 
IAD .34 (04.2013)  
Disponible en français   
 
 
Immigration and  
Refugee Board of Canada  
 
Immigration Appeal Division  
  
Commission de l’immigration  
et du statut de réfugié du Canada  
  
Section d’appel de l’immigration  
IAD File No.  / N° de dossier de la SAI : MB8 -15182  
Client ID No.  / No ID client  : 51777115  
 
 
Reasons and Decision   Motifs et décision  
 
RE MOVAL  
 
 
Appellant(s)  XXXXXXXXXXXXX  Appelant(e)(s)  
   
and   et 
   
Respondent  The Minister of Public Safety and  
 Emergency Preparedness  Intimé(e)  
   
   
Date(s) of Hearing  March  26, 2019  
 Date(s) de l’audience  
   
Place of Hearing  Montréal, Que bec  
 Lieu de l’audience  
   
Date of Decision  March  26, 2019  
Decision signed : April  2, 2019  
 Date de la décision  
   
Panel  Me XXXXXXXXXXXXX  
 Tribunal  
   
Counsel for the  
Appellant(s)  N/A  Conseil(s) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX / des 
appelant(e)(s)  
   
Designated 
Representative(s)  N/A   Représentant(e)(s) 
désigné(e)(s)  
   
   
Counsel for the Minister  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
(Written submissions ) Conseil(s) du (de la) 
ministre  
   
2019 CanLII 106815 (CA IRB)
IAD File No.  / N° de dossier de la S AI : MB8 -15182  
 
 
1 ORAL REASONS FOR DECISION  
**French v ersion edited for spelling, syntax and grammar ** 
INTRODUCTION  
[1] These are the rea son s for decision of the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) in the 
appeal filed by XXXXXXXXXXXXX (the appellant ) from a removal order made against him on 
June  22, 2018. The officer issued this order  on the ground that he was no t satisfied that the 
appellant had complied with  his residency obligation, namely, to be physically present in Canada 
for at least two years during the five -year period immediately preceding his application for 
admission to Canada.  
ANALYSIS  
[2] Today, the appellant did not appear for his app eal. Counsel for the Minister is absent but 
has, however, made written submissions on the record and requests that I dismiss the appeal.  
 
[3] First, the hearing started at 9:10  a.m. and the appellant was not present . I checked with 
reception and the appellant  did not contact reception to advise that he could not attend or that he 
would be late.   
 
[4] I note that, on June  12, 2018, we received the notice of appeal and the appellant provided 
contact information where he could be reached at an address in Longueuil. He did not indicate 
any legal representative on his record; however, he did provide a telephone number. I called this 
number and someone answered. The individual did not want to identify herself, but confirmed 
that she was an acquaintance of the appellant, that she had received the documents sent by the 
panel and that her spouse had spoken to the appellant  and would have forwarded him the 
documents sent by the panel. This individual also provided an international telephone number  
that she confirmed was a telephone number in  Kenya, possibly the  appellant’s place of residence  
as the evidence on the record shows that he had maintained a residence in this country for many 
2019 CanLII 106815 (CA IRB)
IAD File No.  / N° de dossier de la S AI : MB8 -15182  
 
 
2 years. I tried to reach the appellant at this number, but it wa s impossible to reach him. I could not 
get through.   
 
[5] I also note that there is a very clear warning in the notice of appeal that states the 
following : 
If you fail to appear for a hearing, or fail to communicate with the IAD when requested, 
or fail to pro vide information required by the IAD  (such as your most recent address), 
the IAD may declare your appeal abandoned in accordance with subsection  168(1) of the 
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act  without any further notice to you. If your 
appeal is aband oned, this means that your appeal has ended.  
 
[6] Therefore, the appellant was well advised of the possibility that the panel could  declare 
the appeal abandoned. On June  25, 2018, the panel received the Appeal Book provided by the 
Canada Border Services Agenc y, and a copy was also sent to the appellant at the address on 
record in Longueuil, the address of his acquaintance. On July  17, 2018, the panel sent an 
acknowledgement of receipt of the notice of appeal to the appellant, again to the same address. 
There was no returned mail; I assume that the correspondence was received  since the person that 
I contacted earlier, the appellant’s acquaintance, also confirmed that it was her home address.   
 
[7] On January  25, 2019,  the panel sent the notice to appear for the he aring today, March  26, 
2019, again to  the same address in Longueuil. As stated by the appellant’s acquaintance, whom I 
contacted at the telephone number indicated in the notice of appeal, these document s were 
received by this same  acquaintance in Longueuil . Enclosed with this notice to appear was a 
confirmation of hearing needs form . The appellant never returned this required confirmation of 
needs form  to the panel. He did not send any documents in support of his appeal and the notice to 
appear did not come  back unclai med. The panel therefore assumes  that these documents, 
including the notice to appear, were received at the address indicated by the appellant in his 
notice of appeal.  
 
[8] The panel does not note any updates from the appellant regarding his conta ct information 
and the panel even notes that, on March  1, 2019,  the Minister sent his written submissions again 
to the same address in  Longueuil. There are no other notes on the record indicating that the 
appellant did not receive this information. Lastly,  it is very clear from the Appeal Book that the 
2019 CanLII 106815 (CA IRB)
IAD File No.  / N° de dossier de la S AI : MB8 -15182  
 
 
3 appellant has maintained a residence in Kenya and that his wife and children live in Cameroo n. 
Therefore, it is possible that the appellant is still  in Kenya today and, as his acquaintance who 
was contacted e arlier in the hearing provided a telephone number in Kenya, it is very likely that 
the appellant is living  in that  country. He did not provide the panel with any telephone number in 
Kenya to enable him to attend his hearing by telephone. It was his respons ibility to do so.  
CONCLUSION  
[9] For these reasons, the panel is of the opinion that the appellant is no longer interested in 
purs uing his appeal as he did not provide any information to the panel as part of his appeal , 
which was  filed over eight months ago . The panel is of the opinion that the appeal must be 
declared abandoned.  
 
 
 
  
2019 CanLII 106815 (CA IRB)
IAD File No.  / N° de dossier de la S AI : MB8 -15182  
 
 
4 NOTICE OF DECISION  
 
 
 The appeal is determined  to be abandoned under subsection  168(1)  of the Immigration and 
Refugee Protection Act1 because the appellant failed to appear for his hearing, as required by the 
Immigration Appeal Division.  
 
 (Sign ed by )  XXXXXXXXXXXXX  
  Me XXXXXXXXXXXXX  
  April  2, 2019  
  Date  
IRB translation  
Original language: French  
 
 
Judicial review – Under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , you may make an application to the Federal Court for judicial 
review of this decision, with leave of that Court. You may wish to get advice from counsel as soon as possible, since there a re time limits for this 
application . 
                                                 
1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended . 
2019 CanLII 106815 (CA IRB)

