MB5-05589
The appeal is dismissed because section 110(2)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act explicitly bars appeals to the RAD from RPD decisions rejecting claims as manifestly unfounded, and therefore the RAD lacks jurisdiction.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- MB5-05589
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 9 December 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal Received by RAD and Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Manifestly Unfounded, Jurisdiction, Appealability, Refugee Protection Claim
- 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 XXXX XXXX
Appellant
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal Received by RAD and Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Refugee Appeal Division has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a Refugee Protection Division decision rejecting a refugee protection claim as manifestly unfounded under s.110(2)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because section 110(2)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act explicitly bars appeals to the RAD from RPD decisions rejecting claims as manifestly unfounded, and therefore the RAD lacks jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
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 : MB5-05589 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of decision December 9, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Me Diane Sokolyk Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Me Anthony Karkar Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant désigné Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] On December 2, 2015, the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) received a notice of appeal regarding a decision rendered by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) on November 12, 2015, in the claim for refugee protection filed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the appellant). The appellant stated that he received the RPD decision and the related written reasons on November 18, 2015. [2] The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it concerns a claim for refugee protection that was rejected on the ground that the claim was manifestly unfounded. Under paragraph 110(2)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, no appeal to the RAD may be made in respect of an RPD decision rejecting a claim for refugee protection on the ground that the claim is manifestly unfounded. This decision is not subject to appeal to the RAD. [3] The appeal is dismissed. Diane Sokolyk Me Diane Sokolyk December 9, 2015 Date IRB translation Original language: French RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB5-05589 2 RAD.25.02 (2014.09.11) Disponible en français