Date: 20031023
Docket: IMM-933-03
Citation: 2003 FC 1221
Ottawa, Ontario, this 23rd day of October, 2003
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
BETWEEN:
DIKONDA MARCEL MAFUALA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Mr. Mafuala came to Canada from Congo in 1996. He made a refugee claim here, but the the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed it. He subsequently left Canada for the United States, but returned in 1999. He made another refugee claim, but the Board again rejected it. He then went back to the United States, but returned to Canada in 2001. Once again, he applied for refugee protection. In October 2001, immigration officials found him eligible to make a third refugee claim. The Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, s. 46.01(1)(c) and (5), permitted repeat claims so long as the applicant spent more than ninety days outside of Canada between each one (relevant enactments are set out in an Annex).
[2] Before his third claim could be heard, however, an immigration officer informed Mr. Mafuala that he was no longer eligible to make a claim according to the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 ("IRPA"), which came into force on June 28, 2002. Mr. Mafuala argues that the officer misinterpreted the new law and that he remains eligible to make a third claim.
[3] The sole issue in this case is whether the officer erred in her interpretation of the IRPA. I find that her interpretation was correct and must, therefore, deny this application for judicial review of her decision.
[4] The Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 ("IRPR") state the general rule that applicants for refugee protection who were eligible to make claims under the former Act are entitled to have their claims determined under the new Act, unless an immigration officer notifies them that they are no longer eligible (s. 343(a), IRPR; s. 104, IRPA). The Act specifically provides that a person is not eligible if his or her claim has already been rejected by the Board (para. 101(1)(b), IRPA), even if it was dealt with under the former Act (s. 339, IRPR).
[5] According to this framework, the immigration officer was authorized to notify Mr. Mafuala that he was no longer eligible to make a claim. However, Mr. Mafuala argues that this analysis is put into doubt by the operation of the transitional rule in s. 190 of IRPA. It says that "[e]very application, proceeding or matter under the former Act that is pending or in progress immediately before the coming into force of this section shall be governed by this Act." Mr. Mafuala concedes that his refugee claim was "pending" at the time that IRPA came into force, but argues that the matter of his eligibility to make a claim was not. He was told in October 2001 that he was eligible and, therefore, his eligibility was not "pending or in progress" when the new Act came into force - it had already been decided. As such, he submits that his eligibility should be governed by the former Act, not its successor.
[6] That argument might have been persuasive if the new Act and Regulations did not set up a specific, clear and coherent set of rules relating to eligibility. Looking at the Act and Regulations as a whole, the officer was clearly entitled to redetermine Mr. Mafuala's eligibility and inform him that his third refugee claim could not proceed. I do not read s. 190 in the manner suggested by Mr. Mafuala. In my view, given that his refugee claim was pending when the new Act came into force, the new eligibility rules applied to it.
[7] Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for judicial review. Counsel for Mr. Mafuala requested an opportunity to propose a question of general importance for certification. I will consider submissions on that matter if filed within five business days of this judgment. Counsel for the respondent will have two business days to reply.
JUDGMENT
IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed;
2. Request by counsel for the applicant for an opportunity to propose a question of general importance for certification is granted. It should be filed within five (5) business days following this judgment;
3. Counsel for the respondent shall have two (2) business days to reply.
"James W. O'Reilly"
Judge
Annex
| Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2
Access criteria
46.01 (1) A person who claims to be a Convention refugee is not eligible to have the claim determined by the Refugee Division if the person
. . .
(c) has, since last coming into Canada, been determined (i) by the Refugee Division not to be a Convention refugee or to have abandoned the claim, or
(ii) by a senior immigration officer not to be eligible to have the claim determined by the Refugee Division;
Last coming to Canada
46.01 (5) A person who goes to another country and returns to Canada within ninety days shall not, for the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), be considered as coming into Canada on that return. |
|
Loi sur l'Immigration, L.R.C. 1985, ch. I-2
Critères de recevabilité
46.01 (1) La revendication de statut n'est pas recevable par la section du statut si l'intéressé se trouve dans l'une ou l'autre des situations suivantes:
[. . .]
c) depuis sa dernière venue au Canada, il a fait l'objet:
(i) soit d'une décision de la section du statut lui refusant le statut de réfugié au sens de la Convention ou établissant le désistement de sa revendication, (ii) soit d'une décision d'irrecevabilité de sa revendication par un agent principal;
Séjour à l'étranger
46.01 (5) La rentrée au Canada de l'intéressé après un séjour à l'étranger d'au plus quatre-vingt-dix jours n'est pas, pour l'application de l'alinéa (1)c), prise en compte pour la détermination de la date de la dernière venue de celui-ci au Canada. |
|
|
|
|
| Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227
Rejection of a claim for refugee protection
339. Determination made in Canada before the coming into force of this section that a person is not a Convention refugee is deemed to be a claim for refugee protection rejected by the Board.
Redetermination of eligibility
343. Subject to section 191 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a claim of a person who was determined eligible before the coming into force of this section to have a claim to be a Convention refugee determined by the Convention Refugee Determination Division, and in respect of which no determination was made by that Division, is a claim that
(a) is referred under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to the Refugee Protection Division unless an officer gives notice under subsection 104(1) of that Act; |
|
Règlements sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés, DORS/2002-227
Rejet de la demande d'asile
339. Est assimilée au rejet d'une demande d'asile par la Commission la décision rendue au Canada avant l'entrée en vigueur du présent article selon laquelle une personne n'est pas un réfugié au sens de la Convention.
Nouvel examen de la recevabilité
343. Sous réserve de l'article 191 de la Loi sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés, la revendication du statut de réfugié au sens de la Convention jugée recevable par la Section du statut de réfugié et pour laquelle celle-ci n'a pris aucune décision avant l'entrée en vigueur du présent article est :
a) assimilée à une demande déférée à la Section de la protection des réfugiés en vertu de la Loi sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés, sauf si l'agent donne l'avis visé au paragraphe 104(1) de cette loi; |
|
|
|
|
| Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27
Ineligibility
101. (1) A claim is ineligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division if ... (b) a claim for refugee protection by the claimant has been rejected by the Board;
Notice of ineligible claim
104. (1) An officer may, with respect to a claim that is before the Refugee Protection Division or, in the case of paragraph (d), that is before or has been determined by the Refugee Protection Division or the Refugee Appeal Division, give notice that an officer has determined that (a) the claim is ineligible under paragraphs 101(1)(a) to (e); (b) the claim is ineligible under paragraph 101(1)(f); (c) the claim was referred as a result of directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter and that the claim was not otherwise eligible to be referred to that Division; or (d) the claim is not the first claim that was received by an officer in respect of the claimant.
Application of this Act
*190. Every application, proceeding or matter under the former Act that is pending or in progress immediately before the coming into force of this section shall be governed by this Act on that coming into force.
*[Note: Section 190 in force June 28, 2002, see SI/2002-97.] |
|
Loi sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés, 2001, ch. 27
Irrecevabilité
101. (1) La demande est irrecevable dans les cas suivants_: [...] b) rejet antérieur de la demande d'asile par la Commission;
Avis sur la recevabilité de la demande d'asile
104. (1) L'agent donne un avis portant, en ce qui touche une demande d'asile dont la Section de protection des réfugiés est saisie ou dans le cas visé à l'alinéa d) dont la Section de protection des réfugiés ou la Section d'appel des réfugiés sont ou ont été saisies, que_: a) il y a eu constat d'irrecevabilité au titre des alinéas 101(1)a) à e); b) il y a eu constat d'irrecevabilité au seul titre de l'alinéa 101(1)f); c) la demande n'étant pas recevable par ailleurs, la recevabilité résulte, directement ou indirectement, de présentations erronées sur un fait important quant à un objet pertinent, ou de réticence sur ce fait; d) la demande n'est pas la première reçue par un agent.
Application de la nouvelle loi
*190. La présente loi s'applique, dès l'entrée en vigueur du présent article, aux demandes et procédures présentées ou instruites, ainsi qu'aux autres questions soulevées, dans le cadre de l'ancienne loi avant son entrée en vigueur et pour lesquelles aucune décision n'a été prise.
*[Note_: Article 190 en vigueur le 28 juin 2002, voir TR/2002-97.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-933-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: Dikonda Marcel Mafuala v. The Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Edmonton, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: October 15, 2003
REASONS FORJUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT : The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
DATED: October 23, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Simon K. Yu FOR APPLICANT
Ms. Tracy King FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Simon K. Yu FOR APPLICANT
Edmonton, Alberta
Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada