MB3-04827
Because on the day the claim was made the United States was a designated country and the appellant arrived from the United States, and the claim was eligible under the Regulations, s.110(2)(d)(i) IRPA bars an appeal to the RAD; therefore the RAD lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- MB3-04827
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 9 January 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Appeal / Appeal to RAD From RPD Decision; Disposition on Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Designated Country Rule, Appealability, IRPA S.110(2)(d)(i)
- 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
XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Appellant
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Appeal to RAD From RPD Decision; Disposition on Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s.110(2)(d)(i) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
- 2 Whether the United States was a designated country on the day of the claim and whether the appellant's claim was eligible under the Regulations
Ratio Decidendi
Because on the day the claim was made the United States was a designated country and the appellant arrived from the United States, and the claim was eligible under the Regulations, s.110(2)(d)(i) IRPA bars an appeal to the RAD; therefore the RAD lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB3-04827 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision - Motifs et décision Appellant(s) Appelant(s) XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX Appeal Considered/Heard at Appel instruit à Montréal, Quebec Date of Decision Date de la décision January 9, 2014 Panel Tribunal Me Diane Sokolyk Appellant's Counsel Conseil de l'appelant Me Anthony Karkar Designated Representative(s) Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) N/A Counsel for the Minister Conseil du (de la) ministre N/A REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) received a notice of appeal regarding a decision rendered by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim for refugee protection filed by XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX. [2] The RAD received the notice of appeal on December 13, 2013. The person who is the subject of the appeal is appealing the RPD decision dated November 22, 2013. The written reasons for this decision rejecting the claim for refugee protection are deemed to have been received on November 29, 2013. [3] The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the appeal deals with an RPD decision that is not subject to appeal, pursuant to subparagraph 110(2)(d)(i) of the amended Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which reads as follows: 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] On the day on which the claim was made, that is, on July 25, 2013, the United States was a country designated by regulations and a party to an agreement referred to in paragraph 102(2)(d). The appellant in this case arrived directly from the United States, but his claim for refugee protection was nevertheless eligible under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. Therefore, in accordance with subparagraph 110(2)(d)(i) of the IRPA, the RPD decision may not be appealed to the RAD. [5] The appeal is therefore dismissed. Diane Sokolyk Me Diane Sokolyk January 9, 2014 Date IRB translation Original language: French RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB3-04827 2