TB5-06344

RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-06344 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision September 14, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Deborah Morrish Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Ron Shacter Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du (de la) ministre REASONS AND DECISION [1] The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) received a Notice of Appeal from the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX. [2] The Notice of Appeal was received by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) on June 19, 2015. The person is appealing a decision of the RPD dated June 9, 2015 with written reasons received on June 16, 2015 rejecting his claim for refugee protection. [3] The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the appeal is in respect of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division for which no appeal may be made under s.110(2)(d) of the amended Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). This section states the following: 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] The only country that is designated by regulation and party to an agreement under paragraph 102(2)(d) of IRPA is the United States. [5] Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Appellant has the right of appeal because the documentation from the Global Case Management System (GCMS) of Citizenship and Immigration Canada indicates that the claim was not made at a land border but rather it was made inland. The Minister submits that GCMS documentation confirms that the Appellant entered Canada based on an exception to the Safe Third Country Agreement and would therefore not be eligible for an appeal to the RAD. [6] In reviewing the GCMS documentation at page 4 of the facsimile, the RAD finds that it indicates that for 'exception required' the answer provided is 'yes' and for 'type' the answer provided is 'relative'. On page 5, for 'office' it states 'XXXX XXXX XXXX. On page 9 of the same facsimile, the following is indicated: "Subject entered Canada illegally in the woods and was arrested by RCMP concept on XXXX XXXX (QC). Subject was brought back to POE for processing by RCMP." [7] The RAD finds that the Appellant came to Canada directly from the United States crossing at a port of entry or land border but was nonetheless eligible to make a claim by virtue of the regulations. Therefore, under paragraph 110(2)(d) of IRPA, no appeal may be made in respect of the RPD's decision. [8] Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Deborah Morrish" Deborah Morrish September 14, 2015 Date RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-06344