Reasons and Decision – Fatemeh Shahin

​Person who is the subject(s) of the decision: Fatemeh Shahin

Date of decision and reasons: January 12, 2024

Panel: Preeti Adhopia, Chairperson’s Delegate

Counsel for the person who is the subject of the decision: N/A

Reasons for decision

1. Introduction

[1] This is a decision concerning Fatemeh “Honeya” Shahin, who represented herself to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) as an unpaid representative for numerous refugee claimants. This decision is being made in accordance with the Policy for Handling Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Complaints Regarding Unauthorized, Paid Representatives (“the Policy”). It includes my reasons for prohibiting Ms. Shahin from representing, counselling, or appearing on behalf of any person in any proceeding before any Division of the IRB in perpetuity.

2. Definitions

[2] As outlined in section 167(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act” or IRPA), any person who is the subject of a proceeding before the IRB has the right to be represented by counsel at their own expense. Section 91(1) of the Act states that only certain individuals may, for a fee or other consideration, represent, advise, or consult with a person who is the subject of a proceeding before the IRB. According to s. 91(2) of the Act, such individuals must be:

1. a lawyer who is a member in good standing of a law society of a province or a notary who is a member in good standing of the Chambre des notaires du Québec;
2. any other member in good standing of a law society of a province or the Chambre des notaires du Québec, including a paralegal; or
3. a member in good standing of the College, as defined in section 2 of the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Act

The Policy defines the individuals contemplated above as “authorized representatives.” That said, pro bono representatives may appear before the IRB. This refers to anyone who does not charge a fee or is not receiving other consideration. In other words, an “unpaid representative.” Accordingly, s. 2.4 of the Policy states that any person who is not an authorized representative, as defined above, and who claims to be an unpaid representative, but is, in fact, charging a fee or receiving other consideration to represent, advise or consult with a refugee claimant is an “unauthorized, paid representative.”

3. Background

[3] The Policy sets out the IRB’s approach to the treatment of complaints against purported unpaid representatives suspected of charging a fee for their services. Section 3.3 of the Policy explains that its purpose is to provide a means for protecting the integrity of the IRB’s proceedings against contraventions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (“the Regulations”) in relation to representatives. This is based on the principle that the IRB is master of its own procedures, subject to legislation and rules of fairness and natural justice.

[4] Pursuant to s. 5.6(i), any IRB member or employee with relevant information may raise a concern under the Policy. In May 2023, an RPD manager reported to me, as acting Assistant Deputy Chairperson (ADC), some written concerns pertaining to Ms. Shahin which suggested that she may be an unauthorized, paid representative. Those concerns were as follows:

• Ms. Shahin was, at the time, the unpaid representative on more than 40 pending cases before the RPD; a number consistent with the full-time caseload of a lawyer or immigration consultant.
  
• A search of provincial and territorial law society websites revealed that she was not listed as a lawyer, a notary in Québec, or a member of the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants (CICC).
  
• In most of these cases, she was listed as a friend to the claimants, though in some cases, she was listed as a community member or a family member. How she had befriended such a large number of refugee claimants was not known.
• During the few RPD hearings that she had already appeared at, she confirmed on the record that she was a family member or friend of the claimants.
  
• In many files, Ms. Shahin’s phone number and address were listed as that of the claimants’ even though there were separate fields on the forms for contact information of claimants and their representatives. In several instances where this was not the case, numerous claimants on different files appeared to be sharing the same address.
  
• Although Ms. Shahin lives in St. Albert, Alberta, some of the claimants appeared to be living in British Columbia (BC) and Québec. How she had come into contact with refugee claimants in other provinces was not known.
  
• In the vast majority of cases, Ms. Shahin was listed both as an unpaid representative and the interpreter for claimants’ Basis of Claim forms (BOC). She was largely interpreting from Turkish, but also from Kurdish, Persian, Arabic, and Vietnamese, to English. Acting as both a representative and an interpreter may create a conflict of interest.
• Many claimants’ responses to questions in their BOCs contained very similar language and sometimes very similar stories of persecution.
  
• In one of the cases, Ms. Shahin submitted a form which recognized her as the designated representative (DR) of a minor who was accompanied by a parent. She was also the BOC interpreter. This again may create a potential conflict with her role as a representative.
  

Based on the observations above, the RPD manager was concerned that Ms. Shahin was being compensated for her services, rendering her an unauthorized, paid representative.

4. Scope

[5] Some of the concerns raised by the RPD manager reflect issues that extend beyond whether Ms. Shahin is being compensated for her services. For example, the issues related to the contact information of Ms. Shahin and the claimants she represents, the similarities in the BOCs, acting as BOC interpreter, DR, and representative, and her competency in various other languages are all issues that fall outside the scope of the Policy and will therefore not be considered here. Similarly, as will be referenced later, another concern that came to light suggesting that Ms. Shahin may have represented herself as a lawyer is not contemplated by the Policy. The sole issue under review here is whether, on a balance of probabilities, Ms. Shahin is charging a fee or receiving other consideration for representing claimants at the RPD.

5. Procedure

[6] To carry out the objectives of the Policy, s. 3.4 states that the IRB Chairperson delegates her general power to perform a review function with respect to this Policy. Section 3.5 identifies the ADC of the Division (in the region in which the facts leading to the complaint arise) as the Chairperson’s delegate. As the acting ADC of RPD’s Western Region, I am the Chairperson’s delegate in this case, and I carried out a review, as described below.

[7] On receipt, I was of the opinion that the RPD manager’s complaint about Ms. Shahin warranted further review and I referred the matter to the regional acting Registrar of the RPD in accordance with s. 5.6(i) and (ii) of the Policy. She gathered additional information and prepared a report based on the RPD manager’s written complaint. Pursuant to s. 5.6(iii) of the Policy, that report was shared with me as the Chairperson’s delegate. As I found that there was sufficient information to continue with the review, the Registrar contacted Ms. Shahin by registered mail on June 29, 2023. As required by s. 5.6(v) of the Policy, she enclosed a copy of the report outlining the allegations, requested a written response within 30 days, and advised Ms. Shahin of the consequences of failing to respond. The Registrar wrote to Ms. Shahin by registered mail again on November 27, 2023, asking for a response within 14 days to a statement that had been made by a claimant during an interview indicating he was to pay Ms. Shahin. This information was not in the Registrar’s earlier report.

[8] Some of Ms. Shahin’s hearings had already taken place before she came to the attention of the RPD manager in May 2023, but numerous cases were, and still are, pending. Pursuant to s.5.6(vi) of the Policy, Ms. Shahin’s pending claims were placed in abeyance, and for those that had already been scheduled, the presiding member determined whether to proceed with the hearing. Ultimately, no further hearings went forward for cases in which Ms. Shahin was listed as the unpaid representative.

[9] Section 5.6(vii) of the Policy requires that:

Upon review of the record and consideration of the representative's response, if any, the Chairperson's delegate will determine whether or not the individual has, in fact, contravened the Regulations and, if so, whether the individual should be prohibited from representing and appearing on behalf of any person in any proceeding before all Divisions of the IRB for a specified time period with such conditions as imposed by the Chairperson's delegate. The representative will be advised in writing of the decision of the Chairperson's delegate.

6. Review

[10] For the purposes of this review, I considered: the volume of Ms. Shahin’s caseload; her purported relationship to claimants; statements made by claimants about payment to her, and the fact that she did not respond to the complaint against her after being given two opportunities to do so.

a. Volume of Ms. Shahin’s RPD Cases

[11] Ms. Shahin’s caseload is significant. She is believed to have first appeared on forms as the unpaid representative for a claimant at the RPD in April 2022. The last time she is known to have appeared in documents on an RPD file as the representative was May 2023. At the time of writing this decision, 11 of her cases had been adjudicated, 21 were pending, and there were 47 cases from which she was removed as the representative by claimants after her cases were placed in abeyance. She also had one case heard at the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). A complete file list is attached to this decision. As there is no automated means by which the RPD can search its case management system for files in which an individual previously represented a claimant, she may have had even more cases from which she was removed before the RPD began tracking her activity. It is not clear why 47 claimants ended their relationship with her in recent months, but in 33 cases, they appeared to have hired a lawyer or immigration consultant. It is possible that the RPD’s decision to hold her active cases in abeyance for so many months became an issue for claimants seeking more progress on their claims.

[12] Section 5.5 of the Policy lists possible indications that a representative who claims to be unpaid may be charging a fee or receiving other consideration. One such indication is frequent appearances as an unpaid representative, as in this case. The information above demonstrates that, within 14 months, Ms. Shahin took on 79 RPD cases; a considerable number that involves significant time and work.

[13] Ms. Shahin was given an opportunity to respond to the allegation that her heavy caseload resembled that of someone being compensated, but she provided no explanation. Based on the large number of cases she held in a short period of time, and in the absence of any explanation for it, on a balance of probabilities, I find that Ms. Shahin’s caseload reflects that of a paid lawyer or CICC consultant engaged in full-time advocacy for refugee claimants.

b. Ms. Shahin’s Relationship to Claimants

[14] Unpaid representatives who appear before the RPD tend to be family members or friends of their claimants, and sometimes, members of a claimant’s cultural community. When identifying their representative in their BOC, claimants may select “lawyer,” “immigration consultant,” “family member,” or “other.” For the latter option, they must specify the type of relationship they have with their representative.

[15] In 73 cases, Ms. Shahin was listed as a friend to the claimants (or some combination of friend and family member or community member). It is doubtful that the nature of Ms. Shahin’s relationship with so many claimants was friendship. Generally speaking, refugee claimants are newcomers to Canada who make their claims on arrival or soon after. Befriending many dozens of new arrivals to Canada – including 7 in Québec, 16 in BC, and 5 in Calgary – in the span of 14 months is not something that is reasonably likely to occur, particularly given that Ms. Shahin lives in a community outside of Edmonton.

[16] Some refugee claimants corroborated the fact that their relationship to Ms. Shahin was something other than friendship. In case VC2-09102, Ms. Shahin was listed as the claimant’s friend in his BOC, however, he later removed her as his representative and, ahead of his hearing, found other counsel. At his hearing of June 2, 2023, Ms. Shahin was discussed during the claimant’s testimony. Below is a partial transcript of the presiding member’s questions and the claimant’s replies.

Member: It says here that somebody helped you fill it out. It says a friend called Fatima Shaheen [ph.] helped you fill this out.

Claimant: Correct.

Member: Can you tell me who this person is?

Claimant: She was a lawyer in Alberta, a counsel, and she was also doing my translation and interpreting for me.

Member: How did you meet this person?

Claimant: (Speaking Turkish).

Member: It got cut off. You can ask him to repeat. Thank you.

Claimant: She was a translator for a friend of mine at that time. So, I met her through a friend and because I was quite new myself, I also requested from her to do translation and interpreting for me.

Member: So, this person is fluent in Turkish?

Claimant: Not fluent. However, we could not 100 percent communicate. Somewhat communicate.

Member: And did she translate this Basis of Claim for you? Did she do that for free or did you pay her for that work?

Claimant: I had to make a payment to her.

Member: Do you remember how much that was?

Claimant: No.

The sworn testimony above contradicts the notion that Ms. Shahin was a friend. In fact, the claimant believed that Ms. Shahin was a lawyer. As indicated previously, Ms. Shahin is neither a member of a law society nor of CICC.

[17] In 15 cases, Ms. Shahin is also listed as having a familial relationship to claimants (or some combination of family member and community member or friend). In case VC2-09624, she was listed as the claimants’ family member in each of their BOCs. However, she was later removed from their file and the claimants retained a lawyer who represented them at a hearing on July 17, 2023. At this hearing, one of the claimants refuted the nature of the relationship with Ms. Shahin when he testified under oath that he was referred to her by a friend who was also a refugee claimant. He described Ms. Shahin as an interpreter and someone who attended refugee hearings. The claimant further stated that she was to attend his hearing until he decided to hire a lawyer.

[18] In both of the cases above, Ms. Shahin’s personal connection to the claimants was revealed to be false and the relationship appeared to be along professional lines instead, as an alleged lawyer, interpreter, and representative at hearings.

[19] Ms. Shahin was given an opportunity to respond to the allegation that she was posing as her claimants’ friend or community or family member to conceal compensation in some form, but she did not respond. Based on the fact that two claimants contradicted the nature of their relationship to Ms. Shahin, the unlikelihood that she could have befriended so many claimants across cities and provinces in a short time, and in the absence of an explanation, I find that the nature of her relationship to claimants was likely professional.

c. Statements About Payment to Ms. Shahin

[20] Section 5.5 of the Policy outlines that information received from former clients or contained in IRB records can indicate that an unpaid representative has charged a fee or received other consideration in the past to represent and appear before the IRB.

[21] As indicated in the partial transcript at paragraph 16, at the RPD hearing for case VC2-09102, the claimant indicated that he had paid Ms. Shahin an unknown sum of money. Although the claimant was only asked by the member if he paid Ms. Shahin for translation of the BOC, in both his second and fourth responses transcribed above, the claimant indicated that Ms. Shahin was a lawyer, whom he “also” asked to do interpretation, thereby implying that she provided other services. Needless to say, lawyers are, generally speaking, paid for their services.

[22] RPD case VC3-05141 relates to another claimant who later removed Ms. Shahin as his representative. Ms. Shahin had signed a Use of Representative form on December 21, 2022, indicating she was a “friend or family member” representing the claimant without compensation. On May 8, 2023, the claimant was interviewed by a Hearings Advisor from Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). According to the Hearings Advisor’s interview notes which form part of the claimant’s RPD file, she had the following exchange with the claimant:

Q: You stated that you have a paid representative named Honeya Shahin.^{Footnote 1} What are the fees that you have or will pay to her?

A: I promised her $1500 for the whole package when the hearing is completed.

Q: What services are being provided by your Representative?

A: Medical check-up, any correspondence we receive, she translates for us. Anytime we need to communicate in English she helps us.

…

Q: Do you swear that all statements made in this declaration are true and correct?

A: Yes.

The interview statements above reveal that the claimant was to pay Ms. Shahin $1,500 at the conclusion of his hearing. Although Ms. Shahin’s services listed by this claimant do not directly refer to representation, given that he accepted the CBSA official’s characterization of Ms. Shahin as his “paid representative,” and payment was to follow Ms. Shahin’s appearance at the hearing, as well as his statement that he was paying for the “whole package,” I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the service he was to pay for included representation before the RPD.

[23] Ms. Shahin was specifically asked by the Registrar to explain these two claimants’ statements about payment to her, but she did not respond. In the absence of any explanation, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that one claimant paid, and the other claimant was expected to pay Ms. Shahin to represent them at the RPD.

7. Determination

[24] I find that Ms. Shahin was acting in the capacity of an unauthorized, paid representative for claimants at the RPD, as contemplated by the Policy. I base this on the following:

1. Ms. Shahin was listed as the representative on a total of 79 RPD cases in 14 months, a volume consistent with a paid practitioner.
2. It is unlikely that Ms. Shahin could have befriended so many refugee claimants, many of whom live in other cities and provinces. Two of Ms. Shahin’s former claimants also contradicted the notion that she was their friend or family member.
3. One of Ms. Shahin’s former claimants testified that he had paid her, and another stated he was expected to pay her $1,500 after his hearing.
4. Ms. Shahin did not contradict the allegations against her nor provide any explanation despite being given an opportunity to do so twice.

[25] In Rezaei the Federal Court found that the IRB’s power to control its own processes includes jurisdiction to prevent someone from appearing before the IRB on behalf of another person.^{Footnote 2} Although that finding was made in the context of an immigration consultant rather than an unauthorized, paid representative, there is nothing in that decision that would limit its application. More directly, in Domantay, the Federal Court held that:

…there is a duty incumbent upon the Board to verify that those individuals representing clients with whom it has dealings are authorized representatives pursuant to the Regulations, or that they are not receiving a fee for their services. This duty envisions the protection of applicants and the preservation of the integrity of Canada’s immigration system.^{Footnote 3}

Barring Ms. Shahin from appearing at the IRB is appropriate as her conduct is not in compliance with the law and is exploitative of a vulnerable population who, when able to pay for the service, should be represented by someone qualified.

8. Order

[26] Ms. Fatemeh Shahin is prohibited from representing, counselling, or appearing on behalf of any person in any proceeding before any Division of the IRB, effective immediately. This prohibition will remain in effect indefinitely. Should Ms. Shahin become a member in good standing of a bar of a province, the Chambres des notaires du Québec, or CICC, this prohibition may be reconsidered.

[27] I direct the Registrars of all four Divisions of the IRB to notify anyone currently represented by Ms. Shahin of this prohibition.​

Preeti Adhopia
A/Assistant Deputy Chairperson
Refugee Protection Division

January 12, 2024