Federal court | Immigration
IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD
Fact that decision-maker preoccupied with time not prejudicial to foreign national
Application by foreign national for judicial review of decision of Immigration Appeal Division (“IAD”) of Immigration and Refugee Board refusing appeal from removal order. Foreign national, aged 50, was citizen of Jamaica who had first come to Canada in 1983. Foreign national accumulated significant criminal record from about 1986 to 1995. Foreign national was convicted of uttering forged document after deliberately using wrong date of birth on driver’s licence application in 2007. Removal order was issued against foreign national on basis of serious criminality. Foreign national unsuccessfully appealed to IAD. Appeal had been heard by videoconference. Decision-maker had repeatedly mentioned need to finish hearing on time. Application dismissed. Fact that decision-maker had been preoccupied with time was not shown to have been prejudicial to foreign national. Foreign national provided no evidence or specifics about anything he was not able to present at hearing. Foreign national and his counsel would have known immediately if they had not been allowed to present case adequately in time available. Foreign national had not raised issue before decision-maker and so could not do so now. There was no evidence of failure of communication during videoconference that had led to some material omission or mistake in decision.
McCurvie v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (Jun. 18, 2013, F.C., James Russell J., File No. IMM-8546-12) 229 A.C.W.S. (3d) 529.
Fact that decision-maker preoccupied with time not prejudicial to foreign national
Application by foreign national for judicial review of decision of Immigration Appeal Division (“IAD”) of Immigration and Refugee Board refusing appeal from removal order. Foreign national, aged 50, was citizen of Jamaica who had first come to Canada in 1983. Foreign national accumulated significant criminal record from about 1986 to 1995. Foreign national was convicted of uttering forged document after deliberately using wrong date of birth on driver’s licence application in 2007. Removal order was issued against foreign national on basis of serious criminality. Foreign national unsuccessfully appealed to IAD. Appeal had been heard by videoconference. Decision-maker had repeatedly mentioned need to finish hearing on time. Application dismissed. Fact that decision-maker had been preoccupied with time was not shown to have been prejudicial to foreign national. Foreign national provided no evidence or specifics about anything he was not able to present at hearing. Foreign national and his counsel would have known immediately if they had not been allowed to present case adequately in time available. Foreign national had not raised issue before decision-maker and so could not do so now. There was no evidence of failure of communication during videoconference that had led to some material omission or mistake in decision.
McCurvie v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (Jun. 18, 2013, F.C., James Russell J., File No. IMM-8546-12) 229 A.C.W.S. (3d) 529.
