MB4-01436

RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB4-01436 MB4-01437 MB4-01438 MB4-01439 MB4-01440 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of decision May 1, 2014 Date de la décision Panel Me Alain Bissonnette Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Me Mabel E.Fraser Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative Marleny Gonzalez Taborda Représentante désignée Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) received a notice of appeal regarding a decision rendered by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claims for refugee protection filed by XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. [2] The RAD received the notice of appeal on April 11, 2014. The persons who are the subjects of the appeal are appealing the RPD decision dated February 19, 2014, rejecting the claims for refugee protection. The written reasons for this decision were deemed to have been received on March 27, 2014. [3] The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the appeal deals with an RPD decision that is not subject to appeal, pursuant to subparagraph 110(2)(d)(i) of the amended Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which reads as follows: 110. (2) No appeal may be made in respect of any of the following: (d) subject to the regulations, a decision of the Refugee Protection Division in respect of a claim for refugee protection if (i) the foreign national who makes the claim came directly or indirectly to Canada from a country that is, on the day on which their claim is made, designated by regulations made under subsection 102(1) and that is a party to an agreement referred to in paragraph 102(2)(d), and, (ii) the claim - by virtue of regulations made under paragraph 102(1)(c) - is not ineligible under paragraph 101(1)(e) to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division. [4] On the day on which the claim for refugee protection was made, the United States was a country designated by regulations and a party to an agreement referred to in paragraph 102(2)(d). The appellants in this case arrived directly from the United States, but their claims for refugee protection were nevertheless eligible to be referred under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. Therefore, in accordance with subparagraph 110(2)(d)(1) of the IRPA, the RPD decision may not be appealed to the RAD. [5] The appeal is therefore dismissed. Alain Bissonnette Me Alain Bissonnette May 1, 2014 Date IRB Translation Original Language: French N° de dossier de la SAR / RAD File No.:MB4-01436 MB4-01437 MB4-01438 MB4-01439 MB4-01440 RAD.25.02 (February 7, 2014) Disponible en français RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB4-01436 MB4-01437 MB4-01438 MB4-01439 MB4-01440 2