TB4-04307
The RAD lacks jurisdiction because the appellant came directly from the United States, which is a country designated under the regulations and party to the agreement in s.102(2)(d), and the claim was eligible under the regulations; therefore s.110(2)(d) bars an appeal of the RPD decision.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- TB4-04307
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 23 May 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Refugee Appeal Division Consideration — Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Jurisdiction, Safe Third Country Agreement, Eligibility, 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
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Refugee Appeal Division Consideration — Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA
- 2 Whether arrival from a designated country (USA) combined with eligibility under regulations precludes an appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The RAD lacks jurisdiction because the appellant came directly from the United States, which is a country designated under the regulations and party to the agreement in s.102(2)(d), and the claim was eligible under the regulations; therefore s.110(2)(d) bars an appeal of the RPD decision.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB4-04307 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of Decision May 23, 2014 Date de la décision Panel Ken Atkinson Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal Ronald Poulton Barrister & 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] 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 XXXX ('appellant') on May 9, 2014. . [2] According to the Notice of Appeal, the appellant is appealing a decision of the RPD dated April 11, 2014, with written reasons received on May 5, 2014, rejecting the 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 from which no appeal may be made under s. 110(2)(d) of the amended Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). 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 IRPA is the United States of America (USA). The appellant in this case came directly from the USA but was nonetheless eligible to make a claim by virtue of the regulations. According to paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA, no appeal may be made in respect of the RPD's decision. [5] Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Ken Atkinson" Ken Atkinson May 23, 2014 Date RAD.25.02 (April 9, 2013) Disponible en français RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB4-04307