VB6-03057
Because the appellants came directly from the United States, which is the designated country under the regulations and party to the relevant agreement, and their claim was eligible under the regulations, paragraph 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act precludes any appeal to the RAD; therefore the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- VB6-03057
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 23 September 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Notice of Appeal Received; Appeal Considered by RAD and Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under paragraph 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Appeal Barred Under S.110(2)(d) IRPA, Safe Third Country/designated Country
- 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 and XXXX XXXX XXXX
Appellant
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Notice of Appeal Received; Appeal Considered by RAD and Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under paragraph 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
- 2 Whether the appellants came from a country designated under subsection 102(1) and party to an agreement under paragraph 102(2)(d)
- 3 Whether the appellants were eligible under the regulations such that paragraph 110(2)(d) bars an appeal
Ratio Decidendi
Because the appellants came directly from the United States, which is the designated country under the regulations and party to the relevant agreement, and their claim was eligible under the regulations, paragraph 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act precludes any appeal to the RAD; therefore the RAD lacks jurisdiction and the appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under paragraph 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 : VB6-03057 / 8 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Appeal considered at Vancouver, BC Appel instruit à Date of decision September 23, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) Dalwinder S. Hayer 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 R. Macklin Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Refugee Appeal Division (the "RAD") received on September 8, 2016 a Notice of Appeal from the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (the "RPD") in the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX (the "appellants"), nationals of Bangladesh. [2] According to RAD records, the appellants are appealing the Notice of Decision of the RPD dated August 22, 2016. [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 paragraph 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 paragraph 102(2)(d) of the Act is the United States. 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 the Act, no appeal may be made in respect of the RPD's decision. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Douglas Fortney" September 23, 2016 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : VB6-03057 / 8