TB4-00416

TB4-00416

Because the appellant came directly from the United States, the only country designated under the relevant regulations, s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA bars an appeal to the RAD and the RAD therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal, requiring dismissal.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TB4-00416
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Jurisdiction by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Appealability, Designated Country, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act S.110(2)(d)
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Jurisdiction Appealability Designated Country Immigration and Refugee Protection Act S.110(2)(d)

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX

Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Jurisdiction by Refugee Appeal Division

  1. 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA when the claimant came from a designated country
  2. 2 Whether arrival from the United States precludes an appeal despite regulatory eligibility to make a claim

Ratio Decidendi

Because the appellant came directly from the United States, the only country designated under the relevant regulations, s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA bars an appeal to the RAD and the RAD therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal, requiring dismissal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.