VB4-01264
The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the appellant arrived from the United States, which was a designated country on the day the claim was made, and the claim was eligible to be referred under the Regulations; therefore IRPA s.110(2)(d)(i) bars appeals to the RAD from the RPD decision.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- VB4-01264
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 6 May 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under IRPA s.110(2)(d)(i).
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Designated Country/safe Third Country, Appealability Under IRPA S.110(2)(d)(i)
- 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 Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the RPD decision rejecting the refugee claim is appealable to the RAD under IRPA s.110(2)(d)(i) where the claimant arrived from the United States
- 2 Whether the claim was eligible to be referred under the Regulations such that the appeal bar in s.110(2)(d)(i) applies
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the appellant arrived from the United States, which was a designated country on the day the claim was made, and the claim was eligible to be referred under the Regulations; therefore IRPA s.110(2)(d)(i) bars appeals to the RAD from the RPD decision.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under IRPA s.110(2)(d)(i).
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : VB4-01264 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, B.C. Appel instruit à Date of decision May 6, 2014 Date de la décision Panel Douglas Fortney Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) Me Omer Malonga 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 Virginie Francoeur Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) received a notice of appeal regarding a decision rendered by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim for refugee protection filed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the appellant). [2] The RAD received the notice of appeal on April 22, 2014. The person who is the subject of the appeal is appealing the RPD decision dated March 6, 2014, rejecting the claims for refugee protection. The written reasons for this decision were deemed to have been received on March 11, 2014. [3] The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the appeal deals with an RPD decision that is not subject to appeal, pursuant to subparagraph 110(2)(d)(i) of the amended Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which reads as follows: 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] On the day on which the claim for refugee protection was made, the United States was a country designated by regulations and a party to an agreement referred to in paragraph 102(2)(d). The appellant in this case arrived directly from the United States, but his claim for refugee protection was nevertheless eligible to be referred under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. Therefore, in accordance with subparagraph 110(2)(d)(1) of the IRPA, the RPD decision may not be appealed to the RAD. [5] Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Douglas Fortney" May 6, 2014 Date IRB Translation Original Language: French RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : VB4-01264