The complainant was an unrepresented refugee claimant who appeared before the member at the Refugee Protection Division.
The complainant alleged that the member was biased and rejected her claim. This led to her removal from Canada.
The complainant alleged that the member knew immediately that she would reject the claim but continued to question her for three and a half hours. The complainant submitted she had no criminal record, worked in Canada and was undeservingly removed. She further submitted that she was 60 years old with no place to go in her county of origin and would face discrimination.
The Office of Integrity forwarded the complaint to the Chairperson for a decision on whether the complaint was outside the scope of the complaints process under paragraph 5.5 of the Procedures for Making a Complaint About a Member (Complaints Procedures).
Both parties were informed about the resolution of the complaint. In his decision letter of May 3, 2019, the Chairperson stated that the complaint related to decision-making. Allegations related to members’ decisions and other adjudicative matters fall outside the scope of the Complaints Procedures. The Chairperson explained in his letter to the complainant that the complaint process is intended to address a member's conduct and not their decision-making.
The complaint was screened out and the file was closed.
Note - In this case, the complainant alleged that the member was not an impartial decision-maker. The appropriate recourse is through the appeals process or judicial review at the Federal Court, as the case may be. This approach is based in the legal requirement that members’ adjudicative independence cannot be fettered.