TB6-02217
The RAD lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the appellants came directly from the United States, which is a country designated by regulation, and their claims were eligible under the regulations; accordingly s.110(2)(d) IRPA bars any appeal from the RPD decision.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- TB6-02217
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 29 March 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Jurisdiction Appeal Dismissed by Refugee Appeal Division
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Statutory Bar on Appeals S.110(2)(d) IRPA, Designated Country (usa), Eligibility Under Regulations (paragraph 101(1)(e))
- 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 XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Jurisdiction Appeal Dismissed by Refugee Appeal Division
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA
- 2 Whether the appellants came from a designated country (USA) and were nonetheless eligible under the regulations such that s.110(2)(d) bars an appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The RAD lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the appellants came directly from the United States, which is a country designated by regulation, and their claims were eligible under the regulations; accordingly s.110(2)(d) IRPA bars any appeal from the RPD decision.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-02217 TB6-02218 TB6-02219 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision March 29, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Deborah Morrish Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Molly Joeck Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) 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 (the "Persons"). [2] The Notice of Appeal was received by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) on February 15, 2016. The Persons are appealing a decision of the RPD dated December 23, 2015 with written reasons received on January 29, 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 March 29, 2016 Date RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-02217 TB6-02218 TB6-02219