MB6-02055

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants came from the United States, which was a designated country on the day the claim was made, and the claim was eligible under the Regulations; consequently paragraph 110(2)(d) IRPA removes RAD jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Citation: MB6-02055
Parties: Appellants: Multiple appellants (names redacted)
Court: Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 22 April 2016
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Decision Issued and Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
Outcome: Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Legal Topics: Jurisdiction, Appeal Bar Under S.110(2)(d) IRPA, Designated Country / Safe Third Country
Source Language: English

Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Jurisdiction Appeal Bar Under S.110(2)(d) IRPA Designated Country / Safe Third Country

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2

Parties

Multiple appellants (names redacted)

Appellants

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Decision Issued and Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA
2 Whether the United States was a designated country on the date the claim was made
3 Whether the claim was eligible to be referred under the Regulations making s.110(2)(d) applicable

Ratio Decidendi

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