VB4-03192

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : VB4-03192 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause the subject of the appeal Appeal considered at Vancouver, BC Appel instruit à Date of decision January 6, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Douglas Fortney Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) N/A Conseil(s) du (de la/des) the subject of the appeal personne(s) en cause Designated representative XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Refugee Appeal Division (the "RAD") received a Notice of Appeal from the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (the "RPD") in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX (the "appellant"), a national of China, on October 27, 2014. The Notice of Appeal indicated that the appellant received the RPD reasons on October 15, 2014. [2] As required under the Refugee Appeal Division Rules (the "Rules"),1 the appellant was to file his Appellant's Record no more than 30 days after the day on which he received the written reasons for the RPD's decision. The documentary requirements for filing the Appellant's Record are referred to in plain English in the Appellant's Kit on the Immigration and Refugee Board's website as follows, consistent with the requirements of RAD Rule 3(3): You must provide two copies of the Appellant's Record to the RAD no later than 30 days after the day on which you received the written reasons for the RPD's decision. As part of the appellant's record, you must include a statement saying whether you are submitting new evidence and whether you are asking for an oral hearing. The Appellant's Record must have consecutively numbered pages (i.e. 1, 2, 3...) and contain the following documents, in this order: 1. The notice of decision and the written reasons for the RPD's decision that you are appealing. 2. All or part of the transcript of the RPD hearing, if you want to use it in support of your appeal. Note that you are not required to submit a transcript. However, if you want to use one in support of your appeal, you must arrange to have it produced from the recording that was provided to you with the RPD's decision. You also need to provide a statement that the transcript is accurate, signed by the person who made it. 3. The evidence the RPD refused: If you want to use these documents in support of your appeal, include any documents the RPD refused to accept as evidence during or after the hearing. 4. A written statement that states: * whether you are submitting new evidence that meets the requirements in subsection 110 (4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the "Act" or "IRPA"),2 that is, evidence that didn't exist or wasn't available to you when your refugee protection claim was rejected; * whether you are asking for an oral hearing to be held under subsection 110(6) of the IRPA; * if you are asking for an oral hearing, whether you are also asking to change the location of the hearing under rule 66 of the RAD; and * if you need an interpreter, the language and dialect, if any, to be interpreted. 6. Any other documentary evidence that supports your appeal. 7. Legal authorities: This means any law, case law or other legal authority that supports your appeal. For legal cases that are publicly available, you can provide references and links (for example, links from CANLII) instead of hard copies. If the case is not available publicly (for example, because it is from a foreign jurisdiction or is very recent), please provide a hard copy with the relevant portions highlighted. 8. A memorandum, which is a document that gives as many details as possible about: * the specific mistakes made by the RPD that you want the RAD to review; * where to find these mistakes in the RPD reasons or in the recording or transcript of the hearing; * if your appeal is based on documents that the RPD member did not have when the RPD's decision was made, how this new evidence meets the requirements of subsection 110 (4) of the IRPA and how it is related to your situation; * if you are asking for an oral hearing, how the new evidence you are providing meets the requirements of subsection 110 (6) of the IRPA, which requires that it raise a serious issue about your credibility, that it be central to the RPD's decision, and that, if accepted, it justify allowing your refugee protection claim; and * what decision you want the RAD to make. [3] On November 14, 2014, the RAD received a two page document entitled "Affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX" accompanied by a copy of the RPD decision and certain documents submitted as new evidence. The affidavit on November 14, 2014 did not refer to any error in law, fact or mixed law and fact but simply stated: "I am not satisfied with the decision made based on the reasons the member gave". The documents submitted as new evidence were not accompanied by any submission as to how these documents meet the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the Act. [4] On December 12, 2014, the RAD notified the appellant of the following deficiencies in the Appellants' Record: As per RAD rule 3(3)(d) the appellant is to provide a written statement indicating: * Whether you are submitting new evidence that meets the requirements in 110 (4) of the IRPA, that is, evidence that didn't exist or wasn't available to you when your refugee protection claim was rejected. The appellant needs to refer to each item of proposed new evidence and how it would meet this test. As per RAD rule 3(3)(d) the appellant is to provide a memorandum, which is a document that gives as many details as possible about: * the specific mistakes made by the RPD that you want the RAD to review; * where to find these mistakes in the RPD reasons or in the recording or transcript of the hearing; * if your appeal is based on documents that the RPD member did not have when the RPD's decision was made, how this new evidence meets the requirements of 110 (4) of the IRPA and how it is related to your situation; * if you are asking for an oral hearing, how the new evidence you are providing meets the requirements of 110 (6) of the IRPA, which requires that it raise a serious issue about your credibility, that it be central to the RPD's decision, and that, if accepted, it justify allowing your refugee protection claim; and * what decision you want the RAD to make. The affidavit of the appellant provided at the beginning of the appeal record does not adequately address the above requirements. You are required to respond within 7 days. [5] On December 19, 2014 the RAD received an additional two page affidavit of the appellant which failed to meet any of the requirements listed in RAD's December 12, 2014 letter to the appellant. No further communication has been received from the appellant. [6] The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to perfect his appeal by providing the Appellant's Record within the prescribed time required by paragraph 159.91(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the "Regulations")3 and subsection 3(5) of the Rules. Subsection 159.91(1)(b) of the Regulations provides that the time limit to perfect the appeal is 30 days after the day on which the appellant receives written reasons for the RPD decision. (signed) "Douglas Fortney" Douglas Fortney January 6, 2015 Date 1 Refugee Appeal Division Rules, SOR/2012-257. 2 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. 3 Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : VB4-03192