MB6-06381
Because the claimant arrived from the United States (a designated country) and the claim was nonetheless eligible under the Regulations (owing to a sister in Canada with permanent resident status), s.110(2)(d) IRPA precludes an appeal to the RAD and therefore the RAD lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- MB6-06381
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 3 November 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal Filed; Tribunal Determined Lack of Jurisdiction Under S.110(2)(d) IRPA
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Appealability, Jurisdiction, Safe Third Country/designated Country, Eligibility Under Regulations
- 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 to Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal Filed; Tribunal Determined Lack of Jurisdiction Under S.110(2)(d) IRPA
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) IRPA to hear an appeal from an RPD decision where the claimant came from a designated country (United States)
- 2 Whether the claimant's file was eligible under the Regulations despite arrival from a designated country due to a family member in Canada with permanent resident status
Ratio Decidendi
Because the claimant arrived from the United States (a designated country) and the claim was nonetheless eligible under the Regulations (owing to a sister in Canada with permanent resident status), s.110(2)(d) IRPA precludes an appeal to the RAD and therefore the RAD lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
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. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB6-06381 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision - Motifs et décision Appellant(s) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Appelant(s) Appeal considered/heard at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of decision November 3, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Normand Leduc Tribunal Appelant's counsel Me Alfredo Garcia Conseil de l'appelant (des appelants) 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] On October 21, 2016, the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) received a notice of appeal regarding the decision rendered by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim for refugee protection filed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [2] The person who is the subject of the appeal is appealing against the RPD decision dated October 4, 2016, rejecting the claim for refugee protection. The written reasons are deemed to have been received on October 11, 2016. [3] The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it concerns an RPD decision that is not subject to appeal under paragraph 110(2)(d) of the amended Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which 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] At the time 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). [5] In this case, the person who is the subject of the appeal arrived directly from the United States, but her refugee protection claim was nevertheless eligible under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. It was demonstrated, in particular, that the sister of the person who is the subject of the appeal lives in Canada and has permanent resident status here. [6] Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA, the RPD decision may not be appealed to the RAD. [7] The appeal is dismissed. Normand Leduc Normand Leduc November 3, 2016 Date IRB translation Original language: French RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB6-06381 3