MB6-00389

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 : MB6-00389 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 at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of decision December 23, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Me Patricia O'Connor Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Me Chantal Ianniciello Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentante désignée Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION I. INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant), a citizen of Ghana , appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rendered on December 10, 2015, denying his claim for refugee protection. [2] The Appellant does not request to submit new evidence in support of his Appeal and does not request a hearing before the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). [3] The Appellant requests that the RAD set aside the determination of the RPD and find the Appellant to be a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). In the alternative, the Appellant requests that the RPD decision be set aside and that the matter be returned to the RPD for re-determination by a differently constituted panel. II. DETERMINATION [4] Pursuant to ss. 111(1)(c) of the IRPA, the RAD refers the matter to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel. [5] The Appeal is allowed. III. BACKGROUND a. Basis of claim [6] According to his Basis of Claim (BOC) form and addendum, the Appellant is a 36-year-old Muslim man who alleges a well-founded fear of persecution based on his homosexuality in Ghana. [7] The Appellant says that he began to experiment with his sexuality in high school when he had his first same-sex encounter with a senior student named XXXX. Their relationship continued in secrecy over the next period of one year but ended abruptly when the house master at the school found them together in the bathroom at night. [8] As a result, the Appellant was removed from the school. His father, who is the chief of the community, beat him and let him know that he was a disgrace to his family. The Appellant was then forced to participate in a prayer session as well as other rituals aimed at expelling bad spirits. The Appellant's father warned him that if he ever engaged in homosexual activity again, he would be turned over to the community where he could expect to be beaten to death. [9] Following the incident, the Appellant returned to school where he was stigmatized. He maintained telephone contact with XXXX for around 2 months at which point the pair lost contact. [10] Approximately 10 years later, the Appellant ran into XXXX. They rekindled their relationship, living together in a clandestine manner for the next period of 8 months. [11] In XXXX 2015, a homophobic group from the community broke into their home and attacked them. According to his BOC, the Appellant fled to XXXX, Ghana, where he spent the next 7 months living with XXXX uncle who was supportive of his situation. [12] XXXX uncle arranged for the Appellant to leave Ghana when it became apparent that people from the community were looking for the Appellant and that it was no longer safe for him to stay in Ghana. [13] The Appellant left Ghana on XXXX XXXX, 2015, arriving in Canada on the same date. [14] Following his arrival in Canada, the Appellant established telephone contact with XXXX uncle who informed him that he found XXXX at the police station, and that he had been beaten and had a broken arm because he refused to disclose the Appellant's whereabouts. [15] The Appellant made his refugee claim on October 13, 2015. b. The decision of the RPD [16] On December 10, 2015, the RPD rejected the Appellant's claim, concluding that he was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. The RPD concluded that the Appellant's evidence lacked credibility based on inconsistencies and the implausible nature of the evidence. Moreover, the RPD reached the conclusion that the Appellant is not a homosexual. c. Grounds of Appeal [17] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in the assessment of the Appellant's refugee claim for the following reasons: 1) The RPD erred in the assessment of the Appellant's delay in making his refugee claim; 2) The RPD erred by making plausibility findings based on speculation; 3) The RPD erred by giving undue weight to microscopic inconsistencies and failed to consider that some inconsistencies are attributed to the fact that the Appellant misunderstood a question; and 4) The RPD erred by making adverse credibility findings about the Appellant's sexual orientation without considering all the relevant evidence. IV. SCOPE OF THE RAD APPEAL [18] The IRPA sets out grounds for Appeal and possible remedies. However, it does not specify the standard by which the RAD is to review the decision of the RPD. [19] The Appellant submits that the role of the RAD is to proceed with an independent analysis of the evidence and then reach its own determination as to whether the claimant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. [20] In the recent case of Huruglica,1 the Federal Court of Appeal held that the role of the RAD is to intervene when the RPD is wrong in law, in fact or in mixed fact and law, in cases which raise no issue with respect to the credibility of oral evidence. In such cases, the RAD is to apply the correctness standard of review.2 [21] Gauthier, J. states as follows: "[A]fter carefully considering the RPD decision, the RAD carries out its own analysis of the record to determine whether, as submitted by the appellant, the RPD erred. Having done this, the RAD is to provide a final determination, either by confirming the RPD decision or setting it aside and substituting its own determination of the merits of the refugee claim. It is only when the RAD is of the opinion that it cannot provide such a final determination without hearing the oral evidence presented to the RPD that the matter can be referred back to the RPD for redetermination."3 [22] In Huruglica, the Federal Court of Appeal also provided guidance in relation to the standard of review that must be exercised by the RAD with respect to findings based on the credibility of oral testimony by the RPD. The court concluded that the RAD must take a case-by-case approach to the level of deference it owes to the relative weight of oral evidence tendered at the RPD hearing.4 Gauthier, J. explains the principle as follows: "[70] This also recognizes that there may be cases where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage over the RAD in making findings of fact or mixed fact and law, because they require an assessment of the credibility or weight to be given to the oral evidence it hears. It further indicates that although the RAD should sometimes exercise a degree of restraint before substituting its own determination, the issue of whether the circumstances warrant such restraint ought to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. In each case, the RAD ought to determine whether the RPD truly benefited from an advantageous position, and if so, whether the RAD can nevertheless make a final decision in respect of the refugee claim."5 [23] Following the principles outlined in Huruglica, my approach to the present Appeal is to analyze the record and identify any errors that may have been committed by the RPD based on the issues identified in the Memorandum of Appeal. Then, I will render a decision in light of the evidence which forms part of the record.6 When required, I will decide whether it is appropriate to show a measure of deference to the findings of the RPD concerning findings of credibility based on oral evidence. V. ANALYSIS [24] The Appellant alleges that he has a well-founded fear of persecution based on his sexual orientation in Ghana. The RPD concluded that the Appellant's testimony is not credible, resulting in the dismissal of the claim. [25] It is the Appellant who has the burden to demonstrate the elements of his refugee claim on a balance of probabilities.7 The assessment of credibility is based on an appreciation of the evidence as a whole. [26] After conducting my own analysis of the record, I am satisfied that some of the impugned findings by the RPD are supported by the evidence. However, I also find that the RPD erred in relation to other findings linked to the assessment of credibility which are determinative of the appeal. My reasons follows. a. Did the RPD err in finding that the Appellant's delay in claiming refugee protection undermined his credibility? [27] The Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal sets out extensive submissions asserting that the RPD erred in reaching the conclusion that the credibility of the Appellant's evidence is undermined given his delay in claiming refugee protection.8 [28] My review of the evidence reveals that this submission has no merit because this was not an issue identified by the RPD. In fact, the RPD made explicit findings in the decision that the Appellant left Ghana on XXXX XXXX, 2015, using a false passport and claimed refugee protection in Canada the very day he arrived.9 b. Did the RPD err in finding parts of the Appellant's evidence implausible? [29] At the RPD hearing, the Appellant testified that he did not know what happened to his partner XXXX after they were attacked by a homophobic group in XXXX 2015. Although the Appellant testified that he maintains occasional contact with XXXX since his arrival in Canada and that they last spoke a few weeks before the hearing, he did not question XXXX in any depth about his situation since the assault. [30] The RPD found it to be implausible that the Appellant did not discuss the aftermath of the assault with XXXX, considering the long standing nature of their relationship and the fact that it was the assault that led to their separation and his eventual claim for refugee protection in Canada. Moreover, it was XXXX uncle who provided refuge to the Appellant for several months following the attack and arranged for him to flee Ghana. The RPD concluded that "the Appellant's lack of interest in his lover's fate after he was violently attacked casts serious doubt on the credibility of the very existence of this relationship."10 [31] On appeal, it is submitted that the RPD erred by finding that the Appellant's lack of knowledge about XXXX situation lacked plausibility. It is argued that the Appellant's credibility cannot be determined by the fact that he chose not to continue a relationship with a man who lives in a country to which he has no intention of returning. This was the Appellant's first same-sex relationship which took place shrouded in secrecy. It is entirely plausible that the nature of this long distance relationship would not be sustainable for the Appellant. While the RPD is entitled to assess if the relationship ever existed, the quality of the communication between the Appellant and XXXX moving forward is not relevant to the assessment of his credibility. [32] I begin my analysis by noting that the RPD is entitled to make findings based on implausibility but such findings should only be made in the clearest of cases.11 More specifically, the Federal Court cautions that the RPD should provide "a reliable and verifiable evidentiary base against which the plausibility of the Applicants' evidence might be judged," otherwise a plausibility determination may be nothing more than "unfounded speculation."12 [33] Having reviewed the entirety of the record and listened to the audio recording, I consider that the RAD is equally placed to assess the plausibility finding made by the RPD. [34] My review of the evidence leads me to identify two reasons to set aside the plausibility finding. [35] Firstly, it is plain to see that the plausibility finding reached by the RPD presumes the level of compassion or concern that the Appellant should convey towards XXXX following his arrival in Canada. However, there is no evidence about the current state of their relationship other than the fact that the Appellant referred to XXXX as his friend when he testified.13 It is important to note that no questions were posed at the hearing to canvas the present nature of the Appellant's relationship with XXXX even though the Appellant says that they separated in XXXX 2015, following the assault. Given that this information is lacking, I must conclude that the plausibility finding casting "serious doubt" on the very existence of this relationship is made in error because it is based on "unfounded speculation." [36] Secondly, I note that the Appellant was pressed by the RPD to provide details about the nature of his contact with XXXX following his arrival in Canada. The RPD asked the Appellant the following questions: - [H]e is your partner, so how can you not know what happened or when he got beaten up?14 - Did you speak to your partner sir, you should have discussed about what happened or when he filed a complaint, these are important things that happened...because of your relationship. How can you tell me that you don't know [sic]?15 - Sir, you told me that you spoke to XXXX 3 weeks ago. How come you cannot tell me what happened to him after you were both beaten by community boys?16 [37] The Appellant responded to these questions in different ways. He stated that he did not discuss the situation with XXXX. He stated that he did not have first-hand information about XXXX situation in the aftermath of the assault. He stated that he found out some information about XXXX from his uncle. When challenged about his lack of knowledge despite speaking to XXXX on the telephone a few weeks prior to the hearing, the Appellant testified that "[XXXX] is presently in Ghana. Right now he is also scared and he thinks..."17 The Appellant was unable to complete the sentence as he was interrupted by the member who stated that he was not responding to the question.18 [38] In my view, the Appellant's testimony indicating that XXXX is "presently in Ghana" and "right now he is also scared" is a critical piece of information providing context to the quality, content and frequency of their telephone conversations. To be clear, the RPD made plausibility findings that the Appellant's occasional contact and lack of detailed information regarding XXXX plight casts doubt on the very existence of their relationship. However, this plausibility finding is not sustainable because according to the Appellant, his friend XXXX remains in Ghana where he cannot live freely as a homosexual and he remains fearful. [39] In sum, I find that the plausibility finding made by the RPD casting serious doubt on the credibility of the very existence of the Appellant's relationship with XXXX is made in error as the foundation of the plausibility finding is based on a failure to consider the context and current status of the Appellant's relationship with XXXX. This leads to the conclusion that the plausibility finding is unsustainable and must be set aside. c. Did the RPD err in finding the Appellant's evidence inconsistent? [40] The Appellant's documentary evidence includes a police complaint made by XXXX following the alleged assault on XXXX XXXX, 2015.19 When asked at the hearing when and why XXXX made the police complaint, the Appellant initially stated that he did not remember. When pressed further, the Appellant stated that he learned that XXXX was assaulted and made a police complaint during a telephone conversation with XXXX uncle following his arrival in Canada. When asked by the RPD whether anyone accompanied XXXX to make the police complaint, the Appellant initially responded that he did not know. [41] In contrast, the police complaint specifically mentions that the Appellant was present with XXXX when he made the police complaint. When confronted with this inconsistency, the Appellant explained that he misunderstood the question and that he was present at the police station. [42] The RPD rejected the Appellant's explanation that he misunderstood the question about the police complaint. Moreover, the RPD added that the Appellant's credibility is further undermined because even though he was present at the police station with XXXX following the assault, he failed to mention that he asked for police protection in Question 2c of his BOC. In addition, the Appellant's narrative in his BOC does not mention that he went to the police following the alleged assault. The RPD held that the Appellant's evidence about the police complaint lacked credibility and casts doubt on whether an assault occurred. As such, the RPD gave no probative weight to the police complaint. [43] On appeal, it is argued that the RPD erred by failing to consider the Appellant's explanation that his evidence regarding the police complaint is inconsistent because he misunderstood the question posed by the RPD. [44] With respect, I consider that this submission has no merit. Rather, my review of the audio recording reveals that the RPD asked the Appellant several different questions aimed at clarifying the circumstances surrounding the police complaint. For example: - The RPD asked the Appellant when XXXX filed the police complaint to which he responded that he did not remember.20 - The RPD asked if the assault was recent and the Appellant said he did not know when it happened.21 - The Appellant said that it was XXXX uncle that told him that XXXX was beaten and went to the police station.22 - The Appellant said that he did not know if XXXX made the police complaint by himself.23 - Further in his testimony, the Appellant was confronted with the police complaint which states that he was present at the police station with XXXX. He then acknowledged that he accompanied XXXX to the police station but does not know what happened to XXXX as he managed to run away.24 [45] In short, in response to several direct questions by the RPD, the Appellant testified that he did not know much about the police complaint because he was not present. It was only when he was confronted with the police complaint indicating that he accompanied XXXX to the police station that he adjusted his testimony, conceding that he was present with XXXX at the police station when the complaint was lodged. [46] It is well established that inconsistencies in the evidence can be relevant to the assessment of credibility if they are real and central to the claim.25 [47] In the present case, the police complaint was a central aspect of the story. It is plain to see that the Appellant's evidence concerning the police complaint was marred by inconsistencies that are well supported by the evidence, thus undermining the credibility of his narrative. [48] The RPD also found that the Appellant's evidence concerning the sequence of events following the assault was marred by inconsistencies and lacked credibility. More specifically, the RPD noted the following inconsistencies between the Appellant's evidence and documentary evidence: - The Appellant's BOC does not mention that the Appellant went to the police station following the assault. In contrast, the police complaint mentions that the Appellant accompanied XXXX to the police station. It was only when he was confronted with the police complaint that the Appellant adjusted his testimony, stating that he went to the police station with XXXX on the same day as the assault. - The Appellant states that the assault occurred on XXXX, XXXX XXXX, 2015, around XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. In contrast, the police complaint is dated XXXX, XXXX XXXX, 2015, at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. - The Appellant testified that he accompanied XXXX to the police station at night. He says that he went to the medical clinic the following day after which he returned to the police station. However, this testimony is at odds with the medical report dated XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX, 2015, and the police complaint dated XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX, 2015. [49] When confronted with these contradictions, the Appellant testified that he was confused and therefore not able to give the exact time that he went to the police station and medical clinic.26 [50] On appeal, it is argued that there are different possible interpretations to be given to the the police complaint and medical report thus explaining inconsistencies in the Appellant's evidence regarding the sequence of events. Moreover, it is submitted that the RPD erred by failing to consider that it is simply not possible for the Appellant to recall the sequence of events with precision. Relying on an excerpt from a scholarly article,27 the Appellant argues that refugee claimants may be challenged to remember events with precision given the effects of trauma, stress and other complex factors related to the frailty of human memory. [51] My review of the evidence leads me to conclude that there is an obvious inconsistency between the Appellant's evidence and documentary information describing the sequence of events that occurred following the assault. The Appellant's testimony that he went to the police station on XXXX XXXX, 2015, followed by the medical clinic, is diametrically opposed to the medical report and police complaint which indicate that he first received assistance at the medical clinic and then went to the police station on XXXX XXXX, 2015. I agree that memory and trauma raise complex issues and that a refugee hearing should not be reduced to a memory test. On the other hand, I also note that there is no evidence to indicate that the Appellant's memory was compromised or negatively impacted by trauma or other issues. [52] All things considered, the Appellant's testimony with respect to the sequence of events immediately following the assault was changeable and clearly at odds with information found in the police complaint and medical report. The RPD did not err in finding that this aspect of the Appellant's evidence is inconsistent thus lacking credibility. d. Did the RPD err in assessing the credibility of the Appellant's evidence with respect to his sexual orientation? [53] In the present case, the Appellant self-identified as a homosexual. [54] The RPD concluded that the Appellant's assertion that he is a homosexual is not credible for the following reasons: "Although a person's sexual identity is a difficult aspect to assess in the context of the determination of a refugee protection claim, nevertheless, given that there is a significant amount of contradictory and inconsistent evidence between the testimony, the BOC Form and the evidence submitted by the claimant, the panel finds that taken as a whole, the allegations, including his homosexuality, lack credibility."28 [Emphasis added] [55] On appeal, it is submitted that notwithstanding any credibility concerns with respect to inconsistencies in the Appellant's evidence, the RPD erred by failing to consider and analyze all of the evidence tendered by the Appellant before casting doubt on the credibility of his sexual orientation. [56] I agree with this submission for the following reasons. [57] I begin my analysis by setting out basic principles underpinning all refugee claims. First, when an applicant swears to the truth of certain allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there are reasons to rebut the presumption.29 Second, a refugee hearing is an inquisitorial process. Therefore, it follows that the RPD is tasked with testing the evidence and making credibility findings based on the applicant's testimony and documentary evidence. Third, the Applicant is required to prove his credibility on a balance of probabilities. Finally, in certain circumstances when the RPD finds a total absence of credibility, this can extend to all evidence put forward by a refugee."30 [58] Turning to the present case, I note that the central issue pertains to the Appellant's sexual orientation. Simply put, the Appellant claims that he is at serious risk of persecution if he returns to Ghana because he is a homosexual. [59] To reiterate, the RPD held that "a person's sexual identity is a difficult aspect to assess" in a refugee protection claim.31 I agree with this statement, noting that the Federal Court has emphasized that the inherently private nature of claims based on sexual orientation present evidentiary challenges for the applicant and decision makers so that such claims should be handled with caution, care and sensitivity.32 [60] Refugee claims based on sexual orientation are claims that touch upon the core of a person's identity. As noted in Kandel, it is one thing to disbelieve an applicant based on his narrative. It is quite another thing to disbelieve an applicant's sexual orientation.33 [61] My review of the audio recording reveals that the RPD spent a minimal amount of time canvassing the Appellant's assertion that he is homosexual.34 His overall evidence about his sexual orientation was not challenged by the RPD and the Appellant was not given any opportunity to respond to any concerns about the credibility of his assertion that he is a homosexual. [62] The Appellant gave the following evidence about his homosexuality: - He stated that he has only had one same-sex partner who is XXXX. He provided the full name, date of birth and information about the whereabouts of XXXX.35 - He described his first encounter with XXXX when the two were classmates in high school.36 - In response to a direct question posed by the RPD framed as "who made the first move?" the Appellant provided context and detail about his sexual encounter with XXXX.37 - His sworn statement in his BOC explaining the negative consequences stemming from his family finding out about his relationship with XXXX was not canvassed by the RPD at the hearing and went unchallenged. In his BOC, the Appellant says that when the school master became aware of his relationship with XXXX, he was returned home, and beaten and threatened by his father. - The Appellant's sworn statement in his BOC mentions that he rekindled his relationship with XXXX following a chance meeting 10 years later. - In response to questions posed by his counsel at the RPD hearing, the Appellant said that his relationship with XXXX lasted 2 years. He testified about the positive and negative aspects of his relationship with XXXX.38 - He also explained the process leading him to realize that he is homosexual at age 15 and described his propensity to gravitate towards boys as a young child and experiment with makeup and wearing his sister's clothing.39 - He testified that he felt scared and that since he arrived in Canada he has connected with an association called XXXX XXXX which has provided him with supportive services. He was provided a membership card to support his association with this group. - The Appellant testified about his ambivalent feelings since coming to terms with his sexual orientation, noting that he sees his friends married with children and that he should be like them. At the same time, he recognizes that he is different and that it is a part of him.40 - The Appellant testified about reconciling his Muslim faith with his sexual orientation. He explained that Islamic people preach against homosexuality. To his knowledge, homosexuals in Ghana can be killed or have their head cut off. Sometimes they are stoned, which is a lenient punishment. He testified: "I still go to pray because I don't want my father or family to be aware of it. I don't pray. I know who I am. This is me, this is who I am."41 [63] In sum, my review of the audio recording and documentary evidence reveals that during the course of his hearing, the Appellant responded to questions about the nature and consequences of his sexual orientation in Ghana. His testimony about his sexual orientation was consistent with his BOC. [64] None of this evidence is mentioned in the RPD decision even though it was determined by the RPD that the Appellant's evidence about his sexual orientation is not credible. [65] While the RPD is not required to refer to every piece of evidence in the decision,42 it is not an overstatement to note that the Appellant's evidence regarding his sexual orientation is a central aspect of his claim. It was therefore an error for the RPD not to weigh this aspect of his evidence and provide reasons in unmistakable terms for discounting this evidence on the basis of credibility concerns.43 [66] On a final note, I wish to underscore that the finding by the RPD that the Appellant is not a homosexual is not a trivial matter. Notwithstanding credibility concerns, it is well established in case law that there may still be instances when an applicant fears persecution prospectively, if he returns to his country of origin and in certain cases, such a fear may ground a valid refugee claim.44 [67] In the present case, the Appellant testified that he is a homosexual and that homosexuals are treated harshly and cannot live openly in Ghana. Therefore, it is of paramount importance that this assertion be tested by the RPD and that the RPD decision reflects that all the evidence was considered and weighed before reaching the conclusion that the Appellant did not provide credible evidence that he is a homosexual. [68] As such, my analysis of the evidence reveals that the RPD erred in the process of making a critical finding, namely that the Appellant is not a homosexual. The basis of this finding is unsustainable because it is grounded on a failure to consider and weigh all the evidence central to the Appellant's claim. VI. REMEDY [69] In conclusion, I have independently analyzed the record, considered the Appellant's arguments and carefully reviewed the RPD decision. [70] I have identified several errors in the RPD's findings with respect to the assessment of the Appellant's credibility. This being said, I am unable to confirm or set aside the RPD decision without hearing evidence that was presented to the RPD with respect to the issue of the Appellant's credibility. [71] Therefore, exercising my discretion under ss 111(1)(c) of the IRPA, I refer the matter back to the RPD for re-determination by a differently constituted panel. [72] The appeal is allowed Patricia O'Connor Me Patricia O'Connor December 23, 2016 Date /cos 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93 (CanLII) [Huruglica]. 2 Ibid., para 78. 3 Ibid., para 103. 4 Ibid., paras 58-59. 5 Ibid., para 70. 6 Ibid., paras 96-98. 7 Orelien v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 592 (C.A) at 605. 8 Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal, paras 32-49. 9 RPD decision, para 6. Although the RPD found the refugee claim was made on the same day, the Appellant actually signed his BOC on October 13, 2015. 10 RPD decision, para 9. 11 Valtchev v. (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 776, para 7. 12 Zacarias v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1155, para 25. 13 Audio recording of the RPD hearing at 7:44. 14 Ibid., at 11:41. 15 Ibid., at 13:19. 16 Ibid., at 22:44. 17 Ibid., at 23:01. 18 Ibid., at 23:26. 19 Exhibit P-5, "Occurrence" Extract from Station Diary, Ghana Police, February 23, 2015. 20 Audio recording of the RPD hearing at 8:14 and 9:43. 21 Ibid., at 18:00. 22 Ibid., at 9:03, 15:06 and 16:17. 23 Ibid., at 14:33. 24 Ibid., at 22:23 and 26:15-30:50. 25 Dan-Ash v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (1988) 93 N.R. 33 (F.C.A); Lubana v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 116, paras 10-11. 26 Audio recording of the RPD hearing at 1:01. 27 CAMERON, Hilary Evans. "Refugee Status Determinations and the Limits of Memory," International Journal of Refugee law, Oxfortd University, (2010) 22(4): 469-511. 28 RPD decision, para 12. 29 Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 FC 302, para 5. 30 Sheikh v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), FCA [1990] F.C.J. no 604, paras 7-8; Sheikh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 Canlii 15200 (FC) para 25. 31 RPD decision, para 12. 32 Ogunrinde v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2012 F 760, para 42; Nezhalskyi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 299, para 14. 33 Kandel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 659, para 29. 34 Audio recording of the RPD hearing at 1:05-1:11. 35 Ibid., at 1:05. 36 Ibid., at 1:07-1:11. 37 Ibid., at 1:06-1:11. 38 Ibid., at 1:19-1:22. 39 Ibid., at 1:16-1:18. 40 Ibid., at 1:22. 41 Ibid., at 1:24. 42 Eze v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 601, para 22. 43 Hilo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 26 ACWS (3d) 104, [1991] FCJ No 228 (FCA). 44 Attakora v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (1989) 99 N.R. 168. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 2 RAD.25.02 (2014.09.11) Disponible en français RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB6-00389 19