VB4-02108

VB4-02108

Because Mexico was a country designated under IRPA s.109.1(1) on the date of the RPD decision, s.110(2)(d.1) barred any appeal to the RAD; accordingly the RAD lacked jurisdiction and the appeal was dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
VB4-02108
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; Panel: Douglas Fortney
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Division Appeal / Decision on Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Designation of Countries, Appealability, Jurisdiction, IRPA S.109.1(1), IRPA S.110(2)(d.1)
Source Language
en
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Designation of Countries Appealability Jurisdiction IRPA S.109.1(1) IRPA S.110(2)(d.1)

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent

Douglas Fortney

Panel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Division Appeal / Decision on Jurisdiction

  1. 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction to hear appeals from nationals of a country designated under IRPA s.109.1(1) (s.110(2)(d.1))
  2. 2 Whether Mexico was a designated country on the date of the RPD decision

Ratio Decidendi

Because Mexico was a country designated under IRPA s.109.1(1) on the date of the RPD decision, s.110(2)(d.1) barred any appeal to the RAD; accordingly the RAD lacked jurisdiction and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to IRPA s.110(2)(d.1).