MB6-06935
The RAD lacks jurisdiction because paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA bars appeals where the claimant came from a designated country (the United States in this case) and the claim is eligible under the Regulations.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- MB6-06935
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 23 November 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on RAD Jurisdiction and Dismissal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA.
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Jurisdiction Under IRPA, Safe Third Country/designated Country Regime, Eligibility of Refugee Claims Under Regulations
- 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
Appellant
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on RAD Jurisdiction and Dismissal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether RAD has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA
- 2 Whether the appellant's arrival from a designated country (United States) and claim eligibility under the Regulations bars an RAD appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The RAD lacks jurisdiction because paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA bars appeals where the claimant came from a designated country (the United States in this case) and the claim is eligible under the Regulations.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA.
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB6-06935 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision - Motifs et décision Appellant(s) Appelant(s) XXXX XXXX XXXX Appeal considered/heard at Appel instruit à Montréal, Quebec Date of decision Date de la décision November 23, 2016 Panel Tribunall Normand Leduc Appelant's counsel Conseil de l'appelant (des appelants) Me Lia Cristinariu Designated representative(s) Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) N/A Counsel for the Minister Conseil du (de la) ministre N/A REASONS FOR DECISION [1] On November 10, 2016, the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) received a notice of appeal against the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) regarding the refugee protection claim filed by XXXX XXXX XXXX. [2] The person who is the subject of the appeal is appealing against the RPD decision dated October 20, 2016, for which the written reasons rejecting the refugee protection claim are deemed to have been received on October 27, 2016. [3] The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it concerns an RPD decision in respect of which no appeal may be made under paragraph 110(2)(d) of the amended Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which is worded as follows: 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] On the day on which the claim for refugee protection was made, the United States was a country designated by regulations and a party to an agreement referred to in paragraph 102(2)(d). In this case, the appellant arrived directly from the United States, but his refugee protection claim was nevertheless eligible under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. However, in accordance with paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA, no appeal may be made to the RAD in respect of the RPD decision. [5] The appeal is dismissed. Normand Leduc Normand Leduc November 23, 2016 Date IRB translation Original language: French RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB6-06935 3