TB8-08722

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 : TB8-08722 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 23, 2018 Date de la décision Panel L. Gamble Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Asiya J. Hirji Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) XXXX XXXX Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. The Appellant has not submitted new evidence in support of this appeal, and does not request an oral hearing before the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). The Appellant simply asks the RAD to refer the matter back to a different member of the RPD for redetermination.1 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 he is a XXXX XXXXyear-old Somali man of the minority Ashraf clan, and a Sufi. He alleges that he fears return to Somalia due to the risk he faces at the hands of Al Shabaab following an incident whereby Al Shabaab members approached the Appellant with a view to recruitment. The Appellant states that following this, his father arranged for a smuggler named XXXX to help him leave Somalia and travel to Kenya. [4] The Appellant alleged in his original narrative that he left Somalia on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and arrived in Kenya on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX He claimed to have remained in Kenya for two months, and on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, left Kenya and travelled to Canada on a passport that XXXX had obtained for him. The Appellant arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and made a refugee claim. He signed his Basis of Claim (BOC) form on July 31, 2017. [5] Counsel for the Minister intervened in the Appellant's case before the RPD based on the issue of identity, as well as credibility and program integrity issues that arose as a result of a United Kingdom (UK) biometrics report which confirms that prior to coming to Canada in 2017, the Appellant was in the UK for approximately five years, had made a refugee claim in the UK, and had used a different name and two different dates of birth in his interactions with UK authorities. The Appellant then conceded the information in the UK biometrics report and on October 16, 2017, he made significant amendments to his narrative, alleging the incidents which he said occurred in this first narrative actually occurred several years earlier, before the period in which he travelled to and lived in the UK.2 [6] The Appellant's claim for refugee protection was heard on November 24, 2017. By a decision dated March 14, 2017, the RPD rejected the claim. The determinative issues were identity and credibility. The RPD found that the Appellant was not a credible witness and did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, his identity or that he faces a serious possibility of persecution in Somalia on a Convention ground; or, on a balance of probabilities, that he would personally be subjected to a danger of torture, or face a risk to life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if he were to return to Somalia. [7] On appeal to the RAD, the Appellant submits that the RPD erred in fact "in its determination that [the Appellant] is not a Somali citizen," as he contends that on the evidence provided, he has established that he is a citizen of Somalia on a balance of probabilities. In addition, the Appellant submits that the RPD erred by making incorrect plausibility determinations by not considering the Appellant's cultural context, including the fact that he is a minor, and that therefore, the IRB Chairperson's Guideline 3 on Child Refugee Claimants ought to have been applied in assessing his evidence.3 [8] The RAD is not persuaded that the RPD erred. The RPD correctly cited multiple significant credibility concerns not reasonably explained by the Appellant which underlined the finding that he was not a credible witness, and accordingly, the finding that the Appellant has lost the presumption of truthfulness with respect to his testimony as set out in Maldonado.4 The RPD addressed with clear and cogent reasons each of the remaining pieces of evidence submitted by the Appellant, and explained why it found that the Appellant's remaining evidence was insufficient to establish his personal and national identity, on a balance of probabilities. I agree with the RPD in its assessment, and as such, I find that the Appellant's identity has not been credibly established on a balance of probabilities, and confirm the decision of the RPD. ANALYSIS Role of the RAD [9] For questions of fact, mixed fact and law, and law, the RAD applies the standard of correctness, as per Huruglica.5 In assessing issues involving credibility of oral testimony, the RAD applies the RAD modified standard of reasonableness where the RAD determines the RPD had a meaningful advantage in assessing oral testimony.6 Merits of the Appeal Did the RPD err in fact in its determination that the Appellant did not establish his identity on a balance of probabilities? [10] First, the Appellant argues that the RPD erred in fact "in its determination that [the Appellant] is not a Somali citizen," as he contends that on the evidence provided to the RPD, he has established that his is a citizen of Somalia on a balance of probabilities. As the Appellant has not requested the RAD admit any new evidence in this appeal, he is essentially asking the RAD to re-weigh the evidence that was before the RPD. [11] For the reasons that follow, I do not agree with the Appellant's submission. First, I note that the RPD did not, in fact, determine that the Appellant was "not a Somali citizen" as alleged in the Memorandum. It is critical to note that the RPD applied the correct standard in its assessment of his claim, which led it to find that the Appellant had not established his identity on a balance of probabilities - an element of which requires that the Appellant establish that he is a citizen of Somalia, but which also includes his personal identity, including his name and date of birth.7 Therefore, the RPD did not err by (1) finding he was "not a Somali citizen" as alleged, rather, it found as an element of his identity claim that he had not established his national identity; or (2) by confining its assessment of identity to simply the Appellant's nationality. It is important to note that the RPD found the Appellant had not established his personal or national identity on a balance of probabilities, a finding with which I agree, especially given that the Appellant does not challenge the RPD's negative personal identity finding in the present appeal. [12] The Appellant argues that the totality of the evidence he provided establishes his Somali nationality on a balance of probabilities. He points out that he provided an opinion letter from Dixon Community Services ("DCS letter") which concludes that, in the author's opinion, the Appellant is a Somali national; an affidavit from Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX attesting to the fact that the Appellant is a Somali national; a remittance slip for money the Appellant sent from the UK to his brother in Somalia; a letter and supporting identity documentation from the Appellant's aunt indicating that she affirms the Appellant is a Somali national; as well as testifying in Somali at his hearing and answering factual questions about Somalia in a way that was largely consistent with the objective documentation.8 The Appellant argues that given the difficulty faced by refugee claimants from Somalia in establishing their identity without wide availability of government-issued identity documents, the RPD's failure to accept secondary and tertiary documents in order to establish identity is an error.9 The Appellant argues that the RPD "summarily dismisses" all of the Appellant's evidence and impugns his credibility "for his failure to provide non-existent documents."10 [emphasis original] [13] I cannot agree. A plain reading of the RPD's decision makes clear that the Member did not "summarily dismiss" the Appellant's personal documents submitted for the purposes of establishing his identity and other elements of his claim. The Decision provides clear and cogent reasons for why the RPD found the Appellant not to be a credible witness and thus declined to afford his testimony the presumption of truthfulness. The RPD reasons go on to engage specifically with each piece of aforementioned evidence submitted by the Appellant to explain why each was found not to be credible in its own right, or was found to be insufficiently weighty so as to establish the Appellant's identity on a balance of probabilities in light of the credibility concerns raised with respect to his claim. Indeed, the Appellant's Memorandum itself appears to indicate that the RPD did not summarily dismiss the documentary evidence where it summarizes the RPD's analysis of each piece of evidence submitted.11 I find the Decision provides clear reasons for why it found each additional piece of identity evidence to be unpersuasive in establishing the Appellant's personal and national identity, on a balance of probabilities, and therefore cannot agree that the RPD erred by summarily dismissing the additional evidence tendered by the Appellant. [14] With respect to the letter from the Appellant's aunt, the Appellant argues that it was an error for the RPD to dismiss the letter solely on the basis that it was provided post-hearing. 12 However, despite the Appellant's allegation, this was not the sole basis on which the letter was given no weight by the RPD. In its decision, the RPD indicated that the letter is not dated and was not sworn before a notary, which reduced the reliability of the document. In addition, the RPD noted the identity documents submitted by the aunt along with the letter do not bear a signature, thus offering no way to compare and connect the appended identity documents with the signature on the letter. The RPD did note that the letter was only provided post-hearing in order to correct deficiencies in the Appellant's evidence, and given the Appellant's access to and use of fraudulent documents to travel to the UK and to Canada, it would be reasonable to expect that he would continue to have access to similar fraudulent documents in an effort to establish and support his identity.13 In my view, the RPD did not err in so doing, particularly given the lack of any way to verify the letter or to connect the identity documents provided to the purported author of the letter. Therefore, I agree with the assessment of the RPD in respect of this letter and would likewise give it no weight in establishing the Appellant's identity. [15] The Appellant also argues that the DCS letter was erroneously dismissed by the RPD "because the author did not know the claimant prior to his coming to Canada," and the Appellant states that its stand-alone value was "unjustly dismissed" by the RPD.14 However, in finding the DCS letter has insufficient weight to establish the personal identity of the Appellant, the RPD noted numerous factors, including that the author did not know the Appellant personally before coming to Canada and therefore would be relying only on information emanating from the Appellant himself in his assessment of the Appellant's Somali nationality - which the RAD finds particularly significant in a case such as at present, where the Appellant has been found not to be a credible witness due to having perpetuated demonstrably false statements in the context of his refugee claim and specifically on the very issue which the letter seeks to corroborate: his identity. [16] In addition, however, the DCS letter was found insufficient on the basis that the RPD noted that fluency in the Somali language and knowledge of the heritage and culture of a county does not establish one's personal or national identity, and absent information about the level of difficulty of the questions posed, the RPD found the letter provides insufficient detail to support how the author arrived at his determination that the Appellant is a citizen of Somalia, or how he verified the personal identity of the Appellant.15 Importantly, in my view, is the fact that the Appellant acknowledged before the RPD that he had not informed the author of the DCS letter that he had spent five years in the UK, which undermines the very source of the information on which the letter is based: the statements of the Appellant himself who admittedly did not disclose the full truth of his background and the fact that he had previously used alternate identities when representing himself to UK government authorities to the author of the letter. Knowledge of the Appellant's past misrepresentations to UK and Canadian government officials may have changed the methodology and/or conclusions of the letter's author and, in addition to the reasons provided by the RPD, I find this to be a significant reason to discount the weight given to the DCS letter insofar as it attempts to establish the Appellant's present identity claim. I therefore cannot find that the RPD erred as alleged, and I, too, find this document is insufficient to establish the Appellant's personal or national identity on a balance of probabilities. [17] The Appellant also argues that the RPD erred in finding his testimony surrounding facts about Somalia, its culture, history, etc., to be insufficient to establish his identity on a balance of probabilities, as in the Appellant's view, it was an error for the RPD to assume he is sophisticated enough to learn in-depth facts about Somalia, when by his own assertion, he "lacks sophistication and is illiterate." The Appellant states simply that this type of decision-making warrants the RAD's intervention.16 Without any argument on how the RPD erred in its reasons for finding the Appellant's knowledge of certain facts about Somalia insufficient to establish his personal identity and nationality, I cannot agree with the Appellant. Moreover, having reviewed the Appellant's testimony before the RPD, I likewise cannot conclude that general, fact-based knowledge about Mogadishu, the Ashraf clan, and Somali history establishes either the Appellant's personal or national identity on a balance of probabilities. As the RPD correctly notes, ethnically Somali people and people who speak the Somali language live around the world and hold nationalities of various countries; therefore, I agree with the RPD that the Appellant's knowledge of Somalia, its history, etc. and the fact that he speaks the Somali language are insufficient to establish his identity on a balance of probabilities, particularly where, as here, there are clear and significant reasons to doubt the Appellant's identity claim. [18] Lastly, the Appellant argues that the RPD "completely ignores" an email from the UK Home office stating that the Appellant's "identity documents are 'unavailable,'" and "ignores proof" of the lengths the Appellant's Designated Representative went to in an effort to obtain documents from the UK authorities, although they ultimately could not be provided.17 A review of the UK document cited indicates that this document is not an email, but a Five Country Conference Tier 3 Response to a biometric match from UK authorities to CBSA, confirming that the Appellant's asylum application, decision and reasons for refusal are unavailable, and that the Appellant did not present any identity documents to UK officials when he made his asylum claim there.18 Notwithstanding that this document does not establish what the Appellant alleges it to establish, a review of the Decision shows that the RPD did not ignore this evidence, in fact, the RPD gave counsel and the Designated Representative additional time post-hearing to make inquiries with UK authorities, and in noting that their efforts were unsuccessful, the RPD was entitled to draw a negative inference from the fact that the Appellant had made no efforts to obtain any documentation from UK authorities prior to his hearing.19 Therefore, I cannot find that the RPD erred as alleged. [19] While the Appellant in his Memorandum also cites the same correspondence from the UK Visas & Immigration office as corroborative of his assertion that he originated in Somalia,20 this item from the Minister's disclosure states that UK authorities believe he "originally left Somalia via Kenya," and arrived in the UK on a flight from Johannesburg, South Africa on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.21 I find that this reference to the belief of UK authorities that the Appellant originated in Somalia is insufficiently weighty to overcome the material, persisting credibility problems with this claim and establish his national identity as a citizen of Somalia, on a balance of probabilities. According to the Appellant's own evidence, he left Somalia for Kenya on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,22 and did not arrive in the UK until two months later on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. It is not clear from the FCC Tier 3 Response how the UK authorities came to believe he originated in Somalia, given that they did not encounter the Appellant until two months after his purported departure from Somalia via Kenya. It is left unclear whether UK authorities are basing this information on the Appellant's own statements - which, for the reasons noted herein and in the RPD decision, ought not to be afforded the presumption of truthfulness - or whether this information is based on some other evidence in possession of the UK authorities. Moreover, if the Appellant's present testimony is to be believed, he used a false identity in the UK, which therefore calls into question the other information attributed to him by UK authorities, including his origin and routing. For clarity, I find reliable the information from the biometrics report that the Appellant used an alternate name and two alternate dates of birth in his interactions with UK immigration authorities; however, on the evidence on record, it cannot be determined what identity information for the Appellant (if any) is reflective of his true personal identity. For this reason, I cannot find that the UK authorities' statement that the Appellant began his journey in Somalia in May 2012, provides a sufficient basis for finding he has established his national identity on a balance of probabilities. Therefore, I cannot find that the Appellant's identity has been established on a balance of probabilities by the evidence on record, which is the determinative issue in this appeal. [20] The Appellant in his Memorandum does not take issue with the RPD's findings regarding additional evidence he submitted, namely: (1) the payment voucher;23 (2) the significant negative findings regarding his identity witness's affidavit which purports to corroborate the Appellant's evidence that he was in Somalia in 2013 as was set out prior to the Minister's intervention and to the amendments to the Appellant's BOC; or (3) the significance of the witness's failure to appear to testify on the Appellant's behalf as had been indicated, following the Appellant's admission of his initial misrepresentations.24 As the Appellant has not taken issue with these findings, and as upon my own review of the record I can find no error with the RPD reasons, I find the RPD's conclusions on these issues were correct. Overall Conclusions on the Appellant's Identity [21] The record is clear, and the RPD's Decision provides ample reasons as to why the Appellant lost the presumption of truthfulness with respect to his sworn testimony, including in particular, his claim in respect of his personal and national identity. Documents provided by the Minister indicate that the Appellant's fingerprints returned a match with records held by the UK Border Agency indicating that the Appellant used an alternate name and two alternate dates of birth in the UK which were not disclosed in the context of his Canadian refugee claim, nor was the fact that he had spent five years in the UK and had an asylum claim refused there prior to coming to Canada - during the same period of time which the Appellant initially alleged he was in Somalia and experienced the events on which is claim for refugee protection in Canada was based.25 It was only after receiving the Minister's Intervention that the Appellant made significant amendments to his BOC to accord his evidence with the Minister's evidence. Moreover, the Appellant testified before the RPD that he would not have made the admissions in his Amended BOC if not for the Intervention, thus indicating that he maintained a continued willingness to mislead the RPD. The RAD agrees with the RPD that the Appellant did not provide a reasonable explanation for these material misrepresentations as to his identity and with respect to the events which he alleges led him to claim refugee protection in Canada, and the RAD finds that the Appellant was not a credible witness. Upon my own review of the evidence on record, I concur with the RPD that the remainder of the documentary evidence is insufficient to establish the Appellant's personal or national identity, on a balance of probabilities, for the reasons set out above. [22] Importantly, as noted above, in the present appeal, the Appellant does not challenge the RPD's determination that he has not established on a balance of probabilities his personal identity: there is no argument regarding the RPD's findings about the Appellant's use of an alternate name and two alternate dates of birth in his interactions with UK authorities and ultimately, in his failed asylum claim in the UK. The RPD found, on a balance of probabilities, that there was insufficient persuasive evidence to establish the Appellant's identity as he presently claims it to be, particularly given the credibility concerns outlined in the Decision. On the basis of the findings noted above and after my own assessment of all the evidence, including the Appellant's oral evidence at the RPD hearing and in writing in the present appeal, I agree with the finding of the RPD that the Appellant has not established his identity, which includes both his personal and national identity, on a balance of probabilities. This is the determinative issue. Section 97 Risk Assessment [23] The Appellant's argument that the RPD erred in not assessing his risk under section 97 of the IRPA is premised on the fact that "the Appellant has clearly made out his citizenship, and irrespective of any credibility issues, he is entitled to a section 97 risk assessment."26 As the RAD has found that the Appellant has not established his personal or national identity on a balance of probabilities, and as identity is a fundamental threshold issue, I therefore find that the RPD did not err in not assessing the Appellant's claim under section 97 of IRPA.27 Given my conclusions on the issue of identity, I find that the Appellant has failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution under section 96 of the IRPA, and for the same reasons, I find that the Appellant is not a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA. Plausibility Determinations & Application of Guideline 3 [24] In addition, the Appellant submits that the RPD erred by making incorrect plausibility determinations, "concluding that much of the Appellant's testimony was implausible" by making findings that were grounded in mere speculation.28 I cannot agree. The examples cited by the Appellant do not constitute plausibility determinations grounded in mere speculation, for the reasons set out below. Indeed, as the Appellant points out, "In the absence of 'a basis in the evidence to support the inferences' drawn by the panel, those inferences are necessarily speculative."29 However, my review of the Decision and the record reveals that each of the Member's credibility findings were clearly articulated and well supported by the evidence on record. Therefore, I cannot find that the Member's findings are plausibility determinations based on speculation or not grounded in the evidence, and as such, I cannot find that the RPD erred as alleged. [25] The findings impugned as erroneous plausibility determinations by the Appellant include that the RPD found the Appellant "sophisticated" and that his testimony was vague and evasive, without qualification.30 However, I can locate no finding that the Appellant was "sophisticated" in the Decision (and the Appellant does not point to a valid citation for the same), and I note that the RPD's statement that his testimony was vague and evasive was an introduction to some of the material credibility concerns amply supported in the paragraphs of the Decision which follow, including specifically and extensively with respect to why the RPD found not credible the Appellant's explanation for why he made and maintained the misrepresentations related to his identity, date of birth, time in the UK, and past failed UK asylum claim, even after he retained counsel to pursue his refugee claim in Canada and after he was appointed a Designated Representative.31 I find the credibility findings made by the RPD to be significant and material, and well-supported on the record, and therefore, they are not erroneous plausibility findings grounded in mere speculation as alleged. [26] The Appellant cites as another example of an erroneous plausibility finding the RPD's application of IRB Chairperson's Guideline 3 on Child Refugee Claimants in assessing the Appellant's explanations for various misrepresentations and omissions.32 The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in finding not credible the Appellant's explanation that he failed to disclose his time and identity used in the UK because he was afraid he would be returned to the UK, without regard to the guidance in Guideline 3 about how children express subjective fear differently than adults. The Appellant states that it was unreasonable for the RPD to fault him for not telling the truth about his past UK immigration history to either his counsel or his Designated Representative, allegedly due to his fear of being returned to the UK, in light of Guideline 3. [27] I cannot find this is an error. The Member explained in clear terms why she found this explanation for the Appellant's continued misrepresentations in Canada not credible, and I agree. Moreover, I would note that although the Appellant is a minor, and thus falls appropriately into the ambit of Guideline 3, he claims to be a XXXX year old (at the time of his RPD hearing) and thus cannot be said to be a "child" of such a young age that he would be unable to appreciate the requirement to be truthful. As the RPD noted, the Appellant continued to misrepresent himself to counsel retained by him, and persisted in these misrepresentations even after he was appointed a Designated Representative, the role of which was explained to him - and yet the Appellant still did not advise counsel or his Designated Representative of what he now alleges is the truth about his identity and personal history until after the Minister's Intervention and supporting evidence was filed, and testified he would not have told the truth absent this evidence from the Minister. [28] While it is appropriate to evaluate the Appellant's actions and explanations therefor in light of Guideline 3 due to his age, I find the guidance therein does not render the RPD's rejection of the Appellant's explanation an error. Notwithstanding the guidance cited by the Appellant from Guideline 3 that a child refugee claimant may not be able to express subjective fear in the same way as an adult, I find that the Appellant's explanations do not relate to his subjective fear in Somalia, but rather, his reasons for knowingly perpetuating material misrepresentations and omissions in the context of his Canadian refugee claim based on a stated fear of being returned to the UK. I agree with the RPD in its assessment and rejection of the Appellant's explanations on this issue, and cannot find that the RPD erred in its application of Guideline 3 in its assessment. [29] The Appellant argues that RPD erred by not citing "...the extensive evidence before her showing that, regardless of this Appellant's credibility, a claimant of his profile would more likely than not face persecution if removed to Somalia."33 This is essentially a reiteration of the argument about assessing his risk under section 97 and is not persuasive. As noted above, identity is a threshold issue which does not require the RPD to go on and assess risk under sections 96 or 97 where identity is not established. This argument is not determinative. [30] Lastly, the Appellant argues the RPD also found implausible his testimony around his use of allegedly false identity information in the UK, which he indicated was done with a view to finding work in the UK, as well as travelling and navigating a foreign immigration system under bad advice, simply for "failing to provide an explanation."34 My review of the Decision indicates that the RPD detailed its reasons for rejecting these explanations provided by the Appellant, with which I agree. The reasons are again based in the evidence on record, and are therefore not erroneous speculative plausibility findings as alleged. Moreover, the alleged error regarding what the Appellant views as the RPD's "speculation as to likely behaviour"35 in light of the Appellant's testimony that he would not have revealed his misrepresentations had the Minister not intervened, simply does not follow: the RPD's negative credibility finding in this regard was based on the Appellant's own admission that he would not have made the changes detailed in his BOC Amendment but for the Minister's Intervention, and thus the RPD was not speculating as to his likely behaviour, but rather, drawing a reasonable negative credibility finding from the Appellant's testimony that he would have continued his misrepresentations had the Minister not intervened. This is not an error. [31] The Appellant has included in his Memorandum arguments about the RPD's assessment of the Canadian medical report, which purports to corroborate the allegations in his narrative.36 I find that such argument is not determinative as the medical report deals with the Appellant's allegations underlying his claim, as opposed to his personal and national identity. Therefore, this item does not factor into whether or not the Appellant has established his identity on a balance of probabilities, which is the determinative issue in this appeal. CONCLUSION [32] 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 paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. (signed) "L. Gamble" L. Gamble August 23, 2018 Date 1 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at pp. 70, 83, 85, 94-95, paras 7, 39, 41, 73, 74. 2 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Decision, at pp. 13-14, paras 31-34. 3 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at p. 70, para 6. 4 Maldonado, Pedro Enrique Juarez v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-450-79), Heald, Ryan, MacKay, November 19, 1979; Reported: Maldonado v. M.E.I., [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.); 31 N.R. 34 (F.C.A.). 5 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no.A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 6 Ibid, at paras. 69-74. Also see X (Re), 2017 CanLII 33034 (CA IRB). 7 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Decision, at p. 9, para 16. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 69-70, paras 3-4. 9 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 76, para 19 and p. 78, paras 23-25. 10 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 79, para 27. 11 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 79-80, paras 28-33. 12 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 81-82, para 35. 13 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 21, para 59. 14 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 81-82, para 35. 15 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 19-20, paras 50-55. 16 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 81-82, para 35. 17 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 82, para 35. 18 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 63. 19 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 17, paras 44-45. 20 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 69-70, para 3. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 159. 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 175. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Decision, at p. 16, para 49. 24 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Decision, at pp. 14-15, paras 46-48. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 118-126. 26 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at p. 83, para 40. 27 Getaneh v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2012 FC 1279. 28 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at p. 85, para 47. 29 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at pp. 86-87, para 51. 30 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at p. 88, para 59. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Decision, at pp. 8-10, paras 25-30. 32 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at pp. 88-89, paras 60-61. 33 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at p. 90, paras 63-64. 34 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at pp. 91-92, para 67. 35 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at pp. 91-93, paras 67-69. 36 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at pp. 93-94, paras 70-72. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB8-08722