MB3-03033

MB3-03033

Because the appellants arrived from the United States, a country designated under the Regulations, and their claims were eligible to be referred under the Regulations, section 110(2)(d) of the IRPA removed the RAD's jurisdiction to hear the appeal; therefore the appeal must be dismissed.

Citation
MB3-03033
Parties
Appellant: XXXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Jurisdiction Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under section 110(2)(d) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Appealability, Designated Country Provisions, Jurisdictional Bar Under S.110(2)(d) IRPA
Source Language
English

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Jurisdiction Appeal Dismissed

  1. 1 Whether the RAD had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under section 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  2. 2 Whether the appellants arrived from a designated country (United States) on the day the claim was made
  3. 3 Whether the claim was eligible to be referred under the Regulations, thereby engaging the appeal bar

Ratio Decidendi

Because the appellants arrived from the United States, a country designated under the Regulations, and their claims were eligible to be referred under the Regulations, section 110(2)(d) of the IRPA removed the RAD's jurisdiction to hear the appeal; therefore the appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under section 110(2)(d) IRPA.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.