MB5-04588
The RAD dismissed the application and the appeal because paragraph 110(2)(c) IRPA expressly bars appeals to the RAD from RPD decisions that reject refugee claims as manifestly unfounded, leaving the RAD without jurisdiction.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- MB5-04588
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 1 April 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Application for Extension of Time to Perfect Appeal; Decision on Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; application for extension of time dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Manifestly Unfounded, Jurisdiction, Extension of Time, Reopening Under Rule 49, Perfection of Appeal
- 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 / Application for Extension of Time to Perfect Appeal; Decision on Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to grant an extension of time to file and perfect the appeal
- 2 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction to hear an appeal of an RPD decision rejecting a claim as manifestly unfounded
- 3 Whether the second application should be treated as a reopening under rule 49 of the RAD Rules
Ratio Decidendi
The RAD dismissed the application and the appeal because paragraph 110(2)(c) IRPA expressly bars appeals to the RAD from RPD decisions that reject refugee claims as manifestly unfounded, leaving the RAD without jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; application for extension of time dismissed.
Orders
- The application for an extension of time to perfect the appeal is dismissed.
- 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 : MB5-04588 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 April 1, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Normand Leduc Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Me Stéphanie Valois Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS AND DECISION [1] On October 14, 2015, the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) received a notice of appeal from a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision rendered on June 18, 2015, in the claim for refugee protection filed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the appellant). [2] The same day-October 14, 2015-the RAD also received an application for an extension of time to file and perfect an appeal from the appellant, but without the appellant's record. [3] Our files indicate that the RPD's notice of decision is dated June 18, 2015, and the appellant is deemed to have received it on June 25, 2015. [4] On November 25, 2015, the RAD dismissed the application for an extension of time as well as the appeal for lack of perfection. [5] On March 29, 2016, the appellant filed a second application for an extension of time to perfect an appeal, this time with the appellant's record. [6] Whether this second application is processed as an application for an extension of time or as an application to reopen the appeal under rule 49 of the Refugee Appeal Division Rules, the appeal is nevertheless dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it concerns a refugee protection claim that was rejected for being manifestly unfounded. Under paragraph 110(2)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, no appeal may be made to the RAD in respect of a decision of the RPD rejecting a claim for refugee protection for being manifestly unfounded. [7] The application for an extension of time to perfect the appeal is dismissed. [8] The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Normand Leduc Normand Leduc April 1, 2016 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 RAD.25.02 (2014.09.11) Disponible en français RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB5-04588 2