TB6-16817

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 File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-16817 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision April 5, 2017 Date de la décision Panel M. Pettinella Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Cari Gombinsky Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant) appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying her claim for refugee protection. The Appellant has submitted new evidence in support of her appeal however does not request an oral hearing. She asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to set aside the negative determination of the RPD and find her to be a Convention refugee in need of protection. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. This appeal is dismissed. Background [3] The Appellant alleged before the RPD that, upon return to Jamaica, she will be persecuted by police because she suffers from a mental disorder and was the subject of a police investigation. She also alleged a fear of harm by individuals who used her identity in the commission of a crime. The claim for refugee protection was heard on September 27, 2016. By a decision dated November 2, 2016, the RPD rejected the claim finding that the Appellant had failed to establish an objective basis for her fear and had failed to rebut the presumption of state protection. [4] On appeal, the Appellant submits that the RPD failed to properly assess her as a member of a particular social group. She further submits that the RPD failed to properly consider her mental condition and the effect it may have had on her ability to testify. The Appellant also submits that the RPD failed to consider her supporting evidence in its state protection analysis. ANALYSIS Role of the RAD [5] While the Appellant makes no argument with respect to this issue, the RAD notes that the Federal Court of Appeal, in Huruglica, indicated that the role of the RAD is to intervene when the RPD is wrong in law, in fact or in fact and law; and this translates into an application of the correctness standard of review. 1 The Court held that, with respect to findings of fact (and mixed fact and law), which raises no issue of credibility of oral evidence, the RAD is to review RPD decisions applying the correctness standard. It went on to indicate that after carefully considering the RPD decision, the RAD is to carry out its own analysis of the record to determine whether the RPD erred. The Court also stated that having done the above, the RAD is to provide a final determination, either by confirming the RPD decision or setting it aside and substituting its own determination of the merits of the refugee claim. It is only when the RAD is of the opinion that it cannot provide such a final determination without hearing the oral evidence presented to the RPD that the matter can be referred back to the RPD for redetermination.2 [6] Considering the recent jurisprudence, the RAD will conduct its own analysis of the record to determine whether, as submitted by the Appellant, the RPD erred. Where no issue of credibility of oral evidence was raised, the RAD will apply a standard of correctness when assessing the RPD findings of fact or of mixed fact and law. Where the credibility of oral evidence was raised, the RAD will defer to certain findings of the RPD where the RPD enjoyed an advantage over the RAD in assessing the oral evidence of witnesses who appeared before it. The extent of this deference will be assessed on a case-by-case basis dependent upon the particular circumstances of the matter and in conjunction with the RAD's own analysis of the record as a whole. In addition, the standard of correctness will be used for any error of law including a breach of natural justice or procedural fairness found in the RPD decision on appeal to the RAD. Admissibility of evidence submitted on appeal [7] Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA provides that the Appellant may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of her claim or that was not reasonably available or that she could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. It is for the Appellant to make full and detailed submissions in her Memorandum of Argument about how any proposed new evidence meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) and how that evidence relates to her.3 [8] Where a document meets the test in subsection 110(4), the RAD will conduct a further assessment of that evidence. In Singh,4 the Federal Court of Appeal held that there is no valid reason the RAD cannot apply the criteria set out in Raza5 to the assessment of new evidence. While Raza predates the introduction of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, it is based on nearly identical wording of subsection 113(a). In Raza, the Federal Court of Appeal held that new evidence should be considered for its credibility, relevance, newness, and materiality, in addition to any express statutory provisions.6 In Singh, the Court found that three of the criteria from Raza are necessarily implied in the wording of subsection 110(4).7 The Court also found materiality to be redundant, as it is also found in subsection 110(6) of the IRPA, which describes when the RAD may hold an oral hearing.8 [9] For these reasons, the RAD will apply the following factors to consider the Appellant's proposed new evidence. It will first consider whether the evidence passes the test in subsection 110(4). If not, the RAD has no discretion to admit the evidence. If the evidence meets the requirements of subsection 110(4), the RAD will apply the criteria set out in Raza to the assessment of that new evidence. [10] The Appellant tendered the following documents as proposed new evidence in support of her appeal. (a) Letter from the Centre for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX) dated XXXX XXXX, 2016;9 (b) Letter dated XXXX XXXX, 2016 authorizing XXXX XXXX to obtain a copy of a police report; 10 (c) Letter from Dr. XXXX XXXX dated XXXX XXXX, 2017; 11 (d) Correspondence regarding legal aid dated XXXX XXXX, 2015; 12 (e) Correspondence regarding legal aid dated XXXX XXXX, 2016; 13 (f) Correspondence regarding legal aid dated XXXX XXXX, 2016; 14 and (g) Correspondence with police in Jamaica.15 [11] It is important to note that the Appellant fails to make full and detailed submissions in her Memorandum of Argument about how her proposed new evidence meets the requirements of subsection 110(4). Nonetheless, the RAD has reviewed the documents proposed as new evidence. [12] Item (a) is a letter from XXXX regarding the Appellant's psychiatric condition and treatment. Although the letter describes treatment the Appellant received at the facility prior to the rejection of her claim, it also contains information about treatment she received following the rejection of her claim. Since item (a) contains information that arose after the rejection of the Appellant's claim, it meets the requirements of subsection 110(4). [13] A letter from the Appellant authorizing an individual named XXXX XXXX to obtain a copy of a police report has been identified as item (b). The RAD notes that the police report the Appellant is requesting is from 2014. Nonetheless, the letter authorizing XXXX XXXX to obtain a police report is dated after the rejection of the Appellant's claim therefore it arose after the rejection and meets the requirements of subsection 110(4). It is unclear however how this evidence relates to the Appellant or factors in her appeal. [14] Item (c) is a letter from Dr. XXXX XXXX describing the Appellant's psychiatric history. It contains information regarding the Appellant's condition and treatment as at XXXX XXXX, 2017, which is an update to his letter dated XXXX XXXX, 2016 contained in the RPD record.16 Item (c) meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) since it contains information that arose after the rejection of the Appellant's claim. [15] Correspondence regarding the Appellant's applications for legal aid is contained in items (d), (e), and (f). Although some of the communication is dated following the rejection of the Appellant's claim, all of the correspondence is regarding information that predates the rejection. For example, on December 9, 2016, the Appellant asks XXXX XXXX for the date she submitted her documents to Legal Aid Toronto and XXXX XXXX replies that the date was November 6, 2015.17 The Appellant has failed to establish that it is evidence that arose after the rejection of her claim or that it was not reasonably available or that she could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented at the time of the rejection. The RAD finds that items (d), (e), and (f) do not meet the requirements of subsection 110(4). They will not be accepted as new evidence in this appeal. [16] Item (g) is correspondence with police in Jamaica. All of the communication is dated in 2017. Therefore, it arose after the rejection of the Appellant's claim and meets the requirements of subsection 110(4). [17] The RAD's further assessment of the new evidence that meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) - items (a), (c), and (g) - is found in the analysis below. Since it is unclear how item (b) relates to the Appellant or factors in her appeal, it is not addressed any further. MERITS OF THE APPEAL Objective basis [18] The RPD found that the Appellant had failed to establish an objective basis for her fear. Although the Appellant alleged she feared police in Jamaica and the individuals who fraudulently used her name, the RPD noted that police had informed the Appellant that their investigation was concluded in the fraud case and the persons involved in the criminal activities had been brought to justice; consequently, police no longer had any interest in the Appellant. The RPD found that the Appellant failed to establish that her fear is well-founded. [19] After a review of the record, the RAD finds that, notwithstanding the findings of the RPD on the issue of the well-foundedness of the Appellant's fear of persecution, and allegations of errors in those findings by the Appellant, there is sufficient evidence before the RAD to support the RPD's findings on the determinative issue of state protection. Because the RAD is able to fairly dispose of this appeal by making a decision on state protection, it is unnecessary to address the other issues raised by the Appellant that are not related to state protection. State protection [20] The RPD noted that the Appellant had been accused of the offence of obtaining money by false pretences. It also noted that, following an investigation by police, it was determined that the Appellant did not commit the offence but was the victim of identity fraud. The RPD noted correspondence between police and the Appellant's legal representatives in Jamaica and found that the Appellant had taken advantage of mechanisms available to her in dealing with the legal issues she had in Jamaica; and the mechanisms had not failed her. The RPD also found that the evidence in this case is sufficient to establish that the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) was no longer interested in the Appellant at the time that she last left Jamaica for Canada. [21] While the RPD agreed that there might be a reason for the Appellant to be concerned that she may be contacted again by the JCF, there was no reliable evidence relating to the Appellant's personal circumstances to persuade it that she would not be treated fairly by the JCF or that she would not receive a fair trial if she were ever charged for the offence of fraud. The RPD noted that the police clearance report showed that there is no charge pending against the Appellant. The RPD found that the Appellant had failed to establish that adequate state protection relevant to her personal circumstances would not be reasonably forthcoming to her at the operational level should she return to Jamaica. [22] The RPD noted the Appellant's psychological condition according to the reports and letters she provided, including letters from her physician in Jamaica who had prescribed medication for her condition. The RPD found that this demonstrated that the Appellant is able to access psychological treatment in Jamaica. [23] On appeal, the Appellant submits that the RPD did not assess whether she belongs to a particular social group, namely women with mental health issues living in Jamaica and women falsely accused of a crime, as per Chairperson Guidelines 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution (Gender Guidelines). She maintains that, based on the research, while some mental health services are offered in Jamaica, they proved to be insufficient. She also maintains that having been accused of a crime that she did not commit had an impact on her mental health, her business and her career. [24] The Appellant also submits that the RPD failed to properly consider her mental condition and the effect it may have had on her ability to testify. She maintains that the RPD did not assess if she is a vulnerable person as per Chairperson Guideline 8: Procedures With Respect to Vulnerable Persons Appearing Before the IRB (Guideline on Vulnerable Persons). With respect to delay in claiming, the Appellant points out that her legal aid documents demonstrate that she attempted to make a claim for refugee protection months before she actually filed a claim but this fact escaped her at her hearing. [25] With respect to the RPD analysis of state protection, the Appellant submits that the RPD failed to consider her supporting evidence. She maintains that she is in a position of uncertainty in relation to a police investigation; she had not received confirmation that the case is closed and that she is not of interest to the police at this point or in the future. She points to evidence indicating that there were incidents of excessive use of force by the police and extrajudicial executions in Jamaica; Jamaica having one of the highest homicide rates per capita in the world; major backlogs in the judiciary leading to delays and hampering access to justice; and high levels of gender-based violence. She submits that the RPD overlooked such country condition information and also downplayed the issue of corruption among officials in Jamaica. [26] The Appellant also submits that the RPD did not assess the treatment of people with mental health conditions by the populace in Jamaica. She maintains that she was mistreated by people in the community due to the fact that she has some mental health issues. She submits that the mistreatment and discrimination she experienced amounts to persecution and therefore international protection is warranted. [27] Following a review of the evidence in the record, including the recording of the Appellant's hearing, the RAD finds that the RPD did not err in its consideration of the Chairperson's Guidelines, or in its consideration of the psychological evidence, or in its state protection analysis. In this analysis, the RAD has also considered the new evidence accepted on appeal. The RAD has conducted its own analysis of the record to determine whether the RPD erred. Gender Guidelines [28] While the Appellant alleges that the RPD failed to adequately consider the Gender Guidelines and her psychological wellbeing in the assessment of her claim, the RAD notes that the RPD indicated that it had taken into consideration the Gender Guidelines in conducting the hearing and in making a determination. The RPD explained that it had questioned the Appellant with sensitivity to her gender and mental wellbeing. It also explained that it took into consideration relevant factors such as the Appellant's cultural and social background and offered breaks at times when the Appellant had become emotional while testifying. The Gender Guidelines exist to ensure that gender-based claims are heard with sensitivity.18 The Appellant has not demonstrated that the RPD failed to hear her claim with sensitivity. Furthermore, the RPD considered the Appellant's ability to access treatment for her psychological condition if she were to return to Jamaica. This is discussed further below. Guideline on Vulnerable Persons [29] As noted above, the Appellant maintains that the RPD did not assess if she is a vulnerable person as per the Guideline on Vulnerable Persons. The RAD notes that the Guideline on Vulnerable Persons 19 defines vulnerable persons as individuals whose ability to present their cases before the IRB is severely impaired. Wherever reasonably possible, a claim of vulnerability must be supported by independent credible evidence. Counsel for a person who might be vulnerable is expected to bring this issue to the attention of the IRB as soon as possible. The intention of the Guideline on Vulnerable Persons is to provide procedural accommodation(s) for individuals who are identified as vulnerable persons by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB). [30] There is no indication that the Appellant's then counsel brought the issue of vulnerability to the attention of the RPD. Having reviewed the evidence, the RAD finds that the RPD was not wrong to proceed as it did, noting the Appellant's evidence regarding her psychological condition. The RPD indicated that it had questioned the Appellant with sensitivity to her mental wellbeing and had offered her breaks when she became emotional while giving evidence. The RPD offered procedural accommodations and there is no indication that the Appellant or her then counsel requested further accommodations. The Appellant has not demonstrated that the RPD failed to provide her with procedural accommodations. [31] Furthermore, there is no indication that the Appellant had difficulty providing consistent and coherent testimony at her hearing. Therefore, there would be no reason for the RPD to suspect a vulnerability beyond what it has assessed and addressed. Also, her delay in claiming was not an important factor in her case, therefore the fact that she forgot to tell the RPD that she had contacted legal aid and had attempted to claim refugee protection earlier than she had testified she had is insignificant. Country documentation [32] The RAD acknowledges country documentation on Jamaica indicating that there were incidents of excessive use of force by the police and extrajudicial executions, the country is reported to have one of the highest homicide rates per capita in the world, there were major backlogs in the judiciary leading to delays and hampering access to justice, and there were high levels of gender-based violence.20 The United States Department of State indicated in its annual report that civilian authorities maintained effective control over the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) and Jamaica Defense Force (JDF); and the government has increasingly effective mechanisms to investigate and punish abuse and corruption in general.21 [33] It is important to note that while many of the documents on Jamaica such as the ones cited above contain information about the problems of crime and corruption, many also contain information about the steps Jamaica is taking or has taken to curb crime and corruption. A Response to Information Request (RIR) indicates that Jamaica has been attempting to reform its police force. According to the Ministry of National Security, in December 2008, Jamaica began developing the National Crime Prevention and Community Safety Strategy (NCPCSS), a ten-year plan to reduce crime and violence, which involved input from multiple government ministries, including the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Justice, the Planning Institute of Jamaica, the Jamaica Social Investment Fund, the Social Development Commission, and the JCF's Community Safety and Security Branch (CSSB), as well as from over 50 consultations with stakeholders, including public and private bodies, NGOs and residents. The plan includes several international development partner-funded social-intervention programs and socially-centred programs operated by the JCF. Also, 2014 sources indicate that Jamaica has seen a reduction in violent crime.22 This evidence suggests that Jamaica has taken severe steps to curb crime and violence, and the measures implemented are proving to be effective. The RAD finds that the actions of the government in Jamaica to implement measures to curb crime and violence reinforce the presumption of state protection in Jamaica, a constitutional parliamentary democracy. [34] The above is indicative of a level of democracy in Jamaica that provides for the protection of all its citizens. The RAD finds that the measures Jamaica has taken in the recent past increase the presumption of state protection for the Appellant. The Court in Mudrak held that extensive and substantial legislation and other measures being undertaken should be treated as evidence supporting the democratic foundations of the country, thereby enhancing the presumption of adequate state protection.23 Appellant's personal circumstances [35] The Appellant's experience with police in Jamaica further reinforces the presumption of state protection. The RAD finds that police responded appropriately in the Appellant's situation. Although the Appellant was initially implicated in a crime involving fraud, following a police investigation, the Appellant was exonerated and the individuals involved in the criminal activities were dealt with according to the law. A Senior Superintendent of Police from the JCF Organized Crime Investigation Division thanked the Appellant for her cooperation during the investigation and even apologized for any inconvenience the investigation may have caused her.24 The above demonstrates that police effectively investigated a crime and those responsible for the crime were held accountable. The Appellant, who was initially implicated in the crime but found to have had no involvement, was exonerated and received a letter explaining the results of the investigation and thanking her for her cooperation. The effective policing resulted in effective protection. The police investigation resulted in the determination that the Appellant's identity was fraudulently used by individuals involved in criminal activity. [36] The RAD notes that police also wrote a letter for the Appellant to help her deal with difficulties she encountered in Jamaica as a result of the theft of her identity and the police investigation.25 This further demonstrates the effectiveness of the protection provided by police. In the RAD's view, police responded appropriately to a crime involving the theft of the Appellant's identity and a crime committed by an individual who had assumed the Appellant's identity. Police not only successfully investigated the crimes, they took extra measures to ensure the Appellant suffered no undue hardship because her identity had been fraudulently used for illegal activity or because she was the subject of an investigation. This demonstrates the concern police had regarding the safety and security of the Appellant. It demonstrates that police wanted to ensure the Appellant was not adversely affected by the investigation or the theft of her identity. Extensive correspondence26 between the Appellant and police in Jamaica reflects the significant effort of police to ensure effective protection for the Appellant. Given the particular circumstances of this case, the RAD finds that police acted appropriately in the case involving the theft of the Appellant's identity and the use of the Appellant's identity in the commission of a crime. [37] Although the Appellant maintains that she is in a position of uncertainty in relation to a police investigation, her evidence indicates that she is not of interest to police in their investigation. A letter from the JCF indicated that there was no present need for the Appellant to be contacted in regards to the investigation.27 It would be unreasonable to expect police to indicate that the Appellant would never be contacted for an investigation as investigations are fluid and involve many individuals ranging from suspects to witnesses. For the same reason, the Appellant cannot expect to receive confirmation from police that she will not be of interest to them in the future. The Appellant is unreasonable to expect such confirmation. If the Appellant were to ever be dissatisfied with the actions of police, redress would be available to her. The Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM) investigates the actions of police that result in the abuse of the rights of persons. [38] The RAD finds that the Appellant's decision to seek international protection in Canada rather than pursue protection in her home country is unreasonable. The response the Appellant received from the authorities in Jamaica between 2013 and 2015 indicates that state protection was forthcoming and suggests that it would be reasonably forthcoming should she pursue it further. The presumption that a state is capable of protecting its citizens underscores the principle that international protection comes into play only when a refugee claimant has no other recourse available.28 The evidence in this case indicates that the Appellant has adequate state protection available to her in Jamaica and has recourse available to her if she is dissatisfied with the protection she is afforded. [39] The RAD considered the Appellant's evidence regarding her mental health. The Appellant's psychiatrist in Jamaica writes that the Appellant has a history of XXXX XXXX XXXX and had been under his care for this condition from 2007 to 2015.29 A letter from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in Toronto indicates that the Appellant was initially diagnosed with XXXX XXXX and then later diagnosed with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The RAD accepts that the Appellant suffers from conditions opined in the letters noted above. However, should she return to Jamaica, treatment for her disorders would be available to her. [40] The Appellant indicates in her affidavit that she has an extensive psychiatric history in Jamaica for concerns relating to XXXX and XXXX and she was followed by psychiatrist Dr. XXXX from 2007 to 2015.30 Dr. XXXX confirms that that the Appellant experienced XXXX, and XXXX and XXXX symptoms. He goes on to indicate that he treated the Appellant from 2007 to 2015; her symptoms led to periods of severe impairment in her level of functioning; at times she had been able to achieve a fair level of stability most notably with a combination of XXXX and XXXX medication. He also writes that the Appellant had also benefitted from XXXX for acute XXXX symptoms and the last prescription he wrote for her was for an XXXX only.31 [41] The evidence noted above indicates that the Appellant sought and obtained treatment for her mental or psychiatric disorders in Jamaica up until the most recent time she entered Canada. Also, while in Jamaica, the Appellant was able to obtain a high level of education, including two and a half years of university study in XXXX XXXX. She operated a XXXX business for approximately XXXX years. She also defended herself in a police investigation that involved the theft of her identity and the use of her identity by others for criminal purposes. The evidence demonstrates that the Appellant had received effective treatment for her disorders in Jamaica. [42] Furthermore, the Appellant is a woman who was a victim of identity theft in Jamaica. Counselling for woman and victims of crime is widely available in Jamaica. Documentary evidence indicates that the Ministry of National Security's Victims Support Unit, Dispute Resolution Foundation, Peace Centers, and Women's Centres as well as various faith-based institutions offer counseling throughout Jamaica.32 While the Appellant maintains that the research shows that mental health services in Jamaica are insufficient, she fails to point to the research or the source of the research. The evidence, much of which is described above, demonstrates that mental health services in Jamaica have been more than sufficient and highly effective in the Appellant's case. [43] The evidence regarding the police response to the Appellant's concerns regarding an investigation involving the use of her identity in a crime reflects a country intent on protecting its citizens. Although there is evidence of high levels of crime in Jamaica, the evidence indicates that the government has taken legitimate action to curb crime and violence and it is proving to be effective. [44] There is no indication in the documents that corruption in the security forces is systemic. Documentary evidence indicates that civilian authorities maintained effective control over the security forces and the government has increasingly effective mechanisms to investigate and punish abuse and corruption in general.33 This evidence suggests that victims of crime who fail to obtain the appropriate services and protection from police have effective redress mechanisms available to them. This further reinforces the presumption of state protection in Jamaica. [45] The RAD finds that the Appellant has failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence. The RPD was not wrong to make this finding. Quite telling is a United Nations Report on Jamaica indicating that the government remained determined to reduce crime and violence, including through an increased emphasis on social interventions, community programmes and more effective policing. Also indicated is that the Jamaica Constabulary Force had acquired new equipment and technology, established additional posts and increased recruitment, and Jamaica had registered a marked downward trend in serious crimes over the previous five years.34 In the report, many member nations commend Jamaica for their efforts in such areas as human rights and law enforcement. For instance Mexico noted the progress made since the last review and commended Jamaica on the changes in the legal framework, in particular the adoption of initiatives to eliminate gender violence.35 Furthermore, the Appellant's own evidence regarding the appropriate police response to the crime she was initially implicated in reinforces the finding of adequacy in the protection offered by Jamaica. [46] The Appellant's argument with respect to the RPD's consideration of the evidence fails for the reasons outlined above. Furthermore, it is not sufficient for an appellant to rely solely on documentary evidence listing certain flaws or weaknesses in the country's justice system.36 [47] In the circumstances of this case, having considered the totality of the evidence, including the recording of the RPD hearing, the RAD finds that the Appellant has failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, the RAD is not persuaded that the state of Jamaica would not be reasonably forthcoming with adequate and effective protection for the Appellant should she seek it. CONCLUSION [48] The RAD finds that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. Pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD and dismisses the appeal. (signed) "M. Pettinella" M. Pettinella April 5, 2017 Date 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 93, para. 78. 2 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, para. 103. 3 Refugee Appeal Division Rules, Section 3(3)(g)(iii). 4 M.C.I. v. Singh, Parminder (F.C.A., No. A-512-14), Nadon, Gauthier, De Montigny, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 96. (F.C., No. IMM-6711-13), Gagné, October 28, 2014; 2014 FC 1022. 5 Raza, Syed Masood v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-11-07), Linden, Sharlow, Ryer, December 6, 2007; 2007 FCA 385. 6 Raza, 2007 FCA 385, paras. 13-15. 7 Singh, 2016 FCA 96, para. 64. 8 Singh, 2016 FCA 96, para. 48. 9 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Part 1, at pp. 25-26 Exhibit P-3, Appellant's Record, Part 2, at pp. 5-6. 10 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Part 1, at p. 30. 11 Exhibit P-3, Appellant's Record, Part 2, at pp. 7-8. 12 Exhibit P-3, Appellant's Record, Part 2, at p. 11. 13 Exhibit P-3, Appellant's Record, Part 2, at p. 12. 14 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Part 1, at pp. 27-29; Exhibit P-3, Appellant's Record, Part 2, at pp. 9-10. 15 Exhibit P-3, Appellant's Record, Part 2, at pp. 13-20. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 45-46. 17 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Part 1, at p. 27; Exhibit P-3, Appellant's Record, Part 2, at p. 9. 18 Munoz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1273, 307 F.T.R. 67, paras. 29-35. 19 Guideline 8: Guideline on Procedures with Respect to Vulnerable Persons Appearing Before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, December 15, 2006 (Amended December 15, 2012). 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 92-108, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Jamaica, 13 May 2016, item 2.2. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 120. 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 256-269, NDP for Jamaica, 13 May 2016, item 10.1. 23 Mudrak, Zsolt Jozsef v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-3582-13), Annis, February 16, 2015; 2015 FC 188, para. 56. 24 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 156. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 154. 26 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 152-186; Exhibit P-3, Appellant's Record, Part 2, at pp. 13-20. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 174. 28 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85, at 709. 29 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 191, 193. 30 Exhibit P-3, Appellant's Record, Part 2, at p. 2. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 193 32 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 120. 33 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 112, NDP for Jamaica, 13 May 2016, item 2.1. 34 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 92-108, NDP for Jamaica, 13 May 2016, item 2.8, at p. 4. 35 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 92-108, NDP for Jamaica, 13 May 2016, item 2.8, at p. 9. 36 Marquez Alvarez, Guillermo v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2477-09), Boivin, February 23, 2010; 2010 FC 197; Romero Castaneda, Manuel Alejandro v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4838-09), Boivin, April 13, 2010; 2010 FC 393. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-16817