TB9-08853

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-08853 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision July 27, 2020 Date de la décision Panel L. Gamble Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Tyler Goettl 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 XXXX (the Appellant) appeals the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. He submits that the RPD erred in its assessment of his identity. He also submits that his new documents presented in the present appeal establish his identity. DECISION [2] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. The determinative issue remains identity, and credibility with respect to identity. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant alleges a fear of persecution from the authorities in Eritrea if he were to return on the basis that he XXXX XXXX XXXX when he fled Eritrea in XXXX XXXX, and as a failed refugee claimant. He fears being targeted by authorities as punishment. The Appellant fled Eritrea XXXX XXXX, then travelled XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX where his asylum claim was refused. The Appellant entered Canada XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [4] The RPD rejected the Appellant's claim finding that he had failed to establish his personal and national identity on a balance of probabilities. The RPD had credibility concerns with the Appellant's identity evidence, finding that some of the documents he presented were not reliable, in that they were either false or fraudulently obtained, and that as a whole, the evidence provided did not establish his identity on a balance of probabilities. The RPD therefore rejected the claim. ANALYSIS Role of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) [5] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.1 Admissibility of Evidence Submitted on Appeal [6] According to the law,2 I can only accept evidence that: a. arose after the RPD decision; or b. was not reasonably available at the time of the decision; or c. that you could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to bring to the RPD before the decision. [7] If the evidence meets one or more of these requirements, I must decide if the evidence is new, credible and relevant before I can accept it.3 [8] The Appellant has tendered six items as proposed new evidence in support of the present appeal, pursuant to subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), submitted in accordance with rule 29 of the Refugee Appeal Division Rules.4 These items are: a. Photographs of the Appellant's XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX, Eritrea, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; b. Appellant's XXXX XXXX national ID card (XXXX XXXX) and a photo of XXXX with the Appellant's XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; c. Appellant's XXXX XXXX national ID card (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX); d. Appellant's XXXX XXXX student ID card (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX); e. YouTube video screenshot and transcription of footage featuring Appellant's XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; and f. Photograph of the Appellant's XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, March 2019. [9] The Appellant submits that each of the above noted items is credible and relevant in that they provide further proof of his personal and national identity. He states that Items A and B are new in that they arose from a visit of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, therefore post-dating the rejection of his claim by the RPD. He states that Items C and D, his siblings' identity documents, could not have reasonably been expected to have been presented at the RPD because the Appellant believed he had submitted sufficient information before the RPD to establish his personal identity.5 Lastly, he submits that Items E and F are also not temporally new, but could not have reasonably been expected to have been provided, given his limited education and his belief that he had provided sufficient documentation in support of his identity.6 [10] I am satisfied that Item A meets the admissibility criteria of arising after the Appellant's claim was rejected by the RPD, as the Appellant states that the photos were taken in XXXX, Eritrea on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as supported by the flags in the photo being at half-mast to celebrate a national holiday in Eritrea. He states that such photos were not available prior to the rejection of his claim XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I am satisfied as to the credibility and relevance of these photos on their face; therefore, I will admit the photos in Item A. [11] The Appellant states that items C, D, and E all ought to be admitted as new evidence as they could not have been reasonably expected to have been provided given that the Appellant believed his identity was established on the strength of the record before the RPD. It is important to note that the Appellant had two sittings before the RPD on January 8, 2019 and again on February 7, 2019, in which the issue of establishing his identity was the sole focus. Moreover, the Appellant submitted a court order awarding guardianship of the Appellant's son to his mother as post-hearing disclosure,7 demonstrating his recognition that continued evidence with respect to establishing his identity was required. Therefore, I cannot find that these items are new such that they are admissible in the present appeal, and I decline to admit them. [12] Items B and F, the Appellant's XXXX national ID card and photo with XXXX XXXX, as well as the photo of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, are rejected as I find they are not new or relevant. Item B, the national ID card of the XXXX XXXX XXXX someone outside the Appellant's immediate family, states it was issued in 2005, and that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. This item thus pre-dates the rejection of the Appellant's claim and does nothing to further his personal identity or national identity as an Eritrean citizen. Likewise, also part of Item B, the photo of the Appellant's XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is undated and does not assist in establishing the Appellant's identity. Item F, the photo of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - even XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as submitted - is not relevant in the present appeal as the photo does not speak to the Appellant's personal or national identity. Therefore, I decline to admit these items. [13] The Appellant requests an oral hearing with respect to the new evidence adduced, pursuant to subsection 110(6) of the IRPA.8 When read together, subsections 110(3), (4) and (6) of the IRPA establish that the RAD must not hold a hearing in an appeal such as this unless there is new evidence admitted in accordance with the provisions of subsection 110(4) which raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellant, is central to the RPD's decision and that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. I am not of the view that the new evidence submitted by the Appellant which is being admitted - Item A - raises an issue with respect to the Appellant's credibility that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the claim. The photos of the people the Appellant states are XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Eritrea in XXXX XXXX do not raise an issue with respect to the Appellant's credibility; therefore, the Appellant's request for an oral hearing is denied. Merits of the Appeal Did the RPD err in fact in its determination that the Appellant did not establish his identity, on a balance of probabilities? [14] Appellant's Baptismal Certificate: The Appellant submitted a baptismal certificate purporting to relate to himself, which the RPD found to be unreliable and likely false or fraudulently obtained, as it reflected an inaccurate date of birth for the Appellant which was not reasonably explained, and as the Appellant admitted that it XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX while he was in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX although it states on its face that it was issued XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. When questioned about this, the Appellant stated that the issuance date was written to look "actual" and when questioned about its "yellowed and ripped" appearance, the Appellant stated it was made to appear as if it was issued in XXXX.9 [15] On appeal, the Appellant argues that his oral testimony supports his claim that he XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, independent of the documentary evidence; however, in light of the fact that the Appellant testified that the document he submitted was deliberately made to appear as if it was made in XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, I cannot accept that his testimony is sufficiently credible as to outweigh the admittedly false document submitted in support of his identity. Moreover, the Appellant now states that the inaccurate date of birth on the baptismal certificate is likely due to an error by the church in a rural area, and that the evidence does not support that the church's practice is to "consistently employ a dd/mm/yy format."10 However, I reject this explanation, as it is reasonable to expect that the same date (the Appellant's date of birth) would be completed consistently on the face of a single, one-page document. The Appellant also proffers several explanations for why the date of issuance on the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, despite his testimony that the document was expressly created XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX: that the document contains an error, that it is the practice of the church to backdate, or that the "date" line is ambiguous and may refer to the baptismal date and not actually the date of issuance. However, none of these possible explanations are supported by evidence, and I would note that the "date" line is not ambiguous insofar as it could refer to the date of baptism, as there is a separate line for "date of baptism" on the face of the document.11 Therefore, I reject these explanations. The Appellant also submits that there is nothing inherently illegitimate about a document being created XXXX XXXX with respect to an event which occurred in XXXX, and that therefore this should not be counted against his credibility. However, it is trite to say that the authenticity of the document is called into question when it was created in XXXX to appear as though it was issued in XXXX, which I find is the case with respect to this baptismal certificate. I agree with the RPD and also find that it was correct in finding this item unreliable evidence of the Appellant's identity. [16] School Records: The Appellant also submitted XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as evidence of his identity before the RPD. The RPD found there was a problem with the years of issuance of these two items, as the Appellant initially testified that he progressed at the rate of one numeric grade per year and had never failed a grade, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,12 which is inconsistent with the Appellant's testimony. Only when the inconsistency was put to him did the Appellant change his testimony to indicate he might have XXXX XXXX XXXX, but he was not sure. The RPD found this inconsistency and the Appellant's evolving explanation therefor detracted from the Appellant's credibility generally, and found that the school records were not reliable or credible evidence of his identity.13 In addition, the RPD noted that the stamp on the report card issued XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which reads "PROMOTED" is actually a colour copy printed on the page, and not a stamp, which the RPD found decreased its reliability because it would not expect the document to be pre-copied with images of stamps indicating "PROMOTED" because, presumably, some students would not be promoted.14 [17] On appeal, the Appellant asks the RAD to accept his oral testimony about his schooling in Eritrea over the documents, and states that his explanation that he had not failed a grade, but later indicated that he may have XXXX XXXX XXXX but was not sure, is "not an unreasonable explanation" given his limited educational background and the time elapsed since he attended school, and that it was an honest attempt to reconcile an inconsistency.15 The Appellant also argues that the RPD's finding about the unreliability of a pre-printed "PROMOTED" stamp on the school record is an impermissible implausibility finding as there is nothing inherently implausible about such a practice. However, I cannot agree: while the Appellant's present claim that his evolving testimony about whether he had ever failed a grade or not was an honest attempt to reconcile an inconsistency, I am not prepared to accept such an explanation or accept inconsistent testimony, particularly where, as here, the Appellant had issues with almost all of his submitted primary identity documents: the baptismal certificate, his son's birth certificate and baptismal certificate, in addition to the two school report cards. If this was a sole area of concern, situated among other credible identity documents and credible testimony, an honest attempt to reconcile an inconsistency might be reasonable; however, as can be seen in these reasons, the Appellant proffered inconsistent and evolving testimony in respect of numerous submitted documents, and therefore I cannot accept his explanation as reasonable. In addition, I find the RPD was correct in finding the school record for XXXX XXXX XXXX unreliable on the further basis of the pre-printed "PROMOTED" stamp. As the RPD noted, the purpose of a stamp is to certify the genuineness of the document; therefore, having a pre-printed stamp, especially where one would reasonably expect some variation i.e. between "promoted" and "not promoted" to the next grade, detracts from the credibility of the document. I find that the school records are not reliable or credible evidence of the Appellant's identity, and that the Appellant's inconsistent and evolving testimony in respect of this area of concern undermines his credibility. [18] Appellant's Son's Documents (baptismal certificate, birth certificate, guardianship order): The RPD found the Appellant's son's baptismal certificate was unreliable evidence of the Appellant's identity, because it came from the same source as the Appellant's baptismal certificate which was fraught with concerns, and also because despite the Appellant's testimony that he was present for XXXX XXXX XXXX, it was not signed by him on the line designated to be signed by the father. When questioned about this, the Appellant's testimony was again evolving, initially stating that he did not sign the English side, but did sign the XXXX XXXX; however, when it was pointed out to him that the XXXX XXXX was also missing a signature, he then stated that it was not a formal process.16 The Appellant argues that the RPD should have accepted his explanation that it was not a formal process, and that there is nothing inherently implausible about the church failing to insist the father sign the baptismal certificate.17 However, I cannot agree. The RPD found the document was unreliable not simply due to the missing signature, but also in light of the Appellant's inconsistent and evolving testimony provided as an explanation for the missing signature. I agree with the RPD that it is not reasonable that the Appellant would first explain that he signed the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and then only when it was pointed out to him that that was not the case, did he suggest it was not a formal process. The Appellant has XXXX XXXX, and it is reasonable to expect him to know whether or not he XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I find that the RPD was correct and find for the same reasons that this document is not reliable or credible evidence of the Appellant's identity, and his evolving testimony detracts from his general credibility. [19] In addition, the Appellant submitted his son's birth certificate, which the RPD noted was missing national identity card numbers for both the mother and father of the child, as a blank space remained where this information was supposed to have been included.18 The RPD also had concerns about the Appellant's testimony that the birth certificate was only recently produced on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as his mother first had to obtain a court document to establish she had custody of the child, before she could register his birth. However, the RPD noted that the court document ("Guardianship Order") provided as post-hearing disclosure, post-dates the issuance of the birth certificate, and therefore undercut the credibility of the Appellant's testimony, and of the child's recently-issued birth certificate, rendering this document unreliable as evidence of identity. [20] The Appellant points out on appeal that the Guardianship Order states that it is legal confirmation of a prior decision by family elders to award custody of the Appellant's son to his mother, and therefore submits that there is no inconsistency as cited by the RPD. He claims that the decision of the elders may have been used to register his son's birth, and then the Guardianship Order was subsequently issued by the courts to formalize the decision of the elders. I have reviewed the Guardianship Order in detail,19 and it does affirm that family elders had previously awarded custody of the Appellant's XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, but there remains no evidence on the record to support the assertion made in the present appeal that the child's birth certificate was issued on the strength of any earlier decision by the elders. Although the Appellant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as the primary parent responsible for his son, it is reasonable to expect that the Appellant would know if that process - a decision made by the family elders - was used to formally award guardianship of his son to his mother. The Appellant's present explanation that the birth certificate was likely issued on the strength of a prior order or decision made by the elders, and the Guardianship Order is merely a solemnization of the elders' decision which is why it post-dates the birth certificate, is undermined by his prior testimony at the RPD that his mother needed to obtain a court document so that she could have the legal authority to register the birth. Therefore, I reject the Appellant's explanation on appeal, because it is not reasonable that he would have explained to the RPD that his mother needed a court document to register the birth, if in fact, she was able to register the birth on the strength of a decision made by the elders. If that were so, then there would be no reason to take the subsequent step of obtaining the court document or "Guardianship Order" subsequent to the registration of the birth. In sum, I find that the Appellant's explanation on appeal for this inconsistency is undermined by his previous testimony before the RPD about the need for, and timing of, the issuance of both the birth certificate and Guardianship Order. I find the Guardianship Order is not reliable evidence of the Appellant's identity, and also that his credibility is undermined by his evolving testimony with respect to the issuance of this document. [21] Appellant's Mother's Identity Document: The RPD found the copy of the identity document provided for the Appellant's mother does not establish his identity, as it relates to another person (not the Appellant) and there was no credible evidence to link the Appellant to the woman whose ID document was presented, given his baptismal certificate was found to be unreliable.20 The Appellant asserts on appeal that this item should have been given some weight in establishing his identity, as the Guardianship Order also serves to link the Appellant's name to the name of the woman whose ID document was presented. However, I am not prepared to find that the Guardianship Order provides such a link as it is not reliable due to the ongoing concerns with the process and purpose of its issuance, as outlined above. Therefore, I too find that the copy of the Appellant's mother's identity document does not establish his identity on a balance of probabilities, as there remains no credible or reliable evidence to link the Appellant appearing before the RPD, and now RAD, to the woman whose document is in evidence. [22] XXXX Asylum Documents: The RPD found the Appellant's XXXX asylum documents did not establish his identity, as they only established his identity as told by him to XXXX XXXX. The Appellant argues on appeal that the RPD should have afforded greater weight to the fact that his identity claim was consistent between the XXXX XXXX XXXX, as the absence of inconsistency "lends significant credibility" to his present identity claim.21 I do not agree. The XXXX asylum documents only reference the Appellant's identity as he presented himself to XXXX XXXX, and therefore do not establish, on a balance of probabilities, his personal or national identity. Further, the fact that the Appellant's stated identity remained consistent between XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX asylum claims is simply insufficient to overcome the numerous material identity and credibility concerns with respect to his other items of documentary evidence, as set out in the preceding paragraphs. Therefore, I cannot find that these documents establish the Appellant's identity on a balance of probabilities. [23] Letter from Eritrea: The Appellant submitted a letter from someone in Eritrea who writes that they were imprisoned together in Eritrea from 2014-2016, with what the RPD noted was a "poorly produced copy" of an Eritrean identity document.22 The RPD gave this letter minimal weight in establishing the Appellant's identity, as the letter is handwritten on plain paper, the person did not testify at the hearing, and ultimately is a short and undetailed letter the providence of which relies on the credibility of the Appellant's testimony, which was already significantly impugned by inconsistencies and evolving or unreasonable explanations as outlined above. I agree. The Appellant states in the present appeal that he was a generally credible witness, and therefore the RPD erred in discounting the letter due to the lack of credibility of the Appellant. However, this is not borne out by the record, and I agree with the RPD and find for the same reasons that the Appellant was not a credible witness. I therefore also give this letter minimal weight in establishing the Appellant's identity. [24] Witness testimony: The Appellant also had an identity witness, his XXXX XXXX XXXX, testify by writing a letter23 and by phone. The RPD gave the witness's statement and testimony minimal weight as, while there were areas of consistency between the witness's testimony and that of the Appellant, the witness and Appellant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in which time they knew that establishing identity would be a key element of the Appellant's RPD hearing, the witness admitted the Appellant's (problematic) documents were sent to him via Facebook to be printed, and also as the RPD found that the witness's testimony was not so detailed or personal that it could only have been established by experience in Eritrea.24 The Appellant argues the RPD erred factually in finding that the witness had a "role" in obtaining the unreliable or fraudulent documents submitted by the Appellant, as he only received the documents on Facebook because he had access to a printer, and also erred by applying the wrong standard of proof in stating that the testimony must be so detailed that it could only have been established by experience in Eritrea when the correct standard ought to have been whether the witness testimony established the events referenced on a balance of probabilities.25 [25] While I take the Appellant's point in how the RPD's statement reads about the standard of proof being too high and therefore is in error, upon my own independent review having listened to the witness's testimony and the Appellant's testimony, I find that the quality of the broad areas of consistency between the Appellant and his witness were not sufficiently detailed so as to establish his identity on a balance of probabilities, particularly in light of the material and not reasonably explained credibility concerns about the identity evidence provided, as set out above. Therefore, I cannot find this argument is determinative of the appeal. [26] Appellant's testimony about Eritrea and photo: Lastly, the RPD noted that the Appellant's testimony about his village and his life in Eritrea does not establish his identity on a balance of probabilities as there are many ways a person can gain such knowledge without necessarily being a national of that country, nor does the photo of the Appellant posing with other individuals in an indistinguishable locale serve as proof of his identity.26 The Appellant states that his testimony should have been afforded more weight given that he described his hometown, landmarks, etc., in a way that was broadly consistent with the witness, and also that he testified in the Tigrinya language. He does not challenge the findings with respect to the photo. I agree with the RPD in finding that the Appellant's testimony about his village and the surrounding villages, landmarks and the distance between his village and the capital, XXXX, even if consistent with the witness testimony, does not establish his personal or national identity on a balance of probabilities, as there are many ways such knowledge could be gained which do not require one to be a national of that country; moreover, it does not speak to his personal identity. [27] The RPD also rejected the Appellant's explanation for his lack of a passport or national identity card,27 which the Appellant states was in error, as a reasonable explanation for his inability to produce a national identity card or passport exists on the record, namely that to obtain such primary identity documents from outside of Eritrea one would have to pay the 2% tax retroactive to 1992 or risk family punishment, and that there may be safety concerns for those who have deserted national service as they would be required to admit to a "felony."28 I do not find this explanation persuasive, as the explanation refers to obtaining primary identity documents from outside Eritrea, whereas the RPD was referring to the Appellant's explanation that his national identity card was confiscated while he was in the national service as a reason for not being able to produce it,29 therefore this explanation would not apply. The explanation proffered by the Appellant is also inapplicable as the RPD could not have faulted the Appellant for subsequent failure to seek to obtain primary identity documents from the Eritrean government, as it would be incompatible to require the Appellant to approach Eritrean authorities in light of the fact that he has made an asylum claim against that country. Therefore, I do not find the Appellant's arguments persuasive, and I agree with the RPD that the Appellant has failed to prove his personal and national identity on a balance of probabilities. Does the new evidence submitted in this appeal establish the Appellant's identity on a balance of probabilities? [28] The Appellant has submitted photos of his XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Eritrea. He states that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and took these photos on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. However, as set out in these reasons, the Appellant has failed to provide a credible link between himself and the people he asserts are XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and that these individuals are those seen in the photos. Put simply, the photos show two individuals - a woman and a child appearing to be approximately the same age as the Appellant alleges his son is - were physically present in XXXX, Eritrea on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. It does not establish that these people are related to the Appellant, but more importantly, even if I were to accept that these people are the Appellant's XXXX XXXX XXXX, the photos of them being physically present in XXXX does not establish their Eritrean citizenship, nor does it go a step further to establish the Appellant's Eritrean citizenship or personal identity, on a balance of probabilities. Therefore, I cannot find that the new evidence establishes the Appellant's identity on a balance of probabilities. As identity is a threshold issue for all refugee claims in Canada, I need not go on to assess whether the Appellant faces a serious possibility of persecution or a risk to his life, or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger of torture in Eritrea. CONCLUSION [29] 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.30 (signed) L. Gamble L. Gamble July 27, 2020 Date 1 Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145, [2019] 2 FCR 597. 2 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, at subsection 110(4). 3 Raza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385, as endorsed in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96, [2016] 4 FCR 230. 4 Refugee Appeal Division Rules, SOR/2012-257, at rule 29. 5 Exhibit P-3, Rule 29 application, at p. 30, paras. 16-17. 6 Exhibit P-3, Rule 29 application, at p. 31, para. 18. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at p. 5, para. 9. 8 Exhibit P-3, Rule 29 application, at p. 33, para. 33. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at p. 6, paras. 12-13. 10 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 7, para. 20. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at p. 26. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, at p. 164. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at p. 7, para. 14. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at pp. 7-8, para. 15. 15 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 9, paras. 28-31. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at p. 8, para. 18. 17 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 11, paras. 39-41. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, at p. 171. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p.178. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at p. 8, para. 17. 21 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 12, para. 50. 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at pp. 9-10, para. 21. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, at p. 144. 24 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at pp. 10-11, paras. 22-25. 25 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 13-14. 26 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at p. 11, para. 26. See photo at Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 10, at p. 173. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at p. 11, para. 26. 28 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 16, para. 67 29 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, Amended Basis of Claim Narrative, at p. 16, para. 15. 30 Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-08853 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