MB6-07154
The RAD lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the appellant arrived from the United States, which was a designated country at the time of the claim, and the claim was eligible to be referred under the Regulations, bringing the RPD decision within the s.110(2)(d) bar.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- MB6-07154
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 22 December 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal Received; Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Appealability, Safe Third Country Designation, Referral Eligibility
- 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 Immigration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal Received; Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether RAD has jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) of IRPA to hear appeal of RPD decision
- 2 Whether claimant arrived from a designated country (United States) at time of claim
- 3 Whether claim was eligible to be referred under the Regulations making it not appealable
Ratio Decidendi
The RAD lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the appellant arrived from the United States, which was a designated country at the time of the claim, and the claim was eligible to be referred under the Regulations, bringing the RPD decision within the s.110(2)(d) bar.
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 : MB6-07154 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision - Motifs et décision Appellant(s) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Appelant(e)(s) Appeal considered / heard at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of decision December 22, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Normand Leduc Tribunal Counsel for the appellant(s) Me Manuel Centurion Conseil(s) du (de la/des) Appelant(e)(s) Designated representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du (de la) Ministre RAD.25.02 (April 9, 2013) Disponible en français REASONS FOR DECISION [1] On November 18, 2016, 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. [2] The person who is the subject of the appeal is appealing the RPD decision dated October 19, 2016, rejecting the claim for refugee protection. The written reasons are deemed to have been received on October 26, 2016. [3] The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the appeal deals with 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: 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] The appellant in this case arrived directly from the United States, but his refugee protection claim was nevertheless eligible to be referred under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA, the RPD decision may not be appealed to the RAD. CONCLUSION [6] The appeal is dismissed. Normand Leduc Normand Leduc December 22, 2016 Date IRB translation Original language: French RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB6-07154 2 RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB6-07154 3