MB3-04999

MB3-04999

Because the appellant arrived directly from the United States, which was a designated country on the day the claim was made, and the claim remained eligible under the Regulations, s.110(2)(d)(i) of the IRPA precludes an appeal to the RAD; therefore the RAD lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed.

Citation
MB3-04999
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Appealability, Safe Third Country Designation, Eligibility Under Regulations, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Jurisdiction Appealability Safe Third Country Designation Eligibility Under Regulations Statutory Interpretation

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under s.110(2)(d)(i) of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether arrival directly from a designated country (United States) on the day the claim was made precludes appeal to the RAD
  3. 3 Whether the claim's eligibility under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations affects appealability

Ratio Decidendi

Because the appellant arrived directly from the United States, which was a designated country on the day the claim was made, and the claim remained eligible under the Regulations, s.110(2)(d)(i) of the IRPA precludes 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.