TB8-14700
The appeal must be dismissed because s.110(2)(d) IRPA bars appeals from RPD decisions where the claimant came from a designated country (the United States) and the claim is eligible by regulation; the appellant came from the United States and was regulated as eligible, therefore the RAD lacked jurisdiction.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- TB8-14700
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 4 July 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Appeal Filed and Heard by Rad; Disposition on Jurisdiction Rendered July 4, 2018
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under paragraph 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Jurisdiction, Safe Third Country, Statutory Interpretation, Designated Countries
- 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 Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Appeal Filed and Heard by Rad; Disposition on Jurisdiction Rendered July 4, 2018
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Refugee Appeal Division has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA
- 2 Whether arrival from a designated country (United States) and eligibility under regulations bars an appeal to the RAD
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal must be dismissed because s.110(2)(d) IRPA bars appeals from RPD decisions where the claimant came from a designated country (the United States) and the claim is eligible by regulation; the appellant came from the United States and was regulated as eligible, therefore the RAD lacked jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under paragraph 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) IRPA
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 / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-14700 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision July 4, 2018 Date de la décision Panel Robert S. Garner Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal Michael F. Loebach Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) 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 claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX. [2] The Notice of Appeal was received by the RAD on June 19, 2018. The person who is the subject of the appeal (the "person") is appealing a decision of the RPD with a Notice dated June 13, 2018, and with written reasons deemed to be received on June 20, 2018, rejecting his 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 for which no appeal may be made under paragraph 110(2)(d) of the amended Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). This paragraph 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. The person in this case came directly from the United States but was nonetheless eligible to make a claim by virtue of the regulations. Therefore, under paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA, no appeal may be made in respect of the RPD's decision. Disposition [5] This appeal is dismissed (signed) "Robert S. Garner" Robert S. Garner July 4, 2018 Date RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-14700 RAD.25.02 (April 24, 2018) Disponible en français 3 RAD.25.02 (April 24, 2018) Disponible en français