MB6-07966
The appeal was dismissed because, at the time the claims were made the United States was a designated country and the claims were eligible under the regulations; consequently paragraph 110(2)(d) IRPA removes the RAD's jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- MB6-07966
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Government of Canada)
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 21 December 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal Filed Against RPD Decision; RAD Determined It Lacked Jurisdiction and Dismissed Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA
- Legal Topics
- Appealability Under IRPA, Safe Third Country/regulation Designation, Jurisdiction of RAD
- 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 XXXXXXXX XXXX
Appellant
XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX
Appellant
Minister (Government of Canada)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal Filed Against RPD Decision; RAD Determined It Lacked Jurisdiction and Dismissed Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under section 110(2)(d) of the IRPA when the claimant arrived from a designated country (United States)
- 2 Whether the claimant's refugee claim was eligible under the regulations such that paragraph 110(2)(d) removes appeal rights
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because, at the time the claims were made the United States was a designated country and the claims were eligible under the regulations; consequently paragraph 110(2)(d) IRPA removes the RAD's jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA
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 : MB6-07966 MB6-07967 MB6-07968 MB6-07969 MB6-07970 MB6-07971 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision - Motifs et décision Appellant(s) Appelant(s) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX Appeal considered/heard at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of decision December 21, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Normand Leduc Tribunal Appelant's counsel N/A Conseil de l'appelant (des appelants) Designated representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du (de la) ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] On December 15, 2016, the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) received a notice of appeal against the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) regarding the refugee protection claim filed by 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 persons who are the subjects of the appeal are appealing against the RPD decision dated November 25, 2016, rejecting the claim for refugee protection. The written reasons are deemed to have been received on December 2, 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] At the time 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] In this case, the appellants 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 December 21, 2016 Date IRB translation Original language: French RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB6-07966, MB6-07967, MB6-07968, MB6-07969, MB6-07970, MB6-07971 3