TB6-06166
Because the appellants came directly from the United States, which is the designated country party to the agreement, and their claims were not rendered ineligible by regulation, section 110(2)(d) of the IRPA bars any appeal to the RAD; therefore the RAD lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- TB6-06166
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 16 May 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Jurisdiction and Dismissal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Jurisdiction, Designated Country, Safe Third Country Agreement, Eligibility to Be Referred to the RPD
- 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 XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Appellant
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Jurisdiction and Dismissal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Refugee Appeal Division has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA
- 2 Whether appellants coming directly from a designated country (United States) and being eligible under the regulations bars an appeal
- 3 Applicability of the safe third country/designated country provisions to bar appeals
Ratio Decidendi
Because the appellants came directly from the United States, which is the designated country party to the agreement, and their claims were not rendered ineligible by regulation, section 110(2)(d) of the IRPA bars any appeal to the RAD; therefore the RAD lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to section 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-06166 TB6-06167 TB6-06168 TB6-06169 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 XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision May 16, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Deborah Morrish Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Jack Davis 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 (de la) ministre REASONS AND 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 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the "Persons"). [2] The Notice of Appeal was received by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) on May 6, 2016. The Persons are appealing a decision of the RPD dated April 21, 2016 with written reasons deemed to be received on April 28, 2016 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 Refugee Protection Division 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 appellants 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 May 16, 2016 Date RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-06166 TB6-06167 TB6-06168 TB6-06169