TB6-12854

TB6-12854

The appeal is dismissed because s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA precludes an appeal to the RAD where the claimant arrived from a designated country (United States) and the claim is eligible under the regulations, therefore the RAD lacks jurisdiction.

Citation
TB6-12854
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Safe Third Country Agreement, Jurisdiction, Section 110(2)(d) IRPA, Eligibility Under Regulations
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Safe Third Country Agreement Jurisdiction Section 110(2)(d) IRPA Eligibility Under Regulations

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant's arrival from a designated country (United States) and eligibility under regulations bars appeal
  3. 3 Whether to delay dismissal pending outcome of Kreishan v. MCI

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA precludes an appeal to the RAD where the claimant arrived from a designated country (United States) and the claim is eligible under the regulations, therefore the RAD lacks jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed