MB3-02961
The RAD lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because on the day the claim was made the United States was a designated country and the appellant arrived from the United States and his claim was eligible for referral; therefore paragraph 110(2)(d) IRPA bars the appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- MB3-02961
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXXXX XXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 11 September 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Designated Countries, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act S.110(2)(d)
- 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
XXXXXX XXXXXXX
Appellant
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA when the claimant came from a designated country
- 2 Whether the designation of the United States and the claim's eligibility under the regulations preclude an appeal to the RAD
Ratio Decidendi
The RAD lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because on the day the claim was made the United States was a designated country and the appellant arrived from the United States and his claim was eligible for referral; therefore paragraph 110(2)(d) IRPA bars the appeal.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Orders
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to paragraph 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 : MB3-02961 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision - Motifs et décision Appellant(s) Appelant(s) XXXXXX XXXXXXX Appeal Considered/Heard at Appel instruit à Montréal, Quebec Date of Decision Date de la décision September 11, 2013 Panel Tribunal Me Diane Sokolyk Appellant's Counsel Conseil de l'appelant (des appelants) Me Juan Cabrillana 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 XXXXXXX. [2] The claim filed by the person who is the subject of the appeal was referred to the RPD on February 23, 2013. According to the notice of appeal, he is appealing the RPD decision dated July 30, 2013, rejecting his claim for refugee protection. The written reasons for this decision were received on August 5, 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 paragraph 110(2)(d) 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 o (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 o (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 appellant claimed refugee protection, that is on February 23, 2013, the United States was a country designated by regulations and a party to an agreement referred to in paragraph 102(2)(d) of the IRPA. According to the RAD's administrative records, the appellant in this case arrived directly from the United States, but his claim for refugee protection was eligible to be referred under the Regulations. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA, the RPD decision may not be appealed. The appeal is dismissed. Diane Sokolyk Me Diane Sokolyk September 11, 2013 Date IRB translation Original language: French 2 RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB3-02961