TB4-09591
The RAD dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the appellants came directly from the United States, which is the only country designated under the relevant regulations and party to the referenced agreement, and their claims were eligible under those regulations; accordingly s.110(2)(d) bars an appeal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- TB4-09591
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a.XXXX XXXX XXXX); Appellant: XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX); Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 23 October 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Appealability Under IRPA S.110(2)(d), Safe Third Country Designation (usa)
- 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)
Appellant
XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX)
Appellant
XXXX XXXX XXXX
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Refugee Appeal Division has jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s.110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
- 2 Whether appellants who came from the United States are barred from appealing because the USA is a designated country under the relevant regulations
Ratio Decidendi
The RAD dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the appellants came directly from the United States, which is the only country designated under the relevant regulations and party to the referenced agreement, and their claims were eligible under those regulations; accordingly s.110(2)(d) bars an appeal from the RPD decision.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR :TB4-09591 TB4-09592 TB4-09593 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et decision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a.XXXX XXXX XXXX) XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision October 23, 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 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 claims of XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. [2] The Notice of Appeal was received by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) on October 8, 2014. The persons are appealing a decision and written reasons of the RPD received on September 23, 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 (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) "Ken Atkinson" Ken Atkinson October 23, 2014 Date RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB4-09591 TB4-09592 TB4-09593