TB7-13555

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 : TB7-13555 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 December 18, 2017 Date de la décision Panel Anthony da Silva Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Bolanle O Akinnusi 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 INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant), a citizen of Nigeria, appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting her claim for refugee protection. The Appellant asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to set aside the decision of the RPD and substitute a positive decision, accepting the Appellant's claim for protection in Canada. In the alternative, the Appellant requests that the RAD refer the matter back to the RPD for re-determination. 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 alleges that she is a bisexual woman. She believes that she will face persecution because of her sexual orientation were she to be returned to Nigeria. [4] The Appellant's application for refugee protection was heard on June 13, 2017. In a decision of June 21, 2017, the RPD rejected the claim. The RPD found the Appellant to be not credible and the documentary evidence provided by the Appellant not trustworthy or of sufficient weight to support the claim. THE ISSUES [5] The Appellant submits the following issues as grounds for appealing: i. Did the RPD err in its assessment of the Appellant's credibility? ii. Did the RPD err on a finding of lack of evidence? iii. Did the RPD misconstrue or ignore relevant evidence? iv. Did the RPD err in its finding of lack of subjective fear? v. Did the RPD properly consider the Chairperson's Gender Guidelines when analysing the Appellant's claim ROLE OF THE RAD [6] On March 29, 2016, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) in Huruglica1 provided guidance on how the RAD is to properly approach its review of the RPD's findings of fact or of mixed fact and law. Justice Gauthier found that in Huruglica, where the credibility of the oral evidence before the RPD was not a determinative issue, a standard of correctness should be applied by the RAD when assessing RPD findings of fact or of mixed fact and law. [7] In light of the Court's ruling, when conducting an appeal of a determination by the RPD, the RAD will carry out its own analysis of the record to determine whether, as submitted by the Appellant, the RPD erred. Where the credibility of the oral evidence before the RPD was not a determinative issue, the RAD will apply a standard of correctness when assessing RPD findings of fact or of mixed fact and law. Where the credibility of the oral evidence before the RPD was a determinative issue, the RAD will defer to certain findings of the RPD where the RPD enjoyed a meaningful 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 an analysis of the record as a whole. ANALYSIS Credibility [8] The RPD found the Appellant not to be a credible witness. Omission regarding the author of the hate notes [9] The RPD noted that the Appellant indicated in her Basis of Claim (BoC) form narrative that upon returning from Egypt to her home in Lagos, she found hate notes threatening her life, but that she had torn them up. The RPD further noted that her BoC narrative made no mention of who had sent the notes or how they had gotten there. At the hearing, however, the Appellant added that she believed her ex-boyfriend, XXXX, had likely left the notes because he had obtained her Lagos address from a staff person at her office and she did not think that anyone else but him was after her. [10] The RPD asked the Appellant why she had not included this information regarding XXXX in her BoC narrative, to which she replied that she was trying to make the story more precise. The RPD found her explanation unreasonable in that the omission made the story less precise, not more. It further found that, in light of the omission, the Appellant had not established, on a balance of probabilities, that XXXX had sent her threat letters in Lagos. The RPD also found that the omission of this significant information from her BoC undermined her credibility. [11] The Appellant submits that the RPD has misapprehended her testimony. She submits that the RPD erred in finding that the omission was significant. She submits that she stated in her BoC that she thinks that it was XXXX and the community people that caused her mistreatment in XXXX 2016 when she was attacked by a mob. She further submits that she indicated in her BoC that the hate notes stated: "we prey [sic] that the police get you before we do." She submits that her uncontradicted evidence is that she believes that XXXX and the community are after her because of her sexual orientation and that was why she fled from her home country. [12] The RAD has reviewed the Appellant's testimony as well as the statements in her BoC, including the narrative. In the Appellant's BoC at Question 2(a), she is asked if she has "ever been harmed, mistreated, or threatened by any person or group?" Her response is: "I was tortured, molested and stripped of my clothing in the public by a group of individuals. The mistreatment occur in XXXX 2016. I think it was my boyfriend XXXX XXXX and the community people, that cause the harm..."2 At Question 2(b) of her BoC, in response to who would harm, mistreat, or threaten her if she returned to her country, the Appellant has indicated: "The public and the authorities."3 The RAD also notes that, as the Appellant has pointed out, her BoC indicates that the hate notes stated: "we prey [sic] that the police get you before we do." [emphasis added] [13] Curiously, the Appellant's response in Question to 2(b) of her BoC does not include her boyfriend, XXXX, as one who would "harm, mistreat, or threaten" her were she to return to Nigeria, even though she testified that she believed that it was XXXX who had left the hate notes at the entrance to her home. The RAD notes the following comments from the Appellant, after she was asked if she believed that it was XXXX who sent her the hate notes: "Yes. After I got that message because... If I really think about it, no one else would be after me like this."4 And later she stated: "I cannot think of anyone else except for he who wanted the continuity of the relationship. And I don't want it, so I see him as the person that this response...this evidence of who actually disclosed my address and to who was it disclosed to also confirmed it."5 [14] The RAD finds that the Appellant's failure to mention in her BoC her strong belief that it was XXXX who had left the hate notes, was indeed a significant omission and also finds that her testimony is inconsistent with the comments in her BoC where she mentions that it is the community that she fears will harm her, but omits XXXX. Although, as she has pointed out in her submissions, the hate notes use the plural "we," suggesting that more than one person is responsible for the hate notes, and not just XXXX, she indicated in her testimony that she "cannot think of anyone else except for he..." The RAD finds that the omission and inconsistencies undermine her credibility. [15] The RAD notes that when asked if she had contacted her same-sex partner, XXXX, when she was at the home of the good Samaritan, XXXX XXXX, she replied that she had, but that XXXX had fled after finding hate notes at the entrance of her home, and that either the group who attacked the Appellant or another group, simultaneously, had gone to XXXX house. She was not asked, nor did she explain, however, how XXXX was able to escape. The RAD also finds it improbable that the Appellant did not know where XXXX was hiding because she had not given the Appellant her location. Given the Appellant's statement that she and XXXX had been involved in a serious three-year relationship, it would be reasonable to expect that XXXX would have shared the location to which she had fled. The RAD finds the discrepancies in the Appellant's testimony indicative of a lack of credibility. [16] While the Appellant never directly stated that it was XXXXwho had informed the group that the Appellant was bisexual, other than at Question 2(a) of her BoC,6 it would follow that this was the only way that the mob discovered the Appellant's sexual orientation. According to the Appellant's timeline, as given during her testimony, XXXX came to know of her sexual orientation on XXXX XXXX, 2016. The very next day, on XXXX XXXX, 2016, she was attacked by a mob and left for dead, and her same-sex partner, XXXX, found hate notes at the entrance to her house and was also visited by a mob. The RAD finds the timeline given by the Appellant to be highly improbable. If the Appellant is to be believed, her boyfriend got into her phone some time XXXX XXXX XXXX, 2016, while she was in the process of breaking up with him. She testified that perhaps she had stepped out to the bathroom and that he was able to access her text messages because she had used a common password of XXXX. After confronting the Appellant with the text messages from her same-sex partner, he demanded that she tell him the truth but she just walked out. He then tried contacting the Appellant several times throughout the day, but she never answered the phone. He subsequently sent her a text message saying that he could not have a girlfriend who was bisexual. [17] XXXX, somehow, then managed to enlist 7 or 8 individuals who attacked the Appellant the very next day. He, it would seem, was also responsible for getting the same group or perhaps a parallel group to go to XXXX house and threaten her, although there was no explanation as to how XXXX knew where XXXX lived. As well, XXXX also managed to place or to have had hate notes placed at the entrance to XXXX house. All of these actions, if one accepts the Appellant's written statements and her oral testimony, took place in 24 hours or less. The RAD finds the Appellant's account of events improbable and therefore not credible. As the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) has stated in Shahamati: "the Board is entitled, in assessing credibility, to rely on criteria such as rationality and common sense."7 Cumulative Omissions from BoC narrative [18] The RPD found that the Appellant added a number of significant details during her testimony that were omitted from her BoC narrative. Specifically, the RPD noted the following omissions from the BoC: a) The date of the attack by the mob b) The date her boyfriend XXXX found the text messages c) Where and how XXXX was able to access her text messages d) Any details about XXXX or the relationship with XXXX, despite the fact that they were involved in a three-year relationship e) The fact that the Appellant attempted to reach XXXX from Lagos to offer her safety but XXXX phone was switched off, and the Appellant had been unable to reach her again f) The fact that the Appellant had two other significant same-sex relationships in Nigeria lasting five and six years. [19] When asked about these omissions, the Appellant responded in a variety of ways, including that she did not think to do it or did not know it was important; she was just summarizing in the BoC or that there was "no reason". The RPD found that while individually the omissions may not have been sufficiently significant to attract a negative credibility finding, cumulatively they undermined the Appellant's allegation that she is bisexual and her credibility on the whole. [20] The Appellant submits that the RPD engaged in a microscopic analysis of the evidence. She submits that the RPD erred by impugning her credibility on the omission in her BoC of specific days of the month, when giving a date. She further submits that the omissions of further details about XXXX or her relationship with XXXX, as well as the fact that she had two prior relationships, are not significant enough to attract negative credibility findings. Additionally, she submits that the RPD was selective in its analysis of the evidence and that the omissions were not internally inconsistent but embedded in her BoC form. She points out that, as per Selvakumaran,8 the Court has generally allowed that oral testimony can provide additional details of a refugee claimant's narrative. [21] The RAD has considered the RPD's reasons as well as the Appellant's submissions with respect to the omissions in her BoC narrative. The RAD finds that the absence of a specific day of the month with respect to dates is not significant, and that the Appellant's information is consistent, despite the absence of specific information as to the day of the month. The RAD also finds that the lack of specific information about XXXX and about her relationship with the Appellant is not critical to the central issues of the claim. The RAD does find, however, that the omission of the two same-sex relationships, allegedly of five and six years in duration, is significant. While the mention of the two relationships does not affect the central events leading to the Appellant's flight from Nigeria, their existence, if accepted, would confirm the Appellant's central allegation that she is bisexual. Her failure to include this important information in her BoC narrative suggests that she has embellished her testimony and further erodes her credibility. Implausibilities [22] The RPD noted that the Appellant had indicated that when asked how XXXX had been able to get into her phone to see the text messages from XXXX, she had stated that it would not be hard since her password was just "XXXX". The RPD also noted that the Appellant testified that the text messages were of a romantic-sexual nature and agreed that the messages would constitute a risk. The Appellant further testified, however, that she typically deleted such messages. The RPD found it implausible that the Appellant had either failed to protect her phone or delete romantic-sexual messages from another woman if the phone was in fact not secure. [23] The RPD also noted that the Appellant had testified that XXXX had told her that she liked her during a dinner at a hotel restaurant. The RPD found it implausible that XXXX would have declared her feelings for the Appellant in a public place in Nigeria. The RPD found the two implausibilities undermined the Appellant's allegations and overall credibility. [24] The Appellant submits that the RPD's plausibility findings were unreasonable. With respect to the text messages, she submits that she had a password and regularly deleted her messages, so in fact she did protect her phone and the messages. With respect to the start of the relationship with XXXX, the Appellant submits that the RPD has misconstrued the evidence; that when viewed in the proper context that XXXX feelings for the Appellant were communicated only in words in a private conversation at a restaurant, there is nothing inherently implausible about XXXX saying she liked the Appellant during a private conversation in a restaurant. [25] The RAD concurs with the Appellant and finds that the RPD erred in finding the incident regarding the text messages and the exchange between XXXX and the Appellant at the restaurant to be implausible. Nonetheless, the RAD does have some questions as to how XXXX was able to access the text messages on the Appellant's phone. According to the Appellant's testimony, XXXX checked her text messages when they were at his house and she had informed him that she wanted to break off their relationship. Initially, he believed that it was because she was involved with another man, but after discovering the text messages from XXXX, he realized that she was involved with a woman. When asked how XXXX was able to access her phone, she replied that she did not know and that maybe when she had stepped out to go the washroom, he had been able to check her phone. While her explanation would appear to be reasonable, the RAD still questions how XXXX was able to take her phone, type in the password, and even though admittedly "XXXX" is a simple and common password, it is not necessarily the first number that comes to mind, especially in his allegedly emotional state. He then would need to scroll through the messages and then find the incriminating texts - all of this while she was in the washroom. Lack of Evidence [26] The Appellant testified that she is involved in a same-sex relationship in Canada and provided a letter and some photographs from her alleged girlfriend. The RPD asked her why her girlfriend did not appear as a witness or provide a written affidavit. The Appellant indicated that she did not know she could bring a witness and did not think to provide an affidavit. The RPD did not accept the Appellant's explanation, noting that she was represented by counsel who should be aware of RPD rules. [27] The RPD noted that the letter9 from the girlfriend is unsworn and gave it no weight, and found the photographs10 to have no probative value in establishing that she is in a romantic relationship with the woman cutting a cake with her in the photograph. [28] The RPD also noted that the Appellant's brother is a permanent resident in Canada. The Appellant indicated that she informed her brother about her attack in 2016 and that he also knows her girlfriend in Canada. The RPD asked the Appellant why her brother did not appear as a witness or provide any evidence. She replied that she did not think of doing this. [29] The RPD acknowledged that a claimant does not necessarily have to provide corroborative documents, but that at the same time, the RPD may draw adverse inference from a lack of reasonably available evidence when there is no reasonable explanation for its absence. It found that in this case, the lack of reasonably available evidence undermined the Appellant's overall credibility. [30] The Appellant submits that she was not advised by her counsel at the RPD hearing that she could bring her girlfriend and brother as witnesses and therefore she should not have to suffer because of her counsel's negligence. She further submits that the letter, supported by the author's government-issued identification,11 together with the photographs, are sufficient corroboration of the relationship of the Appellant to her girlfriend in Canada. [31] The RAD disagrees with the Appellant's submissions. The failure to bring the Appellant's brother and Canadian girlfriend as witnesses must draw a negative inference when both individuals were reasonably available to testify. With respect to her submission that she should not be held responsible for her counsel's negligence, the FCA in Singh has pointed out that: "It is settled that an applicant must live with the consequences of the actions of his counsel"12 and further stated: ...I would note that it is settled in Federal Court immigration jurisprudence that an allegation of professional incompetence of counsel will not be upheld if there is no evidence that a complaint has been filed with the competent authorities of the bar to which the counsel belongs or without an explanation personally issued by the professional involved...13 [32] The RAD also finds that the RPD is correct in assigning no weight to the girlfriend's letter as it was not able to test its credibility. As Justice Annis has cautioned in El Bouni: ... I find that confirmatory evidence of family members and friends, which is not subject to cross-examination, is not highly probative or credible evidence. Highly probative evidence is intrinsically well-presented evidence from independent sources confirming a material fact in the matter.14 Appellant's Re-availment and Failure to Claim [33] The RPD found that the Appellant's extensive travel outside of Nigeria to the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada, and return to Nigeria without claiming protection, indicated a lack of subjective fear and undermined her allegation that she is bisexual. With respect to her travel prior to her attack in XXXX 2016, the Appellant explained that she did not make a claim because she had not experienced any threats or problems and she kept her sexual orientation secret. The RPD found her explanation unreasonable, given that she had confirmed that being bisexual in Nigeria was risky, and that she could have taken steps to seek protection in places where should could have lived openly as safely as a bisexual woman. [34] With respect to her travel after the XXXX 2016 attack, the RPD asked the Appellant why she had not made a claim in Canada when she travelled here in XXXX 2016. The Appellant replied that she believed that moving to Lagos would allow her to keep her sexual orientation secret and that she had no good reason to leave until she received the hate notes upon returning to Lagos. [35] The RPD found her explanation unreasonable for several reason. First, that it was inconsistent with her explanation for having failed to seek protection during her earlier trips because she had not experienced any threats or problems. Second, because she was discovered in Lagos only because her staff had provided XXXX with her home address, indicating that she would have been able to hide in Nigeria. Lastly, the RPD found it unreasonable that someone who had survived an attack such as the one she described would not seek protection, especially when she had family in Canada who could have helped and supported her. [36] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in its determination that she lacked credibility because of alleged lack of subjective fear. She submits that refugee claimants may not have experienced problems in the past because they may have concealed their sexual orientation or because authorities were not aware of this orientation. The Appellant has referenced the UNHCR Guidance Note on Refugee Claims Relating to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity which indicates in such a context, failure to claim at the first opportunity may in some cases be reasonably explained.15 She submits that the well-foundedness of a claim would then be established by assessing the consequences that an individual would have to face in the future were they return to live in their country. She submits that prior to XXXX 2016 there was no reason to leave, as she was able to conceal her sexual orientation and go about her business. When her sexual orientation was revealed, she immediately relocated to another city within Nigeria, Lagos, where she believed she could live concealing her sexual orientation without fear of XXXX or the community. When she received the hate notes in Lagos with threats similar to those made by the mob in XXXX 2016, she believed that she could no longer hide and that her life was in danger. She submits that neither failure to make a claim elsewhere nor a delay in making a claim are determinative in rejecting a refugee claim. Further, the Appellant submits that the RPD erred in disregarding the Gender Guidelines in assessing the Appellant's testimony. [37] The RAD has considered the Appellant's submissions. It finds that the Appellant, given that she had chosen to hide her sexual orientation, provided a reasonable explanation for not having made a claim abroad prior to being attacked in XXXX 2016. Following the attack, however, where she was badly beaten and left for dead, the RPD found it unreasonable that she did not seek protection in Canada where her brother is a permanent resident and has been supportive of her. [38] The RAD also finds that her explanation questionable that she no longer felt safe in Lagos because even though she had moved to another city she had been discovered. In light of her testimony that XXXX had only discovered her address because her staff had inadvertently provided it to him, it would appear that she would have been safe otherwise, and may well have been able to relocate, even within Lagos, a city of nearly 20 million people, especially given her willingness to not live openly as a bisexual. Appellant's Supporting Documents [39] The RPD found the Appellant's supporting documents insufficient to establish her claim and in some cases to undermine it. As already discussed, the RPD gave no weight to the letter and photographs from her girlfriend in Canada. It also assigned no weight to the letter from XXXX sister XXXX, noting that it is undated and unaccompanied by any form of identification. [40] The RPD also considered the affidavit and letter from XXXX XXXX(XXXX) the lady who assisted the Appellant after the alleged attack in XXXX2016. The RPD found that the affidavit undermines the credibility of the Appellant's allegations, in light of country documentation that indicates that if a family member swears to an affidavit about a person's sexual orientation it would be "unusual and amount to reporting that person to the law."16 The RPD found that this situation would reasonably extend to XXXX and that the affidavit could potentially expose XXXX to risk for having assisted the Appellant. The RPD further found that the letter from XXXX is insufficient to overcome the significant credibility concerns raised. [41] The RAD has reviewed XXXX affidavit and considered the documentary evidence referenced by the RPD. The RAD finds the affidavit from XXXX curiously worded. In paragraph five of the Affidavit it is written: "That I depose to this Affidavit in good faith, for record purposes, for the information of the Nigeria Police, 'To Whom It May Concern' and the general public to please take note."17 What initially would appear to be an affidavit in support of the Appellant, indicates that the deponent is providing the document "...for record purposes for the information for the Nigeria Police, 'To Whom It May Concern' (who is presumably the RPD) and the general public..." The documentary evidence, in addition to the reference made by the RPD, further states: "[h]igh levels of homophobia and the criminalization of same-sex practice and relationships would prevent LGBT individuals or allies from swearing such an affidavit with a Nigerian notary public/commissioner of oaths."18 It is not clear why XXXX has framed the affidavit in such language as she has - perhaps to support the Appellant while at the same time avoiding potential problems with the police. Given the ambiguous nature of the affidavit, the RAD gives the document limited weight. [42] The RAD has also reviewed XXXX letter,19 whose content is more unequivocal in support of the Appellant than her affidavit. The RAD has a couple of concerns with the letter. First of all, the format of XXXX letter is virtually identical to that of the other letters: the font is the same, the addressee is the same "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN" and formatted identically (bolded and centre-justified) This would not be unusual if all three letters had been written by the same person, rather than three separate individuals who would not appear to know each other and one is not even in the same country: XXXX, XXXX sister, and the Appellant's girlfriend in Canada. [43] The second concern with the letter is the content. The RAD questions why XXXX husband would insist on having his wife bring the Appellant to their house for examination to determine if she needed to go the hospital. One must question why he would not simply have his wife take the Appellant directly to the hospital, given the nature of the alleged injuries, rather than wasting precious time and potentially risking the Appellant's life by having her brought to his home for an initial assessment as to whether "she ought to go to the hospital." It would be reasonable to expect that given the alleged nature of the Appellant's injuries, XXXX husband, a XXXX XXXX, would have directed his wife to take the Appellant directly to the hospital. [44] The Appellant also provided letters from the 519 Community Centre and Metropolitan Community Church, and the Black Coalition for Aids Prevention. In light of credibility concerns already enumerated, the RAD finds these letters of support insufficient evidence to counterbalance the overall credibility concerns with the Appellant's allegations and evidence. [45] Aside from the specific concerns cited with the letters, the RAD finds that concerns with the Appellant's credibility can give rise to concerns with all other documents. As indicated in Gebatas: "As stated by this Court numerous times, general findings of lack of credibility can affect all relevant evidence submitted by an applicant, including documentary evidence and ultimately cause the rejection of a claim."20 [46] In light of the concerns raised with respect to the letters, the RAD finds that the genuineness and trustworthiness of these documents has been undermined and as such gives them no weight. CONCLUSION [47] On the basis of the findings noted above and after its own assessment of all the evidence in the record, including the recording of the hearing, the RAD finds that the RPD's findings are generally correct and sustainable. Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection and dismisses the appeal (signed) "Anthony da Silva" Anthony da Silva December 18, 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. 2 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 17, BoC at Q. 2(a). 3 Ibid., p. 18, at Q. 2(b). 4 Recording of RPD hearing at 1:22:27. 5 Ibid., at 1:22:42. 6 Supra, footnote 2. 7 Shahamati, Hasan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-388-92), Pratte, Hugessen, McDonald, March 24, 1994. 8 Selvakumaran, Sivachelvam v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5103-01), McKeown, May 31, 2002. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 152. 10 Ibid., at pp. 172-173. 11 Ibid., at p. 153. 12 Singh, Parminder v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-512-14), Nadon, Gauthier, de Montigny, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 96, at para. 66 13 Ibid., at para. 67. 14 El Bouni, Haidar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-7627-14), Annis, June 2, 2015, 2015 FC 700. 15 UNHCR Guidance Note on Refugee Claims Relating to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, November 2008 at para. 12. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (31 March 2017), item 6.10. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 156. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid., at p. 157. 20 Gebetas, Ergun v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-11313-12), Shore, December 10, 2013, 2013 FC 1241, at para. 29. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB7-13555