Quality performance in the Immigration Appeal Division – FY 2019 to 2020: Summary report​​

​​​​​​​​
Text format

Chart 1

This is a column chart that illustrates the score distribution of case files. The average score is 2.8. The highest score is 3, or exceeds expectations, and the lowest score is 2.3. Any score of 2 or higher has met expectations. 100 percent of cases and indicators are shown to have met quality standards.     

Chart 2

This is a bar chart describing performance by six themes relating to hearing quality represented by six bar charts.    

The first bar is entitled ‘Pre-proceeding readiness’ and describes the percentage of cases that met the pre-proceeding readiness criteria. 86% of cases exceeded expectations, 10% of cases met expectations, and 4% of cases fell below expectations.    

The second bar is entitled ‘Respectful proceedings’ and describes the percentage of cases that met respectful proceeding criteria. 86% of cases exceeded expectations, 14% of cases met expectations, and no cases fell below expectations.    

The third bar is entitled ‘focused proceedings’ and describes the percentage of cases that met focused proceeding criteria. 86% of cases exceeded expectations, 14% of cases met expectations, and less than 1% of cases fell below expectations.    

The fourth bar is entitled ‘Reasons State Determinative Issues’ describes the percentage of cases that met the criteria for ensuring reasons stated conclusions for all determinative issues. 96% of cases exceeded expectations, 4% of cases met expectations, and no cases fell below expectations.    

The fifth bar is entitled ‘Conclusions Justified by Findings’ and describes the percentage of cases that met the criteria for justifying conclusions by findings. 84% of cases exceeded expectations, 16% of cases met expectations, and no cases fell below expectations.    

The sixth bar is entitled ‘Transparent and Intelligible Reasons’ and describes the percentage of cases that met the criteria for having reasons that are transparent and intelligble. 79% of cases exceeded expectations, 21% of cases met expectations, and no cases fell below expectations.    

Chart 3

This is a pie chart presenting the top performing areas by indicator. 100% of cases exceeded expectations for the top seven performing indicators. These indicators are: 1) The member deals with oral applications made by parties; 2) The member narrows the issues for final representations; 3) Social and cultural contextual factors in assessing witnesses’ testimony are taken into account; 4) The member ensures that a designated representative is appointed, when appropriate; 5) Ensures the designated representative is taking necessary steps to assist person concerned; 6) Member identifies legislation, rules, regulations, and guidelines where appropriate; and 7) Accommodates needs of vulnerable participants to facilitate their presentation of evidence.    

Chart 4

This is a bar chart describing the lowest performing by indicator represented by four bar charts.    

The first bar is entitled ‘Problems with interpretation are identified and addressed’ and describes the percentage of cases where problems with interpretation were identified and addressed. 40% of cases exceeded expectations, 60% of cases met expectations, and no cases fell below expectations.    

The second bar is entitled ‘the hearing completed in the time alotted’ and describes the percentage of cases that met the criteria for completing the hearing in the allotted time. 91% of cases exceeded expectations, 7% of cases met expectations, and 2% cases fell below expectations.    

The third bar is entitled ‘The file was organized in a logical and standardized manner as established by the division’ and describes how many cases met the criteria related to file organization. 67% of cases exceeded expectations, 29% of cases met expectations, and 4% of cases fell below expectations.    

The fourth bar is entitled ‘The file was provided to the member no later than 2 weeks prior to the proceeding’ and describes the percentage of cases that were provided to the member according to the standard timeline of 2 weeks. 87% of cases exceeded expectations and 13% of cases fell below expectations.    

Chart 5

This is a bar chart describing performance separated by the three regions: Western, Central, and Eastern. Eight files were included from the Western region, 13 files were included from the Central region, and 24 files were included from the Eastern region.     

The first bar is entitled ‘Western’ and describes the percent of cases heard in the western region that met all criteria during review. 90% of cases exceeded expectations, 10% of cases met expectations, and no cases fell below expectations.    

The second bar is entitled ‘Central’ and describes the percent of cases heard in the central region that met all criteria during review. 92% of cases exceeded expectations, 7% of cases met expectations, and 1% of cases fell below expectations.    

The third bar is entitled ‘Eastern’ and describes the percent of cases heard in the eastern region that met all criteria during review. 82% of cases exceeded expectations, 17% of cases met expectations, and 1% of cases fell below expectations.    

Table 1

This is a table describing the actions recommended as a result of the quality measurement initiative. The table includes four rows, and two columns. The first column includes a title verb to describe the second column, which contains a description of an action and/or recommendation.    

The first column of the first row contains the text ‘Establish.’ The second column of the first row includes the text: ‘Establish a national method of operations for classifying documents, including a list of submissions, and provide clarification on which items constitute the Ministers’ submisions.’    

The first column of the second row contains the text ‘Remind.’ The second column of the second row includes the text: ‘Remind members to intervene quickly when interpretation issues arise.’    

The first column of the third row contains the text ‘Remind/train.’ The second column of the third row includes the text: ‘Remind/train members to establish an agenda and list of issues for the hearing.’    

The first column of the fourth row also contains the text ‘Remind/train.’ The second column of the fourth row includes the text: ‘Remind members to use short paragraphs and subtitles for written decisions.’