MB4-04074

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 : MB4-04074 MB4-04075 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subjects of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of decision January 6, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Me Maria De Andrade Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subjects of the appeal Me Émilie Le-Huy Conseil des personnes en cause Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) received a notice of appeal regarding the decision rendered by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim for refugee protection filed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [2] The RAD received the notice of appeal on September 25, 2014. The persons who are the subject of the appeal are appealing against the RPD decision dated September 04, 2014. The written reasons rejecting the claims for refugee protection are deemed to have been received on September 10, 2014. [3] The appeals filed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because no appeal may be made in respect of this RPD decision, in accordance with subparagraph 110(2)(d)(i) of the amended Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which states: 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] According to the information on file, the refugee protection claimants arrived from the United States by land, appearing at the Lansdowne border crossing in Ontario on December 8, 2013; they made their claim for refugee protection there with the immigration officer.1 [5] 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 arrived directly from the United States. However, in accordance with section 159.5 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, because they had family in Canada, their claims for refugee protection were eligible to be referred. [6] However, pursuant to subparagraph 110(2)(d)(i) of the IRPA, the RPD decision is not subject to appeal to the RAD. [7] The appeal is therefore dismissed. Maria De Andrade Me Maria De Andrade January 6, 2015 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Form IMM-5669, RPD record, pages 282 to 285, appellants' memorandum, page 22, and Notice of Intervention from the Minister of Public Safety Canada, filed with the IRB on February 17, 2014, RPD record, pages 317 and 318. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ N° de dossier de la SAR / RAD File No.:MB4-04074 MB4-04075 RAD.25.02 (2014.09.11) Disponible en français RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB4-04074 MB4-04075 3