TB6-05898
The RAD lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals under s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA when the appellants came from a country designated under s.102(1) that is party to the agreement referred to in s.102(2)(d) (here, the United States) and their claims are eligible under the regulations; therefore the appeals must be dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- TB6-05898
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 10 May 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Filed; RAD Dismissed Appeals for Lack of Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA
- Legal Topics
- Appealability, Safe Third Country Agreement, Jurisdiction, Eligibility Under 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 XXXX
Appellant
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Designated Representative
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Filed; RAD Dismissed Appeals for Lack of Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction to hear the appeals pursuant to s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA
- 2 Whether the appellants came from a country designated under s.102(1) that is party to an agreement referred to in s.102(2)(d)
- 3 Whether eligibility under the regulations removes the right to appeal RPD decisions
Ratio Decidendi
The RAD lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals under s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA when the appellants came from a country designated under s.102(1) that is party to the agreement referred to in s.102(2)(d) (here, the United States) and their claims are eligible under the regulations; therefore the appeals must be dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA
Orders
- Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) IRPA
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 : TB6-05898 TB6-05899 TB6-05900 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision May 10, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Luis F. Agostinho Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal N/A Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 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 claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the "Persons"). [2] The Notice of Appeal was received by the RAD on May 2, 2016. The Persons are appealing a decision of the RPD dated April 06, 2016 with written reasons received on April 18, 2016 rejecting their claims for refugee protection. [3] The appeals are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the appeals are in respect of a decision by the RPD 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 the IRPA is the United States of America (USA). The Persons in this case came directly from the USA but were nonetheless eligible to make a claim by virtue of the regulations. Therefore, under paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA, no appeal may be made in respect of the RPD's decision. [5] Therefore, the appeals are dismissed. (signed) "Luis F. Agostinho" Luis F. Agostinho May 10, 2016 Date RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR :