VB4-01557
Because the appellant came directly from the United States, the only country designated under the relevant regulations, and was nonetheless eligible to make a claim by virtue of the regulations, subsection 110(2)(d) of the Act precludes an appeal to the RAD; accordingly the RAD lacked jurisdiction and the appeal was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- VB4-01557
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 10 June 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Jurisdictional Decision; Appeal Dismissed
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under subsection 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Appealability Under S.110(2)(d), Safe Third Country/designated Country, Regulatory Eligibility
- Source Language
- en
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
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Jurisdictional Decision; Appeal Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction to hear the appeal under subsection 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
- 2 Whether the appellant came from a country designated under subsection 102(1)/102(2)(d) and was nonetheless eligible under the regulations
- 3 Whether an appeal must be dismissed where s.110(2)(d) applies
Ratio Decidendi
Because the appellant came directly from the United States, the only country designated under the relevant regulations, and was nonetheless eligible to make a claim by virtue of the regulations, subsection 110(2)(d) of the Act precludes an appeal to the RAD; accordingly the RAD lacked jurisdiction and the appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under subsection 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
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. / N° de dossier de la SAR : VB4-01557 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause the subject of the appeal Appeal considered / heard at Appel instruit à Date of decision June 10, 2014 Date de la décision Panel Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) Satnam S. Aujla Conseil(s) du (de la/des) the subject of the appeal personne(s) en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister O. Davidson Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Refugee Appeal Division (the "RAD") received on May 22, 2014, a Notice of Appeal from the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (the "RPD") in the claim of XXXX XXXX (the "appellant"). [2] According to RAD records, the appellant is appealing the Notice of Decision of the RPD dated May 7, 2014. [3] The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the appeal is in respect of a decision by the RPD for which no appeal may be made under subsection 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the "Act").1 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 subsection 102(2)(d) of the Act is the United States. The appellant in this case came directly from the United States but was nonetheless eligible to make a claim by virtue of the regulations. Therefore, under paragraph 110(2)(d) of the Act, no appeal may be made in respect of the RPD's decision. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Douglas Fortney" June 10, 2014 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : VB4-01557