MB7-03651

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. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB7-03651 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject(s) of the appeal XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision September 17, 2018 Date de la décision Panel Me Sonia Boisclair Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal Ronald Shacter Conseil(s) (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX), the appellant, states that he is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). He is appealing against the decision rendered by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) on December 13, 2016. [2] The appellant wishes to submit new evidence as part of his appeal and is requesting an oral hearing before the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). These points will be addressed later on in my analysis. [3] The Minister did not intervene in the appeal. DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL [4] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), I am dismissing the appeal and confirming the RPD's determination that the appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. OVERVIEW AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE APPEAL The facts [5] The appellant states that he was persecuted in his country of origin by reason of his homosexuality, and that he was threatened. [6] He allegedly obtained a passport in XXXX 2016 in the name of "XXXX XXXX XXXX."1 [7] In XXXX 2016, he allegedly met someone who offered to help him obtain a Canadian visa. He allegedly paid this person and gave him six (6) photographs.2 [8] In XXXX 2016, he allegedly obtained a passport in the name of "XXXX XXXX."3 [9] He allegedly obtained his Canadian visa4 in XXXX 2016 and left the DRC one month later on XXXX XXXX, 2016.5 He allegedly arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2016, under the identity of "XXXX XXXX."6 [10] He completed his first Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form)7 on July 15, 2016, and filed his refugee protection claim under the name of XXXX XXXX on July 22, 2016.8 [11] He submitted additional identity documents to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) on August 31, 2016, and September 7, 2016, also in support of his refugee protection claim under the name of XXXX XXXX.9 [12] On September 13, 2016, he amended his BOC Form, significantly changing his personal information, including his identity, now stating that his name is "XXXX XXXX XXXX."10 [13] At his hearing before the RPD, he maintained that he is XXXX XXXX XXXX.11 Various documents were submitted to support this new identity. RPD decision [14] The RPD concluded that the appellant had not established, on a balance of probabilities, that he is indeed XXXX XXXX XXXX as he claims.12 [15] The RPD based this conclusion on the following: * The claimant did not provide a reasonable explanation for why he changed his personal identity, and consequently, the RPD found that he was not credible.13 The RPD asked him why he had changed his name, his date of birth, his religion, the names and dates of birth of his family members, the location where his father lives, his written account and his employment history. The appellant explained that he wanted to tell the truth and that he was afraid he would run into problems if he became ill because the age indicated on the documents in the name of XXXX XXXX was incorrect. He was afraid that he would be given medication based on the age of XXXX XXXX, which is not his real age, and that he would die. The RPD noted that the appellant chose to perpetuate a lie for five (5) months about what he claims is his true identity. Moreover, in Canada, he continued to use an identity he claims is not his, even though he was safe in this country. As for his other explanation about being given medication based on an incorrect age, the RPD found it illogical and unreasonable.14 * The documents in the name of XXXX XXXX are genuine and the RPD gave them full weight.15 It had no reason to doubt their genuineness, apart from the appellant's allegation that they are not genuine. Given the RPD's concerns as to the appellant's credibility, it did not accept that allegation.16 * The documents issued in the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX are problematic. The international driver's licence is obviously fraudulent, and the RPD therefore gave it no probative value.17 The elector's card was not obtained in accordance with the conditions described in the National Documentation Package (NDP), and as a result, the RPD gave it less weight.18 His son's birth certificate was obtained without his son's mother having to present any identity documents, and given that the NDP indicates that it is very easy to obtain false documents, the RPD gave less weight to this document for the purpose of confirming the appellant's identity as XXXX XXXX XXXX.19 * The RPD gave full probative value to all of the documents in the name of XXXX XXXX, but it did not attach the same value to each of the documents submitted to support the identity of XXXX XXXX XXXX.20 Errors according to the appellant [16] The appellant states that the RPD made three (3) errors. [17] According to the appellant, the RPD erred as follows: * By not ruling on the risk for XXXX XXXX of returning to the DRC. * By finding that his credibility was undermined by his amendments and the reasons he gave for his change of identity. * By finding that he had not established his identity as XXXX XXXX XXXX and by rejecting the corroborating evidence. The RAD's standard of review [18] The appellant argues that the RAD, in the circumstances of this case, does not owe deference to the RPD.21 [19] The IRPA does not set out the standard of review to be applied by the RAD when it reviews RPD decisions. This standard has been defined by the case law. [20] In Huruglica,22 the Federal Court of Appeal concluded that the RAD must conduct an independent analysis of the record to determine whether, as submitted by the appellant, the RPD erred. The RAD must review RPD decisions applying the correctness standard to findings of fact (and mixed fact and law) which raise no issue of the credibility of oral evidence.23 This is the standard that I will generally apply, unless exceptions arise. [21] In the case of findings of fact that do raise an issue of the credibility of oral evidence, a three-member RAD panel24 determined that if the RPD enjoyed a meaningful advantage, the RAD must explain how and may apply the standard of reasonableness, modified to apply to the RAD context. ANALYSIS [22] As part of my independent analysis, I have reviewed the record in its entirety. I have listened to the recording of the hearing held on September 16, 2016, October 13, 2016, and December 8, 2016, and I have considered the arguments submitted by the appellant in his memorandum. New evidence [23] The appellant submits in his memorandum that he wants to file three (3) new pieces of evidence on appeal.25 In his statement, he refers to a copy of his fingerprints taken in 2015 when he allegedly applied for his passport in the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX (Appendix A), a card with his fingerprints (Appendix B), and an expert report attached to a CV and an email exchange (there is no Appendix C). [24] The Refugee Appeal Division Rules (RAD Rules) state that the appellant's record must contain a written statement indicating whether he is relying on any evidence referred to in subsection 110(4) of the IRPA.26 He must include any documentary evidence that he wants to rely on in the appeal.27 He must also clearly indicate in his statement how any documentary evidence referred to in paragraph 3(3)(e) of the RAD Rules meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA and how that evidence relates to him.28 [25] The appellant must comply with these requirements, as the principle is that appeals are heard on the basis of the record, as presented before the RPD.29 [26] On appeal, the appellant may present only:30 * evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim; * evidence that was not reasonably available; or * evidence that was available but that the appellant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. [27] Once those criteria have been met, the appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the new evidence they want to have admitted meets the criteria of credibility, relevance and newness.31 [28] The RAD does not have the discretion to disregard these statutory requirements.32 Moreover, the role of the RAD is not to provide the opportunity to complete a deficient record submitted before the RPD, but to allow for errors of fact, errors in law or mixed errors of fact and law to be corrected.33 [29] I will therefore address each of the items submitted by the appellant within this framework of analysis. Fingerprints provided when applying for the passport in the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX [30] The appellant indicates in his statement that his fingerprints were taken in 2015.34 He argues that he could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented this evidence at the time of the rejection (subs. 110(4), IRPA). He submits that even though he was represented by counsel, he could not have anticipated that his claim would be rejected.35 He therefore did not believe it was necessary to file additional evidence to support his identity.36 When his claim was rejected, he followed the advice of his lawyer and attempted to obtain other documents to corroborate his identity.37 [31] He states that on XXXX XXXX, 2017, he contacted his brother XXXX XXXX to have him go to the office of the Agence nationale des renseignements (ANR) [national intelligence agency] to obtain a copy of his fingerprints, which had been taken there in 2015 for the passport in the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX. He allegedly sent him a copy of that passport using WhatsApp. His brother supposedly sent him the copy of his fingerprints on XXXX XXXX, 2017, using the same method. All this is filed in Appendix A.38 [32] I do not accept as evidence the documents filed in Appendix A, specifically the WhatsApp screen shots of a document called [translation] "Special Identification Sheet." These fingerprints were taken and existed prior to the decision rendered on December 13, 2016. The appellant was questioned on October 13, 2016, regarding what he could submit as evidence to support his statement that he is indeed XXXX XXXX XXXX,39 and the subject of fingerprints was raised at the last hearing40 when he was represented by counsel. He had the opportunity to present this evidence and he quite simply neglected to do so. Fingerprint card dated XXXX XXXX, 2017, and expert report [33] The appellant states that, on the recommendation of his lawyer, he obtained a copy of his fingerprints from the office of Worldwide Forensic Services Inc. in Ontario on XXXX XXXX, 2017.41 The purpose of this card was to be able to compare the fingerprints taken in 2015 and those taken in XXXX 2017. [34] I do not accept this card as new evidence. The RPD advised the appellant at the start of the hearing in October 2016 that the issues to be decided were identity and credibility.42 He knew that he had changed his identity in an amendment to his BOC Form in September 2016. He could have had that type of analysis done at that time and submitted the expert report as evidence in a timely manner. He did not do so. It is now too late. I do not accept the fingerprint card dated XXXX XXXX, 2017, or the expert report as evidence. [35] As a result, the CV and email exchange attached to the expert report are also rejected, as they are accessory to the expert report. Request for an oral hearing before the RAD [36] Since the minimum conditions required under subsection 110(6) of the IRPA43 have not been met, as there is no admissible new evidence, this appeal will be decided on the basis of the RPD record of proceedings only.44 I will not allow the request for an oral hearing before the RAD. [37] I will now address the appellant's arguments concerning the RPD's alleged errors. Risk analysis with respect to XXXX XXXX [38] The appellant submits that the RPD erred by not analyzing the risk XXXX XXXX would face should he return to the DRC. He argues that this is not a situation where the RPD could not establish the appellant's identity. He submits that, in his case, the RPD concluded that he was XXXX XXXX. He argues that as soon as the RPD drew that conclusion, it was obliged to proceed with the next step of the analysis of his refugee protection claim and therefore should have analyzed the risks in light of the evidence on the record.45 [39] With respect for the appellant, I do not agree with his reading of the RPD's decision. [40] The RPD found that the appellant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that he is XXXX XXXX XXXX. That does not mean the RPD concluded that he is XXXX XXXX. [41] It is true, however, that the RPD stated that it had no reason to doubt the genuineness of the documents submitted into evidence in the name of XXXX XXXX, apart from the appellant's allegation that these documents are not genuine. Given that the RPD had concerns about the appellant's credibility, it concluded that the documents in the name of XXXX XXXX were genuine, on a balance of probabilities, and it gave full weight to them. [42] I do not agree with the RPD's conclusion, but nor do I side with the appellant's position, for the following reasons. [43] First, the appellant stated clearly that he is not XXXX XXXX and he testified about the steps he took to obtain all of these false documents.46 Essentially, he paid money and provided six (6) photographs. [44] I do not believe that these documents are genuine because the documentary evidence on the DRC states that it is very easy to obtain falsified documents,47 and the appellant himself stated that they are false. The passport submitted in evidence is numbered XXXX; it was allegedly issued on XXXX XXXX, 2011, and expired on XXXX XXXX, 2016.48 However, this is not the passport he supposedly used to enter Canada. In his Generic Application Form (IMM-0008), the appellant states instead that his passport was numbered XXXX, that it expires on XXXX XXXX, 2021, that he used it to enter Canada, and that he lost it at a hostel.49 This is the passport that was allegedly used to obtain the Canadian visa, according to the visa application filed on the record.50 This tells me that there were apparently two (2) passports in the name of XXXX XXXX and that only one was filed in evidence-but not the one that was supposedly used. I understand that the first passport (the one filed in evidence) was essentially intended to create a traveller history in order to obtain a visa for Canada, since the appellant testified that he had never travelled before. I do not see how I could give probative value to this document or to the others. I have no reason to doubt the appellant's testimony that all of these documents are false, particularly when this is consistent with the documentary evidence. [45] In my opinion, the identity of XXXX XXXX has not been established. [46] I would also point out that it is surprising to say the least for someone who claims to be XXXX XXXX XXXX to ask me to determine the refugee protection claim of XXXX XXXX. That means he is claiming refuge status under whichever identity he can obtain it, and that is not the purpose of the refugee determination process, nor is it the objective of the IRPA. [47] In light of the foregoing, I am of the opinion that the RPD erred in giving full probative value to the documents filed in evidence in the name of XXXX XXXX. In my opinion, the RPD was not required to complete its risk analysis for XXXX XXXX should he return to the DRC, because the claimant's identity had not been established.51 I therefore reject this argument from the appellant. Appellant's credibility [48] The appellant alleges that the RPD erred in finding that he was not credible because he had travelled under a false identity and then amended his BOC Form to make a claim under his real name.52 He criticizes the RPD for not giving effect to the amendments made to his BOC Form.53 He further states that his explanations for his change of identity should have been considered and that the RPD's decision to reject them is therefore not justified. [49] The RPD was of the opinion that the appellant's explanations were not reasonable. He presented himself to Canadian immigration authorities as XXXX XXXX in order to obtain a TRV54 and claim refugee protection. He misled Canadian authorities by providing a false identity when he arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2016, and when he claimed refugee protection on July 22, 2016. He then submitted additional evidence to the IRB and, in doing so, perpetuated the lie. It was not until September 14, 2016, when he submitted the amended version of his BOC Form to the IRB, that he supposedly told the truth. The RPD noted that the appellant could have told Canadian authorities and the IRB the truth at any time after he arrived in Canada. Yet for five (5) months, he chose to perpetuate this lie about what he now claims is his true identity. [50] Moreover, the RPD acknowledged that although it might have been reasonable to obtain a TRV under another identity in order to flee the alleged persecution in his country of origin, the appellant continued to use what he claims is a false identity for five (5) months after arriving in Canada, even though he was safe in this country.55 [51] With regard to his other explanation, that is, that he chose to tell the truth because he feared he would run in to problems if he became ill and was treated based on an incorrect age, the RPD simply stated that this was illogical and unreasonable.56 [52] In my opinion, the RPD correctly analyzed the evidence on the record. It clearly distinguished the steps taken to leave the DRC and enter Canada from the sequence of events once he was safely in Canada. The RPD was therefore entitled to make a negative finding regarding the appellant's credibility because he chose to operate under his false identity once in Canada when nothing was forcing him to do so. The appellant also testified that he used a false identity to leave his country easily and enter Canada.57 His justification for continuing to lie to the authorities for five (5) months was that he feared being sent back to his country if he had two (2) identities.58 When asked by his counsel to explain why he was afraid of this on August 31 and September 7, 2016, when he produced additional evidence under the name "XXXX XXXX," even though a week later he amended his BOC Form and submitted a passport in the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX, he answered that he now wanted to tell the truth, [translation] "that if he were sent back to his country, there was no issue and he could die under his true identity."59 [53] I would also point out that the appellant was represented by counsel from the beginning of his refugee protection claim.60 He had the opportunity to be properly advised and could have come clean with his lawyer. He nonetheless chose to file his claim under his false identity. [54] In addition, the evidence shows that, even outside the context of his refugee protection claim, he chose to live under his false identity within his host community. This is evident from the letter from XXXX produced on XXXX XXXX, 2016.61 It suggests to me that his interaction with this organization may have been intended simply to create evidence, rather than to make real connections with a social group that shares his own alleged interests. [55] Finally, I note that the appellant described his amendments to his BOC Form and his narrative as [translation] "typos"62 when nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, the amendments are numerous, significant and determinative. He amended the following: * His given name * His surname * His date of birth * His religion * His son's given name and surname, date of birth and place of residence * His mother's given name, surname and date of birth * The given name and surname of his son's mother and her year of birth * He added three (3) brothers to his list of family members. * In his narrative, he changed his work history and added the steps he took to obtain a passport in XXXX 2016 and a Canadian visa, the amounts paid to obtain these documents of convenience, the date he obtained his visa, and the date he left the DRC. [56] As for the appellant's explanation that he feared he would have health problems if he were treated based on the age of XXXX XXXX (34 years old) rather than the age of XXXX XXXX XXXX (25 years old), I consider this a reasonable justification for correcting his date of birth. It cannot, however, justify the rest of the amendments that I have listed and will not repeat. Ultimately, I agree with the RPD that this explanation is illogical and unreasonable considering the nature of the amendments and how many he made. [57] In conclusion, I reject this argument from the appellant. The RPD correctly assessed the appellant's credibility and its findings are all based on the evidence. Identity of XXXX XXXX XXXX [58] The appellant also submits that the RPD erred in attaching no probative value to the passport in the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX on the basis of his lack of credibility and his propensity for using false documents.63 [59] The RPD analyzed the documents filed in evidence in the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX.64 It started from the premise that identity documents issued by foreign governments are presumed to be valid unless there is reason to doubt their genuineness.65 It does not address this passport specifically in its analysis. It mentions it at the very end of its "summary" section, where it states that the appellant submitted documents in support of this identity, including a passport, and concludes that it did not give the same weight to each of these documents. [60] The principle is that a decision-maker is presumed to have considered all the evidence, even if he or she does not refer to each piece individually.66 [61] In analyzing the evidence, I note that this issue was addressed during the hearing. The passport in the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX was apparently submitted as evidence on September 13, 2016, at the same time as the amended BOC Form.67 It is numbered XXXX and was apparently issued on XXXX XXXX, 2016, which is before the appellant took steps to obtain the false passports and the visa in the name of XXXX XXXX, which he applied for in XXXX 2016.68 [62] At the hearing on October 13, 2016, the appellant was confronted about the fact that he had submitted several documents to support his identity as "XXXX XXXX" but only one to support his identity as "XXXX XXXX XXXX." Thus he was questioned about the steps he took to obtain other documents and submit them as evidence (birth certificate, elector's card, driver's licence, education documents and his son's birth certificate). Given the lack of initiative noted,69 a request from the appellant's counsel was granted to continue the hearing at a later date in order to give his client an extra month to try to obtain documents to corroborate his identity.70 [63] The documents that were submitted for the continuation of the hearing are those that the appellant had said he could obtain, and they were carefully analyzed by the RPD: the DRC elector's card, the international driver's licence from the DRC, two (2) education documents from the DRC, and a letter from XXXX, his employer. [64] The appellant does not dispute the RPD's analysis and findings concerning each of these documents. He takes issue with the absence of a specific analysis of the passport. [65] It is true that the RPD could have made a clear ruling on the passport. In my opinion, the fact that it concluded at the end of its analysis that he had not established his identity on a balance of probabilities indicates that it attached little or no value to the passport. [66] The question is this: Did the RPD correctly analyze this evidence when it deduced that the passport had little or no probative value? I believe that it did. [67] The appellant testified that he used his elector's card to obtain his passport and prove his identity.71 When asked when exactly he had obtained his elector's card, he was unable to answer. He attempted to pinpoint the time based on a particular event and testified that he had his card for Kabila's presidential election in 2006.72 When asked about this subject again when the hearing was continued on December 8, 2016, he contradicted himself and stated that he had obtained it in order to vote in the 2011 election.73 When asked to describe what identity documents he had had to provide to obtain his elector's card, he stated that he had not had to present any and that no witness had had to corroborate the information provided.74 This is at odds with the documentary evidence.75 The RPD analyzed the evidence with regard to the elector's card and concluded that it gave less weight to the elector's card in confirming the appellant's identity as XXXX XXXX XXXX.76 Since the passport was obtained using the elector's card, it logically follows that the passport cannot have greater probative value than the document that was used to obtain it. [68] In addition, in the context of my independent analysis, I would add two (2) elements that also lead me to doubt this passport: * The appellant contradicted himself as to when he obtained this passport. The documentary evidence indicates that the passport was issued on XXXX XXXX, 2016,77 but he testified that he received it in XXXX 2016.78 * Oddly, this passport bears the same surname and date of birth for XXXX XXXX XXXX as those XXXX XXXX used for his friend in his initial application (XXXX XXXX, DOB: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX1991).79 [69] In conclusion, I agree with the RPD that the appellant has not discharged his burden of establishing that he has the identity he claims to have. In my opinion, there are sufficient grounds, based on the evidence, to refute the presumption that this passport is genuine. CONCLUSION [70] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the RPD's determination that the appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Sonia Boisclair Me Sonia Boisclair September 17, 2018 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 P. 41 of the RPD record. 2 Pp. 29 and 66 of the RPD record. Note that at p. 66 of the document, the date of the visa application appears to be XXXX XXXX, 2016. 3 P. 55 of the RPD record. 4 P. 74 of the RPD record. 5 P. 57 of the RPD record. 6 Pp. 43 and 57 of the RPD record. 7 P. 31 of the RPD record. 8 P. 58 of the RPD record. 9 P. 141 of the RPD record. 10 Pp. 34 ff. of the RPD record. 11 At 9:00 of the RPD hearing. 12 RPD decision, para. 34, p. 12 of the RPD record. 13 Idem, para. 13, p. 6. 14 Idem, para. 15, p. 7. 15 Idem, para. 18, p. 8. 16 Idem, para. 18, p. 8. 17 Idem, paras. 23 and 24, p. 9. 18 Idem, paras. 25 to 27, pp. 9 and 10. 19 Idem, paras. 28 to 30, pp. 10 and 11. 20 Idem, para. 32, p. 11. 21 Appellant's memorandum, para. 11, p. 76. 22 Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93. 23 Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, para. 103. 24 X (Re), 2017 CanLII 33034 (CA IRB). This decision is currently under judicial review before the Federal Court, but no decision has yet been rendered. 25 Appellant's memorandum, para. 20, p. 78. 26 Subparagraph 3(3)(d)(i) of the RAD Rules. 27 Paragraph 3(3)(e) of the RAD Rules. 28 Subparagraph 3(3)(g)(iii) of the RAD Rules. 29 Subsection 110(3) of the IRPA. 30 Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. 31 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96; and Raza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385 (CanLII). 32 Idem, para. 63. 33 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96, para. 54. 34 Para. 3, p. 45 of the appellant's memorandum. 35 Appellant's memorandum, para. 4, p. 46. 36 Appellant's memorandum, para. 26, p. 79. 37 Appellant's memorandum, para. 2, p. 45. 38 Appellant's memorandum, pp. 47 to 51. 39 At 54:20 of the hearing on October 13, 2016. 40 At 19:40 of the hearing on December 8, 2016. 41 Appellant's memorandum, para. 6, p. 46. 42 At 4:40 of the hearing on October 13, 2016, and this statement was repeated on December 8, 2016, at 3:50. 43 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. 44 Subs. 110(3) of the IRPA. 45 Appellant's memorandum, para. 12, p. 76. 46 At 32:00 to 54:00 of the RPD hearing. 47 National Documentation Package (NDP), Democratic Republic of the Congo, August 5, 2016, Tab 3.12: Prevalence and availability of fraudulent identity, administrative and legal documents (2011-February 2014). IRB, April 10, 2014. COD104763.FE. 48 P. 170 of the RPD record. 49 Pp. 44 and 55 of the RPD record. 50 Pp. 66 and 69 of the RPD record. 51 RPD decision, para. 35. 52 Appellant's memorandum, para. 13, p. 76. 53 Appellant's memorandum, para. 14, p. 77. 54 Temporary resident visa. 55 RPD decision, paragraph 14, p. 7 of the RPD record. 56 RPD decision, paragraph 15, p. 7 of the RPD record. 57 At 10:10 of the RPD hearing. 58 At 24:00 of the RPD hearing. 59 At 1:10:00 of the RPD hearing. 60 P. 30 of the RPD record. 61 P. 185 of the RPD record. 62 P. 34 of the RPD record. 63 Appellant's memorandum, para. 16, p. 77. 64 RPD decision, paras. 19 to 34, pp. 8 to 12 of the RPD record. 65 RPD decision, para. 23, p. 9 of the RPD record. 66 (Florea; Rahal) Cepeda-Gutierrez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1998 CanLII 8667 (FC), para. 16. 67 P. 41 of the RPD record. 68 Amended BOC Form, p. 39 of the RPD record. 69 RPD decision, paragraph 21, p. 8 of the RPD record. 70 RPD decision, paragraph 22, p. 9 of the RPD record. 71 At 27:30 of the RPD hearing. 72 At 1:03:00 of the hearing on October 13, 2016. 73 At 10:20 of the hearing on December 8, 2016. 74 At 11:00 of the RPD hearing on December 8, 2016. 75 NDP, Democratic Republic of the Congo, August 5, 2016, Tab 3.11: The elector's card, including the date when it came into force and its appearance, security features and functions; the documents required and the procedure to obtain the card (2011-June 2013). IRB, June 21, 2013. COD104432.FE. 76 RPD decision, paras. 25, 26 and 27, pp. 9 and 10 of the RPD record. 77 P. 41 of the RPD record. 78 At 27:16 of the RPD hearing. 79 Pp. 28 and 41 of the RPD record. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB7-03651 RAD.25.02 (August 8, 2018) Disponible en français 17 RAD.25.02 (August 8, 2018) Disponible en français