VB3-01355
The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because paragraph 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act bars appeals from RPD decisions where the claimant came from a designated country (the United States) and the claim is eligible under the regulations; the appellant came directly from the United...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- VB3-01355
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 11 July 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Appeal / Notice of Appeal Filed; Appeal Heard in Chambers; Decision on Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Safe Third Country, Appealability, Regulatory Designation
- 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 / Notice of Appeal Filed; Appeal Heard in Chambers; Decision on Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Refugee Appeal Division has jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to hear this appeal
- 2 Whether arrival from a designated country (United States) combined with regulatory eligibility bars an appeal under s.110(2)(d)
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because paragraph 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act bars appeals from RPD decisions where the claimant came from a designated country (the United States) and the claim is eligible under the regulations; the appellant came directly from the United States and was eligible under the regulations, therefore no appeal lies to the RAD.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : VB3-01355 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 Appeal considered / heard at Vancouver, BC Appel instruit à In Chambers Date of decision July 11, 2013 Date de la décision Panel Douglas Fortney Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) Adriana A. Hernandez Pineda Conseil(s) du (de la/des) the subject of the appeal personne(s) en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister Chris Bott Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Refugee Appeal Division (the "RAD") received a Notice of Appeal on June 11, 2013 from the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (the "RPD") in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the "appellant"). The Notice of Appeal indicated that the appellant received the RPD reasons on May 31, 2013. The appellant is a national of Honduras. [2] 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").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)(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 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" Douglas Fortney July 11, 2013 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : VB3-01355 RAD.25.02 (April 9, 2013)