MB7-13492

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 / Dossier de la SAR : MB7-13492 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 Ottawa ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision August 24, 2018 Date de la décision Panel Susan Brown Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal Solomon Orjiwuru Conseil(s) (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Cameroon, appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), and dated June 21, 2017, rejecting his claim for refugee protection. The RPD did not find the Appellant credible and did not believe his claim that he is homosexual and that authorities in Cameroon are looking for him. The Appellant did not submit new evidence to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) but requests a hearing which request is dismissed. I agree that the Appellant is not credible and confirm the RPD decision pursuant to section 111(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The appeal is dismissed. BACKGROUND [2] According to his Basis of Claim Form1 (BOC) the Appellant was born in XXXX in 1987. He states that he met his boyfriend at boarding school in early 2009 and in XXXX they both enrolled in a bachelor's degree XXXX XXXX at the University of XXXX. The Appellant alleges that he and his boyfriend were arrested due to their homosexuality on XXXX XXXX, 2015. After the Appellant's parents sought the help of a lawyer, the Appellant was released on bail on XXXX XXXX, 2015. The Appellant's boyfriend was released later when the Appellant paid his surety. After he failed to appear before the authorities on the prescribed date, the police went to the Appellant's family home in XXXX to serve a notice to appear. The Appellant fled to XXXX where, with the assistance of his sister and father, he made arrangements to leave the country by obtaining a Canadian student visa. The visa was issued on XXXX XXXX, 2015, and the Appellant left Cameroon on XXXX XXXX, 2015. [3] The Appellant's claim for refugee protection was received on March 21, 2016. The RPD hearing was held on May 26, 2016 and the RPD rendered its decision on June 21, 2017. The RPD identified credibility as the determinative issue. The RPD identified problems with respect to the Appellant's credibility: his claim to have studied law for five years with his boyfriend; that he and his boyfriend were arrested and detained; the reason why he applied for a Canadian student visa; his relationship with his boyfriend; and, the authenticity of the notice of arrest and warrant submitted. The RPD was not satisfied that the Appellant is homosexual and that the authorities in Cameroon are looking for him for that reason. ORAL HEARING AT THE RAD [4] The Appellant requests that the RAD hold a hearing. Section 110(6) of the IRPA says the RAD may only hold a hearing if there is new evidence that (a) raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellant, (b) is central to the RPD's decision, and (c) if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. Since the Appellant did not submit new evidence, the hearing request is dismissed. SCOPE OF THE RAD REVIEW [5] The RAD reviews decisions of the RPD on a standard of correctness after conducting an independent assessment of the evidence before it.2 The exception to this rule is where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in assessing and weighing the oral testimony heard, which in particular cases attracts a standard of review of reasonableness adapted to the RAD.3 Unless specifically stated below, I have applied the correctness standard. DETERMINATIVE ISSUE [6] The determinative issue is credibility. ANALYSIS [7] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its credibility finding, specifically: * That the Appellant's account of when he was released from custody contradicted the account of his boyfriend;4 * There is nothing in the Appellant's evidence to support the RPD's adverse credibility findings about the student visa application;5 * The RPD was overtly microscopic in its assessment of the Appellant's evidence about his law program;6 * The RPD's implausibility finding about the Appellant's relationship with his boyfriend is flawed and unreasonable;7 * The RPD failed to apportion appropriate weight to the medical report, convocation and warrant8 and incorrectly found the convocation and warrant to be fraudulent;9 * The RPD failed to take into account the totality of the evidence10 and erred by disregarding or misapprehending the evidence before it.11 [8] Following my own review of all the evidence on the record and the arguments of the Appellant, I find that the RPD correctly found that the Appellant was not credible. While there were some insufficiencies in the RPD analysis, I was able to address them below. Contradictory evidence about arrest and detention [9] The RPD found that a contradiction about the details of the release from detention between the evidence of the Appellant in his BOC and testimony and the evidence of his boyfriend,12 as well as the absence of reasonable explanation from the Appellant when confronted with the contradiction, significantly undermined the credibility of the Appellant's claim that he and his boyfriend were arrested due to their homosexuality. [10] The Appellant argues that there was a typographical error in the boyfriend's letter and advises that he is in the process of obtaining a letter from the boyfriend confirming the error. [11] The BOC and testimony of the Appellant and the boyfriend's evidence and the circumstances of the arrest and detention tell very different stories about the arrest and detention with respect to three elements of the story: (i) the circumstances of their arrest, (ii) the release of the boyfriend, and (iii) the release of the Appellant. (i) Circumstances of the arrest [12] The Appellant and his boyfriend agree that they were in a bar in XXXX on XXXX XXXX, 2015 after that their stories diverge. In his BOC the Appellant says:13 ...some guys were focusing on us not knowing their intensions. So when we were on our way outside, the same guys followed us eventually surrounded us and started asking us questions and directing derogatory anti-gay remarks at us. Before we knew it they started beating us. This attracted other patrons at the bar to the scene. So people started asking the reason for the attack on us and later understood we were being accused of practicing homosexuality. The police shortly arrived at the scene and took us to the station. [13] The boyfriend says:14 While in the private section of the bar two police officers who were, all dressed as civilians approached our table and sought to know our identifications. That not knowing that they were police officers as they were dressed as civilians we introduced ourselves. It was then that they removed two warrants of arrest against me and my partner and announced that we were under arrest for practicing homosexuality. [14] In the Appellant's version the police were called after an altercation occurred outside the bar and in the boyfriend's version the police arrived at the bar with warrants of arrest against the Appellant and his partner. In the Appellant's version the police are responsive and in the boyfriend's version the police had conducted an investigation and were prepared with warrants of arrest. This is a significant contradiction. (ii) Release of the boyfriend [15] The boyfriend says he was released from detention on XXXX XXXX, 2015 due to the intervention of his cousin, a local official. In his BOC the Appellant says that his boyfriend was released after the Appellant's release on XXXX XXXX, 2015 and that the Appellant paid his surety from his savings without his parent's knowledge. At the RPD hearing the Appellant testified that his boyfriend was released a few days after his XXXX XXXX, 2015 release. [16] When confronted with the contradiction the Appellant recognized the problem and said he didn't have a reason why his boyfriend said he was released on XXXX XXXX and reiterated that he was released after the Appellant. This is a significant contradiction for which the Appellant did not offer a reasonable explanation. (iii) Release of the Appellant [17] Related to the contradictory evidence about the release of the Appellant's boyfriend is the contradictory evidence about the release of the Appellant from detention. In his BOC the Appellant states that he stayed in prison for some weeks until his father hired a lawyer who got him out on bail on XXXX XXXX, 2015. The boyfriend says he asked his cousin to help with the Appellant's release but he refused and that it "was with great relief that I received a call from XXXX that he was finally granted bail on the XXXX XXXX XXXX."15 [18] I disagree with the Appellant that the contradictions can be explained as a typographical error and I note that the letter from the boyfriend confirming the error referenced by the Appellant in his appeal arguments16 has not been received. [19] The arrest and detention of the Appellant and his boyfriend are the central events of the Appellant's claim for refugee protection. The contractions between the evidence of the Appellant and his boyfriend are significant and provide a valid reason to doubt the truthfulness of the Appellant. I agree with the finding of the RPD that these contradictions undermine the credibility of the Appellant. Application for Canadian student visa [20] The RPD found that the Appellant's evidence (direct and corroborative) about when he decided to apply for a student visa was not consistent with the evidence provided by the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration17 and it made an adverse credibility finding on that basis. [21] The Appellant argues that the Appellant's testimony was clear that the process for obtaining the visa was in the works before he was arrested and there is nothing in the Appellant's evidence that would have led to the RPD's adverse credibility finding. [22] I cannot agree with the Appellant. The evidence speaks for itself. [23] In his BOC18 the Appellant says that he jumped bail and went into hiding in XXXX after his release from detention and after receiving medical treatment (i.e. after XXXX XXXX, 2015). While he was hiding out in XXXX, his sister convinced his father to assist him to flee the country and then his father provided his bank statements and other documents that assisted in securing a study visa as a means to flee the country. This is not consistent with the visa application file which indicates that the Appellant provided his father's bank statements on XXXX XXXX, 2015. [24] The Appellant's father's letter of support19 says that it was while the Appellant was living in hiding in XXXX (i.e. after XXXX XXXX, 2015) that the Appellant's sister pleaded with him to consider sending the Appellant to Canada and he decided to assist his son in procuring a visa for Canada "through the provision of my bank statement." Letters of support from the Appellant's mother20 and sister21 reference the same time frame. This evidence is not consistent with the visa application file which says that the Appellant provided his father's bank statements on XXXX XXXX, 2015. [25] At the RPD hearing the testimony of the Appellant changed. When first asked why he applied for the visa he replied it was because his life was not secure because he was being jailed and persecuted for his homosexuality22 and specifically when the police came to his father's house with the convocation23 after he had jumped bail and gone into hiding. When questioned closely by his counsel he seemed to suggest that his cousin had started a visa application much earlier, before his alleged arrest and detention.24 When asked for an explanation for why his father's bank record were provided in August the Appellant said that he had obtained the information from his father's bank manager.25 [26] I do not agree with the Appellant that his testimony on this issue was clear. The BOC and three of his support letters clearly state that the visa application process started after his arrest and detention. At the RPD hearing the Appellant's testimony evolved as a result of being confronted with the information that his visa application file indicated that the Appellant provided his father's bank statements on XXXX XXXX, 2015. [27] The evidence about the timing of the visa application is another central element of the Appellant's claim and is a serious contradiction that affects the credibility of the Appellant as well as the probative value of the corroborative letters of support from his father, mother and sister. Appellant's evidence about law program [28] The Appellant states in his BOC that he met his boyfriend in early 2009 and that both went to study XXXX at the University ofXXXX XXXX in XXXX of that year. The BOC narrative states that while they were at university the Appellant's relationship with his boyfriend continued and blossomed and that after graduation they both returned to XXXX. The Appellant submitted his academic records26 for the period 2010-2014. [29] The RPD found that Appellant's testimony about his XXXXprogram was vague, hesitant and demonstrated a lack of knowledge of his studies, which led the RPD to conclude that the Appellant was unable to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he studied XXXX for five years at the University ofXXXX XXXX with his boyfriend. [30] The Appellant argues that there is nothing in the testimony of the Appellant to suggest that he did not study or graduate from a XXXX program, that the RPD was overtly microscopic its assessment of the testimony, and that the issue was irrelevant or peripheral to the claim. [31] This is what the Appellant said about his legal studies during the hearing:27 MEMBER: How long did you study XXXX for? CLAIMANT: It was five years. MEMBER: What courses did you take? CLAIMANT: I studied contract XXXX, XXXX XXXX. I studied XXXX XXXX. I studied - I already gave you XXXX XXXX. I already gave you XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. MEMBER: Do you remember any specific courses that you took? CLAIMANT: Yeah, there's a specific, in Cameroon we did not specify. We just did everything considering the XXXX because nobody, the XXXX, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. We have contract XXXX 1. We have 2. We had XXXX XXXX, 1, 2. We had XXXX XXXX. We had to study XXXX XXXX. We studied XXXX XXXX too, XXXX XXXX. MEMBER: What XXXX did you study? CLAIMANT: Those are all that we studied. We never had a specification on ... MEMBER: But specific XXXX, like, XXXX? What, can you name me XXXX that you studied? COUNSEL: Like, XXXX. MEMBERS: XXXX. Sorry. CLAIMANT: like in the XXXX XXXX XXXX ... COUNSEL: I think the - sorry. The Member is asking XXXX, XXXX XXXX. MEMBER: Right, yeah. XXXX XXXX names that you studied ... CLAIMANT: Oh, XXXX. MEMBER: during your five years. CLAIMANT: I guess specific XXXX. I can't really give a specific XXXX. [32] The Appellant's XXXX studies with his boyfriend are a foundation of the same-sex relationship that anchors his claim. I disagree with the Appellant that the issue is irrelevant or peripheral. [33] Neither the RPD's questions nor its assessment of the testimony of the Appellant was microscopic. The questions were very general: how long did you study; what courses did you take; and what XXXX did you study. [34] The hearing transcript clearly demonstrates that the Appellant's testimony was vague and does suggest that he did not actually study XXXX for five years. This conclusion is support by the student academic record from the University of XXXX submitted by the Appellant as evidence. The record lists XXXX XXXX courses, in the first semester of 2010 alone it lists the following courses: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The Appellant mentions family law a number of times during his testimony but the record only identifies one family law course. [35] The RPD did not err when it found, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant did not study XXXX at the University of XXXX for five years. Relationship with boyfriend [36] The RPD questioned the Appellant about his relationship with his boyfriend and concluded that it was not reasonable that a person who has been in a romantic relationship for almost six years is only able to discuss general experiences such sharing meals, their space, their bed and their locker keys. On this basis the RPD found that the Appellant was unable to establish that, on a balance of probabilities, he had been in a romantic relationship with his boyfriend since 2009. [37] The Appellant argues that the RPD made an implausibility finding which is flawed and unreasonable. [38] While I agree with the RPD that the Appellant did not, on a balance of probabilities demonstrate his relationship with his boyfriend, I find that the analysis of the RPD presented in its reasons to be insufficient and I will undertake my own additional analysis to support the finding. [39] The following factors support a finding that the Appellant did not demonstrate his relationship with his boyfriend: * The Appellant's testimony did not provide many details about his relationship, seemed to focus on high school and was not reflective of a six-year romantic relationship; * As detailed above in paragraphs 28-34 the testimony of the Appellant about his XXXX program suggests that it is more likely than not that he did not spend five years studying XXXX with his boyfriend; * As detailed above in paragraphs 12-19, contradictory evidence about the details of arrest and release of the Appellant and his boyfriend and problems with the notice to appear and warrant detailed below in paragraphs 43-47 suggest that it is more likely than not that the Appellant was not arrested or detained for being a homosexual; * Other contradictory evidence which contributes to the finding but would not, on its own, be determinative includes that the Appellant says they both moved back to XXXX after finishing university while the boyfriend says the Appellant moved to XXXX and he stayed in XXXX. Notice to appear and warrant [40] The RPD noted a number of problems on the face of both the notice to appear and warrant which, when combined with the objective evidence that fraudulent notices are produced for various purposes in Cameroon, led it to conclude that the notice to appear and arrest warrant were fraudulently obtained and, therefore, of no probative value. [41] The Appellant argues that the RPD failed to apportion appropriate weight to the notice to appear, warrant and medical certificate because in its opinion some spelling errors on the documents impeach their authenticity. The Appellant argues that equating minor spelling or typographical errors on official documents to the documents being invalid without more amounts to a reviewable error on the part of the RPD. [42] I disagree with the Appellant. In addition to significant spelling and typographical errors on the face of the notice to appear and the warrant, the RPD identified problems with: the letterhead; the issuer's stamp; the missing and inconsistent file numbers; French and English being mixed up in the set references; and, the documents being improperly completed or left blank. [43] The RPD also referenced a Response to Information Request which forms part of the objective evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP) as its authority for the statement "Citizens produce fraudulent notices to appear for various purposes."28 I agree with the Appellant that evidence of widespread forgery on its own is not sufficient to reject a document as a forgery; in this case, however, it was one of many reasons cited by the RPD. [44] Following my own analysis of the notice to appear and warrant I note that the dates of issue of the documents do not conform to Cameroonian criminal procedure. According to the objective evidence in the NDP, suspects detained by the police "can then be released unconditionally with the charges dropped, if the prosecutor does not find sufficient evidence against them; released on bail, or "provisionally", pending trial; or remanded in pre-trial detention."29 [45] The Cameroon Criminal Procedure Code prescribes the manner in which bail is granted: Criminal Procedure Code, section 117: "At the close of the investigations, the suspect who has no known residence or who cannot fulfil any of the conditions referred to in section 246 (g) shall be arrested and taken before the State Counsel if there is strong corroborative evidence against him. A suspect who has a known residence or who fulfils one of the conditions provided for in section 246 (g) shall be released on bail;" Section 224 (1): "Any person lawfully remanded in custody may be granted bail on condition that he fulfills one of the conditions referred to in section 246 (g), in particular to ensure his appearance either before the judicial police or any judicial authority;" Section 246 (g): "in order to ensure his appearance he shall: - either deposit a sum of money, the amount and conditions of payment of which shall be fixed by the Examining Magistrate, taking into consideration the resources of the defendant; or provide one or more sureties in accordance with the provisions of sections 224 and following."30 [46] The Appellant's testimony was that he "jumped bail" which would normally mean that the bail bond was forfeited and that a notice to appear (also known as a convocation or summons) or arrest warrant would be issued. "There should be no arrest or warrant before a third notice to appear is ignored. This procedure is not always followed in practice, and often after the first notice to appear, the judicial police officer decides to arrest the accused."31 I note that the notice to appear32 submitted as evidence by the Appellant is dated XXXX XXXX, 2015 requiring an appearance on XXXX XXXX, 2015. The warrant33 (mandat d'amener/writ of capias), which would normally issue after the Appellant did not attend on the date prescribed by the notice to appear was issued on XXXX XXXX, 2015, three days before the notice to appear was issued and five days before his required appearance. [47] I find that the problems on the face of the notice to appear and warrant amount to much more than mere spelling or typographical errors and, in combination with objective evidence about widespread forgery and lack of compliance with Cameroonian criminal procedure, I agree with the RPD that, on a balance of probabilities, the notice to appear and warrant are fraudulent and cannot be accorded any probative value. Totality of the evidence [48] As outlined above the RPD found that the Appellant was not credible with respect to the central elements of his claim including his relationship with his boyfriend and their arrest and detention. Given the problems with the central elements of his claim the RPD found that the corroborative documents submitted by the Appellant could not, alone, establish on a balance of probabilities, his sexual orientation. [49] The Appellant argues that once the RPD found the notice to appear and warrant to be fraudulent, it beclouded its judgment in assessing other documentary evidence thereby reaching a decision not based on the evidence properly before it or the totality of the evidence which amounts to a reviewable error on the part of the RPD. The Appellant argues that the RPD erred when it did not give reasons for finding that the following documentary evidence did not establish that the Appellant was a gay man: letters from the LGBT groups, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX letter, photographs, and the medical report. [50] I will assess documentary evidence referenced by the Appellant to determine whether the RPD erred and whether the evidence on the record establishes the Appellant's identity as a homosexual. The Appellant submitted evidence from the following LGBT groups: two letters from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX) dated XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, 2016, a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX dated XXXX XXXX, 2016, and a letter from the XXXX XXXX XXXX dated XXXX XXXX, 2016.34 [51] The Appellant registered for the XXXX XXXX XXXX Settlement Program in XXXX, 2016, the same XXXX he made his claim for protection. The XXXX XXXX, 2016 letter and certificate say that the Appellant volunteers with XXXX XXXX. The XXXX XXXX, 2016 XXXX XXXX letter says that the Appellant has been attending a bi-weekly gay youth social support group, "has developed some new friendships with other group members since coming to XXXX XXXX and is finding his voice as a Gay young man." While the author of the letter, a refugee settlement coordinator for XXXX XXXX, says "there is nothing to indicate to me from my experience working with [the Appellant] that he is not being authentic about his sexuality..." he does not confirm that the Appellant is gay. [52] The XXXX letter confirms that the Appellant is an active member of the LGBTQ Refugee Support Group and that he completed the Newcomer Orientation session in XXXX 2016, the month after he made his claim for protection. [53] The XXXX letter is dated XXXX XXXX, 2016 and simply states the Appellant's claim that he was a victim of torture in Cameroon because of his sexual orientation. [54] I have addressed the photographs of the Appellant's boyfriend above at paragraph 39. The photograph captioned "with friends at XXXX in XXXX"35 has little probative value as the participants and location are not identified. [55] None of the XXXX XXXX, XXXX, or XXXX letters affirm that the Appellant is a homosexual and his evidence is that he has not had any relationships other than with his boyfriend in Cameroon. When asked at the RPD hearing on May 26, 2016 about how many relationships he had, the Appellant answered "just one." The RPD clarified and said when it meant relationships, it meant romantic and sexual relationships and the Appellant reiterated his answer, "just one."36 [56] I doubt the authenticity of the medical certificate37 for a number of reasons including: it does not properly report a medical examination; the tests administered are not identified; and, the treatment is not clear and the treatment identified (wounds dressed with Plaster of Paris) is not consistent with a diagnosis of no fractures. In any event the medical certificate makes no reference to the Appellant's homosexuality. [57] I have considered the Appellant's reference to the Leke38 decision which found that the RPD erred in dismissing the "applicant's membership in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Community Centre as proof of his membership in an organization that serves minorities like him in and near the City's Gay Village." I note that the claimant in that decision was both a member of XXXX and a resident of the City's Gay Village which is not the situation in this case as the Appellant does not reside in the Gay Village. [58] Following my analysis of the totality of the evidence on the record regarding the Appellant's credibility and his sexual orientation, I find that the RPD did not err when finding that, on a balance of probabilities, the following documentary evidence did not establish that the Appellant was a gay man: letters from the LGBT groups, XXXX letter, photographs, and the medical report. CONCLUSION [59] I have reviewed the Appellant's testimony, documentary evidence, arguments and undertaken my own analysis to find that the RPD did not err when it concluded that the Appellant's claim was not credible. For the reasons outlined above, I find that the Appellant is not credible and he has failed to establish the central allegation in his claim that he is homosexual. I find there is no serious possibility that the Appellant would be persecuted if he were to return to Cameroon or, on a balance of probabilities, that he would be exposed to torture, a threat to life or the risk of cruel and unusual punishment. [60] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of IRPA. (signed) Susan Brown Susan Brown August 24, 2018 Date 1 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 23-25, Exhibit 2. 2 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, [2016] 4 FCR 157, 2016 FCA 93 (CanLII). 3 Ibid., and X (Re), 2017 CanLII 33034 (CA IRB). 4 Ibid., paragraph 11. 5 Ibid., paragraph 14. 6 P-2, Appellant's Record, page 15, Submissions, paragraph 10. 7 Ibid., paragraph 15. 8 Ibid., paragraph 16 . 9 Ibid., paragraph 26. 10 Ibid., paragraph 31. 11 Ibid., paragraph 33. 12 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 124 and 125, Exhibit 5. 13 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 23, Exhibit 2. 14 Ibid., page 124 , Exhibit 5. 15 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 125, Exhibit 5. 16 P-2, Appellant's Record, page 16, Submissions, paragraph 15. 17 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 62-88 , Exhibit 1. 18 Ibid., pages 24 and 25 , Exhibit 2, 19 Ibid., page 111, Exhibit 4. 20 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 113, Exhibit 4. 21 Ibid., page 119, Exhibit 5. 22 RPD Hearing Transcript, page 17. 23 Ibid., pages 21 and 40. 24 Ibid., page 39. 25 Ibid., page 42. 26 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 97 and 98, Exhibit 4. 27 RPD Hearing Transcript, page 35. 28 RDP-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Cameroon, April 28, 2017, document 10.1, Response to Information Request dated October 23, 2013, Cameroon: Notices to appear issued by the General Delegation for National Security (Delegation generale a la Surete nationale, DGSN), including the issuing procedure; the content and appearance of the notices to appear, and whether it is the same at all the police stations in the country; possiblity of obtaining a fraudulent notice to appear (2012-October 2013). 29 RDP-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Cameroon, April 28, 2017, document 6.6, Human Rights Watch, Guilty by Association. Human Rights Violations in the Enforcement of Cameroon's Anti-Homosexuality Law, March 2013, page 13. 30 Ibid., page 14, footnote 16. 31 Supra. Footnote 28, NDP for Cameroon, April 28, 2017, document 10.1, page 3. 32 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 108, Exhibit 4. 33 Ibid., page 115, Exhibit 4. 34 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 98-108, Exhibit 4. 35 Ibid., page 126, Exhibit 5. 36 RPD Hearing Transcript, page 31. 37 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 107, Exhibit 4, 38 Leke, Tunji Diran v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4191-06), Lagacé, August 22, 2007, 2007 FC 848. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB7-13492 17 RAD.25.02 (April 24, 2018) Disponible en français