---

CHAPTER 3

3. JURISDICTION

3. JURISDICTION

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the types of decisions that Parliament has authorized the Refugee Division to make and the conditions under which these decisions can be made.

The Refugee Division has jurisdiction to hear a Convention refugee claim only where that claim has been referred to it by a senior immigration officer who has determined that the claimant is eligible to have a claim determined by the Refugee Division.

The Refugee Division also has jurisdiction to consider (i) an application by the Minister for a determination that a person has ceased to be a Convention refugee and (ii) an application by the Minister to have the Refugee Division reconsider and vacate a previous determination, on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation.

The jurisdiction of the Refugee Division to consider Charter arguments is discussed in Chapter 13: The Charter/The Bill of Rights.

The jurisdiction of the Refugee Division to change or reconsider any of its decisions in other circumstances is discussed in Chapter 16: Reopenings and Rehearings.

3.2 MEANING OF "JURISDICTION"

The term " jurisdiction" has many uses, but it mainly describes two concepts:

Furthermore, a decision-maker has authority only to act in accordance with the law. For example, a Refugee Division member who allowed a case to proceed without an interpreter (where one is required for a proper hearing) would be committing an error of law; this error would cause a "loss of jurisdiction" to continue with the case.

3.3 SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE REFUGEE DIVISION

The Refugee Division has, in respect of proceedings under section 69.1 (hearing into a refugee claim) and section 69.2 (Minister's application for determination of cessation of refugee status or application to vacate), sole and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions of law and fact, including questions of jurisdiction arising out of those proceedings [ Immigration Act, s. 67(1)].

Refugee Division members have to decide questions of both law and fact. A " question of law" involves discovering the true meaning of words of a statute or deciding upon a statement of common law principles. A " question of fact" involves listening to the evidence and arguments to decide what took place.

Questions of jurisdiction may sometimes involve both interpreting the law and finding the facts. For example, the Refugee Division has jurisdiction to hear the claim of a person who is under the age of eighteen years only where the Division has designated another person to represent that minor at the hearing [ Immigration Act, s. 69(4)]. The Refugee Division must, therefore, first find as a fact that the claimant is less than eighteen years old; then it must satisfy itself that it has complied with the law regarding the designation of the representative. After that, it can properly continue with the hearing.

The jurisdiction of the Refugee Division is wholly dependent on the words of the Immigration Act in that the Division has been created and given any authority it has by that statute. The Refugee Division does not have any inherent jurisdiction to deal with matters or use powers in a way not provided for explicitly or impliedly in the Act.

The jurisdiction of a Refugee Division member is not limited territorially. A Refugee Division member who ordinarily hears cases in Montreal, for example, may also hear cases in Vancouver, and vice versa.

Similarly, members have jurisdiction to sit on any type of case (e.g., a hearing into a claim, or Minister's application). The work that a member receives is determined by the Chairperson (or by a delegate of the Chairperson, such as an Assistant Deputy Chairperson or Coordinating Member) but is not restricted by the Act.

3.4 ACTIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE REFUGEE DIVISION

3.4.1 Hearing into a Claim [ Immigration Act, s. 69.1]

At a hearing into a claim [ Immigration Act, s. 69.1], members have jurisdiction:

• to determine whether a claim has been referred to the Refugee Division in accordance with the Act and in the form set out in the CRDD Rules [ Immigration Act, s. 69.1(1), Rule 6];

• to determine whether the claimant and the Minister were notified in writing of the time and place of the hearing [ Immigration Act, s. 69.1(3)];

• to determine whether the hearing is being held in the presence of the claimant, wherever practicable [ Immigration Act, s. 69(2)];

• to give the claimant a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, question witnesses and make representations [ Immigration Act, s. 69.1(5)];

• to give the Minister a reasonable opportunity:
  • to present evidence, in the usual cases [ Immigration Act, s. 69.1(5)(a)(ii)]; and
  • to question the claimant and any other witnesses and make representations, if the Refugee Division considers it appropriate to do so [ Immigration Act, s. 69.1(5)(b)]; or
  • to present evidence, question the claimant and any other witnesses and make representations where, in the opinion of the Minister, section E (having same rights as nationals of a country) or section F (serious non-political crimes, war crimes, etc.) of Article 1 of the Convention are applicable [ Immigration Act, s. 69.1(5)(a)(ii)];

• to declare a claim to have been abandoned (where the claimant fails to appear for the hearing, fails to provide a PIF, or is otherwise in default), after giving the claimant a reasonable opportunity to be heard [ Immigration Act, s. 69.1(6)];

• to hear a claim, using a two member panel [ Immigration Act, s. 69.1(7)];

• to hear a claim, using a single member panel, with the consent of the claimant [ Immigration Act, s. 69.1(8)];

• to determine whether a claimant is a Convention refugee [ Immigration Act, s. 69.1(9)];

• to determine the claimant to be a Convention refugee, in an ordinary case where there is a split decision by the two member panel [ Immigration Act, s. 69.1(10)];

• to determine the claimant not to be a Convention refugee, in the special case where there is a split decision with respect to the merits of the claim by the two member panel, but where both members are satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the claimant destroyed documents without valid reason, etc. (the so-called "unanimity" provision) [ Immigration Act, s. 69.1(10.1)];

• to give written reasons, if the panel wishes to do so in any case [ Immigration Act, s. 69.1(11)];

• to give written reasons in all cases where the claimant is determined not to be a Convention refugee [ Immigration Act, s. 69.1(11)(a)], and in other cases, where a request for written reasons is made within 10 days [ Immigration Act, s. 69.1(11)(b)];

3.4.2 Minister's Application [ Immigration Act, s. 69.2]

At a hearing on an application by the Minister,regarding cessation of Convention refugee status [ Immigration Act, s. 69.2(1)], or vacation of refugee status on the ground of fraud [ Immigration Act, s. 69.2(2)]:

• for applications for cessation:

• the Refugee Division has jurisdiction where the Minister files a notice with the Division and sends a copy to the person who is the subject of the application [ Immigration Act, s. 69.2(5), CRDD Rule 7];

• for applications for reconsideration on the ground of fraud, etc.:

• the Refugee Division has jurisdiction to hold a hearing where the Chairperson grants leave (permission) [ Immigration Act, s. 69.2(2)];

• the Chairperson considers the written submission of the Minister, ex parte (hearing only that side), and grants leave where satisfied that evidence exists that, if it had been known to the Refugee Division, could have resulted in a different determination [ Immigration Act, s. 69.2(3), CRDD Rule 7];

• the Minister and the person concerned must be notified of the time and place of the hearing [ Immigration Act, s. 69.3(1)];

• the Minister and the person concerned may present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and make representations at the hearing of the application [ Immigration Act, s. 69.3(1)];

• if the Minister's counsel or agent fails to appear, the application may be declared to have been abandoned, after giving the Minister a reasonable opportunity to be heard [ Immigration Act, s. 69.3(2)];

• three Refugee Division members constitute a quorum to hear these applications [ Immigration Act, s. 69.3(3)];

• the Refugee Division approves or rejects the application, renders its decision as soon as possible, and sends written notice of the decision to the parties [ Immigration Act, s. 69.3(4)];

• the Refugee Division may reject an application, although satisfied there was some fraud or misrepresentation, where there was enough other evidence to find that the person concerned was a Convention refugee [ Immigration Act, s. 69.3(5)];

• the decision of the Refugee Division is the decision of the majority of the three members of the panel [ Immigration Act, s. 69.3(6)];

• the Refugee Division is always entitled to give written reasons, if it wishes to do so [ Immigration Act, s. 69.3(7)];

• the Refugee Division must give written reasons in all cases where the decision goes against the person who is the subject of the application [ Immigration Act, s. 69.2(7)(a)], and in other cases, where a request for written reasons is made within 10 days [ Immigration Act, s. 69.3(7)(b)];

3.5 ACTIONS NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE REFUGEE DIVISION

The Refugee Division has jurisdiction to do things which are explicitly mentioned in the Act or which are implied by the Act. In other cases, the Refugee Division has no jurisdiction. For example, the Division does not have jurisdiction:

3.6 DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY

3.6.1 Determination by a Senior Immigration Officer (SIO)

Any person in Canada, whether at a port of entry or inland, may notify an immigration officer that the person claims to be a Convention refugee; however, persons against whom a removal order has been made but not yet carried out may not make a claim [ Immigration Act, s. 44(1)].

The immigration officer refers the claim to a senior immigration officer (SIO). The SIO then determines whether the claimant is eligible to have a claim determined by the Refugee Division.

Where a person makes more than one claim, those claims are treated as a single claim, subject to sections 46.3 and 46.4 (which determine which is the "valid" claim to be processed).

The claimant is required to provide truthful information to the SIO. The burden of proof is on the claimant to establish that he or she is eligible to have a claim determined by the Refugee Division. As described below, the Immigration Act does not specifically state who is eligible, rather the Act sets out who is not eligible.

Where the SIO determines that the claimant is eligible to have the claim determined by the Refugee Division, the SIO forthwith refers the claim to the Division, in the manner and form set out in the CRDD Rules.

3.6.2 Eligibility Criteria [ Immigration Act, ss. 46.01(1), (1.1) ]

The five grounds on which a senior immigration officer has jurisdiction to find that a person is " not eligible" to have a claim determined by the Refugee Division are:

3.7 REDETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY [Immigration Act, ss. 46.1 to 46.4]

After a claim has been referred to the Refugee Division, in certain cases involving criminality, multiple claims, or fraud or misrepresentation at the eligibility determination, an SIO may "re-determine" the claimant's eligibility to have a claim referred to the Refugee Division, as described below.

3.7.1 Criminality [ Immigration Act, ss. 46.1, 46.2]

After a person's claim has been referred to the Refugee Division, where an SIO believes that the person has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment of 10 years or more, the SIO notifies the Refugee Division. The Refugee Division then suspends its consideration of the claim [ Immigration Act, s. 46.1].

If the SIO then determines that the claimant is eligible to have the claim determined by the Refugee Division, the Refugee Division continues its consideration of the claim [ Immigration Act, s. 46.1(2)(a)].

If the SIO determines that the claimant is not eligible to have the claim determined by the Refugee Division, the Refugee Division terminates its consideration of the claim [ Immigration Act, s. 46.1(2)(b)].

Also, the Refugee Division will resume its consideration of the claim where the conviction is overturned on appeal [ Immigration Act, s. 46.2].

Where the SIO "re-determines" eligibility, the SIO applies the same criteria under subsection 46.01(1) that are applicable to an original determination of eligibility. For example, under subparagraph 46.01(1)(e)(iii), the person concerned must have the described criminal record and the Minister must be of the opinion that the person constitutes a danger to the public in Canada.

3.7.2 Multiple Claims [ Immigration Act, s. 46.3]

Where a person's claim has been referred to the Refugee Division, an SIO shall forthwith notify the Refugee Division where (a) the SIO is satisfied that the person has made more than one claim and (b) the claim that was referred to the Refugee Division was not the first claim to have been referred to an SIO with respect to that person [ Immigration Act, s. 46.3(1)].

On being so notified, the Refugee Division shall terminate its consideration of the claim and any decision made by the Refugee Division in respect of the claim is null and void [ Immigration Act, s. 46.3(2)].

Note: subsection 44(5) of the Act already indicated that where a claimant had made multiple claims, they were to be treated as a single claim. Bill C-44 made subsection 44(5) "subject to sections 46.3 and 46.4". The addition of section 46.3 establishes which is the "good" claim, i.e., the first claim referred to an SIO, which is not necessarily the first claim referred to the Refugee Division.

3.7.3 Fraudulent Claims [ Immigration Act, s. 46.4]

Where a person's claim has been referred to the Refugee Division, and an SIO is satisfied that the decision to refer the claim was based on fraud or misrepresentation and the person would not otherwise be eligible to have a claim referred, the SIO shall (a) determine that the person is "ineligible" and (b) notify the Refugee Division [ Immigration Act, s. 46.4(1)].

On being so notified, the Refugee Division shall terminate its consideration of the claim and any decision made by the Refugee Division in respect of the claim is null and void [ Immigration Act, s. 46.4(2)]

3.8 NATURAL JUSTICE

The Federal Court - Trial Division may set aside a decision or order of the Refugee Division upon the ground that the Division "failed to observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or other procedure that it was required by law to observe." The Trial Division has this jurisdiction on an application for judicial review pursuant to section 18.1 of the Federal Court Act.

"Natural justice" cannot be defined precisely, but its foundation is the concept of "fairness" or "fair play" in the procedures that an agency uses. The two basic elements of natural justice are sometimes described as the Right to be Heard (audi alteram partem: hear both sides) and the Rule Against Bias.

3.8.1 Right to be Heard

The Right to be Heard is generally considered to include the following elements:

1. notice of the time and place of hearing
2. notice of the subject matter of the hearing
3. right to be represented by counsel
4. right to present evidence
5. right to test adverse evidence (cross-examine witnesses)
6. right to be made aware of all evidence that the decision-maker will take into account
7. right to respond to the evidence presented
8. right to make representations (sometimes called "submissions")

The above principles have been incorporated into the ImmigrationAct and the Refugee Division Rules. In all cases, these principles must be respected in a substantive way and not in a mere token or cosmetic way. Failure to honour these principles may result in the Federal Court setting aside some action of the Refugee Division.

3.8.2 Rule Against Bias

The principles of natural justice include the right to be heard and the rule against bias. These principles are applicable to courts as well as to administrative tribunals such as the Refugee Division.

The rule against bias provides that the person concerned is entitled to have an independent and impartial decision-maker decide the case. The law is concerned that decision-makers not have pre-conceived notions about how a case will be decided, and not have a personal interest in the outcome of the case.

The rule against bias is a common law rule (i.e., based on case law rather than legislation). The issue generally is not whether there is actual bias in a case, but whether there is an appearance of bias, also described as a "reasonable apprehension of bias". For example, the Federal Court of Appeal in Satiacum v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1985] 2 F.C. 430 (C.A.), in finding that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias in the conduct of a weekly detention review by an adjudicator, stated at page 436:

Opening comments might give rise to an apprehension of bias. De Freitas, Tianila Maria v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-26-88), Hugessen, Heald, Stone, January 31, 1989, reported: De Freitas v. Canada (Minister of Immigration) (1989), 8 Imm. L.R. (2d) 60 (F.C.A.) concerned a case in which the chairperson of an Immigration Appeal Board panel began a refugee determination hearing by indicating that he had read the file twice and that after 20 years on the bench, he found the claim to be so frivolous that he wondered about the abuse of the system. The Federal Court was of the view that these intemperate comments created a reasonable apprehension of bias and the Court sent the case back for rehearing by a differently constituted IAB panel.

A reasonable apprehension of bias regarding one member of a panel may be sufficient to disqualify the entire panel, even if the one member did not assume an active role.

The following circumstances have been held to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the decision-maker:

3.9 PRESENCE OF THE CLAIMANT

The Act requires that a hearing into a claim shall be held in the presence of the claimant, wherever practicable [ Immigration Act, s. 69(2)]. This provision ensures that the claimant will be available to testify and also serves to protect the right of the claimant to know the case the claimant has to meet.

There may be situations, however, where the claimant is not physically present at the hearing but the Refugee Division still finds that it has jurisdiction to continue with the hearing: for example, the claimant may be in a mental state in which the claimant's attendance at the hearing may be potentially harmful to the claimant or to any other persons present. In such a case, where a representative designated under subsection 69(4) of the Immigration Act is present, the hearing may continue.

The hearing should not normally proceed, however, in the absence of any claimant who is a competent adult. For example, where claims of family members are being heard jointly, there may be a request to have one parent, who is a claimant, leave the hearing to attend to children, while the other parent, who is also a claimant, remains at the hearing. Such request should ordinarily be denied. If one parent has to leave, the proceedings should be recessed or adjourned until both parents (claimants) are able to attend.

Children who are claimants do not necessarily need to attend the hearing; they may be considered to be in attendance through their designated representative [ Immigration Act, s. 69(4)]. They may attend if their parents (or other representative) wish them to attend, but, especially where young children who cannot sit still are involved, their attendance should not be encouraged. It should be made clear on the record of the hearing, however, that the counsel and designated representatives for these children consent to the absence of the children and that the children do not wish to testify at the hearing.

In Phillip, Mary Francisca v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-434-98), Rothstein, December 11, 1998, the female claimant was excluded from the hearing room while her children, aged 5 and 8, were questioned. When she returned to the hearing room, counsel asked the presiding member to summarize the children's evidence. It was only at that point that the mother was appointed designated representative. In allowing the application for judicial review, the Court held that the presence of the claimant under subsection 69(2) is mandatory: "The words 'whenever practicable', while recognizing that in some circumstances, it may not be possible for an applicant to be present, also require that when it is feasible, applicants must be present." Even if the exclusion was permissible, the summary provided to the female claimant was inadequate. The Court said that while a late designation may not invalidate all proceedings but it is proper practice to do the designation at the outset. Also, the children were questioned without first establishing that they understood right from wrong, the importance of telling the truth and the consequences of lying.

3.10 ASSIGNING CASES TO CRDD MEMBERS

The Chairperson is the chief executive officer of the Board and has supervision over and direction of the work and staff of the Board [ Immigration Act, s. 58(3)]. The Chairperson (as does a Chief Justice of a court) has the ultimate responsibility for assigning cases to members and making sure that the work of the Board gets done. In practice, this function has been delegated to and is carried out in the regions by the Assistant Deputy Chairpersons (ADCs) and Coordinating Members (CMs).

Two members constitute a panel of the Refugee Division to hear a claim [ Immigration Act, s. 69.1(7)], unless the claimant consents to having one member hear and determine the case [ Immigration Act, s. 69.1(8)].

Under CRDD Rule 5, an ADC or Coordinating Member assigns one member (of a two member panel) to act as the presiding member.

Some of the things which the Refugee Division has jurisdiction to deal with before the oral hearing into a claim starts are:

• change of venue [ CRDD Rule 12]
• postponements and adjournments [ CRDD Rule 13]
• directing the work of an RCO [ Immigration Act, s. 68.1]
• preliminary conferences [ CRDD Rule 18]
• conferences [ CRDD Rule 20]
• summonses [ CRDD Rule 25(1)]
• designating a representative [ Immigration Act, s. 69(4), CRDD Rule 11]

Changes to any schedule may be made as often as needed to account for member's individual commitments and whatever priorities are established for the work of the office as a whole. A member does not become "attached" to any particular case, in a legal sense, until the member becomes seized with a case as discussed below.

3.11 SEIZED PANELS - REFUGEE DIVISION HEARING

A panel (made up of two members, or one member with the consent of the claimant) is considered "seized" with a case when the panel has started a case and has received substantive evidence. At that point no other panel can take over the case, unless the criteria set out in the Act for replacing panel members are followed.

The basic principle behind the concept of seized panels is the rule of natural justice: "the person who hears, decides." All panel members must be present to hear the whole case or the claimant suffers the potential disadvantage of having members evaluate evidence which they did not hear in person.

Where a Refugee Division hearing has been adjourned, a new member or members may sit on the panel at the resumption of the hearing only where:

This requirement comes from subsection 69(7) of the Act which reads:

3.11.1 Panel Not Seized by Decisions on Preliminary Matters

The CRDD Rules contemplate that some decisions about a case may be made even before the oral hearing gets under way. These decisions, concerning such things as change of venue, issuing a summons, designating a representative, postponements and pre-hearing conferences, may be made prior to the commencement of the hearing. Under CRDD Rule 5, an ADC assigns a member of a panel to be the presiding member. The making of the decisions mentioned above should not cause a panel to be seized with a case, as these are decisions on preliminary matters and can be made before substantive evidence is adduced.

Further, a panel is not seized of a case even if oral testimony has been given, if the testimony was for the purpose of a preliminary matter and did not go to the merits of the case.

3.11.2 Panel Not Seized by Filing of Documents

As stated above, in accordance with subsection 69(7) of the Act, the panel is "seized" once substantive evidence is adduced at the hearing. Counsel for the claimant or the Refugee Claim Officer may file documentary evidence before the hearing commences. A panel does not become seized by that act, as the documents may have been filed even before any panel had been assigned to the case. Sometimes counsel will file documentary evidence at the start of a hearing and then ask for an adjournment. It is less obvious whether a panel would be seized in this case, but it would appear that the panel is not seized because any other panel picking up the file would be in exactly the same position to assess the evidence as the first panel would have been. There would be no prejudice to the claimant in a new panel taking over the case, as the new panel could read the documents just as well as the first panel could. The claimant, moreover, does not have a right to select the members to determine the claim and cannot insist that the first panel continue with the case.

3.11.3 Panel is Seized After Any Testimony on the Merits

The panel should certainly consider itself "seized" once any witness has begun to testify regarding the merits of the claim. The panel which decides a case should be present for all the testimony of all the witnesses; this is necessary for a proper evaluation of the evidence, including an assessment of credibility.

3.11.4 Explicit Consent Required for Change of Panel Member

Although the claimant (and the Minister, if participating) may consent to a change in the composition of the panel once the hearing has started, the Refugee Division has to take special care to ensure that this is an "informed consent." The claimant and counsel must fully understand the claimant's rights under subsection 69(7) of the Act and the consequences of their giving consent, and further, must explicitly give their consent. Anything less than this may result in the Federal Court finding that the claimant did not knowingly waive the claimant's substantive legal right to have the same panel hear all the evidence and arguments.

3.11.5 Substitution of Refugee Claim Officer

The Immigration Act does not require that a Refugee Claim Officer (RCO) attend each Refugee Division hearing. An adjourned Refugee Division hearing may resume with a new RCO or with no RCO. Although it may be desirable for the hearing to continue with the RCO who has prepared the case and participated in the hearing, the panel is not prevented by law from continuing the proceedings with a new RCO or with no RCO.

3.11.6 Substitution of Interpreter

The interpreter is not "seized" with a case. The panel may swear in any new interpreter after satisfying itself, of course, that the interpreter is competent to do the job and otherwise acceptable. A new interpreter may come into a case at any point during the proceedings.

Appendix 3A - Immigration Act, s. 67(1)

Appendix 3B - CRDD Rules 39 and 40

Appendix 3C - Selected Case Law

Bias

1. Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369 (test for bias is "a reasonable apprehension of biased appraisal and judgment of the issues to be determined")

2. Satiacum v. M.E.I., [1985] 2 F.C. 430 (C.A.) (fact that adjudicator and case presenting officer both public servants did not constitute reasonable apprehension of bias)

3. Valente v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673 (a judge of the Ont.Prov.Ct. (Criminal Division) is an independent tribunal within the meaning of s. 11(d) of the Charter, considering security of tenure, financial security, and administrative autonomy; "impartiality" refers to attitude to issues in a case, "independence" refers to institutional relationship to others, particularly the executive branch; test for impartiality and independence is the same: reasonable perception)

4. Sethi v. M.E.I., [1988] 2 F.C. 552, rev'g [1988] 2 F.C. 537 ((1) Bill C-55 proposing abolition of IAB, discharging of members without compensation for unexpired term of their appointment and establishment of new IRB did not create reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of claimants appearing before IAB; reasonable person would not think Board would please the gov't by deciding claim unfairly even though Minister opposed the claim; (2) introduction of a Bill does not create bias as passage of any Bill is speculative; (3) public policy dictates gov't should be allowed to announce proposed changes without bringing tribunal to a halt)

5. Mohammad v. M.E.I., [1989] 2 F.C. 363 (C.A.) ((1) various statements by Minister regarding deportation not creating apprehension of bias; (2) adjudication system sufficiently independent of Minister to fulfil its functions under the Act)

Presence of the Claimant

6. Phillip, Mary Francisca v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-434-98), Rothstein, December 11, 1998 (the female claimant was excluded from the hearing room while her children, aged 5 and 8, were questioned. When she returned to the hearing room, counsel asked the presiding member to summarize the children's evidence. It was only at that point that the mother was appointed designated representative. The Court held that the presence of the claimant under s. 69(2) is mandatory: "The words 'whenever practicable', while recognizing that in some circumstances, it may not be possible for an applicant to be present, also require that when it is feasible, applicants must be present." Even if the exclusion was permissible, the summary provided to the female claimant was inadequate. Application allowed.)

---