Good explanation.  What you have explained is that the  justification of the decision has nothing to do with the issue of illegal entry, contrary to what I took the passage quoted to imply.  What matters  on your explanation ---which is very clear, by the way, as well as logically coherent---is simply whether someone is in Canada and makes a refugee claim, which in turn makes him or her  exempt from any charge or legal determination of illegal entry. ("God's eye view" judgements of illegal entry as opposed to legal judgements in accordance with our constitution and laws and courts, are, I take, of ,  no legal relevance. )