriate field guidance for officers subsequently. This would enable officers to receive the required assistance when they:

• Assess refugee claims involving article 1F (a) of the Refugee Convention and,
• Assess applicants for admissibility determinations on grounds of human or international rights violations specified in Paragraph 35 (1) (a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)

The Actions Required of Officers in Canada and Overseas

At present, the officers in Canada and overseas would need to:

• Identify claims and cases that the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision could potentially impact
• Avoid processing Permanent Residence applications that meet the above-mentioned description until such time as the authorities communicate the relevant policies and procedures to the officers
• Adhere to the current Temporary Residence application process, unless:
• The application receives a negative decision and,
• The authorities cannot allow the consideration of other facilitation mechanisms, such as a Public Policy Temporary Resident Visa
• While processing cases belonging to the latter description, the officers would need to avoid processing Permanent Residence applications that meet the above-mentioned description until such time as the authorities communicate the relevant policies and procedures to the officers

Source: Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC)