TB5-02833
RAD lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because s.110(2)(d) of IRPA bars appeals from RPD decisions where the claimant came from a designated country (the United States) and the claim was not rendered ineligible under paragraph 101(1)(e) by regulations; the appellants came from the USA and were eligible under the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- TB5-02833
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 27 March 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Jurisdiction Appeal Dismissed
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Legal Topics
- Appealability, Jurisdiction, Designated Country Provisions Under S.102, Ineligibility Under S.101(1)(e)
- 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
Appellant
XXXX XXXX XXXX
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Jurisdiction Appeal Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under s.110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
- 2 Whether the designation of the United States under s.102 and related regulations bars appeals to the RAD
- 3 Whether the applicants' claims were ineligible under paragraph 101(1)(e)
Ratio Decidendi
RAD lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because s.110(2)(d) of IRPA bars appeals from RPD decisions where the claimant came from a designated country (the United States) and the claim was not rendered ineligible under paragraph 101(1)(e) by regulations; the appellants came from the USA and were eligible under the regulations, therefore no appeal lies.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to s.110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-02833 TB5-02834 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision March 27, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Deborah Morrish Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Brian Ibrahim Cintosun Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du (de la) ministre REASONS AND DECISION [1] The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) received a Notice of Appeal from the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claims of XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. [2] The Notice of Appeal was received by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) on March 18, 2015. The persons are appealing a decision of the RPD dated with written reasons received on March 6, 2015 their claims for refugee protection. [3] The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the appeal is in respect of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division for which no appeal may be made under s.110(2)(d) of the amended Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). This section states the following: 110. (2) No appeal 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 102(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] The only country that is designated by regulation and party to an agreement under paragraph 102(2)(d) of IRPA is the United States of America (USA). The appellants in this case came directly from the USA but were nonetheless eligible to make a claim by virtue of the regulations. Therefore, under paragraph 110(2)(d) of IRPA, no appeal may be made in respect of the RPD's decision. [5] Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Deborah Morrish" Deborah Morrish March 27, 2015 Date RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-02833 TB5-02834