MC2-07276

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MC2-07276 MC2-07277 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Date of decision October 3, 2022 Date de la décision Panel Susan Brown Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Alain Vallières Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] The Appellants XXXX XXXX XXXX (Principal Appellant) and his spouse XXXX XXXX are citizens of India who fear the police who allege that they support militants. [2] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found that the Appellants did not credibly establish their claim. The Appellants submit that the RPD erred in its credibility finding. [3] The Appellants submit updated documents previously presented to the RPD as new evidence under section 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and seek a hearing under section 110(6). I have not accepted the new evidence and deny the request for a hearing. [4] Following my own review, I find that the RPD did not err in its negative credibility finding. DECISION [5] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. BACKGROUND [6] According to their Basis of Claim (BOC) forms1 the Appellants were born in 1983 and 1985 and are Hindus from Moga, Punjab. The Principal Appellant worked in a family business as a XXXX XXXX for XXXX and XXXX and the female Appellant had a XXXX XXXX. The female Appellant's parents owned a XXXX business, and her brother would bring the Principal Appellant's XXXX and XXXX by truck. [7] In XXXX 2016 the police arrested the Appellants' brother/brother-in-law because they suspected him of working for the militants. He was released following the efforts of influential people and the payment of a bribe. The police continued to harass and question the brother/brother-in-law about the militants and arrested him again in XXXX 2017 following a bomb blast in XXXX XXXX. He was again released with the efforts of influential people and the payment of a bribe on the condition that he report to the police station every month. Fed up the brother/brother-in-law left home in XXXX 2017 and has not been seen or heard from since. [8] The police said that the brother/brother-in-law joined up with the militants and increased pressure on the Appellants' father/father-in-law who went into hiding with his wife. The police told the Appellants to produce their parents/in-laws. On XXXX XXXX, 2017, the police raided the home of the Appellants, arrested the Principal Appellant and accused him of working for the militants and of transporting drugs and explosive materials through his business. The police questioned the Principal Appellant about his brother-in-law, drug gangs and militants and tortured him. He was released on XXXX XXXX, 2017, with the help of influential people and the payment of a bribe and he sought medical attention. The Principal Appellant felt that the police made him their main target and decided to leave India with the help of an agent. [9] On XXXX XXXX, 2018, the police raided the Appellants' home again and arrested the female Appellant because the Principal Appellant was not there. She was beaten, maltreated and questioned about her brother. The female Appellant was released when the Principal Appellant went to the police station on XXXX XXXX, 2018. He was kept until XXXX XXXX, 2018, tortured and questioned about his brother-in-law and the militants. The Principal Appellant was released with the help of influential people and the payment of a bribe on the condition that he attend at the police station every month starting XXXX XXXX, 2018. The Appellants both sought medical attention. [10] The Appellants put pressure on their agent and went to Delhi where they stayed until departing for Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2018, leaving their son in India. While in Canada they found out that their father/father-in-law was arrested, tortured and succumbed to his injuries in XXXX 2018. [11] The Appellants were originally granted entry to Canada for two weeks and applied for an extension which was denied. Their claim for refugee protection was received on November 6, 2018. NEW EVIDENCE The new evidence presented by the Appellants is not accepted [12] The Appellants' claim was heard on March 14, 2022, and the RPD gave its decision on March 30, 2022. The Appellants presented new evidence with the perfection of their appeal on June 9, 2022, to update three medical reports2 and a lawyer's letter3 which were presented to the RPD missing stamps and signatures. [13] Section 110(4) of the IRPA provides that an appellant may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or that was not reasonably available, or that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. In Singh,4 the Federal Court of Appeal dictates a narrow interpretation of section 110(4): the conditions set out therein must be met, and there is no room for discretion on the part of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). If the section 110(4) threshold is met, then the new evidence must also meet jurisprudential requirements of credibility, relevance and newness.5 [14] The Appellants list the following documents in their written statement6 and attach the stamped and signed documents in their record: 1) Letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX dated, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX2021;7 2) Attestation from XXXX Hospital dated XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX2021;8 3) Attestation from XXXX XXXX Hospital dated XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX2021;9 4) Attestation from XXXX Nurshing Home dated XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX2021.10 [15] The RAD Rules11 state that the Appellants' memorandum must include full and detailed submissions regarding how any new evidence meets the requirements of section 110(4) and how that evidence relates to the Appellants. [16] The Appellants make the following submissions about the new evidence:12 Those documents ARE NOT new and were not issued after the hearing of the refugee protection division. Unfortunately, copies of those documents were produced without stamps and signature. This was a technical problem. The applicants are producing the documents with the stamps and signature. Here is the explanation of the situation... The documents were transmitted by e-mail and included signature and stamps. Unfortunately, when printed, the signature did not appear on the document. The applicants did not know the stamps and signature were missing since he transmitted himself the documents to the lawyer acting in this file by e-mail and was printed by this person. The applicants could not explain why the stamps and signature were not on the printed documents while they could see them on their screens. That is why they could not give a satisfactory explanation to the board. lt is the office of the actual lawyer who could print the documents properly with stamps and signature. lt was necessary to indicate to the printer that the document had to be printed with "comments". [17] The new evidence pre-dates the RPD decision and the Appellants' submissions do not explain how the new evidence meets the requirements of section 110(4), specifically, why it was not presented to the RPD prior to the rejection of the claim. The Appellants and their counsel were fully aware of the issues with the stamps and signatures missing from the documents at the RPD hearing on March 14, 2022, and should have been immediately aware of the "technical issue" on examination of the emails. No explanation is offered as to why the documents with the stamps and signatures were not immediately presented to the RPD as two weeks passed before the decision was signed. I find that the new evidence is not admissible because it does not meet the section 110(4) threshold. [18] I also note there are credibility issues on the face of the new evidence documents. First, there is a material typographical error in new evidence document 4 the letterhead of "XXXX Nurshing Home". Second, there was no colour in the original letter from the XXXX Nurshing Home while a number of the headings in the new evidence document 4 are red. Third, there are watermarks in the original letters presented from the XXXX and XXXX hospitals which are not present in the new evidence documents 2 and 3. Fourth, the letterheads of both the originally presented and new documents 2,3 and 4 are very similar. The addresses are brief, there no postal codes, no email addresses or websites, no crests and only document 2 lists a complete telephone number. This is in stark contrast to the detail in the letterhead of the XXXX XXXX XXXX Nursing Home13 which was signed and stamped when it was presented to the RPD. Fifth, the patient information is presented in an identical manner in each of the originally presented and new documents 2, 3 and 4, again in stark contrast to the letter from the XXXX XXXX XXXX Nursing Home. ORAL HEARING AT THE RAD [19] The Appellants request that the RAD hold a hearing. Section 110(6) of the IRPA says the RAD may only hold a hearing if there is new evidence that (a) raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellants, (b) is central to the RPD's decision, and (c) if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. Since I have not accepted the new evidence, the hearing request is denied. STANDARD OF REVIEW [20] The RAD reviews decisions of the RPD on a standard of correctness after conducting an independent assessment of the evidence before it. The exception to this rule is where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in assessing and weighing the oral testimony heard, which in particular cases attracts deference.14 Unless specifically stated below, I have applied the correctness standard. ANALYSIS [21] The RPD identified the determinative issue as credibility and found material omissions, contradictions and inconsistencies in the Appellants' evidence and that they delayed for three months in claiming refugee protection following their loss of status. The Appellants argue that the RPD erred in all its negative credibility findings. Analysis of credibility in refugee claims [22] The process of determining whether a claimant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under the IRPA requires the RPD to decide whether they believe the claimant's evidence and how much weight to give that evidence. In determining this the RPD must assess the credibility of the claimant and the documentary evidence.15 The law "imposes a duty upon RPD members to assess the credibility of refugee claimants."16 [23] The Federal Court17 has laid out the relevant principles in analyzing credibility in the context of refugee claims: * Refugee applicants are presumed to tell the truth, but this is a presumption rebuttable by the applicant's lack of credibility, e.g. where the evidence is inconsistent with sworn testimony or where the applicant's explanation for the inconsistencies is not satisfactory; * Even though they may be insufficient when taken individually or in isolation, the accumulation of contradictions, inconsistencies and omissions regarding crucial elements of a refugee claim can support a negative conclusion about an applicant's credibility; * A negative credibility finding cannot be based on minor contradictions that are secondary or peripheral to the refugee protection claim; * A lack of credibility concerning central elements of a refugee protection claim can extend and trickle down to other elements of the claim and be generalized to all of the documentary evidence presented to corroborate a version of the facts; * Credibility findings should not be made based strictly on the absence of corroborative evidence. Where corroborative evidence should reasonably be available to establish an essential element of a claim and there is no reasonable explanation for its absence, a decision maker can draw a negative inference of credibility based on the claimant's lack of effort to obtain such corroborative evidence; and * Conclusions can be drawn concerning an applicant's credibility based on implausibilities, common sense and rationality. [24] I have reviewed the evidence on the record, including the three recordings of the hearing on March 14, 2022, and the Appellants' arguments. As detailed below I find that the accumulation of contradictions, inconsistencies and omissions regarding crucial elements of the Appellants' claim support a negative credibility conclusion. Credibility issues [25] The RPD found inconsistencies, contradictions and omissions in the Appellants' evidence about: the arrest of the Appellants' father/father-in-law in XXXX 2017; the Principal Appellant's arrest in XXXX 2017; the lawyer's letter and three medical reports presented; and the lack of details provided about the terrorists with whom the police accuse the Appellants of having links. Arrest of Appellants' father/father-in-law in XXXX 2017 [26] The Principal Appellant testified that during the first week of XXXX 2017 his father-in-law was arrested at his home, harassed and tortured for one day after which his father and mother-in-law went into hiding.18 [27] The Appellants' BOC narrative does not reference the XXXX 2017 arrest of the Appellants' father/father-in-law.19 When the RPD asked the Principal Appellant to explain the omission, he said that the arrest was mentioned in his mother-in-law's affidavit.20 Then he said that the police took his father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law in the morning and released them in the evening.21 Then he said that he tried to mention everything and at that time he was "in a lot of depression because we had already lost my father-in-law and we could not really understand anything."22 [28] The RPD found the omission in the BOC narrative undermined the credibility of the Principal Appellant's testimony that he started fearing for his life from the month of XXXX 201723 after the arrest, detention and torture of his father-in-law. The RPD rejected the Principal Appellant's explanation for the omission citing two reasons. First, the Appellants were represented by a counsel and had enough time to review and correct their narrative, if necessary. Second, the Appellants were asked at the start of the hearing if their BOC narrative was complete, true and correct and they both answered that it was. [29] The RPD found, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellants failed to establish the arrest, detention and torture of their father/father-in-law in XXXX 2017 occurred or that his arrest made the Appellants fear for their lives to the extent that they decided to leave India due to police atrocities. [30] The Appellants argue that the RPD's finding is not reasonable as it does not rely on the documents they presented, specifically the affidavit of their mother/mother-in-law24 at paragraph 4 and evidence that their father/father-in-law was subsequently killed in the form of a death certificate25 and post-mortem report.26 [31] I have reviewed the mother/mother-in-law's affidavit and note that there is no reference to the arrest of her husband in XXXX 2017 in paragraph 4 or at all. Paragraph 6 says, "[t]hat even the police took me and my husband to the police station we were harassed and tortured by them." There is no reference to the dates they were taken to the police station or that she and her husband went into hiding. As detailed above, the Principal Appellant's testimony was inconsistent. At first he said that only his father in law was arrested in XXXX 2017 and later he testified that the police took his father, mother and sister-in-law. I find that the mother/mother-in-law's affidavit does not credibly support the Principal Appellant's testimony that his father-in-law was arrested during the first week of XXXX 2017 nor does the evidence of the father-in-law's death on XXXX XXXX, 2018. [32] The Appellants also argue that even if the RPD "was right, which is denied, the fact that the father-in-law was arrested or not is not the source of the danger for the applicants...the danger comes from the brother-in-law not the father-in-law. This important mistake is relative to the base of the application and is not reasonable nor acceptable."27 [33] I disagree with the Appellant's argument and find that the issue is not where the danger comes from but that there are contradictions, inconsistencies and omissions in the Appellants' evidence about the alleged XXXX 2017 arrest of his father-in-law which properly resulted in a negative credibility finding by the RPD. Principal Appellant's arrest on XXXX XXXX, 2017 [34] The Principal Appellant testified that after his in-laws went into hiding during the first week of XXXX he was arrested by the police on XXXX XXXX, 2017. The Principal Appellant testified that the police asked him to bring his in-laws forward, said that the in-laws were hiding with the Appellants and falsely accused him of bringing in drugs, arms and explosives through his business.28 [35] When the RPD asked the Principal Appellant why he had not referenced the XXXX XXXX, 2017, arrest in his Schedule 12 immigration form but only referenced his arrest in XXXX 201829 he responded that he wrote this "because it was last tragedy that happened to us and that it what we mentioned."30 The RPD did not find the explanation reasonable as the Appellants were represented by counsel when they completed the immigration form and declared that the information given was truthful, complete and correct. The RPD found that the Principal Appellant failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he was detained and arrested in XXXX 2017. [36] The Appellants submit that "[i]t is interesting to consider that for this specific point the board member did not use the narrative but an annex. The civil servant could not use the narrative because it is referred to this event...Therefore, the panel could not conclude that this event did not occur."31 [37] I find that the Appellants' credibility can be properly questioned where there is evidence about a material allegation which is inconsistent with sworn testimony or where the Appellants' explanation for the inconsistency is not satisfactory. I agree with the RPD that there is an inconsistency on the face of the evidence about a foundational allegation, one of two alleged arrests of the Principal Appellant, and he did not give a satisfactory explanation for the omission. [38] Even though insufficient when taken individually or in isolation, this negative credibility finding adds to the accumulation of contradictions, inconsistencies and omissions regarding crucial elements of the Appellants' claim to support a negative conclusion about their credibility. Unsigned and unstamped documentary evidence [39] The Appellants' evidence was that they were arrested, detained and beaten by the police in XXXX 2018, and both went for treatment at hospital after their release from the police. The RPD asked the Appellants to explain why the medical reports submitted with respect to their medical treatment32 had not been signed and stamped whereas a medical report from the XXXX XXXX XXXX Nursing Home with regards to the XXXX condition of their son33 had been duly signed and stamped. The RPD also asked the female Appellant to explain an error in her medical report where in the letter header the name of the hospital had wrongly been written as "nurshing" rather than "nursing". The Principal Appellant testified that he was in a XXXX at the time and the female Appellant said they submitted the documents "the way they made it for us is the way we gave it to you."34 The RPD found that the Appellants did not respond to the questions. [40] Due to the absence of the stamps and signatures, the error in the letterhead and objective evidence about the prevalence of fraudulent documents in India,35 the RPD did "not afford any weight to these documents".36 The RPD also drew a negative inference with respect to the Appellants' credibility as to their alleged arrests, detention and beating by the police in XXXX 2018. [41] The Appellants' submissions about this issue are detailed above in paragraph 16. For the reasons outlined above, I have found that the signed and stamped documents are not admissible as new evidence and that there are numerous credibility issues on their face. I find that the RPD did not err in assigning little evidentiary weight to the documents which supports a negative credibility finding. Lack of detail about terrorists [42] The Principal Appellant testified that the police accused his brother-in-law of working with terrorists, when the RPD asked for further details the Principal Appellant said:37 RPD Principal Appellant What do you mean by terrorists sir? Punjab terrorists? No actually he was coming from Jammu and Kashmir and there there are terrorist activities that take place... Kashmir terrorists? We do not know it is not sure but it is not Punjabi. [43] When the RPD asked the Principal Appellant why the police would want to find them in other locations in India, he testified that the police are connecting them to the terrorists and they don't know what is in the mind of the police.38 [44] Taking into account the Appellants' profiles, the RPD found their testimony with regards to the alleged police accusations of terrorist links was lacking in the knowledge or detail that would be reasonably expected from someone with their education and business experience.39 [45] The Appellants submit that since the RPD wrote in paragraph 6 of its decision that the Principal Appellant testified that "his brother-in-law had been accused by the police of helping Kashmir terrorists"40 he did identify the terrorists he was linked to. The Appellants continue their argument that if the Principal Appellant "understood that he had to give names, naturally, he could not answer the question."41 [46] I agree with the RPD that the testimony of the Principal Appellant about the terrorists was lacking in detail. I find that the Appellants did not clearly identify who the terrorists are that they are allegedly being persecuted for their links to which detracts from the credibility of their allegations. Delay [47] The Appellants arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2018, and were authorized to stay for fifteen days. Following the expiry of the fifteen days, they applied for an extension which was refused on XXXX XXXX, 2018. The Appellants were then without status for nearly XXXX months before they made a claim for refugee protection on October 22, 2018. [48] When the RPD asked the Appellants why they had not applied for asylum protection upon arrival or at least after the refusal of their application for an extension, they said that it was the first time they had come to Canada and they did not have any knowledge of this. They said that they did not consult with an immigration consultant and that they were advised to apply for a visa extension by friends and acquaintances. They made their application for a visa extension on XXXX XXXX, 2018. When the RPD asked why they did not make an asylum claim after their visa extension was denied the Principal Appellant testified they were severely affected by the death of their father/father-in-law on XXXX XXXX, 2018, and they could not understand and were nervous. In October they came to know that they could make a refugee claim.42 [49] The RPD found that the Appellants' explanation for the delay was not reasonable as they had demonstrated enough knowledge to apply for an extension to stay in Canada. Moreover, by staying illegally in Canada for three months, the Appellants had voluntarily taken the risk to be arrested and removed back to India. The RPD determined that the delay in claiming without a reasonable explanation and the illegal stay in Canada for a period of three months was indicative of a lack of subjective fear and undermined the Appellants' general credibility. [50] The Federal Court has identified some of the governing principles concerning delay in seeking refugee protection as follows:43 a) Delay in seeking refugee protection is not determinative of the claim; rather, it is a factor the decision-maker may take into account in assessing the claim's credibility.44 b) In particular, delay can indicate a lack of fear of persecution in the country of reference on the part of the claimant.45 Put another way, delay can be probative of the credibility of the claimant's assertion that he or she fears persecution in the country of reference.46 c) Whether there has been a delay and, if so, its length must be determined with regard to the time of inception of the claimant's fear as determined by the claimant's personal narrative. d) The governing question is: Did the claimant act in a way that is consistent with the fear of persecution he or she claims to have? e) Delay in seeking protection can be inconsistent with subjective fear because generally one expects a genuinely fearful claimant to seek protection at the first opportunity.47 [51] The Appellants reference another decision which says:48 ...to assess the significance of delay in claiming refugee protection, three key factual questions must be answered. First, according to the claimant, when did their subjective fear of persecution crystalize? Second, when did the claimant first have an opportunity to make a refugee claim? And third, why, according to the claimant, did they not take up that opportunity? It is only unexplained delay after the fear has crystalized and after it was possible to seek protection that can reasonably support an inference that the claim of subjective fear should not be believed because of the delay in seeking protection. [52] The Appellants argue that their delay of about XXXX months "is not a long one and considering the quantity of proof and the quality of it, the risk and danger were proved and this delay by itself was not proof of an absence of danger or fear."49 As detailed above I disagree with the Appellants that their evidence credibly established the risk and danger. [53] I agree with the RPD that by delaying their refugee claims for XXXX months, after losing their status and risking removal, the Appellants did not act in a manner consistent with their alleged fear of persecution. This finding is not determinative of the Appellants' claim but supports the negative credibility finding. CONCLUSION [54] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. (signed) "Susan Brown" Susan Brown October 3, 2022 Date 1 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 15-40, Exhibits 2.1 and 2.2. 2 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 143-145, Exhibit 4. 3 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 154-155, Exhibit 4. 4 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96. 5 Ibid., and Raza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385. 6 P-2, Appellants' Record, page 11, question 3.1. 7 P-2, Appellants' Record, pages 14 and 15. 8 P-2, Appellants' Record, page 16. 9 P-2, Appellants' Record, page 17. 10 P-2, Appellants' Record, page 18. 11 Refugee Appeal Division Rules, SOR/2012-257 (RAD Rules), Rules (3)(e) and 3(g)(iii). 12 P-2, Appellants' Record, page 11, Appellants' Memorandum, paragraph 4(a). 13 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 146, Exhibit 4. 14 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93 (CanLII). 15 Legal Services, Immigration and Refugee Board, Assessment of Credibility in Claims for Refugee Protection, December 2020, Foreword. 16 I.P.P. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 123 (CanLII), para. 129. 17 Lawani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 924 (CanLII), paras. 21-26. 18 RAD-1, First recording of RPD hearing on March 14, 2022, 0:36:20-0:40:00. 19 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 26, Exhibit 2.1, BOC narrative. 20 RAD-1, Second recording of RPD hearing on March 14, 2022, 0:44:25-0:45:05. 21 RAD-1, Second recording of RPD hearing on March 14, 2022, 0:45:22-0:46:20. 22 RAD-1, Second recording of RPD hearing on March 14, 2022, 0:47:45-0:49:30. 23 RAD-1, First recording of RPD hearing on March 14, 2022, 0:26:00-0:26:30. 24 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 127 and 128, Exhibit 4. 25 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 153, Exhibit 4. 26 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 148-152, Exhibit 4. 27 P-2, Appellants' Record, page 48, Appellants' Memorandum. 28 RAD-1, First recording of RPD hearing on March 14, 2022, 0:39:30-0:42:30. 29 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 88, Exhibit 1, Schedule 12, question 8. 30 RAD-1, Second recording of RPD hearing on March 14, 2022, 0:49:30-0:51:15. 31 P-2, Appellants' Record, page 49, Appellants' Memorandum 32 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 143-145, Exhibit 4. 33 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 146, Exhibit 4. 34 RAD-1, Second recording of RPD hearing on March 14, 2022, 0:52:23-0:55:10. 35 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, India, 30 June 2021, tab 3.5: Availability and prevalence of fraudulent identity documents, including membership cards of political parties (2011-April 2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 5 May 2014. IND104839. E. 36 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 6, RPD Reasons, paragraph 9. 37 RAD-1, First recording of RPD hearing on March 14, 2022, 0:28:10-0:29:15. 38 RAD-1, Second recording of RPD hearing on March 14, 2022, 1:01:20-1:01:50. 39 RPD-1. RPD Record, pages 85 and 91, Exhibit 1, Schedule A, questions 7 and 8. 40 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 5, RPD Reasons, paragraph 6. 41 P-2, Appellants' Record, page 51, Appellants' Memorandum. 42 RAD-1, Second recording of RPD hearing on March 14, 2022, 0:31:55-0:38:52. 43 Chen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 334 (CanLII), para. 24. 44 Calderon Garcia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 412 (CanLII) at paras. 19-20. 45 Huerta v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration), [1993] FCJ No 271 (FCA), 157 NR 225. 46 Kostrzewa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1449 (CanLII) at para. 27. 47 Osorio Mejia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 851 (CanLII) at paras. 14-15. 48 Zeah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 711 (CanLII) at para 62. 49 P-2, Appellants' Record, page 51, Appellants' Memorandum --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MC2-07276 MC2-07277 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