MB8-14111
Because the appellant was designated under the exception in section 159.5 of the Regulations and paragraph 110(2)(d) of the Act expressly precludes appeals to the RAD in such cases, the RAD lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- MB8-14111
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 9 July 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Protection Appeal / Jurisdiction Decision at Appeal Stage
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Appealability, Exceptions to Appeal, Designation Under Section 159.5
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
XXXX XXXX
Appellant
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Jurisdiction Decision at Appeal Stage
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction to hear an appeal where the appellant was designated under the exception in paragraph 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
- 2 Application and effect of section 159.5 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations on appealability
Ratio Decidendi
Because the appellant was designated under the exception in section 159.5 of the Regulations and paragraph 110(2)(d) of the Act expressly precludes appeals to the RAD in such cases, the RAD lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB8-14111 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision - Motifs et décision Appellant(s) XXXX XXXX Appelant(e)(s) Appeal considered / heard at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of decision July 9, 2018 Date de la décision Panel Me Elaine Doyle Tribunal Counsel for the appellant(s) Me Alain Vallières Conseil(s) du (de la/des) appelant(e)(s) Designated representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du (de la) ministre REASONS AND DECISION [1] On June 26, 2018, the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) received a notice of appeal concerning the decision rendered by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim for refugee protection made by XXXX XXXX (the appellant). [2] According to the information in the record, the appellant was designated as a person falling under the exception set out in paragraph 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act1 (the Act), pursuant to section 159.5 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations2 (the Regulations). [3] The appellant was entitled to present a claim for refugee protection, because one of the exceptions set out in section 159.5 of the Regulations applied to his situation. However, paragraph 110(2)(d) of the Act states that the RPD's decision in respect of such a claim may not be appealed to the RAD. [4] Consequently, the RAD has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the RPD's decision in the appellant's case. [5] The appeal is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Elaine Doyle Me Elaine Doyle July 9, 2018 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. 2 Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, as amended. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 1 RAD.25.02 (April 9, 2013) Disponible en français RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB8-14111 2