Is the IRB independent?
Recent comments and actions by the immigration minister raises the spectre of executive interference in the operations of the IRB.
Kenney commented on the merits of claims from the Czech Republic and Mexico. This despite the high success rate of claims by Roma and evidence of societal discrimination and racism against the Roma minority.
His department has now sought judicial review of a IRB decision granting protection to a white South African, Brandon Huntley. Huntley's lawyers argue that this was done because of political pressure from the South African government.
Kenney has power to both appoint and reappoint Board members. Is it a great leap to presume Board members may face either an overt or implicit pressure to toe the line?
The independence of the courts has been recognized for centuries. There is no essential difference between a court and a tribunal like the IRB. There must be freedom for a decision maker to hear and decide the cases that come before them from any interference.
It'll be a busy December. Scheduled hearings include refugee claims against Burma, Colombia, Iraq, Romania, Somalia and Haiti.
Each claim type has challenges. Somalian claims for example typically lack identity documents. Haitian claims are typically complicated by long sojourns in the United States which results in a significant passage of time which tends to minimize the perceived risk to the claimant.
Burmese claims tend to be strong ones. The military junta brooks little dissent and the claim could succeed as a sur place one.
I'm also looking forward to the Iraqi claim which raises a well founded fear of persecution or risk to life based on religious persecution.
Interesting article at the National Post ... an Ontario court case seems to indicate that sponsor's who's relatives default (receive social assistance/benefits) may not automatically be required to pay back the funds to the government. This despite the very clear Sponsorship Agreement which forms part of any family class sponsorship application requiring sponsors to be responsible for their relatives. It seems that about 5,000 sponsored immigrants apply for social assistance (in Ontario at least). Some critics have commented on the administrative hurdles in setting up 'case by case' assessments of which sponsors should be required to pay and which should not.
I'm all for due process, but there are some circumstances and situations that call for sympathy. For example, if someone sponsors a husband or wife, and is the victim of marriage fraud, they should not be responsible financially when/if that individual accesses social assistance.