TB1-11190

RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR : TB1-11190 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Claimant(s) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Date(s) of Hearing January 23, 2012 Date(s) de l'audience Place of Hearing Toronto, Ontario Lieu de l'audience Date of Decision February 14, 2012 Date de la décision Panel Edward C. Robinson Tribunal Counsel for the Claimant(s) Maureen Silcoff Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) du / de la / des demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Tribunal Officer N/A Agent(e) de tribunal Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre [1] The claimant, XXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter "the claimant") is a citizen of El Salvador; he seeks refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1 The claimant's identity has been established through a certified copy of the claimant's passport.2 ALLEGATIONS [2] The claimant is an 18-year-old male. He alleged that his half-brother, XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX, was killed on XXXX, 1999 for refusing to join the Maras. On XXXXXX, 2011 he and a friend, XXXXXXXX, were on their way from work when they were approached by two members of the Maras 18, one of them, alias 'XXXX' placed a knife at his throat and threatened that if he did not join the Maras 18 they would kill him. [3] He alleged that because he had not joined their gang, on XXXXXX he was again approached. This time by three members of the Maras 18. He was beaten and threatened that he would have to pay $10 per day as extortion or he would be harmed. He alleged that they also called him and told him to provide the telephone number of a particular jewellery store so they could call to extort money from them or they would harm the claimant. [4] The claimant also alleged that one of his cousins was a member of the Maras 18 and had put pressure on him to join them. The claimant alleged that he spoke to his mother about his problems and she made a report to the police on XXXXXXX, 2011, but even though the police took their report the threats against him continued. However, he alleged that his mother withdrew the complaint on XXXXXXX, 2011 because they feared retaliation against his mother and sister. Fearing for his life and safety, he left his country on XXXXX, 2011, travelling through Guatemala and Mexico, he arrived in the USA. He alleged that he was arrested at the border and held for two months, but was eventually released, after which he came to Canada and filed for refugee status on XXXXX, 2011. DETERMINATION [5] The panel finds that the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA. The claimant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason and his removal to El Salvador would not subject him personally to a risk to life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture. ANALYSIS Credibility and Subjective Fear [6] With regard to credibility, the panel is guided by the Federal Court of Appeal which has ruled that testimony given under oath is presumed to be true, unless there is a valid reason to doubt its truthfulness.3 The assessment the panel must use to test the truth of a story of a witness is that it be in harmony with the preponderance of probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions.4 Furthermore, the panel cannot be satisfied that, "the evidence is credible or trustworthy unless satisfied that it is probably so, not just possibly so."5 [7] The panel, in considering the credibility of the claimant, made an assessment of all the evidence, both oral and documentary.6 The evidence was also assessed as a whole so it could be treated in a consistent manner.7 However, not every piece of evidence will be referred to, but those the panel finds relevant to its decision.8 Even if a piece of evidence is not referred to, the panel carefully considered it as part of the evidence.9 The panel is entitled to make reasonable findings based on implausibility, common sense and rationality, and may reject evidence if it is not consistent with the probabilities affecting the case as a whole. [8] The central element in this claim is that the claimant left El Salvador because he feared members of the Maras 18 who have tried to recruit him, and when that failed, tried to extort him and to force him to obtain and provide a telephone number of a jewellery store for them to call and extort the owner. The claimant, who was a minor at the time, fled his country went to the USA, and without filing for asylum there, came to Canada. [9] The panel believes that the claimant is an El Salvadorian and that he went to the USA, may have been arrested in the USA and held for a while on immigration breaches, released, and then he came to Canada. Beyond that, there is very little, if anything, the panel believes about his story. [10] In arriving at its conclusion, the panel examined inconsistencies and omissions in the claimant's Personal Information Form (PIF)10 narrative and oral testimony. For example, the claimant testified that he and his mother made a denunciation to the police with respect to the problems he was having with the Maras 18.11 However, the panel notes that the denunciation dated XXXXXXX, 2011 spoke of the incident of XXXXXX, 2011. There is absolutely no mention of any other incidents in the denunciation even though they occurred before he made the denunciation. For example, nothing is mentioned about the XXXXXXX incident of three men from the Mara 18 approaching him, two of whom attacked and beat him and demanded that he paid them $10 per day or else they would harm him. He was asked why there is no mention of this incident in the police report; he replied that he did not know why. He added that his mother was the one that made the report and said that he had told her everything that happened. [11] The panel notes that this is a very important piece of information for which no mention was made in the report to the police even though this incident was not only more recent but more severe in terms of violence to his person than the one in XXXXX 2011. For example, when asked which of the incidents he considered more serious: the one on XXXXXX or XXXXXX; he replied the one in XXXXXX. The panel therefore finds on a balance of probabilities that the alleged events of XXXXXX, 2011 did not occur. They are embellishments to bolster his claim for refugee status, which the panel rejects, and in doing so finds that they also undermine his credibility. [12] The panel also notes that the claimant wrote in his PIF narrative that "after this I change one [ONCE] again my telephone number. But the gang members continued with their threatening calls, demanding to know if I had the numbers they had asked of me".12 But when he was asked in oral testimony if he had changed his telephone number, he said that he had not. Asked why not, he said because he did not have the money to change it. Asked why then is it written in his PIF narrative that he had changed his telephone number, he replied, "No, that is not in the narrative." The excerpt was read to him and he was asked to explain; he replied that he exchanged cell phones with his mother but he did not change his phone number. The panel finds his explanation unreasonable and in rejecting it also finds that it further undermine his credibility. The panel notes that he signed a declaration which has the same effect as made under oath stating that all attached documents were complete, true and correct.13 [13] The claimant also testified that after he and his mother made the denunciation to the police, members of Maras 18 began looking for him "even more." Asked how he knew that they were looking for him even more, he replied that his mother and friends told him. Asked what they said when they were looking for him, he replied that he did not know, but that they said that they were looking for him - asking what had happened to him. Asked what made him think that they were looking for him, he replied that he did not know but added that they were asking for him to kill him. Asked how he knew that they were looking for him to kill him, he said his friends told him that they were looking and asking for him. Asked why he thought that because they were looking and asking for him that they wanted to kill him, he replied that because they used to wait for him at school and he had to call his mother to come pick him up because he was afraid they would kill him. [14] Noting that according to his testimony, he was being sought before his mother made the report to the police, the panel asked "So you don't know that their looking for you had anything to do with your mom going to the police?" He replied, exactly but they were looking for to kill me." "How do you know that they were looking for you to kill you?" He replied on one occasion two armed individuals, one with a knife, told him to join the Mara 18 and that if he did not they were going to kill him. The claimant was reminded that he had testified that they had made this threat weeks before his mother had gone to the police; he agreed. He was then asked if he was speculating that he was being sought by Mara18 because his mother had made a denunciation to the police, he replied "yes". The panel therefore rejects his allegation that he was being sought at all by members of Mara 18 and finds on a balance of probabilities that he fabricated the story that he was being pursued. The claimant indicated that after his mother made the report to the police he was being sought even more by the M18. He also stated that his mother went to the police and withdrew her complaint against the Maras 18 because she feared retaliation from the Maras 18 against her and her daughter in El Salvador. However, none of this is mentioned in his PIF narrative. He was asked to explain why this was not mentioned in his PIF narrative; he said he did not know why. The panel finds on a balance of probabilities that if his mother had withdrawn the complaint she made against the Maras 18 because she feared them retaliating against her and her daughter, he would have mentioned it in his PIF narrative. The panel notes that the claimant is represented by an experienced counsel but this rather important piece of information which goes to his subjective fear basis is not mentioned. [15] In addition, the panel notes that even though the claimant's mother went to the police station to withdraw her denunciation, she went back there to get a copy of this report. Noting that it did not make any sense to this panel that she would go and withdraw her complaint against the Maras 18 and then go back to get a copy of the same report that she had allegedly withdrawn earlier, he was asked to explain why she would go back to the police station to get a copy of a report that she had withdrawn. He replied that when he was in custody in the USA, she requested the report to see if, by providing information that he faced a risk in El Salvador and was running for his life, that they would release him. The panel believes that the claimant may have been approached by members of Maras 18 for recruitment purposes and may even have been harassed to join them. But in his PIF narrative14 his amended PIF narrative) and oral testimony he presented an elaborate story about being pursued by members of M18 which the panel does not believe. [16] The panel therefore finds on a balance of probability that the claimant does not have a subjective fear basis for leaving or returning to his country and he has embellished his story of being approached by members of M18 to join them to bolster his claim for refugee status. The Federal Court has also found that where a claimant is found to be lacking in credibility, the panel can legitimately find that there is no subjective fear basis for the claim. In such cases, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to find credible evidence of a claimant's subjective fear, notwithstanding the existing evidence of human rights violations in the claimant's country.15 Despite the documentary evidence,16 the oral testimony and counsel's submissions,17 this panel finds no basis of a subjective fear in this claim. [17] The Federal Court has made it clear that the test that faces a claimant to establish the fear of persecution is that both objective and subjective fear are required. The claimant must subjectively fear persecution and this fear must be well-founded in an objective sense. Thus, a lack of evidence going to the subject element of the claim is in itself sufficient for the claim to fail.18 This appears to be true even when there is evidence that an objective basis for the fear exists.19 [18] The panel has carefully enunciated the claimant's allegations that were found not to be credible as well as those it finds credible. However, if the panel erred in this assessment of the issue of credibility, it has also considered state protection. State Protection [19] In arriving at my decision, the panel considered the issue of whether the claimant's fear is objectively reasonable. In this regard, the panel considered whether or not there is adequate state protection in El Salvador, whether the claimant took all reasonable steps to avail themselves of that protection, and whether they have provided clear and convincing evidence of the state's inability to protect. [20] The Board, in assessing the issue of state protection, is guided by a number of cases from the Supreme Court of Canada and the Federal Court. The courts have established a number of principles relating to state protection, and the panel has applied those principles to the case at hand. [21] The law states that there is a presumption that a state is capable of protecting its citizens. The claimant may rebut this presumption by providing "clear and convincing proof of lack of state protection" in the country of origin. The claimant must approach his or her state for protection, providing state protection might be reasonably forthcoming.20 [22] Evidence that protection being offered is "adequate though not necessarily perfect" 21 is not clear and convincing proof of the state's inability to protect its citizens, as no government can guarantee the protection of all its citizens at all times. However, where a state is in effective control of its territory, has military, police and civil authority in place and makes serious efforts to protect its citizens, the mere fact it is not always successful at doing so will not be enough to justify a claim that the victims are unable to avail themselves of protection.22 [23] When the state in question is a democratic state, the claimant must do more than simply show that he or she went to see some member of the police force and that his or her efforts were unsuccessful. The burden of proof that rests on the claimant is, in a way, directly proportional to the level of the democracy of the state in question: the more democratic the state's institution, the more the claimant must have done to exhaust all courses of action open to him or her.23 [24] A claimant is required to approach the state for protection if protection might reasonably be forthcoming or, alternatively, if it is objectively reasonable for the claimant to have sought protection.24 To rebut the presumption of state protection, a claimant must provide "clear and convincing" evidence of the state's inability to protect (absent an admission by the national's state of its inability to protect that national).25 The evidence that state protection is inadequate must not only be reliable and probative, it must also satisfy the Board, on a balance of probabilities, that the state protection is inadequate.26 [25] A claimant from a democratic country will have a heavy burden when attempting to show that they should not have been required to exhaust all of the recourses available to them domestically before claiming refugee status.27 A claimant must show that they have taken all reasonable steps in the circumstances to seek protection, taking into account the context of the country of origin, the steps taken and the claimant's interactions with the authorities.28 [26] While the claimant testified that the police did not provide any help, the panel notes the existence of the Office of the Ombudsman for Human Rights (PDDH) that takes complaints against members of the police for their misconduct; he did not make any effort to seek help from them. The panel also notes the existence of the Office of Inspector General of the Civilian National police (PNCIG) that takes complaints against the Civilian National Police (PNC) but he never approached this body. The claimant testified that XXXXX has control over the authorities but there is no persuasive evidence before this panel to suggest that the aforementioned state entities would not have extended help to the claimant if he had approached them. For example, the panel notes that, according to documentary evidence,29 under the heading Measures taken by the government to stop corruption, the Salvadoran Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia, CSJ), Decree No. 518, Police Disciplinary Law was adopted on 20 December 2007 and was published in the official journal on 16 January 2008. The law came into effect eight days after the date of publication. [27] The law classifies various crimes according to seriousness: 15 minor faults, 35 serious faults and 33 very serious faults. Article 9 identifies the following as very serious faults: 20) Engaging in or having knowledge of illegal business dealings and not meeting the associated legal obligations; ... 22) Requiring, requesting, receiving or encouraging the provision, directly or indirectly, of goods or any other benefits for oneself or a third party, to perform, facilitate, delay or fail to carry out an act proper to or contrary to one's functions and duties; ... 24) Fostering or performing acts aimed at creating or maintaining armed groups on the margins of the law; promoting, sponsoring, funding, organizing, training, leading, tolerating or cooperating with them, either within or outside the institution; 30) Acquiring wealth illegally. In such cases, Article 12 provides for the application of the following sanctions: a) Suspension without pay from 91 to 180 days; b) Demotion to the next lowest category; c) Dismissal. [28] Also, from 1 January to 30 April 2010, 55 PNC members were dismissed by the disciplinary tribunal for committing "very serious faults", and 25 were dismissed between January and June 2009. According to IG statistics, from January to May 2010, on average, 14 members of the police personnel were dismissed each month. In 2009, the IG lawyer reported that 21 police officers-15 officers, one corporal, four sergeants and one deputy inspector-who allegedly had ties to street gangs had been arrested and appeared before court. In addition, the same source states that, in 2009, about 10 officers suspected of participating in kidnappings, drug trafficking and illegal groups were arrested by the PNC. [29] Documentary evidence30 indicates that El Salvador is a constitutional, multiparty democracy. It has a PNC that maintains public security and the Ministry of Defence provided national security. The Military provided support for a few PNC patrols in the rural areas and also gave support to the law enforcement agencies for specific activities including anti-narcotics efforts. The Ministry of Governance headed the Anti-Gang Task Force. The PDDH and the PNCIG take complaints of mistreatment by the police. The PNCIG reported that 21,072 officers received human rights awareness training. The International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA) for training police, prosecutors, and other public security and judicial officials began operating during the year. [30] The claimant, living in a democracy, is obliged to seek protection from state agencies of the country of his nationality first prior to seeking international protection. In this case, the claimant had the ability to, but elected not to, avail himself of state protection from state agencies other than the police. The panel finds that the claimant, living in a democracy, simply did not reasonably exhaust all courses of action open to him by even approaching the authorities for help in El Salvador. Therefore, the claimant has not discharged the onus of showing clear and convincing proof of the state's inability or unwillingness to protect him. [31] Counsel in his submissions stated that if the claimant returns to El Salvador he will be at risk. But based on the documentary evidence, the panel is not persuaded to believe that the claimant would not receive protection from the state agencies should he return to El Salvador at this time. For example: The PNC maintained public security and the Ministry of Defence was responsible for national security. The military provided support for some PNC patrols in rural areas and provide law enforcement agencies for specific activities including anti-gang activities.31 The Ministry of Public Security headed the anti-gang task force. Approximately 5,000 military personnel were deployed to join the police on anti-gang and other task forces, including an estimated 3,000 additional soldiers deployed on November 6. Military personnel, however, do not have arrest authority.32 [32] The claimant's mother went once to the police to report that the claimant was approached by two individuals who were identified in the police report. This report was made on XXXXXX, 2011 but the claimant left his country XXXXX. 2010. The only follow-up to the police complaint was a visit to the station to withdraw the complaint four days after the complaint was made. There is no persuasive evidence before this panel that the police were not investigating the complaint, even though he claimed that his mother told him that she had withdrawn the complaint, especially since his mother was able to obtain a copy of the complaint from the police in XXXX, 2011. The claimant simply did not give the police sufficient time to complete their investigation into his complaint. [33] The Federal Court has held that a claimant's decision to flee before police have had an opportunity to properly respond to and investigate a transgression did not amount to a lack of state protection.33 In this particular case, there is no information to suggest that police were not making genuine and earnest efforts to investigate the claimant's allegations and apprehend the perpetrators. The claimant's choice to leave El Salvador may have resulted in the investigation being delayed or stymied, given that he, as the victim, was a key witness. [34] The claimant implied that the police are corrupt because after his mother made the report to the police he alleged that the agents of persecution increased their efforts to find him. While the panel does not believe that the claimant has any reliable evidence to support this allegation, even if that was the case, and the panel does not believe it, the panel notes that the authority has taken steps to address police corruption. [35] Through November, the PNC Office of the Inspector General had received 2,230 complaints of alleged police misconduct, referred 47 cases of these to special investigation units, and sanctioned 1,181 officers in response to complaints filed during the year and prior years. These sanctions included 156 officers dismissed for misconduct and 762 suspended without pay for minor infractions. By year's end, the Attorney General's Office had prosecuted 462 police officers as a result of investigations begun during the year and in 2008. Inadequate training, insufficient government funding, lack of a uniform code of evidence, and isolated instances of corruption and outright criminality interfered with the PNC's effectiveness.34 [36] The PNC Inspector General reported that most PNC officers and police academy cadets received human rights awareness training during the year, including training by the Salvadoran Institute for the Development of Women (ISDEMU) concerning rape prevention, child abuse, and related offences. By year's end the PNC Human Rights Unit had trained 21,072 police officers on general human rights topics. The International Law Enforcement Academy's training of 14 police officers, 17 prosecutors, eight judges, and 22 technical advisors, including workers in the immigration, customs, and airport authorities, included human rights awareness components.35 [37] The constitution permits the PNC to hold a person for 72 hours before delivering the suspect to court, after which the judge may order detention for an additional 72 hours to determine if an investigation is warranted. The law allows up to six months for investigation of serious crimes before requiring either a trial or dismissal of the case. In exceptionally complicated cases, the prosecutor may ask an appeals court to extend the deadline for three or six months, depending on the seriousness of the crime. Many cases were not completed within the legally prescribed time frame.36 By year's end, the Attorney General's Office had prosecuted 462 police officers as a result of investigations begun during the year and in 2008. Inadequate training, insufficient government funding, lack of a uniform code of evidence, and isolated instances of corruption and outright criminality interfered with the PNC's effectiveness.37 [38] Based on the evidence adduced, the panel does not find that the PNC would not assist the claimant against the MS. There is no persuasive evidence to suggest that the PDDH and the PNCIG would not assist the claimant to obtain protection against the MS gang members and any police officers acquiescent with them. The panel is not persuaded to believe that the office of the Ministry of Governance would not assist the claimant against MS should he return to El Salvador at this time. [39] The panel does agree that, according to the Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC), El Salvador is "one of the most violent countries in the world". During a meeting of the United Nations (UN) 2009 General Assembly, the Salvadoran president, Mauricio Funes, stated that: [translation] "delinquency in Central America, and more specifically in El Salvador, has increased". He also pointed out that the homicide rate was 12 per day in El Salvador. In an article published by Agence France-Presse (AFP), the PNC stated that maras [gangs] were responsible for 60 percent of the country's homicides.38 [40] There are over 25,000 people who belong to street gangs in El Salvador; Mara Salvatrucha (MS or MS-13) and Mara 18 (M18) are the largest gangs in the country. However, an article published by Inter Press Service (IPS) states that, according to police estimates, MS and M18 have between 10,000 and 13,500 members in El Salvador. Of that number, approximately 5,000 members are in prison. According to the PNC chief, the maras have "forged ties with organized crime". PS cites a former gang member as saying that the maras sometimes commit crimes in order to finance their activities and that some members are hired by the mafias to kill, extort, deal drugs and rob people (ibid.). However, he denied that the maras are involved in organized crime.39 [41] However, the authorities are really making serious effort to combat the problems. For example, documentary evidence reveals that the authorities have taken the fight to the gangs. For example, in recent years, five programs have been implemented to fight the maras; the projects favour communication among police officers and information sharing between El Salvador and the United States. Included in these initiatives are the conference on street gangs, organized annually by the PNC of El Salvador; the anti-gang efforts, led by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), an anti-gang training program offered by the International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA), the Transnational Anti-Gang Centre (Centro Antipandillas Transnacional, CAT), and the Merida Initiative (Iniciativa Mérida) (ContraPunto 11 Nov. 2009). This last initiative, launched in 2007 for a period of three years, aims to stop violence provoked by gangs in Central America as well as the drug trafficking in Mexico by providing equipment, training and technical assistance from the US. However, the same source pointed out that these programs are not based on prevention or on the rehabilitation of street gang members and that the Merida Initiative is a temporary measure that [translation] "does not encourage El Salvador to develop a long term anti-gang strategy. 40 [42] With respect to the protection offered to victims of extortion, according to the PNC's Extortion Investigation Division (División de Investigación de Extorsión, DIE), 70 percent of complaints are heard in court (Comunica 8 Apr. 2010). The FGR states that protection is offered only at the trial stage; the victim, under an officer's guard, is escorted from the FGR to the location of the trial. In addition, the victim's testimony is conducted behind a wall to keep his or her identity a secret and to protect him or her from possible attacks. From January to April 2010, 754 complaints for extortion were registered by the DIE and the FGR, and there were 710 for the same period in 2009. On a national level, there were 478 arrests in 2010 for the months of January to April, and a total of 2,435 for 2009. The DIE also stated that, as of April 2010, 113 people had been convicted of extortion, just in the central unit of San Salvador. However, a source stated that it is also possible for people who do not have confidence in the police and who are more fortunate, to resort to private security services.41 [43] Based on the documentary evidence adduced, the panel finds that the state authorities are making serious efforts to protect their citizens against gang violence in El Salvador and that they are achieving some success in doing so. [44] Therefore, based on the totality of the evidence adduced, the panel finds that adequate, though not necessarily perfect, state protection is available to the claimant in El Salvador. In this case, the claimant, living in a democracy, simply did not reasonably exhaust all courses of action available to him prior to seeking international protection. [45] Since adequate state protection is available to the claimant, the panel finds that there is not a serious possibility that the claimant will face persecution, a risk to life, a danger of torture, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, should he return to El Salvador. [46] Accordingly, the panel determines that the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, and, therefore, the Refugee Protection Division rejects his claim for refugee protection. CONCLUSION [47] The panel determines that the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. The Refugee Protection Division therefore rejects his claim. (signed) "Edward C. Robinson" Edward C. Robinson February 14, 2012 Date REFUGEE PROTECTION DIVISION / PERSECUTION OF FAMILY MEMBER / FORCED RECRUITMENT / GANG / EXTORTION / INCONSISTENCY / PERSONAL INFORMATION FORM / TESTIMONY / FAILURE TO SEEK PROTECTION IN OTHER COUNTRIES / STATE PROTECTION / MALE / NEGATIVE / EL SALVADOR 1 As enacted by S.C. 2001, c. 27, sections 96, 97(1)(a) and 97(1)(b). 2 Exhibit R/A-2, copy of passport received from Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). 3 Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980( 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.). 4 Faryna v. Chorny, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 (B.C.C.A.), at 357, per O'Halloran, J.A. 5 Orelien v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 592 (C.A.), at 605. 6 Owusu, Kweku v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-1146-87), Heald, Hugessen, Desjardins, January 31, 1989. 7 Bosiakali, Mbokolo v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4948-00), Nadon, December 14, 2001 FCT 1381. 8 Cepeda-Gutierrez, Carlos Arturo v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-596-98), Evans, October 16, 1998. 9 Hassan, Jamila Mahdi v. M.E.I. (1992), 147 N.R. 317 (F.C.A.). 10 Exhibit C-1. 11 Exhibit C-2, pp. 4-12. 12 Exhibit C-1, PIF narrative, p. 2, para. 2. 13 Exhib t C-1, PIF, p. 13, Interpreter's Declaration and Declaration B. 14 Exhibit C-1. 15 Amaniampong, Kofi v M.E.I. (F.C,A., no. A-1326-87), Heald (dissenting), Hugessen, Mahoney, May19, 1989. 16 Exhibit PH-2. 17 Exhibit PH-1. 18 Kamana, Jimmy v M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no IMM-5998-98), Tremblay-Lamer, September 24, 1999. 19 Senora, Frensel v M.E.I. (F.C.T.D.,no 93-A-334), Noel, July 13, 1993. 20 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R 689, 10 Imm. L.R. (2d) 189 (C.A.). 21 Zalzali v. M.E.I., [1991] 3 F.C. 605 (F.C.A.); (1991), 14 Imm. L.R. (2d) 81; 126 N.R. 126 (F.C.A.). 22 Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Villafranca (1992), 18 Imm. L.R. (2d) 130 (F.C.A.). 23 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Kadenko (1996), 143 D.L.R. (4th) 532 (F.C.A.). 24 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689 at 724. 25 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689 at 724. 26 Flores Carrillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] 4 F.C.R. 636 (F.C.A.), para. 30. 27 Hinzman, Jeremy v. M.C.I. and Hughey, Brandon David v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., nos. A-182-06; A-185-06), Décary, Sexton, Evans, April 30, 2007; 2007 FCA 171, para. 46; M.E.I. v. Satiacum, Robert (1989), 99 N.R. 171 at 176 (F.C.A.). 28 Peralta, Gloria Del Carmen v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5451-01), Heneghan, September 20, 2002, 2002 FCT 989. 29 Exhibit R/A-1, Item 10.2, Response to Request SLV103498.FE, 14 June 2010. 30 Exhibit R/A-1, item 2.1. 31 Exhibit R/A-1, item 2.1. 32 Exhibit R/A-1, Response to Information Request SLV43482.E. 33 Romero, Santiago Cosme Montemayor v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1146-08), Dawson, August 28, 2008, 2008 FC 977. 34 Exhibit R/A-1, item 2.1. 35 Exhibit R/A-1, item 2.1. 36 Exhibit R/A-1, item 7.1. 37 Exhibit R/A-1, item 7.2, Response to Information Request SLV103445.FE, 11 March 2010. 38 Exhibit R/A-1, item 7.2, Response to Information Request SLV103445.FE, 11 March 2010. 39 Exhibit R/A-1, item 7.2, Response to Information Request SLV103445.FE, 11 March 2010. 40 Exhibit R/A-1, item 7.2, Response to Information Request SLV103445.FE, 11 March 2010. 41 Exhibit R/A-1, item 7.2, Response to Information Request SLV103445.FE, 11 March 2010. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RPD.15.7 (February 12, 2009) Disponible en français RPD.15.7 (February 12, 2009) Disponible en français RPD File No. : TB1-11190 RPD File No. :TB1-11190