TB5-04979

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 : TB5-04979 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 August 17, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Robert S. Garner Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Richard M. Addinall Barrister and Solicitor 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), is a citizen of Georgia. He appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. The Appellant asks that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the decision of the RPD and find him to be a Convention refugee or refer the claim back to the RPD for re-determination with a differently constituted panel. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to s. 111(1)(a), of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD and denies the appeal. Memorandum of appeal * Did the RPD err in its negative inferences concerning the Appellant's credibility? * Did the RPD ignore or misunderstand evidence in making its credibility findings? * Did the RPD err in making its Internal Flight Alternative ("IFA") findings?1 Background [3] In the original Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative submitted on February 6, 2014, the Appellant states the following: [4] After the war between Russia/Ossetia and Georgia in 2008, the Appellant and his mother were beaten and called traitors because of their ethnicity. After moving to XXXX in 2009, the Appellant met some people from his village and he was beaten and threatened with death because he was accused of being an Ossetian traitor. When visiting his mother and working on her farm land, he got too close to the Russian border, and was accused of being a Georgian spy, and as a result was detained, beaten, and kept in jail for XXXX days. When returning to his home village, he was accused of spying for the Russians, and was threatened. The Appellant did not feel safe in his village, XXXX, or his mother's village, because everyone hated him. [5] In the second BOC narrative submitted on January 6, 2015, the Appellant made the following changes and additions: [6] On XXXX XXXX, 2008, the Appellant and his mother were hospitalized for XXXX days in XXXX hospital because of injuries caused during a beating. The police came to the hospital and started investigating, but no action was taken. [7] After the beating in XXXX, the Appellant sought support from a lawyer and filed a complaint with the Prosecutor's office. Two weeks after XXXX XXXX, 2009, the police declared no action could be taken and the investigation was closed. While this investigation was going on, the Appellant was beaten by his neighbours on XXXX XXXX, 2009, and as a result was hospitalized for XXXX days with XXXX XXXX, broken XXXX, and other issues. These additional documents were given to the police. The letter to the Prosecutor's office, dated XXXX XXXX, 2009, indicated that they did not find any legal wrongdoing against him by the police or others. As a result, the investigation was closed. [8] On XXXX XXXX, 2009, the Appellant applied to the Ombudsman office of Georgia for help. One month later, they found that the persecution was a result of xenophobia based on national and ethnical belonging. Recommendations were made to the appropriate government organizations by the Ombudsman. [9] After the beating by the Russian soldiers, the Appellant was hospitalized for XXXX days, and when released, was recommended to take bed rest for XXXX weeks. [10] The Appellant gave an explanation for the BOC amendment above. He stated that when he came into Canada, he was experiencing extreme depression and stress, and had been ill. He stated that he had provided the RPD with medical documents and states that it was very difficult for him to communicate. As a result of not having these documents in front of him, he was unsure of the exact dates of various events, and was reluctant to indicate these details for fear of making a mistake. [11] The Appellant's application for refugee protection was heard on January 16, 2015, February 25th, 2015, and March 18, 2015. In a decision of April 24, 2015, the RPD did not find, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant to be a credible witness and therefore rejected his claim. ROLE OF THE RAD [12] The Appellant submits that Huruglica2 should be the review standard and describes the relevant processes. [13] The RAD agrees, and finds that the Federal Court decision in Huruglica provides the RAD with guidance in relation to the appropriate review that must be applied by a specialized tribunal, such as the RAD, to decisions of a first-level administrative tribunal. Justice Phelan states in paragraphs 54 and 55 of the foregoing decision: [54] Having concluded that the RAD erred in reviewing the RPD's decision on the standard of reasonableness, I have further concluded that for the reasons above, the RAD is required to conduct a hybrid appeal. It must review all aspects of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the [Appellant] is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Where its assessment departs from that of the RPD, the RAD must substitute its own decision. [55] In conducting its assessment, it can recognize and respect the conclusion of the RPD on such issues as credibility and/or where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage in reaching such a conclusion but it is not restricted, as an appellate court is, to intervening on facts only where there is an "overriding and palpable error." [14] Accordingly, the RAD will conduct its own assessment of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the Appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Deference will be afforded to the credibility findings of the RPD or to other findings where the RPD has a particular advantage in reaching its conclusions. ADMISSIBILITY OF NEW EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON APPEAL [15] No new evidence was submitted on behalf of the Appellant. MERITS OF THE APPEAL Psychological Reports [16] The RPD found the Appellant not credible. As a result, quoting case law to substantiate its finding, the RPD gave the psychological report little weight in terms of establishing the Appellant's allegations. The RPD stated in its decision that the RPD compensated for the Appellant during the hearing by ensuring that the Appellant understood the question before responding, had sufficient health breaks during the hearing, and did not continue when the Appellant stated he was in ill health. [17] The RPD stated that psychological reports cannot categorically declare that the Appellant experienced what he alleges he experienced. The RPD was unable to conclude that the chronic XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the XXXX XXXX XXXX were a result of the persecution experienced in Georgia. Quoting Federal case law,3 the RPD stated that in the context of assessing the physician's evidence and credibility, "opinion evidence is only as valid as the truth of the facts on which it is based." [18] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred by ignoring the psychologist's finding in its assessment of the Appellant's credibility. The psychologist found that the Appellant was suffering from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as well as XXXX XXXX XXXX. The psychologist attributed the cognitive difficulties of the Appellant to the disruptive impact of this trauma and subsequent psychological distress. Quoting case law,4 the Appellant submits that the RPD erred by failing to consider the evidence in the psychological assessments concerning the Appellant's mental state, and by failing to consider it in its credibility analysis. In that decision, Justice Blanchard stated that the Immigration and Refugee Board (Board) erred by not considering the Applicants state, in imputing the Applicants credibility based on Port of Entry (POE) notes. The Appellant also quoted Justice Blanchard where he states, "The Board is required to be "sensitive and alert" to such psychological reports". [19] Although the RPD made sound points in its findings regarding the psychological reports, it erred by stating that it gave the reports little weight because of the Appellant's lack of credibility. The RAD finds, quoting the decision above in the Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal, that such a finding is in error. The specific issues as they relate to the POE notes will be addressed below in this decision. Point of Entry Notes [20] The RPD drew a negative inference with respect to the Appellant's omission of the XXXX 2013 Russian incident when being interviewed by Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)/Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). During that interview, the Appellant talked about two incidents, one in XXXX 2012, and another in XXXX 2013, identifying the attackers by name. When the omission of the Russian incident was put to the Appellant, he stated that he did not know why he said what he did. He stated he was confused because he was scared of everything. The RPD did not accept the Appellant's explanation, noting that this was an important incident for the Appellant, and should reasonably have been explained at the POE interview. The RPD drew a negative inference from this omission, noting that the Appellant stated that this beating and subsequent mistreatment in the village caused him to leave Georgia and come to Canada to claim refugee status. The RPD noted that the Appellant described the above incident in his amended BOC narrative, but noted that nothing within the statements suggest that he was mistreated and subsequently expelled from his village. [21] The Appellant submits that the RPD failed to take into account the Appellant's physical and emotional condition at the time of the POE interview, and because it is based on details and not the substance of the claim. The Appellant submits that in his statement at the POE interview, he mentioned that he was detained by Russian soldiers for XXXX days, a statement consistent with his amended BOC narrative. The Appellant submits that his statements of not having slept for five days, plus his request for a painkiller, should have been given more consideration by the RPD before making a negative credibility finding. [22] The RAD finds that the RPD made efforts during the RPD hearing to compensate for the Appellant's medical condition. The RAD notes that the RPD also noted the POE officer was compensatory during the interview. The RAD agrees that the Appellant may not have been in top condition during the interview. However, the following issues caused the RAD to support the RPD's finding on a lack of credibility regarding the 2013 Russian incident. [23] In reviewing the recording of the hearings, the RAD finds that the Appellant stated that he left Georgia because of the incident with the Russian soldiers on XXXX XXXX, 2013, subsequent hospitalization, and the subsequent treatment by the villagers. In the Appellant's statement at the POE interview, the Appellant makes mention of being detained by Russian soldiers for XXXX days, but makes no mention of the beating and subsequent hospitalization. To be able to remember being detained without the more egregious aspects of the detention is not credible. In the POE interview, pages 77 through 81, the Appellant states that he has been running away from persons who wanted to harm him, and that this last occurred in XXXX of 2013. In continuing responses, the Appellant then changed this date to the end of XXXX 2013, the alleged date of the incident and beating by the Russian soldiers. The RAD draws a negative inference from this inconsistency between testimony and the Appellant's BOC narrative, where he stated that on XXXX XXXX, 2013 he was beaten by Russian soldiers. [24] He subsequently stated that this had occurred also in 2012. The Appellant was asked why he came to Canada now. He replied that he was hiding and finding ways to leave. When asked by the officer, if he wanted to come to Canada to get away from these people that he saw two or three times a year, the Appellant stated that they were after him and he constantly had problems with them. In subsequent responses, the Appellant stated that his friend told him that Canada accepts refugees, and that is why he decided to come here, to ask for protection. The Appellant then began to describe the arrangements that were being made in order to have him leave Georgia and come to Canada. These responses, noted above, are in direct contradiction to the subsequent statements made in the Appellant's amended BOC narrative, and in testimony at the hearing. The RAD draws a negative inference from this major inconsistency in what was alleged to be the Appellant's reason for coming to Canada. The RAD has considered the Appellant's comments of no sleep and headache during the POE hearing. However, the RAD finds it not credible that the Appellant could very clearly state his reasons for coming to Canada, and these reasons are not consistent with subsequent testimony and documentation. [25] The Appellant submitted four notarized letters5 in support of the Appellant's situation in Georgia. The sworn statement of the Appellant's mother, dated November 26, 2014, makes mention of the ethnic difficulties between Georgians and Ossetians in Georgia. No mention is made of the alleged incident with the Russian soldiers. The statement by his mother only indicates the difficulties that her son had because of the ethnic disagreements. The statement of the Appellant's lawyer, in Georgia, dated November 26, 2014, comments on the difficulties that the Appellant had during 2008 and 2009: the subsequent legal actions taken with the XXXX police on XXXX XXXX, 2009, the application to the Prosecutor's office on XXXX XXXX, 2009, and letter to the ombudsman, dated XXXX XXXX, 2014. He states and speculates that the authorities in Georgia did not protect the Appellant. There is no mention of the alleged incidents of 2012 or 2013, nor of the alleged incident and subsequent beating by Russian soldiers in XXXX 2013. [26] Two of the sworn statements by childhood friends of the Appellant relate the story of the 2013 incident with Russians. The RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the lack of consistent information in the sworn statements reinforces the RAD's finding that the Appellant's allegations of a Russian detention and beating are not credible. The RAD notes that the Health Certificate submitted in documentation6 indicates that the Appellant was hospitalized from XXXX XXXX, 2013 until XXXX XXXX, 2013, noting that the patient had been beaten. However there is nothing in that documentation that indicates the cause of that beating, only that it occurred and the Appellant was hospitalized. [27] Given all of the above, the RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the alleged Russian detention and beating did not happen, and draws a negative inference. [28] The RAD, in reviewing the BOC narrative of the Appellant, notes that he states "They beat me and kept me in jail for XXXX day,"7 a statement in direct contradiction to the RPD's finding that the Appellant had not included this in his amended BOC narrative. As noted above, the Appellant submitted a Health Certificate8 dated XXXX XXXX, 2013 that stated that the Appellant had been in hospital from XXXX XXXX, 2013, until XXXX XXXX, 2013. The RPD found the Appellant's medical documentation not probative because of the credibility issues in the claim. The RAD does not agree with this finding by the RPD, but this issue is not determinative in the refugee claim. The RAD has found that the Appellant's story regarding the alleged beating by Russian soldiers not credible, and no documentation was submitted to substantiate the cause of the hospitalization. The RAD also found that the Appellant's POE testimony, and subsequent documentation and testimony were in direct contradiction. Work in Ukraine [29] The RPD notes that during the Appellant's POE interview he stated that he was working in Ukraine, and could not remember when he was last in Georgia. The Appellant, in testimony, stated that he did not remember why he said that in the interview, and that he was in a "bad condition." The RPD did not accept this explanation, in that the Appellant gave this information; it was not solicited. The RPD went on to explain that his failure to provide a reasonable explanation impugned his overall credibility, and drew a negative inference. [30] The Appellant submits that the RPD's negative inference from this issue is unreasonable. He submits that whether or not he worked in the Ukraine is not relevant to the substance of his claim. The Appellant also notes that even if it was relevant, working for cigarettes is still work; there is no significant contradiction. In supporting the submission, the Appellant makes reference to several Federal Court decisions, and again refers to the Appellant's self-stated "condition" at the POE interview. [31] Earlier in this decision, the RAD made reference to the POE interview and the Appellant stated lack of sleep and a headache. The RPD is reasonably allowed to find that and Appellant's credibility is questioned when faced with such contradictions, and inconsistencies. The RAD finds that although this appears to be a contradiction, it agrees with the Appellant that it is it not significant in relation to the claim as a whole. Attacks in XXXX 2012, and 2013 [32] The RPD drew a negative inference with respect to the Appellant's failure to include the XXXX 2012 and 2013 events in his BOC and amended narrative. The RPD gave recognition to the fact that these incidents had been described in his POE interviews, and that he described these incidents at his RPD hearing. However, the RPD did not accept the Appellant's explanation that he was ill after his arrival in Canada, and that he had initially been fearful of providing information as he was waiting for family to send him documents before he completed his amended narrative. The RPD's reasoning was that the Appellant had ample time to provide the panel with complete and accurate version of the alleged events of persecution. [33] The Appellant states, using Federal Court case law, that the negative inference should not have been drawn, given that the Appellant discussed these incidents with the POE officer and related them at the hearing. The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in giving no weight to the Appellant's evidence concerning these incidents. The Appellant referenced Federal Court case law indicating that the POE notes should be a brief recitation of the facts, not all the specifics. [34] The RAD finds that the negative inference drawn by the RPD is not a strong finding. The Appellant did discuss the ongoing harassment and persecution during his POE interview. The RAD finds that the Appellant's discussion of these events on two occasions, the POE interview and the RPD hearing should be sufficient to indicate that there were some incidents of either harassment or persecution. In the POE interview there was no indication of a beating or hospitalization. The Appellant indicated that on one occasion he ran away and hid for a week, and another he got into a fight with hands and then ran away. [35] The RAD has considered the Appellant's reference to Federal Court cases, but finds the case at bar to be different. It is not the omission of details the causes the negative credibility finding by the RAD, rather the inconsistencies and specific omissions to incidents that allegedly occurred, and caused the Appellant to come to Canada. The RAD is also cognizant of the Appellant's submissions that he had a headache and was in need of sleep when the POE interview was conducted. However, in spite of these difficulties, the Appellant appeared to be giving fairly extensive answers in response to the POE officer's questions. Other Assaults [36] When the Appellant was questioned by the Minister's counsel regarding the difference between his testimony and his notarized statement from his lawyer, he stated that he had been assaulted many times and that the police were not called, and as a result he had no documentary evidence of these alleged assaults. The RPD drew a negative inference with respect to the Appellant's omissions from his evidence with respect to the many assaults he allegedly suffered because of his Ossetian heritage, and found this omission detracts from his overall credibility. [37] The Appellant submits that there was reference to these many assaults in his Georgian lawyer's notarized statement, and that the negative inference drawn by the RPD was in error. [38] The RAD finds that it would've been reasonable for the Appellant to mention these many assaults in either his BOC narrative or POE interview. However, the notarized statement by his lawyer makes reference to these many assaults on Ossetians in general, and the Appellant in particular. The RAD agrees with the Appellant in that this is a weak inference in that the Georgian lawyer's notarized statement has not been proven to be fraudulent. Earlier in this decision, the RAD made reference to the notarized statement submitted in documentation, and drew a negative inference in relation to the different stories related regarding the alleged Russian detention and beating. Although no finding was made regarding the genuineness of the notarized statements given in documentation, the variances in the statements give rise to speculation about their genuineness. Corroborative documentation [39] The RPD found that the medical documents for the XXXX 2008, XXXX 2009, and XXXX 2013 attack describe the injuries but do not establish that the Appellant was attacked for the reasons he put forward. The letters from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and from the ombudsman of Georgia verify that the Appellant was attacked in XXXX 2008 and in XXXX 2009. The RPD finds that these two letters are insufficient to remedy all of the concerns the RPD had with respect to the Appellant's credibility. The RPD notes that the alleged 2012 and 2013 attacks are not included in this documentation. Due to the fact that the RPD had no way of assessing the origins of the letters in light of the credibility concerns noted in its decision, it gave the statements from his friends, lawyer, and mother little weight. [40] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in giving no weight to the medical documents because they do not establish that the Appellant was attacked for the reasons he put forward. The Appellant submits that documentation should be assessed on the basis of what it says, not what it does not say. The Appellant submits that the RPD's findings regarding the letters from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ombudsman is not reasonable in that they are from reliable official sources and corroborate the Appellant's evidence that he suffered serious assaults because of his half-Ossetian ethnicity. The Appellant submitted Federal Court case law stating that the RPD is not entitled to reject evidence supporting allegations simply because it is already rejected the allegations as not credible. [41] The RAD reviewed all the corroborative documentation submitted on behalf of the Appellant. The RAD made reference to this documentation earlier in this decision. The RAD used the documentation submitted to draw inferences and conclusions regarding the Appellant's allegations. With respect to the Prosecutors document, and the Ombudsman's letter, both refer to incidents that allegedly occurred to the Appellant in 2009. In both instances the letters make reference to police investigations, and due to a lack of witnesses, the case was concluded. Neither letter makes reference to the allegations of the Appellant regarding the alleged incident on XXXX XXXX, 2013, that allegedly caused the Appellant to come to Canada. [42] The RAD has dealt with the inconsistencies between the four notarized statements submitted. The RAD found that due to these inconsistent stories, especially the alleged beating at the hands of the Russian soldiers at the end of XXXX 2013, the RAD can attach little weight to their veracity as probative in the allegations that the Appellant came to Canada because of a XXXX XXXX, 2013 attack by Russian soldiers. Because of the inconsistency between POE testimony, testimony at the RPD hearing, and BOC narrative, the RAD has found, as stated above, that the alleged attack by the Russian soldiers is not credible. [43] The RAD has no reason to believe that the Medical Reports are not genuine. However, the first two medical reports about injuries in 2008 and 2009, when the war between the countries was in effect, are not part of the basis of the Appellant's allegations of persecution, and reason for seeking refugee status in Canada. The RAD concurs with the RPD on its finding about the medical documentation at the end of XXXX, 2013. It would be reasonable in such a circumstance, that accompanying documentation from the police or another authority would have been included in what appears to be an egregious attack on the Appellant. Although the medical report states that the injuries were the result of a beating, it does not give any other indication of the source of the beating. As stated above in this decision, the RAD cannot give this medical documentation any probative value in establishing the allegations of the Appellant regarding the alleged beating by Russian soldiers. [44] The RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant was not a credible witness and therefore rejects his Refugee claim. Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) and State Protection In the Alternative [45] The RPD found that the Appellant had an IFA in Batumi, a large centre located on the Black Sea. The RPD referred to the analysis of IFA being a two-pronged test. The RPD noted that the first test was that he had to be safe from the agents of persecution in the designated IFA. According to the Appellant's testimony, he was living in XXXX without difficulty until neighbours from his village, located some 40 kilometres from XXXX, showed up and created the difficulty. Batumi is much further away, and no evidence was adduced to indicate that his persecutors were motivated to track him across the country. The incident allegedly occurred when the villagers found him by happenstance in XXXX. Given this reasoning, the RPD rejected the Appellant's argument that as an Ossetian he would suffer persecution anywhere in Georgia. The RPD rejected the Appellant's mother's notarized statement concerning a cousin who was killed in XXXX, Georgia, a location on the Black sea. The RPD noted that there was no evidence to substantiate that his mother's cousin was killed because of his ethnicity. [46] In dealing with the second prong, the RPD determined that Batumi was a reasonable choice for purposes of relocation. The RPD noted that the Appellant speaks Georgian, the language spoken by 71% of the country, and that he is Orthodox Christian, the largest religious group in the country. The RPD noted that the Appellant has 12 years of formal education, and there was no reason presented why he would be unable to find employment in Batumi. [47] The RPD gave recognition to the RPD decision regarding other Ossetians offered in documentation, but stated that each case is different, and must be decided on its own merits. [48] The Appellant argues that the RPD's findings that his villagers found him by happen stance in XXXX is not reasonable. He argues that the claim is based on his ethnicity, and that he would be confronted by problems anywhere in Georgia. The Appellant submits that no evidence was before the RPD that Batumi is a safe haven for Ossetians. He goes on to submit that the situation in the IFA must be "qualitatively different" from the situation in other parts of the country where there exists a reasonable chance of persecution. [49] To support this submission, the Appellant referred to a positive RPD decision concerning his cousin. He submits that the documentation submitted in that particular claim supports the submission that the Appellant would not be safe anywhere in Georgia. [50] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in its IFA analysis by failing to consider the country documentation before it. [51] The RAD agrees with the RPD's reasoning regarding a safe IFA location. The RAD finds that the RPD addressed both prongs of IFA. The RAD agrees with the RPD decision that the incident in XXXX was happenstance, and that there is no documentation or evidence submitted that supports the perpetrators of this action would follow him anywhere in Georgia. Given the documentation submitted by the Appellant, the RAD agrees that there are incidents occurring between the Ossetians and Georgians, but there has been no credible documentation submitted to support that the Appellant has been persecuted, or harassed in a way that would give rise to a finding of persecution. [52] The issue of state protection was addressed during the hearing by the Minister's representative. He questioned the Appellant on a number of the incidents that allegedly occurred. The Appellant testified that not all incidents were reported to the police. Those incidents that were reported to the police appeared to have been dealt with, according to documentation referred to earlier, a report from the Appellant's lawyer, a letter from the State Prosecutor, and a letter from the Georgian ombudsman. The Appellant was given, according to these documents, the services of the police force and judiciary in Georgia. Other alleged incidents of harassment because of his Ossetian heritage were not referred to the police according to the Appellant, so no action was taken by the authorities. The RAD finds that the Appellant was given due process by the Authorities in Georgia when it was requested. The alleged incident of mistreatment by the police was found not to be credible by the ombudsman. The other incidents were found by the State Prosecutor to have been dealt with appropriately, and discontinued because of the lack of witnesses. [53] The RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant has been given the protection of the state that was requested. No evidence was adduced during the hearing, nor documentation produced, that supported the premise that the Appellant was unable to receive protection from the authorities in Georgia. The RAD finds, that the alleged incidents of harassment were not documented and do not rise to the level of persecution necessary to be considered a Convention refugee. [54] The RAD considered the documents given by the Appellant and finds that in this particular circumstance, given the lack of credible testimony and documentation, that the Appellant in this case has the protection of his home country and could return. CONCLUSION [55] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of IRPA, the RAD denies the appeal, and finds that the Appellant is not a convention refugee. (signed) "Robert S. Garner" Robert S. Garner August 17, 2015 Date 1 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 19. 2 Huruglica, Bujar v. M.C.I. (F.C. no. IMM-6362-13), Phelan, August 22, 2014, 2014 FC 799. 3 Danailov (Danailoff), Vasco (Vassil) Valdimirov v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. T-273-93), Reed, October 6, 1993 4 Cay, Ulas v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2867-06), Blanchard, July 20, 2007, 2007 FC 759 5 Exhibit RPD-1, Exhibit 9, pp. 229-248 6 Exhibit RPD-1, Exhibit 9, pp. 262-265. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, Exhibits 2, 10, pp. 25-28 8 Exhibit RPD-1, Exhibit 9, pp. 262-265 --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-04979