TB6-13152

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 : TB6-13152 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision December 1, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Gregg Erauw Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Jessica Lipes 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 N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX (the "Appellant"), a citizen of Nigeria, is appealing the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying her claim for refugee protection. The Appellant is requesting that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the RPD's negative determination and requests that the RAD find that the Appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. In the alternative, the Appellant requests that the RAD set aside the RPD's negative determination and refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel. The Appellant has not requested to submit new evidence and has not requested an oral hearing. DETERMINATION [2] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1 Background [3] The Appellant arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on a student permit and submitted a claim for refugee status on January 20, 2016. The Appellant alleges that she is a lesbian, and if she returns to Nigeria, the police and her community will harm her because of her sexual orientation. [4] The Appellant had a refugee determination hearing on March 8, 2016. In a written decision issued on April 14, 2016, the RPD rejected the claim. The RPD panel found the Appellant lacking credibility because she did not establish the central allegations of her claim. This includes the allegations that she is a lesbian, her and her partner were beaten by a homophobic mob, that her lesbian partner ever existed, and that she was in hiding. Therefore, the RPD concluded that the Appellant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground, or that she would personally be subjected to a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or a danger of torture upon return to Nigeria. [5] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred by relying on stereotypes about gay people, and erred in its implausibility and credibility assessments. ROLE OF THE RAD [6] The recent Federal Court of Appeal decision, in Huruglica,2 provides the RAD with guidance in relation to the appropriate standard that the RAD must apply in reviewing decisions of a first-level administrative tribunal. The Federal Court of Appeal states: [103] I conclude from my statutory analysis that with respect to findings of fact (and mixed fact and law) such as the one involved here, which raised no issue of credibility of oral evidence, the RAD is to review RPD decisions applying the correctness standard. Thus, after carefully considering the RPD decision, the RAD carries out its own analysis of the record to determine whether, as submitted by the appellant, the RPD erred. Having done this, the RAD is to provide a final determination, either by confirming the RPD decision or setting it aside and substituting its own determination of the merits of the refugee claim. It is only when the RAD is of the opinion that it cannot provide such a final determination without hearing the oral evidence presented to the RPD that the matter can be referred back to the RPD for redetermination. No other interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions is reasonable.3 [7] There are, however, cases where the RPD may enjoy a meaningful advantage over the RAD in making findings of fact or mixed fact and law, because such findings require an assessment of the credibility or weight to be given to oral evidence heard by the RPD.4 Although the RAD should sometimes exercise a degree of restraint before substituting its own determination in such cases, the issue of whether the circumstances warrant restraint, should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. The amount of deference given to the RPD's findings on credibility of oral evidence will depend on the advantage the RAD finds that the RPD has in a particular case.5 Having done this, the RAD will provide a final determination, by either confirming the RPD's decision or setting it aside and substituting its own determination. If it cannot do so without hearing oral evidence that was already heard by the RPD, it will refer the matter back for redetermination. ISSUES IN APPEAL [8] The Appellant argues the following issues in her appeal: 1) The RPD erred in its credibility assessment;6 2) The RPD erred in its implausibility assessment; and,7 3) The RPD erred by relying on stereotypes about gay people.8 ANALYSIS Credibility [9] The RPD found that the Appellant failed to establish the credibility of her allegations. In particular, the RPD found that the Appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence confirming the existence of her girlfriend, XXXX XXXX XXXX or of her death. Although the Appellant provided two photographs, which were allegedly of her girlfriend, the RPD found that these could be of anybody. The RPD noted that the Appellant provided no additional information about the girlfriend, including any media coverage about the homophobic assault and killing of her girlfriend, nor did the Appellant make any effort to acquire information about the incident or the existence of her girlfriend through the internet or otherwise. The Appellant further stated that her girlfriend did not have an email address or a Facebook profile. Based on the Appellant's lack of effort, the RPD concluded that the Appellant and her girlfriend were probably not attacked on May 17, 2015, and also concluded that the Appellant's girlfriend did not exist.9 [10] The Appellant submits that she did not realize that providing articles about her girlfriend's death, or her existence (other than providing two photographs) was important.10 However, after recognizing its importance in the hearing, the Appellant contends that her and her counsel conducted an extensive internet search after the hearing to rectify this issue, but were unable to find an article reporting the incident.11 In addition, the Appellant argues that the UNHCR's Guideline on International Protection No. 9, recognizes that often the only source of evidence in sexual orientation claims is the Appellant's testimony, and that often persecution against homosexuals may go unreported in a country where being gay is heavily stigmatized.12 Therefore, given the circumstances in which the Appellant was forced to flee, including having to hide at her aunt's home in Lagos from May 2015 to January 2016, the Appellant submits that it is not surprising there is a lack of evidence establishing the existence of her girlfriend.13 [11] The RAD does not accept the Appellant's submissions on this point and finds that the RPD did not err for the following reasons. [12] The RAD is mindful that in sexual orientation claims, a lack of corroborating evidence, in and of itself, absent negative, rational or plausibility finding related to the issue, would not be enough to rebut the presumption of the principle of truthfulness.14 However, in this case the RAD believes that such negative, rational or plausibility findings exist that undermine the credibility of the Appellant's allegations. [13] The RAD notes that the Appellant is responsible for obtaining and providing any documents that may support her claim.15 However, the Appellant provided no evidence confirming the incident that led to the death of her girlfriend or the existence of her girlfriend. Moreover, the Appellant testified that she made no efforts to gather such information other than providing two photographs. The RAD does not find these photographs of the Appellant's alleged girlfriend probative. They are insufficient to establish the individual in the picture is her girlfriend, as they could be of anyone. The RAD also finds that the photographs do not establish the Appellant's claim that she is a homosexual. [14] The RAD would expect that if the Appellant's girlfriend existed, the Appellant would have at least made an effort to acquire information about the homophobic attack and/or information about her girlfriend's existence. This is a reasonable expectation considering the Appellant was represented by counsel, the press in Nigeria is active in publishing stories involving murder and violence against homosexuals, she alleges she attended university with her girlfriend since 2008, and she alleges she was living with her girlfriend for 6 years. [15] The RAD observes that the National Documentation Package (NDP) indicates homophobia is widespread in Nigeria and that the press is very active in reporting murders, violence and scandals involving homosexuals in Nigeria.16 At the time of the incident, the Appellant resided in the city of Port Harcourt and she testified that the rumour that they caught "two people kissing and everything" went everywhere and everyone knew.17 The RAD finds it more likely than not that if the Appellant's girlfriend was killed by a homophobic mob and that everyone knew of this incident, that it would have been reported in the media. The RAD also finds that if the incident occurred as alleged, and if her girlfriend existed, the Appellant would have made some effort to find such information from the internet or elsewhere about the incident and the existence of her girlfriend. The RAD draws a negative inference with respect to the Appellant's credibility due to her lack of effort in obtaining such documentary evidence.18 [16] Furthermore, the Appellant testified that the photograph she provided to the RPD of her girlfriend was the only one she kept after destroying her SIM card and deleting everything from her phone. She also stated that all the other photos she had of her girlfriend were group pictures.19 The RPD asked the Appellant if her girlfriend had a Facebook profile or a social media presence that she could provide to confirm her existence, to which she responded that her girlfriend did not have a Facebook profile and that she did not have an email address. While the RAD accepts that the Appellant's girlfriend may not have had a social media presence, such as a Facebook profile, the RAD finds it unlikely that the Appellant's girlfriend, with whom she studied at a university for four years, did not have an email address. The RAD finds the Appellant's response that her girlfriend did not have an email address undermines her allegations that her alleged girlfriend existed. [17] The Appellant attempts to remedy her lack of efforts to confirm the homophobic attack and the existence of her girlfriend, by arguing that her and her lawyer conducted "an extensive" internet search after the hearing and found nothing to corroborate the attack or her girlfriend's existence. The RAD is not satisfied with this argument, since the Appellant's counsel is providing testimony about the efforts made, not the Appellant, and the counsel's letter provides little detail about their efforts about how the search was conducted.20 The RAD would expect that the Appellant, being represented by counsel, would do more, such as contacting friends in Nigeria in order to confirm the incident occurred and that her girlfriend existed, rather than only searching the internet. [18] Although the RPD did not make any findings in its decision with respect to the Appellant's first homosexual relationship, the RAD has credibility concerns with the Appellant's testimony about her first homosexual relationship. In particular, her testimony about how it started, how she realized she was a homosexual, and how her relationship ended. The Appellant alleges that she realized she was a homosexual when she was staying at her aunt's home in Lagos from 2001 to 2004. The Appellant stated that she resided at her aunt's while attending high school in Lagos and that she shared a room with her aunt's sister in-law (her aunt's husband's younger sister), XXXX XXXX. One night, the Appellant states that XXXX started to caress her in her sleep and told the Appellant not to scream or shout to alert anyone, and because the Appellant says she enjoyed it, she did not tell her to stop and that was "how it all started".21 When the RPD asked for more information about her state of mind when XXXX started touching her, the Appellant states that because her first and only boyfriend was well-endowed, sex was painful and she was always scared when he wanted to make love to her, so when she met XXXX she was "free and relaxed".22 The Appellant alleges that her relationship with XXXX lasted for 3 years, until they graduated high school. Since the Appellant alleged they were in a relationship for 3 years, the RPD asked if they had any future plans together. The Appellant responded that they met at her "aunty's place and because we were so close the relationship was romantic kind of, because we do everything together, we go to church together, we go to lessons together, we do everything together, so we were really intimate."23 After they graduated, the Appellant states that she communicated with XXXX until she heard that XXXX's parents sent her abroad to study. The RPD asked where XXXX went to study, but the Appellant said she did not know and indicated that she never heard from her again because XXXX stopped calling. [19] The RAD finds the Appellant's testimony about her first relationship to be vague and lacking in detail. The Appellant's response to the question about their future plans together is evasive. Considering the "romantic" relationship spanned approximately three years, the RAD would expect the Appellant to provide more detail about the nature of their relationship and how it developed. Upon listening to the audio recording of the hearing, the RAD was alert to whether the Appellant's social, cultural and political background could have accounted for this lack of detail. However, the RAD observes that the Appellant did not indicate she was uncomfortable, felt any shame, guilt, nervousness or reluctance for any cultural or other reason that would explain a lack of comprehensive and fulsome testimony about learning of her alleged homosexuality and relationship with XXXX.24 In addition, considering the Appellant and XXXX were in a relationship for three years, attended the same school for three years, lived at her aunt's home for three years, and considering that XXXX is the Appellant's aunt's sister in-law (who has been supportive in the Appellant's refugee claim and knows of the Appellant's relationship with XXXX), it is not credible that the Appellant is unable to provide any supporting documentation about XXXX's existence and their relationship. It is also unlikely that the Appellant would not know where XXXX went to study despite being in contact with XXXX until she left to study abroad and considering that the Appellant is close with her aunt, who is XXXX's sister in-law. It is implausible that the Appellant would not hear anything further about XXXX or inquire about her whereabouts from her aunt. In light of these circumstances, the RAD would reasonably expect that the Appellant would have such knowledge of a person she alleges to have had a romantic and intimate relationship with for three years. The RAD finds this seriously undermines the Appellant's credibility with respect to her allegations that she is a lesbian and that she was in a homosexual relationship with XXXX. Implausibility [20] The RPD found implausible the Appellant's explanation for how she was able to get her passport and other documentation required for her visa to Canada. The Appellant stated that her aunt obtained these documents in her parent's home, but she did not know how her aunt managed to find them. The RPD noted that this was implausible considering the Appellant's circumstances. Mainly, the Appellant stated that her father was very angry with her, he did not know where she was, and he wanted to give her up to police. The RPD did not trust that the Appellant's aunt was able to obtain her passport, as well as the Appellant's father's financial documents from her father's home, without his knowledge or raising suspicion about her activities. The RPD found that it would be reasonable for the Appellant's aunt to share with her how she obtained the passport and her father's financial documentation, considering the Appellant's circumstances. Based on this, the RPD concluded that the Appellant was not in hiding when she left Nigeria and that her father knew about it.25 [21] The Appellant argues that implausibility findings should be made in the clearest of circumstances and that the aunt's retrieval of the documents is far from the clearest of cases. The Appellant notes that her aunt stated in her letter that she was close with the Appellant's parents, and therefore, it is not unlikely that the aunt would be able to figure out where the documents were kept in the Appellant's father's house and that she would have an opportunity to retrieve them without the Appellant's parents finding out. The Appellant states that this is possible considering the aunt's intense motivation to assist the Appellant because her niece's life was in danger.26 [22] The RAD is unconvinced by the Appellant's argument and finds that the RPD did not err. The Appellant stated that she fled Port Harcourt without any documents, including her passport. She then stated that she heard from her aunt that her landlord in Port Harcourt called her father to come to her apartment and pack her things. It was when the landlord called her father that he learned of her homosexuality and became very angry with her to the point of wanting to report her to police. The Appellant also alleges that she was in hiding at her aunt's house in Lagos for 7 months before leaving Nigeria for Canada and that no one could contact her because she destroyed her phone and that her father did not know where she was while she was in hiding.27 In her letter of support, the Appellant's aunt states that she "went behind" to get the father's financial documents for the visa application and that she was fortunate to "gather all this documentation from her parent whom we are really close."28 The Appellant's aunt's letter does not mention the passport. At the hearing, the Appellant stated that she did not know how her aunt got the passport and that she did not ask her.29 [23] The RAD finds the Appellant's explanation and lack of knowledge of how her aunt was able to acquire her passport and her father's financial documents implausible. The RAD finds that it is unlikely that the Appellant's aunt, with whom she was living in Lagos, would travel to the Appellant' father's home in Benin30 in order to obtain the Appellant's passport and her father's financial documents without knowing where they were. Furthermore, it is implausible that her aunt would travel to Benin and be able to search her father's home for the passport, along with the father's confidential financial information, without her father's knowledge or raising any suspicions. Specifically, the RAD finds that the father's "Statement of Account" document, which the aunt alleges to have obtained, is unlikely to be found without the father's knowledge. The Appellant's aunt's explanation that she "went behind" is equally vague and lacking in detail to explain about how she was able to know the required documentation was at the father's home and where she would be able to find the documents without anyone knowing. The RAD also finds it is unlikely that the Appellant, who lived with her aunt for 7 months would not ask her aunt about how she was able to obtain her passport, especially considering the Appellant was in hiding and was concerned that people would learn of her whereabouts and report her to police. It stands to reason that she would want to know how her aunt obtained a passport she thought she left in Port Harcourt, as well as her father's confidential financial information, without raising suspicion about her whereabouts. Based on the above, the RAD concludes that the Appellant's father probably knew such documentation was provided, and that the Appellant was not in hiding as she alleges. As a result, the RAD finds that the Appellant's credibility is seriously impugned with regards to the events that led her to go into hiding and to flee Nigeria. Stereotypes of Homosexuals [24] The RPD found the Appellant's allegations lacking credibility because the Appellant was not sensitive regarding LGBT issues in Nigeria and did not know much about LGBT issues in Nigeria, only that homosexuals "are hated". The RPD did not believe that a person living in secret as a homosexual since 2008 would be ignorant and lack interest on LGBT issues, which is central to her life, and that this lack of sensitivity to news reports involving LGBT members was not compatible with an educated LGBT person in Nigeria.31 Furthermore, the RPD found that it was incompatible for the Appellant, who suffered so much because of her sexual orientation, to continue to attend the same homophobic church in Canada as she attended in Nigeria. The RPD did not accept the Appellant's explanation that she continued to attend the church of Christ Embassy because she was "used to that Church". The RPD found that if the Appellant was a homosexual, if she kept her homosexuality secret all of her life, if she was the victim of a homophobic attack, and if her girlfriend was killed by homophobes, it would be incompatible for the Appellant to continue to attend a church that condemns homosexuality and have no will and make no effort to see if other churches in Montreal would be more accepting of homosexuals. This, along with the lack of credibility of her other allegations, led the RPD to conclude the Appellant is not a lesbian.32 [25] The Appellant argues that the RPD's negative credibility findings with respect to her lack of interest in the LGBT community in Nigeria, and that a lesbian would not attend the same homophobic church in Canada as she did in Nigeria, is based entirely on stereotypes and cultural misunderstandings about how homosexuals should behave. Lack of Interest in LGBT Issues in Nigeria [26] The Appellant specifically argues that there is no requirement for gay persons to take an interest in the plight of homosexuals in order to be considered gay.33 Furthermore, the Appellant notes that she testified at her hearing that she knew LGBT people in Nigeria are hated, so she did not need to be aware of specific incidents of violence against homosexuals in Nigeria because she experienced such violence personally, and is not required to take an interest in gay issues in order to be afraid for her life. In addition, she provided an explanation for her lack of interest by stating she does not read the news or take an interest in politics.34 The Appellant argues that the RPD placed its expectations of how a Nigerian gay person should behave based on its perception of how gay people in Canada would behave and how they are freer to be involved in LGBT issues.35 [27] The RAD disagrees with the Appellant's submission on this point. The RAD recognizes that jurisprudence establishes that persons making refugee claims on the basis of sexual orientation are not expected to establish their sexual orientation or gender identity through their participation in LGBT culture, organizations or events.36 However, in this case the RPD's finding focuses on the Appellant's level of knowledge about the situation of sexual minorities in her home country and the RPD does not insinuate that the Appellant should have been involved in LGBT culture, organizations or events in Nigeria in order to establish her allegations that she is a homosexual. It is open to the RPD to question the Appellant about her knowledge of LGBT issues in Nigeria. Having reviewed the whole record, including the audio recording, the RAD finds that the RPD did not err in this regard, since it did not engage in a microscopic examination or treat the Appellant's knowledge of sexual minority issues in Nigeria like it was a memory test. According to the audio recording, the RPD asked the Appellant if she was in contact with other lesbians, if she knew of any LGBTI groups or associations at her school or otherwise, if she knew any leaders of such groups, whether she was following their struggle, and if she heard of events that happen where homosexuals are victims of assaults or killed. The Appellant responded only that she knew "gays are hated" in Nigeria, and that she was not interested in such issues because "it is an abominable thing in my country". When the RPD asked if she followed such things on the internet, she said she "did not bother to look at all."37 Upon questioning by her counsel, the Appellant added that she did know about such things because she was not interested in politics and did not read the news.38 The RAD does not find the Appellant's explanation reasonable. The Appellant alleges she was in a homosexual relationship from 2001 to 2004 and from 2009 to 2015; it is not believable that the Appellant would not know or hear anything about homosexual organizations, leaders, their struggles, or hear any news of violence against homosexuals. This is surprising considering the NDP indicates that the Nigerian press rampantly publishes stories of violence and scandals involving homosexuals, and by the Appellant's own admission, when she was caught with her girlfriend, the rumour spread very quickly through Port Harcourt, and that everyone knew about the incident and her homosexuality.39 The RAD finds it implausible for a person who identifies herself as a lesbian since 2001, who is well-educated, and was in a lesbian relationship for 6 years while living in a major Nigerian city, would have no knowledge or any interest in the situation or issues of LGBT persons in Nigeria. The RAD finds that the Appellant's allegation that she is a lesbian is seriously undermined. Attending the Same Church in Canada [28] The Appellant argues that the RPD makes stereotypical assumptions that she should leave her church in Montreal, the Christ Embassy, because it is the same homophobic church she attended in Nigeria. The Appellant submits that the RPD's finding that it is incompatible for a lesbian to continue to attend such a church, minimizes the important role of religion in a person's life, as well as the common struggles people have between their religious faith and their personal identity and values. In this regard, the Appellant contends that the RPD ignored other factors, such as the cultural and social connection she has with the Nigerian community by attending this church in Canada, which kept her from attending a different church.40 [29] The RAD agrees with the Appellant's submission on this point, based on the Federal Court decision of Trembliuk.41 That case held that it was a stereotypical view of the life-style and preoccupations of homosexual persons to assume that a gay claimant, who was raised Roman Catholic, would dissociate themselves from the Roman Catholic Church when they arrived in Canada.42 In this case, the RPD committed a similar error by assuming that homosexual claimants are precluded from participating in familiar cultural or religious customs or traditions. The Appellant indicated at her hearing that she continued to attend that church because she was used to that particular church and did not know about other churches that may be more welcoming to homosexuals. The RAD considers this to be a reasonable explanation in the circumstances and appreciates that the conflict between one's personal politics and values and their religious faith is a struggle that many people, not just refugee claimants, deal with on a regular basis. Therefore, the RPD based its finding that the Appellant should have sought out and attended a more tolerant church, to be based on stereotypical assumptions about the Appellant's lifestyle and preoccupations. However, the RAD does not find that this error is fatal to the RPD's decision overall. [30] Based on a review of the totality of the evidence, including the audio recording, the Appellant has not provided sufficient credible or trustworthy evidence in support of her allegations that she is a homosexual, or that the homophobic attack against her and her girlfriend occurred, or that she went into hiding. Therefore, the RAD finds that the Appellant is not homosexual and there is no persuasive evidence that she would be perceived to be homosexual. CONCLUSION [31] After conducting its own analysis of the entire record, the RAD finds that the RPD did not err in its credibility findings, implausibility assessment or by relying on stereotypes about gay people. While the RAD has concerns over one of the RPD's findings, they are not fatal to its final determination that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. [32] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. This appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Gregg Erauw" Gregg Erauw December 1, 2016 Date 1 S.C. 2001, c.27 at s. 111(1)(a). [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 Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, para. 103. 4 Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, para. 70. 5 Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, paras. 70 and 74. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, pp. 20-21, paras. 35-38. 7 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, pp. 19-20, paras. 31-34. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, pp. 12-19, paras. 15-30. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD's Reasons and Decision, pp. 6-7, paras. 16-17. 10 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, p. 20, paras. 35-36. 11 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, p. 20, para. 36. 12 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, p. 20-21, para. 37. 13 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, p. 21, para. 38. 14 Sadeghi-Pari, Fariba v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1595-03), Mosley, February 26 2004, 2004 FC 282 at para. 38. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Basis of Claim Form (BOC). 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria, 30 November 2015, items 1.13, and 6.1. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, "Audio Recording", at 36:00-39:00. 18 See Ma, Phat Thoai v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1839-09), Shore, May 11, 2010, 2010 FC 509, para. 2; and Kante, Abdoulaye v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2585-93), Nadon, March 23, 1994. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, "Audio Recording", at 32:00-36:00. 20 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, p. 20, para. 36; and Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Letter of March 14, 2016, at pp. 358-359. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, BOC, at 59; and Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Audio Recording, at 10:00-16:00. 22 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Audio Recording, at 10:00-16:00. 23 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Audio Recording, at approx. 16:00. 24 See X(Re), 2014 CanLII 96279 (RAD); and Kamau, Samuel Wanyoike v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2852-15), Russell, April 14, 2016, 2016 FC 413. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD's Reasons and Decision, pp. 5-6, paras. 12-15. 26 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, p. 20, para. 34. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, BOC, at p. 59; and Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Audio Recording, at 32:00-39:00. 28 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, "Letter of Appellant's Aunt", at pp. 184-185. The alleged financial documents the aunt states she obtained are: Landed Properties, Shares Certificates, Statement of Account and other documents of sponsor. 29 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Audio Recording, at approx. 36:00. 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, BOC, at p. 65. Benin is a fair distance from Lagos, at approximately 300km distance, see Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, NDP, at item 1.2. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD's Reasons and Decision, pp. 7-8, paras. 18-20. 32 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD's Reasons and Decision, p. 8, paras. 21-22. 33 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, p. 13, para. 17. 34 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, pp. 15-16, para. 22. 35 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, pp. 17, para. 25. 36 See, Essa. Mohammad v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2111-11), Boivin, December 20, 2011, 2011 FC 1493; X(Re), 2014 CanLII 94267 (RAD) at para. 28; X(Re), 2014 CanLII 95940 (RAD) at para. 35; X(Re), 2013 CanLII 91548 (RAD) at paras. 37-39. 37 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Audio Recording, at approx. 22:00-25:00. 38 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Audio Recording, at approx. 24:00. 39 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, NDP, items 1.13 and 6.1; Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Audio Recording, at approx. 36:00-39:00. 40 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, p. 18, paras. 28-29. 41Trembliuk, Yuriy v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5873-02), Gibson, October 30, 2003, 2003 FC 1264. 42 Ibid.,at para. 5. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-13152