TB5-00656
Because the appellants came directly from the United States, which was the only country designated under the relevant provisions, and their claims were subject to the regulatory scheme described in IRPA, s.110(2)(d) removes the RAD's jurisdiction to hear appeals from the RPD decision; accordingly the appeal is...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- TB5-00656
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXa.k.a.XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 3 February 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal Filed January 20, 2015 Against RPD Decision Dated January 1, 2015; Jurisdictional Decision by RAD
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Appealability, Designation of 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 XXXXXXXXa.k.a.XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal Filed January 20, 2015 Against RPD Decision Dated January 1, 2015; Jurisdictional Decision by RAD
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether s.110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act bars appeals to the RAD from RPD decisions where the claimant came from a designated country
- 2 Whether the appellants came from a country designated under s.102 and were nevertheless rendered eligible by regulations such that s.110(2)(d) applies
- 3 Whether RAD therefore has jurisdiction to hear the appeal
Ratio Decidendi
Because the appellants came directly from the United States, which was the only country designated under the relevant provisions, and their claims were subject to the regulatory scheme described in IRPA, s.110(2)(d) removes the RAD's jurisdiction to hear appeals from the RPD decision; accordingly the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-00656 TB5-00657 TB5-00658 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXa.k.a.XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision February 3, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Ken Atkinson Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Michael F Loebach Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Barrister and Solicitor Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du 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 XXXXand XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [2] The Notice of Appeal was received by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) on January 20, 2015. The persons are appealing a decision of the RPD dated with written reasons received on January 1, 2015, 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 IRPA is the United States. The appellants in this case came directly from the United States but were nonetheless eligible to make a claim by virtue of the regulations. Therefore, under paragraph 110(2)(d) of IRPA, no appeal may be made in respect of the RPD's decision. [5] Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. (signed) 'Ken Atkinson' Ken Atkinson February 3, 2015 Date RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-00656 TB5-00657 TB5-00658