TC1-04291

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC1-04291 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision October 28, 2021 Date de la décision Panel I. Singh Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Vakkas Bilsin Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX (Appellant), a citizen of China, appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated April 8, 2021, rejecting his claim for refugee protection. DECISION [2] The appeal is dismissed. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant alleged before the RPD that he fears returning to China because he was a member of an underground Christian church and is wanted by the Public Security Bureau (PSB). [4] The Appellant's application for refugee protection was heard on February 4, 2021 and March 23, 2021. By a decision of April 8, 2021, the RPD rejected the claim. The RPD found that the determinative issue was credibility. [5] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in its credibility assessment. ROLE OF THE RAD [6] My role is to look at all of the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.1 ANALYSIS The RPD erred in some of its credibility findings but not in its overall conclusions The document(s) used by the Appellant to exit from China [7] The RPD drew a negative inference with respect to the Appellant's overall credibility, having found that he: was not forthcoming about the document(s) he used to leave China; testified inconsistently with his statements made at the port-of-entry (POE); and failed to provide his passport to the RPD. [8] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in impugning his credibility based on the means he used to leave China. He submits that, because the issue of his identity was resolved, the RPD should not have insisted on the production of his passport, which his wife was unable to locate. He also submits that the Federal Court has held that the use of a smuggler and fake passport to travel to Canada should not be held against claimants,2 nor should the RPD heavily rely on statements made at the POE.3 [9] I am persuaded by the Appellant and find that the RPD erred. I accept as reasonable that the Appellant's wife was unable to locate his passport. Additionally, in following guidance from the Federal Court, I find that the RPD erred in impugning the Appellant's credibility based on his following of the advice given to him by a smuggler, his travel on a fake passport, and his statements made at the POE. The RPD's findings in this regard cannot stand. The Appellant's summons [10] The RPD drew a negative inference with respect to the Appellant's allegation that he was issued a summons by the police and that he is wanted for his involvement with illegal religious activities. The RPD based this on the Appellant's testimony which was inconsistent with his Basis of Claim form (BOC). In short, in his BOC, he alleges that the police came to his home on two occasions; he fled to his wife's cousin's home in another province after the first visit, and the police delivered a summons, dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016,4 to his wife on the second visit. In testimony, he alleged that the police only came once on XXXX XXXX, 2016, provided his wife a summons on that visit, which the Appellant received from his wife after work on the same day. When confronted with the inconsistencies, the Appellant testified that he made a mistake because he was nervous and that the version of events in his BOC was correct, which the RPD did not accept because, according to his BOC, he was in a different province when his wife received the summons, yet he provided detailed testimony about receiving the summons and personally observing it before fleeing to another province. The RPD found that the inconsistency was not a momentary lapse; rather, he provided detailed testimony in support of the mistaken version of events. The RPD found that, given the significance of this pivotal moment wherein the Appellant decided to flee, the RPD did not accept as reasonable that his detailed testimony that contradicted his BOC was the result of being nervous. The RPD also gave little weight to the summons, finding that it was insufficient to outweigh the credibility concerns, given the Appellant's inconsistent testimony, the summons' limited security features, and the evidence of the availability of fraudulent documents in China. [11] The Appellant argues that the RPD drew an implausible negative credibility finding based merely on his lapse of memory about the issuance date of the summons, which he corrected. He submits that his version of the story is consistent and clear except for one part, which is whether the police had come to his home once on XXXX XXXX, 2016. He submits that this unclear part does not provide sufficient basis for a plausibility finding. He also submits that the RPD failed to consider that the events occurred almost five years before the RPD hearing. [12] With regard to the summons, the Appellant submits that the RPD erred by relying on the prevalence of fraudulent documents in China in its assessment of the summons. He argues that it is impermissible for the RPD to import the credibility concerns regarding his testimony to his documents and that the RPD failed to conduct an independent analysis of the summons. [13] I find that the RPD did not err. On the issue of when the summons was issued, I find that the Appellant has severely downplayed the inconsistency in his testimony. In my assessment, the version of the story he testified to was very different to the version in his BOC. I do not agree that it was a mere lapse of memory about one date that was the basis of the RPD's finding. The Appellant was inconsistent about how many times the police came to his home, which province he lived in when they came, when the summons was delivered, and whether or not he personally saw it on the day it was delivered. The Appellant provided an elaborate and detailed story about how he came to see the summons personally after he came home from work; however, according to his BOC, he had already fled his home prior to his wife receiving the summons. I agree with the RPD that the significance of this event is not reasonably explained by nervousness or a mere lapse in memory. The Appellant appeared to invent a new story in his testimony. This is unreasonable. He affirmed that his BOC was complete, true, and correct. He was advised at the hearing to not guess with his answers. I reject the Appellant's submission that his version of the story was consistent and clear except for one part, nor do I find that the RPD's finding was one of implausibility. I do find that the RPD failed to consider that the events in question occurred almost five years prior to the hearing; however, I do not find that this is a reasonable explanation for the inconsistencies in the Appellant's testimony. If after five years the only issue was some confusion in dates, that is different than the facts of this case. I fail to find it reasonable that, after five years, the Appellant invented a new version of events, despite having completed his BOC approximately two years prior to his hearing and presumably having reviewed it in advance of his hearing. I find that the RPD had strong reasons to draw a negative credibility inference against the Appellant's allegation that he was issued a summons by the police and that he is wanted for his involvement with illegal religious activities. I further find that the weight that can be attributed to the summons is diminished. [14] I reject the Appellant's arguments with regard to the summons. I note that case law indicates that, where there is sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the authenticity of a document, whether because of an irregularity on the face or the questionable circumstances in which it was obtained or provided, the document may be assigned little or no weight.5 The Appellant's unreliable testimony about the provenance of the summons casts doubt on its credibility. Moreover, as assessed below, I have noted an irregularity on the face of the summons, which also calls its credibility into question. Further, although evidence of widespread availability of fraudulent documents in a country is not by itself sufficient to reject foreign documents as forgeries, it may be relevant if there are other reasons to question the document's or a claimant's credibility,6 which I find, in this case, there are. [15] For the reasons above and those that follow, I find that the Appellant's summons is fraudulent, on a balance of probabilities. [16] Having conducted an analysis of the Appellant's summons, I find that it is not consistent with the information in the National Documentation Package (NDP). I am mindful of the Federal Court's decision in Ma7 regarding why caution should be exercised when comparing the Appellant's summons with the samples in the NDP. However, I find that the Appellant's summons is distinguishable from the findings in Ma. In that case, the Federal Court noted that the differences in the summons being considered were small and not material. The difference I have noted cannot be classified as such. [17] I note that information in a Response to Information Request (RIR) prepared by the Research Directorate of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) in the NDP indicates that, "there has been no variation in the format of the summonses and subpoenas since 2003" [footnote omitted]. There are no regional variations, and the forms are meant to be used throughout the country.8 [18] The Appellant's summons appears to be a public security summons,9 and when it is compared to the information in the NDP, there is a significant difference, which I find is not small nor immaterial. [19] The problematic difference is the legal instrument under which the summons is issued. The Appellant's summons indicates that it is issued according to "Article No. 82 of the Public Security Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China" (emphasis added). However, information in the NDP indicates that this type of summons is issued under Article 82 of the Public Security Administration and Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China10 or the Public Security Administration Punishments Law of the People's Republic of China (emphasis added).11 [20] The law in question was issued in 2005 and states an effective date in 2013. There is no evidence that the name of this legislation has changed since 2013 or that summonses would be issued under a different statute since then. [21] Given the above, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that a genuine and official document would not contain an error in the name of the statute under which it is issued. [22] I also note that information in the NDP supports that fraudulent documents, even of some complexity, are widespread in China.12 [23] The difference I have noted, on its own, may not support a finding that the summons is not genuine. Yet, the Federal Court has recognized that differences in small or microscopic details may be the way that a forgery is exposed. Whether those small differences are sufficient to conclude that a document is not authentic will depend on the facts of each case.13 [24] When the difference in the summons is viewed together with the other credibility findings above and below as well as the widespread availability of fraudulent documents in China,14 I find, on a balance of probabilities, that there is a sufficient basis to find that the Appellant's summons is not genuine. [25] Therefore, the Appellant's submission of a fraudulent summons to support his claim leads me to conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that he is not credible overall, he was/is not a Christian practitioner in China or Canada, his allegations are not established, and he is not being pursued by the PSB. [26] Therefore, for the reasons above and below, I find that the Appellant has failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he was a Christian practitioner in China and that he was pursued by the PSB. Visits from the village security personnel [27] The RPD drew a further negative inference with respect to the Appellant's allegation that he is wanted by the Chinese authorities for involvement with illegal religious activities on the basis that he provided vague and evasive testimony about alleged frequent follow-up visits to his wife from the village security personnel seeking the Appellant. The RPD took issue with the Appellant's failure to indicate how many times the village security personnel had gone to his home since 2016 or when the most recent time was. The Appellant testified that his wife had not told him and he had not asked her. When asked why he had not asked her, he did not answer the question directly, instead reiterating that the visits were frequent and dragged on for a long time. The RPD did not find it credible that the Appellant could not provide any information. [28] The Appellant argues that the RPD illogically found him not credible because he could not provide any information. He submits that the RPD is not transparent about what kind of information was expected; he had not discussed these details with his wife, and the RPD ought to have been satisfied with his answer. [29] I find that the RPD did not err. I agree that the Appellant was vague and evasive. In my assessment, the issue is not accurately portrayed by the Appellant. The Appellant's indirect and evasive answer to being asked why he did not ask his wife for these details is telling. Instead of answering why he had not asked his wife, he simply repeated the same information. I find this to be evasive, especially given the Appellant's other testimony that he had spoken to his wife about these visits.15 For these reasons, I find that the RPD's negative credibility inference was warranted. Letters from the Appellant's wife and friend [30] The RPD awarded no weight to the letters from the Appellant's wife16 and friend,17 citing concerns with: their missing information, their lack of security features, the lack of identification for the authors, the lack of opportunity to assess the credibility of the authors, and the Appellant's credibility. [31] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its assessment of these letters, which should have been considered for what they do say and not for what they do not say.18 He submits that the RPD ought to have assigned some weight to the letters. [32] I agree with the Appellant and find that the RPD erred. The letters provide information that corroborates some of the Appellant's allegations and religious activities. They should have been assessed independently of the RPD's concerns about the Appellant's credibility.19 There is no requirement for security features on letters of support and identification documents, though the Appellant is correct that his hukou and marriage certificate establish his wife's identity. For these reasons, I find that the letters are deserving of weight. [33] However, when I consider the cumulative credibility concerns in this case, I find that the weight given to these two letters is insufficient to overcome or outweigh the credibility concerns. The Appellant's attendance at house church services in China [34] The RPD made two findings with regard to the Appellant's attendance at house church services in China. First, the RPD drew a negative inference with respect to the Appellant's alleged involvement with a Christian house church in China as a result of his inconsistent testimony about how many house church locations there were. The Appellant's testimony that there were seven house church locations was inconsistent with his BOC, in which he indicated that there were only two. The RPD noted that the Appellant did not respond in a straightforward manner when asked about the inconsistency, as he first responded that he was "not sure," then talked about acting as a XXXX, then suggested that his BOC was referring to how many of the seven locations for which he acted as a XXXX, but he had made a mistake in not communicating it clearly in his BOC. The RPD rejected his explanation, noting that the BOC was clear, the Appellant was represented, and he confirmed that he understood that the information in his BOC was complete, true, and correct. The RPD found this to be an important inconsistency given the Appellant's testimony that he attended a house church "most" of the approximately thirty-two weeks from XXXX 2015 to XXXX 2016. The RPD did not find it credible that someone in his circumstances would be unable to consistently state whether they attended those services at two different homes as opposed to seven different homes. [35] The Appellant argues that the RPD showed zeal to discredit him; the BOC should not have been a recital of the events, and the RPD ought to have accepted his testimony. [36] I reject the Appellant's arguments and find that the RPD did not err. I agree with the RPD's analysis on this issue and do not find that the RPD showed zeal to discredit the Appellant. I find that the BOC is clear in stating that services were held at two different locations.20 In a separate sentence, the Appellant alleged that he took turns acting as a XXXX;21 however, I fail to see how the two sentences caused the alleged confusion for the Appellant. I concur that the Appellant received assistance from Counsel in preparing his BOC;22 he affirmed that it was complete, true, and correct, and he presumably reviewed it in advance of his hearing. I agree that the BOC is not meant to be a recital of the events, but it was the Appellant's own BOC that stated the number of church locations as two and not seven. The issue here is not one of recital; the issue is the inconsistency. Moreover, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant's lack of straightforward response when asked about the inconsistency also demonstrates a lack of credibility. Therefore, I do not find that the RPD ought to have accepted his testimony as I, too, find that it is unreasonable at explaining the inconsistency. I concur with the RPD that this was an important inconsistency and that, given the Appellant's circumstances, he should have been able to answer the RPD's questions credibly. I therefore find that the RPD was correct in drawing a negative credibility inference. [37] The RPD also found that the Appellant's testimony about his alleged involvement with a house church in China was often vague and evasive in important areas, such as when he was asked about what happened inside the house, and his most detailed answer was they "read the Bible and talked about the story of Jesus." The RPD acknowledged that these events took place over five years prior to the hearing; however, it noted that the Appellant attended most of approximately thirty-two church services and stated in his BOC that, after attending services for three months, his outlook on life had changed such that he decided to continue practising Christianity for the rest of his life. The RPD drew a negative inference with respect to the Appellant's alleged involvement in a house church, having found it not credible that someone in the Appellant's alleged circumstances could not provide more direct and detailed information about the church services he attended. [38] The Appellant argues that he provided sufficient information and that considering his house church attendance took place over five years ago, it is unreasonable for the RPD to expect that he should have provided detailed testimony about his activities at the house church. He argues that case law has established that his testimony should not be a memory test. He submits that he rightfully indicated that he did not remember certain details because it has been a long time. He further submits that he provided satisfactory responses regarding his house church activities and that, when taken wholly in his circumstances, his testimony is plausible. He argues that the RPD's credibility finding constitutes a zealous attempt to impugn his credibility about the details of his religious activities that occurred five years ago. [39] I am persuaded by the Appellant and find that the RPD erred. In my assessment, the Appellant's testimony did appear to be vague and evasive; however, given the passage of time and his attempts to recollect details from five years ago, I find that his answers were sufficient in the circumstances. I do not draw a negative credibility inference on this issue. [40] However, the totality of the Appellant's evidence with respect to his house church activities and the alleged pursuit by the PSB leads me to conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that he failed to establish his involvement with an underground Christian house church in China. The Appellant's profile as a genuine Christian practitioner and his sur place claim [41] The RPD found that the Appellant did not establish his profile as a genuine Christian practitioner, nor that he is a genuine member of the Christian faith. The RPD did not find it credible that the Appellant, who alleged to have attended Sunday church services regularly for a period of about sixty weeks and weekly baptismal classes over the course of a few months, could not provide any detail about those services other than that he listened to his reverend talk about the Bible. The RPD gave weight to the letter from Reverend XXXX,23 the Appellant's Certificate of Baptism,24 and photographs25 insofar as they confirm the Appellant's association with the church XXXX XXXX XXXX and his participation in a baptismal ceremony there. However, the RPD found that Reverend XXXX statement that the Appellant's church attendance has been regular was at odds with its own finding based on its assessment of the Appellant's credibility through testimony. The RPD gave no weight to the statements in Reverend XXXX letter which describes the Appellant's attendance and participation as regular. The RPD found it more likely than not that the Appellant exaggerated his attendance at the church and that his attendance has not been regular. [42] The RPD further found that the presumption of truthfulness was rebutted as a result of several significant credibility concerns, which led the RPD to disbelieve the Appellant's allegations. The RPD considered that the Appellant provided some testimony that was suggestive of a personal connection to his alleged faith; however, given all of the concerns with his credibility, the RPD was not satisfied that the Appellant currently practices the Christian faith in Canada in private, as alleged. While the RPD accepted that the Appellant's neighbour was killed in a typhoon, the RPD was not satisfied that this turned the Appellant to Christianity, as alleged. While the RPD accepted that the Appellant attended some church services in Canada and participated in a baptism ceremony, the RPD was not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that his involvement with the church or baptism there were based on sincere religious convictions and not for the primary purpose of supporting a refugee claim or that he would engage in religious activities if he were to return to China. [43] The RPD also found that the Appellant did not advance any evidence to suggest that the Chinese authorities are likely to have become aware of his activities with the XXXX XXXX XXXX church or his baptism, and there is no evidence to indicate such. As the RPD found that the Appellant did not establish that he would continue any religious practise in China, and there is no evidence to suggest that the authorities are aware he has been involved with the Christian faith in Canada, the RPD was not satisfied that he would face a risk in China under sections 96 or 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). [44] The Appellant argues that the RPD did not assess the Appellant's sur place claim independently of the credibility concerns about his activities in China. He submits that the RPD made a fatal error in disregarding his religious identity and his activities in Canada that goes to the heart of the claim. The Appellant also submits that the RPD erred in giving no weight to the statements in Reverend XXXX letter describing his attendance and participation at church services as regular. He submits that the RPD had no basis for finding that the Appellant exaggerated his church attendance and that the RPD's finding speculatively claims that it can speak to certain facts regarding the Appellant's religious activities. The Appellant also submits that the RPD's assessment of his evidence about his sur place claim was tainted by the RPD's proposition that the contents of this evidence were at odds with its own findings based on its assessment of the Appellant's credibility through testimony. He submits that the RPD should have conducted an independent analysis of the Appellant's evidence and sur place claim. The Appellant also provides submissions with regard to restrictions on his ability to practise his religion in China that amount to persecution. [45] I am persuaded by the Appellant's submission and find that the RPD erred in its assessment of the letter from Reverend XXXX and in part of its assessment of the Appellant's sur place claim; however, I have conducted my own independent assessment on these issues. I have come to the same conclusion as the RPD, that the Appellant failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he is a genuine member of the Christian faith, and that he failed to establish a sur place claim. [46] I agree with the RPD that the Appellant's failure to provide any details about his church services and baptismal classes is indicative of a lack of credibility. The Appellant has not appeared to directly challenge this finding. [47] With regard to the letter from Reverend XXXX, I accept the Appellant's submission that the RPD erred, as it did not have a basis for finding that the Appellant exaggerated his church attendance. I do not find that the weight given to Reverend XXXX letter is impacted. [48] With regard to the letter from Reverend XXXX XXXX the Appellant's Certificate of Baptism, and photographs, based on my independent assessment, I find that these documents establish that the Appellant participated in religious activities in Canada; however, they do not establish the genuineness of his religious convictions, nor do they overcome or outweigh the cumulatively negative credibility findings herein. [49] Therefore, based on the above, when the above-noted negative credibility findings are taken cumulatively, I find that they lead to the conclusion that the Appellant has failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he attended an underground Christian church in China and that he was/is a genuine and sincere member of the Christian faith in China or Canada. [50] With regard to the sur place claim, I note that the Federal Court has held that the Board must be allowed to import its credibility findings when considering the sur place aspect of a claim and that it is permissible to assess an appellant's genuineness and sur place claim in light of credibility concerns relating to the original authenticity of a claim.26 [51] On this basis and having found that the Appellant submitted a fraudulent document and failed to establish his Christian identity, on a balance of probabilities, I import these findings into my sur place analysis. I find that the Appellant failed to establish a sur place claim, as there is no persuasive evidence that his Christian activities in Canada have or would come to the attention of Chinese authorities or that he would be perceived to be a genuine practitioner upon his return to China. I further concur with the RPD that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant engaged in Christian activities in Canada for the primary purpose of supporting a refugee claim and not because he is a genuinely committed Christian, and I find that he would not practise Christianity upon return to China, on a balance of probabilities. I therefore reject the Appellant's submissions that restrictions on his ability to practise Christianity in China amount to persecution, as I find that they are not relevant given my conclusions. CONCLUSION [52] For the above reasons and after conducting its own analysis of the record, the RAD finds that the RPD did not err in rejecting the Appellant's claim. The RAD finds that the Appellant has not established his allegations, on a balance of probabilities. As a result, the RAD finds that he has not established that he faces more than a mere possibility of persecution, as per section 96, or that he faces harm, on a balance of probabilities, under section 97 of the IRPA. Therefore, the RPD's final determination that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection is correct, and this appeal is dismissed. [53] 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 paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. (signed) Inderpreet K. Singh I. Singh October 28, 2021 Date 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas Del Solar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2645-17), Diner, November 14, 2018, 2018 FC 1145. 2 Takhar v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1961-98), Evans, February 19, 1999; 1999 CanLII 7544 (FC), at para. 14. 3 Hamdar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5197-10), Russell, March 29, 2011, 2011 FC 382, at paras. 46-47. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 26. 5 Grozdev v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-1332-91), Richard, July 16, 1996. 6 Nasim v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-6455-00), Tremblay-Lamer, November 2, 2001, 2001 FCT 1199. 7 Ma v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-3076-17), McDonald, February 13, 2018, 2018 FC 163. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for China (October 30, 2020), item 9.10, IRB, RIR CHN104458.E, October 18, 2013. 9 Ibid., NDP for China (October 30, 2020), item 9.11, IRB, RIR CHN104188.E, November 30, 2012. 10 Ibid., NDP for China (October 30, 2020), item 9.2, IRB, RIR CHN106016.E, English translation of samples of summonses, February 9, 2018, at pp. 10-11; item 9.10, supra, endnote 8, at p. 8; and item 9.3, IRB, RIR CHN105217.E, October 20, 2015. 11 Ibid., NDP for China (October 30, 2020), item 9.14, China, Public Security Administration Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China [Revised], 2005. 12 Ibid., NDP for China (October 30, 2020), item 3.22, IRB, RIR CHN104579.E, Fraudulent documents, including the manufacturing, procurement, distribution and use of passports, hukou, and resident identity cards (RICs), particularly in Guangdong and Fujian; instances of officials issuing fraudulent RICs to citizens and selling authentic RICs on the black market (2010-September 2013), October 21, 2013. 13 Jiang v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-358-18), Crampton, October 23, 2018, 2018 FC 1064. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for China (October 30, 2020), item 3.22, supra, endnote 12. 15 Transcript of the RPD Hearing on March 23, 2021, at pp. 22-23. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 20. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 22. 18 Tameh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1468, at para. 39. 19 Yu v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-7286-14), Southcott, October 6, 2015, 2015 FC 1138, at paras. 31-37; Lu v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4111-15), Southcott, July 20, 2016, 2016 FC 846, at paras. 33-35. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 19. 21 Ibid. 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 27. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 107. 24 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 108. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 110-112. 26 Jiang v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-13-12), Zinn, September 11, 2012, 2012 FC 1067, at paras. 27-28. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC1-04291 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français 2 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 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français