TB4-06028
Because the appellants came from the United States, a country designated under the regulations and party to the agreement referred to in s.102(2)(d), and their claims were nonetheless eligible under the regulations, s.110(2)(d) IRPA precludes an appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division; therefore the RAD lacked...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- TB4-06028
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXX; Appellant: XXXXX XXXX XX; Appellant: XX XXXXXXXX X; Appellant: XXX XXXX XXXXX; Appellant: XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 14 July 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Protection Appeal / Notice of Appeal Received; Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Appealability, Safe Third Country Designation
- 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 XXX
Appellant
XXXXX XXXX XX
Appellant
XX XXXXXXXX X
Appellant
XXX XXXX XXXXX
Appellant
XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Appellant
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Notice of Appeal Received; Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Refugee Appeal Division has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under s.110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
- 2 Application of the designated country/safe third country rule where claimants came from the United States
- 3 Effect of regulations under ss.101 and 102 of IRPA on appealability
Ratio Decidendi
Because the appellants came from the United States, a country designated under the regulations and party to the agreement referred to in s.102(2)(d), and their claims were nonetheless eligible under the regulations, s.110(2)(d) IRPA precludes an appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division; therefore the RAD lacked jurisdiction and the appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Orders
- Appeal 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 : TB4-06028 TB4-06029 TB4-06030 TB4-06031 TB4-06032 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXX XXXXX XXXX XX XX XXXXXXXX X XXX XXXX XXXXX XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision July 14, 2014 Date de la décision Panel Ken Atkinson Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Abdus Samad Howlader 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, XXXX XXXX XXXXn, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXXand XXXX XXXX XXXX. [2] The Notice of Appeal was received by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) on July 2, 2014. The persons are appealing a decision of the RPD dated June 25, 2014, with written reasons received on June 30, 2014, rejecting 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. The appellants in this case came directly from the United States 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. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Ken Atkinson" Ken Atkinson July 14, 2014 Date RAD.25.02 (April 9, 2013) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB4-06028 TB4-06029 TB4-06030 TB4-06031 TB4-06032