TB5-03834
Because the appellants came directly from the United States, which is the only country designated under the provisions cited, and their claims were eligible under the regulations, s.110(2)(d) precludes any appeal to the RAD; accordingly the RAD lacked jurisdiction and the appeals were dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- TB5-03834
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 26 May 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Protection Appeal / Notice of Appeal Received April 16, 2015 Against RPD Decision Dated April 1, 2015; Heard at RAD in Toronto; Decision Rendered May 26, 2015
- Outcome
- Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Appealability Under S.110(2)(d) IRPA, Safe Third Country Designation, Regulatory Eligibility of Refugee Claims
- 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 XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Notice of Appeal Received April 16, 2015 Against RPD Decision Dated April 1, 2015; Heard at RAD in Toronto; Decision Rendered May 26, 2015
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Refugee Appeal Division has jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) of IRPA to hear an appeal from an RPD decision where the claimant came from a country designated under s.102 and party to the relevant agreement
- 2 Whether the appellants, having come from the United States, are precluded from appealing because their claims were nonetheless eligible under the regulations
Ratio Decidendi
Because the appellants came directly from the United States, which is the only country designated under the provisions cited, and their claims were eligible under the regulations, s.110(2)(d) precludes any appeal to the RAD; accordingly the RAD lacked jurisdiction and the appeals were dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Orders
- The appeals are dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-03834 TB5-03835 TB5-03836 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision May 26, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Deborah Morrish Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Daniel L Winbaum Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) Ibrahim SAYED AHMAD 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. [2] The Notice of Appeal was received by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) on April 16, 2015. The persons are appealing a decision of the RPD dated with written reasons received on April 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 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 IRPA, no appeal may be made in respect of the RPD's decision. [5] Therefore, these appeals are dismissed. (signed) "Deborah Morrish" Deborah Morrish May 26, 2015 Date RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-03834 TB5-03835 TB5-03836