TB8-27158

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-27158 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a.) XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision November 23, 2020 Date de la décision Panel N. Kaufman Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Eve Sehatzadeh 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 AND HISTORY [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX, also known as XXXX XXXX XXXX (Appellant), alleged to be a citizen of Ethiopia and/or Somalia, appealed a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated July 26, 2018, rejecting his claim for refugee protection on the basis that he had failed to establish his identity and that he was not credible. He alleges that he fears persecution and harm on the basis of his perceived political opinion or membership in a particular social group. He fears persecution and harm in Ethiopia at the hands Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF), an Ogadeni separatist group, the Ethiopian state, and the paramilitary Liyu police; and in Somalia at the hands of the Al-Shabaab terrorist group, and because of generalized violence and war in Somalia. He argues that the RPD erred, and asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to substitute a positive determination or remit the matter to the RPD for redetermination. My role is to consider all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.1 [2] The Appellant's claim was first heard by the RPD in January 2015 and was dismissed on February 24, 2015, with the RPD finding that there was no credible basis for the claim. Following a successful application to the Federal Court for judicial review, the matter was reheard by the RPD on July 26, 2018 and the claim was rejected in an oral decision on that day. This is the appeal from that decision. [3] After the appeal was perfected, the RAD gave notice to the Appellant that the RAD would consider on the appeal the most updated version of the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Ethiopia dated June 30, 2020, as it is required to do. The Appellant was invited to make submissions regarding new or updated NDP items, and their attention was directed to items 1.4, 1.8, 1.10, 2.1, 4.9, and 4.21 of the updated NDP,2 which deal substantially with updated evidence regarding the country conditions in Ethiopia. Submissions from counsel were received on October 19, 2020 (Submissions). Those Submissions have been considered as part of my independent review.3 DETERMINATION [4] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD. On an independent assessment of all the evidence and the arguments of the Appellant, I find that there has been a change of circumstances in Ethiopia and that the Appellant no longer faces risks that entitle him to refugee protection. BACKGROUND [5] The Appellant claims to be a citizen of Ethiopia with a right to Somali citizenship. He claims that he was born in Mogadishu, Somalia in 1988, to parents who were born in the Ogaden region of Ethiopia and who are both Ethiopian citizens. His parents had moved to Somalia from Ethiopia in 1977 following a war between Ethiopia and Somalia. In 1991, when the Appellant was about three years old, the Somalia civil war broke out, and he and his family fled Somalia to the Ogaden region of Ethiopia where he lived until he fled the country in XXXX 2013. While he was operating the family XXXX, the ONLF demanded that the Appellant contribute financially to their organization, but the Appellant refused. Even though he was not a supporter of the ONLF, he was then taken to jail by the Ethiopian authorities, who believed he was a supporter of the ONLF, and was mistreated and detained for about two months. After his release, he was again approached for money by the ONLF and when he refused, they accused him of working with the government as a spy and threatened to kill him. With the assistance of a smuggler, he fled Ethiopia in XXXX 2013 to South America and travelled through Central America to the United States of America (USA), where he made an unsuccessful claim for asylum. He then crossed irregularly into Canada in XXXX 2014 and claimed asylum in November 2014. Further details are provided in his Basis of Claim (BOC) Form (including amendments), 4 and in his testimony at the RPD hearings. RPD's findings and Appellant's arguments [6] The RPD found that the Appellant failed to establish his identity, that he was not credible, and that he failed to establish that he has a well-founded, forward-looking fear of persecution or a risk to his life or of serious harm pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)5 in either Ethiopia or Somalia. [7] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its identity and credibility findings, and in its determinations under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA. NEW EVIDENCE IS ADMITTED; NO ORAL HEARING [8] The Appellant seeks to rely upon new evidence consisting of a printout from Google's product forums website containing a question and answer posted in 2013 regarding the possible inability of travellers to access their Gmail accounts. This is intended to respond to the RPD's finding that the Appellant had not established why his email account (which was said to contain a potentially significant email) would have been deactivated during his travels to the USA through Central America. The posting refers to the possibility that Gmail account holders who travel to strange locations from which they had not previously signed in to their account might be excluded from accessing their account if they are unable to meet challenges mounted by the Gmail system. [9] Although the information in the proposed new evidence pre-dates the RPD's rejection of the claim, I am satisfied that the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected to have presented this evidence before the rejection of the appeal because he could not reasonably foresee that the RPD would impugn his credibility because of his testimony about his inability to access his email account. I am also satisfied that the proposed new evidence is new because it responds to a finding by the RPD, it is potentially relevant to the credibility issue, and it is sufficiently credible to be admitted because it is from a credible online product forum and contains a response from someone identified as an "expert." The proposed new evidence therefore meets the statutory6 and jurisprudential requirements7 for admission of new evidence, and it is admitted as new evidence. [10] No oral hearing can be held in relation to the new evidence. It does not raise a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellant, it is not central to the decision of the claim, and it does not justify allowing the claim.8 The issue is relatively minor and I do not find any need to question the Appellant about the new evidence. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL [11] The determinative issue in this appeal is whether the Appellant has established a well-founded, forward-looking fear of persecution in Ethiopia. In my independent assessment of the evidence, and for the reasons that follow, I find that he has not established that he faces a serious possibility of persecution on the basis of his perceived political opinion, or that, on a balance of probabilities, he faces a risk as described in s. 97(1) of the IRPA if he returns to Ethiopia. [12] Although the Appellant raises several arguments alleging errors by the RPD in relation to its findings regarding identity and credibility, it is unnecessary for me to consider those arguments because my findings above are dispositive of the appeal regardless of whether or not the RPD erred in its identity and credibility findings. [13] For the purposes of this appeal, I accept the Appellant's argument that, as a matter of law, the Appellant is either a citizen of Ethiopia, or at least, is entitled to Ethiopian citizenship;9 that he is also entitled to citizenship in Somalia; and that the correct countries of reference in his claim are Ethiopia and Somalia;10 and I accept that his personal identity has been established. In light of my finding that the Appellant has no serious risk of persecution or s. 97(1) harm in returning to Ethiopia, it is unnecessary to consider his risk, if any, in returning to Somalia. Basis of fear is no longer present in changed conditions in Ethiopia [14] The Appellant alleges that he fears: a. the ONLF, which was designated by the Ethiopian government as a terrorist organization, and which was engaged in armed rebellion against the government of Ethiopia, because he is perceived by the ONLF as supporting the government and as refusing to support the ONLF financially; b. the government of Ethiopia, because he is perceived (wrongly) by the government to be a supporter of the ONLF; and c. the Liyu police, a paramilitary police and counter-insurgency force acting for the Ethiopian state and federal governments in the Ogaden, also known as the Somali Regional State (SRS), and led by the former president of the SRS. Change in country conditions reflected in documentary evidence [15] Paragraph 108(1)(e) of the IRPA provides that a claim for refugee protection shall be rejected, and a person is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, if the reasons for which the person sought refugee protection have ceased to exist. [16] The documentary evidence shows that, under the conditions that existed in Ethiopia in 2011 to 2013, members and supporters of the ONLF (real or perceived) may have had reason to fear persecution or s. 97(1) harm at the hands of the government and the Liyu police. Similarly, government supporters or agents (real or perceived) may have had reason to fear persecution or s. 97(1) harm at the hands of the ONLF. However, past persecution is insufficient in itself to establish a fear of future persecution, although it may form the foundation for present fear. The factual issue to be determined is whether, at the time of this decision, "there is a reasonable and objectively foreseeable possibility that the claimant will be persecuted in the event of return"; that is, whether the claimant now has a well-founded fear of persecution or harm.11 [17] The objective country documentation from the last half of 2018, and from 2019 and 2020, establishes that, following a change in leadership in April 2018, with Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Ali taking office, a series of sweeping reforms took place in Ethiopia that transformed the human rights landscape in Ethiopia.12 This change took place only about three months before the most recent RPD hearing (July 26, 2018), and was not addressed at the RPD hearing or in the documentary evidence before it. The new Prime Minister has now been in office for approximately two and a half years. Documentary evidence shows that the Prime Minister admitted that the state had engaged in serious human rights abuses and torture, and committed to reform of oppressive laws, paving the way for improved respect for human rights.13 The government decriminalized political movements that had been accused of treason in the past, and removed the "terrorist" designation of three specific opposition groups, including the ONLF.14 Exiled opposition leaders were invited to return to Ethiopia and resume political activities.15 Virtually all major opposition groups, including the ONLF, welcomed this request and returned to the country.16 The government allowed peaceful rallies and demonstrations, enabled the formation and unfettered operation of new political parties, released thousands of political prisoners, and undertook revisions of repressive laws.17 Members and leaders of opposition political parties now have complete freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.18 Over 60 high level government officials were arrested on charges of torture and corruption by the end of 2018.19 In August 2019, the ONLF declared that it will pursue the rights of Somali people and those of all nations in Ethiopia through peaceful political means, and has set its primary target on peace building, reconstruction and democratization of Ethiopia.20 [18] Documentary evidence also confirms significant changes specific to the SRS, where the Appellant lived before he fled Ethiopia. All prisoners were released from the regional detention facility known as Jail Ogaden, which was administered in part by the Liyu police, and where significant human rights abuses and torture took place, and the prison was closed in August 2018.21 The former head of the jail was arrested.22 The president of the SRS, who formerly commanded the Liyu police, resigned and was arrested and charged in August 2018, and following that arrest, the activities of the Liyu police dropped dramatically.23 The government and the ONLF signed a peace treaty in October 2018, and by December 2018, the leadership of the ONLF had returned to Ethiopia. The group opened an office in Addis Ababa, its members have regular and open meetings, and its leaders meet regularly with government officials.24 The ONLF and the regional government signed an agreement to disarm and reintegrate members of the ONLF into the state's security forces and civil service.25 ONLF leadership has announced that it will participate in the 2020 national elections.26 Returning members have been welcomed back and have generally been treated positively by their communities, government and security forces.27Although one report referred to the situation not being 100 percent safe for the ONLF and stated that there have been some arrests of the ONLF at the local level, the numbers were small, they were done by the former regional president, and the situation in the SRS was more stable than elsewhere.28 Another report states that the "ONLF have a good relationship with the government and it is going well."29 One report notes that the status of ONLF members, supporters and leadership might change rapidly depending on the outcome of the coming national elections in Ethiopia,30 but another indicates that, even if ONLF does not achieve its political objectives, it is unlikely to re-engage in armed struggle.31 [19] Documentary evidence shows that the Liyu police have undergone reforms and its leadership has been replaced. They are no longer engaged in warfare in the SRS; its activities are well monitored by its new leadership; its members are undergoing a large retraining program to ensure that operations comply with human rights standards; and former ONLF fighters have taken on positions with the Liyu police, including senior positions, although some of those implicated in abuse in the past remain and are given promotions.32 In September 2019, the British Embassy Political Section described the situation resulting from changes within the Liyu police in the SRS as a "really encouraging picture."33 [20] Further, documentary evidence states that members or persons affiliated with ONLF are no longer considered to be at risk of persecution by the authorities - neither in Addis Ababa nor in the SRS. Persons who were imprisoned for being related to the ONLF have mostly been released, although there is some evidence that a few remain in prison, and all high-profile prisoners have been released in the SRS. One report from a returnee described the current situation in the SRS as being the safest place in Ethiopia.34 Members of the diaspora who decide to return to Ethiopia are allowed to reintegrate into society as citizens and open private businesses.35 [21] As noted previously, the Appellant was given the opportunity to make submissions regarding the updated NDP evidence, and filed Submissions containing detailed arguments regarding the change in circumstances and the applicability of the "compelling reasons" exception (discussed in more detail below). As is pointed out in the Submissions from counsel for the Appellant, the situation in Ethiopia is clearly not perfect and is not free of difficulty and human rights concerns. Even in the Somali region the process is imperfect and fragile.36 With the rise in political freedoms and greater freedom of expression, ethnic tension is more evident as different groups seek to have their voices heard and views represented. Upheaval in the former security apparatus has undermined the effectiveness of the security services, which limited central government control over some regional forces due to ethnic and regional loyalties.37 The documentary evidence reflects that there are ongoing human rights concerns and ethnic violence, but my review of the documentary evidence indicates that this occurs principally, although not exclusively, in other areas of the country affecting other ethnic nationalist issues (such as conflicts in the Oromia, Tigray and Amhara regions)38 rather than in the SRS involving the Ogaden ethnic Somalis. There are reports of violence among armed groups along the Oromia-SRS border (which appear to largely be historical issues over land),39 and there are reports that there are still clashes between groups in the SRS despite the high-level peace deal. As noted in the Appellant's Submissions, some sources refer to the process of reform having slowed after its initial rapid change, and being in a period of flux or transition, and some refer to reform having regressed. Others suggest that the situation remains fragile and depends on who is in charge. The Appellant argues that it would be premature to conclude that there has been durable and stable change as it pertains to the fear alleged by the Appellant. [22] I have considered the excerpts from the NDP documents referred to in the Appellant's submissions. I agree that the documents refer to issues that have been encountered in the implementation of the extensive and significant reforms implemented by the new government since April 2018. In my view these are largely distinct issues that do not appear to have a direct bearing on the risk to the Appellant. On balance, the continuing issues do not indicate continuing conflict between ONLF supporters and the government, and do not indicate that the issues described, or the alleged backsliding in reforms, have any significant impact on the Appellant's situation. It is important to recall that the question to assess here is whether the Appellant faces a serious possibility of persecution in Ethiopia as a result of his perceived political opinions or affiliations. The allegation is that the Appellant was suspected by the government of involvement in the ONLF, and was perceived by the ONLF as working with the government. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that individuals with either of these profiles are no longer being targeted by the alleged agents of persecution. [23] In summary, the country evidence indicates that, in general, members of non-armed political groups are not subject to treatment amounting to persecution,40 and in general, the country evidence establishes that, although difficulties in the process of change may occur, there has been cogent and durable change in regard to the opposition generally and former and current armed groups in particular.41 It further indicates that the situation in the SRS is relatively stable and that relationships between the government and the ONLF and its past and present members are improving and are not characterized by violence as in the past. The Liyu police force, while once responsible for significant and frequent human rights abuses in their battle against the ONLF, has been substantially reformed, and the evidence does not indicate that ONLF members or former members (real or perceived) have reason to fear them. The United Kingdom Home Office states, in summary, that there are "very strong grounds supported by cogent evidence" to depart from a previous country guidance case which held that members and sympathizers (real or perceived) of organizations previously designated as terrorist would, in general be at real risk of persecution if they had been previously arrested or detained in suspicion of involvement with those organizations.42 [24] In my assessment of the country evidence, this is not a situation in which the reforms are merely planned, or aspirational, or legislative declarations of intent. Having considered all the evidence that relates to the question of the changed circumstances that exist as they relate to the Appellant's stated fear, I find that the updated country condition evidence reflects changes in Ethiopia, and particularly in the SRS, that are actual, meaningful, effective and durable such that, in light of current conditions and the length of time that has passed since the new Prime Minister took office more than two and a half years ago, there is no serious possibility of persecution or a risk of s. 97(1) harm from the identified agents of persecution. The ONLF is now a national political party engaged in the democratic process of the nation, and there is no suggestion in the current evidence that they continue to engage in the coercive, threatening behaviour in which they were previously involved. There is no serious possibility that the ONLF would persecute or harm the Appellant because of his perceived support for the government or his failure to financially support them, and there is no serious possibility that the government (federal or state) or the Liyu police would persecute or harm the Appellant because of his perceived support for the ONLF. As a result, I find that the Appellant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground, and will not face a danger of torture, or a risk to life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment upon return to Ethiopia. Compelling reasons [25] Subsection 108(4) (compelling reasons exception) of the IRPA provides that paragraph 108(1)(e) (the changed circumstances provision referred to above) does not apply to a person who establishes that there are compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution, torture, treatment, or punishment for the person's refusal to avail themselves of the protection of their country of reference. This requires consideration of whether refugee status should be extended, because of their previous experience of persecution or harm, to those who no longer have any reason to fear further persecution or harm. Jurisprudence establishes that a compelling reasons analysis is only required: (a) if the claimant establishes that, at the time of their departure from their home country, they met the definition of a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, and (2) that the reasons for the claim have ceased to exist due to changed country conditions.43 Where those conditions exist, I accept, for the purposes of this appeal, the Appellant's argument in his Submissions that the RPD (and the RAD) must consider the applicability of the compelling reasons exception.44 [26] In considering whether this exception applies to this case, I am satisfied that the Appellant has established on a balance of probabilities that, before he left Ethiopia, he was perceived by the ONLF as a government supporter, and that he was perceived by the government as a supporter of the ONLF. Although I have not undertaken a detailed analysis of the RPD's credibility findings and the Appellant's arguments about those findings (because it is unnecessary for me to do so), I agree with the Appellant's argument that the RPD made an impermissible plausibility finding that the ONLF had not made financial demands on the Appellant.45 It is those demands that led to the perception by each of the agents of persecution that the Appellant supported the other. I am further satisfied that country documentation shows that those perceived political opinions resulted in more than a mere possibility of persecution of the Appellant by either or both of those agents of persecution at the time the Appellant left Ethiopia.46 Therefore, I must consider whether the compelling reasons exception applies. [27] My review of the jurisprudence indicates that the compelling reasons exception is intended to apply to a "special and limited category of persons" and in exceptional circumstances, which are generally defined as involving past persecution that is "appalling" or "atrocious," so that their experience alone is a compelling reason not to return them even though they no longer have any reason to fear further persecution.47 There is a second line of authority, including the Suleiman48 decision cited in the Submissions, which suggests that the previous persecution or treatment does not need to meet a standard of being "atrocious" and "appalling." In Suleiman, the court stated that the question, when considering the "compelling reasons" exemption, is whether, in all the circumstances, the claimant should be made to face the life which they left, even if the principal characters may no longer be present or no longer be playing the same roles, with the focus being on the state of mind of the claimant.49 In my review of the jurisprudence, the first line of authority is followed in the majority of the decisions, including decisions after Suleiman. However, in this case, in my view, whichever approach is followed, the Appellant has not demonstrated the existence of compelling reasons that give rise to the application of the exception. [28] The persecution alleged at the hands of the ONLF consists of a demand for money on two occasions. The first occasion was in XXXX 2011. When the Appellant did not comply, the ONLF members left the XXXX where the Appellant was working without harming him. The Appellant testified that, on the second visit (in XXXX 2012, after the Appellant had been detained by the government and/or the Liyu police) the ONLF threatened to kill him if he did not give them money. They left when he did not do so. [29] As for the persecution/harm alleged at the hands of the government and/or the Liyu police, the Appellant testified that he was arrested by the government, who accused him of giving money to the ONLF, and when he denied it, they masked him and two men beat him with the back of a rifle and other objects, saying they would continue until he confessed. He was then detained for two months until has father, with the help of community leaders, negotiated his release in XXXX 2011. He then went back to work in the XXXX and had no further interactions with the police or the government before he left Ethiopia in XXXX 2012. He married in 2012. [30] The Appellant did not provide any psychological evidence or testify that he has any psychological issues or trauma arising from his previous treatment, or that he has needed or obtained any psychological counselling or assistance. While I recognize that there is no prerequisite that there be psychological after-effects or psychological evidence, the presence or absence of such evidence is a relevant factor that may be considered. The events upon which his claim is based occurred eight and nine years ago within a relatively narrow window of time, rather than being a pattern of repeated conduct over an extended period. Other than his stated fear that he would be killed by his agents of persecution (in the circumstances that existed when he left Ethiopia), there is no evidence that repatriation would cause the Appellant undue emotional suffering. While the Appellant testified that his family was afraid for him when the police and the ONLF were looking for him, he testified that his family was doing fine and was living in peace in a refugee camp because of Oromo violence that occurred in early 2018 in the area where they lived and that, if there was peace, they would return to their homes. Other than being scared because the police were looking for the Appellant, his family had not been arrested or harmed in any way by the agents of persecution. While I certainly do not in any way minimize the seriousness of being arrested by the police, being beaten and being detained for two months, and being afraid for his life, this is essentially an isolated incident that was not repeated in the 17 months after he was released and before he left Ethiopia. This is not to suggest that repeated acts or mistreatment are required, but the characteristics and details of the past persecution are relevant in assessing the nature of the past persecution and the possible trauma of repatriation. There is no evidence that he was injured or that he required medical attention. In the context of other cases in the reported decisions, I am not satisfied that the persecution or harm that the Appellant suffered could fairly be described as atrocious or appalling, or that they are exceptional. Neither am I satisfied that the circumstances are such that he should not be required to return to Ethiopia despite the lack of forward-looking risk of persecution. The Appellant is a young man in his early 30's whose wife, parents and siblings are in Ethiopia to support him. In all the circumstances, and having considered all the evidence and the Appellant's Submissions, I am not satisfied that the Appellant has established compelling reasons arising out of his previous persecution that justifies his refusal to avail himself of the protection of Ethiopia. CONCLUSION [31] 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 section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. (signed) N. Kaufman N. Kaufman November 23, 2020 Date 1 Canada (M.C.I.) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, at para. 103. 2 Exhibit RAD-1, Member's Direction, September 30, 2020; Exhibit RAD-2, Index to National Documentation Package (NDP) for Ethiopia (June 30, 2020), items 1.4, 1.8, 1.10, 2.1, 4.9, and 4.21. 3 Exhibit P-3, Submissions dated October 19, 2020 from counsel for the Appellant (Submissions). 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Appellant's Basis of Claim Form (BOC) and amendments, Exhibit 2, at pp. 11-30. 5 S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. 6 IRPA, ss. 110(4). 7 Canada (M.C.I.) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96 (Singh); Raza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385 (Raza). 8 Pursuant to ss. 110(6) of the IRPA. 9 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, para. 64, p. 28. 10 Ibid. 11 Yusuf, Sofia Mohamed v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-130-92), Hugessen, Strayer, Decary, January 9, 1995. Reported: Yusuf v. Canada (M.E.I.), (1995), 179 N.R. 11 (F.C.A), at para 2; Fernandopulle v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2005 FCA 91 at paras. 20-25. 12 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Ethiopia, June 30, 2020, item 1.8, section 2.3, p. 25. 13 Ibid., pp. 25-26. 14 Ibid., item 1.8, p. 26. 15 Ibid., item 1.10, section 3.2.4, p. 15. 16 Ibid., section 10.5.5, p. 49. 17 Ibid., section 3.2.4, p. 15; item 2.1, p. 1. 18 Ibid., section 3.2.8, pp. 15-16. 19 Ibid., section 3.2.12, p. 17. 20 Ibid., item 1.8, section 3.3, pp. 39-40. 21 Ibid., item 1.10, sections 10.4.1 and 10.4.4-10.4.5, p. 47. 22 Ibid., item 2.1, p. 4. 23 Ibid., item 1.10, sections 10.6.6-10.6.7, pp. 52-53; item 2.1, p. 2. 24 Ibid., item 4.9, p. 7; see also item 4.21, sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.3, p. 12, and sections 2.1.5, 2.2.3, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, pp. 17-18. 25 Ibid., item 4.9, pp. 7-8. 26 Ibid. p. 8. 27 Ibid., p. 10. 28 Ibid, item 4.21, section 9.1.7, p. 41, and pp. 96-97. 29 Ibid., at p. 100. 30 Ibid., at p. 99. 31 Ibid., item 1.10, section 7.1.5, p. 35. 32 Ibid., item 4.9, section 2.1.2, p. 8; item 4.21, section 8.5.1-8.5.2, p. 38, and p. 99. 33 Ibid., item 4.21, p. 99. 34 Ibid.; See also item 1.8, section 7.4.1, p. 123, where changes implemented by the acting president of the SRS who took office in August 2018 are described by the The Economist in October 2019 as "the most dramatic turnaround in the region's recent history." 35 Ibid., item 1.10, sections 13.1.2-13.1.3, pp. 67-68; see also item 4.21, section 9.10.1-9.10.2, p. 57. 36 Ibid., item 1.8, section 7.4.1, pp. 123-124. 37 Ibid., item 4.21, p. 9. 38 Ibid., section 13.2.1 to 13.2.3, pp. 61-62. 39 Ibid., section 13.2.4, p. 62. 40 Ibid., item 1.10, section 2.4.10, p. 9. 41 Ibid., 1.10, section 2.4.18, p. 10. 42 Ibid., section 2.4.14 and 2.4.15, pp. 9-10, and 2.4.17 to 2.4.18, p. 10. 43 Jairo v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2014 FC 622 (Jairo), at para. 26. 44 The Appellant cites Yamba v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2000 CanLII 15191, at para. 4, although there is other authority that is arguably inconsistent - see Alharazim v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2010 FC 1044 at paras. 49, 52, 53. 45 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, paras. 84-86, pp. 32-33. 46 Ibid., paras. 89-90, pp. 33-34. 47 Canada (M.E.I.) v. Obstoj, 1992 CanLII 8542 (FCA); Moya v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2016 FC 315; Jairo, supra at note 43, at para. 30); Thanabalasingam v. Canada (M.C.I.) 2017 FC 1034 at para. 22. 48 Suleiman v. Canada (M.C.I.) 2004 FC 1125. 49 Ibid., at para. 19. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-27158 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