MB9-11259

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB9-11259 MB9-11260 / MB9-11261 / MB9-11262 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision August 4, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Me Agnès Connat Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Charlemagne Mfera 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 (the male appellant), his wife XXXX XXXX XXXX (the female appellant) and their children XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXand XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the minor appellants) are citizens of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). [2] The male appellant fears being persecuted by members of the DRC's intelligence agency (ANR) after he refused to provide false testimony concerning the death of members of the political-religious movement Bundu dia Kongo (BDK) in XXXX 2008. [3] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found that the appellants are not credible based on their failure to seek protection in Lesotho and Namibia, the family's return to the DRC in XXXX 2017 to obtain new biometric passports, and omissions in the written accounts (his 2010 detention and the death threats made by his family against the female appellant). [4] The appellants submit that the RPD erred in its assessment of their credibility, that it did not apply the presumption of truthfulness to their testimony, and that it made erroneous findings based on a misinterpretation of the facts. They are contesting the RPD's findings regarding the ground of persecution, their behaviour in failing to seek asylum in third countries, and the male appellant's omission in his written account concerning his return to the DRC. [5] For the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), the determinative issue is whether the RPD erred in its assessment of the appellants' credibility. DETERMINATION [6] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in determining that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. ANALYSIS [7] The arguments presented by the appellants in this appeal are general and do not describe in detail the errors allegedly committed by the RPD. The onus is on them, not the RAD, to identify the errors made by the RPD and to formulate submissions accordingly.1 Despite the lack of detailed submissions, I conducted an independent assessment of the evidence. My role is to review all the evidence and to determine whether the RPD's decision is correct.2 Notice sent to the appellants [8] On February 17, 2020, the RAD sent a notice regarding new issues and the new National Documentation Package (NDP) on the DRC. It asked the appellants to provide their submissions with regard to the dates of their return to the alleged country of persecution, the DRC; the conditions of their stay and on how they entered and left the country; the prospective risk and, in particular, the changes to the new government described in the NDP; and the possibility of an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Kabinda (province of Lomani) or in any other city in the country and protection from the Congolese state. The appellants sent their submissions and new evidence. [9] On June 15, 2020, the appellants also received a notice regarding the status of their appeal, asking them to provide the RAD with any documents or submissions concerning the resumption of time limits in response to the COVID-19 pandemic within 30 days of receipt of the notice. At the time this decision was signed, they had made no submissions and had not provided any new evidence. Admissibility of new evidence [10] Pursuant to subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD may allow new evidence (1) that arose after the rejection of the claim, or (2) that was not reasonably available before the RPD made its decision, or (3) that the appellants could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection [emphasis added]. According to the jurisprudence,3 the appellants must also establish that the new evidence meets the three criteria of credibility, newness and relevance. [11] While the appellants did not submit explanations regarding the admissibility of all this evidence, I assessed the admissibility of each new piece of evidence. [12] Further to the RAD's notice (Notice), the appellants submitted the following exhibits as new evidence, along with their memorandum of appeal (Memorandum). P-1 to P-5 Memorandum Various newspaper articles on xenophobia in South Africa: March 31, 2019; March 13, 2017; May 1, 2019; February 25, 2017; November 16, 2005 P-6, Memorandum Human Rights Watch report on refugee protection in Johannesburg, South Africa, 2005 P-7, Memorandum Amnesty International report on South Africa 2017/2018 (undated) P-8 to P-15 Memorandum Various newspaper articles on xenophobia in South Africa: September 5, 2019; September 19, 2019; September 4, 2019; September 3, 2019; September 4, 2019; October 16, 2019; January 23, 2020; January 16, 2020 P-16, Notice Copy of Ethiopian Airlines airplane tickets: XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, to XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017 - SAR-2 P-17, Notice Online article from Afrique.lalibre.be newspaper: "RDC passeports : retour partiel en arrière" [DRC passports: A partial step backwards] - January 8, 2020 P-18, Notice Pages from the semi-biometric passports of XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX - SAR-3 P-19, Notice No document submitted for this tab P-20, Notice Article from an unidentified newspaper, "D'après Amnesty International : L'insécurité et l'impunité entravent les Droits humains sous Felix Tshisekedi" [According to Amnesty International: Insecurity and impunity interfere with human rights under Felix Tshisekedi] - February 8, 2020 P-21, Notice Online article from Amnesty International: "RDC un an après l'arrivée au pouvoir de Félix Tshisekedi, l'insécurité et l'impunité continuent de mettre en péril les droits humains" [DRC: A year after Tshisekedi took office, insecurity and impunity still put human rights at risk] - January 24, 2020 - SAR-4 P-22, Notice Article from online newspaper, La Libre Afrique: "RDC : les droits de l'homme mis en péril par l'insécurité et l'impunité" [DRC: Human rights threatened by insecurity and impunity] - January 24, 2020 - SAR-5 P-23, Notice Online article from Deskeco: "Rien n'arrête la petite corruption même en 2020" [Nothing stops petty corruption, even in 2020] - January 8, 2020 - SAR-6 Admitted evidence [13] I admit Exhibit P-16 (SAR-2). This exhibit meets the third criterion of subsection 110(4). The appellants could not reasonably have been expected to present it, since they could not have anticipated that the RAD would send them a notice regarding their XXXX 2017 trip to the DRC, a matter not dealt with by the RPD. It meets the three jurisprudential criteria. It is credible, because it seems on its face to be authentic, and it bears the elements expected of an airline ticket (e.g. reservation code, distances, meal information). It is truly new and relevant since it was not previously submitted, and it serves as evidence of the appellants' travel dates. [14] I admit Exhibit P-18 (SAR-3). It meets the third criterion of subsection 110(4). The appellants could not reasonably have been expected to present it, since they could not have anticipated that the RAD would send them a notice regarding their XXXX 2017 stay in the DRC. It meets the three jurisprudential criteria. It is credible, because it seems on its face to be authentic, since it is pages from a passport, i.e. an official document issued by the authorities. It is truly new and relevant since it was not previously submitted, and it serves as evidence of the appellants' travel dates. [15] I admit exhibits P-21 and P-22 (SAR-4 and SAR-5). These news articles meet the first criterion of subsection 110(4), because they were posted in January 2020, after the refugee protection claim had been rejected. This evidence meets the three jurisprudential criteria. The articles are credible because they are from online newspapers, and they are truly new and relevant because they provide a response to the RAD's notice regarding state protection. In particular, they address the human rights situation following the positive measures taken by the Félix Tshisekedi government. [16] I admit Exhibit P-23 (SAR-6). This article meets the first criterion of subsection 110(4), because it was posted in January 2020, after the rejection of the claim. It meets the three jurisprudential criteria. The evidence is credible, because it is from an online newspaper. It is truly new and relevant, since it documents the corruption within the government, at airports and at border crossings in the DRC. Rejected evidence [17] I reject exhibits P-1 to P-7. These documents do not meet the criteria of subsection 110(4). They were published prior to the rejection of the claim and the appellants could have provided them. I note that this evidence is not relevant because it documents the situation of refugees in South Africa. The failure to seek asylum in South Africa was not addressed by either the RPD in its reasons or the RAD in its notice. [18] I reject exhibits P-8 to P-15. These documents meet the first criterion of subsection 110(4), because they were published after the rejection of the claim, but not the jurisprudential criterion of relevance. These articles document the refugee situation in South Africa. The failure to seek asylum in South Africa was not addressed by either the RPD in its reasons or the RAD in its notice. [19] I reject Exhibit P-17. This document meets the first criterion of subsection 110(4), but not the jurisprudential criterion of newness. It came out after the rejection of the claim, but the information it contains, namely that the semi-biometric passports became invalid on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, is not truly new and was available in the NDP.4 [20] I reject Exhibit P-20. This document meets the first criterion set out in subsection 110(4), but not the jurisprudential criterion of credibility. This article came out after the rejection of the claim, but the document is not credible. The article is incomplete. At a minimum, it clearly lacks an introduction, even a paragraph at the beginning of the article, after the photograph. The Refugee Protection Division correctly analyzed the refugee protection claim under section 96 on the ground of the male appellant's imputed political opinion [21] The appellants allege that the RPD erred in analyzing the claim on the ground of [translation] "imputed political opinion." They submit that the RPD should have analyzed the claim on the ground that the male appellant belongs to the [translation] "particular social group of physicians." [22] The RPD correctly established that the appellants' claim should be analyzed under section 96 of the IRPA on the ground of imputed political opinion. The male appellant alleges that he refused to provide false testimony at the request of the ANR, which demanded that he state he had XXXX XXXX XXXX when he actually XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX during his shift on the night of XXXX XXXXto XXXX XXXX XXXX 2008. While he did not express any political opinion against the government, what must be considered at the time of the analysis is the persecutor's perception, i.e. that the male appellant refused the ANR's request and is therefore seen as an opponent who contradicted the government's version of the event. The fact that he belongs to the group of Congolese physicians is not the ground of persecution. There is nothing in the evidence or the allegations to indicate that the particular social group of Congolese physicians is persecuted in the that country. Whether the risk of harm is analyzed on the ground of imputed political opinion or membership in a particular social group does not change the legal test or the standard of proof. The claim is analyzed using the legal test of a serious possibility or a well-founded fear of persecution, and the standard of proof for the alleged facts is the balance of probabilities in both cases. The failure to seek asylum in Lesotho does not undermine the appellants' subjective fear [23] The appellants have not submitted any arguments with regard to the RPD's analysis of their failure to seek asylum in Namibia or Lesotho. They merely state that the RPD erred in concluding that their behaviour was inadequate due to their failure to seek asylum in South Africa, Namibia or Lesotho. Moreover, they provided a number of pieces of evidence and devoted several pages of their memorandum to the situation of refugees in South Africa, when the RPD did not draw a negative finding from their failure to seek asylum in that country. They did not present any submissions describing in detail the other errors the RPD allegedly made or how the RPD allegedly erred in making said errors. The onus is on the appellants, not the RAD, to identify the errors made by the RPD and to formulate submissions accordingly.5 Despite this failure, I analyzed this issue. [24] The RPD considered the male appellant's failure to seek protection in Lesotho to be behaviour that is inconsistent with that of a person who truly fears for their safety. It was of the opinion that the male appellant's testimony was evasive and that he adjusted it according to the questions asked, and that he did not provide a reasonable explanation for the omissions in his Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form) regarding his reasons for leaving Lesotho. [25] The RPD erred in analyzing the appellants' failure to seek asylum in Lesotho. The failure to seek asylum in a third country is an important factor that is not normally determinative in itself. The assessment of a refugee protection claimant's subjective fear may have an impact on credibility, for example, if the delay is not explained, or if it is excessive and a satisfactory explanation is not provided. In this case, the male appellant's explanations are satisfactory for the following reasons. [26] The appellants went to Lesotho in 2011, after a brief stay in South Africa. At the hearing, the male appellant explained that he chose to live in Lesotho because physicians are welcomed there. He was able to enter easily and obtained authorization to practise as a General Practitioner in 2012.6 The appellants were married there, had a son in 2013, and lived there without fear, until a Congolese minister visited in XXXX 2014. [27] In XXXX 2014, the Congolese minister of communications went to Lesotho, met the Congolese community living in Lesotho (COCOL), and asked for a list of all citizens of the Congo living there (BOC Form and testimony). This minister's mission was to determine the number of DRC nationals in order to assess the possibility of setting up a consulate so that Congolese citizens would not have to go to South Africa for their administrative needs. The male appellant was afraid of appearing on this list and of being discovered by the DRC authorities, and then being extradited. He explained that Lesotho and the Congo are part of a community of countries in Southern African, that they have agreements and that he would have been afraid that something would happen to him even if he had sought asylum in Lesotho. [28] The RPD was of the opinion that the male appellant had not provided any evidence that the Lesotho authorities collaborate with and extradite people to the DRC. However, the RPD erred in failing to consult the NDP on Lesotho, which confirms the male appellant's assertion that there is an extradition agreement between Lesotho and the DRC. The documentary evidence on this country, although scant, does indicate that Lesotho is a member of the Southern African Development Community (SADC).7 The SADC includes the governments of Angola, Botswana, the DRC, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. These countries have a protocol on extradition.8 [29] I accept the appellants' explanations that they had a status in Lesotho that ensured their safety. While the family spent several years in Lesotho, the failure to seek asylum there is not determinative and does not undermine their credibility or subjective fear. The appellants' behaviour during their stay in Namibia undermines their subjective fear [30] The RPD considered the male appellant's failure to seek protection in Namibia to be behaviour that is inconsistent with that of a person who truly fears for their safety. It considered that he did not provide a reasonable explanation for why he did not seek asylum in Namibia. [31] The RPD is correct in its finding that the appellants' credibility is undermined. The male appellant left Lesotho in 2015 and was offered a position as a XXXX in Namibia.9 They lived there until 2017. Their daughter was born there in 2016. The male appellant explained that he did not seek asylum there because of his fear of the relationship between Namibia and the DRC. That is the same explanation he used for Lesotho. In this case, the male appellant's explanation is not credible. They assert that they left Lesotho out of fear of being tracked down and extradited by the country's authorities. If that were the case, why did they chose a country with the same characteristics, that is also a member of the SADC, that has an extradition agreement with the DRC, and that is home to many Congolese people.10 A United Nations Committee noted its concern about the number of Congolese people in Namibia against whom removal orders have been issued. According to the documentary evidence, a legislative provision in Namibia provides for the possibility of expelling recognized refugees and protected persons if it is in the interest of, inter alia, national security.11 If the appellants did in fact flee Lesotho because they were afraid of being located by the DRC authorities, the fact that they chose Namibia, a country close to the DRC, politically speaking, undermines their credibility. [32] The male appellant explained that he was not able to be registered in the XXXX XXXX XXXX because he had not completed his XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and that he therefore lost his job as a XXXX that had allowed him to obtain status in Namibia. In losing his job, the male appellant lost his status, which would have justified an asylum claim if he feared persecution in his country. The appellants' return to the country of alleged persecution undermines their credibility [33] The RPD drew a negative inference from the fact that the male appellant and his family returned to the DRC on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017. The appellants do not dispute this finding but produced new evidence.12 [34] The appellants' return to the DRC undermines their credibility. The Federal Court has consistently held that the voluntary return of a claimant to their country of origin is behaviour that is incompatible with a subjective fear of persecution13 and that "[a]bsent compelling reasons, people do not abandon safe havens to return to places where their personal safety is in jeopardy."14 [35] The appellants explained that they left Namibia because the Congolese authorities had announced that semi-biometric DRC passports would become invalid and would be replaced by biometric passports. This information is confirmed by the documentary evidence.15 The male appellant testified that the change in passports increased his risk of remaining in Namibia because without valid identity documents he would risk being arrested and deported due to the SADC extradition agreement. He stated that he therefore decided to take the risk of returning to the DRC in XXXX 2017 to obtain a valid passport. Yet his semi-biometric passport and that of his son were still valid (until XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019)16 and were accepted by the Congolese, and therefore international, authorities.17 The female appellant and her daughter already had biometric passports. If the appellants feared being caught in Namibia because of the semi-biometric passports, they could have left Namibia directly to claim refugee protection in Canada (or elsewhere) instead of going back to the DRC with their children, going through the process to obtain a biometric passport, returning to Namibia, and leaving for Canada in XXXX 2018. At the hearing, the male appellant testified that he had thought about going to Canada as early as 2011 but that he did not at the time because he wanted to prepare and obtain the financial means to do so. The appellants' behaviour is inconsistent with that of persons who fear for their lives. Their return to the DRC undermines their subjective fear and their credibility, and the need for a new passport was not a compelling reason to return to the country. [36] In his BOC Form, the male appellant writes that he entered the DRC on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, with his semi-biometric passport, and that he obtained his new biometric passport without going through the intelligence agency. He then writes that he stayed in the country with his in-laws until his departure on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017. At the hearing, he explained that he had taken the risk of going back to obtain his passport in the DRC and that he decided to go back surreptitiously on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017. He stated that he stayed in the DRC for XXXX days and confirmed that he arrived in and left the country at the same time as his wife. [37] The passports of the female appellant and her daughter bear a DRC entry stamp dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, and a DRC exit stamp dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, which would mean that they spent more than XXXX XXXX in the DRC. Since this question had not been addressed at the hearing, the RAD asked the appellants for an explanation. They submitted a copy of their airplane tickets,18 which I noted indicate that they arrived in Kinshasa on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, and left on XXXX XXXX, 2017. The appellants also stated that the stamps from the Namibian authorities indicate that they left the country on XXXX XXXX and returned on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017. The stamps contradict those of the DRC, which indicate that the appellants entered the DRC on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017. The appellants submit that the DRC authorities' stamp was wrong. The stamps of the Namibian authorities correspond to the dates on the airplane tickets provided by the appellants, which confirms the appellants' story that the length of their stay was indeed one week. [38] At the hearing, the appellants did not explain the conditions of their stay in the DRC. At the hearing, they simply stated that they had stayed with the female appellant's family in Kinshasa. They did not provide the RAD with further explanations following its notice on this issue. If the male appellant were wanted by the authorities, it would be reasonable to think that the family would have hidden during their stay or would have taken specific measures to protect themselves from the authorities. The fact that the appellants stayed in Kinshasa for XXXX XXXX without taking any particular precautions undermines their credibility. [39] The RPD criticized the male appellant for failing to indicate in his BOC Form that he paid money so that he could enter the country easily since he is wanted. The male appellant explained that he had not written down all the details and the RPD rejected his explanation. The RPD's finding is correct. The male appellant should have provided all of the information in his BOC Form. This is a significant omission because the male appellant alleges that he is wanted by the country's authorities. The onus was on the male appellant to explain in his BOC Form how he was able to enter the country by airplane, without the authorities' knowledge. [40] The way the appellants were able to enter the country given that they are wanted also raises other credibility issues. The male appellant explained that he had paid a family member to get through the immigration authorities discreetly and bypass the official process to obtain a passport. In short, the male appellant alleges that he bribed the officials. According to the evidence provided by the appellants, it is possible to slip someone some money to have them park your vehicle at the airport parking lot, or to enter the country by land on a tricycle without paying customs duties, but not that it is possible to bribe the authorities to enter the DRC via an airport.19 This documentary evidence does not support the appellants' version and even contradicts it because, if it were possible to bribe the authorities to enter the DRC via an airport, it would be reasonable to think that the article would mention this. The article mentions entering the country by land and via airports without customs duties and states that it is possible to bribe the authorities for a parking space, but it does not mention entering the country without being noticed, especially if the person is wanted. Exhibit SAR-5 is insufficient to overcome the appellants' credibility issues. The issuance of a biometric passport by the country's authorities undermines the appellants' credibility [41] The RPD noted an inconsistency in the fact that the male appellant was able to obtain a biometric passport when he asserts that is wanted by the countries' authorities. The appellants are not challenging this finding but produced new evidence.20 [42] The RPD's finding is correct. The documentary evidence shows that, to obtain a biometric passport, an applicant must provide an identity document, which can be their old passport, but more importantly that they must go to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to have their picture and fingerprints taken.21 Digital fingerprints are one of the features added to biometric passports. At the hearing, the male appellant stated that they did not go the ANR because they were exchanging their passports. While the documentary evidence and that submitted by the appellants22 confirms that passport applicants can bribe state officials to obtain their document more quickly, there is no reason to conclude that it is possible to get out of having digital fingerprints taken. It is unlikely that the authorities of a country who take a citizen's digital fingerprints for the purpose of issuing a biometric passport would add the fingerprints of someone who is wanted to their system without this being noticed. The documentary evidence indicates that the government has a blacklist of activists and opponents who cannot obtain a biometric passport, which contradicts the fact that the male appellant could obtain a passport when he was considered a political opponent. This undermines the appellants' credibility. The detention of September 2010 [43] The RPD noted the appellant's failure to report his XXXX-day detention by the police and ANR officials in his form 12 and found that this omission undermines his credibility regarding his allegation that he was sought and detained by the Congolese authorities. [44] The appellants are not challenging this finding. Having noted the omission of this detention in the form, I agree with the RPD's findings. This undermines the appellants' credibility. The female appellant's testimony [45] The RPD concluded that the female appellant simply embellished her testimony, and it drew a negative inference about her credibility due to an omission in her BOC Form regarding the belated allegations made at the hearing to the effect that her family had threatened to kill or rape her to force her to testify, and that she was allegedly approached to testify on behalf of BDK victims. The appellants are not challenging this finding, and I agree with that. This undermines her credibility. Documentary evidence [46] The RPD concluded that the documents presented by the appellants, such as the work papers, an arrest warrant, a notice to appear, a service card and newspaper articles have little probative value given the credibility issues with the testimony and the prevalence of fraudulent documents in the DRC. The appellants are not challenging this finding. [47] After reviewing the documents and assessing their prima facie authenticity, I give them no probative value and conclude that they are not sufficient to offset the credibility issues. The male appellant's grandfather [48] The appellants allege that the RPD erred in drawing a negative inference from the fact that the male appellant's grandfather knew the police commissioner in Tikwit, because this information appears in the written account. After reading the RPD's decision several times, I see no mention of this negative inference. Final observations on the appellants' credibility [49] I have considered each of the arguments raised by the appellants, as well as the RPD's other, undisputed findings, which, in my opinion, are correct. Despite the fact that I accepted some of the appellant's explanations and invalidated the RPD's finding that the failure to seek asylum in Lesotho undermines their credibility, I conclude that the RPD's overall decision is correct and that the appellants are not credible due to their failure to seek protection in Namibia, the family's return to the DRC in XXXX 2017, the fact that they obtained new biometric passports when they were wanted by the authorities in their country, and omissions in the written accounts, namely the male appellant's 2010 detention and the death threats the female appellant received from her family. Prospective risk, internal flight alternative and state protection [50] The RAD sent the appellants a notice regarding these new issues. In light of my findings that the appellants are not credible, it is not necessary for me to analyze the prospective risk, the internal flight alternative or state protection. CONCLUSION [51] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the RPD's determination, namely, that the appellants XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXand XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. (signed) Agnès CONNAT Agnes Connat Tuesday, August 4, 2020 Date Original language: French IRB translation Original language: French 1 Refugee Appeal Division Rules, paragraph 3(3)(g). 2 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 3 Raza v. (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96. 4 SAR-1, National Documentation Package (NDP) on Congo, Democratic Republic of the, May 11, 2020, Tab 3.5: The biometric passport, including its appearance and security features; requirements and procedures for obtaining a biometric passport from inside and outside the country (2016-July 2018). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. July 4, 2018. COD106122.FE. 5 Supra, endnote 1. 6 RDP (Refugee Protection Division) record, Exhibit D-9. 7 NDP on Lesotho, May 3, 2013, Tab 1.3: Lesotho. The World Factbook. United States. Central Intelligence Agency. February 5, 2013. 8 Southern African Development Community (SADC), Protocol on Extradition, adopted October 3, 2002. 9 RDP record, Exhibit D-10. 10 NDP on Namibia, March 31, 2020, Tab 1.1: ?Namibia. The World Factbook. United States. Central Intelligence Agency. 11 NDP on Namibia, March 31, 2020, Tab 9.3: Concluding observations on the 2nd periodic report of Namibia. United Nations. Committee against Torture. February 1, 2017. CAT/C/NAM/CO/2. 12 SAR-2, SAR-3, SAR-6. 13 Hartono v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 601. 14 Ortiz Garcia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1346, at para. 8. 15 Response to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD)'s notice, page 18, the passport was valid until XXXX XXXX 2019. 15 Supra, endnote 4, NDP on Congo, Democratic Republic of the, May 11, 2020, Tab 3.5. 16 Response to the RAD's notice, page 18, the passport was valid until XXXX XXXX, 2019. 17 Supra, endnote 4, NDP on Congo, Democratic Republic of the, May 11, 2020, Tab 3.5. 18 SAR-2, copy of the appellants' airplane tickets. 19 SAR-6, Electronic article from Deskeco, "Rien n'arrête la petite corruption même en 2020" [Nothing stops petty corruption, even in 2020] - January 8, 2020." 20 SAR-2, Pages from the semi-biometric passports of XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. 21 Supra, endnote 4, NDP on Congo, Democratic Republic of the, May 11, 2020, Tab 3.5. 22 Supra, endnote 19. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB9-11259 MB9-11260 / MB9-11261 / MB9-11262 RAD.25.02 (January 2020) 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 (January 2020) Disponible en français