MB6-02303
Because the United States was a designated country on the day the claims were made, the appellants arrived from the United States and their claims were eligible to be referred under the Regulations, s.110(2)(d) IRPA precluded any appeal to the RAD; accordingly the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- MB6-02303
- Parties
- Appellants / Persons Who Are the Subjects of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX et al.; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 10 May 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Appeal Before Refugee Appeal Division; Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Jurisdiction, Safe Third Country Designation, Eligibility to Be Referred to the Refugee Protection Division
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
XXXX XXXX XXXX et al.
Appellants / Persons Who Are the Subjects of the Appeal
Minister (Canada)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Appeal Before Refugee Appeal Division; Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA
- 2 Whether the appellants came directly or indirectly from a designated country (United States) on the day their claims were made
- 3 Whether the claims were eligible to be referred under the Regulations, thereby triggering the statutory bar to appeal
Ratio Decidendi
Because the United States was a designated country on the day the claims were made, the appellants arrived from the United States and their claims were eligible to be referred under the Regulations, s.110(2)(d) IRPA precluded any appeal to the RAD; accordingly the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB6-02303 MB6-02304 MB6-02305 MB6-02306 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision Motifs et décision Persons who are the subjects of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of decision May 10, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Normand Leduc Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subjects of the appeal Me Odette Desjardins Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] On May 2, 2016, the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) received a notice of appeal against the decision rendered by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim for refugee protection filed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX [2] The persons who are the subject of the appeal are appealing against the RPD decision dated April 25, 2016. The written reasons rejecting the claim for refugee protection are deemed to have been received on May 2, 2016 [3] The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because no appeal may be made in respect of this RPD decision pursuant to paragraph 110(2)(d) of the amended Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which states: 110. (2) No appeals may be made in respect of any of the following:: (d) subject to the regulations, a decision of the Refugee Protection Division in respect of a claim for refugee protection if (i) the foreign national who makes the claim came directly or indirectly to Canada from a country that is, on the day on which their claim is made, designated by regulations made under subsection 102(1) and that is a party to an agreement referred to in paragraph 101(2)(d), and (ii) the claim - by virtue of regulations made under paragraph 102(1)(c) - is not ineligible under paragraph 101(1)(e) to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division. [4] On the day on which the claim for refugee protection was made, the United States was a country designated by regulations and a party to an agreement referred to in paragraph 102(2)(d). [5] The appellants in this case arrived directly from the United States, but their claim for refugee protection was nonetheless eligible to be referred under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA, the RPD decision may not be appealed to the RAD. [6] The appeal is dismissed. Normand Leduc Normand Leduc May 10, 2016 Date IRB translation Original language: French RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB6-02303 MB6-02304 MB6-02305 MB6-02306 3 RAD.25.02 (2014.09.11) Disponible en français