MB9-21658

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB9-21658 MB9-21659 MB9-21660 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision January 16, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Joseph W. Richards II Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Eric Freedman 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 Principal Appellant (PA)], XXXX XXXX XXXX [the Minor Female Appellant (MFA)] and XXXX XXXX XXXX [the Minor Male Appellant (MMA)], citizens of Nigeria, appealed a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated August 23, 2019, rejecting their claims for refugee protection. [2] The determinative issue in this appeal is the credibility of the Appellants and, in particular, the extent that the credibility of the PA impacts the claim of the MFA. The Appellants have not submitted new evidence and are not seeking an oral hearing. [3] After a fulsome and independent analysis of the record, I find that the MFA is a Convention refugee, pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). She has a well-founded fear of being subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM) if returned to Nigeria and therefore fears persecution as a member of a particular social group (women). [4] Accordingly, the appeal of the MFA is allowed (MB9-21659). The appeals of the PA and the MMA are dismissed (MB9-21658 and MB9-21660). BACKGROUND [5] The details of the Appellants' claims are found in the PA's Basis of Claim (BOC) form dated December 12, 2017. A Revised Narrative was submitted on July 11, 2019. [6] Based on an encounter with her husband's family on September 30, 2017, the PA fears that her daughter, the MFA, will be forced to undergo FGM if returned to Nigeria. The Revised Narrative contains allegations that are not mentioned in the BOC form, including the MFA's attempted kidnapping of October 4, 2017 and the PA's allegations of experiencing domestic violence. [7] The Appellants fled Nigeria, arriving in the United States on XXXX XXXX, 2017. They entered Canada irregularly on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017. ANALYSIS Role of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) [8] The RAD reviews RPD decisions by conducting an independent assessment of the refugee claim. If the RAD's assessment differs from that of the RPD, the RAD substitutes its own decision.1 If the RPD has a meaningful advantage in assessing the credibility of oral testimony, then the RPD's finding will normally be respected and accorded deference.2 Otherwise, the standard of correctness applies.3 [9] In this case, the RPD did not have a meaningful advantage; the evidence is fully captured in the record. Accordingly, I have conducted an independent assessment of the oral and documentary evidence on the correctness standard. Identity is established [10] I agree with the RPD's finding that the Appellants have established their identities. They are citizens of Nigeria and have submitted acceptable documentation attesting to that fact (e.g. copies of their passports). The credibility of the PA affects the credibility of the MFA [11] At the heart of this appeal is the argument that the RPD erred by failing to give appropriate weight to its own credibility assessment of the MFA. The Appellants highlight two findings by the RPD: (i) the MFA's testimony was "spontaneous" and "sincere" and (ii) the PA's original declaration in her BOC form should be afforded "more weight" than the subsequent revisions.4 In essence, the Appellants contend that the RAD can disregard the Revised Narrative and the testimony related to the Revised Narrative; the BOC and the MFA's testimony are sufficient to establish that the MFA alone is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. [12] Accepting the Appellants' reasoning, however, would lead to an undue isolation of the refugee claims. When joint claimants seek asylum based on the same set of facts, credibility determinations cannot be artificially separated; the credibility of one claimant affects all claimants. In particular, the credibility of a parent who acts as a designated representative (and is thus charged with protecting the interests of the minor child)5 will necessarily impact the claim of the minor child. The result is no different when a credible claimant calls a witness who provides inconsistent evidence; the question becomes not whether the evidence of the impugned witness is deleterious, but to what extent. [13] As a result, paragraphs of the RPD's decision cannot be evaluated in a selective manner. An independent assessment of the entire record is required, including the evidence given by the PA. Recognizing that appeals to the RAD are party-driven, I note the following submissions from the Appellants' Memorandum: (a) The RPD's decision is "well-reasoned", "thoughtful", and erred "only in the assessment of the level of risk that befalls [the MFA]".6 (b) The PA exaggerated parts of her narrative.7 (c) The Appellants' sole request is for the "...decision regarding [the MFA] be reversed and that she be recognized as a convention refugee."8 The MFA's testimony was credible though limited [14] I agree with the RPD's assessment that the MFA's testimony was spontaneous and sincere. It is noteworthy that the MFA was excused from the hearing room for most of her mother's testimony.9 I find that this enhanced the reliability of the MFA's testimony. The MFA expressed a fear of being circumcised and of being prevented from attending school. Though unable to explain the nature of the ritual, she was able to identify her father's uncles, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as the agents of persecution. [15] The MFA recounted that in September 2017, her uncles came to the family residence. She did not actually see them that day, but she heard their voices. After they left, her father arrived and started beating the PA, which the MFA remembered as a regular occurrence. The MFA remained in her room. The Panel Member found it "odd" that the MFA did not try to escape at this time, but the MFA's explanation was eminently reasonable; she was afraid of being punished by her father.10 [16] The MFA could not recall her father's occupation, an answer consistent with the PA's allegation that he was an absentee father and also consistent with the MFA's testimony that she had not spoken to her father since leaving Nigeria in 2017.11 [17] Overall, the MFA testified in a straightforward and unembellished manner, compatible with a 13-year-old child tasked with recalling events from two years ago. However, by itself, her evidence does not substantiate a finding that she is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, on a balance of probabilities. In reaching this conclusion, I have considered the particular difficulties in eliciting evidence from child claimants, who generally experience the world differently from adults.12 Nevertheless, the MFA testified for only 10 minutes. She could not provide any details of the September 2017 conversation between her mother and her father's uncles. She also could not explain the nature of the ritual. For these reasons, the evidence of the PA proves vital to the MFA's claim. The PA provided sufficient credible evidence to support the MFA's claim [18] The RPD found that the PA lacked credibility because of discrepancies between her BOC form, Revised Narrative, and oral testimony. These discrepancies can be broadly categorized as follows: (a) assistance received by the PA on September 30, 2017, from individuals who are not mentioned in the BOC form or the Revised Narrative (e.g. neighbours, brother, mother, and two pastors); (b) significant events included in the Revised Narrative but not in the BOC form (e.g. attempted kidnapping of MFA on October 7, 2017 and domestic abuse suffered from her husband); and (c) omissions from the PA's oral testimony (e.g. seeking police assistance). [19] In focussing on whether the PA provided credible evidence to support the MFA's claim, I make the following observations: (a) Negative credibility findings are mostly unwarranted for the additional details contained in the Revised Narrative. Prior to asking questions at the hearing, panel members often invite claimants to clarify any errors or omissions in their BOC forms. The Revised Narrative accomplished a similar function, as it was submitted on the eve of the first scheduled hearing date (July 11, 2019). It elaborates on the BOC form without materially contradicting it. The revisions were reasonable in light of the fact that the Appellants had recently retained a new representative and that English is not their first language. Moreover, I am mindful of the difficulties faced by women in demonstrating that their claims are credible and trustworthy.13 Women experiencing domestic violence may be reluctant to advance their personal claims, choosing instead to prioritize the harm to which their children are subjected. For instance, the domestic violence allegations are only included in the Revised Narrative because, per the PA, her daughter's life was the uppermost concern at the time the BOC was completed.14 This is an adequate explanation from a parent who genuinely fears that their child faces persecution. (b) The core allegations in the PA's claim have never varied and should thus be afforded more weight. In her BOC, Revised Narrative and oral testimony, the PA maintained that on September 30, 2017, her husband's family threatened to mutilate the MFA because the MFA had been chosen to be the carrier of the family ritual by the community oracle (Orisa Kounmoka). (c) There is sufficient objective evidence establishing good grounds for the MFA to fear persecution if returned to Nigeria. This evidence includes medical documentation from Dr. XXXX XXXX XXXX of the CLSC de Côte-des-Neiges15 as well as the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria. I am mindful that objective evidence plays a special role in assessing a child's refugee claim because children often do not appreciate the gravity of the harm that they face.16 In this case, the objective evidence is compelling. The PA's physical examination confirms that she has suffered genital mutilation. The physician specifically notes that the patient has no recollection of this procedure, which suggests that the procedure occurred at a very young age.17 The MFA's examination revealed no signs of FGM.18 The country documentation attests to the fact that FGM is prevalent among the Yoruba people in southern Nigeria.19 Ibadan, the capital city of Oyo State, is the MFA's hometown and is located in southern Nigeria. Furthermore, the MFA is Yoruba. The MFA's family history, residence, and ethnicity place her among those with the highest risk of being subjected to FGM. Adequate state protection is not available [20] I find that adequate state protection is not available. FGM involves traumatic injury or modification to female genital organs for non-medical reasons. The procedure carries grave long-term health consequences, including death. Though legally prohibited, it is widely practised.20 The police treat FGM as a "family matter", and thus enforcement of the prohibition is either absent or seriously inadequate.21 Indeed, the Police Investigation Report dated March 25, 2019 confirms that, even though the threat was reported to the police, the police simply admonished the parties to allow "peace to reign".22 In some countries, like Nigeria, the state is unwilling or unable to protect its citizens from gender-related persecution such as FGM.23 Accordingly, there is clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of state protection. Lagos and Port Harcourt are not viable internal flight alternatives (IFAs) [21] At the hearing, the Panel proposed the IFAs of Lagos and Port Harcourt. The PA made vague assertions that relocation is not viable due to the significant influence of her husband's family within the justice system.24 I place no weight on this evidence as it is entirely speculative; no corroborating evidence was adduced to support these allegations, and the PA did not offer specific evidence about how she learned of her husband's nefarious connections. More importantly, there is no evidence to suggest that the agents of persecution have the interest or motivation to pursue the Appellants outside of Ibadan. Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, there is no serious possibility of the MFA being persecuted in the proposed IFAs. [22] Under the circumstances, however, I find that the proposed IFAs are unreasonable. The MFA, a single adolescent female student, would face significant challenges surviving anywhere other than Ibadan. She does not have a support network in Lagos or Port Harcourt. Not only is the MFA estranged from her father, but all of her maternal relatives live in Ibadan.25 [23] Throughout Nigeria, female-headed households face increased exposure to poverty, stigmatisation, insecurity, and trauma. Patriarchal, cultural, and religious attitudes conspire to deprive single women from accessing the rental housing market. Living without male support is seen as inappropriate and irresponsible, while monitoring the activities of single women is encouraged. Indigeneity would be considered when seeking employment, especially in Port Harcourt. Confronted by these socio-cultural barriers, female heads of households in Lagos and Port Harcourt are targets for sexual exploitation.26 Together, these factors rise above the level of merely frustrating one's "wishes and expectations" and instead demonstrate that the life and safety of the MFA would be jeopardized in attempting to reside in these cities.27 [24] I have considered the applicable Jurisprudential Guide.28 Nevertheless, given the particular facts of this case and the November 2019 modifications to the NDP for Nigeria which document the significant relocation challenges of female-headed households, I choose not to follow the guide's IFA assessment. The MFA's age and lack of support network combined with the socio-cultural barriers, mentioned above, militate for a distinct approach. [25] I am also mindful that my analysis focuses on the viability of the proposed IFAs should the MFA relocate alone. My decision would not be substantially different if the MFA relocated with the PA and MMA. If returned to Lagos or Port Harcourt, the PA, estranged from her husband whom she believes now has a second wife, would be perceived as a single mother.29 Though the PA completed 16 years of education - far above the eight-year average for women in Nigeria - her employment history consists only of working as a XXXX in Ibadan for five years (2012-2017).30 [26] After assessing the objective evidence, I conclude that even with this education and work experience, the PA would still be credibly subjected to much of the same systemic discrimination and socio-cultural barriers as her daughter. The PA could only obtain accommodation for her family of three and secure adequate employment by encountering the very real risk of sexual exploitation. I further note that the PA struggles with communicating in English, which is the main administrative language of Nigeria. For this reason, the PA testified solely in Yoruba, a language that is not dominant in Port Harcourt.31 [27] Hence, it is objectively unreasonable to expect the MFA - alone or with the PA - to move to another part of Nigeria. The proposed IFAs of Lagos and Port Harcourt are not viable, and the MFA is a Convention refugee. The PA is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection [28] The RPD found that the PA lacked credibility because of discrepancies between her BOC form, the Revised Narrative, and oral testimony. For that reason, the PA's claim was rejected. As noted above, the Appellants are requesting that only the decision affecting the MFA be set aside. [29] After an independent assessment of the evidence, I agree with Appellant's Counsel that, at times, the PA embellished her testimony. Negative credibility findings are warranted because: (a) the PA failed to mention in either the BOC or the Revised Narrative that her neighbours played a critical role in rescuing her from the alleged knife attack of September 30, 2017; (b) the PA failed to mention in either the BOC or the Revised Narrative that she was visited by her mother, her brother, and two pastors following the alleged knife attack; (c) the PA gave inconsistent evidence regarding the affidavits of the PA's mother, dated June 3, 2019 and June 28, 2019. The PA initially testified that her mother drafted them independently. The affidavit of June 28th alleges that the PA's husband threatened to kill the PA "on sight".32 Only when confronted with the fact that identical phrases were used in the affidavits and the Revised Narrative did the PA admit that she actively assisted her mother because of the latter's advanced age and lack of fluency in English.33 [30] These material inconsistencies cannot be ignored. The affidavits likely do not reflect the deponent's independent recollection of events, and so I afford them no weight. I find that the knife attack did not occur as alleged. I have reached this finding due to the credibility issues resulting from the PA's oral testimony, and not because the allegations were absent from the BOC.34 The PA has failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or personal risk to her life from her husband. [31] I further find that the PA does not credibly face personal repercussions from her husband's family. The BOC form indicates that on September 30, 2017 she was threatened by her in-laws to release the MFA for the purposes of the family ritual. The form does not describe the precise details of the threat or illustrate how the PA would be personally affected by it. In response to the BOC's specific question about whether she believes that she will be harmed, mistreated, or threatened, the PA refers exclusively to the potential persecution of her daughter.35 The Revised Narrative adds new information. The PA elaborates that her personal fear is based on the fact that her in-laws are "...capable of faking (sic) my life..."36 The PA further alleges that during the September 2017 encounter, her husband's uncles threatened to end her life if she continued to resist their demands for the MFA.37 As mentioned when discussing the safety of the proposed IFAs, the PA's evidence regarding the notoriety of her husband's family was purely speculative. [32] The PA did not provide a reasonable explanation for this gradual revelation of the threat to her life. She stated multiple times in her oral testimony that the narrative in the BOC form was only a summary.38 However, this does not explain the failure to respond to the BOC form's direct question relating to personalized fear.39 Unlike the domestic abuse allegations, the threat from the uncles of the PA's husband is central to the persecution faced by the MFA. Not mentioning that this intimidation included a threat to one's own life is a glaring omission given that it would only bolster the MFA's claim.40 [33] Thus, while there is ample evidence of the personal risk to the MFA, the evidence for the PA is profoundly lacking. Combined with the Appellants' admission that the PA's testimony was sometimes exaggerated,41 I am led to the conclusion that the PA failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution or, if returned, that she would face cruel and unusual treatment or punishment at the hands of her husband's family. Having failed to adduce sufficient credible evidence to establish her refugee claim in her own right, the appeal of the PA is dismissed. I confirm the RPD's decision regarding this Appellant. The MMA is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection [34] At the end of the RPD hearing, Counsel made brief submissions regarding the MMA, arguing that he should be granted refugee protection because of his membership in a particular social group (family). The MMA did not testify. Counsel advanced the position that because the MMA's mother and sister are facing gender-based violence, the MMA necessarily faces a risk of persecution as well.42 As noted above, the Appellants have only made arguments with respect to the MFA. [35] The claim of the MMA is corollary to that of the PA, who serves as his designated representative. The credibility issues that resulted in the rejection of the PA's claim impugn the MMA's claim as well. More importantly, the Appellants have not shown a personal nexus between the MMA and alleged persecution based on one of the Convention refugee grounds. The Appellants have not identified any other risk to the MMA.43 Refugee protection claims must be assessed individually and on their own merit on the basis of the definitions set out in sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.44 Reviewing the entire record, I note that there is a complete absence of specific allegations or evidence of persecution pertaining to the MMA. [36] Therefore, I dismiss the appeal of the MMA and confirm the RPD's decision regarding this Appellant. CONCLUSION [37] The appeals regarding the Principal Appellant and the Minor Male Appellant are dismissed (MB9-21658 and MB9-21660). I confirm the decision of the RPD that the Principal Appellant and the Minor Male Appellant are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. [38] The appeal regarding the Minor Female Appellant is allowed (MB9-21659). I set aside the determination of the RPD and substitute my own determination that the Minor Female Appellant is a Convention refugee, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the IRPA. (signed) "Joseph W. Richards II" Joseph W. Richards II January 16, 2020 Date 1 Huruglica, Bujar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6362-13), Phelan, November 7, 2014, 2014 FC 799, at paras. 54-55. 2 Rozas del Solar v. Canada (F.C., no. IMM-2645-17), Diner, November 14, 2018, 2018 FC 1145, at para. 105. 3 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93, at paras. 70, 103. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD's Reasons and Decision, at paras. 23, 45. 5 RPD Rules, R. 20(4)(b), (c), (d); R. 20(10). See also Guideline 3: Child Refugee Claimants: Procedural and Evidentiary Issues, Guideline Issued by the Chairperson, pursuant to Subsection 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, September 10, 1996 as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002 in paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. https://irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/legal-policy/policies/Pages/GuideDir04.aspx, section A.II, "Designated Representatives". 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, at p. 4. 7 Ibid., at p. 6. 8 Ibid., at p. 7. 9 As a guide, the MFA heard the first sixteen minutes of the PA's testimony. The PA testified for approximately one hour and fifty-five minutes. 10 Audio Recording of the RPD Hearing, at 02:31:50. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 25, the Principal Appellant's Basis of Claim Form, at p. 8. 12 Guideline 3, section B.I, "Eliciting Evidence"; and Nganji, Arnauld Chriss v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1967-15), Bell, February 9, 2016, 2016 FC 167, at para. 6. 13 Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Update, Guideline Issued by the Chairperson, pursuant to Subsection 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 13, 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002, under the authority found in paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. https://irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/legal-policy/policies/Pages/GuideDir04.aspx, Section D, "Special Problems at Determination Hearings". See also Footnote 31 in Guideline 4, which explores the difficulties faced by battered women when testifying. 14 Audio Recording of the RPD Hearing, at 01:40:40. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 199. 16 Guideline 3, section B.II, "Assessing the Evidence". 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 199. 18 Ibid., at p. 200. 19 NDP for Nigeria (November 29, 2019), item 5.28, Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), Response to Information Request (RIR) NGA105628.E, Prevalence of female genital mutilation (FGM) ..., September 13, 2016, at pp. 2-3. 20 NDP for Nigeria (November 29, 2019), item 5.16, United Kingdom (UK) Home Office, Country Policy and Information Note, Nigeria: Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), Version 2.0, August 2019, at p. 13 (s. 3.1). 21 Ibid., at p. 31 (s. 6.3.2), and p. 35 (s. 6.4). 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Police Investigation Report, 25 March 2019, at p. 186. 23 Chairperson's Guideline 4, Section C, "Evidentiary Matters", at para. 2. 24 Audio Recording of the RPD Hearing, at 02:34:00. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, BOC of the PA, at p. 26. 26 NDP for Nigeria (November 29, 2019), item 5.9, IRB, RIR NGA106362.E, Whether women who head their own household, without male or family support, can obtain housing and employment in Abuja, Lagos, Ibadan, and Port Harcourt; government support services available to female-headed households (2017-November 2019), November 20, 2019; item 1.8, Australia: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report: Nigeria, March 9, 2018, at 3.8-3.10, 5.24; and item 1.17, UK Home Office, Country Policy and Information Note. Nigeria: Internal relocation. Version 1.0, March 2019, at 2.2.5. 27 Ranganthan v. Canada, (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 164 (C.A.), at para. 15. 28 Jurisprudential Guide TB7-19851, identified by the Chairperson, pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(h) of the IRPA, effective date: July 6, 2018. 29 The NDP identifies "single women", as those who are not supported by men including "widows, divorced or separated women, abandoned women, married women with a non-resident (polygynous or migrant), single women or single mothers". See NDP for Nigeria (November 29, 2019), item 5.9, supra endnote 26, at p. 2 (1.2). 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, p. 120; and NDP for Nigeria (November 29, 2019), item 1.6, United States Central Intelligence Agency, Nigeria: The World Factbook, November 13, 2019, at pp. 6-7. 31 NDP for Nigeria (November 29, 2019), item 1.4, European Union, European Asylum Support Office, EASO Country of Origin Information Report: Nigeria, Country Focus, June 2017, at pp. 17-18. 32 See Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 203-205, 214-215. 33 Audio Recording of the RPD Hearing, at 02:04:10 - 02:17:30. 34 Consider the discussion about the variances between the BOC and the Revised Narrative at paragraph 19(a), supra. 35 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 21-22. Contrast the broad wording of question 2(a) ("Have you or your family ever been harmed...") with the targeted nature of question 2(b) (...do you believe you would be harmed...). 36 Ibid., at p. 189. 37 Ibid. Consider also the Audio Recording of the RPD Hearing, at 00:54:40. 38 Consider the extensive exchange between the Panel and the PA at the beginning of the hearing: Audio Recording of the RPD Hearing, at 00:19:00. 39 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 22. 40 Consider the discussion about how the PA prioritized the MFA's claim at paragraph 19(a), supra. 41 See Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, at p. 6. 42 Audio Recording of the RPD Hearing, at 03:03:20 - 03:04:15. 43 Pour-Shariati, Dolat v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-721-94), MacGuigan, Robertson, McDonald, June 10, 1997; [1997] F.C.J. No. 810, at para. 3. 44 Akinfolajimi, Adebimpe Joyce v. M.C.I. (F.C. no. IMM-5067-17), Gleeson, July 12, 2018, 2018 FC 722, at para. 30. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB9-21658 MB9-21659 MB9-21660 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français 2 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français