MB6-06249

MB6-06249

The RAD denied the application for extension of time because the appellants failed to submit the required two copies of the appellants' record with their extension application and provided no further material; pursuant to s.159.91(1)(b) IRPR and RAD Rules (including Rule 3 and section 6(5)), the appeal was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MB6-06249
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX (alias XXXX) XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act/regulations / Decision on Application for Extension of Time to Perfect Appeal and Dismissal for Lack of Perfection
Outcome
Application for extension of time denied; appeal dismissed for lack of perfection.
Legal Topics
Appeal Time Limits, Perfection of Appeal, Extension of Time, Procedural Compliance With Tribunal Rules
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Appeal Time Limits Perfection of Appeal Extension of Time Procedural Compliance With Tribunal Rules

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX (alias XXXX) XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act/regulations / Decision on Application for Extension of Time to Perfect Appeal and Dismissal for Lack of Perfection

  1. 1 Whether an extension of time to perfect the appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the appeal was properly perfected in accordance with RAD rules and timelines
  3. 3 Whether non‑compliance with RAD Rule 6(5) (submission of two copies of the record) justifies denial of extension and dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD denied the application for extension of time because the appellants failed to submit the required two copies of the appellants' record with their extension application and provided no further material; pursuant to s.159.91(1)(b) IRPR and RAD Rules (including Rule 3 and section 6(5)), the appeal was not perfected within the statutory/rule timelines and therefore was dismissed for lack of perfection.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time denied; appeal dismissed for lack of perfection.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to perfect the appeal is denied.
  • The appeal is dismissed for lack of perfection.