TB4-07166

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 : TB4-07166 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et decision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision November 25, 2014 Date de la décision Panel Daniel McSweeney Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Ohene K. Andoh Barrister & Solicitor Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre Reasons and Decision [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXthe Appellant), a citizen of Ghana, has appealed a negative determination of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) issued on July 22, 2014. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) confirms the determination of the RPD that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee nor is he a person in need of protection. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant alleged that he fears militant youth and elders in his hometown because of his refusal to accept the position as XXXX XXXX. The Appellant alleged that he was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX before he left Ghana. The Appellant alleged that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to the town shrine. After the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the Appellant was called to a family meeting on XXXX XXXX, 2013 and learned that he had been chosen XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the role of fetish priest. The Appellant declined the position and indicated that he did not understand why he would be chosen given that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The Appellant was informed that the decision to nominate him was made after consultation with the "God" of the shrine. The Appellant left the meeting but was requested to return in two days with a favorable response to the request. [4] The Appellant informed the head of the family on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2013 that he was not interested in taking on the role of fetish priest. The XXXX XXXX became angry and threatened the Appellant with severe harm or even death if he did not accept the position. The head told the Appellant that the entire town would face a serious calamity if he refused to take on the position. The Appellant was warned that the militant youth of his town would ensure that the Appellant take the position. The Appellant left his hometown and went to XXXX where he alleged that he was attacked by six members of his hometown's militant youth on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2013. The Appellant sustained bruises and cuts and attended hospital. The Appellant reported to police who informed him that this was a family matter and that the Appellant should look for some elders in his hometown to help them resolve the problem. The Appellant alleged that he was attacked for a second time on XXXX XXXX, 2013 by four members of his hometown's militant youth. The Appellant was hit on the head with a stick, punched and kicked several times. The Appellant attended the hospital and reported the incident to a different police station. The Appellant alleged that the police told him to go home and make peace with his elders. The Appellant alleges that he was attacked for a third time on XXXX XXXX, 2013. The attackers gave the Appellant one month to make himself available for initiation into the position of fetish priest. [5] Fearing for his life, the Appellant left Ghana on XXXX XXXX, 2013 and arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2013. The Appellant travelled to Canada on a student visa. The Appellant alleged that he has been informed that the elders and militant youth of his hometown have been looking for his whereabouts in Ghana, as they would like to kidnap and harm him. The Appellant also alleges that the elders have reported to police that he is bisexual in order to punish him. [6] The Appellant made his claim for protection on March 5, 2014. [7] The Appellant had a refugee determination hearing on May 2, 2014. Written reasons were issued on July 22, 2014, and the RPD's Reasons and Decision focused on the credibility of the allegations. The RPD made the following individual findings: 1. The RPD drew a negative credibility inference based on the Appellant's changing testimony regarding the issuance of the passport in his brother's name. 2. The RPD found that the issuance of a passport in the Appellant's brother's name was evidence that the Appellant was willing to use fraudulent documents, and therefore the RPD rejected the additional evidence (doctor's note and affidavit) provided by the Appellant in support of his claim. 3. The RPD drew a negative credibility inference based on the inconsistent testimony regarding why the Appellant was chosen to be the fetish priest. 4. The RPD found that the Appellant's testimony that he was accused of being bisexual would impair his ability to be a fetish priest. The Appellant confirmed that he was no longer at risk of being threatened for failing to take the fetish priest position, but he was at risk because he was reported for being a bisexual. 5. The RPD drew a negative inference with respect to the failure of the Appellant's Basis of Claim (BoC) to mention his fear of being harmed because of allegations of bisexuality. The RPD found that there was no corroborative evidence of the accusations that the Appellant was labeled a bisexual. The Appellant testified that he was not actually bisexual, and therefore his fears are speculative at best. 6. The RPD found that the eight-month delay in seeking protection was not consistent with the actions of a person who is interested in obtaining Canada's assistance and protection especially given that the Appellant had violated his visa requirements, as he did not attend school in Canada. 7. The RPD found that the documentary evidence did not support the Appellant's claim that refusal to take on the role of fetish priest would result in physical harm or death. The RPD placed more weight on the objective evidence than the Appellant's testimony given the credibility concerns with the Appellant as a witness. [8] Appeal pleadings were received on August 27, 2014. In the appeal, counsel argued that the RPD made several errors in its assessment of the Appellant's credibility and testimony. Specific errors included: 1. The RPD erred in rejecting the Appellant's explanation and drawing a negative inference as a result of the Appellant's being issued a passport in the name of his brother. 2. The RPD erred in rejecting the Appellant's explanation as to why the family members had to deliberate on his nomination. 3. The RPD erred in putting little probative value on the Appellant's allegation that he feared returning to Ghana because he was accused of being a bisexual. 4. The RPD erred in assigning a negative credibility inference to the Appellant's eight-month delay in claiming. 5. The RPD erred in stating that there is no practice of punishing persons for running away before being offered a position of chief or elder, as the Appellant was not offered a position of chief or elder; he was offered the position of XXXX XXXX. 6. The RPD erred in placing more weight on the objective evidence than on the Appellant's testimony. The RPD erred in giving little weight to the doctor's note and the affidavit submitted by the Appellant. 7. The RPD erred by disregarding evidence that members of the Appellant's family reported to police that he was bisexual. [9] The Appellant did not provide new evidence. The Appellant requests that the RAD set aside the RPD's determination and find that the Appellant is a Convention refugee. ANALYTICAL APPROACH [10] The RAD has adopted the direction in the recent Huruglica1 decision as a guideline to frame its analysis. In this decision, Justice Phelan has indicated that the RAD conducts a hybrid appeal and is required to review all aspects of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the Appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. This authority comes from the broad remedial powers of the RAD, including the power to set aside and substitute the RPD's determination that, in its opinion, should have been made, as per s. 111(1)(b) of IRPA. The RAD can recognize and respect the conclusions of the RPD on issues such as credibility and/or where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage in reaching its conclusion; however, the RAD has equal or greater expertise than the RPD in the interpretation of country condition evidence. The RAD is not restricted to intervening on facts where there is a palpable and overriding error. It is not necessary for the RAD to find an error on some standard of review basis in order to trigger its remedial power. The RAD concurs with counsel on the approach to analysis and will assess the claim based on the guidance in the Huruglica decision. ANALYSIS [11] The RAD focused on the credibility of the Appellant's allegations and evidence related to his fear of his family members and their report to police that he was bisexual. [12] The RAD considered the totality of the evidence, including the Appellant's testimony, documentary evidence on the record, and claim-specific evidence presented by the Appellant. The RAD found that the Appellant was not a credible witness and that his allegations of a fear of his family members and a fear because he was allegedly identified as a bisexual were not credible for the reasons outlined below. [13] Before discussing individual concerns, the RAD noted that the Appellant's behavior during his testimony undermined his overall credibility as a witness. On at least four occasions during oral testimony, the Appellant did not answer the question posed to him by the panel in a direct manner; rather, he went on to recite his allegations. Bearing in mind the education level and sophistication of the Appellant, the RAD finds that this behavior at the hearing undermined the Appellant's credibility as a witness. [14] The RAD concurs with the RPD that the Appellant's use of his brother's name and date of birth in a previous passport undermined his overall credibility as a witness. The RPD had before it evidence from American officials2 which indicated that the Appellant applied for a US non-immigrant visa in Canada in XXXX 2004 using the name XXXX XXXX, and the birth date of XXXX XXXX, 1974. The Appellant indicated that he had a short turnaround time in order to attend a conference in the United States, and he used the passport with the fraudulent information in order to apply for a visa to travel to the United States. [15] The RPD found that the Appellant was not issued a passport in his brother's name in error for several reasons. The Appellant explained that there had been a mix-up in the documents that he presented to a middle man to obtain his passport. The RPD found that the Appellant's testimony that an agent or middleman was required to obtain a passport in Ghana was not credible, as it did not conform to the documentary evidence related to the issuance of passports in Ghana. [16] Secondly, the Appellant changed his testimony by indicating that it was not an agent; rather, it was a person at the passport office who confused the documents. This change in the Appellant's testimony undermined the reasonableness of the explanation. The RPD also noted that there is widespread corruption and the use of fraudulent documents in Ghana. The RPD drew a negative inference from the Appellant's willingness to use fraudulent documents. [17] Based on a review of the totality of the evidence, the RAD concurs with the RPD that the Appellant's use of a fraudulent passport to apply for US visa undermined the Appellant's credibility. The RAD noted that the Appellant had applied for the US visa in 2004. The Appellant was issued a new passport under his real name and birthdate in XXXX 2010. The Appellant testified that he subsequently got a new passport to correct the situation; however, the Appellant did not explain why it took at least XXXX years to rectify the situation and for the Appellant to obtain a passport in his name. The Appellant applied for a US visa knowing that the name and birthdate in his passport were not his in order to attend a conference in the United States. This was evidence that the Appellant was willing to deceive US government officials about his identity in order to achieve his goals. This behavior seriously undermined the credibility of the Appellant as a witness, as well as the credibility of the documents submitted in support of his claim. In addition, the Appellant's evolving testimony regarding whether or not he used an agent to obtain the first passport undermined his overall credibility as a witness. [18] The RAD considered the evidence presented by the Appellant in support of his allegations. The RAD considered the affidavit from the friend of the Appellant.3 The RAD found that little weight could be placed on the affidavit for several reasons. [19] Firstly, the affidavit does not indicate how the affiant became aware of the assertions made in the affidavit, especially the assertion that the Appellant's family has reported to police that the Appellant is bisexual and that the police are searching for the Appellant. [20] Secondly, the RAD noted that there was a significant inconsistency between the contents of the affidavit and the Appellant's oral testimony. The RAD noted that the credibility of the Appellant could not be undermined by the contents of a third person's evidence; however, inconsistencies with evidence produced by a third person and the oral testimony can cause the RAD to place little probative value on the evidence. The Appellant testified that he went to the hospital on the third occasion (XXXX XXXX, 2013) and was accompanied by the affiant who returned home after the hospital visit. The Appellant then testified that he went to the police station alone on that occasion. The RAD noted that the affidavit does not indicate that the affiant accompanied the Appellant to the hospital after an attack on the XXXX XXXX, 2013. The affidavit indicated that the affiant attended the police station where the Appellant made a report about his beatings. This was not consistent with the Appellant's BoC narrative which indicated that he did not report to police after the attack on XXXX XXXX, 2013. [21] The RAD also noted that the Appellant's oral evidence at the hearing that he attended the police alone on the same day that he was accompanied to the hospital by the affiant did not conform to the Appellant's narrative. [22] Finally, the RAD noted that the affidavit was not accompanied by any documents to attest to the existence of the affiant or his relationship with the Appellant. [23] Given the concerns outlined above, the RAD finds that it can place little weight on the affidavit in support of the Appellant's allegations. This is an extremely important finding as the affidavit is the only document provided by the Appellant that supports the Appellant's allegations that he had been persecuted because of his refusal to take on the role of fetish priest, was denied state protection, and has been accused of being a bisexual and has been reported to police. The Appellant's remaining evidence was found not to be credible as outlined below. Given the lack of independent evidence supporting the Appellant's allegations, the Appellant is dependent on the RPD's and the RAD's assessment of his credibility as a witness. [24] The Appellant did not provide evidence from his wife attesting to the fact that he had been threatened and attacked because of his refusal to take on the role of XXXX XXXX. The Appellant testified that his wife was present during all three attacks. Given that no evidence was presented that his wife and other family members were threatened, it would be reasonable to assume that the Appellant's wife could provide evidence regarding the attacks. [25] Similarly, the Appellant provided evidence from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,4 which was dated XXXX XXXX, 2014. This letter did not indicate that the Appellant had any problems in Ghana despite the fact that the Appellant indicated that he discussed his problems with elders of his church, that the elders were concerned for his safety, and that the elders were aware of his plans to leave Ghana. The Appellant did not provide any additional evidence from the elders with whom he consulted in Ghana. Such evidence could have gone a long way in supporting the Appellant's allegations that he was threatened because of his refusal to become a fetish priest. [26] The RAD also noted that the letter from the church in Canada5 indicated that the Appellant: "coming from our ministry headquarters in Ghana". The RPD did not make a finding regarding the fact that the Appellant ended up being involved with a church in Canada that was affiliated with his church in Ghana. Further exploration of this issue would have been helpful given that was evidence that might have served to undermine the Appellant's claim that he came to Canada out of a fear of persecution, as there is evidence on the record that the Appellant had work connections with a church in Canada. [27] In addition, the fact that the Appellant ended up being involved in a church that was affiliated with his church in Ghana did not support his testimony that he asked people about a church in Canada, and he went to a church that was similar to the way he worshipped in Ghana. The church he attended in Canada was affiliated with the church where the Appellant XXXX in Ghana. The RPD asked the Appellant if the church he attended was related to the church that he went to in Ghana at the 2:38 mark on the recording; however, the Appellant's response was inaudible, as the Appellant responded at the same time as the question was being interpreted. [28] The RAD considered the obituary notice, the photos of damage, and a photo of the shrine6 provided in support of the Appellant's allegations. The RAD found that these pieces of evidence cannot attest to the truthfulness of the Appellant's allegations. [29] The RAD considered the medical evidence presented by the Appellant.7 The RPD noted that the letter did not provide significant details of the injuries and treatment that the Appellant received on each occasion, which one would expect in medical documents attesting to injuries. The document did not have any security features such as stamps or seals. The document did not indicate on what basis the writer made the observation that the Appellant's wounds were the result of an attack on him by militant youth in his hometown. In fact, the letter does not indicate that the injuries sustained by the Appellant were consistent with an attack by a group of youths. The document does not indicate why it was issued oXXXX XXXX XXXX, 2014, some XXXX months after the last hospitalization. The RAD is aware that fraudulent documents and corruption are endemic in Ghana.8 [30] As outlined above, the Appellant's allegations were found not to be credible. Furthermore, as noted above, both the RAD and the RPD found that the Appellant had a history of providing fraudulent evidence to government officials, and therefore it was reasonable to draw a negative inference regarding the genuineness of the medical note as well as the additional documentary evidence provided by the Appellant in support of his claim. [31] The RPD found that the documentary evidence regarding the treatment of those who refuse positions as fetish priests in Ghana did not conform to the Appellant's oral testimony and allegations. Counsel argued that the RPD did not consider the contents of two Response to Information Requests (RIRs) (GHA42626.E9 and GHA101612.E10) and therefore erred it its assessment. [32] The RAD noted that the RPD had before it in the National Documentation Package (NDP) a more recent RIR11 which dealt with the consequences of refusing a fetish priest or chieftaincy position in Ghana. The RAD finds that the newer evidence (2012 vs. 2004 and 2006) supports the RPD's finding that the Appellant can avoid taking on an unwanted position by leaving the village and that there is no punishment for refusing a position. The RIR indicates that: There is no practice of punishing persons for running away before being offered a position as chief or elder, including female positions such as Queen Mother. If the chosen person is not bright enough to run away, and wants to refuse office, the usual practice is for him or her to offer a sheep to sacrifice to pacify the annoyed ancestors, and that is the end of it. There is no need for state protection because there is no punishment. The disappointed elders may express their irritation, but it happens so often, they usually sigh and are resigned to the fact. [33] The RIR goes on to comment on the issue of priests in the Akan tribe to which the Appellant indicted in his BoC that he belonged. The RIR indicated the following: An okomfo is an intermediary who conveys messages from deities to people. ... The position of an okomfo is not hereditary and both men and women may occupy it .... A person is called to become an okomfo, when a deity suddenly possesses him/her or reveals himself/herself in a dream or in a real life encounter. A person who has received such a call can become an okomfo by undergoing a lengthy training process supervised by a senior priest. The training ends with a test, which determines whether the trainee is actually capable of mediation with the deities. Since functioning as an okomfo depends on the person's ability to become possessed by a deity, I do not think that anybody can be forced to become one. However, I have been told about fears that some people have about getting possessed against their own will. Initial fear of and resistance against the deities is also a recurring motif in the stories that akomfo tell about the beginning of their calling. Some akomfo have converted to Christianity, given up their calling, and burnt their shrines. This might be viewed with hostility by some members of the community. (ibid.) I am not personally aware of any actual case in which a traditional priest has been subjected to mistreatment or violence because he/she has converted to Christianity. However, I do think there is a risk of that because the negligence of ritual observances and the destruction of shrine objects are considered a violation of customary norms. Then again, I assume the degree of risk would vary from case to case, depending on how committed the members of a given community are to the deity served by the priest. (ibid. 14 Aug. 2012) [34] As outlined in the citation above, the researcher from Finland confirmed that a person would not be forced to become a priest against his will. The risk of violence only relates to after the priest takes on a role and destroys the shrine. This was not the case with the Appellant, as he refused to consider the role when offered. [35] Given the most up-to-date information in the RIR, the RAD finds that the documentary evidence does not support the Appellant's allegations that community youth and elders have beaten him, and have sought to end his life because of his refusal to take on the role of fetish priest. Given the credibility concerns with the Appellant's oral testimony and evidence, the RAD concurs with the RPD that more weight should be placed on the documentary evidence on the record. The documentary evidence does not support the claim that individuals who refuse fetish priest positions are harmed or persecuted in Ghana. As such, the RAD finds that the Appellant's allegations were not credible. [36] The RAD noted that the RPD made a finding and assigned a negative inference in its Reasons that the Appellant did not make reference to in his BoC that he was at risk because of his bisexuality. The RAD noted that the Appellant made reference to his being reported to police because of his bisexuality on page 5c of his BoC narrative. Given that the Appellant's allegations were found not to be credible, the RAD finds that this error on the part of the RPD was not sufficient to overturn the other negative credibility findings. [37] For the reasons outlined above, the RAD finds that the Appellant has failed to provide sufficient credible or trustworthy evidence in support of his allegations. The Appellant's allegations did not conform to the most recent documentary evidence on the record. The RAD also finds that the Appellant was not a credible witness given his failure to answer questions directly at the hearing, his history of deceiving officials regarding his identity, and his delay in claiming (outlined below). [38] The RAD notes that delay in claiming is an important factor, which the Board is entitled to consider in weighing a claim for refugee status.12 The Board must decide the significance of the delay to each particular case.13 Delay points to a lack of subjective fear of persecution.14 Delay can also be a consideration in finding that a claimant is not credible.15 The RAD also noted that the possession of a visa does not rebut the presumption that a true refugee would claim protection at the first opportunity.16 The absence of a satisfactory explanation can be fatal to a claim even where the credibility of an applicant's claim has not otherwise been challenged.17 [39] The RPD considered the issue of the Appellant's delay in claiming. The Appellant arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2013. He was provided with a six-month visa to attend an educational institution. This would mean that, if the Appellant attended school in Canada as he indicated, his legal status in Canada would expire on XXXX XXXX, 2014. The Appellant had no intention of attending school in Canada, and therefore it was reasonable to expect that he knew that he did not have legal status in Canada. The Appellant testified that he came to Canada to seek protection, and therefore he was aware of this when he left Ghana. This was supported by the fact that the Appellant had told the man with whom he was living about his situation, and the man told him that he was going to take him to Immigration. Even if the Appellant was under the impression that he still had legal status in Canada, this does not explain why the Appellant delayed making his claim until March 5, 2014. The RAD noted that the Appellant signed his BoC on February 25, 2014; however, the Appellant did not have an appointment with Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) until March 5, 2014. The Appellant was out of status for at least XXXX XXXX before he made his claim for protection. [40] The RPD considered the Appellant's explanation for the delay in claiming. The Appellant alleged that he asked the man with whom he lived to bring him to CIC. The Appellant alleges that the man did not follow through on his promise. It is unreasonable for the man that the Appellant lived with to take eight months to bring him to CIC to regularize his status, or that the Appellant would depend solely on one person for so long to take him to CIC. The Appellant consulted with another person who directed him to his current Immigration counsel who then assisted him in making a claim. The RPD rejected the Appellant's explanation that he did not know how to seek protection, given that the Appellant was not an unsophisticated person given his education and professional background. [41] In addition, the RPD noted that the Appellant had provided a letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,18 which indicated that the Appellant has been active and has taken on a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX since XXXX 2013. The Appellant was instrumental in establishing a youth counseling program which has been recognized by the Ontario Court. The RPD found that the Appellant had sufficient sophistication and resources to inquire about the refugee system in Canada, and that his eight-month delay in claiming was not consistent with the actions of a person who was interested in obtaining Canada's assistance and protection. The RAD concurs with the RPD's finding given that it was unreasonable for the Appellant not to seek protection given his personal background and that he had connections with the community in Canada. [42] Furthermore, the RAD finds that the Appellant's delay in claiming was sufficient to undermine the credibility of his allegations that he feared persecution or harm in Ghana because of his refusal to take on the role as fetish priest, and because of the alleged report to police regarding his bisexuality. The RAD finds the Appellant's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for his significant delay in claiming was fatal to his claim. [43] Based on an analysis of the totality of the evidence before it, the RAD finds that the Appellant has not provided sufficient credible or trustworthy evidence to establish his claim that he has been reported to police for being a bisexual; the Appellant was found not to be credible witness; the Appellant has been found to have deceived US authorities regarding his identity in order to get what he wanted; the Appellant's delay in claiming undermined his subjective fear of persecution or harm in Ghana and was fatal to his claim, and the Appellant's allegations of persecution because of his refusal to take on the role of fetish priest was not supported by the documentary evidence. DISPOSITION [44] The RAD confirms the RPD's determination that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee, nor is he a person in need of protection, as per s. 111(1)(a) of IRPA. [45] The appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Daniel McSweeney" Daniel McSweeney November 25, 2014 Date 1 Huruglica, Bijar et. al. v. M.C.I. (F.C. no., IMM-6362-12), Phelan, August 22, 2014, 2014 FC 799. 2 RPD's Record, Exhibit 4, US biometric results, pp. 82 - 87. 3 RPD's Record, Exhibit 5, Affidavit from XXXX XXXX, pp. 93 - 94. 4 RPD's Record, Exhibit 5, Letter from XXXX XXXX, p. 97. 5 RPD's Record, Exhibit 5, Letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX, p. 96. 6 RPD's Record, Exhibit 5, pp. 90 - 92. 7 RPD's Record, Exhibit 5, p. 95. 8 RPD's Record, Exhibit 7, RIR GHA104710.E, 3 January 2014, p. 106. 9 RPD's Record, Exhibit 8, RIR GHA42626.E, 3 May 2004, p. 114. 10 RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Ghana (14 March 2014), Item 12.2, RIR GHA101612.E, 11 October, 2006. 11 RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Ghana (14 March 2014), Item 13.1, RIR GHA104154.E, 16 August, 2012. 12 Heer, Karmail Singh v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-474-87), Heald, Marceau, Lacombe, April 13, 1988. 13 M.C.I, v. M.C.I. v. Sivalingam-Yogarajah, Subajiny (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2649-00), Pelletier, September 13, 2001; 2001 FCT 1018. 14 Castillejos, Joaqin Torres v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1950-94), Cullen, December 20, 1994. 15 Bello, Salihou v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1771-96), Pinard, April 11, 1997; Osorio Mejia, Claudia Elena v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6855-10), Mosley, July 8, 2011; 2011 FC 851. 16 Peti, Qamile, v. M.C.I., (F.C., No. IMM-1764-11), Scott, January 19, 2012; 2012 FC 82. 17 Velez, Liliana v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5660-09), Crampton, September 15, 2010; 2010 FC 923. 18 RPD's Record, Exhibit 5, Letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, p. 96. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB4-07166