VB5-02190
Because the appellant came directly from the United States, which is the only country designated under the regulations and party to the agreement in paragraph 102(2)(d), and the appellant's claim was eligible by virtue of the regulations, paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA precludes any appeal to the RAD; consequently...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- VB5-02190
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Government of Canada)
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 30 July 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (notice of Appeal Received July 24, 2015 From RPD Decision Dated July 2, 2015)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under paragraph 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Appealability, Designated Countries, Safe Third Country Agreement, Eligibility
- 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 XXXX
Appellant
Minister (Government of Canada)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (notice of Appeal Received July 24, 2015 From RPD Decision Dated July 2, 2015)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction to hear the appeal under section 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
- 2 Whether an appellant who came directly from the United States but is eligible under regulations may have an appeal to the RAD
Ratio Decidendi
Because the appellant came directly from the United States, which is the only country designated under the regulations and party to the agreement in paragraph 102(2)(d), and the appellant's claim was eligible by virtue of the regulations, paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA precludes any appeal to the RAD; consequently the RAD lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed.
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; RAD has no authority to hear the appeal under paragraph 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 No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : VB5-02190 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Appeal considered at Appel instruit à Date of decision July 30, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) Craig Costantino Conseil(s) du (de la/des) the subject of the appeal personne(s) en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant€ désigné€ Counsel for the Minister Octavia Davidson Conseil du inister REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Refugee Appeal Division (the "RAD") received on July 24, 2015 a Notice of Appeal from the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (the "RPD") in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, also known as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(the "appellant"), a national of Lebanon. [2] According to RAD records, the appellant is appealing the Notice of Decision of the RPD dated July 2, 2015. [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" or "IRPA").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)€ - is not ineligible under paragraph 101(1)€ 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 appellant 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 Act, no appeal may be made in respect of the RPD's decision. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Douglas Fortney" July 30, 2015 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : VB5-02190