TC1-13099

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC1-13099 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Date of decision September 23, 2022 Date de la décision Panel C. Prowse Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Jeffrey L Goldman 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 & DECISION [1] I dismiss the appeal of XXXX XXXX (Appellant), a citizen of Lebanon. [2] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention1 refugee nor a person in need of protection. [3] The following is a brief (and non-exhaustive) summary of the Appellant's allegations in his Basis of Claim (BOC) form and narrative.2 i. The Appellant alleges that he fears persecution in Lebanon from Hezbollah, Haraket Amal (a Hezbollah-allied militia), and pro-government forces. ii. He alleges that he participated in the XXXX 2019 protests in Lebanon against "corruption and... political parties",3 including Hezbollah. During these protests, he alleges that he was beaten by pro-government elements. iii. Consequently, the Appellant alleges that he and his family members were threatened in their community by Hezbollah, and that Hezbollah threatened to deny him local services, including security. iv. On XXXX XXXX, 2019, the Appellant fled Lebanon for Canada. v. Since his departure, he alleges that his family members have been denied COVID-19 economic assistance from the government because they were branded "political opponents".4 [4] The determinative issue for the RPD was credibility. The RPD accepted that the Appellant participated in the XXXX 2019 protests in Lebanon and was injured as a result, however it found that the Appellant's testimony about that the threats that he allegedly experienced in Lebanon lacked credibility. The RPD considered whether the Appellant's Vulnerable Person (VP) status could reasonably explain the problems in his testimony, however it determined that it did not. [5] The Appellant submits that the RPD's credibility findings cannot stand, and that he should have received a favourable Decision. He argues that the RPD erred by finding that his testimony about the threats that he experienced and when he received his Canadian visa was not credible. He also argues that the RPD improperly dismissed the testimony of his witness and the supporting documentation from his family members. [6] Although I agree with the Appellant that the RPD made several errors, I find that these are not fatal to the claim. I find that there is insufficient credible evidence to establish the Appellant's fundamental allegation that he and his family members were threatened or targeted by Hezbollah and/or Haraket Amal (the Agents of Persecution or Harm or "APH"). The Appellant's testimony about this matter was not credible. Overall, the RPD decision is correct. [7] I accept, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant participated in anti-government protests in Lebanon, and that he was injured by pro-government thugs during these protests. I acknowledge that the Appellant is opposed to government corruption and political parties in Lebanon, including Hezbollah, and that this constitutes a political opinion. However, for reasons that I will explain in more detail, I do not find that the Appellant has established that he faces more than a mere possibility of persecution in Lebanon on a Convention ground. Procedural background & VP designation [8] The RPD Hearing proceeded by way of four sittings. The reasons for this are summarized in the RPD Reasons.5 Briefly, the first sitting was adjourned because the Appellant had not requested an interpreter. The second sitting did not go ahead because the Appellant's BOC had not been properly completed. During the third sitting, the Appellant indicated that he was experiencing psychological or emotional difficulties and could not continue with the Hearing. The RPD adjourned the Hearing and accepted the Appellant's application to be designated as a VP. On this basis, the RPD permitted a number of procedural accommodations, including allowing the Appellant to have a support person present at the Hearing, take breaks on request, and modifying its order and style of questioning. These accommodations were introduced during the fourth and final sitting. [9] I have considered all of the Appellant's testimony before the RPD, however I have relied principally on the record of the fourth and final sitting of the RPD Hearing, with procedural accommodations requested and agreed upon by the Appellant. NEW EVIDENCE [10] There is no new evidence in this appeal. The Appellant has not requested an oral hearing, and, because no new evidence has been tendered or accepted, I have no jurisdiction to hold a hearing in this case.6 ANALYSIS [11] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision after conducting an independent assessment.7 [12] The determinative issue in this claim is credibility. CREDIBILITY [13] When a claimant swears that certain facts are true, this creates a presumption that they are true, unless there is valid reason to doubt their truthfulness.8 This presumption is not unchallengeable and may be rebutted by the claimant's lack of credibility.9 The RPD erred by drawing a negative credibility inference from the Appellant's testimony about his Canadian visa timeline however this is not fatal to the Decision [14] The RPD found that there was a contradiction between the Appellant's testimony and the evidence on file about when he obtained his Canadian visitor visa. His BOC states that he received it after the protests, however his visa indicates that it was issued before the protests, on XXXX XXXX, 2019. The RPD found that the Appellant was being evasive when he testified that he did not know when he collected his visa, given that this information is in his BOC. The RPD found that this undermined the Appellant's allegation that obtaining his visa was "in no way planned".10 [15] I agree with the Appellant that the RPD erred by finding that the Appellant intentionally misled the panel about when he obtained his visa. The Appellant consistently testified that he applied for his visa before the protests and that he obtained the visa in XXXX. Although he did not initially remember the exact date, he eventually recalled that it was XXXX XXXX. He indicated that there were processing delays associated with the unrest in Lebanon. There is no clear indication that he was being evasive about these dates, for example to conceal the reason for his original visa application or hide a delay in his departure. I find that there is nothing implausible under the circumstances about the Appellant receiving his passport several weeks after the visa was printed by the Canadian Embassy. Although the RPD erred with respect to this finding, I find that it is a peripheral concern, and the error is not fatal to the Decision. The Appellant's testimony that he and his family members were threatened by APH was not credible [16] The RPD found that the Appellant's testimony about the alleged threats that he and his family members received from Hezbollah or the other APH was vague and inconsistent with his BOC form and narrative and other supporting evidence. The Appellant was unable to give a clear or consistent account of the threats that he allegedly personally experienced. [17] The Appellant argues that the RPD engaged in a microscopic examination of the evidence11 by subjecting him to a memory test of the exact number of interactions with APH. Given his daily interactions with APH, he argues, it is not reasonable to expect him to recall the precise number. The Appellant submits that he gave consistent testimony about his recollections of his interactions with APH, including one occasion when they told him that he would be cut off from services in the community. [18] I find that the Appellant's testimony that he and his family members were threatened by APH because of his participation in anti-government protests contained inconsistencies, evolved during the Hearing, and lacked the level of detail one would reasonably expect under the circumstances. Overall, the Appellant's testimony about this matter was not credible. Alleged threats while the Appellant was in Lebanon [19] I agree with the Appellant that it would be an error to expect him to remember the exact number of interactions with APH, given that he regular encountered members of the group(s), including on his way to and from the protests. Respectfully, in my independent assessment, the RPD did not impose such a requirement, and it was the Appellant's vague and shifting testimony about whether he was threatened more than once, and the details of any such encounters, and not his inability to give an exact number of interactions, that was the problem. [20] The RPD asked the Appellant numerous questions about when he was threatened and how many times. Initially, the Appellant testified that he could not remember how many times he was threatened by Hezbollah after he stopped attending the protests on XXXX XXXX, 2019. He indicated that he was having trouble concentrating.12 The RPD Members gave the participants a short break. After the break, the Appellant testified that he was threatened "at least one time" after he stopped going to the protests.13 When the RPD Member pointed out that this seemed to contradict his earlier testimony that there had been multiple incidents, including an occasion when he was confronted in an elevator after XXXX XXXX,14 he testified that these incidents took place before the protests.15 The Appellant did not have an explanation for the inconsistency and changing testimony, merely apologizing for the misunderstanding.16 [21] The Appellant should be able to testify clearly and consistently about whether he was threatened once or multiple times after he stopped attending the protests. He testified that he stayed home during this period of time before relocating to his grandmother's house.17 Therefore, unlike the preceding weeks, he was not interacting with Hezbollah. Furthermore, he alleges that it was the persistent threats by Hezbollah and the branding of his family as "political opponents"18 after the protests that led him to flee Lebanon and is the reason he cannot return to his country. Also, given that he alleges that his problems all began with his involvement in the protests, he should also recall whether he was threatened by Hezbollah before the protests began. [22] The Appellant argues on appeal that he was able to give consistent and detailed testimony about an incident when Hezbollah threatened that he would be cut off from local services, including parking, medical services, and security. However, upon closer examination, the Appellant's testimony about this alleged threat was also problematic. [23] The Appellant's narrative indicates that on XXXX XXXX, 2019, Hezbollah saw him and threatened him with denial of services, leading him to go to his grandmother's house where he stayed until he left for Canada. His testimony about this matter, on the other hand, was vague and equivocal. The Appellant was unsure whether the threat took place after he stopped protesting on November 1, and whether he was confronted by Hezbollah, or if it was his father: MEMBER: All right, so after XXXX XXXX and until you left for Canada how many interactions did you have with Hezbollah? CLAIMANT: So between XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, I think they approached me or my father, I am not 100% sure, I stayed home during that period of time and then on the XXXX XXXX XXXX, I went to my grandma's house, I stayed there until I left Lebanon through the airport.19 [24] Given the seriousness of this alleged threat, and the fact that it was a catalytic event that led him to flee to his grandmother's house before leaving the country, the Appellant should be able to provide clear and consistent testimony about who was confronted (himself, his father, or the two of them together) and when this took place in relation to the other events in his narrative. [25] In general, the Appellant was unable to describe clearly or in detail any threats that he had personally received from APH, including during the period when he was attending the protests in XXXX. He alleges that he was stopped by the group every time he went to or came from the protests.20Although he was able to describe verbal disagreements that he had with Hezbollah members on these occasions about the merits of the protests,21 he was unable to clearly identify or describe any threats that he received.22 Alleged threats after the Appellant left Lebanon [26] The RPD found that there was insufficient credible evidence to establish that the Appellant was targeted online or subjected to harassment through social media by APH after he left Lebanon. The Appellant does not contest this finding on appeal. [27] In my independent assessment, I have come to the same conclusion as the RPD. I find that there is insufficient credible evidence that the Appellant was threatened online or after he left Lebanon: MEMBER: Okay, what threats did you receive after you left Lebanon? CLAIMANT: Yeah, so on my Instagram account they noticed that or they pretended that I am being too peaceful and they realised that I am trying to be peaceful, trying to live my life with no troubles. So, they threatened to hurt and harm me if I were to go back. They said that they knew what I was doing at the protests and that they would kill me and you know I do not want to be in danger, I want to live here safely. MEMBER: Okay, so they put this on your Instagram page? CLAIMANT: So, they did not necessarily write that on my Instagram page, but I know that they were monitoring my page and they knew who I was following and the people that I was following and I knew from many people that it is not totally safe for me to go Lebanon and that my parents have been under pressure and that I will be in danger and real danger if I were to go back. MEMBER: Okay, is your Instagram page public? CLAIMANT: Yes, anybody can see my activity. MEMBER: Okay, what makes you think it was monitored, what makes you, you said you knew it was monitored, what made you think that? CLAIMANT: Yeah, there were numerous accounts following me on Instagram that I did not know and I kept blocking them. There were also some other fake accounts that were viewing my stories and I also was blocking them all. I did not know those accounts. [Transcript, p. 11-12]23 [28] As his testimony reveals, the Appellant's belief that Hezbollah threatened him online and are monitoring his Instagram account is based on speculation. The mere fact that he blocked "fake accounts"24 is not sufficient evidence that he is being targeted online by APH. The Appellant's VP status and psychological conditions do not explain the credibility problems in his testimony [29] The Appellant is a VP. The RPD made several accommodations to address the fact that his ability to present his case is impaired, including allowing a support person to attend the Hearing, taking breaks whenever required by the Appellant, and modifying its questioning. The RPD accepted that the Appellant's vulnerability may affect his memory. [30] I note that the Appellant has provided a Psychotherapy Assessment Report from Dr. XXXX. XXXX, a medical doctor and licensed Registered Psychotherapist. I accept the Psychotherapist's diagnosis that he suffers from "XXXX" XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.25 According to the report, his symptoms include difficulty focusing, and remembering things. [31] I find that the RPD adequately addressed and made accommodations for the Appellant in light of his VP status. The Appellant has not raised any issues on appeal, including procedural fairness or natural justice issues, with respect to his handling by the RPD as a VP. [32] I agree with the RPD that the credibility issues in his testimony are not adequately explained by the evidence of his medical or psychological condition. The assessment report indicates that his symptoms are "moderate" and does not elaborate further on the difficulties that he faces with remembering things. Respectfully, this does not satisfactorily address the Appellant's frequent inability to provide consistent testimony about basic facts after the procedural accommodations that he had requested had been put in place. These accommodations included taking breaks at his discretion to refresh his memory. The Appellant's supporting documentary evidence is insufficient to establish that he and his family members were threatened by APH [33] The RPD put little weight on the letters from the Appellant's father, mother, and sister. While noting that the focus of its analysis should be on what the letters say, not what they do not mention, the RPD found that it was implausible that the letters would not refer to the Appellant's allegation that Hezbollah threatened to kidnap him after he left the country. [34] I agree with the Appellant that the RPD erred by discounting his supporting letters because they failed to corroborate his allegation about the kidnapping threat, and that the RPD merely paid lip service to the principle outlined at paragraph 11 of Mahmud.26 However, in my independent assessment, after examining the contents of the letters, I find that they do not carry sufficient weight to overcome the credibility concerns identified. [35] The Appellant's letters from his father and mother generally repeat the principal allegations in his BOC narrative, however they contain some allegations that contradict the Appellant's testimony. The Appellant's mother writes that "Hezbollah men"27 threatened the Appellant every day until he received his visa on XXXX XXXX, whereas the Appellant was unsure if he was threatened more than once after XXXX XXXX. She also writes that "some pro-Hezbollah residents"28 spoke to the Appellant and threatened to kill him if he continued to participate in the revolution, however the Appellant did not identify any such incidents when asked about the threats he had experienced. He consistently indicated that he was threatened by Hezbollah members, not other members of the community who supported Hezbollah. The Appellant's father provides a different account of threat from Hezbollah to cut off services compared to the Appellant. His letter states that on XXXX XXXX, Hezbollah members "came to [them]"29 and threatened to cut off all their services because they support other political leaders. This is to be contrasted with the Appellant's equivocal testimony about who Hezbollah confronted and when, and his BOC narrative, which states that Hezbollah approached him personally, and threatened to cut off his services. I find that this diminishes the reliability of these letters insofar as establishing that the Appellant and his family members were threatened by Hezbollah, and that their weight is insufficient to overcome the credibility concerns identified. [36] I find that the Appellant's sister's letter carries little probative value and therefore little weight. It contains few details, and the author indicates that she was not a witness to the threats and merely heard about them from her family members. Although hearsay evidence should not be summarily dismissed, the source of the information must be considered, which in this case is problematic for the reasons already provided. [37] The Appellant argues that the letters from his family members corroborate his basic allegations, and that if the RPD determined that the documents were not credible, it should have given them no weight, rather than some weight. He argues that as per the relevant jurisprudence, the RPD cannot cast aspersions on the authenticity of a document and then hedge its bets by assigning the documents little weight.30 Respectfully, I find that the reference to Oranye31 is misplaced in this case, since the RPD did not question the authenticity of the supporting documents. It was open to the RPD to give little weight to the letters from the Appellant's family members because it found that they were unreliable. Although its reason for doing so were incorrect, in my independent assessment, for the reasons provided, I find that the Appellant's supporting documentation is of insufficient weight to establish his allegations. [38] The RPD found that while the Appellant's family members' alleged deprivation of aid and utilities by Hezbollah may constitute discrimination, this does not rise to the level of persecution, even when considered cumulatively. The Appellant does not contest this finding on appeal. [39] I find that there that there is insufficient credible evidence to establish the Appellant's allegation that his parents were denied aid and utilities by Hezbollah for political reasons. I find that this allegation is based on speculation or inference from ambiguous facts such as that the Appellant's family members did not receive aid packages like their neighbours, or the apparent vandalism of their water supply by unknown perpetrators. The testimony from the Appellant's witness has little probative value [40] The RPD determined that the Appellant's witness (who doubled as his support person) was not credible. The witness testified that he visited 15 translation centres in Beirut to have the Appellant's supporting letters translated into English for the Appellant's RPD proceeding. However, they were not willing to translate the documents, either because they were pro-Hezbollah or they were afraid of the consequences of handling such sensitive documents. The RPD found that the witness was not credible, because he could only name two translation centres that he visited. [41] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred by subjecting the witness to an unreasonable "memory test"32 and by ignoring his adequate explanation that many of the centres that he visited had family names. [42] For the purpose of this analysis, I will assume that the witness is credible. However, his testimony merely corroborates that he made significant efforts to translate the Appellant's supporting documents in Beirut, and that the translation centres that he visited refused to translate the documents because they supported Hezbollah or because of their apparent sensitive content. It does not establish the truth of the allegations in those letters, or the Appellant's allegations. There is no evidence that these letters came to the attention of APH because of the witness' actions. Furthermore, the witness did not provide any testimony about the threats to the Appellant, and his affidavit merely repeats in a few brief lines what the Appellant told him about the threats against him and his family members. He did not witness first-hand the events alleged by the Appellant. Therefore, I find that the witness' testimony has little probative value and carries little weight. The additional credibility concerns identified above in the Appellant's testimony and supporting evidence are not "new issues" [43] Although the RPD did not refer in its reasons to some of the credibility concerns outlined above pertaining to his testimony about the threats that he experienced (i.e. paragraphs 22-24), and the letters from his family members (i.e. paragraphs 33-35), I find that these do not constitute "new issues" as per Ching.33 While the relevant case law on this matter is mixed, I find that there is support for my position that these are not new issues. [44] I note that there is not an issue of procedural fairness when the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) finds an additional basis to question the applicant's credibility using the evidentiary record before the RPD.34 The RAD can make independent credibility findings, without putting them to the applicant and giving him an opportunity to make submissions; and the RAD may independently assess the documentary evidence or make credibility findings.35 [45] The RPD identified credibility as an issue at the beginning of the RPD Hearing, and it remained a live issue throughout the proceeding. The Appellant has put credibility squarely in issue on appeal and has raised the specific elements of the Appellant's testimony addressed above, as well as the letters from his family members, arguing that the RPD erred in its assessment of this evidence. I have therefore duly addressed these concerns and examined this evidence. [46] Numerous other cases stand for the proposition that the RAD may make further findings on credibility, which was at issue before the RPD, and that arise from the evidentiary record where the Appellant's credibility raised as a ground of appeal: Akcay v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration Canada), 2020 FC 950, paras. 53-59;36 Corvil v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 300, para. 13;37 Antunano Martinez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 744, paras. 15 to 20;38 Zhang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 870, paras. 13 and 14;39 Nuriddinova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1093, para. 47;40 Smith v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1472, para. 31.41 CONCLUSION [47] The Appellant has established, on a balance of probabilities, that he had interactions, including verbal disagreements, with local APH members, and that he may have been criticized or even harassed by these individuals because of his involvement in the protests. However, I find that the Appellant's allegations about his and his family members' interactions with APH were likely substantially embellished. He has not demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that APH threatened his life or security, or that of his family members, because of his perceived or actual political opinion, or that they targeted him or his family members after his participation in the demonstrations. [48] The Appellant has not raised the issue of his underlying political profile on appeal. Nevertheless, I have considered it in the context of the objective country evidence. I accept that the Appellant participated in anti-government protests in Lebanon, beginning on XXXX XXXX, 2019, and that he was injured by pro-government thugs during these protests. I acknowledge that his opposition to government corruption and political parties, including Hezbollah, constitutes a political opinion. However, I find that he failed to establish that he has a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground because of his protest activities or his political opinion. There is no credible evidence that he has been pursued by the individuals or group with whom he had a violent altercation during the protests. Nor is there any evidence that he has been targeted by any state agents. The objective documentary evidence in the National Documentation Package indicates that huge crowds of youths participated in the XXXX 2019 protests, many of whom, like the Appellant, came from Shiite areas.42 There is insufficient credible evidence before me that given his relatively limited political profile and involvement, as one protestor among many thousands, that he faces more than a mere possibility of persecution on the basis of a Convention ground, even if he were to publicly express his views upon his return to Lebanon. While it cannot be said that the Appellant faces no risk of harm in Lebanon, I find that he has not established that the risk of persecution rises to a serious possibility. [49] I acknowledge that the Appellant posted some photos of the protests on social media, however, as already noted, I find that there is no evidence that his Facebook and/or Instagram posts have come to the attention of state authorities or APH. There is no evidence that he was threatened because of his posts. Nor has he established that there is more than a mere possibility that these posts would attract the attention of the Lebanese government or APH over two years later. I note that while these posts appear to show that the Appellant participated in the XXXX 2019 protests, his social media messages are generic, containing messages such as "the most powerful weapon on earth is the human soul on fire" and he has not established that these would motivate state or non-state agents to pursue him in the future. Furthermore, I note that there is no evidence that the Appellant has continued to post messages on social media about events in Lebanon since his departure from the country, and he has not demonstrated that he would continue to use this outlet to express his political opinion if he returned to Lebanon. [50] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) C. Prowse C. Prowse September 23, 2022 Date 1 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, "Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status", under the 1951 Convention. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Basis of Claim (BOC) form. 3 Ibid., at page 12. 4 Ibid., at page 23. 5 Ibid., RPD Decision, at page 1. 6 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) S.C. 2001, c. 27. Section 110(6). 7 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, [2016] 4 FCR 157; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145, [2019] 2 FCR 597. 8 Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.). 9 Tovar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 598; Lunda v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 704. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision, at page 9, para 45. 11 Sheikh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 CanLII 15200 (FC), para 28. 12 Transcript of RPD Hearing on (May 11, 2021), at page 17. 13 Ibid., at page 18. 14 Ibid., at page 15. 15 Ibid., at page 19. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid., at page 16. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, BOC form, at page 23, para 11. 19 Transcript of RPD Hearing on (May 11, 2021), at page 16. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, BOC form, at page 21. 21 Ibid., at page 22 Transcript of RPD Hearing on (May 11, 2021), at page 14-19. 23 Ibid., at pages 11-12. 24 Ibid., at page 12. 25 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at page 35. 26 Mahmud v. Canada (MCI), [1999[ F.C.J. No. 729, at para 11. 27 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at page 46. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid., at page 40. 30 Oranye v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 390 at para 27; Sitnikova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 1082 at para. 20 31 Oranye v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 390 at para 27. 32 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at page 68, para. 43. 33 Ching v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 725. 34 Oluwaseyi Adeoye v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 246, at paras. 13 to 15. 35 Akram v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 785. 36 Akcay v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration Canada), 2020 FC 950, at paras. 53-59. 37 Corvil v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 300, at para. 13 38 Antunano Martinez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 744, at paras. 15 to 20 39 Zhang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 870, at paras. 13 and 14. 40 Nuriddinova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1093, at para. 47. 41 Smith v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1472, at para. 31. 42 Exhibit RAD-1, National Document Package (NDP) for Lebanon (29 April 2022), item 1.16, Pulling Lebanon out of the Pit. Middle East Report No 214., International Crisis Group. I note the use of a newer NDP item in the above point. I am mindful of the case of [Zhang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2015 FC 1031] which establishes that I must consider the most recent National Documentation Package (NDP) when conducting my independent assessment. Zhang also states that "...where that recent information arises after an applicant has perfected their appeal and made their submissions and that information is different and shows a change in the general country conditions, the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) has a duty to advise the applicant that it is relying on that information." However, in this case, there is not a change in the general country conditions, and I am relying on a document and historical evidence that has not changed from one version of the NDP to another. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC1-13099 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