MB6-02183
The appeal was dismissed because on the day the claim was made the United States was a designated country and the appellants came directly from the United States and their claim was eligible under the regulations, therefore paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA precludes an appeal to the RAD.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- MB6-02183
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 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 to Refugee Appeal Division; Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Safe Third Country Agreement, Appealability, Designated Country, Regulatory Ineligibility
- 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 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Appellant
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Filed to Refugee Appeal Division; Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA
- 2 Whether the appellants came directly from a designated country (United States) on the day their claim was made
- 3 Whether the claim was ineligible under the regulations such that s.110(2)(d) would bar an appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because on the day the claim was made the United States was a designated country and the appellants came directly from the United States and their claim was eligible under the regulations, therefore paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA precludes an appeal to the RAD.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) of the 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 : MB6-02183 MB6-02184 MB6-02185 MB6-02186 MB6-02187 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 May 10, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Normand Leduc Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subjects of the appeal Me Sabine Venturelli 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 April 26, 2016, the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) received a notice of appeal against 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 subject of the appeal are appealing against the RPD decision dated April 5, 2016. The written reasons rejecting the claim for refugee protection are deemed to have been received on April 12, 2016. [3] The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because no appeal may be made in respect of this RPD decision pursuant to paragraph 110(2)(d) of the amended Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which states: 110. (2) No appeals 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 101(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 nonetheless 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. [6] The appeal is dismissed. Normand Leduc Normand Leduc May 10, 2016 Date IRB translation Original language: French RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB6-02183 MB6-02184 MB6-02185 MB6-02186 MB6-02187 3 RAD.25.02 (2014.09.11) Disponible en français