TB9-03507

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-03507 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision April 13, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Devika Ratnayake Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Johnson Babalola Conseil de la personne 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 ("Appellant"), a citizen of Nigeria, appeals the rejection of his refugee claim by the Refugee Protection Division ("RPD") rendered on January 30, 2019. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration ("Minister") was invited to participate in the RPD proceedings on the issue of a potential exclusion based on Article 1F(a). However, the Minister chose not to participate. The RPD found that the Appellant was not excluded pursuant to Article 1F(a) but found the Appellant's claim lacked a nexus to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act ("IRPA") and credibility. The determinative issue for the RPD was the availability of a viable internal flight alternative ("IFA") in Ibadan and Ilorin, Nigeria. [2] The Appellant raises three issues in this appeal and submits that the RPD erred in: (i) finding that the Appellant's claim had no nexus to section 96 and credibility analysis; (ii) its assessment of the Appellant's risk of harm; and (iii) finding that he had a viable IFA. [3] The Refugee Appeal Division ("RAD") allows the appeal. I set aside the RPD's determination and substitute my own decision that the Appellant is a Convention refugee, and he does not have a viable IFA in Nigeria. BACKGROUND [4] The basis of the Appellant's claim is detailed in his Basis of Claim ("BOC") narratives.1 In summary, the Appellant held a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He was tasked with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX There was widespread corruption. His superiors and others from the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, politicians, police officers, and other paramilitary officials ("cartel") colluded to pilfer petroleum. When the Appellant first opposed the corrupt practices, he was demoted. After he thwarted the cartel on one occasion, the Appellant was attacked during which several XXXX staff died. There was a period of calm; however, after one of his superiors who was implicated in the corruption was promoted, the corruption increased. More of the Appellant's colleagues were killed. Upon hearing rumours that the cartel was targeting the Appellant, he applied for a leave of absence from the XXXX, stopped going to work regularly, placed his children in boarding school, relocated to Ibadan and eventually fled to the USA. The Appellant remained in the USA for five months before travelling to Canada and making his refugee claim. NEW EVIDENCE [5] The Appellant seeks to admit as new evidence an article that speaks to the anti-refugee comments of the former US President, Donald Trump, prior to and during his stay in the United States.2 The Appellant requests an oral hearing. [6] According to the law,3 I can only accept evidence that: (i) arose after the RPD's decision; or (ii) was not reasonably available at the time of the decision; or (iii) that the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to bring to the RPD before the decision. If the evidence meets one or more of these requirements, I must decide if the evidence is new, credible and relevant before I can accept it.4 [7] According to subsection 110(6) of the IRPA, I may only hold an oral hearing where the accepted new evidence: (a) raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the person who is the subject of the appeal; and (b) is central to the decision of the claim; and (c) if accepted, justifies allowing or rejecting the claim. If the new evidence meets each requirement, I must decide whether to hold a hearing. [8] The Appellant submits that the proposed new evidence meets the criteria in subsection 110(4) as it is capable of contradicting a finding of fact made by the RPD; that if the document had been available to the RPD, the decision of the RPD would have been different; and that he did not provide it to the RPD because he did not envisage that the RPD would have issues with the anti-refugee pronouncements of the former President Donald Trump. [9] The document was published in November 2008; therefore, it did not arise after the RPD's decision. The Appellant has not provided any reasons as to why the article was not reasonably available at the time of the decision. The Appellant has an onus to submit supporting documents that are relevant to his claim. This document was pertinent to his position that the reason he did not make a claim in the USA was partially due to the former US President, Donald Trump. The Appellant's argument that he did not envisage the RPD would have an issue in this regard is not a reasonable basis upon which to find that the document could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to be brought to the RPD before the decision. As such, I find the evidence does not meet the requirements of subsection 110(4) and is inadmissible. Rules 37 and 29 [10] The Appellant seeks the admission of further new evidence that arose after the perfection of his appeal record which includes: (i) medical documents from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX5 and XXXX XXXX XXXX6 pertaining to a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the Appellant sustained; (ii) articles pertaining to abuses suffered by disabled and mentally ill persons at medical facilities in Nigeria; and (iii) an article pertaining to mental illness following a brain injury. He submits that these documents were unavailable and irrelevant at the time his appeal was perfected because the medical incident had not occurred then. Further, he submits that the evidence speaks to the danger, namely, the verbal, physical and psychological abuse he would face if he returned to Nigeria. [11] Rule 29 of the RAD Rules allows for the submission of documents and/or written submissions not previously provided with the Appellant's record, subject to certain criteria. Under Rule 29(3), the subject of the appeal must include in an application to use a document that was not previously provided an explanation of how the document meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) and how that evidence relates to the person. [12] Rule 29(4) requires the RAD to consider any relevant factors in deciding whether to allow the application, including: (a) the relevance and probative value of the documents; (b) any new evidence the document brings to the appeal; and (c) whether "the subject of the appeal, with reasonable effort, could have provided the document or written submissions" as part of their record. If the RAD allows an application under Rule 29, that document must still satisfy the requirements of subsection 110(4) to be admissible. [13] Since the documents relate to a medical condition that arose after the perfection of his appeal which purports to provide evidence of danger that the Appellant could face because of the XXXX and mental illness if he returns to Nigeria, I find they meet the requirements in both Rule 29 and subsection 110(4). Further, the documents are relevant for assessing the IFA and are from a reliable and credible source. The Appellant's Rule 29 application is granted, and the new evidence is admissible. However, an oral hearing is not required. Application for Appointing a Designated Representative [14] The Counsel for the Appellant filed an Application to have a Designated Representative ("DR") appointed subsequent to filing the Appellant's Record because the XXXX has rendered the Appellant unable to appreciate the nature of the appeal.7 Counsel suggests Ms. XXXX XXXX to be the DR because she is an African like the Appellant and is familiar with his culture which Counsel submits is important. [15] The RAD rule 23(2) reads: 23(2) If the Refugee Protection Division did not designate a representative for the person who is the subject of the appeal and counsel for a party believes that the Division should designate a representative for the person because the person is under 18 years of age or is unable to appreciate the nature of the proceedings, counsel must without delay notify the Division in writing. [16] And subsection 23(6) of the RAD Rules states: 23(6) When determining whether a person who is the subject of an appeal is unable to appreciate the nature of the proceedings, the Division must consider any relevant factors, including (a) whether the person can understand the reason for the proceeding and can instruct counsel; (b) the person's statements and behaviour at the proceeding; (c) expert evidence, if any, on the person's intellectual or physical faculties, age or mental condition; and (d) whether the person has had a representative designated for a proceeding in a division other than the Refugee Protection Division. [17] I have considered all the evidence and find that it is unnecessary to appoint a DR. I acknowledge the medical evidence that the Appellant's memory and speech has become impaired as a result of the XXXX. However, the Appellant has not indicated that he is unable to instruct Counsel. Further, since no oral hearing is required in this appeal and the RAD has found no evidence that the Appellant is unable to appreciate the nature of the proceedings, the application to appoint a DR is denied. ANALYSIS [18] My role is to look at all of the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.8 Nexus to Section 96 [19] The RPD found that there was no nexus to the Convention ground of political opinion because the Appellant's fear of persecution was not based on the expression of a political opinion or denunciation of corruption but, rather, on the agents of persecution's need to remove or eliminate the Appellant because he was a practical obstacle to the corrupt practices while he was an employee. The RPD noted that this was not a political issue but, rather, an issue of peer criminality by rogue State agents. [20] The Appellant submits that such a line of thinking is erroneous. He relies on Federal Court jurisprudence where the Court found that it was error that an employee of a regional government company had not expressed his political opinion when he refused to participate in corruption between businesspeople and government officials.9 He submits that the RPD erred by applying the wrong definition of political opinion as it is recognized in refugee law and instead applied its own narrow definition. [21] I agree with the Appellant that the RPD erred in finding that his opposition to corruption, in the circumstances of his case, did not constitute political opinion. The RPD appears to have ignored evidence that the agent of persecution was not limited solely to his superior but a cartel, consisting of superiors in the federal government, police officers and paramilitary personnel. [22] The XXXX issued a statement to the press stating that the police ambushed and opened fire on the XXXX staff while they were returning from a successful anti-vandal operation in Lagos. It alleged that the vandals arrested by the XXXX made calls to their police collaborators for support as they could not overwhelm the antivandal team of the XXXX.10 News articles also indicate that an assistant superintendent of police was among those arrested by the XXXX for pilfering petroleum; and that a pistol and an AK-47 were recovered with the Nigerian Police emblem indicating that only a senior police officer could handle such a gun.11 Other documentary evidence indicates that suspects arrested implicated police officers in aiding and abetting the crimes.12 [23] The foregoing demonstrates that the Appellant's opposition to corruption engaged the state machinery which is one of the distinguishing features between opposition to corruption that is political in nature versus opposition to general criminality. Put another way, the Appellant's opposition was not restricted to criminal practices of private citizens such as drug traffickers but to the corrupt practices of a cartel that consisted not only of a superior but of other government agents. I find the Appellant's opposition/opinions have a sufficient nexus to the state such as to bring it within the scope of the Convention ground of political opinion. [24] Further, while the RPD was not incorrect in stating that the need of the agents of persecution to remove the Appellant was because he was a practical impediment to their corrupt practices, it remained that he was an impediment due to his opposition to corruption/political opinion. As such, for the reasons already discussed above, the RPD's finding that it was merely an issue of peer criminality is in error. [25] Having established that the Appellant's agents of persecution are not only the corrupt superiors at his former workplace but also the cartel responsible for oil bunkering across the country, which cartel has also been responsible for killing several of the Appellant's former coworkers, on a balance of probabilities, there is a serious possibility that the Appellant will be subjected to persecution for his role in disrupting the cartel's illegal activities while he was in Nigeria. [26] Further, while the RPD was not incorrect in noting that there is no unified police database in Nigeria, it overlooked documentary evidence which indicates that both police officers and recruited individuals have access to a national computer network.13 According to the source, information is centralized on a database at the police headquarters in Abuja but can be accessed across the country.14 Since the Appellant's agents of persecution include corrupt police officers, it is likely that members of the cartel will be able to access the Appellant's information, if he returns to Nigeria. Credibility [27] The RPD found the Appellant to be generally an honest witness.15 However, the RPD drew a negative credibility inference from the Appellant's testimony that, if he returned to Nigeria, he may also face court martial for deserting his position at the XXXX. The RPD found this was a new ground, and its omission from the BOC impugned his credibility because his employment in the paramilitary organization was well known; his BOC amendment was fulsome; and he had confirmed at the outset of the hearing that it was complete. The RPD reasoned that, if desertion and going AWOL and a potential court martial was an issue, it would have expected it to be canvassed with Counsel and disclosed in due course, not in the middle of testimony. [28] The Appellant submits that he did not consider the repercussions of going AWOL as an "agent of persecution" but merely as an additional consequence; hence, it was not considered necessary or thought of when the Appellant was writing his BOC. Further, he submits that this additional information does not take away from his main agent of persecution and that it is trite that an asylum seeker may give additional information at his hearing, so long as he does not give contradictory evidence. [29] I am not entirely persuaded by the Appellant's argument. Regardless of whether the omission can be considered a "new ground", a "new agent of persecution" versus an "additional consequence" or "detail," I agree with the RPD that it is sufficiently material as to have been included in the BOC. However, unlike the RPD, I do not draw an adverse credibility inference from its omission. According to a detailed and comprehensive XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the Appellant is diagnosed with severe XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Dissociation, which is a symptom of XXXX was assessed as being "extremely severe" in the Appellant's case, which causes memory impairment of important aspects of traumatic events.16 In view of the medical evidence, I accept the Appellant's explanation that he had not previously directed his mind to this issue, and it was triggered only by the RPD's questioning during the hearing. On a balance of probabilities, I find the omission was due to his dissociative condition and not due to an attempt to embellish his claim. [30] The RPD also impugned the Appellant's credibility for failing to claim in the USA and his illegal work while there. The Appellant acknowledged it was wrong to work illegally while in the USA; however, he submits that he was "between a rock and a hard place" because he needed to work to secure funds to retain a lawyer to apply for asylum. Further, he submits that the RPD erred in finding that he lacked subjective fear because he had a valid visa in the USA. While the RPD was not incorrect in identifying that there was a risk associated with the Appellant working illegally in the USA, I find it is not determinative of a lack of subjective fear because, from the Appellant's perspective, he was taking a necessary and calculated risk in working illegally to facilitate his goal of seeking asylum. Further, given that he had a valid visitor's visa, it is plausible that he also did not perceive an imminent risk of removal to Nigeria per se. Internal Flight Alternative [31] To find a viable IFA, I must be satisfied that (a) there is no serious possibility of the Appellant being persecuted or in need of protection in the proposed IFA; and (b) it is reasonable, taking into consideration the conditions in the IFA location, for the Appellant to seek refuge there. First Prong of the IFA Test [32] The RPD found the voluminous documentary evidence that the Appellant submitted,17 including news articles and pictures of serious injuries of colleagues, to be authentic. Further, the RPD was satisfied that the evidence factually established the Appellant's allegations in terms of his work in Nigeria, what happened to him personally and what drove him to leave Nigeria.18 However, the RPD found the inferences that the Appellant was asking it to draw as to what will happen to him in the future, especially in the IFA location, to be problematic. At the heart of the RPD's finding that there is no serious possibility of persecution in the IFAs was its finding that the Appellant's persecutors were non-state agents. The RPD relied on National Documentation Package ("NDP") documents which indicate that internal relocation is generally possible where the persecutors are non-state agents.19 To the extent that the RPD relied on its erroneous finding that the Appellant's persecutors did not involve state agents in concluding that there is no serious possibility of persecution in the IFAs, the RPD erred. [33] The RPD assessed the overall claim, pursuant to section 97. However, it stated that it applied the lower threshold of the section 96 legal test to the first prong of the IFA test. At the same time, the RPD also found that there is "no categorical inability [for the Appellant] to relocate".20 While it is unclear what the RPD meant by there being "no categorical inability" for the Appellant to relocate, it does appear to suggest, as the Appellant submits, that the RPD required a higher standard of proof to establish that the Appellant's persecutors could not find him in the IFA locations, which is an error. [34] The RPD makes further findings under the first prong which the Appellant submits is erroneous. I find it unnecessary to address each of those arguments since the Appellant's new evidence of his current medical condition, which was not available to the RPD when considered along with his severe PTSD diagnosis, cumulatively renders the IFAs unreasonable under the second prong of the IFA test. Second Prong of the IFA Test [35] The medical evidence from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX indicates that the Appellant sustained a XXXX in or around November 2019 and underwent surgery on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019.21 The Discharge Summary notes that the Appellant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX."22 The Appellant has also had at least one seizure and was referred to a seizure clinic.23 In addition, the Appellant has XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.24 [36] Additional documentary evidence indicates that the Appellant became a resident at the XXXX XXXX XXXX in July 2020 following the XXXX. It notes that the Appellant has difficulty recalling and remembering things in the immediate and long term, including what he ate the day before, his birth date and his wife's name. Further, he has difficulty communicating with staff, since his speech is slurred, and he needs a cane to walk because of damage to the left side of his brain.25 The evidence indicates that he has complex needs and requires a speech pathologist, occupational therapist, nurse and psychotherapist to aid in his recovery. [37] The XXXX XXXX indicates that "the recurrent and severe dissociation is a major negative prognostic sign in [the Appellant's XXXX] and one that would predict an almost certain deterioration in [the Appellant's] condition, should he return to an environment that risks traumatic re-exposure."26 It goes on to note that "[a] further negative factor would be the fact that his traumatic exposures and sense of threat occurred over an extended period of time and in several locations, with no experience of a 'safe base' in which he and his family could be safe from assault." [38] Country documentation indicates that treatment of mental illness is possible in Nigerian public hospitals; however, human resources are insufficient for the country's needs. Nevertheless, mental health issues remain highly stigmatised in Nigeria, with many families hiding conditions or blaming family members' mental illness on curses or witchcraft.27 People still regard mental health as a taboo.28 Several sources report that there is a widespread belief that mental illnesses are caused by supernatural or spiritual forces, such as sorcery, witchcraft, evil spirits and gods (punishing the person for sins). This belief influences the attitude of people towards mentally ill persons and their treatment. [39] Documentary evidence estimated the number of qualified specialists (neurologist, neurosurgeons and psychiatrists) at 193. Presently, there are more than 25 computerised tomography (CT) scan machines in the country. These facilities are not evenly distributed, and many are privately-owned making them more expensive. The country has between six to ten MRI machines. There are few EEG laboratories.29 [40] The RPD did not have the new medical evidence the Appellant submitted. Although the RPD acknowledged the Appellant's XXXX, it found that the Appellant had not provided sufficient medical evidence to show that the challenges he would face would render the IFA locations unreasonable. [41] After independently assessing the medical evidence in the RPD Record and the medical documents that I have accepted relating to the XXXX and mental health of the Appellant, along with objective country documentation, cumulatively, I find relocation to either of the proposed IFA locations would, on a balance of probabilities, jeopardize the life, safety and well-being of the Appellant. State Protection [42] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred by failing to assess the availability of adequate state protection for the Appellant and contends that he will not have adequate state protection if he returned to Nigeria. The Appellant testified that his employment required security issues to be handled by the military instead of the police. In other words, if he had security concerns, the appropriate recourse was to the military and not the police. He stated that, after one of the attacks, his employer ignored his request for additional security. The evidence indicates that the cartel whom the Appellant fears include police officers. According to objective documentary evidence, police corruption is still a significant issue in Nigeria and endemic in many aspects of governance.30 Further, while corruption risks are pervasive throughout all institutions, the oil sector, whose assets the Appellant was primarily tasked to protect, was particularly corrupt.31 [43] It is noted that almost all Nigerians believe the police are corrupt, making it the most corrupt institution in Nigeria, and they are considered very unreliable in enforcing the law.32 Police officers continue to operate with impunity, and in one instance, it was alleged that a Nigerian police unit tasked with combating violent crime has been systematically torturing detainees in order to extract confessions and bribes.33 Based on the foregoing, on a balance of probabilities, I find the Appellant will not have adequate state protection if he returned to Nigeria. CONCLUSION [44] The appeal is allowed. I set aside the determination of the RPD and substitute my own decision that the Appellant is a Convention refugee. (signed) Devika Ratnayake Devika Ratnayake April 13, 2021 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 24-30 and 43-48. 2 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 8, VOA News, "Trump Threatens Crackdown on Asylum-Seekers", November 1, 2018. 3 Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. 4 M.C.I. v. Singh, Parminder (F.C.A., no. A-512-14), Nadon, Gauthier, de Montigny, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 96; Raza, Syed Masood v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-11-07), Linden, Sharlow, Ryer, December 6, 2007, 2007 FC 385. 5 Exhibit P-3, Rule 29 Application to Submit Further Documents and New Evidence, Record 1 of 2, at pp. 16-22. 6 Exhibit P-3, Rule 29 Application to Submit Further Documents and New Evidence, Record 1 of 2, at p. 9. 7 Exhibit P-3, Rule 29 Application to Submit Further Documents and New Evidence, Record 2 of 2, at p. 128. 8 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas Del Solar, Paola v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2645-17), Diner, November 14, 2018, 2018 FC 1145. 9 Vassiliev v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3443-96), Muldoon, July 4, 1997; [1997] FCJ No 955 (FC) (QL); Marino Gonzalez, Francisco v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-3094-10), Russell, March 30, 2011, 2011 FC 389; and Jacobo, Emilio Flores v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1660-11), O'Keefe, March 21, 2012, 2012 FC 345. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 153. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 160, Vanguard, "Pipeline vandalism: XXXX arrests Police officer, six others in Lagos", December 7, 2015. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 168-170, Vanguard, "Civil Defence boss escapes assassination", August 22, 2014. 13 NDP for Nigeria (July 10, 2018), item 10.5, IRB, Response to Information Request NGA103997.E, "Nigeria: Whether the police force has a national computer network for information sharing; nature and extent of communication between police offices across the country; whether police offices in different states are obligated to report to each other regarding persons of interest who are suspected of having relocated; whether a link to a police computer network is available at international airports", May 31, 2012. 14 Ibid. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 8. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 261 and 264. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record at pp. 94-255. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 8. 19 NDP for Nigeria (December 21, 2018), item 1.7, UK Home Office, "Country Information and Guidance, Nigeria: Background information, including actors of protection and internal relocation, ...", August 2016, section 2.2. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 9, RPD's Reasons, at p. 7. 21 Exhibit P-3, Rule 29 Application to Submit Further Documents and New Evidence, Record 1 of 2, at p. 19. 22 Ibid. 23 Exhibit P-3, Rule 29 Application to Submit Further Documents and New Evidence, Record 1 of 2, at p. 13. 24 Ibid., at p. 16. 25 Exhibit P-3, Rule 29 Application to Submit Further Documents and New Evidence, Record 1 of 2, at p. 9. 26 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 264. 27 NDP for Nigeria, (April 9, 2020), item 1.8, Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, "DFAT Country Information Report, Nigeria", March 9, 2018, p. 9, para. 2.21. 28 NDP for Nigeria, (April 9, 2020), item 1.19, European Union, European Asylum Support Office, "EASO Country of Origin Information Report. Nigeria: Key socio-economic indicators", November 2018, at p. 52. 29 NDP for Nigeria, (April 9, 2020) item 1.9, United Kingdom Home Office, "Country Policy and Information Note, Nigeria: Medical and Healthcare Issues, Version 2.0", August 28, 2018, at p. 16, para. 10.1.2. 30 NDP for Nigeria (November 30, 2018), item 2.1. US Department of State, "Nigeria: Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2017", April 20, 2018, at pp. 1, 11, 12, 15. 31 NDP for Nigeria (December 21, 2018), item 7.11, GAN Integrity Solutions Business Anti-Corruption Portal, "Nigeria Corruption Report", May 2017. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-03507 RAD.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français 2 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.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français