TB3-05622
Because the appellants came directly from the United States, the sole designated country under the regulations, and remained eligible to make a claim by regulation, s.110(2)(d) IRPA precludes any appeal to the RAD; accordingly the appeals must be dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- TB3-05622
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 27 September 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal (reasons Delivered)
- Outcome
- Appeals dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Appealability, Safe Third Country Designation, Section 110(2)(d) IRPA
- 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
XXXX XXXX XXXX
Appellant
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal (reasons Delivered)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether s.110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act bars an appeal where the claimant came from a country designated under s.102(1) (the United States) but was nonetheless eligible by regulation to make a claim
- 2 Whether the Refugee Appeal Division has jurisdiction to set aside the RPD decision and refer the matter for redetermination
Ratio Decidendi
Because the appellants came directly from the United States, the sole designated country under the regulations, and remained eligible to make a claim by regulation, s.110(2)(d) IRPA precludes any appeal to the RAD; accordingly the appeals must be dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeals dismissed
Orders
- Appeals dismissed
- RPD decision dated July 31, 2013 stands; matter not referred for redetermination
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB3-05622 TB3-05623 TB3-05624 TB3-05625 TB3-05626 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision September 27, 2013 Date de la décision Panel Edward Bosveld Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Dov Maierovitz Barrister and Solicitor 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 (de la) ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellants) appeal a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting their claims for refugee protection. Their claims were heard by the RPD on May 7, 2013 and June 20, 2013, and denied in a decision and reasons dated July 31, 2013. The Appellants ask the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to set aside that decision and refer the matter for redetermination by a differently-constituted panel of the RPD. [2] Section 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) provides that: 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 o (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; [3] 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 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 IRPA, no appeal may be made in respect of the RPD's decision. [4] These appeals are dismissed. (signed) "Edward Bosveld" Edward Bosveld September 27, 2013 Date RAD.25.02 (April 9, 2013) Disponible en français RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB3-05622 TB3-05623 TB3-05624 TB3-05625 TB3-05626