Redetermination of a Claim to Be a Convention Refugee; A Review of the Jurisprudence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The refugee determination process under the Immigration Act, 1976 comprises many steps which have been the subject of judicial interpretation. An individual claiming to be a “Convention refugee” in Canada will first be examined under oath with regard to his claim. The Refugee Status Advisory Committee will study the transcript of this examination. After obtaining the advice of the Committee, the Minister of Employment and Immigration will determine whether or not the claimant is a “Convention refugee”. Should this determination be negative, the person concerned will have the choice to apply to the Immigration Appeal Board for a redetermination of his claim. At this stage, the Board will grant an oral hearing to the applicant and render a decision thereafter if it is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he could prove that he is a “Convention refugee”. If no oral hearing is granted, the Board will determine that the applicant is not a “Convention refugee”. The Federal Court and the Supreme Court of Canada have had a considerable input in the interpretation of the provisions relating to this refugee determination process, including the wording of the definition of “Convention refugee”. This paper limits itself to a review of the decisions rendered by these courts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".