TB9-05627

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-05627 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 22, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Dilani Mohan Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Mehran Youssefi 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] These are my reasons for dismissing the appeal by XXXX XXXX (Mr. XXXX). After independently reviewing the record I find that the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) decision is correct and that Mr. XXXX is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. BACKGROUND [2] Mr. XXXX is an Iranian citizen who converted to Christianity. He was introduced by a friend, XXXX, who believed that Christianity would help him overcome the significant mental and emotional distress that Mr. XXXX began experiencing at that time. This friend introduced him to an Armenian Christian who in turn began including Mr. XXXX as a member in his house church. One day, Mr. XXXX Armenian friend was arrested by authorities. XXXX later told Mr. XXXX that their Armenian friend was being interrogated and sometime after that, XXXX stopped answering his phone. At that point, Mr. XXXX went into hiding at his aunt's home and she began arrangements to get him out of Iran and to Canada. Mr. XXXX was previously detained after participating in Green Movement demonstrations in 2009. He believes that, because of this, he is at greater risk of harm. Mr. XXXX arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2017 where he was subjected to dehumanizing treatment by border agents. This exacerbated his mental health struggles and caused him to seek further psychological support here in Canada. [3] The RPD rejected Mr. XXXX claim on the basis of credibility. It did not believe Mr. XXXX claim that a divine encounter had led him to give his heart to Jesus, because Mr. XXXX had not mentioned this incident in his Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative. The RPD also drew negative credibility inferences from inconsistencies between Mr. XXXX BOC and testimony regarding the timing of his conversion and his religious identity. The RPD found that Mr. XXXX testimony about his visitor visa indicated that he had not used a consultant, and that he was not wanted by Iranian authorities. The RPD declined to give much weight to Mr. XXXX baptism certificate and the testimony and letters from his pastor because they had little probative value in establishing the genuineness of Mr. XXXX Christian faith. The RPD concluded that Mr. XXXX was not a genuine convert and that he had no residual profile that would put him at risk if he were to return to Iran. Arguments on appeal [4] Mr. XXXX argues that the RPD's assessment is tainted by improper interpretation of his responses regarding his experience of a divine encounter, and of his testimony about his visa application. He states that this led to a biased and procedurally unfair hearing. Mr. XXXX also argues that the RPD did not consider his reasonable explanations for perceived inconsistencies in the timing of his conversion and his review of his visa application. He states that the RPD was wrong to conclude that the Iranian authorities have no interest in him solely on the basis of its findings about the visa application. Mr. XXXX further argues that the RPD was wrong to give little weight to his pastor's testimony and letters, as well as his baptism certificate. Finally, he argues that the RPD did not conduct a full forward-looking assessment that considers the risk Mr. XXXX might face based on his activities in Canada. [5] Mr. XXXX has not introduced any new evidence. He has, however, requested an oral hearing. ROLE OF THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION (RAD) [6] I have applied the standard of correctness while reviewing the RPD decision and have conducted an independent assessment of the evidence before me. ORAL HEARING [7] The RAD may hold an oral hearing only when there is new evidence that raises a serious issue about the Appellant's credibility; is central to the decision, and which, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the claim. Since there is no new evidence in this appeal, I cannot hold a hearing. Mr. XXXX application for a hearing is dismissed. ANALYSIS [8] I have independently reviewed the record, including Mr. XXXX XXXX report. I find the determinative remains the credibility of Mr. XXXX core allegations and the genuineness of his religious conversion. For the reasons that follow, I find that Mr. XXXX is not a genuine Christian convert and that he does not face a serious possibility of persecution in Iran. The impact of Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX on his testimony and claim [9] Mr. XXXX provided a XXXX report1 as evidence of his XXXX XXXX problems. I have applied a framework (articulated in TB9-18603),2 consisting of primary and secondary considerations to determine the weight and value of the report to Mr. XXXX claim. [10] Primary considerations include the qualifications and experience of the author, the clinical approach and methodology applied to the assessment, the conclusions in the report, and whether the author engaged in impermissible advocacy. Secondary considerations relate to the reason why the report was produced and whether medication or additional treatment is being provided. [11] In the present case, the report author, XXXX XXXX, is identified only as a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. There is no information as to how long the author has been practicing XXXX, or whether they have any particular areas of expertise. The report indicates that Mr. XXXX attended three sessions3 with the author but no details are provided regarding the length of each session. The clinical approach appears to be heavily reliant on Mr. XXXX self-reported symptoms and history, and a 21-item questionnaire was also utilized. The report concludes that Mr. XXXX described symptoms are consistent with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,4 and that Mr. XXXX dehumanizing experience at the Canadian airport was retraumatizing for him. The author states that Mr. XXXX test scores indicate he has XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and that he endorses symptoms of XXXX.5 The report does not identify any cognitive or memory issues. It does not advise of any impacts that Mr. XXXX mental state would have on his ability to testify, or to comprehend questions. No suggestions were made for accommodations that were necessary to facilitate Mr. XXXX testimony. The author does draw some correlations between the cause of Mr. XXXX XXXX symptoms and his religious conversion which are outside the scope of their expertise as it requires a finding of fact about Mr. XXXX religious conversion. [12] The report was produced after Mr. XXXX family physician referred him for XXXX. The report indicates that Mr. XXXX physician has prescribed him medication to treat XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. Further XXXX sessions were recommended. [13] I accept that the author is a registered XXXX. I accept their clinical observation that Mr. XXXX endorses symptoms of long-untreated XXXX, as well as XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I do not, however, accept the XXXX conclusion that Mr. XXXX XXXX symptoms are caused by his experiences after converting to Christianity. The report does not detail what Mr. XXXX told the psychotherapist about his trauma in Iran. The report notes only that he stated that he prayed in secret and in fear, and that his friends disappeared. There is no detail offered as to how those statements connect to Mr. XXXX self-reported symptoms. In contrast, the report clearly describes the trauma Mr. XXXX experienced at the Canadian airport and how this led to re-traumatization. The absence of a comparably detailed explanation of how Mr. XXXX experience in Iran is consistent with the symptoms he described is notable. As a result, I do not find the psychotherapist's drawing of a correlation between Mr. XXXX XXXX symptoms and his religious conversion to be reliable and I give that portion of the report no weight. I note that the XXXX report also makes no mention of Mr. XXXX struggle with XXXX XXXX, a condition which he testified led to considerable XXXX XXXX, a great deal of XXXX, and multiple dentist visits to fix teeth that he had broken as a result of this condition.6 I give the remainder of the report full weight because the XXXX were drawn from multiple sessions with Mr. XXXX XXXX and because of the use of assessment tools. I find the XXXX observations strengthened by the statements that Mr. R is receiving some medication to address his symptoms. However, I again note that no accommodations were requested, and no impediments to Mr. XXXX testimony identified. The RPD's application of the psychotherapist's report to its decision [14] Mr. XXXX argues that the RPD did not apply the statements in the XXXX report to his testimony. However, he has not articulated how the XXXX report addresses or refutes the RPD's findings that he was vague or evasive. Based on my own review of the evidence, I do not find that the RPD failed to apply or fully consider the XXXX report. As I have already noted, the report does not identify any impediments to Mr. XXXX testimony or any problems that he might have in recollecting events, dates, or other details. Nor does the report request any accommodations for Mr. XXXX XXXX Nevertheless, the RPD did provide Mr. XXXX with breaks during his hearing, repeated questions for him, and did not question him or ask him to testify about his traumatizing experience at the airport. Mr. XXXX visa to Canada [15] Mr. XXXX repeatedly stated that he relied on his aunt to prepare his visa application, and that his aunt had in turn obtained the services of a consultant. The RPD drew negative inferences from Mr. XXXX lack of knowledge about the consultant, inconsistencies in the dates when he went into hiding at his aunt's house, his ability to file a visa application in Turkey while still in hiding, and his vague or evasive testimony about the contents of his application. Specifically, the RPD noted that Mr. XXXX testified to having reviewed the contents of his visa application item by item. Mr. XXXX has disputed that interpretation, stating that he had actually testified to having "...just looked at the titles".7 He also argues that he only traveled to Turkey for fingerprinting, and that his testimony was not evasive. [16] I agree that the RPD's credibility findings regarding the visa application are not correct. As I noted earlier, Mr. XXXX always stated that his aunt hired the consultant and handled details of the application. This is consistent with his lack of knowledge about the consultant. He also testified that he traveled to Turkey for fingerprinting only, and the file notes that the application was submitted online. I therefore do not find an inconsistency regarding Mr. XXXX residence in Iran at that time. The vague and evasive testimony relates to Mr. XXXX explanation of his knowledge of the contents of his application. Having listened to the recording of the hearing, I note that the interpreter immediately clarified that Mr. XXXX did not say "item by item" but rather that he just checked the items. I find this consistent with Mr. XXXX explanation that he only testified to having looked at the titles. And because I do not find any of the issues that the RPD raised about the visa application to be significant, I overturn those findings. Credibility of Mr. XXXX divine encounter Omission of the divine encounter from the BOC narrative [17] The RPD drew a negative inference from Mr. XXXX failure to mention his divine encounter with Jesus in his narrative. Mr. XXXX had explained at his hearing that the omission was the result of his belief that this was a personal moment between him and his God, and that he was in a troubled mental state when completing his BOC, so he overlooked some things.8 [18] I do not find Mr. XXXX explanation reasonable. I accept that he was in a very XXXX XXXX XXXX at the time that he prepared his claim because of the way he was treated at the airport. Even though Mr. XXXX XXXX report does not state that he has difficulty recollecting significant events, I accept that the trauma of his experience at the airport might explain why the divine encounter was not included in his narrative which he prepared within one month of arriving here. But it does not explain why he never amended his narrative to include this significant incident. Mr. XXXX initiated his claim in December 2017. He was represented by counsel throughout this process. His claim was first scheduled to be heard in October 2018. Mr. XXXX counsel did not appear that day due to illness, so his hearing was rescheduled and heard in January 2019. Consequently, Mr. XXXX had over one year, two scheduled hearings, and the benefit of counsel's guidance, to prompt him to amend his narrative. Despite this, and even though claimants are instructed to include all significant details in their narrative, Mr. XXXX did not. [19] The divine encounter is highly important. It marks the point at which, according to Mr. XXXX, he moved from merely learning about Christianity, to actually accepting it, following it, and giving his heart to Jesus.9 Without this moment where the desire to convert was solidified, Mr. XXXX would have remained a Muslim learning about Christianity, rather than a faithful Christian. For this reason, I find Mr. XXXX explanation unsatisfactory and I draw a significant negative inference about Mr. XXXX claim of having experienced this divine encounter. Repeated attempts to clarify what occurred on May 10, 2017 [20] Mr. XXXX testified that he first identified as Christian on May 10, 2017. The RPD then asked him why he came to identify as Christian on that day. The RPD drew a negative inference because it had to repeat the question five times and in different ways before Mr. XXXX finally explained the significance of May 10th by saying that this was the day he had a divine encounter and gave his heart to Jesus. Mr. XXXX disputes the RPD's finding and argues that he was not asked about this date five times. He further argues that there was a material error in the interpretation that led to the RPD's finding that he was evasive or vague. [21] I disagree with Mr. XXXX because the audio recording of the hearing establishes that the RPD did ask Mr. XXXX five times about the significance of the May 10th date. The RPD first asked when Mr. XXXX first identified as Christian. When he offered the date of May 10, 2017, the RPD asked why he came to identify as Christian on that date specifically. He replied by talking about his mental state at that time and contracting XXXX XXXX. The RPD followed up by asking how that experience led him to identify with Christianity on that date. Mr. XXXX then explained about his conversations with XXXX and how he had been relying on the Quran and Islamic teachings until that date. Then the RPD asked again, what XXXX had done on that day in May 2017. At this point Mr. XXXX spoke about being introduced to his Armenian friend. The RPD then asked a few questions about XXXX conversion before turning again to the significance of May 10, 2017. The RPD reminded Mr. XXXX that he had mentioned that he began identifying as Christian on that date and that he had spoken about his conversation with XXXX. The RPD stated that it wanted to know how all of that had led Mr. XXXX to identify as Christian on that date. It was only at this point that Mr. XXXX stated that he gave his heart to "Him", which the interpreter wrongly translated as XXXX. [22] By my count, that is five questions. I also note that after Mr. XXXX testimony was incorrectly interpreted as giving his heart to XXXX, the RPD asked what he meant by that. Mr. XXXX clarified that he meant he gave his heart to Jesus, and this was accepted. It was only when the RPD asked the follow-up question of what giving his heart to Jesus on that day meant to him, that Mr. XXXX described his divine encounter. [23] Mr. XXXX argument that he was not asked five times is not compelling because it ignores the moment when the line of questioning began. His argument that the RPD relied on a material misinterpretation of his testimony is also not persuasive because the incorrect translation was immediately corrected. I therefore do not find that the RPD erred. [24] In light of the absence of any warnings from the XXXX about problems that Mr. XXXX might have in comprehending questions or providing coherent answers, I find that the whole sequence of questions and responses reflects an unwillingness by Mr. XXXX to directly answer the question. I draw a negative inference regarding Mr. XXXX credibility about his experience of a divine encounter and regarding the significance of May 10, 2017 to his religious conversion. Timing of when Mr. XXXX began to identify as Christian [25] The RPD drew a negative inference from Mr. XXXX declaration on his BOC that he was a Muslim who was in the process of converting to Christianity. It found this declaration inconsistent with Mr. XXXX testimony that he first identified as Christian on May 10, 2017.10 Mr. XXXX disputes the RPD's findings and states that there is no inconsistency. He argues that he never stated that he identified as Christian on May 10, 2017, and that he only said that he gave his heart to Jesus and decided to convert on this date.11 He further states that he was told by his pastor in Canada that one cannot truly be Christian until they are baptized.12 He did not get baptized until XXXX 2018. [26] Having listened to the audio recording of the hearing, I find that Mr. XXXX first argument is plainly wrong. In the recording the member can clearly be heard asking Mr. XXXX when he first identified as Christian, and Mr. XXXX clearly responds with only the date, May 10, 2017.13 [27] With respect to Mr. XXXX other arguments, I recognize that the question of when someone first identifies with Christianity, and when they believe they can fully call themselves Christian are two different things. Although it is not implausible that someone would defer to the guidance of their pastor, I do not find that Mr. XXXX testimony reflects this. Most notably, Mr. XXXX was asked why he came to identify as Christian on May 10, 2017. He explained that "before that, when I was still a Muslim, my emotional and mental situation was very bad."14 I find that Mr. XXXX testimony makes it very clear that, on May 10, 2017, he stopped thinking of himself as Muslim. The advice from his pastor did not alter how Mr. XXXX perceived himself in his testimony, and I have not been given any satisfactory explanation as to why his view of himself would have changed at the time that he signed his BOC. As a result, I draw a negative credibility inference from Mr. XXXX vacillating descriptions of his religious identity. [28] Given the omission of this significant date, Mr. XXXX vague or evasive testimony in explaining the significance of the date, and the inconsistency in his claimed religion, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. XXXX did not experience the divine encounter in May 2017. This finding considerably undermines the genuineness of Mr. XXXX Christian faith. He testified that the divine encounter was the moment that he decided to take his friends' teachings and Christianity seriously. He testified that the divine encounter was the moment he gave his heart to Jesus. Since I have found that the divine encounter did not happen, I find, on a balance of probabilities that Mr. XXXX did not attend house church meetings in Iran where he gave his heart to Jesus or converted to Christianity. I find that he did not have a genuine interest in converting to Christianity at that time. And, on the basis of my finding that Mr. XXXX was not participating in church activities, I further find, on a balance of probabilities, that he was not identified to Iranian authorities and that he is not a subject of their interest. As a result, I find Mr. XXXX does not face a serious possibility of persecution based on his activities in Iran. [29] I now turn to consider whether the remaining evidence establishes that Mr. XXXX is now a genuine Christian convert in Canada and whether his activities here place him at risk in Iran. Mr. XXXX Christian faith and conversion in Canada is not genuine [30] Mr. XXXX was able to testify about the purpose and significance of baptism and some major Christian holidays. Although this demonstrates that Mr. XXXX has some knowledge of Christianity, it does not establish the genuineness of his faith. I have already found that Mr. XXXX was not genuinely motivated to become Christian in Iran, and flowing from that, I find that he only joined the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in order to establish his refugee claim. [31] Of course, that does not mean that Mr. XXXX could not now be a genuine convert. His pastor's testimony, letters of support, and his baptism certificate are consequently very relevant to this assessment. However, I find that they are insufficient to establish that Mr. XXXX is a genuine Christian believer now. Baptism certificate [32] Mr. XXXX provided a certificate from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX indicating that he was baptized on XXXX XXXX, 2018,15 and a photo of him at his baptism.16 I give these documents little weight because they only establish that Mr. XXXX was baptized. They do not speak to or establish the genuineness of Mr. XXXX motivation in seeking baptism or converting his faith. Letters and testimony from Mr. XXXX pastor [33] Mr. XXXX pastor, XXXX XXXX, testified at his hearing and provided two letters of support. The first letter,17 is dated October 6, 2018 and confirms that Mr. XXXX joined the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in December 2017. The pastor writes that Mr. XXXX is a faithful member who attends church regularly, participates in church activities like worship service and bible study, and that he has a great attitude toward the church and church members. The second letter,18 dated January 21, 2019, is essentially identical to the first letter. The only difference is the date of the letter and the clarification of the specific day in XXXX that Mr. XXXX joined the church. Neither letter mentions the date of Mr. XXXX baptism, nor any personal detail about him. [34] The pastor had the opportunity to provide more detail and clarity about his relationship with Mr. XXXX and the foundation for his statement that Mr. XXXX is a believer. However, I find that the pastor's testimony19 was equally vague. [35] I accept that Pastor XXXX has been an ordained minister for 34 years and that he has been at the XXXX XXXX XXXX Church for 30 of those years. However, without sufficient explanation, the pastor's simple statement that Mr. XXXX is a genuine Christian does not establish that as fact. Pastor XXXX testified that he teaches the baptism classes. He stated that, in order to be baptised, people must attend church for at least one month to see the church environment, and then attend for a few more months before they can register for the baptism class. He testified that registrants are given another week to think on their decision before the classes begin, and that these classes are conducted every 6-7 months. [36] The pastor also stated that he usually has private personal conversations with people in the baptism classes to make sure they are genuine in their faith, but then he said that he usually just welcomes everyone to the church at the end of each service when they have refreshments and that he then leaves on other business. Pastor XXXX indicated that he assesses the genuineness of people's faith based on three criteria: 1) whether they regularly attend church; 2) the knowledge they have received; and 3) the way they live their lives. However, when explaining his relationship with Mr. XXXX, Pastor XXXX stated only that Mr. XXXX is a good believer because he attends worship service and bible study regularly. He did not address Mr. XXXX knowledge of Christianity, or the way he lives his life in any meaningful detail. Additionally, when the RPD asked whether he knew Mr. XXXX reasons for converting, Pastor XXXX said that he does not ask his congregants these questions because many of them come from Iran and, therefore, he feels he cannot question them on these matters. Nevertheless, the pastor stated that he believed Mr. XXXX was genuine in his faith because of the changes in his life, his attitude, behaviours and lifestyle. [37] The RPD acknowledged that the process leading to baptism can take 6-7 months, however, I note that Mr. XXXX joined the church on December 15, 2017, and that he was baptised a little over 4 months later, on XXXX XXXX, 2018. While this might suggest that Mr. XXXX had an expedited process the pastor offered no indication why that would have been the case, and counsel did not ask either. [38] Considered alongside Pastor XXXX testimony that he usually just speaks with congregants after services; that he does not ask about people's motivations for converting to Christianity; and his lack of detail when stating that Mr. XXXX life, attitude, behaviour and lifestyle had changed, I do not find the Pastor's testimony to be helpful in establishing the genuineness of Mr. XXXX faith. [39] Mr. XXXX argues that the RPD erred by assuming that it had a better understanding of Mr. XXXX faith than the pastor who had been having conversations with him. I would agree if Pastor XXXX had described his conversations with Mr. XXXX in any detail, and if the pastor had provided a stronger basis for his opinion about Mr. XXXX faith. Based on the pastor's testimony, it does not appear to me that he had much of a relationship with Mr. XXXX, or that he knew any personal details about his life on which his assessments of change in attitude, behaviour and lifestyle were based. I therefore find that the pastor was no better positioned to assess the genuineness of Mr. XXXX Christian faith. I therefore do not find that the RPD erred in the weight it gave to the pastor's testimony and letters. I give this evidence little weight as well. [40] Mr. XXXX did not submit any other evidence in support of his claim. I find the evidence before me is insufficient to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. XXXX became a genuine convert to Christianity in Canada. Risk based on activities in Canada [41] Even though I have found that Mr. XXXX is not a genuine Christian convert, Mr. XXXX and his pastor have testified that he remains at risk because the Iranian government sends agents to spy on Iranian churches abroad. Indeed, there is some evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Iran that indicates that this kind of thing happens. However, I find that the pastor's vague testimony about this having happened "recently" is insufficient to establish that Mr. XXXX was a subject of any photos that were taken or that he could be identified in any of those photos. I note that counsel for Mr. XXXX did not ask the pastor to elaborate on his statement to either explain when exactly this individual was found taking pictures, or why he believed that Mr. XXXX might be captured in those images. Although the pastor stated that the church's policy is not to allow pictures, he also testified that they see as many as four or five new members each week. I therefore agree with the RPD that it is speculative to conclude that the individual taking the pictures was a spy since it could just as easily have been a new member who did not know the church's policy on photographs. For all of these reasons, I find I have insufficient evidence to establish, on a balance of probabilities that Mr. XXXX has been identified by Iranian authorities or that he has come to their attention. [42] On the basis of all of the above, I find that Mr. XXXX is not a Convention refugee and that he does not face a serious possibility of persecution on the basis of his religion in Iran. I further find that the evidence has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. XXXX faces a risk of torture, or of cruel and unusual punishment due to his religion. I find he is not a person in need of protection. Non-determinative but relevant issue [43] Mr. XXXX visa was issued in order for him to attend his sister's wedding in November 2017. Mr. XXXX states that his family members told him that the wedding was genuine.20 He states in his narrative that his family had tried to convince him to come to Canada when his mental and physical health started deteriorating because they feared he would die if left alone in Iran.21 Mr. XXXX also testified that his sister's wedding was called-off. Although it is possible that Mr. XXXX sister was getting married just as Mr. XXXX needed to flee Iran and that her wedding was cancelled after his visa was issued, the coincidental timing is somewhat suspicious. [44] For Mr. XXXX, his visa application to Canada may very well have been a life-saving act. His testimony regarding his health and the paralysis he suffered after contracting XXXX XXXX was credible. And Mr. XXXX psychological report notes that being with his family, who have been his greatest support, is quintessential in maintaining his mental and emotional health.22 This does not surprise me given that Mr. XXXX was alone in Iran after his divorce and the loss of his job. His father had passed away, and all of his living relatives reside in Canada. Given his experience and trauma of both his illnesses and his treatment at the Canadian airport, I recognize that this may have compelled Mr. XXXX to fabricate a refugee claim. And although he does not meet the requirements to be recognized as a refugee, it is my sincere belief that there are strong humanitarian and compassionate factors in his case. CONCLUSION [45] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that Mr. XXXX is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) Dilani Mohan October 22, 2020 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 6, at pp. 170-174. 2 X (Re), 2019 CanLII 127902 (CA IRB). 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 6, at p. 172. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 6, at p. 172. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 6, at pp. 172-173. 6 Hearing recording, at 00:33:10 - 0038:40 and 00:56:45 - 01:03:05. 7 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, Appellant's affidavit, at p. 18, para. 26. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at p. 29; See also hearing recording, at 01:39:07 - 01:43:00. 9 Hearing recording, at 00:45:11 - 00:51:40. 10 Hearing recording, at 00:30:38 - 00:33:10. 11s Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, Appellant's memorandum, at p. 27, para. 27. 12 Hearing recording, at 01:41:35 - 01:46:14. 13 Hearing recording, at 00:30:38 - 00:33:10. 14 Hearing recording, at 00:33:10 - 00:38:40. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 5, at p. 167. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 5, at p. 168. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 5 at p. 166. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 7, p. 175. 19 Hearing recording, at 01:56:11 - 02:09:04. 20 Hearing recording, at 00:21:25 - 00:25:40. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 2, at p. 24. 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 6, at page 172. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-05627 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