MB4-05350

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. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB4-05350 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 / heard at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of decision January 16, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Me Diane Sokolyk Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Me Noël Saint-Pierre Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant désigné( Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR 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 XXXX. [2] According to the Notice of Appeal which is part of the RAD's administrative record, the claimant wants to appeal a decision of the RPD dated December 11, 2014, with written reasons reputed to be received on December 18, 2014, rejecting his claim for refugee protection. [3] The RAD does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a decision of the RPD that fits within s. 110(2)(d) of the 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] On the day the RPD claim was made, the United States of America (USA) was and continues to be a country designated by regulation and party to an agreement referred to under paragraph 102(2)(d) of the IRPA. The claimant in this case came directly from the USA but was nonetheless eligible to make a claim to the RPD by virtue of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. [5] Given this situation, according to paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA, no appeal may be made in respect of the decision made by the RPD. In other words, because to reach Canada the claimant transited the USA, which is a safe country, he does not have a right to appeal the decision made by the RPD concerning his claim to the RAD. [6] For these reasons, no appeal may be filed. The appeal is dismissed. Diane Sokolyk Me Diane Sokolyk January 16, 2015 Date /cl RAD.25.02 (February 7, 2014) Available in English RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB4-05350 2