TB3-05891

Because the appellants came to Canada from the United States, a designated safe third country, and their claims are eligible, s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA precludes any appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division; exemptions under Article 4 of the STCA, s.101(1)(e) and Regulation 159.4 affect eligibility to file a claim with the RPD but do not restore a right of appeal to the RAD.

Citation: TB3-05891
Parties: Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court: Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 21 July 2015
Procedural Posture: Refugee Appeal / Redetermination/de Novo Hearing Following Federal Court Remand
Outcome: Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Legal Topics: Safe Third Country, Right of Appeal, Jurisdiction of RAD, Eligibility Under S.101(1)(e)
Source Language: English

Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Safe Third Country Right of Appeal Jurisdiction of RAD Eligibility Under S.101(1)(e)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Redetermination/de Novo Hearing Following Federal Court Remand

Legal Issues

1 Whether appellants are precluded from appealing to the RAD under s.110(2)(d) IRPA because they came to Canada from the United States as a designated safe third country
2 Whether exemptions in Article 4 of the Safe Third Country Agreement, s.101(1)(e) IRPA and Regulation 159.4 affect a claimant's right to appeal to the RAD or only the claimant's eligibility to file a claim

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

Orders

Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) IRPA