MB6-02983
Because the appellants arrived directly from the United States, which was a designated country on the day of their claims, and their claims were eligible to be referred to the RPD under the Regulations, s.110(2)(d) IRPA prohibited appeal to the RAD; therefore the RAD lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- MB6-02983
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 13 June 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) IRPA
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Appealability Under S.110(2)(d) IRPA, Safe Third Country Designation, Eligibility to Be Referred to RPD
- 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
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 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 s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA when claimants arrived from a designated country (United States)
- 2 Whether the claim was eligible to be referred to the RPD under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, thereby triggering s.110(2)(d) bar to appeal
Ratio Decidendi
Because the appellants arrived directly from the United States, which was a designated country on the day of their claims, and their claims were eligible to be referred to the RPD under the Regulations, s.110(2)(d) IRPA prohibited appeal to the RAD; therefore the RAD lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) IRPA
Orders
- The appeal is 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 : MB6-02983 MB6-02984 MB6-02985 MB6-02986 MB6-02987 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision Motifs et décision Persons who are the subjects of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of decision June 13, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Normand Leduc Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subjects of the appeal Me Stephanie Valois Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] On June 3, 2016, the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) received a notice of appeal from the decision rendered by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim for refugee protection filed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX [2] The persons who are the subjects of the appeal are appealing the RPD decision dated May 24, 2016, rejecting the claim for refugee protection. The written reasons are deemed to have been received on June 2, 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] 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). [5] The appellants in this case arrived directly from the United States, but their claim for refugee protection was nevertheless eligible to be referred under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. Consequently, in accordance with paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA, the RPD's decision may not be appealed to the RAD. [6] The appeal is dismissed. Normand Leduc Normand Leduc June 13, 2016 Date IRB translation Original language: French RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB6-02983 MB6-02984 MB6-02985 MB6-02986 MB6-02987 3 RAD.25.02 (2014.09.11) Disponible en français