Persuasive Decisions
Persuasive decisions are decisions that have been identified by a division head (the Deputy Chairperson of the Refugee Protection Division or the Immigration Appeal Division, or the Director General of the Immigration Division) as being of persuasive value in developing the jurisprudence of a particular division. These decisions are well written, provide clear, complete and concise reasons with respect to the particular element that is considered to have persuasive value, and consider all of the relevant issues in a case. Accordingly, members are encouraged to rely upon persuasive decisions in the interests of consistency and effective decision-making. This consistency also helps parties and counsel prepare for proceedings before the IRB, and may encourage early resolution without a hearing, where appropriate.
The use of persuasive decisions enables the IRB to move toward a consistent application of the law in a transparent manner. Their designation promotes efficiency in the hearing and reasons writing process by making use of quality work done by colleagues.
Unlike jurisprudential guides, decision makers are not required to explain their decision not to apply a persuasive decision.
Persuasive Decisions
Refugee Protection Division
TA6-07453 (May 2008)
This decision has persuasive value in regard to claimants from Mexico seeking protection due to their fear that the Mexican state is unable to protect them from criminality by common criminals because of corruption within the police. The reasons cite the documentary evidence which relates to state protection and conclude with a finding that for such claimants, adequate state protection is available. Notice of Identification
MA1-10302 (January 2003)
Where a claim is made pursuant to s. 97(1) (b), the claimant must demonstrate that there is no internal flight alternative because the risk of harm extends to every part of the country of reference. The reasonableness of the internal flight alternative (IFA) is not relevant. This decision highlights the fact that an IFA analysis for a claim based on risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, is not the same as an IFA analysis where the claim is based on the Convention Refugee definition, and that the pervasive nature of risk is the sole factor to consider under s. 97(1) (b).
Related Documents
Policy Note on Persuasive Decisions
Related Links