TB5-02835
The RAD lacks jurisdiction because s.110(2)(d) IRPA precludes appeals from RPD decisions where the claimant came from a designated country (the United States) and was eligible to make the claim under the regulations; the appellant met those conditions, so the appeal is barred.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- TB5-02835
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (aka XXXXXXXXXXX); Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 13 April 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Decision Issued
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Jurisdiction, Designated Country/united States, Safe Third Country Agreement, Eligibility to Make a Claim
- 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
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (aka XXXXXXXXXXX)
Appellant
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Decision Issued
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) has jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) to hear an appeal from an RPD decision where the claimant came from a designated country
- 2 Whether the appellant came from a country designated by regulation (the United States) and was nonetheless eligible to make the claim under the regulations, thereby triggering the statutory bar on appeals
Ratio Decidendi
The RAD lacks jurisdiction because s.110(2)(d) IRPA precludes appeals from RPD decisions where the claimant came from a designated country (the United States) and was eligible to make the claim under the regulations; the appellant met those conditions, so the appeal is barred.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Orders
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) IRPA
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-02835 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXXXX) Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision April 13, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Ken Atkinson Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Yunarki Horta Del Risco 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 claim of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. [2] The Notice of Appeal was received by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) on March 18, 2015. The person is appealing a decision of the RPD dated March 9, 2015 with written reasons deemed received on March 16, 2015 claim 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. The appellant in this case came directly from the United States but was 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) 'Ken Atkinson' Ken Atkinson April 13, 2015 Date RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-02835