MB9-15400

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB9-15400 MB9-15401 / MB9-15402 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal

XXXX XXXX XXXX

XXXX XXXX XXXX

XXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision February 20, 2020 Date de la décision Panel I. Singh Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Chunxiang Bao Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative

XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre

REASONS FOR DECISION

OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (Principal Appellant) and XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX (Associate Appellants), citizens of Nigeria, appealed a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated June 17, 2019, rejecting their claims for refugee protection.

DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to Section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA),1 the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. This appeal is dismissed. [3] In reaching this decision, I have considered the Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution (Gender Guidelines).2

BACKGROUND [4] The Appellants alleged before the RPD that, upon return to Nigeria, they will be harmed by: members of the Badoo cult, who attempted to recruit the Principal Appellant's husband to the cult and killed the Principal Appellant's brother-in-law; and members of the Principal Appellant's husband's family, who want to harm the Principal Appellant because she refused to convert to Islam and they blame her for her brother-in-law's death. [5] The Appellants' applications for refugee protection were heard on May 16, 2019. By a decision of June 17, 2019, the RPD rejected the claims. The RPD found that the Appellants' overall credibility was undermined due to several contradictions, omissions, and a lack of documentation to support their allegations. [6] The Appellants submit that the RPD erred in denying the right of procedural fairness to the Appellants by failing to assess and question the Appellants about a medical report; and erred in its assessment of the Appellants' credibility, including by failing to apply the Gender Guidelines.

ROLE OF THE RAD [7] The RAD reviews decisions of the RPD on a standard of correctness after conducting an independent assessment of the evidence before it.3 The exception to this rule is where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in the assessment and weighing of oral testimony heard, which, in particular cases, may attract deference. Unless specifically stated below, I have applied a correctness standard.

ANALYSIS The RPD did not breach procedural fairness [8] The Appellants argue that the RPD denied the Appellants the right to procedural fairness because the RPD did not question the Principal Appellant about the medical report from Dr. XXXX4 and did not address it in the decision. [9] I find that the RPD did not breach procedural fairness. There is no requirement that the RPD question claimants about every document submitted. Their counsel was also given an opportunity to ask questions of the claimants and did not ask questions about this medical report. [10] The RPD did not explicitly address the medical report in its reasons; however, I do not find this to be a breach of procedural fairness as the RPD found that the Principal Appellant failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that her life was and continues to be threatened by her husband's family. The RPD is presumed to have considered all the evidence prior to coming to this conclusion. [11] Although I have found the RPD did not breach procedural fairness, my own analysis about these allegations and documents is below. The RPD erred by failing to apply the Gender Guidelines [12] The RPD undermined the Appellants' credibility because the Principal Appellant's husband did not tell her about the threats from the Badoo cult at the time that he fled to Germany, which the Principal Appellant testified was because it

did not involve her. [13] The Appellants argue that the RPD erred by failing to apply the Gender Guidelines in assessing the Principal Appellant's explanation. The Gender Guidelines state, "[w]omen from certain cultures where men do not share the details of their political, military or even social activities with their spouses... may find themselves in a difficult situation when questioned about the experiences of their male relatives." 5 [14] I find that the RPD erred by failing to consider the Gender Guidelines in assessing the Principal Appellant's testimony. When considering the Gender Guidelines, it is possible that culture played a part in the Principal Appellant's husband not sharing with his wife the details about why he really went to Germany. Therefore, the RPD's finding on this point cannot stand. [15] There were, however, other examples in the record of the RPD applying the Gender Guidelines, such that the rest of the findings are unaffected. For example, the RPD provided breaks to the Appellants and questioned in a sensitive manner. [16] Therefore, although the RPD failed to apply the Gender Guidelines with respect to one of its findings, I find the other findings are unaffected and I have applied the Gender Guidelines in my own independent assessment. [17] Additionally, the Appellants provided a second affidavit from the Principal Appellant's husband after the

hearing but before the RPD decision was rendered. As it was not in either the RPD or Appellants' Records, I requested it from counsel. The package sent in was 7 pages and contained the affidavit as well as a sworn statement from the Principal Appellant.6 The first part of the Principal Appellant's husband's affidavit addresses why he did not tell his wife about the Badoo threats even after she gave birth. Having already found that the RPD erred here, I see no need to address this part of the affidavit in any greater detail. These documents are discussed in greater detail below with respect to the allegations of harm from the Principal Appellant's husband's family. The RPD did not err in its credibility assessment [18] The remaining of the RPD's credibility findings are: a. Contradictions and omissions relating to the recruitment of claimant's husband by the Badoo cult; b. Contradictions: Badoo cult threats and ultimatum; c. Credibility regarding threats from the husband's family; and d. Lack of documentation to support the claimant's allegations. [19] Contradictions and omissions relating to the recruitment of claimant's husband by the Badoo cult: The RPD found the inconsistencies between the Principal Appellant's Basis of Claim (BOC) and testimony, and between her testimony and her husband's affidavit, seriously undermined her credibility, and the RPD concluded the Principal

Appellant failed to establish that her husband was beaten by cult members. The RPD found there was an inconsistency between whether the Principal Appellant's husband had come home with blood on his clothes from work (as stated in the BOC) or from being beaten by cult members at a funeral party in XXXX 2015 (as stated in testimony). The Principal Appellant also testified that her husband explained the blood was from an altercation at a gas station. The RPD rejected the Principal Appellant's explanations that the funeral party was after work and that she was not feeling well so only included key points in her BOC, and found that the funeral party and gas station altercation should have been in the BOC. The RPD also found inconsistencies with the Principal Appellant's husband's affidavit, in which he does not mention being beaten by cult members, only mentions threats of harm months later, does not mention the gas station altercation, and places the date of the funeral party at the beginning of 2015, not XXXX. The RPD rejected the Principal Appellant's explanation that her husband only summarized what happened and did not go into detail. [20] The Appellants argue the RPD was microscopic, misstated, misapprehended, and misconstrued the evidence, and failed to consider relevant evidence. The Appellants argue that according to the Principal Appellant's husband's affidavit,7 at the

beginning of 2015 he was invited to a funeral ceremony and after several months of pressure, he was threatened with bodily harm. The Appellants argue, therefore, that it was several months after the beginning of 2015 that he suffered bodily harm, which resulted in the blood stain on his shirt in November. Therefore, they submit there is no contradiction. With regard to the omission of the funeral party from the BOC, they argue there was no omission and that the RPD was microscopic and misconstrued the evidence, as the Principal Appellant did mention the incident in her BOC, and she did not know her husband had gone to the funeral party, only that he had gone to work in the morning and returned from work in the evening. They also argue that the RPD "played with the wording of 'threatening' and speculated that the bodily harm was only a 'threatening'" by taking the word out of context from the Principal Appellant's husband's affidavit. They also argue the RPD "played with the wording of after 'work' and 'funeral party.' They also argued the RPD erred by focusing on what she could not find in the Principal Appellant's husband's affidavit, rather than what was written in it and what was in the Principal Appellant's testimony. [21] For the following reasons, I find that the RPD did not err. With regard to the inconsistency about the timing of the funeral party in 2015, I disagree

with the Appellants. The Principal Appellant testified the funeral party was in XXXX 2015 and her husband's affidavit states he was invited to the funeral ceremony near the beginning of 2015. Although the Appellants argue that several months passed before the Principal Appellant's husband suffered bodily harm, it does not make sense that he would have been invited to a funeral ceremony in early 2015 which was to take place in XXXX 2015. I find this is a serious inconsistency that goes to the heart of the Appellants' allegations, and specifically, that it undermines the credibility of the Principal Appellant's allegations that her husband was being pressured to join the Badoo cult. [22] With regard to the omission of the funeral party from the BOC, I disagree with the Appellants and find this was a material omission. Although the Principal Appellant alleged she did not know the truth at the time about why there was blood on her husband's shirt, she did know the truth at the time her BOC was drafted.8 Therefore, her counsel's submission that the Principal Appellant only knew that her husband had gone to work in the morning and returned from work in the evening is not accurate at the time the BOC was drafted. The BOC instructions state to include everything that is important to the claim. The alleged assault at the funeral party was a significant event that lead the Principal

Appellant's husband to flee to Germany, and therefore should have been stated in the BOC. The Principal Appellant's explanations at the hearing that the funeral party was after work and that she was not feeling well so only included key points in her BOC are not reasonable. She was represented by counsel when the BOC was drafted, and she could have amended her BOC in the several months between when it was drafted and when the hearing was held, or she could have included these details when she took the opportunity to amend her BOC on May 6, 2019. However, with regard to the gas station altercation, I do not find that this was a significant omission to be included in the BOC. This is because at the time the BOC was drafted, the Principal Appellant was swearing to the truth of what was already known to her. [23] With regard to the arguments that the RPD played with wording, the Appellants did not elaborate on this argument and I have found no error on the part of the RPD with regard to their use of wording. With respect to whether the bodily harm was only a "threatening," the Principal Appellant's husband states in his affidavit that he was threatened with bodily harm, but does not actually state he suffered bodily harm. The Appellants also did not seek to admit any new evidence to clarify this point. The Principal Appellant's explanation at the hearing that her husband only

summarized what happened is not acceptable as allegations of bodily harm are among the most serious allegations in this claim and therefore ought to have been included in the victim's affidavit. I would expect the affidavit to mention if the Principal Appellant's husband was beaten by the Badoo cult or not. Due to this omission, I find the affidavit should be given less weight in supporting the Appellants' allegations. [24] Lastly, with regard to the argument that the RPD focused on what was not in the affidavit rather than what was in it, I do find the RPD erred in this respect. However, I find the inconsistencies and omissions with the affidavit were of such a material nature that they affect the weight to be given to the affidavit. The Federal Court has held that "'[a] board or tribunal may discount the weight of a letter if it fails to address vital aspects of the claim' (J.E.P.G. v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2011 FC 744 (CanLII) at para 8)."9 Therefore, although I find the RPD erred, I find the inconsistencies and omissions relating to the Principal Appellant's husband's affidavit warrant giving it less weight in establishing the Appellants' allegations. [25] Contradictions: Badoo cult threats and ultimatum: The RPD found a number of contradictions with respect to threats from the cult. In her BOC the Principal Appellant wrote that her brother-in-law

"started receiving life threating letters." In her husband's affidavit he writes his brother found a note at the home in which the husband was threatened. The RPD rejected the Principal Appellant's explanation that there was only one note that threatened her husband and that she did not understand the process of writing the BOC, which could not explain the inaccuracies relating to how many threats were made and to whom. Also, in her BOC, the Principal Appellant alleged her husband received more threats via e-mail from the cult after her brother-in-law was killed; however, in her testimony she stated it was one threat via e-mail. Further, her husband's affidavit is silent on e-mail threats, for which the Principal Appellant did not have an explanation. The RPD preferred the version of events of the husband and found no e-mail threat was sent to the husband. The RPD also preferred the husband's version of events in finding that no ultimatum threatening to kill the Principal Appellant's brother-in-law if her husband did not return to Nigeria was proffered to the Principal Appellant's husband because there were inconsistencies about when and whether it arose. Her husband's affidavit is silent on the ultimatum, and in testimony the Principal Appellant stated when the cultist realized her husband had gone away, they sent him an e-mail giving him one year to return, and this was the

only e-mail he received from them (which is also inconsistent with her BOC). [26] The Appellants argue the RPD was microscopic in finding a contradiction between the words "letter" and "note." They further argue that the RPD focused on what the husband's affidavit did not say, rather than what it did say. They further argue that the Principal Appellant's husband's affidavit corroborates her testimony in that the cult recruiter probably found out from his son visiting the Principal Appellant's family about her husband's travel plans. The Appellants submit that "[p]robably, at the time the recruiter heard from his son about the whereabout of the husband, he has sent an email to him to tell him about the ultimatum."10 The Appellants further argue that there is no contradiction regarding the only e-mail received by the Principal Appellant's husband because she testified he told her about it after the death of his brother, but she did not say when he received the e-mail about the ultimatum. They further argue that the silence in the husband's affidavit about the e-mail and ultimatum does not mean that he never received it. Though he did not clearly mention he received an e-mail, "he has likely received an email from the recruiting agent who knew from his son that the husband has left to Germany, on the balance of probability."11 They submit the RPD erred by basing its findings on

what the affidavit did not state rather than what it did state. [27] For the following reasons, I find that the RPD did not err. With regard to the words "letter" versus "note," this is not the basis of the RPD's credibility concern. The inconsistency relates to the number of threats received and to whom the threats were directed. The BOC refers to more than one threat directed to the brother-in-law; however, the husband's affidavit refers to one threat directed at him. I find the RPD was correct in rejecting the Principal Appellant's explanation that there was only one note that threatened her husband and that she did not understand the process of writing the BOC. I concur with the RPD that the Principal Appellant is an educated individual. She is not unsophisticated, was represented when her BOC was completed, and confirmed at the hearing that it was complete, accurate, and correct. I also note that in the audio recording she claimed that it was a mistake in the BOC that there was more than one letter. I do not accept this explanation as reasonable as she confirmed her BOC was accurate and had taken the opportunity to submit an amended BOC prior to the hearing. As a result, this inconsistency undermines the Appellants' credibility with respect to their allegations that the Principal Appellant's husband and brother-in-law were threatened by the Badoo cult. [28] With regard to

the alleged e-mails to the Principal Appellant's husband, I disagree with the Appellants' submissions. The Principal Appellant's testimony was repeatedly inconsistent on this point. Her BOC alleges more than one threat via e-mail was sent by the cultists to her husband; however, in her testimony she alleged there was only one threat via e-mail. She also testified the e-mail with the ultimatum was the only e-mail her husband received from the cultists, which is inconsistent with her BOC. The Appellants argue there was no contradiction regarding the only e-mail her husband received and that she did not say when the e-mail was received; however, I fail to see how this is so and why the timing of the e-mail is relevant considering the inconsistencies discussed above. [29] With regard to the Principal Appellant's husband's affidavit being silent on e-mails from the cult, I agree with the Appellants' arguments, in part. I find it was an error to impugn the Principal Appellant's credibility based on this omission; however, as discussed above, the weight of a document can be impacted if it fails to address a vital aspect of the claim. If the Principal Appellant's husband had received threats via e-mail, I find these would have been vital aspects of the claim that should have been mentioned in his affidavit. The omission leads me to give less weight to the affidavit. Moreover, in their

submissions, the Appellants' counsel speculates about how the ultimatum e-mail came to be, writing that it is probable that the recruiter's son communicated the Principal Appellant's husband's whereabouts to the recruiter and that "he has likely received an email from the recruiting agent who knew from his son that the husband has left to Germany, on the balance of probability."12 There is nothing in evidence to suggest this is what happened and therefore counsel's speculation is unfounded. Although the husband's affidavit states "the cult recruiter probably found out from his son who must have overheard members of my family talking about my travel to Germany to study," he, too, is speculating, and says nothing about e-mails. Therefore, on the totality of the evidence, I disagree with the Appellants and find, on a balance of probabilities, that the silence in the Principal Appellant's husband's affidavit about the e-mail and ultimatum does mean that he did not receive it. [30] Based on the above credibility concerns, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellants failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, their allegations about the Badoo cult. Therefore, I do not find the Principal Appellant's husband was recruited or harmed by the cult members, or that he was given an ultimatum, or that the cult members killed the Principal Appellant's

brother-in-law. [31] Credibility regarding threats from the husband's family: The RPD found the Principal Appellant failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that her life was and continues to be threatened by her husband's family because she failed to disclose these details in her initial BOC and because her husband's affidavit is silent about an incident in which his sister attacked his wife with a broken bottle. Later in its decision, the RPD also found it unreasonable that the Principal Appellant had not provided a medical report of her three-week hospitalization following the stabbing. [32] The Appellants argue the RPD erred because it was not unreasonable that the Principal Appellant did not include the details about her in-laws' treatment of her in her initial BOC as the death of her brother-in-law was traumatic, it was reasonable that she initially only thought about the danger from the Badoo cult and did not think the events related to her religious conversion were more important, and not all details were recalled by her at the time she completed her initial BOC. Further, they argue that the RPD did not consider they came from a different country with different experience, and they did not have experience in knowing the procedures of a refugee claim, they did not have access to counsel once the BOC was submitted, nor did they know they could submit an

additional story on their own. They also argue that the RPD erred by holding the Appellants responsible for the omission of the sister-in-law's attack from the Principal Appellant's husband's affidavit, and that it can be inferred from the way he wrote his affidavit that there may have been other incidents that he did not mention as they may have been less important. With regard to the lack of medical documentation, they argue that the RPD misconstrued the evidence, that the Principal Appellant did ask for the medical report since she has been in Canada, that she never said she did not ask for the reports, and they cite parts of the audio in which the Principal Appellant testified she asked her brother to get the medical report for her in Nigeria but the hospital refused to release the confidential information to him. [33] For the following reasons, I find that the RPD did not err. First, with respect to the medical report of her hospitalization, the RPD did not err, but its reasons were unclear. The Principal Appellant was asked about hospital reports on two occasions during the hearing. Counsel references the audio recording at 1:14, at which point the Principal Appellant did testify that she asked her brother to get the hospital report and the hospital refused due to reasons of confidentiality. However, this only referred to the report of the hospitalization in 2017 after

the Principal Appellant's brother-in-law was allegedly killed and she testified her brother took her to the hospital. At 1:48 the RPD member asked the Principal Appellant about whether she had a report for her hospitalization in 2013, when she was allegedly stabbed in her arm by her sister-in-law. The Principal Appellant testified she did not have one and that she did not ask for it. I concur with the RPD and find the Principal Appellant's lack of effort in obtaining a hospital report undermines the credibility of her allegations. [34] With regard to why the details of her in-laws' treatment were not in the Principal Appellant's initial BOC, I find the RPD was correct to find the Principal Appellant's explanations were unreasonable and her credibility undermined. I accept that it may take time for an individual to recall traumatic events; however, an entirely separate basis for fearing for her life in Nigeria is not a small detail or something the Principal Appellant was not aware of at the time of completing her initial BOC. The BOC instructions state to include everything that is important to the claim. The Principal Appellant is educated and not unsophisticated. She was represented by counsel when her BOC was drafted. As noted by the RPD, the Principal Appellant alleged she was attacked by members of her husband's family in 2013 and 2014, both resulting in hospitalizations.

Moreover, in 2017, after her brother-in-law was allegedly killed, she lived in hiding at her mother's home to avoid her in-laws, who destroyed her mother's shop and beat her mother (for not disclosing the Principal Appellant's whereabouts) when searching for and threatening the Principal Appellant. Further, the Principal Appellant's fear of her in-laws flowed directly from her initial allegations regarding the Badoo cult because she alleges her in-laws are upset with her because of her brother-in-law's death. In light of these allegations, it is not reasonable that the Principal Appellant did not mention this fear in her initial BOC, and instead, took over a year to submit the additional information. Even when considering that the Principal Appellant came from another country with different experience, which did not prevent her from making a refugee claim immediately about the Badoo cult; this does not mitigate that she ought to have included the details of her in-laws' treatment in her initial BOC. Her failure to do so undermines her credibility that her in-laws have threatened her as alleged. Further, it is irrelevant that she did not know the procedures of a refugee claim as she was represented, the instructions on the BOC are clear, and she understands English. The Appellants' submissions also fail to explain or elaborate on why they did not have access to counsel once the

BOC was submitted and why this is relevant. I also reject the explanation that the Principal Appellant's alleged trauma explains the delay or omission as she has provided no medical or psychological evidence supporting that she has a condition that can explain her failure to disclose such information. [35] I further note that after the RPD hearing the Appellants submitted a sworn statement from the Principal Appellant,13 in which she states "[m]y husband did not disclose to me that his family member also hold me responsible for the death of his brother because to him then he wanted him to be fine so my health can be stabilze [sic] until sometime after I have submitted my BOC." I understand this to mean that she is alleging her husband did not tell her until after her initial BOC had been submitted that his family members held her responsible for his brother's death. She goes on to explain that she took her in-laws' initial verbal aggression towards her as a natural reaction from the death of her brother-in-law. It was only until after her BOC had been submitted that her husband told her his family wanted to inflict harm on her because of his brother's death. I have four concerns with this statement. First, the Principal Appellant is vague as to when she found this information out from her husband. Second, her statement contains explanations she did not provide at her hearing.

Her testimony focused on the cult being the source of her fear; not that she did not fear her in-laws until some time after her BOC was submitted. Third, it is not reasonable that she thought her sister-in-law destroying her mother's home, beating her mother up, and threatening the Principal Appellant was a "natural reaction." Fourth, the statement appears to be inconsistent with her testimony from the hearing, in which she testified she told her husband's family "I only told them that I wasn't involved, that it wasn't my fault," when asked by her counsel what she said to her in-laws when they blamed her for the death of her brother-in-law.14 For all of these reasons, I give the sworn statement no probative value in establishing the Appellants' allegations. [36] With regard to the omission of the sister-in-law's attack from the Principal Appellant's husband's affidavit, I find the affidavit does not establish the Appellants' allegations but that the RPD erred in undermining the Appellants' credibility. I note first that after the hearing the Appellants submitted a second affidavit from the Principal Appellant's husband.15 In the second part he addresses why his first affidavit did not mention the incident between his wife and his sister. He states "[t]he reason I did not cover specifics of the atrocities of my family members was because it was too painful for me and my wife had

volunteered instead to include them in her own narration of events." I give no probative value to this statement because it is inconsistent with the Principal Appellant's testimony. When she was asked why her husband did not mention the incident with her sister-in-law in his first affidavit, she testified she did not know, but that she told him she would write what his family did to her. I do not find this credible because it is unclear when this agreement took place, and if there was an agreement between them, it is unreasonable that the Principal Appellant testified she did not know why her husband left these details out of his affidavit. Therefore, I give the husband's second affidavit no probative value in establishing the Appellants' allegations. [37] Further, I disagree with the Appellants' submissions. They argue that it can be inferred from the Principal Appellant's husband's first affidavit that there may have been other incidents that he did not mention as they may have been less important. He mentioned the attack on his wife from his brother, after which his wife suffered a miscarriage. It is therefore inconceivable that he would fail to mention the attack from his sister on his wife that resulted in permanent scarring to her arm and a three-week hospitalization, as they fail to establish how this is less important. All of which further reduces the weight given to

his affidavit. [38] Based on the above, I find the omission of the sister-in-law's attack from the Principal Appellant's husband's affidavit diminishes the credibility and weight given to his affidavit. [39] Lastly, having found that the Appellants failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the Badoo cult members murdered the Principal Appellant's brother-in-law, I further find that they have failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that this is a reason for why the Principal Appellant's husband's family wants to harm her. The supporting documents do not outweigh the credibility concerns [40] In coming to this conclusion, I have also considered the text message from the Principal Appellant's sister, a photograph of the Principal Appellant's right XXXX, a medical report from Dr. XXXX, and the Principal Appellant's husband's two affidavits, and I find that they are insufficient to outweigh the credibility concerns discussed above. The RPD gave the text message no probative value; a finding that was unchallenged, and I agree with the RPD. While the photograph and medical report corroborate an injury to the Principal Appellant's right XXXX, they do not corroborate how or when the injury was sustained and they do not outweigh the credibility concerns above. Lastly, as discussed above, the inconsistencies and omissions relating to the Principal Appellant's

husband's affidavits impact their probative value. I therefore assign these documents no probative value in establishing the Appellants' allegations. [41] Therefore, based on the above findings, I find the Appellants have failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that their lives were and continue to be threatened by the Principal Appellant's husband's family. [42] Lack of documentation to support the claimant's allegations: The Appellants argue that the RPD erred in undermining their credibility based on a lack of evidence, part of which I assessed above. However, since I have found above that the Appellants failed to establish their allegations on a balance of probabilities, I need not address the remainder of this argument. The above findings are determinative of this appeal.

CONCLUSION [43] For the above reasons and after conducting its own analysis of the entire record, including the audio recording, the RAD finds that the RPD did not err in rejecting the Appellants' claim. The RAD finds that the Appellants have not established their allegations on a balance of probabilities. As a result, the RAD finds that they have not established that they face more than a mere possibility of persecution as per section 96, or that they face harm, on a balance of probabilities, under section 97 of the IRPA. Therefore, the RPD's final determination that the Appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection is correct, and this appeal is dismissed. [44] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection, pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). (signed) "I. Singh" I. Singh February 20, 2020 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. 2 Guideline on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Guidelines Issued by the Chairperson Pursuant to Section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, March 9, 1993, Update: November 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002 pursuant to section 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee

Protection Act. 3 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93, at para. 103. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, P-10, p. 321. 5 Guideline on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Guidelines Issued by the Chairperson Pursuant to Section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, March 9, 1993, Update: November 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002 pursuant to section 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. 6 Exhibit RAD-1, Member's Direction dated December 6, 2019; Exhibit P-3, Response to Member's Direction dated December 15, 2019. 7 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 8. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, BOC Narrative, para. 3-4. 9 Jin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 595, at para. 9. 10 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, page 11. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Exhibit P-3, Response to Member's Request dated December 15, 2019. 14 RPD Hearing Audio Recording, at approximately 2:30. 15 Exhibit P-3, Response to Member's Request dated December 15, 2019. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB9-15400 MB9-15401 / MB9-15402 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français 2 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.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français