IRB Specialization Exam – Sample Questions

Correct Answer: C

Explanation: Identity is a central factor in initial detention reviews, especially when no documents are presented.

Source: IRPA s. 58(1)(a), ID Rules

Here is the explanation for each option in Question 1 (ID – Medium):

Correct Answer: C. The identity of the person concerned
True. Under IRPA s. 55(2)(b) and IRB Guideline 2, the Immigration Division must consider whether the individual’s identity has been established, especially when no documentation is presented.

A. The potential for criminal activity
False. While risk to the public may be a ground for detention, it is not the first consideration when the person’s identity is unknown.

B. The availability of a surety
False. The availability of a surety is relevant when considering release, but only after grounds for detention (such as identity) are assessed.

D. The validity of the refugee claim
False. Determining refugee claim validity is the role of the RPD, not the ID. The ID does not assess the merits of a refugee claim in a detention review.

Correct Answer: B

Explanation: Rehabilitation and hardship to the sponsor or applicant are central to H&C considerations.

Source: IAD Guideline 1

Here is the explanation for each option in Question 2 (IAD – High):

Correct Answer: B. The applicant’s likelihood of rehabilitation
True. When criminal inadmissibility is at issue, rehabilitation is a central factor in assessing whether there are sufficient H&C grounds to allow the appeal (IAD Guideline 1).

A. The sponsor’s financial status
False. Financial status may be relevant in general immigration decisions but is not a decisive factor in H&C analysis of criminal inadmissibility.

C. The immigration officer’s opinion
False. The IAD conducts a de novo review and is not bound by the officer’s opinion; it assesses the case independently based on law and evidence.

D. The age of the sponsor
False. While age may be a minor contextual factor in hardship, it is not a key consideration compared to rehabilitation and overall H&C factors.

Correct Answer: C

Explanation: The claimant must confirm availability or risk abandonment.

Source: RPD Rule 65(2)

Here is the explanation for each option in Question 3 (RPD – Medium):

Correct Answer: C. Confirm availability in writing
True. Under RPD Rule 65(2), if a new hearing date is given within 7 days, the claimant must confirm in writing they are available, or it may be deemed they abandoned their claim.

A. Submit a new BOC Form
False. The BOC form only needs to be submitted once unless amended; rescheduling a hearing does not require a new form.

B. File a motion with the RAD
False. The RAD deals with appeals, not hearing scheduling or abandonment issues, which fall under RPD jurisdiction.

D. File for judicial review
False. Judicial review is for challenging final decisions at the Federal Court—not for procedural steps like confirming a hearing date.

Correct Answer: C

Explanation: The RAD may extend deadlines upon receiving a request with justification.

Source: RAD Rule 6(2)

Here is the explanation for each option in Question 4 (RAD – Medium):

Correct Answer: C. Extend the deadline upon request
True. Under RAD Rule 6(2), the RAD may grant an extension of time for filing documents if the appellant makes a justified request within a reasonable timeframe.

A. Automatically dismiss the appeal
False. The RAD does not automatically dismiss appeals for late documents without first considering whether an extension may be granted.

B. Issue a removal order
False. The RAD has no authority to issue removal orders; this is under the jurisdiction of the CBSA or the Immigration Division.

D. Refer the case to the Minister
False. The RAD does not refer late filings to the Minister; it may instead assess whether to allow an extension based on the request and justification.

Correct Answer: B

Explanation: RAD can accept new evidence if it meets criteria for being new, material, and unavailable earlier.

Source: IRPA s. 110(4)

Here is the explanation for each option in Question 5 (RAD – High):

Correct Answer: B. If the evidence is new and material and was not reasonably available earlier
True. According to IRPA s. 110(4), the RAD may accept new evidence only if it is new, material, and could not have been reasonably provided at the RPD hearing.

A. If the claimant insists
False. The RAD will not accept evidence simply based on insistence; it must meet strict admissibility criteria under the IRPA.

C. If the claimant did not have counsel
False. Lack of counsel is not an automatic ground to admit new evidence; the RAD still requires the evidence to meet the legal test under s. 110(4).

D. If the claimant is stateless
False. Statelessness may be relevant to the claim but does not justify bypassing the test for admitting new evidence on appeal.

Correct Answer: C

Explanation: RPD must generally issue decisions in writing within 15 days unless otherwise specified.

Source: RPD Rule 67

Here is the explanation for each option in Question 6 (RPD – Medium):

Correct Answer: C. 15 days
True. Under RPD Rule 67, the RPD must provide a written decision and reasons within 15 days after the conclusion of the hearing, unless an oral decision was already given or an extension applies.

A. 5 days
False. There is no provision requiring written decisions within 5 days; this is too short and not supported by RPD rules.

B. 10 days
False. Although quicker decisions are encouraged, the official maximum is 15 days, not 10, under normal circumstances.

D. 20 days
False. This exceeds the standard timeframe prescribed in RPD Rule 67, which sets 15 days as the typical limit.

Correct Answer: C

Explanation: The person concerned has the burden to establish their identity in most cases.

Here is the explanation for each option in Question 8 (RAD – Medium):

Correct Answer: C. The person concerned
True. In most detention review hearings, the burden of proving identity lies with the person concerned. Under ID Rule 4 and IRPA s. 58(1)(a), they must provide sufficient evidence to establish their identity, unless a specific exception applies.

A.The CBSA officer
False. The CBSA officer may provide evidence during the process, but the burden of proof regarding identity lies with the person concerned, not CBSA. (ID Rule 4; IRPA s. 58(1)(a))</p.

B. Beyond a reasonable doubt
False. The Minister’s counsel represents the Minister and may challenge the person’s identity, but they do not have the burden to prove it. Their role is to present the Minister’s case and cross‑examine evidence.

D. The ID Member
False. The ID Member is an impartial decision‑maker and does not bear any evidentiary burden. They assess the evidence provided by the parties against the legal requirements.

Source: ID Rule 4, IRPA s. 58(1)(a)

Correct Answer: B

Explanation: RAD decisions are based on the civil standard: balance of probabilities.

Source: RAD Chairperson Guidelines

Here is the explanation for each option in Question 8 (RAD – Medium):

Correct Answer: B. Balance of probabilities
True. The RAD, like other civil administrative tribunals, uses the balance of probabilities standard—whether something is more likely than not—when making findings.

A. Reasonable doubt
False. This is the criminal law standard and does not apply in RAD appeals, which are civil in nature.

C. Beyond a reasonable doubt
False. This is an even higher criminal standard, not applicable in refugee or immigration appeals.

D. Clear and convincing evidence
False. This heightened standard is used in limited civil contexts (e.g., fraud), but not in RAD decisions.

Correct Answer: C

Explanation: The IAD cannot hear an appeal where the applicant is inadmissible due to serious criminality.

Source: IRPA s. 64(1)

Here is the explanation for each option in Question 9 (IAD – High):

Correct Answer: C. If the sponsored person was found inadmissible for serious criminality
True. Under IRPA s. 64(1), the right to appeal to the IAD is barred if the sponsored person is found inadmissible for serious criminality, defined under IRPA s. 36(1).

A. If the sponsor is a refugee
False. Being a refugee has no impact on a sponsor's right to appeal a refused sponsorship.

B. If the sponsor resides outside Canada
False. While the sponsor must usually be a Canadian citizen or permanent resident residing in Canada, residency alone does not automatically exclude an appeal if other criteria are met.

D. If the sponsored person is over 22 years old
False. Age does not affect the right to appeal; sponsorship eligibility and appeal rights are determined by other legal grounds.

Correct Answer: B

Explanation: The deadline to file the BOC is 15 calendar days from the referral.

Source: RPD Rule 11(1)

Here is the explanation for each option in Question 10 (RPD – High):

Correct Answer: B. 15 days
True. According to RPD Rule 11(1), a claimant must file the Basis of Claim (BOC) Form within 15 calendar days of being referred to the Refugee Protection Division.

A. 10 days
False. The deadline is 15 days, not 10; this would be premature and not compliant with the RPD rules.

C. 30 days
False. This overstates the time allowed and could lead to a claim being deemed abandoned if the BOC is late.

D. 45 days
False. No such deadline exists under RPD rules; this would be far beyond the allowed timeframe and result in procedural consequences.