TB6-01441

RPD File / Dossier de la SPR: TB6-01441 UCI / IUC: XXXX Private Proceeding/ Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et Décision Application to cease -Demandes de constat de perte Applicant(s) The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness/ Ministre de la Sécurité publique et de la Protection civile Demandeur(e)(s) Respondent(s) XXXX XXXX XXXX Intimé(e)(s) (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) Date(s) of hearing August 29, 2019 Date(s) de l'audience Place of hearing Toronto, ON Lieu de l'audience Date of decision and reasons September 13, 2019 Date de la décision et des motifs Panel Reid Rossi Tribunal Counsel for the respondent Douglas R Cannon Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) de l'intimé(e) / des intimé(e)(s) Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister J. Thipphawong Conseil du (de la) ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] On January 26, 2016, the Minister made an application to the Refugee Protection Division pursuant to section 108(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the Act)1 and in accordance with Rule 64 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules,2 for the cessation of the refugee protection granted to XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX), the respondent. [2] The Minister further makes an application to have the respondent's refugee claim deemed rejected in accordance with section 108(3) of the Act.3 MINISTER'S ALLEGATIONS [3] The Minister submitted that the respondent voluntarily reavailed himself of the protection of his country of nationality, namely, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Pakistan), in two ways: (1) by returning to his country of nationality using his Pakistani passport, where he remained for nearly six months (172 days); and, (2) by obtaining another Pakistani passport after having been accepted as a Convention refugee in Canada. Thus, the Minister alleged that the respondent has demonstrated that he no longer requires Canada's surrogate protection. [4] The Minister presented certain facts in support of his cessation application. Supporting documentation is contained in the Minister's Disclosure Package.4 The respondent was granted refugee protection in Canada on January 9, 2006, because he feared persecution in Pakistan. The respondent was then granted Permanent Resident status in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2007. He used his Pakistani passport5 (Passport 1) to return to Pakistan on XXXX XXXX, 2007. [5] While in Pakistan, he married a Pakistani citizen in Lahore on XXXX XXXX, 2007. He was issued another Pakistani passport (Passport 2) in Islamabad on XXXX XXXX, 2008.6 The respondent used this passport to exit Pakistan on XXXX XXXX, 2008, and to return to Canada, after having remained in Pakistan for 172 days. The panel also notes that the respondent referenced a third passport under questioning by his counsel. However, that document was his first passport; an earlier passport that was subsequently replaced by the aforementioned Passport 1 document. [6] The respondent's wife gave birth to the couple's daughter in Lahore on XXXX XXXX, 2008. His father came to Canada in 1996, and he was accepted as a Convention refugee. His father is now a Canadian citizen. [7] The Minister submitted that the respondent voluntarily reavailed himself to Pakistan in accordance with section 108(1)(a) of the Act.7 RESPONDENT'S POSITION [8] In response, the respondent's counsel asserted that the Board should dismiss the Minister's application as an abuse of process due to the delay. Further, counsel asserts that the respondent only returned to Pakistan once in 2007, and he returned to Canada. The respondent was last outside of Canada 11 years ago, in 2008, and he has been waiting for a decision on his Canadian citizenship application for nine years. His wife and three children are all Canadian citizens who live in Canada, and they would face economic hardship if the respondent was forced to leave Canada given that he is the family's sole provider. Further, counsel submitted that the respondent only returned to Pakistan because he had to accompany his father there for surgery, and he presumed that because he was a permanent resident, he was returning to Pakistan under Canada's protection. In addition, his father had arranged for him to marry a woman in Pakistan, and he lost his travel documents while he was there, which delayed his departure. ANALYSIS [9] The central issue for the panel is the matter of the respondent's reavailment in 2007. Section 108(1) of the IRPA [10] In making its decision, the panel notes that section 108 of the Act reads, in part: 108(1) A claim for refugee protection shall be rejected and a person is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, in any of the following circumstances: (a) the person has voluntarily reavailed themselves of the protection of their country of nationality;.... (e) the reasons for which the person sought refugee protection have ceased to exist. Cessation of refugee protection (2) On application by the Minister, the Refugee Protection Division may determine that refugee protection referred to in subsection 95(1) has ceased for any of the reasons described in subsection (1). Effect of decision (3) If the application is allowed, the claim of the person is deemed to be rejected.8 [emphasis added] [11] In considering whether the respondent voluntarily reavailed himself of Pakistan's protection, as set out in subsection 108(1)(a) of the Act,9 the panel is guided by the United Nations' High Commission on Refugees Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (UNHCR Handbook), with reference to its definitions of voluntariness, intention and reavailment. According to the UNHCR Handbook: ... A refugee who has voluntarily re-availed himself of national protection is no longer in need of international protection. He has demonstrated that he is no longer "unable or unwilling to avail herself of the protection of the country of her nationality."10 119. This cessation clause implies three requirements: voluntariness: the refugee must act voluntarily; (b) intention: the refugee must intend by his action to re-avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; and (c) re-availment: the refugee must actually obtain such protection.11 [emphasis added] Respondent's decision to return to Pakistan was voluntary [12] Paragraph 120 of the UNHCR Handbook12 states that a respondent who does not act voluntarily has not reavailed and, therefore, will not cease to be a refugee. This section of the UNHCR Handbook provides examples in this regard: ... If he is instructed by an authority, e.g., of his country of residence, to perform against her will an act that could be interpreted as a re-availment of the protection of the country of his nationality, such as applying to his Consulate for a national passport, he will not cease to be a refugee merely because he obeys such an instruction. He may also be constrained, by circumstances beyond his control, to have recourse to a measure of protection from his country of nationality. He may, for instance, need to apply for a divorce in his home country because no other divorce may have the necessary international recognition. Such an act cannot be considered to be a "voluntary re-availment of protection" and will not deprive a person of refugee status.13 [13] The panel finds that none of these examples apply in the respondent's case. [14] Paragraph 121 references where a distinction should be drawn between actual reavailment of protection and occasional and incidental contacts with the national authorities in determining whether refugee status is lost in the above-cited circumstances. ... If a refugee applies for and obtains a national passport or its renewal, it will, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be presumed that he intends to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality. On the other hand, the acquisition of documents from the national authorities, for which non-nationals would likewise have to apply - such as a birth or marriage certificate - or similar services, cannot be regarded as a re-availment of protection.14 [15] Paragraph 125 of the UNHCR Handbook further indicates the following in relation to refugees who obtained a travel document from their country of residence to travel to their home country: "... Visiting an old or sick parent will have a different bearing on the refugee's relation to his former home country than regular visits to that country spent on holidays or for the purpose of establishing business relations."15 [16] The panel finds that these examples, as outlined in Paragraph 121, do not apply, and it is a fact that the respondent applied for and obtained a national passport to travel to Pakistan. As for the particular circumstances of this case in the context of Paragraph 125, the respondent explained that his father compelled him to accompany him to Pakistan for his surgery in 2007 because he trusted the doctors in Pakistan more than he trusted the doctors in Canada. The respondent stated that there was no one else in Canada who could accompany his father to Pakistan, thus the respondent felt obligated to travel to Pakistan with him. Further, upon return to Canada in 2008, when the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officer at the airport asked the respondent why he had returned to the country from which Canada had granted him refugee protection, he responded that, "... his father was dying so he had no choice."16 [17] First, the Board is not persuaded that the respondent was compelled to return to Pakistan. Whatever sense of obligation he might have felt to accompany his father on his trip to Pakistan, there is no information before the Board to demonstrate that the respondent had been forced to return there. In fact, his oral testimony, in the form of his response to the Minister's counsel, was that it was his decision to travel back to Pakistan with his father since there was no one else in his family who could accompany his father on his trip. [18] Second, the objective information supplied by the Minister regarding the level of healthcare service in Canada versus that available in Pakistan is not in dispute, buoyed as it is by the performance ranking data of the World Health Organization.17 No evidence was presented to counter this information. The Board is persuaded by the Minister's counsel's submission that insofar as surgery for the respondent's father was allegedly required, the need for the respondent, who had protected status, to escort his father back to the country against which both men had earlier sought international protection is dubious and to be evidence that the respondent returned to the country of alleged persecution voluntarily. The Board is not persuaded that the respondent was forced to return to Pakistan. [19] Third, the respondent had other family members who were living in Pakistan. The most notable of these was his brother, on whom the respondent himself had relied to allegedly prepare a story to tell at his interview, which was held at the Canadian mission in Islamabad, regarding his "lost" travel documents. He also relied on the skills and experience of his brother to craft information on which the respondent also relied in his interactions with Canadian officials upon his return to Canada. In this vein, the Board is persuaded that there was sufficient, immediate family support and care for the respondent's father in Pakistan. [20] The panel finds all of this to be persuasive proof, and the Board reasonably presumes, as per the language of the UNHCR Handbook,18 that the respondent intended to avail himself of the protection of his country of nationality. [21] There is a credibility concern with the respondent's evidence related to the allegation about his father's surgery. At the hearing, the respondent told the Minister's Counsel that his father wanted to go back to Paistan for his surgery because he did not trust Canadian doctors. The respondent returned to Pakistan and the father had his surgery there. On page 1 of the respondent's disclosure package,19 the Board read the respondent's email to the Canadian High Commission Visa Section Officer in Islamabad wherein he stated that he was still awaiting a reply to his request for the replacement of his Canadian permanent residence card so he could return to Canada, noting: "I want to go back as soon as possible because my father has an appointment for surgery in Canada and he can not [sic] travel alone due to his weakness."20 The panel asked the respondent how many surgeries his father had undergone. He responded, "One," namely the surgery he had undergone in Pakistan. The panel asked the respondent why, if his father did not trust Canadian doctors and had returned to Pakistan for his surgery, he wrote in his email that his father had an appointment for surgery in Canada. His only response to the panel was that his father had to come back to Canada and follow up with a doctor in Canada, which is in fact a different explanation from what he wrote, namely, that his father had an appointment for surgery in Canada. This belies his earlier testimony that his father did not trust Canadian doctors or that his father had to return to Canada for a follow up appointment. The Board finds the respondent's response to be an unsatisfactory explanation for his statement in his 2008 email to Canadian officials at the Islamabad mission and the other to the panel. The Board is unable to rely on the respondent's testimony, which goes directly to the credibility of his explanation for returning to Pakistan and the circumstances surrounding his return to Canada. [22] Later, when questioned by the Minister's counsel, the respondent told the Board that his father had arranged for him to marry a Pakistani woman in Pakistan so he had to return there to marry her. The Board is not able to determine with any confidence that the respondent's father had arranged this marriage. The Minister's counsel's submission that it "... seems unlikely that the respondent's father would have had either the time or energy to arrange a marriage for his son within three weeks of arriving in Pakistan if the reason for travelling [there] was to undergo a critical surgery"21 was noted by the Board. The Minister's counsel also submitted that the respondent's intention to marry a Pakistani woman "... may better explain his decision to return to Pakistan just nine months after becoming a permanent resident of Canada."22 Whether arranged or not, the panel finds persuasive all of the evidence that indicates that the respondent's return to Pakistan was a voluntary one. Intention to reavail [23] The Board considered whether the respondent demonstrated an intention to re-avail himself of Pakistan's protection and whether his intention constitutes reavailment. [24] The following section of the UNHCR Handbook23 is instructive. Paragraph 124 indicates that, "Obtaining a national passport or an extension of its validity may, under certain exceptional circumstances, not involve termination of refugee status...."24 The panel has carefully considered the respondent's motivation for returning to Pakistan and it finds that his situation is distinguished from that found in Paragraph 124 in that his return to Pakistan offers no "certain exceptional circumstances." While in Pakistan, the respondent applied for a replacement Pakistani passport in that country to replace his existing passport. He identified himself to the authorities and was able to obtain a replacement Pakistani passport in his name. Given the additional divergent information on when and how the first documents were lost and reacquired, and how quickly this passport was obtained, the Board finds that the respondent intended to re-avail himself of the protection of Pakistan by obtaining a valid, replacement travel document from Pakistani authorities and from within his country of nationality. [25] The Board's finding is also buoyed by the respondent's counsel's curious submission that, in traveling back to Pakistan, armed with his Canadian permanent resident card, the respondent presumed that this card now offered him "the protection of Canada" while in Pakistan. He had never intended to reavail himself of that protection since he was "relying on the protection accorded to him by virtue of his Canadian permanent resident card and status." Applying this same logic, the Board cannot overlook the actions of the respondent in seeking and obtaining his replacement Pakistani passport to thereby offer him protection from his country of nationality through obtaining and using his new Pakistani passport. [26] The respondent's counsel unpersuasively submitted that the respondent conflated in his mind permanent residency status with refugee protection, believing that permanent residency in Canada somehow offered him protection while he was in Pakistan. If this were true, there would have been no reason for the respondent to approach Pakistani authorities to obtain a replacement Pakistani passport. Invariably, the respondent's own actions render unpersuasive this submission in that he voluntarily applied for and obtained that replacement document from Pakistani authorities, and they provide persuasive proof that he intended to reavail himself of the protection of Pakistan. [27] The respondent applied for a replacement Pakistani passport in Pakistan, not before returning to Pakistan because he still had a valid Pakistani passport on which to travel there from Canada, and not because any Canadian High Commission officer in Islamabad told him to do so, but because he was advised to cancel the older passport when it was returned to him by an unknown person through his uncle just days before his scheduled interview at the Canadian mission. Instead, the respondent made the decision to approach the passport office to obtain a replacement Pakistani passport because it was his intention to have that travel document. In doing so, he demonstrated that he intended to avail himself of the protection of his country of nationality. Paragraph 122 of the UNHCR Handbook notes that: "A refugee requesting protection from the authorities of the country of his nationality has only "re-availed" himself of that protection when his request has actually been granted."25 Further, "... obtaining an entry permit or a national passport for the purposes of returning will, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be considered as terminating refugee status."26 [28] The respondent applied for and received a replacement Pakistani passport, which was issued bearing his photo and his name. The Board finds this to be prima facie evidence of his intention to avail himself of the protection of Pakistan. [29] Paragraph 123 states that:27 A refugee may have voluntarily obtained a national passport, intending either to avail himself of the protection of his country of origin while staying outside that country, or to return to that country. As stated above, with the receipt of such a document he normally ceases to be a refugee. [30] The Board finds paragraph 123 to be relevant to this application, particularly since the respondent returned to his country of nationality and on that country's soil, he approached the authorities to obtain the replacement document. [31] Further, when a refugee uses a passport to return to the country from which refuge has been taken, the presumption of reavailment must be given particular weight. The respondent used his Pakistani passport less than a year after becoming a permanent resident of Canada. As the Minister's Counsel argued in his application,28 by virtue of traveling on his Pakistani passport and by applying for another Pakistani passport in Pakistan even before his current passport had expired, the respondent intended to reavail himself of the diplomatic protection of Pakistan. The Minister's counsel's reference to an excerpt from the decision in Olvera Romero29 is relevant to the case at bar.30 In determining whether refugee status is lost in these circumstances, the UNHCR Handbook states that a distinction should be drawn between actual re-availment of protection and occasional or incidental contacts with the national authorities. If a refugee applies for and obtains a national passport or its renewal, it will, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be presumed that he intends to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality....31 [32] Flowing from this matter of "occasional or incidental contacts with the national authorities," significant other credibility concerns were raised at the hearing between statements the respondent made to Canadian High Commission staff in Islamabad and what he proffered related to whom he approached regarding the loss of his travel documents. He told the interviewing officer at the Canadian High Commission in Islamabad that he reported the loss to of his travel documents to the police and he re-reported the reacquisition of the travel documents to the police just days before his interview. At the hearing, however, when this information was put to him, the respondent acknowledged that he had lied to the officer because his brother had helped to prepare him and he had told the respondent what to say. He changed his story and said that the documents were stolen from a cupboard in his sister's house during his wedding because some of the family members were displeased with the marriage. He confirmed for the Minister's counsel that he made up the first story, since his brother prepared the story, and he was protecting his family. The respondent also replied affirmatively to the Minister's counsel that he had lied. [33] The Board was unable to determine which story was true, given that the respondent's lying was recorded throughout the interviewing officer's notes.32 That is, the Board could not ascertain whether the respondent actually contacted the police. What was not in dispute, however, is the respondent's lack of fear, as evidenced by him voluntarily approaching the Pakistani authorities to request and obtain a replacement Pakistani passport. What is determinative in this case is that the respondent voluntarily reavailed himself of the protection of his country of nationality. As Minister's counsel wrote in his application, citing Nilam,33 "...it will only be in 'exceptional circumstances' that travel by a refugee to his or her country of nationality on a passport issued by that country will not constitute termination of his or her refugee status."34[emphasis in original] The respondent traveled to Pakistan relying on his Pakistani passport and a Canadian permanent resident card, and he obtained a replacement Pakistani passport in his country of nationality. These actions, as recounted during hearing, with no persuasive explanation from the respondent to resolve these actions, constitute reavailment in the Board's determination. Reavailment [34] The Board finds convincing proof before it that the respondent reavailed himself of the protection of Pakistan. The state granted to the respondent entry into Pakistan based on his valid Pakistani passport, and subsequently through its issuance of a replacement Pakistani passport, which the respondent used to exit his country of nationality. As the Minister's counsel referenced, in Cerna,35 "the Honourable Justice O'Reilly found that if a refugee acquires a passport in order to return to his or her country then the refugee has also obtained actual protection from their state."36 Further, as noted in the Minister's application, in Nilam,37 the Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish held "... that a refugee who travels using a passport issued by their country of original has thereby submitted themselves to the diplomatic protection of that country."38 As the Minister's counsel persuasively wrote, when the respondent obtained Pakistan's protection by using his passport to return there, crossing borders and arriving at its port of entry, he had "... placed himself within the diplomatic protection of Pakistan's government, and actually obtained that protection."39 [35] Reference was also made to the respondent's marriage, which was registered on XXXX XXXX, 2007, and the fact that marriages must be registered with a local Union Council where an original copy is kept as public record. In the totality of the materials filed at this hearing, the Board has seen no evidence to rebut the presumption that the state of Pakistan was unwilling or unable to protect the respondent during his reavailment of the protection of his country of nationality. The Board finds persuasive the Minister's reliance on this presumption by demonstrating through the evidence that the respondent traveled on a valid Pakistani passport, and that the state also replaced that document at the respondent's request so that the respondent could travel on a replacement passport from his country of origin. [36] Accordingly, the requirements for reavailment under the Act40 and the Refugee Convention are met in this case: voluntariness, intention and reavailment.41 [37] The panel finds the respondent's 2007 trip to Pakistan to constitute voluntary reavailment of the protection of his country of nationality. The respondent's Personal Information Form indicated clearly the respondent's fear of persecution that stemmed from the fact that he was an Ahmadi Muslim.42 He alleged that his family protected him while he was in Pakistan, but he traveled freely in Islamabad. He traveled to his uncle's home to obtain the returned travel documents, if this is in fact what truly occurred given the panel's credibility concerns, and he returned to Islamabad without incident. He was married in Pakistan during this time and various families were invited to his wedding, as he explained. He registered his marriage with the authorities. He was spending time with his new bride, and he remained in Pakistan for 172 days, having his original documents returned to him just days before his scheduled interview at the Canadian High Commission. What is more, not only did he approach the Pakistani authorities to obtain a replacement Pakistani passport, he used that document to travel safely out of Pakistan in 2008. The time he spent in Pakistan and his acquisition of a replacement passport from Pakistan represent persuasive evidence of his intention to reavail himself of the protection of his country of nationality. [38] The Board considered the respondent's responses and explanations, noting the unresolved credibility concerns, and it finds that that the respondent has failed to rebut the presumption of voluntary return and reavailment. The Board considers the respondent's trip to Pakistan to constitute prima facie evidence of reavailment. As referenced, the Board also carefully considered case law on the topic of cessation to evaluate whether the respondent's actions rebut that presumption. Considered cumulatively, the respondent's circumstances are not the circumstances of someone who fears persecution from the Pakistani government or its state agents. The Board finds that the respondent has failed to rebut the presumption of reavailment. Consequently, the panel finds that the Minister has met the onus for the requirements under sections 108(2) and (3) of the Act.43 Board permission to provide post-hearing submissions [39] At the end of the hearing, the respondent's counsel referenced two other matters discussed in the cover letter to the respondent's disclosure package.44 The Board determined that it would permit the respondent's counsel to provide post-hearing written submissions on two points: 1) his application for a dismissal of this cessation matter due to the delay, which he argued, constitutes an abuse of process; and, 2) his request that the Board compel the Minister to disclose various types of additional information as follows: * To disclose records related to the respondent's interactions between him and the "visa office" of the Canadian mission in Islamabad in 2007 and 2008; * To disclose records regarding the respondent's 2010 citizenship application and reasons for the delay; and * To compel the applicant to furnish all records to which it had access related to the issues in this case that the respondent was unable to obtain through his access to information requests.45 [40] The Board was clear in its direction to the respondent's counsel that his written submissions on these points were due on or before Thursday, September 5, 2019. The Minister's counsel was also invited to provide responding submissions post-hearing, if any, on or before Tuesday, September 10, 2019. Minister's counsel elected not to provide further submissions. [41] The respondent's counsel did not comply with the Board's request to furnish written submissions to it by the due date. Specifically, the respondent's counsel provided no submissions on the delay/abuse of process argument or on the request that the Board compel the Applicant (Minister) to disclose further information.. [42] The only subsequent communication from the respondent's counsel that the panel considered were two additional items. The first was a faxed letter from him to the Board dated September 4, 2019, one day before the deadline for the Board to receive his written submissions. In this faxed letter, the respondent's counsel requested a copy of the CD of the respondent's hearing on August 29, 2019. The second item is the Board's case management officer's email correspondence with the panel, in which the panel is advised that at 8:18 a.m. on Monday, September 9, 2019, that the case management officer had spoken to the respondent's counsel regarding the post-hearing submissions. The respondent's counsel alleged that "there has been an administrative error and he could not send the submission before the due date. Counsel is going to submit an application to extend time to file submissions today." Yet, the respondent's counsel provided no explanation regarding the "administrative error" that prevented him from making submissions by the due date. Further, he proffered no date or information as to when he intended to submit an application to extend time to file submissions. A request for extending the date for post-hearing submissions should have been made on or before September 5, 2019. No submissions were received by the time of the panel's adjudication and determination of this matter, however; and failing to meet the due date of September 5, 2019, the Board made its decision on the information and evidence before it. CONCLUSION [43] For the foregoing reasons, the Board finds that the Minister has met the onus for the cessation application. Therefore, the Minister's application for cessation of the respondent's status as a Convention refugee, pursuant to section 108(2) of the Act46 is allowed. [44] The Board also determines that the respondent's claim is deemed rejected. (signed) "Reid Rossi" Reid Rossi September 13, 2019 date 1 The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c.27, as amended, ss. 108(2). 2 Refugee Protection Division Rules (SOR/2012-256), Rule 64. 3 IRPA, supra, footnote 1, ss. 108(3). 4 Exhibit 1, Minister's Application to Cease Refugee Protection and Disclosure, received January 27, 2016. 5 Pakistani passport No. XXXX issued to XXX XXX XXX. Date of issue: XXXX X, 2003. Date of expiry: XXXX X, 2008. 6 Pakistani passport No. XXXX issued to XXX XXX XXX. Date of issue: XXX X, 2008. Date of expiry: XXX X, 2013. 7 IRPA, supra, footnote 1, ss. 108(1)(a). 8 Ibid., ss. 108(1), (2), and (3). 9 Ibid., ss. 108(1)(a). 10 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, reedited Geneva, January 1992. 11 Ibid., at para 119. 12 Ibid., at para 120. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid., at para 121. 15 Ibid., at para 125. 16 Exhibit 2, Respondent's Disclosure, p.428, received August 20, 2019. 17 Exhibit 1, Minister's Application to Cease Refugee Protection and Disclosure, at paras 14-15, received January 27, 2016. 18 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, reedited Geneva, January 1992. 19 Exhibit 2, Respondent's Disclosure, p.1, received August 20, 2019. 20 Ibid. 21 Exhibit 1, Minister's Application to Cease Refugee Protection and Disclosure, at para 13, received January 27, 2016. 22 Ibid. 23 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, reedited Geneva, January 1992. 24 Ibid., at para 124. 25 Ibid., at para 122. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid., at para 123. 28 Exhibit 1, Minister's Application to Cease Refugee Protection and Disclosure, received January 27, 2016. 29 Olvera Romero, Silvia v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6485-13), Strickland, July 9, 2014, 2014 FC 671. 30 Exhibit 1, Minister's Application to Cease Refugee Protection and Disclosure, at para 27, received January 27, 2016. 31 Olvera Romero, supra, footnote 29, at para 41. 32 Exhibit 2, Respondent's Disclosure, pp. 410-427, received August 20, 2019. 33 Mohamed Nilam: M.C.I. v. Mohamed Nilam, Nisreen Ahamed (F.C., no. IMM-1687-15), Mactavish, October 8, 2015, 2015 FC 1154. 34 Exhibit 1, Minister's Application to Cease Refugee Protection and Disclosure, at para 28, received January 27, 2016. 35 Cerna, Davis v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-7267-14), O'Reilly, September 15, 2015, 2015 FC 1074. 36 Exhibit 1, Minister's Application to Cease Refugee Protection and Disclosure, at para 31, received January 27, 2016. 37 Mohamed Nilam, supra, footnote 33, at para 11. 38 Exhibit 1, Minister's Application to Cease Refugee Protection and Disclosure, at para 31, received January 27, 2016. 39 Ibid., at para 32. 40 IRPA, supra, footnote 1, ss. 108(1)(a). 41 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, reedited Geneva, January 1992, at para 119. 42 Exhibit 1, Minister's Application to Cease Refugee Protection and Disclosure, pp.2-17, received January 27, 2016. 43 IRPA, supra, footnote 1, ss. 108(2) and (3). 44 Exhibit 2, Respondent's Disclosure, received August 20, 2019. 45 Ibid., See cover letter dated August 19, 2019, at p. 2. 46 IRPA, supra, footnote 1, ss. 108(2). --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RPD.25.11 (September 17, 2018) Disponible en français Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Protection Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section de la protection des réfugiés RPD.25.11 (September 17, 2018) Disponible en français RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR : TB6-01441