MB5-05989

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 : MB5-05989 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 December 31, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Me Maria De Andrade Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Me Oscar Fernando Rodas Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) received a notice of appeal against the decision rendered by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim for refugee protection filed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The RAD received the notice of appeal on December 21, 2015. The person who is the subject of the appeal is appealing against the RPD decision dated November 24, 2015, rejecting the claim for refugee protection. The written reasons are deemed to have been received on December 8, 2015. [2] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it concerns an RPD decision that is not subject to appeal under subparagraph 110(2)(d)(i) of the amended Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which states the following: [1] 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. [3] Based on the information available today in the RAD record, the appellant arrived directly from the United States by land, at the Fort Erie port of entry. He filed his claim for refugee protection on September 10, 2015. [4] Section 159.3 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) provides that "[t]he United States is designated under paragraph 102(1)(a) of the IRPA". When the claim for refugee protection was filed, the United States was a country designed by regulations and was party to an agreement referred to in paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA. [5] The Fort Erie border crossing is listed in Schedule 1 of the IRPR. [6] The appellant was designated as being caught by the exception to the Canada-United States Safe Third Country Agreement set out in paragraph 159.5(b) of the IRPR, because one of his family members is a permanent resident in Canada or a Canadian citizen. [7] Considering that the appellant arrived directly from the United States and claimed refugee protection at a port of entry that falls under the Safe Third Country Agreement; [8] Pursuant to subparagraph 110(2)(d)(i) of the IRPA, no appeal to the RAD may be made in respect of the RPD decision, although it may be eligible under the provisions listed in paragraph 159 of the IRPR. [9] The appeal is therefore dismissed. Me Maria De Andrade Me Maria De Andrade December 31, 2015 Date IRB translation Original language: French N° de dossier de la SAR / RAD File No.:MB4-03963 RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) Disponible en français RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB5-05989 3