TB5-04980

The RAD lacks jurisdiction because s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA bars appeals where claimants came from a designated country (the USA) and were eligible under the regulations, therefore the appeals must be dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: TB5-04980
Parties: Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court: Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 5 June 2015
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Jurisdictional Dismissal
Outcome: Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Legal Topics: Jurisdiction, Statutory Interpretation, Designated Country (usa)
Source Language: en

Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Jurisdiction Statutory Interpretation Designated Country (usa)

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Jurisdictional Dismissal

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Refugee Appeal Division has jurisdiction to hear appeals from claimants who arrived from a country designated under the regulations (the USA) when the claimants are nonetheless eligible by virtue of the regulations

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Orders

Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Full Case Text

Judgment text and source record

1 paragraphs

RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-04980 TB5-04981 TB5-04982 TB5-04983 TB5-04984 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX 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 June 5, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Deborah Morrish Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal J. Stephen Schmidt Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX 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 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [2] The Notice of Appeal was received by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) on May 19, 2015. The persons are appealing a decision of the RPD dated with written reasons received on April 30, 2015, 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 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 appeals are dismissed. (signed) "Deborah Morrish" Deborah Morrish June 5, 2015 Date RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-04980 TB5-04981 TB5-04982 TB5-04983 TB5-04984

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.