MB5-01745

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 : MB5-01745 MB5-01746 Private Proceeding / Huis Clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of decision April 30, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Me Maria de Andrade Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Me Gisela Barraza Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative XXXX XXXX Représentant désigné Counsel for the Minister Lysann Penwarn Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION Designated representative [1] The provisions of rule 23 of the Refugee Appeal Division Rules (RAD Rules)1 apply in this case. The RPD is deemed to have designated a representative for the minor appellant. [2] 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 and XXXX XXXX XXXX. [3] The RAD received the notice of appeal on April 21, 2015. The persons who are the subject of the appeal are appealing against the RPD decision dated April 10, 2015. The written reasons rejecting the claim for refugee protection are deemed to have been received on April 17, 2015. [4] The appeals filed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the appeals are in respect of a decision by the RPD for which no appeal may be made under subparagraph 110(2)(d)(i) of the amended Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which reads as follows: [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. [5] Based on the information currently available on the RAD record, on XXXX XXXX, 2014, the appellants arrived in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX directly from the United States, by land. The male appellant (principal claimant) has some uncles who are Canadian citizens and a brother with refugee status in Canada. The female appellant is the male appellant's spouse. [6] The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX border crossing is a designated border crossing listed in Schedule 1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR). [7] 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 appellant arrived directly from the United States and claimed refugee protection at a port of entry referred to in the Safe Third Country Agreement. [8] Therefore, in accordance with subparagraph 110(2)(d)(i) of the IRPA, the RPD decision may not be appealed to the RAD, even though it was eligible to be referred under section 159 of the IRPR. [9] The appeal is therefore dismissed. Maria De Andrade Me Maria De Andrade April 30, 2015 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 SOR/2012-257 - February 16, 2015. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ N° de dossier de la SAR / RAD File No.:MB4-03963 RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) Disponible en français RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB5-01745 MB5-01746 3