MB2-06855
The application to reopen was dismissed because the Member had rendered a proper decision within the limits of RPD jurisdiction, there was no evidence that counsel or the Designated Representative were prevented from presenting evidence on behalf of the minor claimants, the purported new evidence (Exhibit B) was not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- MB2-06855
- Parties
- Applicant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship
- Court
- Refugee Protection Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 5 July 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Protection / Application to Reopen Under Rule 62 (rpd)
- Outcome
- Application to Reopen dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Reopening, Natural Justice, Functus Officio, Judicial Review, New Evidence
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX
Applicant
Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Application to Reopen Under Rule 62 (rpd)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the RPD had jurisdiction to reopen its decision
- 2 Whether there was a breach of natural justice as to minor claimants not being given opportunity to make their claims
- 3 Whether newly submitted evidence (Exhibit B) justifies reopening
Ratio Decidendi
The application to reopen was dismissed because the Member had rendered a proper decision within the limits of RPD jurisdiction, there was no evidence that counsel or the Designated Representative were prevented from presenting evidence on behalf of the minor claimants, the purported new evidence (Exhibit B) was not before the Member at the time of decision, and the application impermissibly seeks reconsideration of the merits better addressed by judicial review.
Court Disposition
Application to Reopen dismissed
Orders
- Motion to reopen dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Immigration and Refugee Board Refugee Protection Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié Section de la protection des réfugiés RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR : MB2-06855 MB2-06864 MB2-06872 MB2-06873 MB2-06874 Client ID No. / No ID client : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Private Proceeding Huis clos APPLICATION TO REOPEN Applicant Demandeur XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX Respondent Intimé Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Date(s) of Hearing Date(s) de l'audience N/A Place of Hearing Lieu de l'audience Montreal (Quebec) Date of decision Date de la décision July 5, 2016 Panel Tribunal Michael Hamelin Claimant's Counsel Conseil du demandeur d'asile Me Claudia Andrea Molina Designated representative Représentant désigné XXXX XXXX Minister's Counsel Conseil du ministre Annie Pham APPLICATION TO REOPEN [1] Pursuant to Rule 62 of the Rules of the Refugee Protection Division, the undersigned is seized with the Application to Reopen the hearing concerning the claims to refugee protection of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX citizens of Croatia following a decision rendered by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) on May 16th, 2016, rejecting their claims. [2] The RPD jurisdiction with respect to reopening the hearing is very limited; in fact, once it has rendered his decision, the RPD has fulfilled his function and is considered functus officio. It can return to it a second time in limited circumstances, only when there has been a violation of the rules of Natural Justice. Further, section.170.2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) restricts the jurisdiction of the RPD to reopen a claim once there has been a determination at the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) or Federal Court. In the case at bar, following a review of the application, principal claimant's affidavit and the exhibits filed therein, the undersigned finds that the Member responsible for the claim rendered a proper decision that fully adhered to legal procedures and the rules of natural justice [3] In the case at bar, the claimants allege a breach of Natural Justice in that the Minor claimants were not afforded the opportunity to make their claims. [4] In point of fact said minor claimants as indicated in their Respective Personal Information Forms based their claims on that of the Principal claimant, their father, XXXX XXXX. [5] Further, XXXX XXXX was named as the Designated Representative for the minor claimants. [6] There is no evidence that either claimants counsel or the Designated Representative were prevented from leading any particular evidence concerning the minor claimants. [7] The evidence presented in support of said application 1Exhibit B was never made available to the Member determining the claim. [8] The Tribunal Member, therefore, rendered his judgment on the basis of the evidence at his disposal. [9] The present application deals with the merits of the decision, which is best for an application for judicial review. [10] The motion to reopen the case of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, is dismissed. Michael Hamelin Michael Hamelin July 5, 2016 Date /kabl 1 Exhibit B. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR : MB2-06855 MB2-06864 MB2-06872 MB2-06873 MB2-06874