TB6-13682
The appeal was dismissed because the appellants came from the United States, the only country designated under the relevant regulations and party to the agreement referred to in s.102(2)(d), and their claims were nevertheless eligible under the regulations, thus s.110(2)(d) IRPA bars any appeal to the RAD.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- TB6-13682
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 2 November 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Jurisdiction and Dismissal
- Outcome
- dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Jurisdiction, Designated Country/safe Third Country, Statutory Appeal Bar, Section 110(2)(d) IRPA
- 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 XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Jurisdiction and Dismissal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under s.110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
- 2 Whether entry from the United States and eligibility under the regulations bars an appeal to the RAD
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the appellants came from the United States, the only country designated under the relevant regulations and party to the agreement referred to in s.102(2)(d), and their claims were nevertheless eligible under the regulations, thus s.110(2)(d) IRPA bars any appeal to the RAD.
Court Disposition
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Orders
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under section 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-13682 TB6-13683 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision November 2, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Deborah Morrish Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Patricia Ritter Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A 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. [2] The Notice of Appeal was received by the RAD on September 30, 2016. The persons are appealing a notice of decision of the RPD dated September 14, 2016 and with written reasons received on September 20, 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 section 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, the appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Deborah Morrish" Deborah Morrish November 2, 2016 Date RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-13682 TB6-13683