Date: 19990317
Docket: IMM-3980-97
Ottawa, Ontario, the 17th day of March 1999
Present: the Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between:
WAN RU LIU
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision dated August 13, 1997, by the Convention Refugee Determination Division, which determined that the applicant abandoned her claim for refugee status, is dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
Date: 19990317
Docket: IMM-3980-97
Between:
WAN RU LIU
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review1 of a decision dated August 13, 1997, by the Convention Refugee Determination Division, which determined that the applicant had abandoned her claim for refugee status:
| [TRANSLATION] Your claim was referred to the Refugee Division on the 21st day of November 1995. |
| On the 23rd day of June 1997, you and your solicitor were advised by the Refugee Division that a hearing would be held on the 28th day of July, 1997. |
| You appeared at the hearing, but failed to prosecute your claim. |
| On the 28th day of July 1997, you were advised by the Refugee Division that a hearing would be held on the 13th day of August 1997, to allow you to explain why the Refugee Division should not declare the claim to have been abandoned. |
| You appeared at the hearing, but failed to explain why the Refugee Division should not declare the claim to have been abandoned. |
| THE REFUGEE DIVISION ACCORDINGLY DECLARED YOUR CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN ABANDONED ON THE 13th DAY OF AUGUST 1997. |
[2] The only provision which deals with an adjournment of proceedings in a claim for refugee status can be found at subsection 69(6) of the Immigration Act:
| 69. (6) The Refugee Division shall not adjourn any proceedings before it, unless it is satisfied that an adjournment would not unreasonably impede the proceeding. |
69. (6) La section du statut ne peut ajourner une procédure que si elle est convaincue que l'ajournement ne causera pas d'entrave sérieuse. |
[3] In the instant case, the applicant was allowed four adjournments: (1) her lawyer was absent on December 26, 1996; (2) she asked for more time to find a lawyer on January 17, 1997; (3) her new lawyer requested an adjournment on April 14, 1997; (4) as that lawyer withdrew on July 28, 1997, her new lawyer requested another adjournment on August 13, 1997.
[4] Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the Refugee Division could find that the claim had been abandoned instead of allowing a fifth adjournment, without breaching the rules of procedural fairness.
[5] The application for judicial review is accordingly dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
March 17, 1999
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: IMM-3980-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: WAN RU LIU
v.
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 24, 1999
REASONS FOR ORDER OF PINARD J.
DATED MARCH 17, 1999
APPEARANCES:
NO REPRESENTATION FOR THE APPLICANT
MARIE NICOLE MOREAU FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
ELFASSY, ROSE ET ASSOCIÉS FOR THE APPLICANT
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE RESPONDENT
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
__________________1 The hearing of this case, which was peremptorily scheduled by order of this Court for February 24 , 1999, was held in the unexplained absence of the applicant and her counsel.