TC1-15539

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC1-15539 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 December 22, 2021 Date de la décision Panel I. Singh Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Leonard H. Borenstein Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX (Appellant), a citizen of China, appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated August 19, 2021, rejecting his claim for refugee protection. DECISION [2] The appeal is dismissed. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant alleged before the RPD that he fears returning to China because he is a Falun Gong practitioner and fears harm from the Chinese authorities. [4] The Appellant's application for refugee protection was heard on July 26, 2021. By a decision of August 19, 2021, the RPD rejected the claim. The RPD found that the determinative issue was credibility. [5] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in its analysis of the evidence before it. ROLE OF THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION (RAD) [6] My role is to look at all of the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.1 ANALYSIS The RPD erred in some aspects of its credibility analysis but not in its overall conclusions The origins of the Appellant's practice of Falun Gong [7] The RPD found that the Appellant's testimony regarding the beginning of his Falun Gong practice in China was inconsistent with his Basis of Claim (BOC) form narrative. His narrative states that he was introduced to Falun Gong by his friend to help with shoulder pain, that he promised his wife that he would only practice Falun Gong at home, and that she reluctantly gave him the okay and asked him to be discrete about his practice.2 However, in the hearing, when asked why his wife changed her mind, the Appellant testified that his friend also spoke with the Appellant's wife, explained how Falun Gong helped with his own pain and that the Appellant's wife agreed because she wanted the Appellant to be healthy. The Appellant also testified that there was no other reason why his wife changed her mind. When asked if there was a reason why he failed to mention what was written in his narrative, he replied no. When asked why his narrative did not mention his friend speaking to his wife, he replied that the two knew each other, and he did not know it was necessary to include. The RPD found that the Appellant failed to credibly explain the differences between his narrative and his testimony. The RPD found that, if the Appellant's promise to his wife was decisive in her letting him practice, as indicated in his narrative, the RPD would have expected him to testify to this. The RPD found that this inconsistency goes to a significant event in the Appellant's allegations, and the RPD drew a negative inference from his inconsistency on this point. [8] The Appellant argues that the RPD's finding was erroneous, that the RPD erred in finding that his promise to his wife was decisive in her "letting" him practice, and that his narrative indicated that this promise was decisive in his wife's decision. The Appellant submits that it is an error to conclude from his narrative that his promise to his wife was decisive in her "letting" him practice. The Appellant argues that the RPD's error is exacerbated when the RPD finds that the inconsistency goes to a significant event in his allegations. [9] I reject the Appellant's submissions and find that the RPD did not err. First, in my view, there are two issues here: 1) the RPD's interpretation of the Appellant's BOC narrative; and 2) whether the Appellant testified inconsistently with his BOC narrative and, if so, whether he credibly explained the inconsistency. [10] On the first issue, I also find that this particular event goes to a significant event in the Appellant's allegations. The start of his alleged practice is a pivotal moment. It is clear from his BOC that he knew Falun Gong is banned in China and wanted to discuss this with his wife prior to starting his practice.3 Therefore, I find that the issue of his wife's approval is significant. Second, I do not find that the RPD erred in its interpretation with regard to the Appellant's promise being the decisive factor for his wife. The Appellant's submissions quote from paragraph 13 of his BOC narrative, but left out paragraph 12, in which the Appellant alleged "I told my friend that I appreciated his offer to teach me, but because of the ban, I should talk to my wife before I accepted his offer."4 His narrative goes on to allege that, after he told his wife about the benefits of Falun Gong and promised that he would only practice at home, she "reluctantly gave me the okay..."5 Based on my own independent assessment, I find that the RPD's interpretation of the Appellant's BOC was correct. In my view, the conversation that allegedly took place between the Appellant and his wife is what caused her to give her approval for him to practice Falun Gong. The Appellant writes that she "gave me the okay," which to me suggests approval. [11] On the second issue, which is the more significant, I find that the Appellant did testify inconsistently with his BOC and failed to credibly explain the inconsistency. He was asked what changed his wife's mind, and he was given a second opportunity to answer; however, his answer included details not mentioned in his BOC, and he failed to include the details from his BOC. I do not take issue with the omission from his BOC; however, the Appellant failed to explain why he did not testify that his conversation with his wife changed her mind to give him "the okay" to practice. On this issue, the Appellant has not challenged the RPD's finding that he did testify inconsistently with his BOC. [12] As such, based on my above analysis, I find that the Appellant was not credible with regard to the origins of his practice of Falun Gong. I therefore find that the RPD was correct to draw a negative credibility inference. The Appellant's in-Canada practice of Falun Gong [13] The Appellant alleged that he has practiced Falun Gong in Canada since arriving in Canada in XXXX 2018 and that he began practicing with a group shortly after arriving in Canada. Although the RPD drew a positive inference regarding the Appellant's knowledge of Falun Gong practices and doctrine, the RPD found that the Appellant was not able to provide sufficient details regarding his in-Canada practice or adequately speak to his genuine engagement with his practice of Falun Gong. [14] The RPD drew a negative inference regarding the credibility of the Appellant's testimony regarding his participation with a Falun Gong practice group in Canada because the Appellant could only name one fellow practitioner (the one who provided a letter of support)6 out of five to ten, with whom the Appellant would attend daily practice sessions and weekly study sessions, for the over two-and-a-half-year period prior to the RPD hearing. The RPD expected the Appellant to be able to provide more detail regarding the members of a group that he allegedly met with on a daily basis for over two-and-a-half years. [15] The Appellant submits that a review of the audio recording of the RPD hearing shows that the RPD's questioning in this area was convoluted and jumped back and forth between the group practice and the study group sessions, the latter of which were curtailed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Appellant submits that, when he stated that he only remembered the name of one individual, it was in response to questions about the study group. The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its finding, as he was never asked to provide the names of the people he practices with on a daily basis, which he had done for over two-and-a-half years, but, rather, he was asked to name the people who attended the study group, once a week, only until the pandemic prevented them from continuing to gather. [16] I reject the Appellant's arguments and find that the RPD did not err. My review of the audio recording of the RPD hearing does not establish what the Appellant submits. The RPD started asking the Appellant questions about his Falun Gong practice in Canada at approximately 00:14:51.7 The first part of the questions focused on the Appellant's attendance at the daily practice sessions and the group with whom he practices. Approximately eleven minutes later, the RPD asked if the Appellant did anything else with this group, apart from practicing together.8 Part of the Appellant's answer included attending the Friday study sessions. Following this, the RPD asked questions about the study sessions. A few minutes later, when the Appellant was asked who is in the group that he practices and studies with, the Appellant testified that it was just his other practitioners, but he did not know their names.9 [17] There are a few things that are clear to me from my review of the audio recording. First, the Appellant's submissions are unfounded. I do not find that the RPD's questioning was convoluted, nor do I find that it jumped back and forth between the group practice and study group sessions. In fact, I find that, based on the Appellant's testimony, the members of both groups were the same. This is apparent twice: the Appellant testified that he attends the study sessions with the same group that he practices with, and because of this, the RPD asked about who was in the group that the Appellant practiced and studied with, because they are the same people. [18] Therefore, even if I accept that the Appellant had not attended a study group session since before the pandemic, this does not reasonably explain why he did not know any other names of his group members that he had allegedly practiced with for over two-and-a-half years prior to the RPD hearing. Contrary to the Appellant's submissions, I do not find that he was asked to name the people in the study group alone. He was asked to name fellow group members, whom he alleged he practiced with every day. On this basis, I also find that he should have been able to provide more detail regarding these group members, and his failure to do so undermines his credibility. [19] I also note that the Appellant's arguments contradict his own evidence. The Appellant submits that he was asked to name the members of his study group, of which he was able to name W.Y. However, the support letter from W.Y.10 only confirms attendance at the daily group practice sessions, not the study sessions. I therefore reject the Appellant's arguments and find that the RPD did not err. [20] The RPD also found that the Appellant was unable to describe his personal connection to the Zhuan Falun text, which he alleged he had read in its entirety. When asked if there was any part that he found meaningful and why, he testified that he found the Second Talk meaningful, then he named the subheadings of the chapter, and he did not provide additional details regarding what about this talk spoke to him or if there were other parts that he liked. The RPD expected that a genuine Falun Gong practitioner of more than three-and-a-half years who had read the text in full and participated in weekly group discussions about its teachings would have been able to discuss what he finds personally interesting, inspiring, or meaningful about the text, beyond simply reciting its contents. The Appellant's inability to draw this connection between the text and his own life, combined with his recitation of the subheadings, caused the RPD to find that he was not genuinely engaged with the text as a practitioner. However, the RPD found that the Appellant studied Falun Gong, to some degree, to acquire some knowledge of the practice. The RPD gave more weight to the Appellant's inability to describe his personal connection to the text than to his knowledge of Falun Gong, finding that the latter could have been attained to bolster his claim, but the former being a more direct indicator of his genuine connection to the practice. The RPD drew a negative inference regarding the genuineness of the Appellant's practice. [21] The Appellant submits that to expect him, a farmer with eight years of education from China, to provide details of a personal connection to an obscure and philosophical text such as the Zhuan Falun is more than unreasonable and that any negative inference drawn due to his failure to detail such esoteric matters cannot withstand scrutiny. [22] I disagree with the Appellant, and I find that the RPD did not err. The RPD considered the Appellant's level of education, and I have as well. I have also considered that the Appellant alleged that he has read Zhuan Falun in its entirety and had been practicing Falun Gong for almost four years at the time of his RPD hearing. I also note that he was knowledgeable about Falun Gong practices and doctrine and was able to provide a personal example of practicing forbearance from his life. I have also kept in mind that the Federal Court has stated that claimants can be questioned about their religious knowledge, not to determine the "theological soundness" of their answers or as a test on religious trivia, but in order to determine the genuineness of the beliefs they allege.11 The decision-maker, in assessing the genuineness of the beliefs, can consider "...whether the claimant holds a level of religious knowledge that would be expected of someone in the claimant's position..."12 [23] Given the above context, I find that the RPD was attempting to determine the genuineness of the Appellant's beliefs. I do not find that it was unreasonable to expect the Appellant to provide more detail about why he found the Second Talk meaningful. He was not asked complex questions about obscure and philosophical topics. He, himself, testified that he found the Second Talk meaningful, and he was merely asked to elaborate on why this was so. I find that his testimony does not reflect what he might reasonably be expected to know as a genuine, committed Falun Gong practitioner who had been practicing regularly since 2017, and including since 2018 in Canada. Further, though Falun Gong is a knowledge-based practice, it is also a way of life. I find that, if the Appellant had actually been a genuine and committed practitioner for nearly four years, he would have been able to answer the basic question from the RPD, on a balance of probabilities. [24] The Appellant's inability to provide an answer beyond simply reciting the subheadings of the Second Talk causes me to find, on a balance of probabilities, that he lacked a personal connection to the text and to Falun Gong. I further find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant was unable to establish a personal connection because he only memorized certain Falun Gong information for the purposes of his refugee hearing. [25] I therefore find that the RPD was correct to give more weight to the Appellant's inability to describe his personal connection to the text than to his knowledge of Falun Gong, finding that the latter could have been attained to bolster his claim, but the former being a more direct indicator of his genuine connection to the practice. I adopt this reasoning and find that the RPD was correct to draw a negative inference regarding the genuineness of the Appellant's practice. [26] On the basis of the above findings, I concur with the RPD's findings that the Appellant was not able to provide sufficient details regarding his in-Canada practice or adequately speak to his genuine engagement with his practice of Falun Gong. As a result, I find that his credibility is undermined. The Appellant's arrival in Canada [27] The Appellant did not disclose his original passport when he made his claim and alleged that it was taken from him by the smuggler he used to travel from China to Canada. Instead, the Appellant disclosed a photocopy of his passport, including the biometric page and the page with his Canadian visa. When asked how and when the photocopy was made and how and when he obtained the photocopy, he testified that he asked the smuggler, who made copies and gave them to the Appellant, all of which occurred after the Appellant entered Canada. The RPD put to the Appellant that the copies he provided had no stamp on the Canadian visa page indicating that he entered Canada, and it asked how this could be the case if the copy was produced in Canada. The Appellant testified that he did not remember. The RPD found, on a balance of probabilities, that had the copy of the passport been produced in Canada as alleged, it would have contained a copy of the stamp from Canadian immigration; and as it does not, the RPD found, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant's account of what happened to his passport was not credible. The RPD drew a further negative inference regarding the Appellant's overall credibility from his failure to provide a credible explanation for the absence of his passport, the absence of which precluded inquiries into issues related to subjective fear and credibility. As the Appellant did not provide a credible explanation for the passport's absence, the RPD drew a significant adverse inference regarding the Appellant's credibility as a witness. [28] The Appellant concedes that the copy of the passport provided was made before the passport was stamped by Canadian immigration and that, although he received the copy after arriving in Canada, it was not a copy of the passport after it was stamped. The Appellant submits that the RPD's finding with respect to the copy of the passport is peripheral to the substance of his claim and that it simply reflects his inability to remember when his passport was photocopied. He submits that it is an innocuous mistake in remembering when the passport was copied and does not afford him any advantage with respect to advancing his refugee protection claim. The Appellant also submits that the RPD's drawing of a further negative inference with respect to the lack of a credible explanation for the absence of his passport was made without reference to any evidence. The Appellant submits that the RPD found that he failed to provide a credible explanation for the absence of his passport without reference to any evidence relating to his explanation for the absence of his passport. [29] I reject the Appellant's arguments and find that the RPD did not err. I note that the Appellant's argument, in which he concedes that the copy of his passport was made before it was stamped in Canada, contradicts his own BOC in which he alleged that he flew from China to Canada with the "snakehead" and [a]fter we left Toronto Airport, the snakehead brought me to my rental place in Toronto. He asked me to give him my original Chinese passport. The snakehead said that I would not need my original passport anymore. I told he [sic] that I would like a copy of my passport. He took me to a store where he made me a photocopy of the photo page and the Canadian visitor visa in my passport.13 [30] I find that this contradiction undermines the credibility of the Appellant's allegations regarding his passport and the "snakehead." [31] I further find that the RPD's finding was not peripheral, nor did the Appellant's testimony simply reflect his difficulty remembering when his passport was photocopied. I find that this issue relates to the core of the Appellant's claim. He alleges that he used a smuggler to leave China and that the smuggler used false information to obtain a Canadian visitor's visa for the Appellant. I find that the Appellant's alleged use of a smuggler and information he knew to be false to enter Canada relate directly to his alleged fear in China as a result of allegedly being a Falun Gong practitioner. The credibility concerns that have arisen with regard to the smuggler and the Appellant's passport are therefore related to his escape from China and fear in China. Moreover, given the detail in his BOC about how he obtained a photocopy of his passport from the "snakehead," I do not accept as reasonable that the Appellant could not remember when he was confronted with the inconsistency that his passport could not have been copied in Canada. I find that the Appellant's credibility is undermined. [32] With regard to the Appellant's submission about whether he was afforded any advantage, I am not in a position to speculate. However, based on the evidence before me, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant's evidence about how and when he obtained a copy of his passport and about the whereabouts of his original passport is not credible. For this reason, I find that the RPD was correct to draw a negative inference regarding the Appellant's overall credibility. [33] I also do not find that the RPD's findings were made without regard to the evidence. I agree that the Appellant failed to provide a credible explanation for the absence of his original passport, which he was required to disclose. I also agree that the absence of his passport precluded inquiries into issues related to subjective fear and credibility. For this reason, I find that the RPD was correct to draw a significant adverse inference regarding the Appellant's credibility as a witness. The Appellant's supporting documentation [34] The RPD gave the Appellant's Falun Gong supporting documentation minimal weight towards the Appellant's core allegations that he is a Falun Gong practitioner. The RPD found that the letter from W.Y.14 is of little probative value because the author was not called as a witness, and a reasonable explanation for why he was not called to testify was not provided. The RPD also found that the letter was insufficient to outweigh its credibility concerns stemming from the Appellant's inability to describe the composition of his practice group to the degree that was reasonably expected. The RPD also gave the photograph15 of the Appellant's attendance at a Falun Dafa Day parade minimal weight, finding that mere attendance at a parade is insufficient to establish that the Appellant is a genuine practitioner. The RPD also noted that the Appellant was unable to state who took the photograph or sent it to him, stating only that a fellow practitioner, whose name he did not recall, sent it to him. The RPD found this to be another indicator of the Appellant's lack of knowledge regarding his alleged fellow practitioners, which further weighed against finding that he is an active member of a group in Canada. [35] The Appellant submits that the fact that he did not ask W.Y. to provide the reason that he was unavailable to testify at the RPD hearing cannot reasonably support the RPD's conclusion to reject the letter. The Appellant also argues that the RPD erred in stating that the Appellant was unable to describe the composition of his practice group. The Appellant submits that a review of the audio recording reflects that he was, in fact, able to describe the composition of his practice group, but he was unable to provide names of attendees at the Friday night study group. He submits that the RPD erred in finding that he was unable to describe the composition of his practice group. [36] I am persuaded by the Appellant, in part, and find that the RPD erred, in part. I find that the RPD erred in giving little weight to the letter from W.Y. because the author was not called as a witness and because a reasonable explanation for why he was not called to testify was not provided. Although it would have been helpful to have W.Y. attend the hearing, there is no requirement that he had to testify at the hearing, and I do not expect the Appellant to have demanded W.Y.'s reason for why he could not attend the hearing. I also find that the RPD erred in stating that the Appellant was unable to describe the composition of his practice group to the degree that was reasonably expected. However, I do not agree with the Appellant's argument that he was, in fact, able to describe the composition of his practice group, but he was unable to provide names of attendees at the Friday night study group. It appears to me that the RPD's statement about the composition of the Appellant's practice group was related to its earlier finding about the Appellant being unable to name more than one member of his group. Further, given the Appellant's argument about naming attendees of the Friday night study group, it also appears that the Appellant assumed this is what the RPD meant. However, I am not in a position to assume what the RPD meant. As such, having found that the RPD erred, I have conducted my own independent assessment and analysis with regard to the letter from W.Y. [37] I note that the Appellant has not challenged the RPD's finding with regard to the photograph of his attendance at a Falun Dafa Day parade. As no error has been alleged, and as I see no errors myself, I concur with the RPD's findings and adopt them as my own. I, too, find that the photograph merits minimal weight, as it is insufficient to establish that the Appellant is a genuine Falun Gong practitioner. I further concur that the Appellant's testimony about the photograph was another indication of his lack of knowledge regarding his alleged fellow practitioners, which further undermined the credibility of his allegations that he is an active member of a group in Canada. [38] The letter from W.Y. verifies the Appellant's allegations that he began practicing Falun Gong at Pacific Mall in Canada in XXXX 2018. The author also writes that the Appellant "practices Falun Gong very hard" and "is a real Falun Gong practitioner."16 I find that the letter from W.Y. merits weight towards establishing the Appellant's Falun Gong practice. [39] However, even when the weight attributed to the photograph and letter are taken cumulatively, I find that this is insufficient to overcome or outweigh the cumulative negative credibility findings herein with regard to the Appellant's Falun Gong identity and related findings. Conclusion on credibility [40] The RPD considered the evidence that supported and weighed against the Appellant's claim that he is a genuine Falun Gong practitioner. The RPD gave more weight to the Appellant's inability to discuss what he found meaningful from the Zhuan Falun, finding that this outweighed his knowledge, as it is the depth of his engagement with and personal connections to the teachings of Falun Gong that are a stronger indicator of whether someone is a genuine practitioner. The RPD also considered its other negative credibility findings and concluded that the Appellant failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he is a genuine practitioner of Falun Gong. The RPD accepted that the Appellant participated in a Falun Gong parade; however, it found that he failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he is a member of a Falun Gong practice group in Canada or that he would practice Falun Gong in China. [41] As I have found that the RPD did not err in the majority of its findings, I also agree that the negative credibility findings outweigh the positive inference from the Appellant's knowledge of Falun Gong. Given this, and as I have found that the weight given to the Appellant's supporting documentation does not overcome or outweigh the cumulative negative credibility findings herein, I concur with the RPD and find that the Appellant failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he was a Falun Gong practitioner in China; that he is a genuine practitioner of Falun Gong in Canada; that he is a member of a Falun Gong practice group in Canada; or that he would practice Falun Gong in China. The Appellant's Sur Place Claim [42] The RPD found that the Appellant failed to establish a sur place claim, as there was no evidence that the Appellant has come to the attention of the Chinese authorities; his profile at the two public Falun Gong events he attended was low; he was a relatively inconspicuous attendee, and he could not speak to whether photographs of him at the events had been circulated to anyone apart from himself. The RPD also found that, given the absence of evidence to establish that the Appellant departed China in contravention of Chinese law, he will not face any adverse consequences stemming from his time in Canada when he returns to China, on a balance of probabilities. [43] The Appellant submits that the RPD's positive inference from his Falun Gong knowledge is the one finding that remains intact after discarding the negative inferences and other credibility findings made by the RPD. [44] I agree with the Appellant that the RPD's positive inference from his Falun Gong knowledge remains intact; however, as assessed above, I do not find that the Appellant's Falun Gong knowledge, on its own or taken cumulatively with his supporting documents, is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the negative credibility findings herein. [45] I note that the Appellant has not otherwise challenged the RPD's findings with regard to his sur place claim. As such, and seeing no error in the RPD's analysis, I concur with the RPD that the Appellant failed to establish a sur place claim. [46] I also note that the Federal Court has held that the Board must be allowed to import its credibility findings when considering the sur place aspect of a claim and that it is permissible to assess an appellant's genuineness and sur place claim in light of credibility concerns relating to the original authenticity of a claim.17 [47] On this basis and having found that the Appellant failed to establish his Falun Gong identity, on a balance of probabilities, I import these findings into my sur place analysis. I find that the Appellant failed to establish a sur place claim, as there is no persuasive evidence that his Falun Gong activities in Canada have or would come to the attention of Chinese authorities or that he would be perceived to be a genuine practitioner upon his return to China. I further concur with the RPD that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant failed to establish that he is a genuine practitioner of Falun Gong, and I find that he would not practice Falun Gong upon return to China, on a balance of probabilities. CONCLUSION [48] For the above reasons, and after conducting its own analysis of the record, the RAD finds that the RPD did not err in rejecting the Appellant's claim. The RAD finds that the Appellant has not established his allegations, on a balance of probabilities. As a result, the RAD finds that he has not established that he faces more than a mere possibility of persecution, as per section 96, or that he faces harm, on a balance of probabilities, under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).18 Therefore, the RPD's final determination that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection is correct, and this appeal is dismissed. [49] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. (signed) Inderpreet K. Singh I. Singh December 22, 2021 Date 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93, [2016] 4 FCR 157; Rozas del Solar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2645-17), Diner, November 14, 2018, 2018 FC 1145, [2019] 2 FCR 597. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 26-27. 3 Ibid., at p. 26. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid., at pp. 26-27. 6 Ibid., at p. 124. 7 This is the fourth Audio Recording of the RPD Hearing, which started at 00:14:51 and lasted 24 minutes. The start of the questioning was at 00:00:19 of this audio recording. The rest of my endnotes will reference the timestamp in the 24-minute audio recording. 8 Audio Recording of the RPD Hearing #4, at 00:11:31. 9 Ibid., at 00:13:45. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 124. 11 Gao v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-7310-14), Southcott, October 6, 2015, 2015 FC 1139, at paras. 26-27. 12 Ibid., Gao, 2015 FC 1139, at para. 26. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 28-29, para. 23. 14 Ibid., at p. 124. 15 Ibid., at p. 127. 16 Ibid., at p. 124. 17 Jiang v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-13-12), Zinn, September 11, 2012, 2012 FC 1067, at paras. 27-28. 18 S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC1-15539 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