Below expectations ||
Meets expectations ||
80 hearings | 5 themes | 32 questions
Text format – Overall performance
|Percentage of hearings that met or exceeded the high-quality standard: 95%||5% Below expectations||95% Meets or exceeds expectations|
Performance by theme
Text format – Performance by theme
|Fair and respectful proceedings||7% Below expectations||84% Meets expectations||9% Exceeds expectations|
|Focused and robust proceedings||9% Below expectations||83% Meets expectations||8% Exceeds expectations|
|Reasons state conclusions on all issued decisions||2% Below expectations||97% Meets expectations||1% Exceeds expectations|
|Findings necessary to justify conclusions are provided||6% Below expectations||93% Meets expectations||1% Exceeds expectations|
|Reasons are transparent and intelligible||3% Below expectations||96% Meets expectations||1% Exceeds expectations|
Performance by region
Text format – Performance by region
|Eastern region – 28 hearings||5% Below expectations||90% Meets expectations||5% Exceeds expectations|
|Central region – 32 hearings||7% Below expectations||89% Meets expectations||4% Exceeds expectations|
|Western region – 20 hearings||7% Below expectations||88% Meets expectations||5% Exceeds expectations|
Top 5 performing areas by question
Text format – Top 5 performing areas by question
|The member treats participants with sensitivity and respect.||1% Below expectations||96% Meets expectations||3% Exceeds expectations|
|The member uses plain language.||1% Below expectations||99% Meets expectations|
|The member bases findings on evidence established as credible and trustworthy.||1% Below expectations||99% Meets expectations|
|AH: Reasons, if reserved, are finalized within 60 days from either the date of the last sitting or once final submissions are received from all parties or DR: Reasons are provided within the statutory time-limits.||2% Below expectations||98% Meets expectations|
|Conclusions are based on the issues and evidence adduced during the proceedings.||2% Below expectations||98% Meets expectations|
Lowest 5 performing areas by question
Text format – Lowest 5 performing areas by question
|The member considers the factors set out in section 248 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations before ordering continued detention.||41% Below expectations||56% Meets expectations||3% Exceeds expectations|
|The member addresses parties' evidence that runs contrary to the member's decision and why certain evidence was preferred.||15% Below expectations||83% Meets expectations||2% Exceeds expectations|
|The member explains clearly the allegation(s) and/or criteria against the person concerned and the possible consequences.||11% Below expectations||84% Meets expectations||5% Exceeds expectations|
|The member makes clear, unambiguous findings of fact.||9% Below expectations||94% Meets expectations|
|The member gives appropriately clear and concise reasons.||5% Below expectations||94% Meets expectations||1% Exceeds expectations|
The hearings in the sample were proportionally representative of the general population by region, decision type (oral or written) and language.
Supplementary questions related to virtual hearings were added to this year's checklist.
For further information and a full report on data contained in this dashboard please see
Quality Performance in the Immigration Division 2020 to 2021: Report of results.
- "Members were remarkably resourceful and patient in dealing with technological issues related to virtual hearings and took appropriate steps to resolve them."
- "Everyone involved in the proceedings, including interpreter, designated representative, and witness, were treated with respect [by the member]. In cases where the person concerned was part of a vulnerable group or showed signs of distress and anxiety, the member was responsive to their situation and treated them with tact and sensitivity."
- "Members made an extra effort to ensure that [unrepresented] persons concerned made representations and answered the clarification questions asked."
- "In almost all hearings assessed, members used plain language and gave clear and concise reasons that were coherent and accessible. In all cases, reasons were provided within the statutory time-limits."
Areas for Improvement
Consider offering guidance and training to members to inform a more principled approach to the consideration of the factors set out in section 248 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations before ordering continued detention.
Remind members of the rules and best practices to ensure they address parties' evidence that runs contrary to the member's decision and why certain evidence was preferred.
Remind members of the importance of providing the person concerned with the opportunity to respond to evidence and to make comments, even when the person concerned is represented by counsel, particularly when counsel was not present in the previous hearing and/or is new to the case.