TB4-06033

TB4-06033

Because the appellants came from the United States, which is designated by regulation and party to the agreement under s.102(2)(d), and their claims were eligible under the regulations, s.110(2)(d) IRPA bars any appeal to the RAD; therefore the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Citation
TB4-06033
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Jurisdictional Dismissal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Appeal Jurisdiction, Designated Country, Safe Third Country Agreement
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Appeal Jurisdiction Designated Country Safe Third Country Agreement

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Jurisdictional Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under s.110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  2. 2 Whether appellants coming from a designated country (United States) and being eligible under the regulations bars an appeal to the RAD

Ratio Decidendi

Because the appellants came from the United States, which is designated by regulation and party to the agreement under s.102(2)(d), and their claims were eligible under the regulations, s.110(2)(d) IRPA bars any appeal to the RAD; therefore the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.