TB6-11420
The RAD lacks jurisdiction because paragraph 110(2)(d) IRPA expressly bars appeals from RPD decisions on refugee claims where the claimant came from a country designated under s.102(1) that is a party to the agreement in s.102(2)(d) (the United States) and the claim was eligible under the regulations; the person...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- TB6-11420
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 12 October 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Jurisdiction, Statutory Bar to Appeal S.110(2)(d) IRPA, Designated Country/regulations Under S.102 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 / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under paragraph 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
- 2 Whether the claimant came from a country designated under subsection 102(1) and was eligible under the regulations such that s.110(2)(d) bars appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The RAD lacks jurisdiction because paragraph 110(2)(d) IRPA expressly bars appeals from RPD decisions on refugee claims where the claimant came from a country designated under s.102(1) that is a party to the agreement in s.102(2)(d) (the United States) and the claim was eligible under the regulations; the person came directly from the United States and was eligible, so no appeal lies.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Orders
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; no appeal permitted under paragraph 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
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. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-11420 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 October 12, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Deborah Morrish Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Daniel L. Winbaum 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 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 (the "person"). [2] The Notice of Appeal was received by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) on August 26, 2016. The person is appealing a decision of the RPD with notice of decision dated August 9, 2016 and for which written reasons were received on August 12, 2016 rejecting her 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 for which no appeal may be made under paragraph 110(2)(d) of the amended Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). This paragraph 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 IRPA is the United States. The person 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 IRPA, no appeal may be made in respect of the RPD's decision. [5] Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Deborah Morrish" Deborah Morrish October 12, 2016 Date RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-11420