TB4-09590
The RAD lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the appellant came from a country (United States) designated under the IRPA and her claim was eligible under the regulations, bringing the appeal within the bar of s.110(2)(d) IRPA.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- TB4-09590
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 23 October 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Notice of Appeal Filed and Heard by Refugee Appeal Division; Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Appeal Bar Under S.110(2)(d) IRPA, Designated Country / Safe Third 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 Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Notice of Appeal Filed and Heard by Refugee Appeal Division; Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Refugee Appeal Division has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under s.110(2)(d) IRPA where the claimant came from a designated country (United States) but was eligible to make a claim under the regulations
Ratio Decidendi
The RAD lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the appellant came from a country (United States) designated under the IRPA and her claim was eligible under the regulations, bringing the appeal within the bar of s.110(2)(d) IRPA.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Orders
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) IRPA
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB4-09590 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 23, 2014 Date de la décision Panel Ken Atkinson Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Ashley Fisch 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 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. [2] The Notice of Appeal was received by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) on October 8, 2014. The person is appealing a decision and written reasons of the RPD received on September 29, 2014, 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 Refugee Protection Division for 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 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. 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) "Ken Atkinson" Ken Atkinson "October 23, 2014 Date RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB4-09590