MB6-03333
The appeal is dismissed because, on the day the claim was made, the United States was a designated country and the appellants arrived from the United States and their claim was eligible to be referred under the Regulations; accordingly paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA bars an appeal to the RAD and the RAD lacks...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- MB6-03333
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 30 June 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Jurisdictional Dismissal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Appealability, Jurisdiction, Safe Third Country Agreement, Eligibility to Be Referred
- 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 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Appellant
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Jurisdictional Dismissal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA to hear the appeal
- 2 Whether the appellants arrived directly or indirectly from a designated country (United States)
- 3 Whether the claim was eligible to be referred under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because, on the day the claim was made, the United States was a designated country and the appellants arrived from the United States and their claim was eligible to be referred under the Regulations; accordingly paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA bars an appeal to the RAD and the RAD lacks jurisdiction.
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 : MB6-03333 MB6-03334 MB6-03335 MB6-03336 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 Personnes en cause Appeal considered at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of decision June 30, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Normand Leduc Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subjects of the appeal Me Éric Taillefer Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] On June 23, 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 XXXX. [2] The persons who are the subjects of the appeal are appealing the RPD decision dated June 3, 2016, rejecting the claim for refugee protection. The written reasons are deemed to have been received on June 10, 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 30, 2016 Date IRB translation Original language: French RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB6-03333 MB6-03334 MB6-03335 MB6-03336 3 RAD.25.02 (2014.09.11) Disponible en français