TB7-14050

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB7-14050 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision October 5, 2017 Date de la décision Panel Erauw, G. Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Erin C. Roth Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister Kamal GILL Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship (the "Appellant" or "the Minister") appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) accepting the claim for refugee protection made by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the "Respondent"), a citizen of Iraq. The Appellant relies on documentary evidence referred to in subsection 110(3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The Appellant does not request an oral hearing, but the Respondent requests an oral hearing in relation to documents he provides in response to the Appellant's submissions. The Appellant asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to set aside the determination of the RPD and find that the Respondent is not a Convention refugee. In the alternative, the Appellant requests the matter be referred back to the RPD for re-consideration by a differently constituted panel. The Respondent asks the RAD to dismiss the appeal and confirm the RPD decision. DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL [2] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Respondent is a Convention refugee, pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.1 Background [3] The Respondent was working for the Kurdistan Region Security Council (KRSC) in Sulaymaniyah, Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI), as an XXXX XXXX The KRSC's mandate was to eventually join the various security agencies of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) under the authority of the KRSC. In pursuit of this objective, the KRSC was constructing administrative buildings, storage buildings, and safe houses in the Qala Chwalan area near Sulaymaniyah. As an XXXX, the Respondent was responsible for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX these buildings, which would be used by the PUK and its intelligence arm the Dazgay Zanyari (Zanyari), until these entities were dissolved under the authority of the KRSC. However, the Respondent believed the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX requests by the PUK and Zanyari indicated the PUK were using these safe houses for their own private use; and therefore, misappropriating funds from the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG). The Respondent alleges he was opposed to this and that he complained about these changes to his manager, colleagues, and friends. He also claims in his testimony that he questioned PUK officials about the proposed alterations. As a result of his opposition to such corruption, he fears the Zanyari will harm him if he returns to Iraq. [4] The Respondent's application for refugee protection was heard on March 7 and March 28, 2017. In an oral decision issued on March 28, 2017, the RPD accepted the claim finding the Respondent to be a Convention refugee based on his political opinion. The RPD stated that the Respondent's situation was akin to that of journalists in KRI. The RPD also found that the presumption of state protection was rebutted because he feared state agents, and that there was no viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Iraq. [5] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred by finding the Respondent's situation was like that of a journalist, and erred in finding his nexus to a convention ground is that of political opinion. Furthermore, the Appellant argues that the RPD's reasons were insufficient and lacking in meaningful analysis, especially with respect to his subjective fear and his failure to list his employment with KRSC on his visa applications. The Respondent disagrees, arguing that the RPD did not err. The Respondent argues there is a nexus to political opinion, it is objectively well-founded, he has subjective fear, and in addition, there is a sur place aspect to his refugee claim because he revealed confidential information to Canadian authorities. ROLE OF THE RAD [6] For questions of fact, mixed fact and law, and law, the RAD applies the standard of correctness in accordance with the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Huruglica.2 In assessing findings involving the credibility of oral testimony, the RAD may apply the modified standard of reasonableness in situations where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage.3 Unless otherwise stated in the reasons, the RAD uses the correctness standard on all findings and will consider the overall refugee determination on a standard of correctness, even where the RAD has deferred on some or all findings. ADMISSIBILTY OF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ON APPEAL The Minister's New Evidence [7] The Minister seeks to present new evidence in support of this appeal. The documents disclosed include GCMS notes / documents related to the processing of the Respondent's visitor visa, student visa, and his application to change conditions, extend or remain in Canada as a visitor or temporary resident.4 In reply to the Respondent's submissions, the Appellant also provides an updated report from the U.K. Home Office dated 20 June 2017 to rebut the Respondent's argument that he has a sur place claim. [8] While the IRPA contains restrictions on the nature of evidence submitted to the RAD by a person who is the subject of an appeal,5 such restrictions do not apply to the Minister (the Appellant in this case),6 nor do they apply to the Respondent's evidence submitted in response to the Minister.7 The key consideration in such situations is whether the evidence can be considered credible or trustworthy in the circumstances.8 The Respondent's Submissions [9] The Respondent argues that the Minister's documents submitted with the Appellant's record are not new, because the substance of the documents is already in the RPD record.9 The Respondent provides no reply or submissions concerning the document the Minister provides in reply to the Respondent's submission with respect to a sur place claim. [10] While the RAD agrees that the documents submitted by the Minister with their appeal record are substantially the same as what is already in the RPD record, this is not a requirement in the RAD's assessment. The IRPA provides that the RAD may receive and base a decision on evidence that is adduced in the proceedings and considered credible or trustworthy in the circumstances. In this case, the new documents are notes from GCMS, and copies of the Respondent's applications for Canadian visas, as well as a copy of a police certificate from Iraq. On their face, these documents appear credible and trustworthy, as they include: notes from Immigration Officers; the Respondent's own applications; and stamped copies of police certificates from Iraqi authorities. The RAD observes no anomalies on the face of the documents, and the Respondent provides no submissions in regard to their credibility and trustworthiness. The RAD also finds the U.K. Home Office report, dated 20 June 2017, is credible and trustworthy, as it from a respected source of country conditions research and is frequently included in the IRB's National Documentation Package (NDP). The Respondent's New Evidence [11] The Respondent provides two documents to refute the Appellant's submission questioning whether the Respondent could have secured a police certificate in 2015 and leave Iraq. The Appellant provides no reply to dispute the inclusion of the Respondent's new evidence. The Respondent's new documents are: 1) Quartz.com, "How to run an international airport with jihadists on the doorstep", dated 30 May 2016;10 and, 2) Unknown Source, "Fact Sheet: Travel to the Kurdistan Region in Iraq", undated.11 [12] The RAD will consider the Respondent's first document and include it in the record. The first document appears credible and trustworthy on its face, as it is published by an independent news organization and refers to the capabilities and resources of airport staff in the KRI. [13] However, the RAD will not consider the Respondent's second document. The Respondent provides no information about the second document's source, and there is no date attached to the document. Since the RAD cannot confirm the document source and the date, the RAD does not consider the document to be credible and trustworthy. Request for an Oral Hearing [14] The RAD may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, there is documentary evidence referred to in section 110(3) that raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the person who is the subject of the appeal, is central to the decision with respect to the refugee protection claim, and, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim.12 [15] In this case, only the Respondent requests an oral hearing and the RAD is able to dispose of this appeal in the Respondent's favour without holding a hearing. Moreover, none of the new evidence raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Respondent, is central to the decision with respect to the refugee protection claim, and, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. Therefore, the request is denied. ISSUES IN APPEAL [16] The Appellant argues the following issues: 1) The RPD erred in finding a nexus based on actual or imputed political opinion;13 and, 2) The RPD erred because the Respondent does not have a subjective or objective basis for his fear of persecution.14 ANALYSIS The Minister's Argument Nexus [17] The Minister argues that the RPD's reasons were not cogent and intelligible regarding nexus to a Convention ground. In particular, the Minister erred in determining the Respondent's situation is similar to that of a journalist, since the Respondent is not a journalist, nor has he published anything in print or spoken out publically in broadcasts or on social media about potential corruption in the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG). Nor has he spoken about his knowledge of classified information related to various buildings built for the PUK or security agencies of the KRG. Furthermore, the Minister submits that the Respondent does not possess any other risk profile identified by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).15 [18] With respect to the Convention ground of political opinion, the Minister submits that the Respondent's complaints to friends, colleagues, and his manager, about the PUK using safe houses for personal use, was not the expression of a political statement intended to formally denounce the alleged corruption by state officials. Instead, he expressed his discomfort or suspicion to his friends, colleagues, and his manager. The Minister argues this is insufficient to demonstrate his expression was rooted in a political conviction, and it is more indicative of his problems with how business was being conducted. The Minister also notes that the Respondent was not reprimanded for expressing these concerns and no evidence that management pursued this issue.16 [19] The Minister also argues that it is implausible that as an architect, the Respondent would be privy to whether the two parties (KDP and PUK) of the KRG had any formal or informal agreements to provide funding for building private houses for PUK members. The Respondent's access to classified information related to the construction of the security buildings for the KRG, including those for the PUK, is insufficient to impute a political opinion or have a nexus to a Convention ground.17 Subjective and Objective Basis [20] The Minister also submits that there is no subjective evidence to support his claim. Specifically, the Minister notes that both of his trips to Canada were supported by his employer, but after he returned to Iraq, no government agency expressed any concerns with his trip abroad or with him, and the KRSC was not concerned about his eight month absence from work. The Minister submits that if any government agency was concerned with his trip, they would have questioned him upon his return to Iraq, or that he would have been questioned in leaving Iraq on his second trip to Canada. The Minister also argues that the Respondent failed to seek refugee protection when he learned from his sister that security men came looking for him. Instead the Respondent tried to extend his visa and made no mention of any fears of returning to Iraq, only that he wanted to extend his stay as a businessman. When the Respondent returned to Iraq in September 2015, he resumed his employment with the KRSC, which demonstrates a lack of subjective fear. Furthermore, the Minister submits that the Respondent failed to mention the KRSC was his employer in his visa applications to Canada, only mentioning it in his Basis of Claim (BOC). Nor did the Respondent submit his leave of absence letter from the KRSC to the Canadian embassy, which leads it to doubt that the Respondent actually worked for the KRSC. Additionally, the Minister notes that the Respondent obtained a criminal conviction certificate for his visa application, as well as left the Iraqi airport without any problems, but if the KRG authorities had an interest in him, they did not take that opportunity to question or mistreat the Respondent.18 [21] Finally, the Minister submits that there is no objective evidence that a person with the Respondent's profile, former employees of the KRSC, are at risk of persecution or are systematically targeted based on their profession or them being privy to classified information.19 The RAD's Assessment Nexus [22] The RAD agrees with the Minister that the Respondent is not akin to a journalist. However, after reviewing the whole record, including the audio recording of the hearing, the RAD finds the RPD did not err in finding the Respondent has a nexus to a Convention ground based on imputed political opinion. The Respondent does not need to have made an overt official denunciation about corruption by state officials in order to have a nexus to political opinion. It is the perception of the persecutor which is relevant. In this case, given the overall circumstances, the RAD finds that there is sufficient evidence that the agent of persecution likely considers the Respondent's conduct to be in opposition to the PUK and Zanyari. The Respondent's Evidence [23] Despite some contradictions and omissions, the RPD found there was sufficient credible evidence on a balance of probabilities to indicate the Respondent has a well-founded fear of persecution. Having reviewed the entire record, the RAD agrees that the Respondent is on a balance of probabilities a credible witness. The RAD believes what the Respondent has alleged in support of his claim. [24] The Respondent testified about his interactions with Zanyari officials and why he believed they hated him. Specifically, the Respondent stated he was very active in his work and when Zanyari officials made demands with respect to the redesign of safe houses, he was not easy to give what they wanted, saying he asked them questions about why they wanted to make certain alterations. In 2014, the Respondent states that it was further obvious to him that the officials hated him because one day the leader of the Zanyari was concerned about something he did and he told the Respondent he "would jail me in the man hole". On another occasion, one of the contractors brought a worker to the site and the worker wore a hat with a Gorrans party logo. Instead of the official dealing directly with the contractor and the worker, the official blamed the Respondent, asking him why he allowed this person to work at the site and telling the Respondent to go and apologize to the security people.20 [25] The Respondent was critical about the actions of Zanyari and their misappropriation of KRG funds by requesting changes to the design of safe houses for their own personal use. The Respondent shared this opinion with his manager, friends, and colleagues. He also wanted to quit his job at KRSC, but due to the classified nature of his work, he could not do so. The Respondent indicates in his BOC that given the security aspects of his job, the Zanyari was monitoring him and who he associated with, even going so far as to screen persons he wished to marry for membership in opposing political parties. Since he was unable to quit his job with the KRSC, the best the Respondent could do was get a one-year leave of absence from the KRSC. In obtaining a leave of absence, the Appellant testified that he was hoping things would improve, as there was hope that the leadership of the Zanyari would change in the near future, to one that would be more supportive of the KRSC's control. However, since the Respondent did not work directly for the PUK or the Zanyari, they were unaware of his leave of absence. As a result, after he left for Canada in December 2014, the Zanyari noticed he no longer was at work and visited his home in Sulaymaniyah asking for his whereabouts. The Respondent learned of this from his sister on Facebook and immediately contacted his manager at the KRSC. His manager was able to smooth this over with the PUK and the Zanyari, informing them that the Respondent only took a leave of absence and that he did not quit his position. This appeared to satisfy the PUK and the Zanyari at that time. [26] When the Respondent returned to Iraq in September 2015, his manager informed him that he saw the Respondent's name in a report along with the projects he worked on. The manager communicated to him that he believed he may be at risk and suggested he obtain a visa to leave the country again as a contingency. The Respondent did so, by obtaining a student visa and gaining admission to take business courses in Canada. In November 2015, the Appellant testified that armed men came into the KRSC offices, confining him and his co-workers in their offices for the day and taking the Finance Manager away with a bag over his head and throwing him in the back of a SUV. The Respondent, his manager, and a co-worker fled Iraq the next day. In leaving Iraq for the second time, the Respondent did not obtain a leave of absence from the KRSC. The Respondent learned later that his manager was in Sweden and his co-worker was in Germany. Since the Respondent left Iraq in November 2015, the Respondent provides evidence from his father that the Zanyari regularly come looking for him and that his father has signed a form agreeing to inform the Zanyari if he returns. [27] Based on the Respondent's credible testimony, and the above circumstances, the RAD finds there is sufficient credible evidence that the Respondent is perceived by the PUK and the Zanyari to be opposed to them. This is established by: the Respondent questioning their demands; being threatened with jail; being blamed for allowing a worker with a reformist political party on a work site; his statements to others about the corruption; leaving his job in order to avoid them, which drew suspicion; security agents visiting his home looking for him on multiple occasions; the existence of a report confirming the Zanyari were monitoring him; and, his demonstrated access to confidential information that could be detrimental to the PUK and the Zanyari if known to the public. The Respondent's perceived opposition to the PUK and Zanyari is a profile recognized by UNHCR.21 Therefore, the RAD finds the PUK and the Zanyari believe the Respondent opposes them. Subjective and Objective Basis [28] The RAD rejects the Minister's submissions and finds the RPD did not err. The RPD canvassed these issues at the hearing and the RAD finds the Respondent provides reasonable explanations for why he waited to make a claim for refugee status and why he returned to Iraq. He also provided reasonable explanations for why KRSC was not mentioned on his visa applications. Furthermore, there is no persuasive evidence in the record that the Respondent could not have obtained a police non-conviction certificate, and have left Iraq, without drawing interest from the Zanyari. Delay in Claiming and Re-availment [29] The Respondent adamantly explained at his hearing that he was reluctant to make a refugee claim because it meant that he would never be able to return home, that is why he obtained business and student visas. In addition, he wanted to return home because his family was there, he had good certification as an XXXX XXXX a good network, a car, land, and a promising future with his job at KRSC. Furthermore, when he learned that security men came to his home he did contact counsel in Canada, but his manager was able to contact officials and smooth things over for the Respondent. It was just the Zanyari that created problems for him in his job, and he was optimistic that the KRSC would soon be able to establish itself and have greater control over the Zanyari.22 [30] The Respondent further explained that after he returned to Iraq in August 2015, his manager told him that he was mentioned in a report in connection to the projects he worked on, and that his manager believed he was at risk. His manager recommended the Respondent make arrangements to leave Iraq again as a contingency, but his manager was trying to negotiate his release from these reports, which proved ultimately unsuccessful. His manager also stated that he had some time to get a visa because there were U.S. military delegations in Zanyari territory for the next few months focusing on establishing organizations and combatting terrorists, so he was more confident that nothing would happen to him during this time.23 However, when armed men came to the office and kept the Respondent and his colleagues under armed guard, and took away the finance manager with a bag over his head, the Respondent fled to Canada the next day.24 The record also indicates that although he was optimistic that political protests at that time would result in leadership changes in the PUK and the Zanyari, these protests fizzled out and change did not materialize. It was at this time the Respondent contacted a number of counsel in Canada about his issues, which led him to make a claim for refugee status in January 2017. This is all in the record.25 The RAD finds the Respondent's actions for not seeking refugee status in 2014 and immediately in 2015 are reasonably explained, given the sequence of events and considering he was in possession of a valid immigration status at the time. Even if the Respondent was lacking in subjective fear, this is not determinative. Visa Applications and KRSC Employment [31] With respect to his failure to mention his KRSC employment on his visa applications, and why he did not provide his leave of absence letter from KRSC to the Canadian Embassy, the RAD finds this is also reasonably explained. The Minister makes no comment about the Respondent's testimony on this issue. The Respondent stated that in 2014 his visa was for business purposes, in order to leave Iraq and attend an exhibition in Canada on behalf of his part-time employer Raza company. Since he was attending to the exhibition and conference on behalf of Raza Company, a business, this is what he put on his visa application. In addition, the KRSC was a security organization and not related to business, so he believed he could have been refused the visa.26 Moreover, when the Respondent applied for his second visa in September 2015 to return to Canada as a student, he used the same tactic. He requested another letter from his friends at the Raza Company as a supporting letter, so he could take business courses in Canada. On this latter occasion, the Respondent left Iraq quickly and did not obtain a leave of absence from the KRSC. [32] The RPD also questioned the Respondent extensively about his employment at both the Raza Company and the KRSC, and the Respondent provided ample details about his work at both organizations. The Minister takes particular issue with whether or not the Respondent actually worked at the KRSC. The RAD finds that the Respondent has established on a balance of probabilities that he worked as an architect at the KRSC since 2013. This is established by his credible testimony about his position as well as his knowledge about the KRSC, knowledge about the sites he worked on,27 and the provision of maps and documents from his employment at the KRSC,28 as well as his leave of absence letter on KRSC letterhead.29 The Minister claims there is no subjective or objective evidence of him working at the KRSC, but the Minister takes no issue with his testimony or with the credibility of his documents provided on this issue. Therefore, the RAD finds the Respondent worked at the Raza Company and the KRSC as an architect. Police Certificate and Leaving the Iraqi Airport [33] Finally, the Minister is concerned that the Respondent's ability to obtain a police certificate showing he has no convictions, as well as his ability to leave Iraq via the airport is demonstrative that the authorities had no interest in him. [34] Having reviewed the documentary evidence in the record, the RAD cannot find any evidence that the Respondent would be unable to obtain a police certificate from local police, or that he would be unable to leave the Iraqi airport, without alerting the Zanyari, the intelligence arm of the PUK. To do so would be speculative. The evidence in the record suggests that the KDP and PUK each operate their own security apparatus, this includes their own intelligence branches of the Parastin and Zanyari, respectively. The documentary evidence shows that although the KRSC was established to unite these organizations into an integrated body, the process has been marked by political divisions and tension between the KDP and the PUK. The documents also show that Asayish is responsible for internal security, but Zanyari is not the same body. Rather, the Zanyari operates without legal authority and reports to the PUK.30 Therefore, the RAD finds the ability of the Respondent to obtain a police certificate and leave an Iraqi airport, does not demonstrate that officials are not looking for him. [35] Both the RPD and the RAD believe the Respondent's allegation that he was targeted by the intelligence arm of the PUK in Iraq because of his perceived political opinion of opposing the PUK and Zanyari. The RPD and RAD find that it would not be reasonable for the Respondent to seek state protection in Iraq and he does not have a viable or reasonable IFA. As such, the RAD determines that the Respondent has a well-founded fear of persecution and meets the definition of a Convention refugee. [36] Having found the Respondent is a Convention refugee based on imputed political opinion, there is no need to assess the Minister's arguments with respect to the Respondent's profile as a former employee of the KRSC, or the Respondent's allegation that he has a sur place claim. CONCLUSION [37] After conducting its own analysis of the entire record, the RAD finds that the RPD did not err in finding the Respondent has a nexus to the Convention based on his political opinion, or that there is a subjective and objective basis for his fear. While the RAD agrees the Respondent's situation is not akin to that of a journalist, after conducting its own independent assessment, the RAD finds this is not fatal to its final determination that the Respondent is a Convention refugee. Disposition [38] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Respondent is a Convention refugee. This appeal is dismissed. (signed) "G. Erauw" G. Erauw October 5, 2017 Date 1 Section 111(1)(a), Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27. [IRPA]. 2 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 3 X (Re), 2017 CanLII 33034 (CA IRB). 4 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Written Statement, at p. 3, referring to documents at Tab 2, pp. 8-34. 5 IRPA, Section 110(4). 6 IRPA, Section 171(a.5). However, Rule 9(2)(d)(i) of the Refugee Appeal Division Rules adds that the Minister's written statement submitted with the appeal record should contain reference to the "relevance of that evidence". 7 IRPA, Section 110(5). 8 IRPA, Section 171(a.3). 9 Exhibit P-1, Respondent's Record, Respondent's Memorandum, at p. 274. 10 Exhibit P-1, Respondent's Record, Respondent's New Evidence, at pp. 2-7. 11 Exhibit P-1, Respondent's Record, Respondent's New Evidence, at pp. 8-19. 12 Section 110(6), Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27. 13 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at pp. 7-12, at paras 6-24. 14 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at pp. 12-16, at paras 25-38; see also Appellant's reply to the Respondent's submissions with respect to a sur place claim, Exhibit M-3, Appellant's Reply, Reply Submissions, at pp. 2-3, at paras 9-12. 15 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at pp. 7-9, at paras. 6-12. 16 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at pp. 9-10, at paras. 13-18. 17 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at pp. 11-12, at paras 20-22. 18 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at pp. 12-15, at paras 26-36. 19 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at pp. 12, at paras 25. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Audio Recording (2nd Hearing), at 54:00-1:25:00. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Iraq (28 February 2017), at item 1.7, p. 21. 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Audio Recording (1st Hearing) at 19:00-27:00, 34:00-46:00 and 1:00:00-1:49:00; Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 7, at p. 353, 380-382. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Audio Recording (1st Hearing) at 34:00-40:00 and 2:18:00-2:24:00; and Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Audio Recording (2nd Hearing) at 58:00-1:05:00. 24 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Basis of Claim (BOC) Form, at pp. 19-20, at paras 25-26. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 7, at pp. 363-371, and 376-377; Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 4, at pp. 301-304; Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 5, p. 340; Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Audio Recording (2nd Hearing) at 54:00-1:26:00. 26 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Audio Recording (1st Hearing), at 27:00-30:00 and 53:00-1:12:00; Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Audio Recording (2nd Hearing) at 6:00; Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 4, at pp. 243-251. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Audio Recording (1st Hearing), at 2:37:00-3:10:00; and Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Audio Recording (2nd Hearing) at 31:00-56:00 and 1:12:00-1:19:00. 28 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 4, Maps and Designs, at pp. 277-289; Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 6, Photo of Renovated Safe House, at p. 341; Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 7, Contour Map of Zanyari Territory, pp. 386-394. 29 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 4, Leave of Absence Request and Approval Letters, at pp. 246-251. 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 4, at pp. 297-336; Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 5, at p. 340; Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 7, at pp. 377-379. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB7-14050