The Immigration and Refugee Board has its difficulties, of that there is no question. But the federal government should beware of over-correcting, and getting rid of the parts that do work.
In its comments on the review of refugee determination procedures at the IRB, the CBA’s Immigration Law Section urges the federal government to maintain the Board as an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal.
“The IRB stands as a model around the world for independent refugee determination, separate from other arms of government,” the Section says, noting that the UN’s High Commissioner for Refugees has praised Canada for maintaining a tribunal that is “relatively insulated from political pressures.”
Adopting a non-adjudicative process for first-level refugee determination, as countries such as the U.K. have done, could create another layer of problems, the Section says, as it is likely to increase the number of appeals, which would add to costs and delays. In the U.K., for example, 41 per cent of refugee determinations are overturned by the courts.
“While the refugee determination process can undoubtedly be improved, and we look forward to hearing the recommendations of the independent review, those improvements should be implemented in the context of an independent IRB,” the Section concludes.