The battery used to start the auxiliary power unit (APU) on the Japan Airlines (JAL) Boeing 787 that caught fire did not overcharge, according to the US National Transportation Safety Board.
In a detailed third update on its investigation into the Jan. 7 fire aboard the JAL Dreamliner while it was parked at Boston Logan Airport, NTSB said examination of flight recorder data indicates the APU battery did not exceed its designed voltage of 32 volts.
The lithium ion battery has become a focus area of the JAL investigation and another investigation into a separate Jan. 16 incident involving an All Nippon Airways (ANA) 787, which had to make an emergency landing in Japan and also appears to have suffered a battery malfunction.
In its update on the JAL incident, NTSB said, “The battery was X-rayed and CT scans were generated of the assembled battery. The investigative team has disassembled the APU battery into its eight individual cells for detailed examination and documentation. Three of the cells were selected for more detailed radiographic examination to view the interior of the cells prior to their disassembly. These cells are in the process now of being disassembled and the cell's internal components are being examined and documented.
“Investigators have also examined several other components removed from the airplane, including wire bundles and battery management circuit boards. The team has developed test plans for the various components removed from the aircraft, including the battery management unit (for the APU battery), the APU controller, the battery charger and the start power unit.”
NTSB added that on Tuesday, the investigative team will meet in Arizona to test and examine the battery charger and download nonvolatile memory from the APU controller. Several other components have been sent for download or examination to Boeing’s facility in Seattle and manufacturer facilities in Japan.
The Japan Transport Safety Board is leading the ANA investigation, with assistance from NTSB. Similarly, JTSB officials have joined the NTSB-led JAL inquiry.
Meanwhile, ANA and JAL have both announced their 787 schedule cancellations have been extended through Jan. 28.
ANA, which was the 787 launch customer and operates 17 Dreamliners, said the total number of 787 flights it has been forced to cancel since the Jan. 16 incident now stands at 320 domestic and 51 international, with more than 50,000 passengers affected.
Flights of all 50 787s operated by eight carriers worldwide have been suspended; FAA grounded the aircraft after the ANA incident, although both Japanese carriers had already suspended flights by then.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
HISTORIC $50 MILLION GIFT TO PRINCESS MARGARET CANCER CENTRE
Biggest Ever Private Donation To Cancer Research
in Canada
|
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Date: 20121116 Docket: IMM-610-12 Citation: 2012 FC 1222
Source: http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2012/2012fc1222/2012fc1222.html
Date: 20121116
Docket: IMM-610-12
Citation: 2012 FC 1222
Ottawa, Ontario, November 16, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Gleason
BETWEEN:
ADEL BENHMUDA, AISHA BENMATUG, AND MUAWIYA BENHMUDA, MOHAMED BENHMUDA, OMAR BENHMUDA AND ADAM BENHMUDA (by their litigation guardians ADEL BENHMUDA AND AISHA BENMATUG)
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
AMENDED REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] The applicants are a family of six, comprised of the father, Adel Benhmuda, the mother, Aisha Benmatug, and their four sons. Mr. Benhmuda, Ms. Benmatug and their two eldest sons, Muawiya and Mohamed, are citizens of Libya. Their two younger children are Canadian citizens, having been born in this country in 2000 and 2002. The family now resides in Malta and was granted refugee status in that country in 2010. In this application for judicial review, they seek to set aside the November 8, 2011 decision of the First Secretary (Immigration) of the Canadian Embassy in Rome, who denied their application for permanent resident visas as members of the Convention Refugee Abroad Class and also dismissed the application they made on humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] grounds.
[2] While the applicants raise several grounds in support of their judicial review application, only one needs be considered, namely, their claim that the First Secretary’s decision should be set aside because there is a reasonable apprehension of bias on her part. For the reasons set out below, I have determined that there is merit to this claim and, accordingly, the decision will be set aside and a tailored remedy granted to ensure that the offending information contained in the respondent’s files is excised and the matter is remitted to a new decision-maker, who has not been tainted by the circumstances that give rise to the apprehension of bias. I also find it appropriate to award the applicants their costs in this matter, because the respondent unduly prolonged proceedings in not consenting to judgment after the Certified Tribunal Record [CTR] was filed. Even a cursory look at the CTR should have indicated that the applicants would be successful in their bias arguments, given the striking similarity between this case and the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 SCR 817, [1999] SCJ No 39 [Baker].
[3] Because my decision turns on the facts – including the lengthy immigration history of the applicants – they are discussed in detail below.
Background
[4] The applicants’ immigration history is over a decade long and contains several unfortunate chapters.
[5] In 2000, Mr. Benhmuda, Ms. Benmatug, and their two eldest children, Muawiya and Mohamed, fled from Libya to Canada and made refuge claims upon arrival. The claims were based on the activities of Mr. Benhmuda’s brother, who was an opponent of the Gaddafi regime. While the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board [RPD] accepted that Mr. Benhmuda’s brother was an anti-Gaddafi activist, it did not accept that this placed Mr. Benhmuda or his family at risk and rejected Mr. Benhmuda’s evidence as not being credible. The RPD accordingly dismissed their refugee claims in January 2003. An application for judicial review of the RPD’s decision was filed, but it was not perfected. The application was therefore dismissed by this Court on June 13, 2003.
[6] The family settled in Toronto, where Mr. Benhmuda found employment as a laboratory assistant to an optician. (He had worked in his father’s optometry business in Libya.) The family became integrated into their local community. The eldest son, Muawiya, was diagnosed with muscular dystrophy, which contributed to a learning disability, and he received accommodations and support at school as well as medical treatment. The other boys did well in school.
[7] No attempts were made to return the applicants to Libya until 2008, when they were afforded the opportunity to apply for a pre-removal risk assessment [PRRA]. They did so on January 23, 2008. In support of the PRRA application, Mr. Benhmuda filed a letter from his father in Tripoli, confirming that the Libyan police were seeking Mr. Benhmuda, a police summons and reports on the detention of his brother by the Libyan authorities. By decision dated June 10, 2008, a PRRA officer dismissed the family’s PRRA application, finding that because the summons did not set out why the authorities were seeking Mr. Benhmuda, it did not establish that he would be at risk if returned to Libya. The PRRA officer gave no weight to the evidence concerning the Mr. Benhumda’s brother and minimal weight to the letter from the applicant’s father. The applicants did not seek to judicially review the decision on their PRRA application. Nor did they make an H&C application while in Canada.
[8] Following the dismissal of the applicants’ PRRA application, the Canada Boarder Service Agency [CBSA] provided the adult applicants with the forms necessary for CBSA to renew their Libyan passports. The adult applicants expressed reluctance to sign the forms as they feared that if CBSA renewed the passports the applicants would become known to the Libyan authorities as failed refugee claimants and they would be detained upon arrival in Libya. They instead requested and obtained the opportunity to themselves renew their Libyan passports. They did so at the Libyan embassy and the family was deported from Toronto to Tripoli on August 12, 2008.
[9] The applicants had hoped that they could board the flight in Canada with their own passports in hand, but CBSA, in accordance with its usual procedure, took the passports and provided them to the flight crew who, in turn, handed them over to Libyan customs officials when the flight landed in Tripoli. The family was detained and questioned for several hours at the airport by the Libyan authorities, who retained Mr. Benhmuda’s passport. Ms. Benmatug and the children were released but Mr. Benhmuda was taken to Ain Zara prison where he was held for several months. Mr. Benhmuda has filed affidavit evidence indicating that he was subject to repeated torture while incarcerated and that his jailors were intent on learning what connections he had to opponents of the Gaddafi regime in Canada. (Mr. Benhmuda states he had no information in this regard.)
[10] Mr. Benhmuda was released at the end of December 2008. He was unable to find employment in Libya, and the family lived with a number of different relatives, moving from place to place. The children were not able to attend school after funding for private school ran out, as they spoke little Arabic. Medical care was not available for Muawiya’s muscular dystrophy in Libya.
[11] In June 2009, the Libyan authorities again arrested Mr. Benhmuda and held him for an additional two months, during which time he states in his affidavit that he was again interrogated and tortured. Following his release, he learned that the security police were yet again looking for him so he paid a bribe, obtained his passport and Schengen Visas for the family (issued by Malta), which allowed for travel to and throughout the European Union. On January 20, 2010, the family took a flight to Sweden and, upon arrival, made another refugee claim. On May 10, 2010, however, the family was removed from Sweden to Malta because Malta had issued them visas and under the so-called “Dublin II Regulation”, EU Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003, the applicable EU regulations governing asylum seekers, their asylum claim was to be adjudicated by the visa-issuing state.
[12] In Malta, the family resided for nearly a year in an open air camp, the Hal Far Tent Village Open Centre, where they lived in a shipping container, which did not have running water or cooking facilities. The limited bathroom facilities (for over 600 refugees) were shared, and Ms. Benmatug and the younger children could not use the facilities at night due to assaults that occurred there. The Jesuit Refugee Service, in a letter written on the applicants’ behalf, described the living condition in the camp as falling “…way below acceptable standards for dignified living” (Certified Tribunal Record [CTR] at p 175).
[13] In light of the conditions in the camp, the torture Mr. Benhmuda suffered and the family’s attachment to Canada, their counsel sought the intervention of the respondent, requesting either a Temporary Resident Permit, expedited resettlement to Canada as Government Assisted Refugees or H&C consideration. Representatives of the respondent in Ottawa indicated that they would give consideration to a resettlement request if an official request were made by the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees [the UNHCR].
[14] On December 17, 2012, a Resettlement Officer with UNHRC’s Malta office emailed the respondent’s embassy in Rome to request an opportunity to discuss the applicants’ situation. A mere eighteen minutes later, Laurent Beaulieu, an Immigration Officer at the Embassy who was temporarily acting as the section manager that day, replied by email, indicting that he did not see what could be done, noting that the applicants had been rejected as refugee claimants in Canada “after an exhaustive process”. Officer Beaulieu concluded his email by suggesting that the UNHCR might “wish to look at other options” (CTR at p 222).
[15] The UNHCR responded that it had been advised by representatives of the respondent in Ottawa that resettlement would be considered if a formal request were made and requested contact information for such a request. The respondent eventually advised that Officer Beaulieu would be charged with handling the UNHCR’s request.
[16] On February 15, 2011, the UNHCR issued a Resettlement Registration form, requesting that Canada accept the applicants as refugees. Even though the applicants, by that time, had been granted refugee status in Malta, had been relocated to an apartment and the children were attending (or, in Muawiya’s case, slated to attend) Maltese schools, the UNHRC nonetheless submitted that the applicants did not have a durable solution in Malta, in part due to the number of refugees that the small country needed to accept and to the xenophobia the UNHCR claimed existed in Malta towards Muslim immigrants from North Africa. In the application, the UNHCR suggested that Canada should accept the resettlement of the applicants by reason of the family’s close ties to Canada (including the fact that two of the children are Canadian citizens) (see CTR at pp 118-134 ).
[17] The UNHRC emailed the resettlement request to Officer Beaulieu on March 4, 1011. At that point, the applicants had not yet filed an application for resettlement from outside Canada as members of the Convention Refugees Abroad Class under section 144 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [the Regulations]. As is detailed below, these forms were filed in early July 2011, when the respondent required the applicants complete them.
[18] Email exchanges between Officer Beaulieu and the respondent's managers in Ottawa and Paris, that occurred between March and July 2011, highlight the tensions between the visa post in Rome and the respondent's headquarters in Ottawa. In the email exchange Officer Beaulieu also expressed his views on the merits of the applicants’ applications and clearly indicated they would be rejected. These statements were made based on incomplete and inaccurate information, were repeated in several emails from Officer Beaulieu and were made before the applications were even filed and before the applicants were interviewed. Officer Beaulieu’s email exchanges were copied to several individuals at the Rome visa post and were contained in the file that the First Secretary considered in reaching her decision. Because these emails are the central pieces in the applicants’ bias claim, large parts of the exchanges are reproduced below.
[19] By email dated March 18, 2011, Judy Renwick, one of the respondent’s managers at headquarters in Ottawa, wrote as follows to Officer Beaulieu:
I am writing further to our telephone conversation of March 1, 2011, concerning Mr. Ben Hmuda [sic] and his family who, as you know, are to be referred to your office by the UNHCR for resettlement in Canada.
First allow me to address your concern and clarify Case Management Branch’s (CMB) involvement in this case. At no time did CMB indicate to counsel or to the UNHCR, that Citizenship and Immigration Canada will be facilitating the return of this family to Canada. CMB has always communicated that the visa office would conduct their assessment of the case.
[…]
We have been advised by the UNHCR that the referral has been submitted to your office. Could you confirm if it has been received and a file created?
[…]
(CTR at p 238)
[20] Officer Beaulieu replied as follows on March 21, 2011:
[…] Thank you for your message and clarification. We first heard of this case by phone call from the UNHCR Malta who told us that someone (never got a name despite frequent inquiries) in CIC had said we would expedite and return this family to Canada. UNHCR Ottawa and the lawyer are the ones who are pushing for this family to be returned pronto to Canada. Find this odd that UNHCR would be involved to make this case a priority with a family who has been resettled in Malta by Maltese authorities, when there are so many other urgent cases due to the crisis in the Mag[h]reb.
We received last week a UNHCR Registration Form for this family but nothing else. The registration form also contains information you already would have seen from their initial application in Canada, referring to events in L[iby]a which occurred some time ago prior to the current uprising against the [Gaddafi] regime. At this point I wish to review what is presented, though I have some concerns this family has decided they will not accept any other resettlement country but Canada. I also learned from UNHCR Malta that the family [was] in Sweden, they tried to enter Sweden but the authorities told them that since they had already entered the Shengen Zone of the European Union at Malta, the well known rule is that you make you[r] claim at the first border point, in this case Malta […] The family returned to Malta, made a new refugee claim and were accepted. Now Canada is again the focus of their attention and again according to UNHCR Malta, not finding life in Malta to their liking are once again trying for Canada.
We also have an email correspondence from Aisha Benhmuda to Andrew Brouwer where she suggest[s] they go to the media to pressure CIC, I am concerned with this approach, a form of blackmail.
I do not see what is Canada's obligation this case, they were heard and the applicant[s] received the attention they deserved. A decision was made, they returned to L[iby]a and then decided after some time, on their own, to leave L[iby]a again for Sweden and are now in Malta.
The other issue has to do with the four children, or at least one of them who appears to have a medical problem that may render him inadmissible. The two youngest children who are born in Canada are 10 and 8 years old. I note that the initial grouping of this family is 6 persons but the UNHCR has added the rest of the family (all other relatives living in Tripoli) 16 other individuals.
What this family wants is another refugee claim hearing from us in the hope that this time they will be successful. Since the claim was already heard in Canada do not see what mechanism we have here to re-hear yet again same claim. Also am concerned for the precedent being set, since the applicant has been resettled by the Maltese authorities, why are we giving the impression that we are willing to take refugees resettled in safe countries and resettle them in Canada.
As for your role, we cannot act without instruction since this case came from Ottawa and CMB is involved. Rome [as] you know does not have any refugee target […]
(CTR at p 237)
[21] By email dated April 12, 2011, Ms. Renwick wrote to Officer Beaulieu that “[w]e noticed that in your email of March 21, 2011, you expressed concerns that the family was seeking a review of the claim that was heard before the IRB. However it is our understanding that the current UNHCR’s referral speaks to persecution and events which occurred after the family was deported from Canada”. The email continued, noting Officer Beaulieu’s “concerns” regarding the processing of the case and reassuring him that the decision on the application rested with the visa post in Rome and not Ottawa. Ms. Renwick attached to her email the submissions that had been made by counsel for the applicants, which included several documents that were not before the RPD or the PRRA officer (CTR at p 168). Notable in this regard were a letter from Mr. Benhmuda’s former employer in Canada, offering him employment in the event he returned to Canada, because he was “one of [their] best employees (Applicants’ Record at p 87) and a strong submission from a teacher at the children’s school, who wrote in eloquent terms regarding the children’s best interests and her knowledge of the family (Applicants’ Record at p 106).
[22] The fact that the applicants were relying on facts that were not before the RPD and were also advancing an H&C application appears to have been ignored by Officer Beaulieu. On April 20, 2011, he forwarded a case analysis to the respondent’s office in Ottawa and in his cover email concluded:
Since we do not have an application filled out and only various summaries about this family, I recommend we not invite them to apply and inform UNHCR Malta that we will not consider this case. Malta has offered a solution and has recognized this family according to the information we have received. I also understand that the family would much prefer to go to Canada instead. However the long-established princi[ple] remains that refugee claimants do not get to choose country of resettlement.
(CTR at p 248)
[23] In his attached case analysis, Officer Beaulieu wrote as follows:
Both Adel Ben-Hmuda and his spouse Aisha Ben-Matug who was already in advance state of pregnancy, traveled to Canada as tourists on 4 July 2000 with two children Mohamed and Muawiya.
[…]
The refugee claim was rejected by the IRB, no appeal was made and all other avenues open to the applicant and his spouse [were] rejected. The family was removed from Canada on 12 August 2008. The applicant and his family spent 8 years in Canada at public expense.
[…]
Adel Ben-Hmuda is not happy [or] satisfied with the asylum provided for him and his family and is seeking to move to Canada and present yet again another refugee claim based on the same claim presented in 2000, according to information from UNHCR Malta.
[…]
However given that while Adel Ben-Hmuda and his wife Aisha Ben-Matug [were] in Canada they had two other children, Omar and Adam. These two children are Canadian Citizens by birth. The family hopes to gain entry to Canada by using the Canadian Citizenship of these two minor children, who because of their citizenship could not be considered refugee claimants.
What is also interesting in this case is that the UNHCR presents this case to us as if the whole family where [were] refugees, when in fact two members are Canadians and the four others have been resettled in Malta.
The sole argument made by the family is that they would prefer to live in Canada. Though if we follow their travels we see that Sweden was also a chosen option for them until they were told they had to apply in Malta.
I also note that Adel Ben-Hmuda declares suffering from diabetes and one son suffers from muscular dystrophy. It is likely that this family will be in need of social assistance and other social services.
[…]
It should be explained to this family that you cannot choose a country of asylum and once asylum has been granted, you cannot start another asylum claim elsewhere.
I recommend we not consider this case given that it has been settled by Malta. There is no claim for us to consider.
[Emphasis added]
(CTR at pp 249-250)
[24] Many of the facts in this analysis are inaccurate. In light of the job offer and the fact that Mr. Benhmuda had been employed for the majority of the time the family lived in Canada, there was no basis upon which Officer Beaulieu could conclude it was likely that the family would be in need of social assistance if they returned to Canada. Nor had the family remained in Canada for eight years at public expense. Likewise, the family did not pursue all avenues open to it while they lived in Canada. Notably, judicial review applications were not pursued and, more importantly, no H&C application was made. Officer Beaulieu additionally ignored the fact that the family was relying on circumstances that had not been considered by the RPD and the PRRA Officer, including the incarceration and torture of Mr. Benhmuda by the Libyan authorities. The analysis also fails to discuss the applicants’ request for H&C consideration, the situation in Malta, the family’s ties to Canada and the children’s best interests. It also contains gratuitous comments, like the mention that Ms. Benmatug “was already in advance state of pregnancy” when the family first sought refuge in Canada.
[25] Ms. Renwick replied the next day, inquiring as to whether Officer Beaulieu had consulted with his manager about the case. Officer Beaulieu replied a few minutes later, noting that they “were just talking about [the] case” when Ms. Renwick’s email arrived and that “consensus in Rome [was] that [they would] write to the Head of UNHCR to inform him that [they would] not consider this case” [emphasis added]. Officer Beaulieu continued as follows in his April 21, 2011 email:
We do not have an application with us at this time. What we have is a series of documents explaining the case. In reading those documents it is clear that there is no new claim to examine and that what we have was examined in Canada years ago and decided upon. It is interesting to note that UNHCR Malta only approached us after being told by UNHCR Ottawa that CIC would reconsider the case and was favourably disposed towards the family. How they came to that conclusion has never been made clear. We are also aware that the applicant has a lawyer in Ottawa. However this has not swayed us.
Now Malta is a signatory to the Convention and an EU member has acc[ep]ted the case and is resettling the family on its territory. We should also not forget that the family had originally tried to present a claim to Sweden. The [on]going Civil war in L[iby]a and the support the EU is now showing for the rebellion and the NATO strikes indicates clearly that the regime of [Gaddafi] is at an end.
What remains is the fact that Mr. Adel Ben Hmuda stated that he would prefer to live in any other country than Malta. That of itself is not sufficient to support priority resettlement to Canada. He has 2 children born in Canada and 2 born in L[iby]a, the argument that he should be resettled in Canada because of [his] 2 Canadian children is not an overwhelming factor. It is in this case the only factor he presents, as for the health issues for himself and one other child, Malta has modern facilities like any other Western European country. Had this been determining factors to begin with, the family would not have been removed from Canada in the first place.
So given these facts we will send a letter to UNHCR declining to proceed on this case as per my recommendation in my analysis.
[….]
[Emphasis added]
(CTR at p 246)
[26] Once again this email contains factual inaccuracies in that it fails to recognize that there were several new facts and a new request for H&C consideration that the applicants wished to advance, which had not previously been ruled upon.
[27] The tug-of-war between Ottawa and the Rome visa post continued. On May 11, 2011, Ms. Renwick wrote to Officer Beaulieu, noting that representatives in Ottawa had met with representatives of the respondent in the international region the preceding week and had “determined that the Ben Humda [sic] family meets the UNHCR’s criteria for resettlement referral in that they do not have a durable solution in the EU and they have a connection to Canada”. She continued by stating that the family also met the requirements of section 150(1)(a) of the Regulations and requested that Officer Beaulieu open a file and process the application. She reiterated that counsel for the applicants had been in touch with the respondent’s Ottawa office to reiterate the family’s request for H&C consideration in the event they could not meet the requirements of the Convention Refugee Class and noted that target space to accept government sponsored refugees could be allocated to Rome, if that were necessary to facilitate the processing of the application. She concluded her email by requesting Officer Beaulieu to advise as to the file number he opened to process the family’s applications (CTR at p 245).
[28] On June 16, 2011, counsel for the applicants wrote to the Rome visa post, asking for an update on the processing of the case and a file number. He also noted that he had learned from the respondent’s office in Ottawa that the Rome visa post had forwarded forms directly to the adult applicants, for completion (CTR at p 151). The forms in question were signed by the applicants and forwarded to the Rome visa post by counsel for the applicants on July 1, 2011.
[29] After the case received media attention in Canada, the respondent’s Paris office (to whom the Rome visa post appears to have reported) became involved, and the manager of the Paris office wrote to Officer Beaulieu, requesting details about the case. On July 6, 2011, after having received the applicants’ application forms a few days earlier, Officer Beaulieu wrote to the manager of the respondent’s Paris office, noting that he had already explained to Ms. Renwick that he was going to refuse the case and did not understand all the back and forth between the respondent in Ottawa and the UNHCR in Malta. The Paris manager replied, noting that Officer Beaulieu was bound to consider the new facts raised by the applicants as well as the various grounds for admissibility they were invoking, and directed Officer Beaulieu to ensure that in-depth interviews were conducted, as they were absolutely required (CTR at pp 278-279).
[30] Officer Beaulieu was transferred from Rome in late July and the case was assigned to the First Secretary for decision. She was newly-arrived at the Rome visa post. The entire file, including Officer Beaulieu’s emails and analyses, was placed before her to consider in reaching her decision. She travelled to Malta and interviewed the applicants at length before writing her decision.
[31] In her November 8, 2011 decision, the First Secretary rejected the applicants’ resettlement application because they had been granted refugee status in Malta and found that H&C considerations did not warrant granting an exemption. Much of her reasoning echoes the comments made by Officer Beaulieu in his various emails. Notably, she found that:
The family had “full access to the benefits and processes of Canada’s refugee determination system”;
The applicants were asylum shopping and based their claim on the fact that they preferred the conditions in Canada to those in Malta; and
The applicants could safely return to Libya following the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime.
The Issues
[32] In light of the foregoing, three issues arise in this case:
1. Do the applicants have a reasonable apprehension that the First Secretary was biased in light of the materials in the record that were placed before her?
2. If so, what is the appropriate remedy?
3. Should the applicants be awarded their costs, which is unusual in a judicial review application in the immigration context?
Reasonable Apprehension of Bias
[33] The applicants submit that the test for a reasonable apprehension of bias is set out in Committee for Justice and Liberty v National Energy Board, [1978] 1 SCR 369, where Justice de Grandpré states that the test involves asking “what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically – and having thought the matter through – conclude. Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly” (at para 44). The respondent further argues that, as in Baker (cited above at para 2), a reasonable apprehension of bias arises here given the comments made in Officer Beaulieu’s notes, which contain multiple indications that Officer Beaulieu had prejudged the case, based on inadequate and inaccurate information and the fact that these notes were placed before the First Secretary.
[34] The respondent, on the other hand, argues that the formulation of the test for a reasonable apprehension of bias has been articulated in the context of visa officers to require only a lack of conflict of interest and a “mind that is open to persuasion”, citing in this regard Au v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 202 FTR 57, [2001] FCJ No 435 [Au] and Horvat v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 262, [2003] FCJ No 354. The respondent argues that application of this test results in a determination that the First Secretary was not biased because she conducted interviews of the applicants and there is no evidence that she (as opposed to Officer Beaulieu) had prejudged the case.
[35] In my view, this case is on all fours with Baker and, indeed, bears a striking similarity to many of the facts in that case. There, an officer, who was someone other than the officer who had decided Ms. Baker’s H&C application, compiled notes that the decision-maker reviewed before rendering the decision. These notes concluded that Ms. Baker would be a “tremendous strain” on the Canadian social welfare system for the rest of her life and mentioned her psychiatric condition, limited skills and training and number of children she had, using capital letters at several points for emphasis. The conclusion stood in contrast to the evidence that Ms. Baker had filed from her treating psychiatrist, which indicated that she was recovering from her illness and might be able to work in the future. Justice L’Heureux-Dubé held that the duty to act fairly and in a manner that does not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias applies to all immigration officers involved in the handling of an application, who play a significant role in the making of decisions. Thus, notes from the officer that were considered by the decision-maker could – and did – give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Justice L’Heureux-Dubé concluded that a well-informed member of the community would perceive bias when reading the notes in Baker, which seemed to link Ms. Baker’s mental illness, her training as a domestic worker and the fact she had a number of children with the conclusion that she was likely to be a strain on the social welfare system. Because this conclusion was contradicted by the evidence, she found there to be a reasonable apprehension of bias.
[36] An identical conclusion must be drawn in this case. Here, Officer Beaulieu clearly prejudged the applicant’s claims, jumping to conclusions before he had even received a formal application. Moreover, his conclusions were based on inaccurate information. Thus, his lack of objectivity is even more striking than was the case with the author of the notes in the Baker case. In addition, Officer Beaulieu’s emails reflect a similarly troubling tone and lack of objectivity, evidenced, for example, by his needless comments regarding Ms. Benmatug’s pregnancy and the comments regarding the number of members of the applicants’ extended family in Libya. Moreover, as in Baker, the documents Officer Beaulieu authored were considered by the decision-maker. And, indeed, one of the offending emails indicated that the entire Rome visa post had reached the conclusion that the applications were to be dismissed, before they had even been submitted. As in Baker, it is my view that a reasonable, well-informed member of the community would perceive bias in reading Officer Beaulieu’s emails and therefore have a reasonable apprehension that the First Secretary did not have a mind that is open to persuasion, to use the terminology from Au and Horvat. This apprehension is not undone by the fact that the First Secretary conducted interviews of the applicants. Rather, a fair-minded person would believe that she had prejudged the case, through her reading of the file and making of several conclusions that are very similar to those reached by Officer Beaulieu. Accordingly, a reasonable apprehension of bias has been shown to exist, and the decision of the First Secretary must be set aside.
Remedy
[37] The applicants request that in the event I find a reasonable apprehension of bias, I order that all Officer Beaulieu’s notes, emails in which he expresses an opinion and other similar analyses be stripped from the file and the matter be remitted to a visa post other than Rome, for fresh consideration by individuals who have not previously been involved in considering the file. The applicants also request that, given the passage of time, the nature of the application, and the events the applicants have endured, I order that the re-determination be conducted within 90 days or otherwise provide for ongoing supervision by the Court of the re-determination to ensure it is completed expeditiously.
[38] While not contesting the propriety of expunging the offending materials from the file, before the re-determination is conducted (if one is ordered), the respondent argues that there is no need to referred the file to visa post other than Rome, arguing that it moves individuals between posts frequently and that, were I to order the file transferred to visa post other than Rome, it is not inconceivable that Officer Beaulieu might be involved in the re-determination. As for the applicants’ request for a time limit on the re-determination, counsel for the respondent objected to the same as she was not in a position to advise how long a re-determination might reasonably require.
[39] Given the comments in one of Officer Beaulieu’s emails, which noted that the entire Rome visa post had concluded that the applications should be denied (well before the applications were actually filed) and the fact that his emails were copied to several others at the Rome visa post, in order to ensure a fair re-determination, I believe the file must be remitted for fresh consideration at a visa post other than Rome. The respondent’s concerns, regarding inadvertently involving Officer Beaulieu, can be addressed by ensuring that the file is not sent to the visa post to which Officer Beaulieu has been transferred.
[40] As for the request that the matter be re-determined on an expeditious basis within a stipulated time period, counsel for the respondent ought to have been prepared to deal with this request during the hearing of this application, as a request for this remedy was clearly set out by the applicants in their Further Memorandum of Fact and Law. Thus, counsel’s inability to provide the Court with information regarding how long the respondent might need in order to conduct a re-determination is no reason for denying the applicant’s request. In the absence of any evidence or argument from the respondent regarding the reasonableness of the 90-day time period, I have ordered that the re-determination be conducted within 90 days, leaving open the possibility that the respondent may apply to the Court for an extension, in the event it is impossible for it to meet a 90-day deadline.
Costs
[41] Pursuant to Rule 22 of the Federal Courts Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/93-22, special reasons are required before costs may be awarded in an immigration application for judicial review. Such special reasons have been held to include situations where one party has unreasonably prolonged proceedings or acted in an oppressive or improper manner or in bad faith (Johnson v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1262 at para 26 [Johnson]; Ndererehe v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 880 at para 29). The respondent relies on Johnson to argue that costs should not be awarded against it. In that decision, Justice Dawson declined to award costs because, although the decision of the RPD was perverse, the respondent consented to the decision being set aside “on a timely basis” after the CTR was delivered. The respondent would have been well-advised to adopt a similar approach in this case, as, in my view, the case’s outcome was a foregone conclusion, given the striking similarity between it and Baker. Moreover, while there is no evidence of bad faith on the respondent's part, Officer Beaulieu did behave improperly in prejudging the applicants’ applications and in basing his recommendations on a fundamental misapprehension of the facts before him. Accordingly, the applicant shall have their costs in the lump sum amount of $5000.00 which I have determined is a reasonable amount, with reference to the amounts awarded in somewhat similar circumstances in Ndererehe v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 880.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
1. This application for judicial review is granted and the decision of the First Secretary (Immigration) in Rome, made on November 8, 2011 is set aside;
2. The respondent shall forthwith remove from its files all of Officer Beaulieu’s emails and analyses in which he expresses any opinion on the merits of the applicants’ applications, any similar analyses or expressions of opinion contained in the applicants’ files and the First Secretary’s November 8, 2011 decision;
3. The applicants’ applications for permanent resident visas as members of the Convention Refugee Abroad Class and for H&C consideration shall be remitted to a visa office, other than Rome, where Officer Beaulieu is not employed. The Officer to whom the applications are submitted for re-determination shall have had no previous involvement in the applicants’ files;
4. The applicants shall be afforded the opportunity to file additional evidence and to make additional submissions for consideration on the re-determination regarding any new matters that may have arisen since July 2011;
5. The respondent shall complete the re-determination as expeditiously as possible and in any event within no later than 90 days following the date of this decision. If it is impossible for the respondent to do so, it may apply to this Court for an extension of the 90-day time limit;
6. No question of general importance is certified. No question was proposed for certification and none arises in this case as my decision is closely tied to the facts; and
7. Costs are fixed on a lump sum basis in the amount of $5000.00, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, to be paid by the respondent to the applicants.
"Mary J.L. Gleason"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-610-12
STYLE OF CAUSE: Adel Benhmuda et al v The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: September 13, 2012
AMENDED REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT: GLEASON J.
DATED: November 16, 2012
APPEARANCES:
Andrew J. Brouwer
FOR THE APPLICANTS
Neeta Logsetty
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Refugee Law Office
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANTS
Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT
Date: 20121116
Docket: IMM-610-12
Citation: 2012 FC 1222
Ottawa, Ontario, November 16, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Gleason
BETWEEN:
ADEL BENHMUDA, AISHA BENMATUG, AND MUAWIYA BENHMUDA, MOHAMED BENHMUDA, OMAR BENHMUDA AND ADAM BENHMUDA (by their litigation guardians ADEL BENHMUDA AND AISHA BENMATUG)
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
AMENDED REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] The applicants are a family of six, comprised of the father, Adel Benhmuda, the mother, Aisha Benmatug, and their four sons. Mr. Benhmuda, Ms. Benmatug and their two eldest sons, Muawiya and Mohamed, are citizens of Libya. Their two younger children are Canadian citizens, having been born in this country in 2000 and 2002. The family now resides in Malta and was granted refugee status in that country in 2010. In this application for judicial review, they seek to set aside the November 8, 2011 decision of the First Secretary (Immigration) of the Canadian Embassy in Rome, who denied their application for permanent resident visas as members of the Convention Refugee Abroad Class and also dismissed the application they made on humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] grounds.
[2] While the applicants raise several grounds in support of their judicial review application, only one needs be considered, namely, their claim that the First Secretary’s decision should be set aside because there is a reasonable apprehension of bias on her part. For the reasons set out below, I have determined that there is merit to this claim and, accordingly, the decision will be set aside and a tailored remedy granted to ensure that the offending information contained in the respondent’s files is excised and the matter is remitted to a new decision-maker, who has not been tainted by the circumstances that give rise to the apprehension of bias. I also find it appropriate to award the applicants their costs in this matter, because the respondent unduly prolonged proceedings in not consenting to judgment after the Certified Tribunal Record [CTR] was filed. Even a cursory look at the CTR should have indicated that the applicants would be successful in their bias arguments, given the striking similarity between this case and the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 SCR 817, [1999] SCJ No 39 [Baker].
[3] Because my decision turns on the facts – including the lengthy immigration history of the applicants – they are discussed in detail below.
Background
[4] The applicants’ immigration history is over a decade long and contains several unfortunate chapters.
[5] In 2000, Mr. Benhmuda, Ms. Benmatug, and their two eldest children, Muawiya and Mohamed, fled from Libya to Canada and made refuge claims upon arrival. The claims were based on the activities of Mr. Benhmuda’s brother, who was an opponent of the Gaddafi regime. While the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board [RPD] accepted that Mr. Benhmuda’s brother was an anti-Gaddafi activist, it did not accept that this placed Mr. Benhmuda or his family at risk and rejected Mr. Benhmuda’s evidence as not being credible. The RPD accordingly dismissed their refugee claims in January 2003. An application for judicial review of the RPD’s decision was filed, but it was not perfected. The application was therefore dismissed by this Court on June 13, 2003.
[6] The family settled in Toronto, where Mr. Benhmuda found employment as a laboratory assistant to an optician. (He had worked in his father’s optometry business in Libya.) The family became integrated into their local community. The eldest son, Muawiya, was diagnosed with muscular dystrophy, which contributed to a learning disability, and he received accommodations and support at school as well as medical treatment. The other boys did well in school.
[7] No attempts were made to return the applicants to Libya until 2008, when they were afforded the opportunity to apply for a pre-removal risk assessment [PRRA]. They did so on January 23, 2008. In support of the PRRA application, Mr. Benhmuda filed a letter from his father in Tripoli, confirming that the Libyan police were seeking Mr. Benhmuda, a police summons and reports on the detention of his brother by the Libyan authorities. By decision dated June 10, 2008, a PRRA officer dismissed the family’s PRRA application, finding that because the summons did not set out why the authorities were seeking Mr. Benhmuda, it did not establish that he would be at risk if returned to Libya. The PRRA officer gave no weight to the evidence concerning the Mr. Benhumda’s brother and minimal weight to the letter from the applicant’s father. The applicants did not seek to judicially review the decision on their PRRA application. Nor did they make an H&C application while in Canada.
[8] Following the dismissal of the applicants’ PRRA application, the Canada Boarder Service Agency [CBSA] provided the adult applicants with the forms necessary for CBSA to renew their Libyan passports. The adult applicants expressed reluctance to sign the forms as they feared that if CBSA renewed the passports the applicants would become known to the Libyan authorities as failed refugee claimants and they would be detained upon arrival in Libya. They instead requested and obtained the opportunity to themselves renew their Libyan passports. They did so at the Libyan embassy and the family was deported from Toronto to Tripoli on August 12, 2008.
[9] The applicants had hoped that they could board the flight in Canada with their own passports in hand, but CBSA, in accordance with its usual procedure, took the passports and provided them to the flight crew who, in turn, handed them over to Libyan customs officials when the flight landed in Tripoli. The family was detained and questioned for several hours at the airport by the Libyan authorities, who retained Mr. Benhmuda’s passport. Ms. Benmatug and the children were released but Mr. Benhmuda was taken to Ain Zara prison where he was held for several months. Mr. Benhmuda has filed affidavit evidence indicating that he was subject to repeated torture while incarcerated and that his jailors were intent on learning what connections he had to opponents of the Gaddafi regime in Canada. (Mr. Benhmuda states he had no information in this regard.)
[10] Mr. Benhmuda was released at the end of December 2008. He was unable to find employment in Libya, and the family lived with a number of different relatives, moving from place to place. The children were not able to attend school after funding for private school ran out, as they spoke little Arabic. Medical care was not available for Muawiya’s muscular dystrophy in Libya.
[11] In June 2009, the Libyan authorities again arrested Mr. Benhmuda and held him for an additional two months, during which time he states in his affidavit that he was again interrogated and tortured. Following his release, he learned that the security police were yet again looking for him so he paid a bribe, obtained his passport and Schengen Visas for the family (issued by Malta), which allowed for travel to and throughout the European Union. On January 20, 2010, the family took a flight to Sweden and, upon arrival, made another refugee claim. On May 10, 2010, however, the family was removed from Sweden to Malta because Malta had issued them visas and under the so-called “Dublin II Regulation”, EU Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003, the applicable EU regulations governing asylum seekers, their asylum claim was to be adjudicated by the visa-issuing state.
[12] In Malta, the family resided for nearly a year in an open air camp, the Hal Far Tent Village Open Centre, where they lived in a shipping container, which did not have running water or cooking facilities. The limited bathroom facilities (for over 600 refugees) were shared, and Ms. Benmatug and the younger children could not use the facilities at night due to assaults that occurred there. The Jesuit Refugee Service, in a letter written on the applicants’ behalf, described the living condition in the camp as falling “…way below acceptable standards for dignified living” (Certified Tribunal Record [CTR] at p 175).
[13] In light of the conditions in the camp, the torture Mr. Benhmuda suffered and the family’s attachment to Canada, their counsel sought the intervention of the respondent, requesting either a Temporary Resident Permit, expedited resettlement to Canada as Government Assisted Refugees or H&C consideration. Representatives of the respondent in Ottawa indicated that they would give consideration to a resettlement request if an official request were made by the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees [the UNHCR].
[14] On December 17, 2012, a Resettlement Officer with UNHRC’s Malta office emailed the respondent’s embassy in Rome to request an opportunity to discuss the applicants’ situation. A mere eighteen minutes later, Laurent Beaulieu, an Immigration Officer at the Embassy who was temporarily acting as the section manager that day, replied by email, indicting that he did not see what could be done, noting that the applicants had been rejected as refugee claimants in Canada “after an exhaustive process”. Officer Beaulieu concluded his email by suggesting that the UNHCR might “wish to look at other options” (CTR at p 222).
[15] The UNHCR responded that it had been advised by representatives of the respondent in Ottawa that resettlement would be considered if a formal request were made and requested contact information for such a request. The respondent eventually advised that Officer Beaulieu would be charged with handling the UNHCR’s request.
[16] On February 15, 2011, the UNHCR issued a Resettlement Registration form, requesting that Canada accept the applicants as refugees. Even though the applicants, by that time, had been granted refugee status in Malta, had been relocated to an apartment and the children were attending (or, in Muawiya’s case, slated to attend) Maltese schools, the UNHRC nonetheless submitted that the applicants did not have a durable solution in Malta, in part due to the number of refugees that the small country needed to accept and to the xenophobia the UNHCR claimed existed in Malta towards Muslim immigrants from North Africa. In the application, the UNHCR suggested that Canada should accept the resettlement of the applicants by reason of the family’s close ties to Canada (including the fact that two of the children are Canadian citizens) (see CTR at pp 118-134 ).
[17] The UNHRC emailed the resettlement request to Officer Beaulieu on March 4, 1011. At that point, the applicants had not yet filed an application for resettlement from outside Canada as members of the Convention Refugees Abroad Class under section 144 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [the Regulations]. As is detailed below, these forms were filed in early July 2011, when the respondent required the applicants complete them.
[18] Email exchanges between Officer Beaulieu and the respondent's managers in Ottawa and Paris, that occurred between March and July 2011, highlight the tensions between the visa post in Rome and the respondent's headquarters in Ottawa. In the email exchange Officer Beaulieu also expressed his views on the merits of the applicants’ applications and clearly indicated they would be rejected. These statements were made based on incomplete and inaccurate information, were repeated in several emails from Officer Beaulieu and were made before the applications were even filed and before the applicants were interviewed. Officer Beaulieu’s email exchanges were copied to several individuals at the Rome visa post and were contained in the file that the First Secretary considered in reaching her decision. Because these emails are the central pieces in the applicants’ bias claim, large parts of the exchanges are reproduced below.
[19] By email dated March 18, 2011, Judy Renwick, one of the respondent’s managers at headquarters in Ottawa, wrote as follows to Officer Beaulieu:
I am writing further to our telephone conversation of March 1, 2011, concerning Mr. Ben Hmuda [sic] and his family who, as you know, are to be referred to your office by the UNHCR for resettlement in Canada.
First allow me to address your concern and clarify Case Management Branch’s (CMB) involvement in this case. At no time did CMB indicate to counsel or to the UNHCR, that Citizenship and Immigration Canada will be facilitating the return of this family to Canada. CMB has always communicated that the visa office would conduct their assessment of the case.
[…]
We have been advised by the UNHCR that the referral has been submitted to your office. Could you confirm if it has been received and a file created?
[…]
(CTR at p 238)
[20] Officer Beaulieu replied as follows on March 21, 2011:
[…] Thank you for your message and clarification. We first heard of this case by phone call from the UNHCR Malta who told us that someone (never got a name despite frequent inquiries) in CIC had said we would expedite and return this family to Canada. UNHCR Ottawa and the lawyer are the ones who are pushing for this family to be returned pronto to Canada. Find this odd that UNHCR would be involved to make this case a priority with a family who has been resettled in Malta by Maltese authorities, when there are so many other urgent cases due to the crisis in the Mag[h]reb.
We received last week a UNHCR Registration Form for this family but nothing else. The registration form also contains information you already would have seen from their initial application in Canada, referring to events in L[iby]a which occurred some time ago prior to the current uprising against the [Gaddafi] regime. At this point I wish to review what is presented, though I have some concerns this family has decided they will not accept any other resettlement country but Canada. I also learned from UNHCR Malta that the family [was] in Sweden, they tried to enter Sweden but the authorities told them that since they had already entered the Shengen Zone of the European Union at Malta, the well known rule is that you make you[r] claim at the first border point, in this case Malta […] The family returned to Malta, made a new refugee claim and were accepted. Now Canada is again the focus of their attention and again according to UNHCR Malta, not finding life in Malta to their liking are once again trying for Canada.
We also have an email correspondence from Aisha Benhmuda to Andrew Brouwer where she suggest[s] they go to the media to pressure CIC, I am concerned with this approach, a form of blackmail.
I do not see what is Canada's obligation this case, they were heard and the applicant[s] received the attention they deserved. A decision was made, they returned to L[iby]a and then decided after some time, on their own, to leave L[iby]a again for Sweden and are now in Malta.
The other issue has to do with the four children, or at least one of them who appears to have a medical problem that may render him inadmissible. The two youngest children who are born in Canada are 10 and 8 years old. I note that the initial grouping of this family is 6 persons but the UNHCR has added the rest of the family (all other relatives living in Tripoli) 16 other individuals.
What this family wants is another refugee claim hearing from us in the hope that this time they will be successful. Since the claim was already heard in Canada do not see what mechanism we have here to re-hear yet again same claim. Also am concerned for the precedent being set, since the applicant has been resettled by the Maltese authorities, why are we giving the impression that we are willing to take refugees resettled in safe countries and resettle them in Canada.
As for your role, we cannot act without instruction since this case came from Ottawa and CMB is involved. Rome [as] you know does not have any refugee target […]
(CTR at p 237)
[21] By email dated April 12, 2011, Ms. Renwick wrote to Officer Beaulieu that “[w]e noticed that in your email of March 21, 2011, you expressed concerns that the family was seeking a review of the claim that was heard before the IRB. However it is our understanding that the current UNHCR’s referral speaks to persecution and events which occurred after the family was deported from Canada”. The email continued, noting Officer Beaulieu’s “concerns” regarding the processing of the case and reassuring him that the decision on the application rested with the visa post in Rome and not Ottawa. Ms. Renwick attached to her email the submissions that had been made by counsel for the applicants, which included several documents that were not before the RPD or the PRRA officer (CTR at p 168). Notable in this regard were a letter from Mr. Benhmuda’s former employer in Canada, offering him employment in the event he returned to Canada, because he was “one of [their] best employees (Applicants’ Record at p 87) and a strong submission from a teacher at the children’s school, who wrote in eloquent terms regarding the children’s best interests and her knowledge of the family (Applicants’ Record at p 106).
[22] The fact that the applicants were relying on facts that were not before the RPD and were also advancing an H&C application appears to have been ignored by Officer Beaulieu. On April 20, 2011, he forwarded a case analysis to the respondent’s office in Ottawa and in his cover email concluded:
Since we do not have an application filled out and only various summaries about this family, I recommend we not invite them to apply and inform UNHCR Malta that we will not consider this case. Malta has offered a solution and has recognized this family according to the information we have received. I also understand that the family would much prefer to go to Canada instead. However the long-established princi[ple] remains that refugee claimants do not get to choose country of resettlement.
(CTR at p 248)
[23] In his attached case analysis, Officer Beaulieu wrote as follows:
Both Adel Ben-Hmuda and his spouse Aisha Ben-Matug who was already in advance state of pregnancy, traveled to Canada as tourists on 4 July 2000 with two children Mohamed and Muawiya.
[…]
The refugee claim was rejected by the IRB, no appeal was made and all other avenues open to the applicant and his spouse [were] rejected. The family was removed from Canada on 12 August 2008. The applicant and his family spent 8 years in Canada at public expense.
[…]
Adel Ben-Hmuda is not happy [or] satisfied with the asylum provided for him and his family and is seeking to move to Canada and present yet again another refugee claim based on the same claim presented in 2000, according to information from UNHCR Malta.
[…]
However given that while Adel Ben-Hmuda and his wife Aisha Ben-Matug [were] in Canada they had two other children, Omar and Adam. These two children are Canadian Citizens by birth. The family hopes to gain entry to Canada by using the Canadian Citizenship of these two minor children, who because of their citizenship could not be considered refugee claimants.
What is also interesting in this case is that the UNHCR presents this case to us as if the whole family where [were] refugees, when in fact two members are Canadians and the four others have been resettled in Malta.
The sole argument made by the family is that they would prefer to live in Canada. Though if we follow their travels we see that Sweden was also a chosen option for them until they were told they had to apply in Malta.
I also note that Adel Ben-Hmuda declares suffering from diabetes and one son suffers from muscular dystrophy. It is likely that this family will be in need of social assistance and other social services.
[…]
It should be explained to this family that you cannot choose a country of asylum and once asylum has been granted, you cannot start another asylum claim elsewhere.
I recommend we not consider this case given that it has been settled by Malta. There is no claim for us to consider.
[Emphasis added]
(CTR at pp 249-250)
[24] Many of the facts in this analysis are inaccurate. In light of the job offer and the fact that Mr. Benhmuda had been employed for the majority of the time the family lived in Canada, there was no basis upon which Officer Beaulieu could conclude it was likely that the family would be in need of social assistance if they returned to Canada. Nor had the family remained in Canada for eight years at public expense. Likewise, the family did not pursue all avenues open to it while they lived in Canada. Notably, judicial review applications were not pursued and, more importantly, no H&C application was made. Officer Beaulieu additionally ignored the fact that the family was relying on circumstances that had not been considered by the RPD and the PRRA Officer, including the incarceration and torture of Mr. Benhmuda by the Libyan authorities. The analysis also fails to discuss the applicants’ request for H&C consideration, the situation in Malta, the family’s ties to Canada and the children’s best interests. It also contains gratuitous comments, like the mention that Ms. Benmatug “was already in advance state of pregnancy” when the family first sought refuge in Canada.
[25] Ms. Renwick replied the next day, inquiring as to whether Officer Beaulieu had consulted with his manager about the case. Officer Beaulieu replied a few minutes later, noting that they “were just talking about [the] case” when Ms. Renwick’s email arrived and that “consensus in Rome [was] that [they would] write to the Head of UNHCR to inform him that [they would] not consider this case” [emphasis added]. Officer Beaulieu continued as follows in his April 21, 2011 email:
We do not have an application with us at this time. What we have is a series of documents explaining the case. In reading those documents it is clear that there is no new claim to examine and that what we have was examined in Canada years ago and decided upon. It is interesting to note that UNHCR Malta only approached us after being told by UNHCR Ottawa that CIC would reconsider the case and was favourably disposed towards the family. How they came to that conclusion has never been made clear. We are also aware that the applicant has a lawyer in Ottawa. However this has not swayed us.
Now Malta is a signatory to the Convention and an EU member has acc[ep]ted the case and is resettling the family on its territory. We should also not forget that the family had originally tried to present a claim to Sweden. The [on]going Civil war in L[iby]a and the support the EU is now showing for the rebellion and the NATO strikes indicates clearly that the regime of [Gaddafi] is at an end.
What remains is the fact that Mr. Adel Ben Hmuda stated that he would prefer to live in any other country than Malta. That of itself is not sufficient to support priority resettlement to Canada. He has 2 children born in Canada and 2 born in L[iby]a, the argument that he should be resettled in Canada because of [his] 2 Canadian children is not an overwhelming factor. It is in this case the only factor he presents, as for the health issues for himself and one other child, Malta has modern facilities like any other Western European country. Had this been determining factors to begin with, the family would not have been removed from Canada in the first place.
So given these facts we will send a letter to UNHCR declining to proceed on this case as per my recommendation in my analysis.
[….]
[Emphasis added]
(CTR at p 246)
[26] Once again this email contains factual inaccuracies in that it fails to recognize that there were several new facts and a new request for H&C consideration that the applicants wished to advance, which had not previously been ruled upon.
[27] The tug-of-war between Ottawa and the Rome visa post continued. On May 11, 2011, Ms. Renwick wrote to Officer Beaulieu, noting that representatives in Ottawa had met with representatives of the respondent in the international region the preceding week and had “determined that the Ben Humda [sic] family meets the UNHCR’s criteria for resettlement referral in that they do not have a durable solution in the EU and they have a connection to Canada”. She continued by stating that the family also met the requirements of section 150(1)(a) of the Regulations and requested that Officer Beaulieu open a file and process the application. She reiterated that counsel for the applicants had been in touch with the respondent’s Ottawa office to reiterate the family’s request for H&C consideration in the event they could not meet the requirements of the Convention Refugee Class and noted that target space to accept government sponsored refugees could be allocated to Rome, if that were necessary to facilitate the processing of the application. She concluded her email by requesting Officer Beaulieu to advise as to the file number he opened to process the family’s applications (CTR at p 245).
[28] On June 16, 2011, counsel for the applicants wrote to the Rome visa post, asking for an update on the processing of the case and a file number. He also noted that he had learned from the respondent’s office in Ottawa that the Rome visa post had forwarded forms directly to the adult applicants, for completion (CTR at p 151). The forms in question were signed by the applicants and forwarded to the Rome visa post by counsel for the applicants on July 1, 2011.
[29] After the case received media attention in Canada, the respondent’s Paris office (to whom the Rome visa post appears to have reported) became involved, and the manager of the Paris office wrote to Officer Beaulieu, requesting details about the case. On July 6, 2011, after having received the applicants’ application forms a few days earlier, Officer Beaulieu wrote to the manager of the respondent’s Paris office, noting that he had already explained to Ms. Renwick that he was going to refuse the case and did not understand all the back and forth between the respondent in Ottawa and the UNHCR in Malta. The Paris manager replied, noting that Officer Beaulieu was bound to consider the new facts raised by the applicants as well as the various grounds for admissibility they were invoking, and directed Officer Beaulieu to ensure that in-depth interviews were conducted, as they were absolutely required (CTR at pp 278-279).
[30] Officer Beaulieu was transferred from Rome in late July and the case was assigned to the First Secretary for decision. She was newly-arrived at the Rome visa post. The entire file, including Officer Beaulieu’s emails and analyses, was placed before her to consider in reaching her decision. She travelled to Malta and interviewed the applicants at length before writing her decision.
[31] In her November 8, 2011 decision, the First Secretary rejected the applicants’ resettlement application because they had been granted refugee status in Malta and found that H&C considerations did not warrant granting an exemption. Much of her reasoning echoes the comments made by Officer Beaulieu in his various emails. Notably, she found that:
The family had “full access to the benefits and processes of Canada’s refugee determination system”;
The applicants were asylum shopping and based their claim on the fact that they preferred the conditions in Canada to those in Malta; and
The applicants could safely return to Libya following the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime.
The Issues
[32] In light of the foregoing, three issues arise in this case:
1. Do the applicants have a reasonable apprehension that the First Secretary was biased in light of the materials in the record that were placed before her?
2. If so, what is the appropriate remedy?
3. Should the applicants be awarded their costs, which is unusual in a judicial review application in the immigration context?
Reasonable Apprehension of Bias
[33] The applicants submit that the test for a reasonable apprehension of bias is set out in Committee for Justice and Liberty v National Energy Board, [1978] 1 SCR 369, where Justice de Grandpré states that the test involves asking “what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically – and having thought the matter through – conclude. Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly” (at para 44). The respondent further argues that, as in Baker (cited above at para 2), a reasonable apprehension of bias arises here given the comments made in Officer Beaulieu’s notes, which contain multiple indications that Officer Beaulieu had prejudged the case, based on inadequate and inaccurate information and the fact that these notes were placed before the First Secretary.
[34] The respondent, on the other hand, argues that the formulation of the test for a reasonable apprehension of bias has been articulated in the context of visa officers to require only a lack of conflict of interest and a “mind that is open to persuasion”, citing in this regard Au v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 202 FTR 57, [2001] FCJ No 435 [Au] and Horvat v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 262, [2003] FCJ No 354. The respondent argues that application of this test results in a determination that the First Secretary was not biased because she conducted interviews of the applicants and there is no evidence that she (as opposed to Officer Beaulieu) had prejudged the case.
[35] In my view, this case is on all fours with Baker and, indeed, bears a striking similarity to many of the facts in that case. There, an officer, who was someone other than the officer who had decided Ms. Baker’s H&C application, compiled notes that the decision-maker reviewed before rendering the decision. These notes concluded that Ms. Baker would be a “tremendous strain” on the Canadian social welfare system for the rest of her life and mentioned her psychiatric condition, limited skills and training and number of children she had, using capital letters at several points for emphasis. The conclusion stood in contrast to the evidence that Ms. Baker had filed from her treating psychiatrist, which indicated that she was recovering from her illness and might be able to work in the future. Justice L’Heureux-Dubé held that the duty to act fairly and in a manner that does not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias applies to all immigration officers involved in the handling of an application, who play a significant role in the making of decisions. Thus, notes from the officer that were considered by the decision-maker could – and did – give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Justice L’Heureux-Dubé concluded that a well-informed member of the community would perceive bias when reading the notes in Baker, which seemed to link Ms. Baker’s mental illness, her training as a domestic worker and the fact she had a number of children with the conclusion that she was likely to be a strain on the social welfare system. Because this conclusion was contradicted by the evidence, she found there to be a reasonable apprehension of bias.
[36] An identical conclusion must be drawn in this case. Here, Officer Beaulieu clearly prejudged the applicant’s claims, jumping to conclusions before he had even received a formal application. Moreover, his conclusions were based on inaccurate information. Thus, his lack of objectivity is even more striking than was the case with the author of the notes in the Baker case. In addition, Officer Beaulieu’s emails reflect a similarly troubling tone and lack of objectivity, evidenced, for example, by his needless comments regarding Ms. Benmatug’s pregnancy and the comments regarding the number of members of the applicants’ extended family in Libya. Moreover, as in Baker, the documents Officer Beaulieu authored were considered by the decision-maker. And, indeed, one of the offending emails indicated that the entire Rome visa post had reached the conclusion that the applications were to be dismissed, before they had even been submitted. As in Baker, it is my view that a reasonable, well-informed member of the community would perceive bias in reading Officer Beaulieu’s emails and therefore have a reasonable apprehension that the First Secretary did not have a mind that is open to persuasion, to use the terminology from Au and Horvat. This apprehension is not undone by the fact that the First Secretary conducted interviews of the applicants. Rather, a fair-minded person would believe that she had prejudged the case, through her reading of the file and making of several conclusions that are very similar to those reached by Officer Beaulieu. Accordingly, a reasonable apprehension of bias has been shown to exist, and the decision of the First Secretary must be set aside.
Remedy
[37] The applicants request that in the event I find a reasonable apprehension of bias, I order that all Officer Beaulieu’s notes, emails in which he expresses an opinion and other similar analyses be stripped from the file and the matter be remitted to a visa post other than Rome, for fresh consideration by individuals who have not previously been involved in considering the file. The applicants also request that, given the passage of time, the nature of the application, and the events the applicants have endured, I order that the re-determination be conducted within 90 days or otherwise provide for ongoing supervision by the Court of the re-determination to ensure it is completed expeditiously.
[38] While not contesting the propriety of expunging the offending materials from the file, before the re-determination is conducted (if one is ordered), the respondent argues that there is no need to referred the file to visa post other than Rome, arguing that it moves individuals between posts frequently and that, were I to order the file transferred to visa post other than Rome, it is not inconceivable that Officer Beaulieu might be involved in the re-determination. As for the applicants’ request for a time limit on the re-determination, counsel for the respondent objected to the same as she was not in a position to advise how long a re-determination might reasonably require.
[39] Given the comments in one of Officer Beaulieu’s emails, which noted that the entire Rome visa post had concluded that the applications should be denied (well before the applications were actually filed) and the fact that his emails were copied to several others at the Rome visa post, in order to ensure a fair re-determination, I believe the file must be remitted for fresh consideration at a visa post other than Rome. The respondent’s concerns, regarding inadvertently involving Officer Beaulieu, can be addressed by ensuring that the file is not sent to the visa post to which Officer Beaulieu has been transferred.
[40] As for the request that the matter be re-determined on an expeditious basis within a stipulated time period, counsel for the respondent ought to have been prepared to deal with this request during the hearing of this application, as a request for this remedy was clearly set out by the applicants in their Further Memorandum of Fact and Law. Thus, counsel’s inability to provide the Court with information regarding how long the respondent might need in order to conduct a re-determination is no reason for denying the applicant’s request. In the absence of any evidence or argument from the respondent regarding the reasonableness of the 90-day time period, I have ordered that the re-determination be conducted within 90 days, leaving open the possibility that the respondent may apply to the Court for an extension, in the event it is impossible for it to meet a 90-day deadline.
Costs
[41] Pursuant to Rule 22 of the Federal Courts Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/93-22, special reasons are required before costs may be awarded in an immigration application for judicial review. Such special reasons have been held to include situations where one party has unreasonably prolonged proceedings or acted in an oppressive or improper manner or in bad faith (Johnson v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1262 at para 26 [Johnson]; Ndererehe v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 880 at para 29). The respondent relies on Johnson to argue that costs should not be awarded against it. In that decision, Justice Dawson declined to award costs because, although the decision of the RPD was perverse, the respondent consented to the decision being set aside “on a timely basis” after the CTR was delivered. The respondent would have been well-advised to adopt a similar approach in this case, as, in my view, the case’s outcome was a foregone conclusion, given the striking similarity between it and Baker. Moreover, while there is no evidence of bad faith on the respondent's part, Officer Beaulieu did behave improperly in prejudging the applicants’ applications and in basing his recommendations on a fundamental misapprehension of the facts before him. Accordingly, the applicant shall have their costs in the lump sum amount of $5000.00 which I have determined is a reasonable amount, with reference to the amounts awarded in somewhat similar circumstances in Ndererehe v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 880.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
1. This application for judicial review is granted and the decision of the First Secretary (Immigration) in Rome, made on November 8, 2011 is set aside;
2. The respondent shall forthwith remove from its files all of Officer Beaulieu’s emails and analyses in which he expresses any opinion on the merits of the applicants’ applications, any similar analyses or expressions of opinion contained in the applicants’ files and the First Secretary’s November 8, 2011 decision;
3. The applicants’ applications for permanent resident visas as members of the Convention Refugee Abroad Class and for H&C consideration shall be remitted to a visa office, other than Rome, where Officer Beaulieu is not employed. The Officer to whom the applications are submitted for re-determination shall have had no previous involvement in the applicants’ files;
4. The applicants shall be afforded the opportunity to file additional evidence and to make additional submissions for consideration on the re-determination regarding any new matters that may have arisen since July 2011;
5. The respondent shall complete the re-determination as expeditiously as possible and in any event within no later than 90 days following the date of this decision. If it is impossible for the respondent to do so, it may apply to this Court for an extension of the 90-day time limit;
6. No question of general importance is certified. No question was proposed for certification and none arises in this case as my decision is closely tied to the facts; and
7. Costs are fixed on a lump sum basis in the amount of $5000.00, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, to be paid by the respondent to the applicants.
"Mary J.L. Gleason"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-610-12
STYLE OF CAUSE: Adel Benhmuda et al v The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: September 13, 2012
AMENDED REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT: GLEASON J.
DATED: November 16, 2012
APPEARANCES:
Andrew J. Brouwer
FOR THE APPLICANTS
Neeta Logsetty
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Refugee Law Office
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANTS
Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT
A Libyan family deported by Canadian immigration officials five years ago is being allowed to return to Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds after a Federal Court judge ordered a review of their case.
A Libyan family deported by Canadian immigration officials five years ago is being allowed to return to Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds after a Federal Court judge ordered a review of their case.
After the review, Citizenship and Immigration Canada approved the Benhmuda family's return to Canada.
Efforts to get the family back to Canada were spearheaded by Ingrid Kerrigan, the younger children's kindergarten teacher at Springfield Public School in Mississauga, Ont. Kerrigan raised money to fight the matter in court and initiated the online petition which was addressed to Canada's Minister of Immigration Jason Kenney.
The petition posted on change.org, an online petition platform, garnered 15,674 signatures.
"It wasn't just the Benhmudas who were asking to come back, it was more than 15,000 people who had read their story and were so moved by it that they took the step of signing the petition," said Andrew Brouwer, the family's lawyer.
The names and comments on the petition were downloaded and presented to the courts as part of the evidence to support the family's application to return.
Adel Benhmuda, his wife and four sons — two of whom, Adam and Omar, were born in Canada — were deported to Libya in 2008 after their claim for refugee status in Canada was denied.
The Benhmudas had lived in Canada since 2000 and applied for refugee status, saying they were in danger because Adel Benhmuda's brother was linked to a group opposed to the regime of the late dictator Moammar Gadhafi.
As soon as the family arrived in Libya, Adel Benhmuda was arrested by Libyan police and spent four months in prison, where he was tortured.
After paying a bribe, the family fled to a refugee camp in Malta, where the UN High Commission for Refugees declared the family to be legitimate refugees and asked Canada to take them back.
But a visa officer with the Canadian Embassy in Rome rejected that idea, alleging the family had been a welfare drain after arriving in Canada. That was not the case.
In a scathing ruling last October, a federal judge ruled the visa officer was biased and had placed wrong information in their file. She ordered the case to be sent to another visa post.
The family's lawyer said the Benhmudas have been vindicated.
"We are so relieved that they will finally receive a measure of justice after everything they have been through," said Brouwer in a statement.
Kerrigan, her colleagues, and students at Springfield Public School pulled together to support the family and keep in touch with them throughout their ordeal.
"All they ever wanted from the first time they came to Canada was peace and hope and safety, and now it's back in their grasp," said Kerrigan.
She, and other supporters of the Benhmuda family's plight, will help the family re-integrate back into Canadian culture.
"It's a dream come true and a red letter day for them for sure," she said.
The family will still need to complete steps, such as new police checks and medical evaluations before they get the final approval to return to Canada.
"My hope is that it won't be more than a few weeks," said Brouwer.
After the review, Citizenship and Immigration Canada approved the Benhmuda family's return to Canada.
Efforts to get the family back to Canada were spearheaded by Ingrid Kerrigan, the younger children's kindergarten teacher at Springfield Public School in Mississauga, Ont. Kerrigan raised money to fight the matter in court and initiated the online petition which was addressed to Canada's Minister of Immigration Jason Kenney.
The petition posted on change.org, an online petition platform, garnered 15,674 signatures.
"It wasn't just the Benhmudas who were asking to come back, it was more than 15,000 people who had read their story and were so moved by it that they took the step of signing the petition," said Andrew Brouwer, the family's lawyer.
The names and comments on the petition were downloaded and presented to the courts as part of the evidence to support the family's application to return.
Adel Benhmuda, his wife and four sons — two of whom, Adam and Omar, were born in Canada — were deported to Libya in 2008 after their claim for refugee status in Canada was denied.
The Benhmudas had lived in Canada since 2000 and applied for refugee status, saying they were in danger because Adel Benhmuda's brother was linked to a group opposed to the regime of the late dictator Moammar Gadhafi.
As soon as the family arrived in Libya, Adel Benhmuda was arrested by Libyan police and spent four months in prison, where he was tortured.
After paying a bribe, the family fled to a refugee camp in Malta, where the UN High Commission for Refugees declared the family to be legitimate refugees and asked Canada to take them back.
But a visa officer with the Canadian Embassy in Rome rejected that idea, alleging the family had been a welfare drain after arriving in Canada. That was not the case.
In a scathing ruling last October, a federal judge ruled the visa officer was biased and had placed wrong information in their file. She ordered the case to be sent to another visa post.
The family's lawyer said the Benhmudas have been vindicated.
"We are so relieved that they will finally receive a measure of justice after everything they have been through," said Brouwer in a statement.
Kerrigan, her colleagues, and students at Springfield Public School pulled together to support the family and keep in touch with them throughout their ordeal.
"All they ever wanted from the first time they came to Canada was peace and hope and safety, and now it's back in their grasp," said Kerrigan.
She, and other supporters of the Benhmuda family's plight, will help the family re-integrate back into Canadian culture.
"It's a dream come true and a red letter day for them for sure," she said.
The family will still need to complete steps, such as new police checks and medical evaluations before they get the final approval to return to Canada.
"My hope is that it won't be more than a few weeks," said Brouwer.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Conservatives and New Democrats Remain Practically Even PMO may not be happy!!!
Conservatives and New Democrats Remain Practically Even in Canada
With Justin Trudeau as leader, the Liberal Party would become the top choice for Canadian decided voters.The online survey of a representative national sample of 1,012 Canadian adults also found that, with Justin Trudeau as leader, the federal Liberal Party stands to become the top-ranked political force in the country.
Voting Intention
Across Canada, 35 per cent of decided voters and leaners (+1 since June) would cast a ballot for the Conservative candidate in their riding if a federal election were held tomorrow. The New Democrats are a close second (33%, -2), followed by the Liberal Party (19%, =), the Green Party (6%, +1) and the Bloc Québécois (6%, =).
The Tories have their best showing in Alberta (55%) and Manitoba and Saskatchewan (57%), while the NDP remains dominant in Quebec (40%, with the Bloc a distant second at 23%). In British Columbia, the Conservatives are ahead with 43 per cent, followed by the New Democrats with 30 per cent and a surging Green Party at 16 per cent. The Grits get their best numbers in Atlantic Canada (29%) and Ontario (23%).
The Conservatives have a four-point lead over the NDP among male voters (36% to 32%), and the two main parties are even among female voters (33% each). The Tories are ahead among respondents aged 55 and over (36%) and those aged 35-to-54 (38%), while the NDP is the top choice for voters aged 18-to-34 (37%).
Both the Conservatives and the NDP are holding on to four-in-five voters who supported them in the May 2011 federal election, with retention rates of 82 per cent and 80 per cent respectively. The Liberals keep two thirds of their supporters (65%), with one-in-five (21%) now saying they would vote for the NDP.
Approval and Momentum
Once again, New Democratic Party (NDP) and Official Opposition leader Thomas Mulcair posted the highest approval rating at 44 per cent, followed by Prime Minister and Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper (37%), Green Party leader Elizabeth May (35%) and interim Liberal Party leader Bob Rae (32%).
Harper’s approval rating is highest in the Western Provinces, while Mulcair gets a positive review from three-in-five Quebecers (61%). Almost half of British Columbians (47%) approve of the way May is handling her duties—her best rating across the country.
Liberal Party Leadership
Seven of the Liberal Party leadership hopefuls currently have a low level of recognition among the public, with more than four-in-five Canadians saying they are not sure if they would be good choices to command the Grits. Justin Trudeau is seen as a positive option by 45 per cent of respondents. The only other contenders in double digits on this question are Marc Garneau (31%) and Martha Hall Findlay (12%).
Respondents were asked how they would vote in a federal election under three different Liberal leaders. Hall Findlay does not raise the fortunes of the Grits among decided voters (19%, trailing the NDP at 29% and the Tories at 33%). Garneau fares better, taking the Liberals to 24 per cent (three points behind the New Democrats, and eight points behind the Conservatives).
With Trudeau as Leader, the Liberals garner the backing of 42 per cent of decided voters, pushing the Tories to a distant second place (26%) and the NDP to third (19%).
Full Report, Detailed Tables and Methodology (PDF)
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
A British Columbia Supreme Court judge has taken the bluster out of the Conservative's campaign against illegal migrants by striking down a section of the law targeting human smuggling, putting at least two high-profile prosecutions in limbo.
A British Columbia Supreme Court judge has taken the bluster out of the Conservative's campaign against illegal migrants by striking down a section of the law targeting human smuggling, putting at least two high-profile prosecutions in limbo.
In February 2011, Prime Minister Stephen Harper vowed to toughen asylum laws as he stood aboard one of the ships used to bring Tamil migrants to Canada in 2009 and 2010.
Now, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Arne Silverman suggests the government go back to the drawing board on a key section of the legislation.
It means a trial that was set for later this month for four men accused of ferrying Tamils aboard the first boat in fall 2009 has been adjourned.
The ruling also has implications for a second prosecution in connection with a boat of hundreds more migrants who arrived the following year, and any future potential cases of human smuggling.
He said the result could lead to the prosecution of people like humanitarian workers.
As the law stood, a human smuggler was defined as anyone who might "knowingly organize, induce, aid or abet" someone coming to Canada who does not have a visa, passport or other required documentation.
The judge declared Section 117 of the act to be of no force or effect, saying federal politicians now need to fill the legislative gap.
"This is not the court's job, nor does it have the authority to choose what those priorities are or should be. This is the job of Parliament," Silverman ruled.
"Human smuggling is a dangerous and despicable crime. Our message is clear to those contemplating a human smuggling operation -- don't do it," Julie Carmichael said in an email.
Prosecutor Peter LaPrairie, with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, was due back before the judge on Jan. 21 to discuss how the Crown would proceed.
Phil Rankin, a lawyer for one of the accused, said he was pleased with the ruling, while noting he anticipates it will be appealed until a decision is delivered by the highest court in the country.
"I'm not very clear on what it means to assist refugees. I've worked with refugees all my life and I've assisted them all my life," he said.
"Am I an aider and abetter to smuggling? Because the section is so broad then perhaps I am."
NDP immigration critic Jinny Sims said the judge's decision shows the Conservative government rushed as it amended the legislation.
"Every one of us agrees we have to address human smuggling," Sims said.
"But this Bill C-31 does actually nothing to address the real issues of human smuggling, but does more to punish the victims of the smugglers in the first place."
She said the Opposition is more than willing to help with a rewrite.
Jury selection was scheduled to begin on Wednesday for the accused: Francis Appulonappa, Hamalraj Handasamy, Jeyachandran Kanagarajah and Vignarajah Thevarajah.
But those proceedings were cancelled on Monday and the trial, set to begin later in the month, was adjourned.
LaPrairie noted the only charges against the men were laid under the section of the act the judge struck down. He couldn't say if the Crown would appeal the decision.
A second trial for six people accused of human smuggling in the case of the second vessel, the MV Sun Sea, was set to begin after the Ocean Lady prosecutions had concluded.
"I don't think this is going to mean that there is going to be flotillas coming to Canada," Rankin said of the impact of the decision.
"Frankly, I think it just means this prosecution is not going ahead until the government tightens up their legislation and makes it constitutionally trustworthy."
University of Victoria Prof. Scott Watson, who specializes in refugee law, said the concerns raised by the judge have been top-of-mind for refugee advocates and opposition parties since the bill's creation.
He said potential next steps by the Tories would include appealing or rewriting the legislation to include exemptions.
The ruling is a blow to the government, while advocacy groups will view the judgment positively, he added.
"The government will have to pay more attention to how you can fight human smuggling and trafficking, yet at the same time provide protection to refugees," he said.
Watson said current human smuggling cases across the country will likely be put on hold, as the B.C. ruling sets a precedent and the government will want to get a final decision before it proceeds with prosecutions.
Rankin said his client was happy when told of the decision, but he warned him not to celebrate just yet.
"I said 'Don't start planning your future too quickly," he said on Monday outside court. "They're all in a limbo as to what happens to them."
Among the 76 men who arrived on the Ocean Lady in fall 2009, 15 have been accepted as refugees, 15 have had their claims rejected, one claim has been withdrawn and three men have been issued deportation orders.
The MV Sun Sea that carried 492 Tamil migrants also had women and children aboard. Among them, 50 people have been accepted as refugees, 63 people have had their claims rejected and 23 claims have been withdrawn.
The arrival of the vessels and subsequent, lengthy detention of those aboard prompted the Conservative government to pass tough new immigration laws aimed at preventing human smuggling.
The government also buoyed international police with millions in funding to block illegal operations before they could sail to Canada.
In February 2011, Prime Minister Stephen Harper vowed to toughen asylum laws as he stood aboard one of the ships used to bring Tamil migrants to Canada in 2009 and 2010.
Now, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Arne Silverman suggests the government go back to the drawing board on a key section of the legislation.
It means a trial that was set for later this month for four men accused of ferrying Tamils aboard the first boat in fall 2009 has been adjourned.
The ruling also has implications for a second prosecution in connection with a boat of hundreds more migrants who arrived the following year, and any future potential cases of human smuggling.
Publication ban lifted
A publication ban was lifted Monday on the ruling issued Friday by Silverman, who found a section of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act infringes on charter rights because it is "unnecessarily broad."He said the result could lead to the prosecution of people like humanitarian workers.
As the law stood, a human smuggler was defined as anyone who might "knowingly organize, induce, aid or abet" someone coming to Canada who does not have a visa, passport or other required documentation.
The judge declared Section 117 of the act to be of no force or effect, saying federal politicians now need to fill the legislative gap.
"This is not the court's job, nor does it have the authority to choose what those priorities are or should be. This is the job of Parliament," Silverman ruled.
Government reviewing decision
A spokeswoman for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said the government is reviewing the decision."Human smuggling is a dangerous and despicable crime. Our message is clear to those contemplating a human smuggling operation -- don't do it," Julie Carmichael said in an email.
Prosecutor Peter LaPrairie, with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, was due back before the judge on Jan. 21 to discuss how the Crown would proceed.
Phil Rankin, a lawyer for one of the accused, said he was pleased with the ruling, while noting he anticipates it will be appealed until a decision is delivered by the highest court in the country.
"I'm not very clear on what it means to assist refugees. I've worked with refugees all my life and I've assisted them all my life," he said.
"Am I an aider and abetter to smuggling? Because the section is so broad then perhaps I am."
NDP immigration critic Jinny Sims said the judge's decision shows the Conservative government rushed as it amended the legislation.
"Every one of us agrees we have to address human smuggling," Sims said.
"But this Bill C-31 does actually nothing to address the real issues of human smuggling, but does more to punish the victims of the smugglers in the first place."
She said the Opposition is more than willing to help with a rewrite.
Two trials affected
The Crown had been preparing to argue the four men should be found guilty of human smuggling related to the fall 2009 arrival of the MV Ocean Lady.Jury selection was scheduled to begin on Wednesday for the accused: Francis Appulonappa, Hamalraj Handasamy, Jeyachandran Kanagarajah and Vignarajah Thevarajah.
But those proceedings were cancelled on Monday and the trial, set to begin later in the month, was adjourned.
LaPrairie noted the only charges against the men were laid under the section of the act the judge struck down. He couldn't say if the Crown would appeal the decision.
A second trial for six people accused of human smuggling in the case of the second vessel, the MV Sun Sea, was set to begin after the Ocean Lady prosecutions had concluded.
"I don't think this is going to mean that there is going to be flotillas coming to Canada," Rankin said of the impact of the decision.
"Frankly, I think it just means this prosecution is not going ahead until the government tightens up their legislation and makes it constitutionally trustworthy."
University of Victoria Prof. Scott Watson, who specializes in refugee law, said the concerns raised by the judge have been top-of-mind for refugee advocates and opposition parties since the bill's creation.
He said potential next steps by the Tories would include appealing or rewriting the legislation to include exemptions.
The ruling is a blow to the government, while advocacy groups will view the judgment positively, he added.
"The government will have to pay more attention to how you can fight human smuggling and trafficking, yet at the same time provide protection to refugees," he said.
Watson said current human smuggling cases across the country will likely be put on hold, as the B.C. ruling sets a precedent and the government will want to get a final decision before it proceeds with prosecutions.
Accused out on bail
In the B.C. case, all of the accused remain out on bail and are living in Ontario.Rankin said his client was happy when told of the decision, but he warned him not to celebrate just yet.
"I said 'Don't start planning your future too quickly," he said on Monday outside court. "They're all in a limbo as to what happens to them."
Among the 76 men who arrived on the Ocean Lady in fall 2009, 15 have been accepted as refugees, 15 have had their claims rejected, one claim has been withdrawn and three men have been issued deportation orders.
The MV Sun Sea that carried 492 Tamil migrants also had women and children aboard. Among them, 50 people have been accepted as refugees, 63 people have had their claims rejected and 23 claims have been withdrawn.
The arrival of the vessels and subsequent, lengthy detention of those aboard prompted the Conservative government to pass tough new immigration laws aimed at preventing human smuggling.
The government also buoyed international police with millions in funding to block illegal operations before they could sail to Canada.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
The Airbus A350 is a family of long-range, wide-body jet airliners 1.13.2013.
The Airbus A350 is a family of long-range, wide-body jet airliners under development by European aircraft manufacturer Airbus.[Nb 1] The A350 will be the first Airbus with both fuselage and wing structures made primarily of carbon fibre-reinforced polymer.[5] It will carry 250 to 350 passengers in three-class seating, depending on variant.
The A350 was originally conceived as a variant of the A330 with few changes, to compete with the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and the larger Boeing 777. The design was unanimously rejected by prospective customers and Airbus was forced to revise their initial proposal, but airlines voiced support for a complete overhaul. The eventual proposal incorporated major changes, which Airbus says will be more fuel-efficient, with up to 8% lower operating cost than the Boeing 787.[5]
The redesigned A350 was marketed by Airbus as the A350 XWB, where the XWB stands for Extra Wide Body. The launch customer for the A350 is Qatar Airways, which ordered 80 aircraft across the three variants.[6] Development costs are projected to be €12 billion (US$15 billion or £10 billion).[7] The airliner is scheduled to enter airline service in mid 2014.[2] As of 20 January 2012[update], 561 orders had been placed.[8]
Airbus initially proposed the A330-200Lite, a simple derivative of the A330, which would feature improved aerodynamics and engines similar to those on the 787.[9] The company planned to announce this version at the 2004 Farnborough Airshow, but did not proceed.[9] On 16 September 2004, then-Airbus president and CEO Noël Forgeard confirmed the consideration of a new project during a private meeting with prospective customers.[9] Forgeard did not give a project name, and he did not state whether it would be an entirely new design or a modification of an existing product. The airlines were not satisfied, and Airbus committed €4 billion to a new airliner design.[9] The original version of the A350 superficially resembled the A330 due to its common fuselage cross-section and assembly. A new wing, engines and a horizontal stabiliser were to be coupled with new composite materials and production methods applied to the fuselage to make the A350 an almost all-new aircraft.[9] On 10 December 2004, the boards of EADS and BAE Systems, then the shareholders of Airbus, gave Airbus an "authorisation to offer (ATO)", and formally named it the A350.[9][10]
On 13 June 2005 at the Paris Air Show, Middle Eastern carrier Qatar Airways announced that they have placed an order for 60 A350s. In September 2006 the airline signed an memorandum of understanding with General Electric to launch the GEnx-1A-72 for the aircraft.[11][12][13] Emirates decided against placing an order for the initial version of the A350 because of weaknesses in the design,[14][15] but has since ordered A350 XWBs.[16]
On 6 October 2005, full industrial launch of the programme was announced with an estimated development cost of around €3.5 billion.[9] This version of the A350 was planned to be a 250- to 300-seat twin-engine wide-body aircraft derived from the design of the existing A330. Under this plan, the A350 would have modified wings and new engines, while sharing the same fuselage cross-section as its predecessor. As a result of a controversial design, the fuselage was to consist primarily of Al-Li, rather than the carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) fuselage on the 787. It was to see entry in two versions: the A350-800 capable of flying 8,800 nmi (16,300 km) with typical passenger capacity of 253 in 3-class configuration and the 300-seat (3-class) A350-900 with 7,500 nmi (13,900 km) range. It was designed to be a direct competitor to the 787-9, and 777-200ER.[9]
Airbus faced almost immediate criticism on the A350 project from the heads of two of their largest customers, International Lease Finance Corporation (ILFC) and GE Capital Aviation Services (GECAS). On 28 March 2006, in the presence of hundreds of top airline executives, ILFC President Steven F. Udvar-Hazy lambasted Airbus' strategy in bringing to market what they saw as "a Band-aid reaction to the 787", a sentiment that was echoed by GECAS president Henry Hubschman. Udvar-Hazy called on Airbus to bring a clean-sheet design to the table, or risk losing most of the market to Boeing.[17][18] Several days later Chew Choon Seng, then CEO of Singapore Airlines (SIA), made a similar comment: "Having gone to the trouble of designing a new wing, tail, cockpit" and adding advanced new materials, Airbus "should have gone the whole hog and designed a new fuselage."[19] At the time, SIA was reviewing bids for the 787 and A350. Airbus responded by stating they were considering improvements for the A350 to satisfy customer demands.[20] At the same time, Airbus' then-CEO Gustav Humbert suggested that there would be no quick fixes: "Our strategy isn't driven by the needs of the next one or two campaigns, but rather by a long-term view of the market and our ability to deliver on our promises."[21]
Interior mock-up of the Business Class of the A350 XWB
On 14 July 2006, during the Farnborough Airshow, Airbus announced that the redesigned aircraft would be called A350 XWB (Xtra-Wide-Body).[25] There was some previous speculation that the revised aircraft would be called the Airbus A370 or A280, with Airbus going as far as accidentally publishing an advert referring to the aircraft as the "A280" on the Financial Times website. Within four days, Airbus achieved their first sale of the re-designed A350 when Singapore Airlines announced an order for 20 A350XWBs with options of a further 20. CEO Chew Choon Seng said that "it is heartening that Airbus has listened to customer airlines and has come up with a totally new design for the A350."[26]
On 1 December 2006 the Airbus board of directors approved the industrial launch of the A350-800, -900 and -1000.[27][28] The delayed decision on formal launch was a result of delays of the Airbus A380[29] and discussions about how the development would be funded. EADS CEO Thomas Enders stated that the A350 programme was not a certainty, citing EADS/Airbus' stretched resources.[30][31] However, it was decided programme costs are to be borne mainly from cash-flow. First delivery for the -900 was scheduled for mid-2013, with the -800 and -1000 following on, respectively, 12 and 24 months later.[27] At a 4 December 2006 press conference, a few new technical details of the A350 XWB design were revealed, but no new customers were identified. John Leahy indicated existing A350 contracts were under re-negotiation due to increases in prices compared to the original A350s contracted. On 4 January 2007, Airbus announced that Pegasus Aviation Finance Company had placed the first firm order for the A350 XWB with an order for two aircraft.[32]
The change to the XWB design imposed a two-year delay into the original timetable and almost doubled development costs from $5.3 billion to approximately $10 billion (£4.9 billion to £9.5 billion or €5.5 billion to €9.7 billion).[33][34] The total development cost for the A350 was estimated at $15 billion by Reuters (€12 billion or £10 billion).[35] Although the mid-2013 delivery date of the A350 remains unchanged, longer than anticipated development activities for the aircraft have forced Airbus to delay the final assembly and first flight of the aircraft to the third quarter of 2011 and second quarter of 2012 respectively. As such, flight testing will be compressed from the original 15 months to a 12-month schedule. A350 programme chief Didier Evrard stressed that the delays only affect the A350-900 and that the A350-800 and A350-1000 schedules remain unchanged.[36] On 12 November 2010, EADS CFO Peter Ring stated that the delivery date had slipped from mid-2013 to the second half of that year. Ring said the major reason for the schedule change is that the "transition phase from design to manufacturing is a bit longer."[37]
Illustration of Airbus A350 XWB concept in Etihad Airways livery
Although Airbus previously suggested Boeing's use of composite materials for the 787 fuselage was premature, and that the original A350s would be made from aluminium-lithium (Al-Li), the new A350 XWB will feature large carbon fibre panels for the main fuselage skin. After facing criticism for maintenance costs,[38] Airbus confirmed in early September 2007 the adoption of composite fuselage frames for the aircraft structure.[39][40] The composite frames will feature aluminium strips to ensure the electrical continuity of the fuselage (for dissipating lightning strikes).[41] Airbus will use a full mock up fuselage to develop the wiring, a different approach from the A380, on which the wiring was all done on computers.[42]
A critical component of the all-new airliner are the engines. Rather than the bleedless configuration used on the Boeing 787, Airbus has confirmed that it will further develop a full bleed air system on the engines.[43][44][45] Rolls-Royce has agreed with Airbus to supply a new variant of the Trent engine for the A350 XWB, currently called the Trent XWB. After the low-speed wind tunnel test, Airbus froze the static thrust at sea level for all three proposed variants in the 330–420 kN (74,000–94,000 lbf) range.[46] In June 2007, Rolls-Royce announced that it had signed its biggest ever contract with Qatar Airways for the Trent XWB to power 80 A350 XWBs on order from Airbus worth $5.6 billion at list prices.[citation needed]
General Electric (GE) has stated it will not offer the GP7000 engine on the aircraft, and that previous contracts for the GEnx on the original A350 did not apply to the XWB.[47] Engine Alliance partner Pratt & Whitney seems to be at odds with GE on this, publicly stating that it is looking at an advanced derivative of the GP7000.[48] In April 2007, Airbus former chief executive Louis Gallois held face-to-face talks with senior GE management over developing a new variant of the GEnx engine for the A350 XWB.[49][50] In June 2007, Airbus' Chief Operating Officer John Leahy indicated that the A350 XWB will not feature the GEnx engine, saying that Airbus wants GE to offer a more efficient version for the new Airbus airliner.[51] Since then, largest GE engines operators Emirates, US Airways, Hawaiian Airlines and ILFC have selected the Trent XWB for their A350 orders. In May 2009, GE said that if it reaches a deal with Airbus to offer the current 787-optimised GEnx for the A350, it will only power the -800 and -900 variants. GE believes it can offer a product that outperforms the Trent 1000 and Trent XWB, but has been reluctant to support an airframe that competes directly with its GE90-115B-powered 777 variants.[52]
In January 2008, French-based Thales Group won the US$2.9 billion (€2 billion) 20-year contract to supply avionics and navigation equipment for the A350 XWB. Thales competed against Honeywell and Rockwell Collins for the flight deck supply contract.[53] US-based Rockwell Collins and Moog Inc were chosen to supply the horizontal stabiliser actuator and primary flight control actuation, respectively. The flight management system will include several new safety features.[54]
Regarding cabin ergonomics and entertainment, in 2006 Airbus had signed a firm contract with BMW for development of an interior concept for the original A350.[55] On 4 February 2010, Airbus signed a contract with Panasonic Avionics Corporation to deliver in-flight entertainment and communication (IFEC) systems for the Airbus A350 XWB.
Airbus planned to introduce new techniques and procedures to cut assembly time in half.[61] Airbus manufactured the first structural component in December 2009.[62] Production of the first fuselage barrel began in late 2010 at its production plant in Illescas, Spain.[63][64] Construction of the first A350-900 centre wingbox was set to start in August 2010.[65]
The flight-test programme of the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB is to begin using the A380 development aircraft in early 2011, ahead of engine certification at the end of 2011. The first engine test on the Trent was made in June 2010.[66] The forward fuselage of the first A350 aircraft was delivered to the factory on 29 December 2011.[67] The final assembly of the first A350 static test model was started on 5 April 2012.[68]
In June 2011, the A350-900 was scheduled to enter service in the first half of 2014, with the -800 to enter service in mid-2016, and the -1000 in 2017.[69] In July 2012, Airbus delayed the -900's entry date by three months into the second half of 2014.[70]
Airbus says that the new design provides a better cabin atmosphere with 20% humidity level during flight and typical cabin altitude at or below 6,000 ft (1,800 m), pressurisation at 6,000 ft (1,800 m) and flow management system that adapts cabin airflow to passenger load with draught-free air circulation.[5] Airbus is aiming to certify the A350 with 350 min ETOPS capability upon service entry.[75]
Standard nine-abreast configuration mock-up of the economy class of the A350
The new XWB fuselage will have a constant width from door 1 to door 4, unlike previous Airbus aircraft, to provide maximum usable volume.[76] The double-lobe (ovoid) fuselage cross-section will have a maximum outer diameter of 5.97 m (19.6 ft), compared to 5.64 m (18.5 ft) for the A330/A340.[77] The cabin's internal diameter will be 5.61 m (18.4 ft) wide at armrest level compared with 5.49 m (18.0 ft) of the Boeing 787[78] and 5.86 m (19.2 ft) of the Boeing 777. It allows eight-abreast 2–4–2 arrangement in premium economy layout, with the seats being 49.5 cm (19.5 in) wide between 5 cm (2.0 in) wide arm rests. Airbus says that the seat width will be 1.3 cm (0.5 in) greater than a 787 seat in the equivalent configuration. In the nine-abreast, 3–3–3 standard layout, the XWB's seat width will be 45 cm (18 in) which will be 1.78 cm (0.7 in) wider than the equivalent seat layout for the Boeing 787, but 1.27 cm (0.5 in) narrower than the nine-abreast seat on the 777.[79][80] A ten-abreast high-density configuration is also available albeit at a tight 41.7 cm (16.4 in) seat width compared to a 777 ten-abreast configuration with 44.45 cm (17.5 in) seat width.[81][22] Passengers are promised more headroom, larger overhead storage space and wider panoramic windows than current Airbus models.
A new trailing-edge high-lift system has been adopted with an advanced dropped-hinge flap (similar to that of the A380), which permits the gap between the trailing edge and the flap to be closed with the spoiler.[85] The manufacturer has extensively used computational fluid dynamics and also carried out more than 4,000 hours of low- and high-speed windtunnel testing to refine the aerodynamic design,[86] achieving the final configuration of wing and winglet on the "Maturity Gate 5" on 17 December 2008.[87]
The wings are produced in the new £400M/46,000 square metres (500,000 sq ft) North Factory at Airbus Broughton, employing 650 workers, in a specialist facility constructed with £29M of support from the Welsh Assembly Government.[88]
A350 XWB new nose and general arrangement inside forward fuselage
The XWB's nose section will adopt a configuration derived from the A380 with a forward-mounted nosegear bay and a six-panel flightdeck windscreen.[89] This differs substantially from the four-window arrangement in the original design.[90] The new nose will improve aerodynamics and enable overhead crew rest areas to be installed further forward and eliminate any encroachment in the passenger cabin. The new windscreen has been revised to improve vision by reducing the width of the centre post. The upper shell radius of the nose section has been increased. The nose is likely to be constructed from aluminium but Airbus is currently running trade-off studies considering a one-piece carbon fibre structure. According to Gordon McConnell, A350 Chief Engineer, a carbon fibre structure would need titanium reinforcements for birdstrike protection, thus the aluminium structure is the best cost-wise.[91]
The avionics will be a further development of the integrated modular avionics (IMA) concept found on the A380. The A350's IMA will manage up to 40 functions (versus 23 functions for the A380) such as undercarriage, fuel, pneumatics, cabin environmental systems, and fire detection.[90][94] Airbus says benefits will include reduced maintenance and lower weight because IMA replaces multiple processors and LRUs with around 50% fewer standard computer modules known as line-replaceable modules. The IMA runs on a 100-Mbit/s network based on the avionics full-duplex (AFDX) standard, already employed in the A380 instead of the architecture used on the A330/A340.
The Trent XWB will feature a 300-centimetre (118 in) fan diameter and the design will be based on the advanced developments of the Trent 900 (Airbus A380) and Trent 1000 (Boeing 787). The Trent XWB may also benefit from the next-generation reduced acoustic mode scattering engine duct system (RAMSES), which is a noise-dampening engine nacelle intake and a carry-on design of the Airbus's "zero splice" intake liner developed for the A380.[96] Engine thrust-reversers and nacelles will be supplied by US-based Goodrich Corporation.
The A350 XWB will feature a 1,268 kW (1,700 shp) Honeywell HGT1700 auxiliary power unit,[90] which has 10% greater power density than the previous generation of Honeywell's 331 APU family. Honeywell will also supply the air management system: the bleed air, environmental control, cabin pressure control and supplemental cooling systems.[97] The ram-air turbine will be supplied by Hamilton Sundstrand and will be located in the lower surface of the fuselage.[98] The generator requirement for the ram air turbine is 100 kVA compared to 150 kVA for the A380.
Parker will also provide hydraulic power generation and distribution system: reservoirs, manifolds, accumulators, thermal control, isolation, software and new engine- and electric motor-driven pump designs. Parker estimates the contracts will generate more than US$2 billion (€1.5 billion or £1 billion) in revenues over the life of the programme.[99]
Mock-up of the A350 nose gear at ILA 2012
Airbus devised a three-pronged main undercarriage design philosophy encompassing both four- and six-wheel bogies to ensure it can keep the pavement loading within limits. The A350-800 and A350-900 will both have four-wheel bogies, although the -800's will be slightly shorter to save weight. Both will fit in the same 4.1 m (13 ft) long bay. The proposed higher weight variant, the A350-1000 (and the A350-900R, which is being proposed to British Airways, with -900 size but with sufficient fuel capacity to allow nonstop London-Sydney flights) will use a six-wheel bogey, with a 4.7 m (15 ft) undercarriage bay.[101] French-based Messier-Dowty will provide the main undercarriage for the -800 and -900 variant, and UTC Aerospace Systems will supply the -1000 variant.. The nose gear will be supplied by Liebherr-Aerospace.[102]
A350 variants
There are three variants of the A350 and all were launched in 2006.[103][104] In July 2012, the A350-900 is scheduled to enter service in the second half of 2014;[70] then the -800 in mid-2016, and -1000 in 2017.[69][105] All variants are also to be offered as corporate jets by wholly owned subsidiary Airbus Executive and Private Aviation.
The -800's fuselage is 10 frames shorter (six forward and four aft) than the -900 aircraft. The baseline -800 will be offered with an MTOW of 248 t (550,000 lb), MLW of 190 t (420,000 lb), MZFW of 178 t (390,000 lb), and 330 kN (74,000 lbf) thrust engines. An optional 11-tonne (24,000 lb) increase in MTOW, to 259 t (570,000 lb) with a corresponding increase of MZFW to 181 t (400,000 lb), MLW to 193 t (430,000 lb), and a higher thrust 370 kN (83,000 lbf) engine (common with -900 engine thrust) was announced by Airbus in April 2010 to be made available for customers as an option. While the increased weights compensate for the increased empty weight of the aircraft and associated minor fuel burn penalty due to maintaining commonality with -900, it also resulted in an increase in the aircraft maximum structural payload capability by 3 t (6,600 lb), or 459 km (248 nmi) of additional range.[107][108] As development continues, Airbus plans to decrease structural weight in the -800, which should be around airframe 20.[109]
The -900R and -900F variants also have been proposed but not yet launched. These are to feature the higher engine thrust, strengthened structure and undercarriage of the -1000.[111] Range of the "standard" A350-900R was estimated to 17,600 km (9,500 nmi), which would be boosted to about 19,100 km (10,315 nmi) by these design improvements to compete with the Boeing 777-200LR and be capable of non-stop flight from London-Heathrow to Auckland. The -900 is designed to compete with the Boeing 777-200ER and replace the Airbus A340-300. The -900R was expected to enter service in 2016.[112]
The A350-1000 will feature a slightly larger wing than the -800/900 models; a trailing-edge extension increasing its area by 4%. This will extend the high-lift devices and the ailerons, making the chord bigger by around 400 mm, optimising flap lift performance as well as cruise performance.[103]
Source: Airbus orders data as of October 2012[update][114]
Source: Airbus orders data as of October 2012[update][114]
Sources: Airbus,[83][113][116] Flight Global[118]
The A350 was originally conceived as a variant of the A330 with few changes, to compete with the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and the larger Boeing 777. The design was unanimously rejected by prospective customers and Airbus was forced to revise their initial proposal, but airlines voiced support for a complete overhaul. The eventual proposal incorporated major changes, which Airbus says will be more fuel-efficient, with up to 8% lower operating cost than the Boeing 787.[5]
The redesigned A350 was marketed by Airbus as the A350 XWB, where the XWB stands for Extra Wide Body. The launch customer for the A350 is Qatar Airways, which ordered 80 aircraft across the three variants.[6] Development costs are projected to be €12 billion (US$15 billion or £10 billion).[7] The airliner is scheduled to enter airline service in mid 2014.[2] As of 20 January 2012[update], 561 orders had been placed.[8]
Contents[hide] |
Development
Early designs
When Boeing announced their Boeing 787 Dreamliner programme, the company said that the lower operating costs of the 787 would make it a serious threat to the Airbus A330. In public announcements, Airbus initially rejected this claim, stating that the 787 was just a reaction to the A330, and that no response was needed for the 787. Airlines pushed Airbus to provide a competitor, as Boeing had committed the 787 to have 20% lower fuel consumption than the Boeing 767.Airbus initially proposed the A330-200Lite, a simple derivative of the A330, which would feature improved aerodynamics and engines similar to those on the 787.[9] The company planned to announce this version at the 2004 Farnborough Airshow, but did not proceed.[9] On 16 September 2004, then-Airbus president and CEO Noël Forgeard confirmed the consideration of a new project during a private meeting with prospective customers.[9] Forgeard did not give a project name, and he did not state whether it would be an entirely new design or a modification of an existing product. The airlines were not satisfied, and Airbus committed €4 billion to a new airliner design.[9] The original version of the A350 superficially resembled the A330 due to its common fuselage cross-section and assembly. A new wing, engines and a horizontal stabiliser were to be coupled with new composite materials and production methods applied to the fuselage to make the A350 an almost all-new aircraft.[9] On 10 December 2004, the boards of EADS and BAE Systems, then the shareholders of Airbus, gave Airbus an "authorisation to offer (ATO)", and formally named it the A350.[9][10]
On 13 June 2005 at the Paris Air Show, Middle Eastern carrier Qatar Airways announced that they have placed an order for 60 A350s. In September 2006 the airline signed an memorandum of understanding with General Electric to launch the GEnx-1A-72 for the aircraft.[11][12][13] Emirates decided against placing an order for the initial version of the A350 because of weaknesses in the design,[14][15] but has since ordered A350 XWBs.[16]
On 6 October 2005, full industrial launch of the programme was announced with an estimated development cost of around €3.5 billion.[9] This version of the A350 was planned to be a 250- to 300-seat twin-engine wide-body aircraft derived from the design of the existing A330. Under this plan, the A350 would have modified wings and new engines, while sharing the same fuselage cross-section as its predecessor. As a result of a controversial design, the fuselage was to consist primarily of Al-Li, rather than the carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) fuselage on the 787. It was to see entry in two versions: the A350-800 capable of flying 8,800 nmi (16,300 km) with typical passenger capacity of 253 in 3-class configuration and the 300-seat (3-class) A350-900 with 7,500 nmi (13,900 km) range. It was designed to be a direct competitor to the 787-9, and 777-200ER.[9]
Airbus faced almost immediate criticism on the A350 project from the heads of two of their largest customers, International Lease Finance Corporation (ILFC) and GE Capital Aviation Services (GECAS). On 28 March 2006, in the presence of hundreds of top airline executives, ILFC President Steven F. Udvar-Hazy lambasted Airbus' strategy in bringing to market what they saw as "a Band-aid reaction to the 787", a sentiment that was echoed by GECAS president Henry Hubschman. Udvar-Hazy called on Airbus to bring a clean-sheet design to the table, or risk losing most of the market to Boeing.[17][18] Several days later Chew Choon Seng, then CEO of Singapore Airlines (SIA), made a similar comment: "Having gone to the trouble of designing a new wing, tail, cockpit" and adding advanced new materials, Airbus "should have gone the whole hog and designed a new fuselage."[19] At the time, SIA was reviewing bids for the 787 and A350. Airbus responded by stating they were considering improvements for the A350 to satisfy customer demands.[20] At the same time, Airbus' then-CEO Gustav Humbert suggested that there would be no quick fixes: "Our strategy isn't driven by the needs of the next one or two campaigns, but rather by a long-term view of the market and our ability to deliver on our promises."[21]
Redesign and launch
Consequent to that criticism, in mid-2006 Airbus undertook a major review of the A350 concept. The proposed new A350 with a wider fuselage cross-section has become more of a competitor to the larger Boeing 777 likewise to some models of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. The new A350 fuselage allows 10-abreast high-density seating configuration.[22][23] The A330 and previous iterations of the A350 would only be able to accommodate eight passengers per row in normal configurations. The 787 can accommodate 8 or 9 passengers per row, while the 777 can accommodate nine passengers per row, with some airlines using ten-abreast seating. The A350 cabin is 12.7 cm (5.0 in) wider at the eye level of a seated passenger than the competing 787,[24] and 28 cm (11 in) narrower than the Boeing 777, its other competitor. (See Wide-body aircraft for a comparison of cabin widths and seating.) All A350 passenger models will have a range of at least 8,000 nmi (15,000 km).
On 1 December 2006 the Airbus board of directors approved the industrial launch of the A350-800, -900 and -1000.[27][28] The delayed decision on formal launch was a result of delays of the Airbus A380[29] and discussions about how the development would be funded. EADS CEO Thomas Enders stated that the A350 programme was not a certainty, citing EADS/Airbus' stretched resources.[30][31] However, it was decided programme costs are to be borne mainly from cash-flow. First delivery for the -900 was scheduled for mid-2013, with the -800 and -1000 following on, respectively, 12 and 24 months later.[27] At a 4 December 2006 press conference, a few new technical details of the A350 XWB design were revealed, but no new customers were identified. John Leahy indicated existing A350 contracts were under re-negotiation due to increases in prices compared to the original A350s contracted. On 4 January 2007, Airbus announced that Pegasus Aviation Finance Company had placed the first firm order for the A350 XWB with an order for two aircraft.[32]
The change to the XWB design imposed a two-year delay into the original timetable and almost doubled development costs from $5.3 billion to approximately $10 billion (£4.9 billion to £9.5 billion or €5.5 billion to €9.7 billion).[33][34] The total development cost for the A350 was estimated at $15 billion by Reuters (€12 billion or £10 billion).[35] Although the mid-2013 delivery date of the A350 remains unchanged, longer than anticipated development activities for the aircraft have forced Airbus to delay the final assembly and first flight of the aircraft to the third quarter of 2011 and second quarter of 2012 respectively. As such, flight testing will be compressed from the original 15 months to a 12-month schedule. A350 programme chief Didier Evrard stressed that the delays only affect the A350-900 and that the A350-800 and A350-1000 schedules remain unchanged.[36] On 12 November 2010, EADS CFO Peter Ring stated that the delivery date had slipped from mid-2013 to the second half of that year. Ring said the major reason for the schedule change is that the "transition phase from design to manufacturing is a bit longer."[37]
Design phase
A critical component of the all-new airliner are the engines. Rather than the bleedless configuration used on the Boeing 787, Airbus has confirmed that it will further develop a full bleed air system on the engines.[43][44][45] Rolls-Royce has agreed with Airbus to supply a new variant of the Trent engine for the A350 XWB, currently called the Trent XWB. After the low-speed wind tunnel test, Airbus froze the static thrust at sea level for all three proposed variants in the 330–420 kN (74,000–94,000 lbf) range.[46] In June 2007, Rolls-Royce announced that it had signed its biggest ever contract with Qatar Airways for the Trent XWB to power 80 A350 XWBs on order from Airbus worth $5.6 billion at list prices.[citation needed]
General Electric (GE) has stated it will not offer the GP7000 engine on the aircraft, and that previous contracts for the GEnx on the original A350 did not apply to the XWB.[47] Engine Alliance partner Pratt & Whitney seems to be at odds with GE on this, publicly stating that it is looking at an advanced derivative of the GP7000.[48] In April 2007, Airbus former chief executive Louis Gallois held face-to-face talks with senior GE management over developing a new variant of the GEnx engine for the A350 XWB.[49][50] In June 2007, Airbus' Chief Operating Officer John Leahy indicated that the A350 XWB will not feature the GEnx engine, saying that Airbus wants GE to offer a more efficient version for the new Airbus airliner.[51] Since then, largest GE engines operators Emirates, US Airways, Hawaiian Airlines and ILFC have selected the Trent XWB for their A350 orders. In May 2009, GE said that if it reaches a deal with Airbus to offer the current 787-optimised GEnx for the A350, it will only power the -800 and -900 variants. GE believes it can offer a product that outperforms the Trent 1000 and Trent XWB, but has been reluctant to support an airframe that competes directly with its GE90-115B-powered 777 variants.[52]
In January 2008, French-based Thales Group won the US$2.9 billion (€2 billion) 20-year contract to supply avionics and navigation equipment for the A350 XWB. Thales competed against Honeywell and Rockwell Collins for the flight deck supply contract.[53] US-based Rockwell Collins and Moog Inc were chosen to supply the horizontal stabiliser actuator and primary flight control actuation, respectively. The flight management system will include several new safety features.[54]
Regarding cabin ergonomics and entertainment, in 2006 Airbus had signed a firm contract with BMW for development of an interior concept for the original A350.[55] On 4 February 2010, Airbus signed a contract with Panasonic Avionics Corporation to deliver in-flight entertainment and communication (IFEC) systems for the Airbus A350 XWB.
Production and testing
The A350 XWB production programme sees extensive international collaboration and investments in new facilities. According to Flight Global, Airbus constructed 10 new factories across Western Europe and the US, with extensions carried out on 3 further sites.[56] Among the new buildings was a £570 million (US$760 million or €745 million) composite facility in Broughton, Wales, which would be responsible for the wings.[57] In June 2009, the National Assembly for Wales announced provision of a £28 million grant to provide a training centre, production jobs and money toward the new production centre.[58] Another new construction facility was the composite rudder plant in China, which was opened in early 2011.[59][60]Airbus planned to introduce new techniques and procedures to cut assembly time in half.[61] Airbus manufactured the first structural component in December 2009.[62] Production of the first fuselage barrel began in late 2010 at its production plant in Illescas, Spain.[63][64] Construction of the first A350-900 centre wingbox was set to start in August 2010.[65]
The flight-test programme of the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB is to begin using the A380 development aircraft in early 2011, ahead of engine certification at the end of 2011. The first engine test on the Trent was made in June 2010.[66] The forward fuselage of the first A350 aircraft was delivered to the factory on 29 December 2011.[67] The final assembly of the first A350 static test model was started on 5 April 2012.[68]
In June 2011, the A350-900 was scheduled to enter service in the first half of 2014, with the -800 to enter service in mid-2016, and the -1000 in 2017.[69] In July 2012, Airbus delayed the -900's entry date by three months into the second half of 2014.[70]
Design
In September 2007, Airbus rolled out new design advances to a gathering of 100 representatives from existing and potential XWB customers. The A350 XWB will be built on the technologies developed for Airbus A380 and will have a similar cockpit and fly-by-wire systems layout.[71] The A350 XWB will be made out of 53% composites, 19% Al/Al-Li, 14% titanium, 6% steel and 8% miscellaneous.[72] This compares to the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, which consists of 50% composites, 20% aluminium, 15% titanium, 10% steel and 5% other.[73] October 2008 was the Airbus internal goal to freeze the design and Airbus expects 10% lower airframe maintenance cost and 14% lower empty seat weight than competing aircraft.[74]Airbus says that the new design provides a better cabin atmosphere with 20% humidity level during flight and typical cabin altitude at or below 6,000 ft (1,800 m), pressurisation at 6,000 ft (1,800 m) and flow management system that adapts cabin airflow to passenger load with draught-free air circulation.[5] Airbus is aiming to certify the A350 with 350 min ETOPS capability upon service entry.[75]
Fuselage
Wings
The A350 will feature new all-composite wings that will be common to the three proposed variants.[82] With an area of 443 m2 (4,770 sq ft)[83] it will be the largest wing ever produced for a single-deck widebody aircraft.[76] The geometric wingspan of 64.8 m (213 ft)[83] is 4.5 m (15 ft) greater than that of the A330. This is the same span as the long-range Boeing 777-200LR/777-300ER, which has slightly less area.[84] The wing tip will not sport Airbus' traditional wingtip fences, but instead will curve upwards over the final 4.4 metres (14 ft) in a "sabre-like" shape.[76] The new wing will have 31.9° of sweep,[83] helping to increase typical cruise speed to Mach 0.85 and maximum operating speed to Mach 0.89.A new trailing-edge high-lift system has been adopted with an advanced dropped-hinge flap (similar to that of the A380), which permits the gap between the trailing edge and the flap to be closed with the spoiler.[85] The manufacturer has extensively used computational fluid dynamics and also carried out more than 4,000 hours of low- and high-speed windtunnel testing to refine the aerodynamic design,[86] achieving the final configuration of wing and winglet on the "Maturity Gate 5" on 17 December 2008.[87]
The wings are produced in the new £400M/46,000 square metres (500,000 sq ft) North Factory at Airbus Broughton, employing 650 workers, in a specialist facility constructed with £29M of support from the Welsh Assembly Government.[88]
Nose
Cockpit and avionics
The revised design of the cockpit dropped the A380-sized display and adopted 38 cm (15 in) LCD screens. The new six-screen configuration will have two central displays mounted one above the other (the lower one above the thrust levers) and a single (for each pilot) primary flight/navigation display, with an adjacent on-board information system screen.[92] Airbus says the new cockpit will allow advances in navigation technology to be placed on the displays in the future plus flexibility and capacity to upload new software and to combine data from multiple sources and sensors for flight management and aircraft systems control.[93] The A350 XWB will also feature a head-up display.The avionics will be a further development of the integrated modular avionics (IMA) concept found on the A380. The A350's IMA will manage up to 40 functions (versus 23 functions for the A380) such as undercarriage, fuel, pneumatics, cabin environmental systems, and fire detection.[90][94] Airbus says benefits will include reduced maintenance and lower weight because IMA replaces multiple processors and LRUs with around 50% fewer standard computer modules known as line-replaceable modules. The IMA runs on a 100-Mbit/s network based on the avionics full-duplex (AFDX) standard, already employed in the A380 instead of the architecture used on the A330/A340.
Powerplant
The Trent XWB family has two basic engines to power the three A350 variants. The baseline 370 kN (83,000 lbf) thrust version for the A350-900 will be derated to 330 kN (74,000 lbf) and 350 kN (79,000 lbf) for the -800, while an upgraded 432 kN (97,000 lbf) thrust version will power the A350-1000. The higher rating engine version will have some modifications to the fan module - it will be the same diameter but will run slightly faster and have a new fan blade design - and increased temperatures allowed by new materials technologies from Rolls-Royce's research.[95] The basic 248 t MTOW -800 will be offered with a 330 kN (74,000 lbf) sea-level-thrust rating, while the 279 t MTOW option will have 350 kN (79,000 lbf) thrust. Airbus also plans to offer a 'hot and high' rating option for Middle Eastern launching customers Qatar Airways, Emirates, and Etihad. This option has an increased thrust of 350 kN (79,000 lbf) at higher altitudes and temperatures.The Trent XWB will feature a 300-centimetre (118 in) fan diameter and the design will be based on the advanced developments of the Trent 900 (Airbus A380) and Trent 1000 (Boeing 787). The Trent XWB may also benefit from the next-generation reduced acoustic mode scattering engine duct system (RAMSES), which is a noise-dampening engine nacelle intake and a carry-on design of the Airbus's "zero splice" intake liner developed for the A380.[96] Engine thrust-reversers and nacelles will be supplied by US-based Goodrich Corporation.
The A350 XWB will feature a 1,268 kW (1,700 shp) Honeywell HGT1700 auxiliary power unit,[90] which has 10% greater power density than the previous generation of Honeywell's 331 APU family. Honeywell will also supply the air management system: the bleed air, environmental control, cabin pressure control and supplemental cooling systems.[97] The ram-air turbine will be supplied by Hamilton Sundstrand and will be located in the lower surface of the fuselage.[98] The generator requirement for the ram air turbine is 100 kVA compared to 150 kVA for the A380.
Fuel and hydraulic systems
Parker Hannifin will supply the complete fuel package: inerting system, fuel measurement and management systems, mechanical equipment and fuel pumps. The fuel tank inerting system will feature air-separation modules to generate nitrogen-enriched air that will be used to reduce the flammability of fuel vapour in the tanks.Parker will also provide hydraulic power generation and distribution system: reservoirs, manifolds, accumulators, thermal control, isolation, software and new engine- and electric motor-driven pump designs. Parker estimates the contracts will generate more than US$2 billion (€1.5 billion or £1 billion) in revenues over the life of the programme.[99]
Undercarriage
Airbus adopted a new philosophy for the attachment of the A350’s main undercarriage as part of the switch to a composite wing structure. Each main undercarriage leg is attached to the rear wing spar forward and to a gear beam aft, which itself is attached to the wing and the fuselage. To help reduce the loads further into the wing, a double side-stay configuration has been adopted. This solution resembles the design of the Vickers VC10.[100]Airbus devised a three-pronged main undercarriage design philosophy encompassing both four- and six-wheel bogies to ensure it can keep the pavement loading within limits. The A350-800 and A350-900 will both have four-wheel bogies, although the -800's will be slightly shorter to save weight. Both will fit in the same 4.1 m (13 ft) long bay. The proposed higher weight variant, the A350-1000 (and the A350-900R, which is being proposed to British Airways, with -900 size but with sufficient fuel capacity to allow nonstop London-Sydney flights) will use a six-wheel bogey, with a 4.7 m (15 ft) undercarriage bay.[101] French-based Messier-Dowty will provide the main undercarriage for the -800 and -900 variant, and UTC Aerospace Systems will supply the -1000 variant.. The nose gear will be supplied by Liebherr-Aerospace.[102]
Variants
A350-800
The A350-800 will seat 270 passengers in a 3-class with a 9-abreast layout. It will have a range of 15,400 km (8,300 nmi).[83] It is designed to compete with the Boeing 787-9 and to directly replace the Airbus A330-200. In January 2010 Airbus announced that the -800 would be developed as a simple shrink of the -900, incorporating minor changes to the systems and structure and share more hardware with the -900 rather than as an optimised variant as was previously planned. This increased commonality will allow a higher maximum takeoff weight, which will increase the range (or payload) of the A350-800 compared to initial plans. The change will increase fuel burn by "a few per cent", according to the programme's marketing head, Sophie Pendaries.[106]The -800's fuselage is 10 frames shorter (six forward and four aft) than the -900 aircraft. The baseline -800 will be offered with an MTOW of 248 t (550,000 lb), MLW of 190 t (420,000 lb), MZFW of 178 t (390,000 lb), and 330 kN (74,000 lbf) thrust engines. An optional 11-tonne (24,000 lb) increase in MTOW, to 259 t (570,000 lb) with a corresponding increase of MZFW to 181 t (400,000 lb), MLW to 193 t (430,000 lb), and a higher thrust 370 kN (83,000 lbf) engine (common with -900 engine thrust) was announced by Airbus in April 2010 to be made available for customers as an option. While the increased weights compensate for the increased empty weight of the aircraft and associated minor fuel burn penalty due to maintaining commonality with -900, it also resulted in an increase in the aircraft maximum structural payload capability by 3 t (6,600 lb), or 459 km (248 nmi) of additional range.[107][108] As development continues, Airbus plans to decrease structural weight in the -800, which should be around airframe 20.[109]
A350-900
The A350-900 is the first A350 model and seats 314 passengers in a 3-class cabin 9-abreast layout. It has a standard design range target of 15,000 km (8,100 nmi). Airbus says that the A350-900 will have a decrease of 16% MWE per seat, a 30% decrease in block fuel per seat and 25% better cash operating cost than the Boeing 777-200ER.[110]The -900R and -900F variants also have been proposed but not yet launched. These are to feature the higher engine thrust, strengthened structure and undercarriage of the -1000.[111] Range of the "standard" A350-900R was estimated to 17,600 km (9,500 nmi), which would be boosted to about 19,100 km (10,315 nmi) by these design improvements to compete with the Boeing 777-200LR and be capable of non-stop flight from London-Heathrow to Auckland. The -900 is designed to compete with the Boeing 777-200ER and replace the Airbus A340-300. The -900R was expected to enter service in 2016.[112]
A350-1000
The A350-1000 has an 11-frame stretch over the -900[103] and will enter service after the -800. It is the largest variant of the A350 family and will seat 350 passengers in a 3-class cabin 9-abreast layout.[113] It will have range of 15,600 km (8,400 nmi). It is designed to compete with the Boeing 777-300ER and replace the Airbus A340-600.The A350-1000 will feature a slightly larger wing than the -800/900 models; a trailing-edge extension increasing its area by 4%. This will extend the high-lift devices and the ailerons, making the chord bigger by around 400 mm, optimising flap lift performance as well as cruise performance.[103]
Orders and deliveries
Main article: List of Airbus A350 orders
As of October 2012[update], 34 customers have placed 562 firm orders for the A350 XWB.[114]
| A350-800 | A350-900 | A350-1000 | Total firm orders |
| 112 | 362 | 88 | 562 |
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | Total | |
| Net orders | 20 | 330 | 133 | 22 | 78 | -28 | 7 | 562 |
| Deliveries | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Specifications
Specifications are preliminary until design is finished.| Model | A350-800[106] | A350-900 | A350-900R[115] | A350-900F[115] | A350-1000 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cockpit crew | Two | ||||
| Seating, typical | 270 (3-class) 276–312 (2-class) 440 (maximum) | 314 (3-class) 315–366 (2-class) 475 (maximum) | - | 350 (3-class) 369–412 (2-class) 550 (maximum) | |
| Overall length | 60.54 m (198.6 ft) | 66.89 m (219.5 ft) | 73.88 m (242.4 ft) | ||
| Wingspan | 64.8 m (213 ft) | ||||
| Wing area | 443 m2 (4,770 sq ft) | ~460 m2 (5,000 sq ft) | |||
| Wing sweepback | 31.9° | ||||
| Overall height | 17.05 m (55.9 ft) | ||||
| Fuselage width | 5.96 m (19.6 ft) | ||||
| Fuselage height | 6.09 m (20.0 ft) | ||||
| Cabin width | 5.61 m (18.4 ft)[116] | ||||
| Maximum takeoff weight | 259 t (571,000 lb) | 268 t (591,000 lb) | 298 t (657,000 lb) | 308 t (679,000 lb) | |
| Maximum landing weight[108] | 193 t (425,000 lb) | 205 t (452,000 lb) | 233 t (514,000 lb) | ||
| Maximum zero fuel weight[108] | 181 t (399,000 lb) | 192 t (423,000 lb) | 220 t (485,000 lb) | ||
| Manufacturer's empty weight | 115.7 t (255,074.8 lb)[117] | ||||
| Maximum cargo capacity | 28 LD3 or 9 pallets | 36 LD3 or 11 pallets | 90 t (198,000 lb) | 44 LD3 or 14 pallets | |
| Cruise speed | Mach 0.85 (903 km/h, 561 mph, 487 knots, at 40,000 ft/12.19 km) | ||||
| Maximum cruise speed | Mach 0.89 (945 km/h, 587 mph, 510 knots, at 40,000 ft/12.19 km) | ||||
| Maximum range (with passengers and baggage)[108] | 15,700 km (8,480 nmi) | 15,000 km (8,100 nmi) | 19,100 km (10,300 nmi) | 9,250 km (4,990 nmi) Maximum cargo payload | 15,600 km (8,420 nmi) |
| Maximum fuel capacity | 129,000 l (34,100 US gal) | 138,000 l (36,500 US gal) | 156,000 l (41,200 US gal) | ||
| Service ceiling | 43,100 ft (13.1 km) | ||||
| Engines (2×) | RR Trent XWB | ||||
| Maximum thrust capability | 79,000 lbf (351 kN) | 84,000 lbf (374 kN) | 93,000 lbf (414 kN) | 93,000 lbf (414 kN) | 97,000 lbf (431 kN) |
See also
- Related development
- Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era
- Related lists
Notes
References
- ^ "First flyable A350 XWB "MSN1" structurally complete". Airbus. 4 December 2012. http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/news-events-single/detail/first-flyable-a350-xwb-msn-001-structurally-complete/.
- ^ a b "Airbus advances towards first flight of A350 twinjet". Flight International. 23 Oct 2012. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-advances-towards-first-flight-of-a350-twinjet-377959/.
- ^ "German Airbus A350 XWB Production commences" (Press release). Airbus S.A.S.. 31 August 2010. http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/news-events-single/detail/german-airbus-a350-xwb-production-commences/. Retrieved 23 May 2011.
- ^ a b c "New pricelist 2012". Airbus.com. 19 January 2012. http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/news-events-single/detail/new-airbus-aircraft-list-prices-for-2012/. Retrieved 19 Januari 2012.
- ^ a b c "Taking the lead: A350XWB presentation". EADS. December 2006. Archived from the original on 27 March 2009. http://web.archive.org/web/20090327094646/http://www.eads.com/xml/content/OF00000000400004/7/19/41508197.pdf.
- ^ "Airbus Orders & Deliveries: Airbus 350". Airbus. http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/backstage/documents/orders_deliveries_table/Airbus_-_OrdersDeliveries_-_April_2011.xls. Retrieved 1 July 2011.
- ^ "15 bln U.S dollars for Airbus A350". Reuters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdpxatVG_mU&feature=channel. Retrieved 1 July 2011.
- ^ "Airbus orders and deliveries" (pdf). Airbus S.A.S. 20 January 2012. http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/corporate-information/key-documents/?eID=dam_frontend_push&docID=19650. Retrieved 20 January 2012.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Gunston 2009, p. 253
- ^ "Airbus to launch Boeing 7E7 rival." BBC News. 10 December 2004
- ^ "Qatar signs MoU to launch GEnx on A350". Flight International. 14 September 2005. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2005/09/14/201549/qatar-signs-mou-to-launch-genx-on-a350.html. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
- ^ "Airbus unleashes A350 for long-range twin dogfight". Flight International. 15 June 2005. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2005/06/15/199582/airbus-unleashes-a350-for-long-range-twin-dogfight.html. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
- ^ "A350 lifts off with $15bn Qatar". flightglobal.com
- ^ Brierley, David (18 June 2006). "Pressure mounts following attack by Emirates". The Independent (London). http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/pressure-mounts-following-attack-by-emirates-404436.html. Retrieved 23 May 2011.
- ^ "Airbus settling on wider fuselage, composite wing as it nears A350 revamp decision". ATW Online
- ^ van Leeuwen, Marcel (11 November 2007). "Emirates Airline buys 70 Airbus A350s and 11 additional A380s". Aviationnews.eu. Archived from the original on 5 July 2011. http://www.aviationnews.eu/2007/11/11/emirates-airline-buys-70-airbus-a350s-and-11-additional-a380s/. Retrieved 23 May 2011.
- ^ Gates, D. "Airplane kingpins tell Airbus: Overhaul A350." Seattle Times, 29 March 2006
- ^ Hamilton, S. "Redesigning the A350: Airbus’ tough choice." Leeham Company
- ^ Michaels, D. and Lunsford, J. L. "Singapore Airlines Says Airbus Needs to Make A350 Improvements." The Wall Street Journal, 7 April 2006
- ^ "Criticism prompts Airbus to study options, CEO says." Rothman, A. Bloomberg News, 11 April 2006.
- ^ "Airbus Considering Improvements to A350".[dead link] Associated Press, 10 April 2006.
- ^ a b "Onboard well-being". Airbus S.A.S.. http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a350xwbfamily/onboard-well-being/. Retrieved 23 May 2011.
- ^ Kingsley-Jones, Max (19 May 2008). "PICTURE: 10-abreast A350 XWB 'would offer unprecedented operating cost advantage'". Flight International. Archived from the original on 21 May 2011. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/05/19/223853/picture-10-abreast-a350-xwb-would-offer-unprecedented-operating-cost-advantage.html. Retrieved 24 May 2011.
- ^ "Airbus - A350 XWB Xtra comfort". Archived from the original on 5 February 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20080205041546/http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a350/comfort.html.
- ^ Gunston 2009, p. 254
- ^ "Singapore Airlines Orders 20 Airbus A350 XWB-900s and 9 Airbus A380s". Businesswire.com. 21 July 2006. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20060721005272/en/Singapore-Airlines-Orders-20-Airbus-A350-XWB-900s. Retrieved 23 May 2011.
- ^ a b "A350 XWB Family receives industrial go-ahead" (Press release). Airbus S.A.S.. 1 December 2006. http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/news-events-single/detail/a350-xwb-family-receives-industrial-go-ahead/. Retrieved 23 May 2011.
- ^ "Airbus Gets OK to Compete with Boeing 787". Chicago Sun-Times via Aircraft Maintenance Technology. 21 December 2006.
- ^ Norris, Guy and Max Kingsley-Jones (2 October 2006). "A380 delay puts brakes on A350 XWB formal launch at Airbus". Flight International. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/10/02/209601/a380-delay-puts-brakes-on-a350-xwb-formal-launch-at.html. Retrieved 23 May 2011.
- ^ Dinkloh, Peter (5 October 2006). "Airbus May Stop Work on Its A350 Plane, FT Deutschland Says". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on 4 June 2011. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aYeQTI21_ZDY&refer=germany. Retrieved 23 May 2011.
- ^ "CEO Streiff says A350 programme essential, but EADS board to decide".[dead link] Forbes. 5 October 2006
- ^ "Pegasus orders A350 XWBs, A330-200s". ATWonline.com. 5 January 2007. http://atwonline.com/aircraftenginescomponents/news/pegasus-orders-a350-xwbs-a330-200s-0309. Retrieved 22 May 2011.
- ^ "Airbus Unveils New A350 to Take on Boeing's 787." Bloomberg. 17 July 2006
- ^ "Airbus A350 Cost Rises to $15.4 Billion on Composites." Bloomberg. 4 December 2006
- ^ [1] Reuters
- ^ Robert Wall. "Airbus Delays A350 Final Assembly Start". Aviation Week. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aviationdaily&id=news/avd/2010/04/20/05.xml&headline=Airbus%20Delays%20A350%20Final%20Assembly%20Start. Retrieved 1 July 2011.
- ^ A350 schedule slips but Airbus still aiming for 2013 entry
- ^ Norris, Guy (8 May 2006). "Airline criticism of Airbus A350 forces airframer to make radical changes to fuselage, wing and engines". Flight International. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/05/08/206441/airline-criticism-of-airbus-a350-forces-airframer-to-make-radical-changes-to-fuselage-wing-and.html. Retrieved 24 May 2011.
- ^ "Airbus rolls out XWB design revisions". Flight International, September 2001
- ^ "Airbus is at a crossroads on A350 design says ILFC". Flight International, March 2006.
- ^ "Metallic strips will ensure electrical continuity in A350 carbon". Flight International, September 2007
- ^ "PICTURE: Airbus builds 'physical mock-up' of XWB fuselage to avoid A380 mistakes". Flight International. Archived from the original on 3 May 2010. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/30/341328/picture-airbus-builds-physical-mock-up-of-xwb-fuselage-to-avoid-a380-mistakes.html. Retrieved 30 May 2010.
- ^ "Steinke, S. "Airbus Unveils A350 XWB". Flug Revue. September 2006.
- ^ "Farnborough: Airbus A350 powerplant race ignites as Rolls-Royce reaches agreement to supply Trent". Flight International, July 2006.
- ^ Patent 20090277445: System For Improving Air Quality In An Aircraft Pressure Cabin AIRBUS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
- ^ "R-R prepares to ground-test Trent XWB ahead of A380 trials next year".
- ^ Thomas, Geoffrey (8 March 2007). "No GP7000 for A350 XWB-1000". atwonline.com. http://atwonline.com/aircraftenginescomponents/news/no-gp7000-a350-xwb-1000-0309. Retrieved 23 May 2011.
- ^ Doyle, Andrew (20 February 2008). "Singapore 2008: Pratt & Whitney pushes GP7000 as alternative A350 XWB engine". Flight International. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/02/20/221701/singapore-2008-pratt.html. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
- ^ Norris, Guy. "GEnx variant may yet power A350". Flight International, 24 April 2007.
- ^ Norris, Guy (20 April 2007). "Airbus lobbies General Electric to offer GEnx for A350 XWB". Flight International. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/04/20/213347/airbus-lobbies-general-electric-to-offer-genx-for-a350.html. Retrieved 27 May 2011.
- ^ "Airbus Says No To GEnx For A350 XWB". Aero-news.net. 7 June 2007. http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=191ded2c-3425-4c2f-987a-c4a4d0adfced. Retrieved 23 May 2011.
- ^ Ostrower, Jon (7 May 2009). "GE revives interest in A350 engine ahead of 787 flight test". Flight International. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/05/07/326164/ge-revives-interest-in-a350-engine-ahead-of-787-flight.html.
- ^ "Airbus selects Thales for A350 XWB cockpit avionics". Flight International January 2008
- ^ "A350 cockpit offers unprecedented suite of safety tools". Flight International. 2010. Archived from the original on 13 July 2010. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/07/06/344106/a350-cockpit-offers-unprecedented-suite-of-safety-tools.html. Retrieved 18 July 2010.
- ^ "BMW to design parts of Airbus A350 model, reportedly aircraft cabins". Forbes. 5 January 2006. http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2006/01/05/afx2430232.html. Retrieved 23 May 2011.
- ^ Kingsley-Jones, Max (13 February 2009). "Airbus and partners gear up for A350 production". Flight International. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/02/13/322311/airbus-and-partners-gear-up-for-a350-production.html. Retrieved 27 May 2011.
- ^ "Airbus invest in A350 XWB wing line". Flight International. 30 March 2007. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/03/30/212959/airbus-invests-in-a350-xwb-wing-line.html. Retrieved 26 May 2011.
- ^ "£28 m investment at Airbus factory". BBC News. 19 June 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/8107292.stm. Retrieved 23 May 2011.
- ^ Kaminski-Morrow, David (1 March 2011). "Airbus opens A350 composite rudder plant in China". Flight International. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/01/353740/airbus-opens-a350-composite-rudder-plant-in-china.html. Retrieved 3 June 2011.
- ^ "Airbus inaugurates Chinese facilities to produce A350 XWB components". Reinforcedplastics.com. 14 March 2011. http://www.reinforcedplastics.com/view/16584/airbus-inaugurates-chinese-facilities-to-produce-a350-xwb-components/. Retrieved 3 June 2011.
- ^ Kingsley-Jones, Max (12 June 2008). "Streamlined build plan will cut A350 XWB assembly time in half". Flight International. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/06/12/224611/streamlined-build-plan-will-cut-a350-xwb-assembly-time-in.html. Retrieved 3 June 2011.
- ^ Derber, Alex (4 December 2009). "PICTURE: Airbus manufactures first structural component for A350". Flight International. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/12/04/335826/picture-airbus-manufactures-first-structural-component-for-a350.html.
- ^ "Airbus in Spain begins production of A350 XWB components" (Press release). Airbus S.A.S.. 24 September 2010. http://www.airbus.com/no_cache/newsevents/news-events-single/detail/airbus-in-spain-begins-production-of-a350-xwb-components/archived-features/. Retrieved 27 May 2011.
- ^ Blachly, Linda (8 December 2010). "Airbus begins production of A350 XWB’s first fuselage barrel". http://atwonline.com/eco-aviation/news/airbus-begins-production-a350-xwb-s-first-fuselage-barrel-1207. Retrieved 26 May 2011.
- ^ Kingsley-Jones, Max (29 July 2010). "Airbus aims to finally start assembling first A350 centre wingbox in August". Flight International. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/07/29/345481/airbus-aims-to-finally-start-assembling-first-a350-centre-wingbox-in.html. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
- ^ Flight Global website
- ^ First Airbus A350 Hitches A Ride To the Factory. Wired.com
- ^ "Airbus starts final assembly of first A350 XWB" (Press release). Airbus S.A.S.. 5 April 2012. http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/news-events-single/detail/airbus-starts-final-assembly-of-first-a350-xwb/. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
- ^ a b "PARIS: A350-1000 delayed to 2017 as Rolls raises XWB thrust"
- ^ a b "Airbus delays A350 XWB entry as EADS profits triple". BBC
- ^ First ever microcutaway of Airbus' A350 XWB, Drawing Flightglobal
- ^ " Airbus to start manufacturing parts for new A350 XWB in late ’09". Engineering News online, 11 May 2009
- ^ "787 Dreamliner: Program Fact Sheet". Boeing. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/programfacts.html.
- ^ Taking the lead: A350XWB presentation[dead link] EADS
- ^ Kaminski-Morrow, David (8 January 2008). Flight International. Airbus studying 350min ETOPS for A350 at service entry. Retrieved 23 May 2011.
- ^ a b c Gunston 2009, p. 257
- ^ "Specifications Airbus A330-200". Airbus S.A.S.. http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/a330a340/a330-200/specifications/. Retrieved 23 May 2011.
- ^ Airbus unveils mock up XWB cabin Flight International September 2007
- ^ Guru, Seat. "American Airlines 9 across 777 Economy Seat Map". TripAdvisor. http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/American_Airlines/American_Airlines_Boeing_777-200_A.php. Retrieved 11/8/12.
- ^ Advisor, Trip. "United 787-800 Seat Map". Seat Guru. http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/United_Airlines/United_Airlines_Boeing_787-800.php.
- ^ Guru, Seat. "Emirates 777-300 seat map (10 across economy)". TripAdvisor. http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Emirates_Airlines/Emirates_Airlines_Boeing_777-300_3class.php. Retrieved 11/8/12.
- ^ "Why new wing is key A350 XWB". Flight International, 12 December 2006
- ^ a b c d e "A350-800 specifications". Airbus S.A.S.. http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a350xwbfamily/a350-800/specifications/. Retrieved 18 May 2012.
- ^ "Technical Characteristics – Boeing 777-200LR and 777-300ER". Boeing. Archived from the original on 24 May 2011. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_lrproduct.html. Retrieved 24 May 2011.
- ^ "Airbus A350 wing aerodynamics advance". Flight International, May 2007
- ^ "PICTURES: Airbus refines A350 aerodynamic configuration". Flight International, June 2008
- ^ Kingsley-Jones, Max (20 January 2009). "Airbus prepares for A350 production following definition freeze". Flight International. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/01/20/321112/airbus-prepares-for-a350-production-following-definition.html. Retrieved 23 May 2011.
- ^ "Airbus opens A350 wing factory at Broughton, Flintshire". BBC News. 13 October 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-15275906.
- ^ "Airbus confirms switch to A380 style nose for A350 XWB". Flight International, September 2007
- ^ a b c Gunston 2009, p. 258
- ^ "A350 could have composite nose". Flight International, December 2006
- ^ "Airbus reveals all new A350 XWB flightdeck design". Flight International, September 2007
- ^ "A350 avionics to expand on A380 system". Flight International, July 2007
- ^ "A350 avionics to expand on A380 systems". Flight International, July 2007
- ^ Kingsley-Jones, Max (29 April 2010). "R-R prepares to ground-test Trent XWB ahead of A380 trials next year". Flight International. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/29/341141/r-r-prepares-to-ground-test-trent-xwb-ahead-of-a380-trials-next.html.
- ^ "Airbus A350 XWB set to be quietest generation of airliner as manufacturer improves zero splice". Flight International, January 2007
- ^ "Honeywell wins first contract to supply systems for Airbus A350 XWB". Flight International, September 2007
- ^ "Hamilton Sundstrand to supply Ram Air Turbine for A350 XWB"
- ^ "Parker wins $2 billion system contract for the A350". Flight International, January 2008
- ^ Airbus adopts VC-10 undercarriage concept for A350 XWB. Flight International, May 2007
- ^ Extended range A350-900R adopts -1000 six-wheel-gear. Flight International, March 2007
- ^ "Messier-Dowty Confirmed as A350 XWB Main Gear Supplier". Flight International, December 2007
- ^ a b c Airbus opts for larger wing on A350-1000 through trailing edge extension FlightGlobal.com. Retrieved 6 May 2010
- ^ Aircraft Profile: Airbus A350. FlightGlobal.com. Retrieved 25 December 2008.
- ^ La mise en service de l'A350-800 et l'A350-1000 désormais prévue en 2016 et 2017. latribune.fr
- ^ a b "Qatar Airways backs Airbus rethink on A350-800 design". Flight International. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/01/15/337132/qatar-airways-backs-airbus-rethink-on-a350-800-design.html. Retrieved 30 May 2010.
- ^ Airbus focuses on family commonality as it begins A350-800 detailed design FlightGlobal.com. Retrieved 6 May 2010
- ^ a b c d Flight International 4–10 May 2010 Page 10 "A350-800 takes centre stage"
- ^ Kingsley-Jones, Max (30 July 2010). "Airbus works to introduce lighter A350 structure with -800 variant". Flight International. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/07/30/345444/airbus-works-to-introduce-lighter-a350-structure-with-800.html. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
- ^ John Leahy presentation at Paris Le Bourget 2007 Air Show. Airbus
- ^ "Extended range A350-900R adopts -1000 six-wheel-gear". Flight International, March 2007
- ^ "The Market for Large Commercial Jet Transports 2011-2020". Forecast International, July 2011.
- ^ a b "A350-1000 specifications". Airbus S.A.S.. http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a350xwbfamily/a350-1000/specifications/. Retrieved 18 May 2012.
- ^ a b c d Orders and Deliveries page, Orders and Deliveries spreadsheet. Airbus, October 2012. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
- ^ a b Airbus A350 XWB[dead link] EADS
- ^ a b "A350-900 specifications". Airbus S.A.S.. http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a350xwbfamily/a350-900/specifications/. Retrieved 18 May 2012.
- ^ Kingsley-Jones, Max (10 June 2008). "A350 weight growth will result in 1% fuel penalty: Airbus". Flight International. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/06/10/224578/a350-weight-growth-will-result-in-1-fuel-penalty-airbus.html. Retrieved 24 May 2011.
- ^ Kingsley-Jones, Max (12 December 2006). "Airbus's A350 vision takes shape – Flight takes an in-depth look at the new twinjet". Flight International. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/12/12/211028/airbuss-a350-vision-takes-shape-flight-takes-an-in-depth-look-at-the-new.html. Retrieved 24 May 2011.
- Gunston, Bill (2009). Airbus: The Complete Story. Sparkford, Yeovil, Somerset, UK: Haynes Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84425-585-6.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)