MB4-05155

MB4-05155

Because the appellant is a Hungarian national and Hungary was a designated country under s.109.1 on the date the RPD decision was rendered, s.110(2)(d.1) of the IRPA precludes any appeal to the RAD; accordingly the RAD lacks jurisdiction and the appeal is dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MB4-05155
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Government of Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal Before Refugee Appeal Division Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d.1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Designated Country, Jurisdiction, Appealability, Section 110(2)(d.1) IRPA, Section 109.1 IRPA
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Designated Country Jurisdiction Appealability Section 110(2)(d.1) IRPA Section 109.1 IRPA

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister (Government of Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal Before Refugee Appeal Division Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction

  1. 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction to hear an appeal of an RPD decision where the claimant is a national of a country designated under s.109.1 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether s.110(2)(d.1) IRPA bars appeals by nationals of designated countries

Ratio Decidendi

Because the appellant is a Hungarian national and Hungary was a designated country under s.109.1 on the date the RPD decision was rendered, s.110(2)(d.1) of the IRPA precludes any appeal to the RAD; accordingly the RAD lacks jurisdiction and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d.1) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed