PETITION TO GENERAL COUNCIL

TITLE:A Meaningful Appeal Process for Refugee
Claimants

ORIGINAL SOURCE:Church in Society Committee, Toronto Conference

CONFERENCE ACTION:

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:Staff and volunteer time related to advocacy and
communications.

SOURCE OF FUNDS:Justice, Global and Ecumenical Relations budget

STAFFING IMPLICATIONS:Staff time for communications and meetings with
federal officials and NGOs working on this issue

VOLUNTEER IMPLICATIONS:Participation in planning and meetings


MOTION by Susan Ferguson/Kevin Logie that this 79th annual meeting of Toronto Conference petition General Council to call on the Government of Canada to:

-Implement as soon as possible the right of a merits-based appeal for refused refugee claimants which is provided for in the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.


RATIONALE AND FAITH BASE

We are called to stand with those in our world who are most vulnerable, and to judge the actions of those with power by how they deal with vulnerable persons and groups, with those with little power in our society. We are called to "welcome the alien and stranger and give them the same laws as the native born" (citation?).

The lack of a meaningful appeal process on the merits of the case, rather than only a judicial review, has long been identified by Canadian refugee rights groups as a serious flaw in our determination system that puts asylum seekers at risk.  The United Nations High Commissioner for refugees and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, among other international bodies, have criticized Canada for its failure to fulfill its international legal obligations in this regard.



The failure to implement the provision for this review contained in the new Act is even more disturbing because the Act also reduces the number of adjudicators required at a hearing from two to one. Furthermore, a refugee claimant can now make only one claim in her or his lifetime.

With no review possible on the merits of a case it is almost impossible for mistakes to be corrected.  In very rare circumstances the Federal Court may intervene, usually in cases of specific procedural errors. Finally Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Officers may only look at new evidence, not at the person's situation as a whole.  Taken together, these new measures create an even more unfair situation for persons seeking the protection of Canada than was previously the case.

Decision-making in the area of refugee determination is difficult and errors are inevitable.  The consequences of such errors are enormous; deportation of persons in need of protection can mean imprisonment, torture and even death upon their forced return to their country of origin.

In May 2002 the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration stated publicly that he planned to implement the provisions for meaningful appeal within one year. This was reiterated in the House of Commons on June 6, 2002.  Subsequently the Minister has said that the implementation must be indefinitely postponed,  and has suggested that use of an independent body to hear claims may not even be necessary. A system with only a single decision-maker and no right of appeal is unjust and contrary to our obligations under international law.