TB7-19837
Because the appellants came directly from a country designated under the regulations (the United States) and their claim was nonetheless eligible by regulation, s.110(2)(d) IRPA removes the right of appeal to the RAD; therefore the RAD lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- TB7-19837
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 17 November 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Jurisdiction and Dismissal of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Appealability, Designated Country/safe Third Country, Regulatory 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 XXXX
Appellant
XXXX XXXX XXXX
Appellant
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Jurisdiction and Dismissal of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Refugee Appeal Division has jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) IRPA when claimants came from a designated country
- 2 Whether the claimants' eligibility under regulations affects appealability under s.110(2)(d)
- 3 Whether the United States is the designated country under para.102(2)(d) relevant to s.110(2)(d)
Ratio Decidendi
Because the appellants came directly from a country designated under the regulations (the United States) and their claim was nonetheless eligible by regulation, s.110(2)(d) IRPA removes the right of appeal to the RAD; therefore the RAD lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Orders
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
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 : TB7-19837 TB7-19838 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 Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision November 17, 2017 Date de la décision Panel Deborah Morrish Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Amir Akhtar Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) XXXX 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 and XXXX XXXX XXXX. [2] The Notice of Appeal was received by the RAD on October 17, 2017. The persons are appealing a decision of the RPD rejecting their claims 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 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 appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Deborah Morrish" Deborah Morrish November 17, 2017 Date RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB7-19837 TB7-19838