MB3-04726

RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB3-04726, MB3-04727 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision - Motifs et décision Appellant(s) Appelant(s) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Appeal Considered/Heard at Appel instruit à Montréal, Quebec Date of Decision Date de la décision December 23, 2013 Panel Tribunal Me Diane Sokolyk Appellant's Counsel Conseil de l'appelant Me Manuel Antonio Centurion Designated Representative(s) Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) N/A Counsel for the Minister Conseil du (de la) ministre N/A REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) received a notice of appeal regarding a decision rendered by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim for refugee protection filed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and her son, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [2] The RAD received the notice of appeal on December 6, 2013. The person who is the subject of the appeal is appealing the RPD decision dated November 19, 2013, rejecting their claims for refugee protection. The written reasons for this decision were deemed to have been received on December 6, 2013. [3] The appeal filed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the appeal deals with an RPD decision that is not subject to appeal, pursuant to subparagraph 110(2)(d)(i) of the amended Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which reads as follows: 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 o (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 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 in this case arrived directly from the United States, but her claim for refugee protection was nevertheless eligible to be referred under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. Therefore, in accordance with subparagraph 110(2)(d)(i) of the IRPA, the RPD decision may not be appealed to the RAD. [5] The appeal is therefore dismissed. [6] The appeal filed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the appeal deals with an RPD decision that is not subject to appeal, pursuant to paragraph 110(2)(c), which reads as follows: 110. (2) No appeal may be made in respect of any of the following: (c) a decision of the Refugee Protection Division rejecting a claim for refugee protection that states that the claim has no credible basis or is manifestly unfounded. [7] The RPD concluded that there was no credible basis for the refugee protection claim. [8] The appeal is therefore dismissed. Diane Sokolyk Me Diane Sokolyk December 23, 2013 Date IRB translation Original language: French RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB3-04726, MB3-04727 2