TC0-11459

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC0-11459 TC0-11460 / TC0-11461 / TC0-11462 / TC0-11463 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision March 11, 2021 Date de la décision Panel G. Cohen Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Ochiemuan Okojie 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") and her children, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the "Minor Appellants" and altogether the "Appellants") are citizens of Nigeria. The Principal Appellant has acted as the designated representative for the Minor Appellants. [2] The Appellants claim to fear persecution and/or a risk of harm in Nigeria pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the "IRPA")1. [3] The Appellants appeal a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (the "RPD") rejecting their claims for refugee protection. The Appellants argue that the RPD erred in its assessment of the evidence, particularly with respect to its finding that the Appellants failed to establish their identities. [4] This claim involves alleged violence and harm pertaining to the Appellant's sexual orientation. The Chairperson's Guideline on Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression (the "Guideline")2 has been considered at the RPD and on appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (the "RAD"). [5] The Guideline assists in assessing key evidentiary elements to determine the extent claimants making sexual orientation related refugee claims may successfully rely on any Convention ground, and under what circumstances actions pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity and expression constitute persecution. 3 The Guideline was used to help assess the circumstances of this claim and to understand and apply the added sensitivities necessary to properly assess the evidence. DECISION [6] The appeal is dismissed, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of IRPA.4 The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. BACKGROUND [7] The RPD heard the Appellants' refugee claims on September 18, 2020 and rejected them in a written decision dated October 8, 2020. Therein, the RPD found that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection, on the basis that they failed to establish their identities. [8] The Appellants allegedly left Nigeria for the United States (the "USA"). After their stay in the USA the Appellants allegedly entered Canada. The Role of the RAD [9] Jurisprudence provides that the RAD is required to undertake an independent assessment of the evidence and reach its own determination, including as to whether the RPD made the correct decision.5 [10] Deference is owed to the RPD only where it held a meaningful advantage in assessing evidence. In the present case, given the lack of advantage, I have not shown deference to the RPD's findings. As such, I have applied a correctness standard and arrived at independent findings and conclusions based upon my assessment of the evidence before me.6 The Appellants' New Evidence and Oral Hearing Request are not Accepted [11] The Appellants have submitted several documents as new evidence in their appeal. However, I have rejected admission of the Appellants' new evidence, pursuant to subsection 110(4) of IRPA. This subsection states that, on appeal, the person who is the subject of the appeal may only present evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim, that was not reasonably available, or that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time the claim was rejected. If the evidence meets one or more of these requirements, I must decide if the evidence is new, credible and relevant before I can accept it.7 [12] In this case, none of the Appellants' new evidence meets the requirements above. This includes: (1) an attestation of birth letter, dated August 27, 2019; (2) an affidavit "for declaration of age", dated August 23, 2019; and (3) a scan or photograph of a national identity card, dated June 21, 2005; (together with a DHL envelope or sticker and barcode presumably used to deliver these items).8 [13] Given that the Appellants' refugee claims were rejected in a written decision dated October 8, 2020, clearly all of the above evidence arose before this rejection. Furthermore, it was all reasonably available, and the Appellants could reasonably have been expected to present this evidence prior to the rejection of their claims, given that the issue of a refugee claimant's identity is always at issue and was raised by the RPD. [14] While the Appellants have sought to argue that this evidence was not reasonably available at the time of the rejection of their refugee claims, because they were in Nigeria or inaccessible due to travel restrictions, they ought to have raised this with the RPD and/or requested the opportunity to provide post-hearing disclosure. Given that the Appellants have been represented by counsel throughout the refugee determination and appeal process, it was certainly open to them to raise the issue that they sought to disclose these particular items but were experiencing difficulties accessing them, and to explain the efforts they had made and the problems they faced in doing so, and to apply for additional time to provide this - which they did not do. [15] Moreover, the Federal Court reiterated in Eshetie that, "A RAD appeal is not a second chance to submit evidence to answer weaknesses identified by the RPD." Instead, an appellant must "put his or her best foot forward to the RPD" and not present evidence that could have and should have been presented in their refugee claim.9 Moreover, in Abdullahi, the Federal Court provided that: ...responding to an inadequacy identified by the RPD in a party's case cannot be a legitimate foundation for the party to claim that had she known about the deficiency she could have presented better evidence that was always in existence...This would make the RPD process a monumental waste of time, which is surely not Parliament's intention in providing appeal rights.10 [16] Additionally, the Appellants request an oral hearing at the RAD in light of the new evidence, in accordance with section 110(6) of IRPA.11 However, given that I have rejected the Appellants' new evidence, it is not possible to hold a hearing at the RAD. Nonetheless, I considered the three criteria required to hold an oral hearing, and, even if accepted, which was not the case, the new evidence in and of itself would not justify allowing the Appellants' refugee claims. ANALYSIS Determinative Issues - Identity and Credibility [17] The determinative issues in this case at the RPD were identity and credibility. As such, this appeal examines whether the RPD erred in determining that the Appellants' identities have not been established and that their evidence raises significant credibility concerns. [18] The Appellants seek consideration as to whether the RPD erred in its identity findings, including in its assessment of their identity documents, and argue that it did.12 [19] As such, in conducting an independent assessment of the evidence before me, I have examined the identity and credibility related analysis conducted by the RPD and related testimony and documentary disclosure, as well as all relevant issues and grounds pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of IRPA, while addressing the issues raised by the Appellants and the RPD as well. [20] For the reasons that follow, I find the RPD's overall analysis to be correct in rejecting the Appellants' refugee claims and dismiss the appeal. This includes the RPD conclusions that the Appellants' failed to establish their identities, that they have presented insufficient persuasive evidence in this regard, and that their evidence raises significant credibility concerns. Moreover, the Appellants' arguments fail to overcome these concerns or to establish that the RPD erred in its determination. General considerations regarding the Appellants' failure to establish their identities [21] The Federal Court clearly provides that the failure of refugee claimants to establish their identities is fatal to their claims.13 Additionally, the Court has noted that where claimants fail to establish their identities, "a negative conclusion as to credibility will almost inevitably be drawn, and can, in and of itself, be dispositive of the claim".14 In this case, the Appellants' failure to establish their identities is fatal to their refugee claims and appeal and their related evidence supports a negative conclusion regarding their credibility. [22] Furthermore, the RPD correctly referenced section 106 of the IRPA and Rule 11 of the RPD Rules, in noting that an "essential and critical first step in the refugee determination process" involves claimants establishing their identity.15 In particular, section 106 of the IRPA provides that as part of its credibility assessment, the RPD must consider whether claimants possess acceptable identity documentation, and if not, whether they have provided a reasonable explanation for this or have taken reasonable steps to obtain such documentation.16 This same requirement is reflected in Rule 11 of the RPD Rules, which puts an onus on all refugee claimants to provide acceptable documents to establish their identity and other elements of their claim, and if not, to explain why they have not done so and steps they have taken to obtain these. [23] Additionally, given that the Appellants have been represented by counsel throughout their refugee determination process (and at the RAD), they therefore knew or ought to have known that the onus rests with them to establish their identities. [24] However, in this case, the Appellants have failed to provide acceptable identity documents and their explanations in this regard raised further identity and credibility related concerns. This severely undermines the basis for their refugee claims and supports the RPD findings, which I find are correct. In particular, the RPD found that the Appellants' evidence regarding their personal identities was insufficient and not credible, such that, on a balance of probabilities, their identities have not been established.17 I agree. Overarching credibility concerns pertaining to the basis of the Appellants' claims [25] Notwithstanding the Appellants' alleged basis for fear of persecution or harm in Nigeria (i.e. the Principal Appellant's alleged bisexuality) presented in their Basis of Claim form ("BOC"), the Appellants initially solemnly declared to Canadian authorities that: The reason why I don't want to go back to Nigeria is because the economic situation is bad and things are kind of hard and the future of my kids is not secured...I came to Canada because I know Canada has greater opportunity for me and my kids. Canada has a better opportunity in the aspect of work.18 The Principal Appellant further signed her declaration confirming that "I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath." 19 [26] Additionally, when asked by Canadian authorities why they were traveling to Canada, the Principal Appellant stated, "Because I want a better future for my kids".20 Regarding the nature and timing of the Appellants' intentions to come to Canada, the Principal Appellant stated, "At first our intention was to go to America and then go back to Nigeria but things became tough in business so my husband and I decided to use our American visa to come to Canada...When things became rough, when I had issues for school fees for the kids, I was unable to pay it. Feeding the kids was not easy either anymore. Then I decided to look for a better future for my kids and for myself." 21 [27] When asked to explain the whereabouts of her husband, the Principal Appellant stated, "He has a business in Nigeria. He is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX He will go back to Nigeria. We are not suffering but we want a better future for our kids." 22 And finally, when asked whether the Appellants are persecuted for being part of a certain social group (being a woman or sexual orientation), the Principal Appellant responded, "No". 23 [28] This evidence severely undermines the Appellants' credibility and the basis for their claims. Furthermore, I do not accept the Appellants' explanation that: When I got to the immigration office in Quebec, the immigration woman that interrogated me asked me why I left my country and came to Canada, I told her that I am bi-sexual and I was running away from my country to save my life. She started threatening me that she is going to jail me and my children if I say that again. I became scared knowing that where I was coming from in Nigeria, law enforcement officers actually do have such powers to jail someone who is a bisexual. By the time the threat was becoming too much for me I got confused and scared because I was running away from my country and here I am being threatened again, so I got so scared that I if I kept saying that I was a bisexual, that I might be arrested and sent back to Nigeria, so I decided to tell the immigration officer a different thing. I then told the officer nothing was after me, and that I came to Canada for economic reasons because I didn't know what else to say or do and the fact that I don't even know how the system of Canada works. My initial claim that I running because of economic hardship is not true, it was a result of fear of being arrested and sent back to Nigeria that I said so.24 [29] The Appellants' serious accusations regarding threats made to them by a Canadian immigration officer to imprison them if they continued to speak of bisexuality as the reason for fleeing Nigeria and coming to Canada - are unsubstantiated with any credible or trustworthy evidence. Given the purpose of Canada's refugee determination system and the extensive protections granted to individuals fleeing from persecution on the basis of their sexuality, the Appellants' allegations in this regard are not credible or trustworthy and severely undermine the basis for their refugee claims. The Appellants did not provide their Nigerian passports or reasonable explanations for this [30] The Appellants have not provided their original Nigerian passports to support their identities. In this regard, they testified that while they allegedly had their passports when they travelled from Nigeria to the United States (the "USA"), they left these with their husband/father who remained in the USA when they came to Canada. They further testified that they allegedly only realized they had forgotten their passports when they were at the Canadian border. However, while they allegedly showed photographs of the passports on their phone at the border, this phone has allegedly since been broken by the Minor Appellants. [31] Ultimately, I agree with the RPD that the Appellants' evidence in this regard is not credible. Given that the Appellants allegedly fled from harm in Nigeria where they fear for their lives, and planned to come to Canada, it is not credible that they 'forgot' their primary identity and travel documents in the USA, and then lost the only photographs of their passports that they had without saving or forwarding the picture files for safekeeping. Conversely, under the circumstances, it is reasonable to expect the Appellants to bring their passports on such a journey, give that it is likely the most important document required. Nonetheless, even if the Appellants did 'forget' their passports in the USA, or saved the picture files on their phone, this does not change the fact that they have not provided sufficient persuasive evidence to establish their identities. [32] Furthermore, the Appellants testified that their husband/father has allegedly failed to send the passports, or photographs or copies of them in support of their refugee claims. He has however, allegedly sent another document in support of their claims, i.e. a letter, whereas the Appellants testified that he allegedly refused to send the passports, misplaced them, and/or no longer has them.25 This evidence is highly irregular, confusing, and inconsistent. [33] While the Appellants have presented alleged pictures of the pictures of their passport biometric page and/or USA visas, the Appellants failed to present the allegedly broken phone that previously had the pictures on it, for further examination or verification. 26 However, a picture of a picture of a passport biometric page does not allow for further analysis or review to assess authenticity, travel history, and other possible concerns. Overall, I find that this alleged documentary evidence does not establish the Appellants' identities on a balance of probabilities. [34] Additionally, the Appellants have not sought to replace their passports at a Nigerian embassy/consulate in Canada. The Principal Appellant testified that she had thought of this but was afraid that she would be taken back to Nigeria and arrested due to her alleged bisexuality. However, when asked if she had conducted any research in this regard or inquired about the possibility of getting a passport in Canada, the Principal Appellant testified that she had not. [35] Notwithstanding the Appellants' lack of credibility regarding the alleged whereabouts of their passports or photographs of the passports, their explanations regarding why they have not presented this evidence and their efforts to acquire this, fail to overcome related credibility concerns or to satisfy the Appellants' evidentiary obligations pursuant to section 106 of IRPA or Rule 11 of the RPD Rules. This further supports the notion that the Appellants have failed to establish their identities on a balance of probabilities. [36] Ultimately, I conclude that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellants' identities have not been established with sufficient persuasive evidence. Therefore, I cannot confirm that they are who they say they are. In this regard, having considered the evidence before me and related provisions and jurisprudence, I find that the Appellants have failed to provide acceptable documentation establishing their identities, and that their explanations for this lack of documentation and their efforts to obtain this raise further credibility concerns. [37] As such, I find that the Appellants have not satisfied their onus of establishing their identities or of bringing all necessary evidence to their RPD hearing, pursuant to section 106 of IRPA and Rule 11 of the RPD Rules. Moreover, I do not accept the Appellants' arguments in this regard27 and find that the conclusions provided and explained by the RPD are correct. The Appellants' documentary evidence fails to establish their identities [38] The Appellants presented various items as documentary evidence in support of their refugee claims and/or to establish their identities in addition to items that were seized when they made their refugee claims.28 These include: (1) the Principal Appellant's driver's license;29 (2) a "Prangela" identity card;30 (3) photographs of photographs of passport biometric pages;31 and (4) photographs of photographs of USA visas.32 However, I ultimately found, similar to the RPD, that these documents fail to establish the Appellants' identities on a balance of probabilities. [39] Regarding the Principal Appellant's driver's license, the RPD ultimately found that its related inquiries and the Appellants' related testimony raised credibility concerns that remained unresolved. I agree. This particularly pertains to how the Appellant obtained her driver's license, including whether she needed to attend driver training or take an exam. The Principal Appellant testified that she did not need to take any tests to obtain her initial driver's license, but that when she renewed this, she completed the requisite tests. This evidence is inconsistent with the information contained within the National Documentation Package for Nigeria (the "NDP"). [40] The NDP provides that attendance at an accredited driving school and completion of written and driving tests are required to obtain a driver's license for the first time; whereas a renewal can be obtained online or in person by paying the fee and providing biometric information. However, the Principal Appellant was unable to explain this inconsistency with her evidence or how she was able to obtain a Class D license, when she allegedly completed testing relating to Class B. [41] Furthermore, the NDP for Nigeria provides with respect to the prevalence of fraudulent identity documents in Nigeria, that corruption is a serious issue across most government agencies and departments, such that official documents are easily forged and genuine documents can be fraudulently obtained using false information. 33 In this regard the NDP provides that: ...documentation fraud is highly prevalent in Nigeria...and can occur through the falsification of an entire document; the partial falsification of a document; the use of false information to obtain genuine documents; impersonation, where one person assumes the identity of another (deceased or alive; with or without the person's consent); and renting out documents to someone else..."34 [42] Given the related irregularities and discrepancies in the Appellants' evidence arising from the driver's license and their inability to explain this, as well as the evidence found in the NDP for Nigeria, I agree with the RPD, that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellants' driver's license is fraudulent or fraudulently procured and therefore to be given no weight.35 Therefore, this document does not support the Appellants' efforts to establish their identities and instead undermines this, raising further credibility concerns. [43] Furthermore, as the Federal Court Chief Justice Crampton held in Teweldebrahn: In my view, a valid reason for doubting the authenticity of an applicant's foreign identity documents is that other identity documents provided by the applicant have been established to be fraudulent or otherwise inauthentic. Another such valid reason is where the RPD has a reasonable basis for rejecting the credibility of explanations offered by an applicant with respect to one or more of his or her identity documents. Stated differently, where the RPD is satisfied that one or more of an applicant's identity documents have been fraudulently obtained or are otherwise inauthentic, the presumption that the applicant's remaining identity documents are valid can no longer be maintained. This is because the foundation for that presumption has been eroded.36 [44] Moreover, Justice Russell held in Liu that: It was also open to the RPD to reject other evidence because the Applicant had already shown he was willing to present fraudulent documentation and because fraudulent documentation is widely available in China.37 [45] In this case, as noted, there are valid reasons for doubting the authenticity of the Appellants' documents, their related testimony raises significant credibility concerns, and fraudulent documents are prevalent in Nigeria. This altogether undermines the Appellants' credibility and their efforts to establish their identities. [46] Regarding the Principal Appellant's alleged marriage certificate, the RPD correctly raised credibility concerns with this document. This includes: (1) discrepancies between the alleged document and the Appellants' testimony regarding where the marriage occurred (i.e. Lagos vs. Benin); and (2) pertinent information left blank on the alleged certificate (i.e. the Minister's signature and ceremony location). This is highly irregular and not credible, which in addition to the information referenced above from the NDP for Nigeria, supports my finding that the alleged marriage certificate does not assist the Appellants' efforts to establish their identities and instead undermines this, raising further concerns. Nonetheless, the marriage certificate is not a government issued photo identity document and therefore of little probative value in this regard. [47] Regarding the Appellants' alleged birth certificates, the RPD correctly noted that the Principal Appellant had failed to provide one for herself. In this regard, she testified that her sister was able to find these at her home and send them, but that her birth certificate is with her parents and that she had not thought of trying to obtain it from them.38 Given the importance of the requirements and considerations provided with respect to sections 106 of IRPA and Rule 11 of the RPD Rules, the Appellants' explanation and lack of effort in this regard is not reasonable. This further undermines their efforts to establish their identities with acceptable documents. [48] Nonetheless, the birth certificates that the Appellants' have provided do not establish their identities on a balance of probabilities. These documents are obviously not photo identification and therefore do not enable visual comparison with the Appellants, and they lack any security features. Given the lack of corroborating evidence in this case to support establishing the Appellants' identities, and the prevalence of fraudulent documentation in Nigeria, I ultimately find that the birth certificates the Appellants provided fail to establish their identities on a balance of probabilities. [49] Furthermore, I have reviewed the additional evidence presented by the Appellants and find that these also do not establish the Appellants' identities on a balance of probabilities. These include alleged divorce documents, documents from local organizations in Canada, alleged affidavits from Nigeria, a "Prangela" identity card;39 and other evidence, which altogether fail to establish the Appellants' identities or to overcome my related concerns with their credibility. Therefore, I find that the RPD's related findings are correct and do not accept the Appellants' arguments in this regard. Determinative Issues and Findings [50] Overall, the determinative issues in this appeal are identity and credibility. This involves an examination of whether the RPD erred in determining that the Appellants have failed to establish their identities, and that their related evidence raises significant credibility concerns. Ultimately, upon completing my independent review, I found that the RPD did not err in its analysis of these issues and agree with its overall conclusions. [51] Moreover, I find that the RPD is correct in finding that the Appellants failed to provide sufficient persuasive evidence to establish a critical element of their refugee claims, i.e. their identities. Furthermore, the Appellants' arguments are not persuasive with respect to overcoming these concerns or to establishing that the RPD erred in its analysis, such that this appeal must be dismissed. CONCLUSION [52] The appeal is dismissed, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of IRPA. I confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. (Signed) G. Cohen G. Cohen March 11, 2021 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act ("IRPA"), S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. 2 Immigration Refugee Board ("IRB"). Chairperson's Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression: Guidelines issued by the Chairperson pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. 3 Ibid. 4 IRPA, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. 5 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 6 Ibid. 7 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Raza 2007 FC 385. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, New Evidence, pp. 31-71. 9 Eshetie v. Canada (Citizen and Immigration), 2019 FC 1036. 10 Abdullahi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 260 at para. 15. 11 IRPA, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, ss. 110(4)-(6). 12 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, p. 65, at para. 3. 13 Barry v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 8; Uwitonze v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 61; Balde v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 438; Yang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 681. 14 Barry v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 8. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, p. 5, at paras. 6-7. 16 IRPA, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, s. 106. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, p. 6, at para. 9. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, pp. 76-77, 80-86. See pp. 76-77. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, pp. 76-77, 80-86. See p. 78. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, p. 81. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, pp. 76-77, 80-86. See p. 83. 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, pp. 76-77, 80-86. See p. 83. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, pp. 76-77, 80-86. See p. 84. 24 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Appellants' BOC, Exhibit 2 at p. 17, see also p. 66. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, pp. 6-7, at paras. 10-14. 26 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, pp. 6-7, at paras. 10-13. 27 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, pp. 65-70, at paras. 6-15. 28 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 132-170. 29 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 105. 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 106. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 107, 115, 117, 119, 120. 32 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 108, 114, 116, 118, 121. 33 National Documentation Package for Nigeria ("NDP") for Nigeria, (November 30, 2020), Item 3.21, False documents available in Nigeria and from Nigeria, RIR, NGA104617.E, Immigration Refugee Board ("IRB"), November 13, 2013; Item 3.11, Prevalence of fraudulent documents, including whether genuine documents can be obtained using false information; instances of visa application fraud; document verification practices at the Canadian visa office in Lagos (2016-August 2018), RIR, NGA106159.E, IRB, August 28, 2018; Item 3.6, Requirements and procedures to obtain a driver's licence; appearance of driver's licenses (2016-November 2019), RIR, NGA106380.E, IRB, November 7, 2019. 34 NDP for Nigeria (November 30, 2020), Item 3.11, August 28, 2018. 35 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, p. 9, at para. 20. 36 Teweldebrhan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 418 at paras. 15-16 [Teweldebrhan]; Liu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 896 at para. 37 [Liu]; Warsame v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 596 at paras. 19, 30-31, 36 [Warsame]. 37 Liu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 896 at para. 37 [Liu]. 38 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, p. 10, at paras. 23-24. 39 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 106. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC0-11459 TC0-11460 / TC0-11461 / TC0-11462 / TC0-11463 RAD.25.02 (January 14, 2020) Disponible en français 15 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (January 14, 2020) Disponible en français