TB8-31627

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-31627 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 August 26, 2020 Date de la décision Panel T. Card Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Leo Rayner 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 INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX (the "Appellant") is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina and is appealing a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. DETERMINATION [2] The appeal is dismissed. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He alleges to have homosexuality as part of his Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIE) identity. [4] The Appellant served in the military during the Yugoslav civil war in the mid-1990s. The RPD investigated whether the Appellant should be excluded under Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention as set out in s.98 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)1. The RPD determined the Appellant was not excluded, and this finding is not in dispute. [5] The Appellant fears persecution in Bosnia and Herzegovina due to his sexual orientation. He had a same-sex relationship with a man called MJ between 2008 and 2010. The Appellant also attended a gay pride parade in Belgrade, Serbia, in 2010 with MJ. They were attacked and got separated. In XXXX 2012, MJ died of a heart attack. [6] The Appellant eventually went to Canada in 2015, and made his refugee claim a few months later. The RPD rejected the claim on the basis the Appellant had not established his SOGIE identity. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ON APPEAL [7] In support of this appeal, the Appellant proposed the admission of the following documents as new evidence: a) An affidavit from the Principal Appellant dated XXXX XXXX 2018;2 b) Transcript of the second RPD hearing sitting (19 April 2018) commissioned by the Appellant.3 [8] S.110(4) of the IRPA provides that the Appellants may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claims or that was not reasonably available, or that they could not reasonably have been expected4 in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. It is for the Appellants to make full and detailed submissions in his Memorandum about how any proposed new evidence meets the requirements of s.110(4) and how that evidence relates to the Appellants.5 [9] In addition, if the new evidence meets one of the explicit legislative factors in s.110(4), then the second step of the analysis is for the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to apply the adapted Raza factors endorsed in Singh.6 In Singh, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the RAD should assess the admissibility of the new evidence for its credibility, relevance and newness. The RAD is not to consider the fourth Raza factor of materiality to the admission of new evidence, which is a consideration for s.110(6) and the request for an oral hearing.7 [10] In relation to the Appellant's Memorandum, an explicit application was only made in relation to the affidavit. However, in reading the contents of the affidavit and the Memorandum as a whole, it becomes clear that the transcript came after the RPD decision and is not part of the RPD record, and therefore should also be considered as part of the new evidence application. New evidence accepted [11] One of the main grounds of appeal the Appellant has advanced is that unknown to him at the time of the RPD sittings, and unknown until after the RPD decision, is that the interpreter at both sittings did not interpret his answers properly. The Appellant alleges that while the interpreter's Serbian was fine, his English was not. However, the Appellant did not know this, as his English was not very good, and it was not until getting the transcript later with the contents read back to him that he felt the interpretation into English was not done properly. [12] The content of the proposed documents does take place before the RPD decision. However, the Appellant alleges that the problems identified by the documents did not come to his attention until after the RPD decision. [13] Taking this allegation on its face, I find on a balance of probabilities that the evidence was not reasonably available until after the RPD decision. The evidence therefore meets the requirements of s.110(4) of the IRPA. [14] The evidence appears credible, and is new for the reason stated above. The evidence is also capable of overcoming the RPD's adverse credibility findings and is therefore relevant. [15] I therefore also find that the proposed evidence meets all of the Singh and Raza factors. NO ORAL HEARING [16] The RAD may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, there is documentary evidence referred to in s.110(3) of the IRPA that raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the person who is the subject of the appeal, is central to the decision with respect to the refugee protection claim, and, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim.8 [17] I find that in this case, the proposed new evidence, deals with a potential breach of procedural fairness and natural justice, and not credibility specifically. [18] Furthermore, while rejecting the impact of the proposed new evidence can result in a rejection of the claim, accepting it cannot result in allowing the claim. Accepting the impact of the proposed new evidence at best would result in referring the matter back to the RPD as it does not contain new positive evidence that can establish credibility. It could only, at best, refute adverse credibility findings. ISSUES IN APPEAL [19] The Appellant argued the following issues in his appeal: (a) The interpreter did not interpret the Appellant's testimony in English properly, and as a result there was a breach of procedural fairness. (b) The RPD erred by providing insufficient reasons why the Appellant was not credible. An example is the RPD drawing a negative credibility inference against the Appellant for not discussing his sexual orientation with his wife and her lack of awareness of his sexual orientation. (c) The RPD erred by drawing a negative credibility inference against the Appellant for not having any photos or mementos of his same-sex relationship with MJ. (d) The RPD otherwise erred in its assessment of the Appellant's evidence and its negative credibility findings. (e) The RPD erred by not properly applying the Chairperson's Guidelines on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression9 (the SOGIE Guidelines) when making its analysis and decision. (f) The RPD erred by giving no weight to support documents from Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer Plus (LGBTQ+) organisations in Canada relating to the Appellant. [20] I find that the determinative issues in this appeal are: (a) Whether the interpretation at the RPD sittings was inadequate. (b) Whether or not the RPD Member erred in misapplying the Gender Guidelines and the Chairperson's Guidelines on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression10 (the SOGIE Guidelines). (c) The Appellant's SOGIE identity. ANALYSIS [21] I have conducted an independent analysis of the evidence concerned, including reviewing the RPD hearing (both sittings), as well as considering the Appellant's Memorandum,11 the RPD Decision,12 and the Appellant's Basis of Claim (BOC) form13 amongst other documents. [22] I also bear in mind the SOGIE Guidelines. Interpretation introduction [23] The main ground which the Appellant has advanced in his appeal has been that the interpretation at the RPD sittings was inadequate. The Appellant's main source of evidence is selected excerpts from the transcript he commissioned from the second sitting. [24] No transcript of the first sitting was provided. However, I note that the bulk of the first sitting discussed the Appellant's military career, and in fact, the first half of the second sitting did the same. It is not until the second half of the second sitting in which the Appellant's SOGIE identity and past same-sex relationships is discussed. [25] The Appellant consistently argues that it was "patently apparent" that the interpretation was inadequate. I do not concur with this characterisation, and I find it to be problematic for several reasons. No interpretation audit provided [26] The Appellant's entire evidentiary basis is that of the transcript. The Appellant never commissioned an actual audit of the interpretation which truly establishes inadequate interpretation. [27] The Appellant argues that under the case of X(Re)14, "the Assistant Deputy Chair of the Tribunal" should order a partial interpretation audit of the hearing if I am not satisfied with the Appellant's argument. I do not concur. It is a fundamental principle of the RAD that appeals are Appellant-driven matters, and it is for Appellants to advance their evidence. It is not for the RAD to make out the Appellant's case for them. I also note the Appellant is represented by paid, professional counsel, and is not in a situation where unrepresented Appellants are at a disadvantage. [28] Using my professional experience, I have seen other cases where such audits were commissioned by Appellants to support their cases. Interpreter audits are not the exclusive domain of the RAD or the RPD. [29] Furthermore, the case of X(Re) can be differentiated from this one. In the X(Re) case, the interpreter was thought to be a native Ndebele speaker, and not a Shona speaker, which was the language required. In our case, there is no question that the interpreter speaks Serbian and English, which was the requested interpretation. [30] Additionally, as will be discussed in more detail below, I do not find that the interpreter hesitated or misunderstood to anywhere near the extent alleged here, or as discussed in the X (Re) case. Long duration of sittings relevancy [31] Secondly, I note that the same interpreter was used in both RPD sittings and that 6 hours, 18 minutes of testimony was taken over those two sittings with no objections regarding interpretation raised by anyone over that entire time. [32] The allegation by the Appellant is that he did not know that the Interpreter's English was poor. However, if that was the case, poor English would surely have been picked up by either the Appellant's Counsel, or the RPD Member. Using my professional experience, I have observed several occurrences where even when Counsel or a Member does not speak the non-English language spoken in a hearing, they can pick up poor interpretation. This did not happen here. [33] Furthermore, in reviewing the hearing audio, and not just the transcript provided, I did not hear the interpreter hesitate, or speak unnecessarily slowly, when interpreting the Appellant's testimony throughout the audio. This is not something that can be picked up just from a transcript. If the interpreter's English was that poor, these telltale signs would likely be found. Instead, I note that the interpreter had to deal with long passages of testimony from the Appellant which made interpreting more difficult. I will go into more detail on specific examples below. Appellant only relies on the transcript [34] The Appellant has stated that he was only aware of English language problems after his landlady read the transcript back to him. There is nothing to show that the landlady listened to the audio to do any kind of verification that what the Interpreter said did not reflect the Appellant's testimony. Again, no interpretation audit was provided by the Appellant, and it was incumbent on him to do so. [35] The Appellant has said "My answers at the hearing, as they were translated by the Interpreter, made no sense. There was no structure to the answers, [sic] they did not make sense either grammatically or contextually. Many of the responses were run-on sentences losing their meaning along the way. My responses as transcribed, when translated to me, sounded like a rambling of a mad man. This was certainly not the manner in which I testified in Serbian, and even in those few excerpt [sic] I could see that the Interpreter's poor English translation compromised the story I was trying to put forward in my testimony during the hearings. Much of the meaning I was trying to convey was lost in the Interpreter's broken English."15 [36] The problem with this is that the Appellant is only relying on what the transcript says combined with his own memory of what he thinks he said at the hearing. Such memory can be faulty and not reliable. Furthermore, using my professional experience, I have heard testimony, in English and non-English languages, which also had run-on sentences, no structure, did not make sense, and rambled. These were not reflections of bad interpretation, so much as a reflection of poor testimony by a claimant, appellant or witness. Furthermore, they can be key indicators of non-credible testimony, including evasive testimony. I am not convinced by the Appellant's argument on this point. Appellant never provides examples of what he actually said [37] Furthermore, I note that nowhere in his statement, nor his memorandum, does the Appellant provide any detail about what he thinks he actually said, and precisely how the interpreter's interpretation was wrong. In particular, I note no changes alleged regarding the Appellant's testimony about what his sexual orientation is, about his past same-sex relationships, nor other testimony about his SOGIE identity. This further undermines the Appellant's arguments about poor interpretation. Specific transcript passages cited [38] The Appellant cites a number of different transcript passages as evidence of poor interpretation. I take special interest in those passages regarding the Appellant's sexual orientation. [39] The Appellant firstly cites the following: "Counsel: Okay, you said there were rumours flying around back in Bosnia about you. Did you, I'm, I'm going to ask you a question now, did you ever tell your wife that you had been in a homosexual relationship? Interpreter: You mean homosexual or sexual, or sexual, I didn't say. Counsel: No, I said did you ever tell your wife that you had been in a homosexual relationship. Interpreter: Homosexual, homosexual, I did ask question but I didn't understand homo or..."16 [40] In listening to the audio, I find that what the interpreter was doing was not misunderstanding what the word "homosexual" means, but in fact clarifying whether the word Counsel said was "sexual" or "homosexual." Furthermore, just after this passage, the interpreter immediately interprets the clarification into Serbian, and the Appellant immediately answers "No." There is no hesitation on the part of anyone during this sequence, including no hesitation by the Interpreter. Furthermore, there is no indication from Counsel or Claimant that they think there is a problem with interpretation at this point. [41] The Appellant also cites the following passage as an indication that the interpreter "...gave incomplete interpretations, often only providing his personal summary of what he forgot to interpret after the Member asked her next question."17 This passage is relevant to the issue of the Appellant's alleged same-sex relationship with MJ: "Panel: And, what relationship did you have in, in Belgrade sir? Claimant: First time I had a relationship with a man it was, that man was [MJ]. He was a XXXX XXXX, graduated XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and we met in the year 2008 in a coastal town, touristic town of XXXX and then that was the first time we met and our, our relationship continued so he was, he was the first, first man I, I knew, [MJ]. Panel: And did he live in, where did he live? Interpreter: By the way, I'm sorry, he added that he later on, the gentleman later on was getting sick, he got cancer and that he, until now he died."18 [42] I note in listening to the audio that the Appellant was giving a somewhat lengthy answer, and that the Interpreter was in fact doing his best to interpret all of the answer the Appellant was testifying. I also note that the Appellant's Counsel did not appear to detect any kind of problem with how the Appellant's testimony was coming out. If there were a problem with the interpretation into English, this could be a part where Counsel would detect it. No such problem was raised. [43] The Appellant cites another example: Panel: Okay, but you say there's nothing there for you, what are you afraid of sir? Why, why, what are you afraid of, of going back (inaudible)? Claimant: My fear, my fear is a personal fear and it goes, it goes to the, to the core of my relationship with my, my sons and personally, I feel trauma of possibility that I will see them one more time and they will turn their back on me, that's something which to me, is devastating, I can't take it. To me that's a terrible idea that I should, that I would go and I would find myself in position that I will see my sons and they, they will turn, turn their backs on me, back, back on me, backs on me. I am sincerely, personally traumatized by that option, by that possibility. Panel: Have you sought any psychological counseling or, or anything since you've been in Canada? Interpreter: And he also mentioned that today when he was talking about his sons that he felt emotionally disturbed and every time he remembers them, he was crying, they still, that he still loves them, I still love them but that's the, that's the situation. Okay, I will pose the question now, you, you asked."19 [44] Again, in listening to the audio, the Appellant gave a lengthy answer that the Interpreter needed to interpret. The fact that the Interpreter then diligently added the extra details missing, in fact, contradicts the Appellant's assertion that the Interpreter was only giving an incomplete summary of what was being said. [45] Moreover, in reviewing the transcript provided, and cross-checking it against the hearing audio, I noted the following exchange: "COUNSEL: When you say she would rebuff those questions, what do you mean? APPELLANT: [Speaks in Serbian for 33 seconds uninterrupted] INTERPRETER: [speaking at same time as Counsel] I just lost it. COUNSEL: [speaking at same time as Interpreter] Did you forget what he said? INTERPRETER: No, no, I lost it. He was going on and on and on. I just lost the first part. I'm just asking him to repeat again. COUNSEL: Ok."20 [46] This again shows the difficulty the interpreter has had with the Appellant's lengthy testimony. I should also note that the transcript provided does not fully reflect what can be heard on the audio, including the length of time the Appellant actually spoke for. The transcript provided shows the events this way: "Counsel: When you say she would rebuff those questions, what do you mean? (To interpreter) Did you forget what he said? Interpreter: (chuckles) I just lost it, no, no, no, I lost it, he was going on and on and on, I just lost the first part, I'm just him... Counsel: Okay."21 [47] Reading the transcript makes the Interpreter look incompetent, but actually listening to the audio reflects a different reality which I have illustrated in my own transcribing above. This makes the Appellant's over-reliance on just the transcript that much weaker. [48] The Appellant has also stated that the "...interpretations were done in near-nonsensical broken sentences, sometimes even confusing the Member and Appellant's hearing counsel."22 One particular passage relates to the RPD Member asking the Appellant what his sexual orientation is. As this ties into the second of our determinative issues, it is worth looking at separately. Appellant was not credible about his sexual orientation [49] The Appellant cited the following statement as being an example of poor interpretation: "Claimant: Yeah, to me that was more psychological, meaning I found the comfort that I was accepted by my friends and that I was, I felt warmth of that humanly, human, human type of a relationship where I, I felt being embraced and being somehow accepted as a, as a human being in, in contact with these people, with these, with my friends and we were talking about hugging each other, even having these type of physical contact which was demonstration of that, that contact, that affiliation to each other."23 [50] However, when listening to the audio, and taking it in the full context of what was being said, I find this to be an example not of interpreter incompetence, but instead of the Appellant being evasive and giving non-credible answers. The contextual exchange instead reads as follows: "Panel: Okay, so how would you describe your sexual orientation? Claimant: I was deeply disappointed and frustrated as a man. It is, for me it was very difficult to, I am proud man and it was difficult for me to, it was very difficult for me it was to face reality that she is rejecting me and then seeing, she' s seeing me as somebody who is unworthy of her. That hurt me, it hurt me a lot and it hurt my, that hurt my pride a lot and reasons why I was actually reacting more as a hurt, wounded person was that I was visiting pubs and I was trying to drink and forget and in those kind of situations something happened in me, with me and I understood in one moment that I was enjoying men friendships much more than any woman around me, that I was somehow find myself in, in a position that I came to understanding that men company was to me, much more comforting. Panel: Okay, and have you ever had a sexual relationship with a man? Claimant: No, I didn't have a sexual communication with a man. Panel: But you just enjoyed the company of men more? Claimant: Yeah, to me that was more psychological, meaning I found the comfort that I was accepted by my friends and that I was, I felt warmth of that humanly, human, human type of a relationship where I, I felt being embraced and being somehow accepted as a, as a human being in, in contact with these people, with these, with my friends and we were talking about hugging each other, even having these type of physical contact which was demonstration of that, that contact, that affiliation to each other. Panel: Okay, that's a bit of a problem sir though, because in your narrative, your story, you go into detail about a sexual relationship that you had with a man and the fact that you were attracted to men and now you've just said that you never had a sexual relationship with a man so can you explain that discrepancy? Claimant: The way I understood when we were talking about the marriage and when you asked me outside of marriage, I understood that you were asking me did I have a relationship within the community where I was living. I never had a, any, any kind of, a relationship with anyone in my community, from that place where I was living with my wife but later on when, in Belgrade, that is different story. In Belgrade I did have a relationship with other men but I never had in my, in the place I am coming from. Panel: Okay, now the question that I asked you though was pretty straightforward, have you ever had a sexual relationship with a man and you said no, I never did, so ... Claimant: From the way in understood the question was that you asked me straightforward did I have a relationship with any man where I was residing, in the place we were talking about our marriage and the place I was residing, no, I never had any relationship with any of these men, that men."24 [51] I firstly note that in listening to this section of the RPD hearing audio that the interpreter did not appear to have difficulty interpreting the Appellant's lengthy answers. [52] Secondly, in the context of the questions and answers being provided, the Appellant's only indication of lack of understanding was allegedly in relation to the RPD Member's original question about whether he had any same-sex relationships in which he originally said no, and then later stated he thought he meant relationships outside his marriage in his home village, something the RPD Member did not refer to. [53] In listening to the audio, and in light of the other observations and findings made, I find on a balance of probabilities that instead, the Appellant is being evasive, and that the apparent lack of logic is down to the Appellant's answers, not the interpretation. [54] I note that the Appellant changed his answer. The Appellant states categorically that he had not had a sexual relationship with a man, and instead just had "psychological" and comforting relationships with men. It is only after he is challenged by the RPD Member that he changes his account to saying he had one sexual relationship with MJ, and attempted to explain the discrepancy by referring to thinking the RPD Member's question was about relationships in his home village. It is not a trap or a "gotcha" moment as described by the Appellant. [55] Additionally, at the beginning of the exchange, the Appellant is asked what his sexual orientation is, and the Appellant's answer is a meandering one which never answers the RPD Member's question. Again, the interpreter's interpretation is not given hesitantly and does not appear to be down to bad English. I find it more likely than not, that the reason the Appellant's answer sounds meandering and nonsensical is because that's what he said, not because of poor or inaccurate interpretation. [56] When taking this testimony into account, I find that the Appellant has not been credible about his sexual orientation. [57] Furthermore, I note that in his narrative,25 the Appellant never actually says what his sexual orientation is either. He never states whether he is gay, bisexual, pansexual, or some other sexual orientation identity. [58] I note that the RPD Member stated that the Appellant is gay, but find that in fact there is nothing to confirm that is the alleged sexual orientation. I therefore find that the RPD Member made a minor error on this point. However, I would clarify that the Appellant has not established a sexual orientation that is part of the LGBTQ+ community. This element of the RPD's overall finding is correct and is upheld. Lack of remaining credible evidence about sexual orientation [59] The Appellant has pointed out that the RPD Member erred in relying on the lack of documentary evidence about the relationship with MJ and the lack of other same-sex relationships since arriving in Canada. [60] I find that the RPD Member did err by relying on these factors to discredit the Appellant's sexual orientation, in line with the SOGIE Guidelines. However, just because the RPD Member erred on relying on those reasons does not then automatically excuse the Appellant and mean he is therefore, a member of the LGBTQ+ community. [61] I have considered whether the RPD Member erred in asking insufficient questions about the Appellant's SOGIE, but find that she did not. The Appellant admitted he only had one same-sex relationship, and that this was only a few casual encounters over a 3-year period (2008-2010). The RPD Member did give the Appellant an opportunity to explain more fully what his sexual orientation is and the Appellant's answers was non-responsive. The Appellant also did not give much detail about what his SOGIE means to him in his BOC or his testimony. [62] I have considered the documents provided by Canadian LGBTQ+ organisations, but find that at best, it simply shows that the Appellant has contacted them. LGBTQ+ organisations do not conduct eligibility tests. The Appellant approaching them does not establish a SOGIE identity as part of the LGBTQ+ community. [63] All that I have left to consider is some non-responsive, evasive, non-credible evidence about the Appellant's SOGIE, which is simply not enough to find, on a balance of probabilities, that he is a member of the LGBTQ+ community. [64] I therefore find, on a balance of probabilities, that the RPD did not err in its overall finding that the Appellant is neither a refugee nor a person in need of protection. CONCLUSION [65] Having reviewed the entire claim, and having conducted my independent analysis, I find the RPD did not err in finding the Appellant not credible, and not to be a member of the LGBTQ+ community. While the RPD did make some errors, they are not fatal to its overall decision. [66] I also find on a balance of probabilities that the interpretation at the RPD sittings was adequate, and that there was no resulting breach of procedural fairness or breach of natural justice. [67] Pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RPD's decision that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection is confirmed. [68] The appeal is dismissed. (signed) T. Card T. Card 26 August 2020 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. 2 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Pages 74-76. 3 Ibid., Pages 13-71. 4 In the French version of the IRPA, this phrase is instead the equivalent of "normally have been expected;" see Singh, Parminder v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6711-13), Gagné, October 28, 2014, 2014 FC 1022, Paragraph 51. 5 Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Appeal Division Rules, SOR/2012-257, rule 3(3)(g)(iii). 6 Raza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385, cited in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, [2016] 4 FCR 230, 2016 FCA 96, Paragraph 64. 7 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, [2016] 4 FCR 230, 2016 FCA 96, Paragraph 64. 8 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, S.110(6). 9 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), Chairperson's Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression, Guidelines issued by the Chairperson pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Effective Date: 1 May 2017. 10 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), Chairperson's Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression, Guidelines issued by the Chairperson pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Effective Date: 1 May 2017. 11 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Pages 79-108. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Pages 3-11. 13 Ibid., Exhibit 2, Pages 12-28. 14 X(Re), 2016 CanLII 103001 (CA IRB) 15 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Page 75, Paragraph 11. 16 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Page 91, Paragraph 41; RPD Hearing Audio, Second Sitting, 19 April 2018 at 2:45:18-2:46:04. 17 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Page 91, Paragraph 42. 18 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Page 91, Paragraph 42; RPD Hearing Audio, Second Sitting, 19 April 2018 at 1:51:06-1:52:43. 19 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Pages 91-92, Paragraph 42; RPD Hearing Audio, Second Sitting, 19 April 2018 at 2:17:14-2:19:30. 20 RPD Hearing Audio, Second Sitting, 19 April 2018 at 2:52:11-2:53:14. 21 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Page 59. 22 Ibid., Page 93, Paragraph 45. 23 Ibid., Page 94. 24 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Pages 43-44; RPD Hearing Audio, Second Sitting, 19 April 2018 at 1:40:23-1:47:00. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, BOC Narrative, Pages 22-28. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-31627 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) 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 (January, 2020) Disponible en français