TB4-01331
Because the appellant came directly from the United States, which is a designated country party to the agreement, and the claim was eligible under the regulations, s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA precludes any appeal of the Refugee Protection Division decision; therefore the RAD lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- TB4-01331
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX)
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 26 February 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) IRPA
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Jurisdiction, Designated Country, Safe Third Country Agreement, S.110(2)(d) IRPA
- 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 XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX)
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division 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 IRPA when the claimant came from a designated country (USA) and the claim was eligible under the regulations
- 2 Whether a decision of the Refugee Protection Division in such circumstances is appealable
Ratio Decidendi
Because the appellant came directly from the United States, which is a designated country party to the agreement, and the claim was eligible under the regulations, s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA precludes any appeal of the Refugee Protection Division decision; therefore the RAD lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) IRPA
Orders
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under 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 : TB4-01331 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX) Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of Decision February 26, 2014 Date de la décision Panel Ken Atkinson Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal N/A 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 FOR DECISION [1] The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) received a Notice of Appeal from the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX. [2] According to the Notice of Appeal, the person is appealing a decision of the RPD dated January 17, 2014 with written reasons received on January 24, 2014 rejecting the claim for refugee protection. [3] The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the appeal is in respect of a decision by the RPD from 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 the IRPA is the United States of America (USA). The Appellant in this case came directly from the USA but was nonetheless eligible to make a claim by virtue of the regulations. According to paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA, no appeal may be made in respect of the RPD's decision. [5] Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. (signed) 'Ken Atkinson' Ken Atkinson February 26, 2014 Date RAD.25.02 (April 9, 2013) Disponible en français RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB4-01331