VB4-02856
Because the appellant came directly from the United States, which is the designated country under the relevant regulations, and the claim was nonetheless eligible under those regulations, subsection 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act bars any appeal to the RAD from the RPD decision; therefore...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- VB4-02856
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 28 October 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under subsection 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Safe Third Country, Appealability
- 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 Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction under subsection 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to hear an appeal from an RPD decision where the claimant came from a designated country and the claim is eligible under the regulations.
Ratio Decidendi
Because the appellant came directly from the United States, which is the designated country under the relevant regulations, and the claim was nonetheless eligible under those regulations, subsection 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act bars any appeal to the RAD from the RPD decision; therefore 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 : VB4-02856 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 at Appel instruit à Date of decision October 28, 2014 Date de la décision Panel Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is (are) Lori O'Reilly Conseil(s) du (de la/des) the subject of the appeal personne(s) en cause Counsel for the Minister Tony Osterling Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Refugee Appeal Division (the "RAD") received on September 25, 2014, a Notice of Appeal from the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (the "RPD") in the claim of XXXX XXXX (the "appellant"). The appellant is a national of Nigeria. [2] According to RAD records, the appellant is appealing the Notice of Decision of the RPD dated September 4, 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. [5] Therefore, under subsection 110(2)(d) of the Act, no appeal may be made in respect of the RPD's decision. The appeal is dismissed. (signed) October 28, 2014 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : VB4-02856