TB5-04816
The appeals are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because s.110(2)(d) IRPA precludes appeals where claimants came from a designated country (the United States) and were eligible under the regulations, and the appellants met those conditions.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- TB5-04816
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant: XXXX XXXX
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 5 June 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Protection Appeal / RAD Decision on Jurisdiction and Dismissal
- Outcome
- Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Appeal Bar, Designated Country (safe Third Country), Statutory Interpretation
- 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 XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX
Appellant
XXXX XXXX XXXX
Appellant
XXXX XXXX
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / RAD Decision on Jurisdiction and Dismissal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Refugee Appeal Division has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA where claimants came from a designated country
- 2 Whether appellants who came from the United States but were nevertheless eligible may appeal an RPD decision
Ratio Decidendi
The appeals are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because s.110(2)(d) IRPA precludes appeals where claimants came from a designated country (the United States) and were eligible under the regulations, and the appellants met those conditions.
Court Disposition
Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Orders
- Appeals dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-04816 TB5-04817 TB5-04818 TB5-04819 TB5-04820 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 XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX 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 N/A Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) Farida Forotan 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 and XXXX XXXX. [2] The Notice of Appeal was received by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) on May 12, 2015. The persons are appealing a decision of the RPD dated with written reasons received on April 21, 2015, 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 : TB5-04816 TB5-04817 TB5-04818 TB5-04819 TB5-04820