TB7-16182

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 : TB7-16182 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 January 24, 2018 Date de la décision Panel L. Gamble Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Kingsley I Jesuorobo Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant) appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. The Appellant has not submitted new evidence in support of this appeal and does not request an oral hearing. The Appellant asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to find him to be a Convention refugee or person in need of protection. In the alternative, the Appellant asks the RAD to refer the matter back to a different member of the RPD for a redetermination. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to paragraph 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 Nigeria, he will be persecuted as a member of a particular social group, that is, individuals supportive of bisexuals, because of imputed or perceived support of his wife's bisexuality, which he alleges has been leaked to the authorities and community. [4] The claim for refugee protection was heard on May 18, 2017. By a decision dated August 17, 2017, the RPD rejected the claim finding that the Appellant was not a credible witness and had not established with credible and trustworthy evidence his claim that the Nigerian police and/or vigilante community members are seeking him in relation to his wife being discovered as a bisexual. [5] On appeal to the RAD, the Appellant submits that the RPD erred in: a. its assessment of his credibility by basing its findings on minor and/or irrelevant considerations; b. unreasonably assessing relevant evidence, namely, the psychologist's report, in its credibility findings; c. unreasonably assessing objective evidence; and d. failing to assess subjective evidence as a whole.1 Role of the RAD [6] The recent Federal Court of Appeal decision in Huruglica,2 provides the RAD with guidance in relation to the appropriate standard of review that must be applied by the RAD to decisions made by the first-level administrative tribunal. The RAD will conduct its own analysis of the record to determine whether the RPD erred. With respect to findings of fact and mixed fact and law, the RAD is to review the RPD's decision applying the correctness standard. The exception to this is where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in the assessment of the credibility and weighing of oral testimony heard, which in particular cases may require a standard of review of reasonableness modified for the RAD.3 ANALYSISXXXX XXXX Arguments (a) and (b), above, are not determinative [7] The Appellant has four arguments on this appeal; the first concerns the Appellant's assertion that the RPD drew negative credibility findings from what the Appellant argues were minor contradictions or exaggerations, including specifically the RPD's findings on inconsistencies between the Appellant's testimony and his Basis of Claim (BOC) on the number and content of the photos he found which alerted him to his wife's bisexuality. The second refers to the Appellant's assertion that, in making those credibility findings, the RPD failed to appropriately consider the psychologist's report which, in his view, could account for some or all of the deficiencies in his oral evidence. [8] However, upon my review of the record, I find that these arguments are not determinative. The RPD accepted as credible that the Appellant's wife is bisexual,4 and ultimately decided that it preferred the objective evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP) over the evidence provided by the Appellant in concluding that the Appellant would not face more than a mere possibility of persecution or risk to his life on the basis of being perceived as a supporter of a bisexual person, specifically for failing to hand his wife over to the authorities. The sufficiency of the credibility concerns outlined in the RPD's decision with respect to what the RPD found were inconsistencies and omissions between the Appellant's oral evidence and BOC form, including whether it had appropriately considered the psychologist's report, are tangential to the decision, first, in light of the RPD's finding that the Appellant's wife is a bisexual. Having accepted that fact, the RPD decided the claim under the nexus of a particular social group, namely, a spouse and perceived supporter of an LGBTQ person. In coming to its decision on that question, the RPD preferred the objective evidence from the NDP over the Appellant's evidence relating to the risk he might face upon return to Nigeria as a member of that particular social group. The RPD's credibility findings that the Appellant was not credible on the details of how he came to know his wife was bisexual are overcome by the fact that, ultimately, the RPD accepted that the Appellant's wife is bisexual, and the claim was therefore assessed on the basis of the Appellant's risk in light of that fact. [9] Second, the credibility findings impugned by the Appellant, while used in the RPD decision to undermine the Appellant's credibility on his further testimony that he was being sought in Nigeria, are also not determinative as the Appellant "testified that everything he knew of the police seeking his arrest was learned from his friend XXXX XXXX."5 For the reasons set out below, the information provided from XXXX XXXX is problematic and insufficient to ground a positive finding that the Appellant is indeed being sought in Nigeria in relation to his wife's bisexuality. Thus, even where the RPD imported its credibility assessment of the Appellant to his testimony on the issue of whether he would face more than a mere possibility of risk to his life at the hands of the authorities or vigilante community members in Nigeria, this error is not fatal to the decision. That is to say, if I proceed on the basis that I accept the Appellant's evidence regarding his belief that he is being sought in Nigeria as a credible belief, I nonetheless find that the information on which the Appellant's belief is founded is insufficiently reliable or probative to overcome the objective documentation in the NDP that someone in the position of the Appellant would be unlikely to be of interest to the authorities or community vigilantes. [10] I do not find, as alleged by the Appellant in arguments 3 and 4 of his Memorandum, that the RPD unreasonably assessed the documentary evidence in the NDP by ignoring relevant evidence therein; nor do I find that the RPD unreasonably assessed the Appellant's evidence by failing to consider it as a whole. I will deal with each of the Appellant's remaining two determinative arguments in turn. Argument (c): The RPD did not unreasonably assess the objective evidence in the National Documentation Package [11] In paragraph 34 of the Memorandum, the Appellant alleges that the RPD "fixated on its notion that there is no possibility that the police would seek his arrest" [emphasis added] due to the Appellant being a family member of a wanted bisexual. I find from a review of the decision that the RPD applied the correct test, explicitly finding at Section 3.2.4 and paragraph 42, that the objective documentation does not establish a "serious possibility" that the police would seek the Appellant's arrest. In fact, for the reasons below, my assessment of the documentary evidence supports the same conclusion. [12] The Appellant also alleges that the RPD unreasonably assessed the objective evidence found in the NDP in coming to its decision that the Appellant would not face more than a mere possibility of persecution or risk to his life for being a spouse of a bisexual, or a perceived supporter of bisexuals for failing to turn his wife over to the authorities. I note that the Appellant's "perceived support" of bisexuals in this case is limited to the failure to hand over his wife upon discovering she was bisexual, as there is no evidence on the record to support the contention that he would be perceived as a supporter of LGBTQ people more generally for other reasons, i.e. activism. The Appellant's situation is therefore distinct on this basis of "perceived support." [13] The RPD assessed the Appellant's risk as a member of a particular social group, namely, the spouse of a bisexual, which it correctly differentiated from the risk faced by bisexual people themselves. The RPD noted that while same-sex activity is illegal in Nigeria, it is not illegal to be married or related to an LGBTQ person in Nigeria, nor is it illegal to fail to hand over a known LGBTQ person to authorities.6 The RPD found in the documentary evidence, a single account of a brother of a suspected LGBTQ person who was arrested in order to compel the family to produce the individual, and a second example of mob violence towards a friend of an LGBTQ person who was targeted by the mob to compel the LGBTQ person to exit the home himself.7 The RPD concluded, and I agree, that the objective documentation establishes that it is not illegal to support, condone or fail to report an LGBTQ person in Nigeria; likewise, there is no allegation or evidence that the Appellant engaged in any of the activities prohibited by law in Nigeria, specifically under the Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act (SSMPA).8 [14] The Appellant relies on Item 6.10 of the NDP as a means to demonstrate that he would face risk as a person who associates with a bisexual person. That item indicates, in the context of swearing affidavits in Nigeria, that "LGBT individuals or allies" would likely be reluctant to swear affidavits attesting to same-sex behaviour due to fear of outing, violence, arrest, blackmail and extortion. I find that Item 6.10, when read in its entirety, does not support the Appellant's contention: this item relates specifically to the reasons why one is unlikely to swear an affidavit regarding same-sex activities of named individuals, principally because it would amount to "reporting himself or herself to the law."9 I find that the nature of the risk associated with swearing an affidavit related to same-sex activity, that is, for an affiant to personally attend an official authority and swear to the knowledge of and/or engagement in a crime (acts prohibited by the SSMPA), is fundamentally different than simply being a family member of a suspected LGBTQ person, as in the Appellant's case. [15] This document does state that that families of an LGBT person would likely be unwilling to swear such an affidavit because they "first want to save themselves the embarrassment and stigma associated with homosexuality." I find that embarrassment and stigma alone fall well below the Appellant's contention that he would face more than a mere possibility of risk to his life as a family member or "associate" of a bisexual person. Moreover, if an ally of an LGBTQ person would face greater risk on such a basis, this document would say so, in addition to the mention of "embarrassment and stigma." The Appellant's profile, as the spouse or former spouse of a suspected bisexual woman, falls well below the profile of a LGBTQ individual or ally attending an official office to swear to knowledge of a violation of Nigeria's SSMPA, the latter being unlikely to actually undertake such action for fear of "embarrassment and stigma." I give this item little weight in establishing that the Appellant would face more than a mere possibility of risk to his life on the basis of being a family member or "associate" of a suspected LGBTQ person, particularly in light of the more relevant information in Item 6.12, which follows. [16] The Appellant contends that Item 6.12 provides "instances where not just family but friends associated with suspected LGBT people are arbitrarily arrested and suffer persecution," as this item recounts an individual named George who was arrested with 20 other men while attending a birthday celebration, as well as an individual named Oscar who was arrested while visiting a friend.10 When read in its entirety, it is clear that George is identified in the article as "an openly gay man from Idaban," and likewise Oscar is described as "a 22-year-old gay man from Lagos." There is no indication in this document that George, Oscar, or the other friends with whom they were arrested were targeted for arrest because they were family members or associates of LGBTQ individuals, in fact, the document identifies both George and Oscar as gay men themselves, and the article states that in each case the people they were arrested with were also arrested on suspicion of being gay themselves.11 There is no allegation or evidence to support the contention that the Appellant would be suspected of being homosexual, or even bisexual, himself due to his relationship with his wife; therefore, I find this article does not support the Appellant's position that he would face more than a mere possibility of risk to his life simply on the basis of having associated with, or been married to, a bisexual woman. [17] In fact, my review of the NDP revealed no indication that spouses or family members of suspected LGBTQ people constitute a risk profile in Nigeria, beyond the limited examples raised by the RPD and discussed above. The Court of Appeal stated in Adu that the presumption that a claimant's sworn testimony is true is always rebuttable, and, in appropriate circumstances, may be rebutted by the failure of the documentary evidence to mention what one would normally expect it to mention.12 There is ample evidence in the NDP about the treatment of, and risks faced by, the LGBTQ community, suspected members thereof, and even outspoken allies and advocates for LGBTQ rights and issues; however, comment on the risk faced by family members or associates of suspected LGBTQ individuals, if there is such risk, is notably absent. I am cognizant of Guideline 9 on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression13 (SOGIE), which states that "Reliable, relevant and up-to-date country condition information on individuals with diverse SOGIE in some countries can be scarce, incomplete or general in nature," and "This lack of information may not be indicative of a lack of persecution or a lack of problems within the country of reference. A scarcity of reporting on the situation of individuals with diverse SOGIE in a country may be due to the stigmatization or illegality of these individuals in that country." I have followed the advice in the Guideline that "decision-makers may wish to consider the circumstances in the country of reference that may have informed the absence of documentation of the treatment of individuals with diverse SOGIE..." but I nonetheless find that given the extensive information on the risks faced by people with the profiles noted above, it would be reasonable to assume that if there were objective evidence that spouses or immediate family of suspected LGBTQ people were facing a similar risk, it would be noted. Therefore, I find the fact that the documentary evidence does not identify immediate family members of suspected LGBTQ people as a risk profile, when one would expect it to in light of the abundance of information on other risk profiles related to diverse SOGIE profiles, indicates that the Appellant's testimony is not supported by the objective country documentation. The issue of whether the Appellant's assertions are sufficiently credible to stand alone is dealt with in the next section. [18] For all these reasons, upon my review of the objective evidence and the arguments made by the Appellant, I agree with the RPD that the objective evidence outweighs the Appellant's subjective evidence that he is being sought by the police or vigilante community members on the basis of his marriage and perceived support of a suspected bisexual woman. I find that there is insufficient credible and reliable evidence to support the Appellant's contention in the face of significant objective evidence on the risks relating to LGBTQ issues in Nigeria which fails to mention the risk profile alleged by the Appellant. Argument (d): The RPD did not fail to assess subjective evidence as a whole [19] Given that the objective evidence is insufficient to establish that the Appellant would face more than a mere possibility of persecution or risk to his life for being a spouse of a bisexual, I must also consider whether the Appellant's evidence is sufficient to establish that he would face risk above this threshold. The Appellant has provided four pieces of documentary evidence in addition to his BOC and testimony about his belief that he is being sought on this basis in Nigeria, namely: an email from his friend XXXX,14 an affidavit from his father,15 an email from his friend XXXX XXXX XXXX and a letter from the Actors' Guild of Nigeria (AGN letter).16 The Appellant alleges that the RPD erred in not considering the Appellant's supporting documents cumulatively. I will deal with each item in turn to demonstrate why, even taken together, these items remain insufficient to establish that anyone is seeking the Appellant on this basis in Nigeria. [20] The Appellant submitted an email, purported to be from his friend XXXX XXXX 17 which states that the author of the email had just heard that the Appellant had been suspended, presumably from the Actors' Guild although that is not explicitly stated, due to "the news of your wife," but nothing more. It does not state that the Appellant is wanted or being sought by anyone, and indeed does not elaborate on what constitutes "the news of your wife." I find this email is of low reliability given that it contains no security features and appears to have been sent from a yahoo email address, which could be opened by anyone; therefore, one cannot be sure of the author or the origins of the email. In any case, even if taken at face value, this email is of low probative value as it does nothing to establish that the Appellant is being sought or is at any risk should he return to Nigeria. [21] The Appellant also submitted an affidavit from his father,18 which states that the Affiant received a call from his son, the Appellant, informing him that the Appellant had received an email from his friend in Lagos telling him that his wife, XXXX XXXX is bisexual, and how her female partner confessed to police that she was in a sexual relationship with the Appellant's wife. The Affiant also states that he then called XXXX directly, who confirmed "all that happened." He states he also called her mother in Lagos who indicated she was already aware "about it." The Affiant states that XXXX mother told him "that Policeman [sic] visited my son's house in Lagos with the intention of getting them arrested." It is clear this Affidavit is based largely on the Appellant's own recitation of the facts, and therefore is of low probative value on those issues, as the Affidavit does not confirm or support the Appellant's story when the source of the information is the same. The value of the affidavit, in my view, is that the Affiant confirmed "all that happened" with XXXX, the Appellant's wife, by phone as well as with her mother in Lagos, although to an unknown extent. The details provided to the Affiant by XXXX and her mother are scant, other than that XXXX confirmed "all that happened" and her mother was aware of "the news" from her daughter and informed the Affiant that police had attended the Appellant's home in Lagos "with the intention of getting them arrested." [22] There is no information about how XXXX mother knew of police attendance at the Appellant's home or the reason for their attendance. The Appellant did not provide any evidence from XXXX or her mother to support the information in this Affidavit; indeed, the Appellant testified that despite being in contact with his wife in Canada, he did not attempt to obtain any evidence from her in support of his claim.19 He explained his failure to do so was because to ask for anything from her would be to make her think everything she did was normal or that he would be taking her back. I find this explanation is insufficient to explain why there is no evidence from his wife, a central figure in his claim, if they continue to be in contact. This is particularly so on this appeal, where the RPD noted as significant the absence of supporting information from the Appellant's wife in its decision.20 The Appellant could have asked for supporting evidence from his wife in advance of the RPD decision, or in support of the present appeal, without making her think the Appellant accepted her conduct or was interested in reunification. In any case, the description of the information provided to the Affiant from both XXXX and her mother lacks detail and specificity, and I therefore give it little weight in corroborating the Appellant's claim generally, or specifically for the contention that the police are seeking the arrest of the Appellant in Nigeria. [23] The third item that was relied upon by the Appellant was an email from XXXX XXXX,21 which the Appellant asserts was what alerted him to the fact that his wife's affair with a woman had become known in Nigeria to police and community members. Again, the reliability of this document is low given that it purports to have been sent to the Appellant from a yahoo email address (XXXX XXXX XXXX.com) and is merely signed "XXXX XXXX." It is not sworn information, as with an affidavit, nor are there any security features or a way to verify the author, sender or contents of this email. Nonetheless, I note that XXXX states he was told directly by XXXX same-sex partner that she had confessed to police her relationship with XXXX, but has only heard "rumors" that the police are looking for the Appellant on the basis that he "may have condoned such illicit relationships." He states that "some members of our community are currently waiting for [you] and XXXX to return to Nigeria" to face the consequences of desecrating the laws of the land. There is no mention of why or how XXXX knows that police or community members are seeking the Appellant, other than "rumors" from an unidentified source or sources. No efforts were made to call XXXX XXXX as a witness in the Appellant's hearing to test the evidence set out in this email. Therefore, even if accepted on its face, I find this email is of low probative value in establishing that anyone is seeking the Appellant for arrest or retribution. [24] According to the Appellant's BOC and testimony, this is the main source of information upon which he bases his belief that that he is wanted by police and community members in relation to his wife's revealed bisexuality. With a dearth of objective documentation stating that spouses or family members of LGBTQ individuals face any particularized risk in Nigeria related to their relationship or support of LGBTQ family members, which one would expect to be in the NDP, the Appellant's belief and testimony that he was wanted on this basis stems from a single e-mail of low probative value and reliability. The Appellant testified that everything he knows about the police seeking his arrest was learned from his friend XXXX XXXX; the Appellant notably did not mention that he was also aware of this fact from XXXX mother, as conveyed to the Appellant's father according to the affidavit. However, even if taken together, the email from XXXX XXXX and the hearsay information provided via the Appellant's father's affidavit, both lacking in any detail or specificity, remain of such low probative value that they cannot overcome the preponderance of objective evidence as outlined above, which does not indicate that people with the same profile as the Appellant would be of interest to authorities or vigilantes in the community in Nigeria. Therefore, I find this scant evidence which underlies the Appellant's belief that he is of interest to the Nigerian authorities or any other person in Nigeria, is insufficient to establish that he would face more than a mere possibility of persecution or risk to his life if he were to return to Nigeria. [25] I also considered the Actors' Guild of Nigeria letter,22 which states that the Appellant has been expelled from the Executive Committee of the AGN in light of the fact that the Appellant and his wife "are currently subject of [sic] ongoing official investigations bothering on sexual activities." The letter notes that the AGN is obligated to cooperate and assist police in their investigations and that "relevant machinery" is in place to apprehend and hand over the Appellant to the authorities. This letter does not state that the authorities are actively seeking the Appellant or are interested in his arrest; merely that he is the subject of an ongoing "official investigation" and generally that the AGN is obligated to cooperate and assist police in their investigations. Therefore, this document, when taken together with the aforementioned documentations, likewise does not further the Appellant's contention that he would face more than a mere possibility of persecution or risk to his life at the hands of police or anyone else, should he return to Nigeria. [26] I find that the Appellant's evidence, even when considered cumulatively, is not sufficiently reliable or probative to establish the Appellant is being sought in Nigeria by the police or any other authority, or any vigilante community members. [27] I also take notice of the fact that there is no allegation that the Appellant is himself a bisexual, and no allegation he is or would be perceived as such. Moreover, the Appellant testified that when he discovered in Canada that his wife had been engaged in an affair with a same-sex partner, he hit her, slapped her and ended the relationship. The Appellant testified the relationship is over between him and his wife, so much so that he refused to ask her for corroborating evidence for his claim, lest she think he wanted to take her back. Therefore, any possibility that the Appellant would face risk across Nigeria, or that anyone would maintain an interest in causing harm to him on the basis of being the former spouse of someone who was bisexual if he were to return, is further diminished. I agree with the RPD in its finding that any possible persecution of the Appellant associated with the sexual status of his former spouse, which for the reasons above already falls below the "more than a mere possibility" threshold, would not be associated with the Appellant. CONCLUSION [28] I note that the Appellant's claim for refugee protection was based on his fear of persecution or harm based on his perceived support of his wife, who has been outed as a bisexual woman in their community in Nigeria. No additional grounds of fear of persecution or harm were presented in the claim. The RPD found, on a balance of probabilities, that there was insufficient persuasive evidence that either the police or vigilante community members were looking for the Appellant on this basis. It found that the objective evidence does not support the Appellant's allegation that he would be at risk on the basis of his perceived support of his wife or his familial association with her, even if it were known to these persons that she was a bisexual. [29] On the basis of the findings noted above and after my own assessment of all the evidence, including the Appellant's oral evidence at his hearing, I agree with the finding of the RPD that the Appellant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that he would not face more than a mere possibility of persecution or risk to his life on this basis. Therefore, I find that the Appellant has failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution under section 96 of the IRPA, and for the same reasons, I find that the Appellant is not a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA. [30] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, I confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention Refugee nor a person in need of protection. This appeal is dismissed. (signed) "L. Gamble" L. Gamble January 24, 2018 Date 1 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, p. 50, at paras 3-6. 2 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no.A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 3 Ibid, at paras. 69-74. Also see X (Re), 2017 CanLII 33034 (CA IRB). 4 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, RPD Decision, p. 5, at para 11. 5 Ibid, RPD Decision, p. 10, at para 33. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (March 31, 2017), Section 6, Sexual Minorities. In particular, Item 6.1, NGA105321.E, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (27 November 2015); Item 6.12, Human Rights Watch (20 October 2016) and Item 6.13, NGA105655.E, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (11 November 2016). 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Nigeria (March 31, 2017), Item 10.1, NGA105249.E, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (13 November 2015) and Item 6.12. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Nigeria (March 31, 2017), Item 6.12. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Nigeria (March 31, 2017), Item 6.10, NGA105379.E, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (7 January 2016). 10 Exhibit P-2, Appellant' Record, Memorandum, p. 64, at para 38. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Nigeria (March 31, 2017), Item 6.12. 12 Adu, Peter v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-194-92), Hugessen, Strayer, Robertson, January 24, 1995, per Hugessen J. 13 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Chairperson's Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression, Guidelines issued by the Chairperson pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), Effective Date: May 1, 2017. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 6, p. 135. 15 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 35-37. 16 Ibid, p. 31. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 6, p. 135. 18 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 35. 19 Ibid, RPD Decision, p. 9, at para. 29. 20 Ibid, RPD Decision, p. 9, at paras. 29-30. 21 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 30. 22 Ibid, p. 31. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB7-16182