MB4-02906

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 : MB4-02906 MB4-02907 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of decision January 6, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Anna Brychcy Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subjects of the appeal Me Joshua Blum Conseil des personnes en cause Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellants are XXXX XXXX XXXX, born on XXXX XXXX, 1991, and his brother XXXX XXXX XXXX, born on XXXX XXXX XXXX 1989. They are citizens of Ethiopia. They are appealing a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting their claims for refugee protection. The appellants have presented new evidence. They ask that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the RPD's decision and replace it with a positive determination or that it be referred back to a different member of the RPD for redetermination. DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL [2] Pursuant to section 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act ( IRPA), the RAD sets aside the determination and substitutes a determination that, in its opinion, should have been made, that the appellants are "Convention refugees" according to section 96 of IRPA. The appeal is allowed. BACKGROUND [3] The appellants' parents were born in Asmara, which is today in Eritrea, but left Asmara in the 1980s for Saudi Arabia as foreign workers. The two appellants were both born in Saudi Arabia. As Saudi Arabia does not grant citizenship to children of foreign workers born in their country, their only citizenship is that of their parents. They hold Ethiopian passports but they alleged these were obtained by bribery. They have never been to Ethiopia. [4] Saudi Arabia is sending back many of its foreign workers. Given their precarious status in Saudi Arabia, the appellants fear that they might eventually be sent back to Ethiopia, a country in which they have no family and no connections and where they do not speak the language. They also allege that based on Eritrean and Ethiopian nationality laws they have no legal right to the Ethiopian passports they hold. They fear being sent back to Eritrea and being forced to complete their compulsory military service where there is widespread evidence of torture. [5] Fearing for their lives, the appellants arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2014 and claimed refugee protection on March 5, 2014. Their refugee claim was heard on May 5, 2014. In a decision, dated June 16, 2014, the RPD rejected their claim for refugee protection. The RPD concluded that the appellants are Ethiopians and that they did not establish that they are of Eritrean lineage. The RPD found Ethiopia to be the only country of reference and did not find that they had serious grounds for fearing persecution in that country or that they would be at risk under a section 97 ground should they return to Ethiopia. SUBMISSIONS [6] Counsel argued that the RPD determined the claim under the incorrect perception that the appellants could have retained Ethiopian nationality after Eritrea's secession and thus erroneously determined Ethiopia to be the country of reference. The RPD did not believe that the appellants' parents had been born in Eritrea and dismissed the appellants' birth certificates and mother's Eritrean ID because of 'anomalies" on these documents. [7] The appellants refer to the report of Dr. XXXX XXXX1 which states that children of individuals born in Asmara and who have never been to Ethiopia cannot legally be entitled to Ethiopian citizenship. Eritrea is therefore the only country to which they can return as they have no legal status in Ethiopia. Counsel alleges that the RPD failed to properly consider the expert's report which stated that no Eritrean living in Saudi Arabia could have maintained a legal right to Ethiopian nationality. [8] Counsel also argues that in making the erroneous finding that the appellants were nationals of Ethiopia, the RPD also failed to properly asses their risks of returning to that country. In concluding that the appellants are not Eritrean, the RPD suggested that their only fear in returning to Ethiopia is that for them it is a new country where they do not speak the language. The RPD ignored evidence of discrimination, potentially amounting to persecution, and the precariousness of citizenship for Eritreans in Ethiopia. It denied the claim without conducting a proper risk assessment. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ON APPEAL [9] Section 110(4) of IRPA provides that the appellant may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of his claim or that was not reasonably available, or that he could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. [10] Even where a document meets the test in section 110(4), this does not require the RAD to admit it into evidence without any further consideration. In Raza2 the Federal Court of Appeal set out factors to be considered in assessing "new evidence". While Raza predates the introduction of section 110(4), it is based on the very similar wording of section 113(a) and the Court held that new evidence should be considered for its credibility, relevance, newness, and materiality, in addition to any express statutory provisions.3 In Iyamuremye, the Federal Court accepted the RAD's application of the factors in Raza to new evidence submitted on an appeal under IRPA.4 [11] It is for the appellant to make full and detailed submissions in his Memorandum about how any proposed new evidence meets the requirements of section 110(4) and how that evidence relates to the appellant.5 The RAD notes counsel's arguments why it is felt that the test from Raza is not appropriate to determine what evidence is admissible in a RAD appeal. The prejudice to an appellant who is prevented from admitting probative evidence to his claim far outweighs the administrative inconvenience of considering evidence that could potentially have been submitted earlier. The RAD's priority in this case is to reach a correct determination of the claim. [12] The new evidence submitted by the appellants falls into three categories. 1) First, are the documents that were in possession of the former counsel at the time of the hearing but had not been presented. These include: a) Explanatory affidavit by appellant's first counsel6 b) Copies of appellants' birth certificates and translations7 c) The April 26, 2013 report by Dr. XXXX XXXX.8 [13] The appellant's first counsel in his affidavit clearly explains that he had only submitted the English translations of the birth certificates. He explains that because of an administrative error, only one of the two expert reports by Dr. XXXX XXXX had been submitted. He takes full responsibility for his error. The documents merit admission under section 110(4). They are credible, new, material and relevant to the claim. 2) The second category of evidence is that which existed at the time of the RPD hearing but that could not have been expected to have been presented before the rejection of the claim. These include: a) Explanatory affidavit by appellant's father;9 b) Copies of appellants' parents' passeports;10 c) Eritrean passport and Eritrean ID of appellant's aunt XXXX;11 d) Eritrean IDs of appellants' maternal grandmother and grandfather and maternal aunts;12 e) Media articles concerning incorrect birthdate on mother's Eritrean ID;13 f) Media articles showing recognition in Saudi Arabia of May 1991 as Eritrea's date of independence;14 g) Additional documents presented in counsel's letter, dated September 2, 2014, including Aunt XXXX XXXX XXXX affidavit and affidavit of a former Eritrean ambassador, XXXX XXXX XXXX, attesting that Eritrea had a functioning provisional government as of May 1991;15 [14] The appellants had been advised by their former counsel that their birth certificates and mother's Eritrean ID would be enough to prove Eritrean nationality. They could not have anticipated that their birth certificates and mother's Eritrean ID would have been given no weight by the RPD and only learnt of this when their decision had been received. In presenting the Eritrean documents for their relatives the appellants are responding to the RPD's determinative finding that they are not of Eritrean origin. Documents a, b, c and d merit admission under section 110(4). They show the appellants' links to Eritrea and for this reason they are considered as new. They are credible, relevant documents going towards the material issue in this claim, whether the appellants' parents were born in what is now Eritrea. [15] The media articles concerning the date of Eritrean independence and the random nature of birth dates in countries with no birth registry are presented as the appellants could not reasonably have been expected to have known that the RPD member would perceive certain anomalies in the documents presented and could not have known of their significance for the decision maker until the reasons were received. The documents submitted in counsel's letter, dated September 2, 2014, documents g, are also accepted for the same reasons. All the documents in this category are considered credible, relevant and material to the claim. They are new in the sense that they are capable of contradicting a finding of fact by the RPD. 3) The final category is evidence arising after the rejection of the appellants' refugee claim. These include: a) Letter from appellants' father, XXXX XXXX XXXX on validity of Ethiopian passports;16 b) Affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX;17 c) Affidavit of XXXX XXXX;18 [16] The affidavits of XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX are not accepted as new evidence as they do not bring much that is new than their earlier statements. They are basically just more detailed affidavits attesting to the Eritrean identity of the appellants' parents. [17] The father's affidavit is dated after the rejection of the claim and speaks to a central issue in the appeal, the validity of the Ethiopian passports. The document is new and credible and clearly relevant to the appeal and material in the sense that it is capable of showing that the decision of the RPD is in error and could affect the appropriate disposition of this appeal. As such the affidavit is admissible as new evidence in this appeal. ROLE OF THE RAD [18] While IRPA sets out grounds for appeal as well as possible remedies, it does not specify the standard by which the RAD is to review the decision of the lower tribunal. [19] Although the RAD is a relatively new body, it now has the benefit of some Federal Court jurisprudence which speaks to the appellate tribunal's role in relation to that of the RPD. [20] While the Court had endorsed the standard of reasonableness in Iyamuremye19, and accepted it in Malhotra20, more recently, the Court, in Huruglica21,found the RAD had erred in simply reviewing the RPD's decision on a standard of reasonableness, rather than conducting its own independent assessment of the appellants' refugee claims. The Court held that the RAD's application of a reasonableness standard curtailed the tribunal's appellate role, contrary to the purpose of the RAD and the provisions of IRPA. In the Court's view, the RAD should not even engage in a standard of review analysis; rather, it should consider the purpose of the appellate tribunal, the statutory provisions, comparable expertise, and comparative appellate regimes.22 It is to review all aspects of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of the appellant's refugee claim. [21] Considering that the RPD views the evidence first-hand, deference will be afforded to the credibility findings of the RPD or to other findings where the RPD has a particular advantage in reaching its conclusions. Where the RAD's assessment departs from that of the RPD, the RAD must substitute its own determination. This panel member of the RAD will be following the case of Huruglica in dealing with this appeal. Accordingly, the RAD will conduct its own assessment of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the appellants are "Convention refugees" or "persons in need of protection". ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL [22] The country of reference is at the heart of this appeal. The RPD rejected that the appellants are of Eritrean ethnicity and assessed the fears of the appellants against Ethiopia, the country whose passports they hold. While the RAD finds that the appellants are of Eritrean ethnicity, it agrees with the RPD that they are Ethiopian citizens. It finds however that they are "Convention refugees" with respect to Ethiopia. [23] The RPD had rejected the Eritrean ethnicity of both appellants on the basis of the fact that XXXX birth certificate, issued on XXXX XXXX, 1991, had listed his parents' nationality as Eritrean. The RPD member had stated that Eritrea had not been proclaimed an independent country until 1993 and that she could not imagine that a state such as Saudi Arabia would commit such an error as assigning the appellant Eritrean nationality, some 18 months before it had become recognized as an independent state. The RAD believes that the RPD member was not correct in making this assumption, since the documentary evidence states that Eritrea was de facto independent since May 1991 and there is evidence that Ethiopia, as well as the United States had officially recognized an independent Eritrea as of August 1991, before the recognition of Eritrea by the United Nations in 1993.23 The new evidence presented by the appellants includes articles showing that the Eritrean people gained control of the country on May 24, 1991 and that the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF) formed the Provisional Government of Eritrea to run the country's affairs until the internationally monitored referendum which had been scheduled for April 1993. Other evidence suggests that in Saudi Arabia, even today, Eritrean Independence Day is recognized as May 24, 1991.24 [24] With respect to the appellants' mother's Identity Card issued by the provisional Eritrean authorities in 1992, the date of birth of the mother had been given as XXXX XXXX, 1967 instead of the birthday, XXXX XXXX, 1970, which is the date indicated on her Ethiopian passport. The card was dismissed by the RPD member who concluded that the Eritrean nationality of the appellants had been undermined. XXXX XXXX is often given as a date of birth in countries where record keeping is rare.25 The RAD finds the appellants' explanation for the discrepancy in the dates to be credible, namely, that in 1986 when their mother left Asmara she was not yet 18 years old and may have changed her date of birth to appear older in order to be allowed to leave the country. [25] In considering the above and the fact that the parents of the appellants were born in Asmara, along with the many documents showing that other family members lived in Eritrea , the RAD accepts that the appellants are of Eritrean ancestry. Counsel for the appellants argues, however, that the appellants cannot be considered to be Ethiopian citizens since their passports were fraudulently obtained and, thus, they have no legal right to their Ethiopian passports. Based on their parents' birth in Asmara, Eritrea, and that fact that the appellants never lived in Ethiopia, it is argued that they can only be citizens of Eritrea. The RAD does not agree and finds that, despite the appellants' Eritrean ethnicity, they are citizens of Ethiopia and have rights to hold an Ethiopian passport. The RAD's reasons are as follows. [26] A little history is necessary. The only valid law regarding nationality at the time of the border war (1998-2000) was the Ethiopian Nationality law of 1930.26 This law stated that "any person born in Ethiopia, or abroad, whose father and mother is Ethiopian, is an Ethiopian national. Dual citizenship was not permitted and Ethiopian nationality was lost when a person acquired another nationality. [27] When Eritrea became a province of Ethiopia in 1962, all Eritreans automatically became Ethiopian citizens.27 Thus the appellants' parents, living in Asmara, would have become Ethiopian. The father had left Asmara to go to Saudi Arabia in the 1980s and the mother left in 1986. After Eritrea's independence, the Ethiopian government argued that, since the 1930 law did not permit dual nationality, Ethiopians who had acquired Eritrean nationality would lose their Ethiopian nationality. However, this decision was not enforced and the question of nationality of Ethiopians with Eritrean origin was deferred. Eritreans continued to benefit from the rights of Ethiopian nationality. The resumption of conflict in 1998 polarized the situation. At the outbreak of the war in 1998, the Ethiopian government considered that individuals having taken part in the 1993 referendum for Eritrea's independence had gained Eritrean nationality, as a right to citizenship was a criterion of voting. Registration as an Eritrean national had been required in order to have participated in the 1993 referendum. Ethiopia viewed having voted in the referendum as in itself evidence of Eritrean citizenship- and by extension a renunciation of their rights as Ethiopians. The Ethiopian government expelled tens of thousands of people during the 1998-2000 war, citing the 1930 Ethiopian Nationality Law which stated that Ethiopian nationality is lost when a person acquires another nationality. 28 [28] In 2003 the Ethiopian government issued a Proclamation on Ethiopian Nationality, which repealed the previous Ethiopian Nationality Law of 1930. Part 2, Article 3 of the Proclamation states that, "1. Any person shall be an Ethiopian national by descent where both or either of his parent (sic) is Ethiopian."29 [29] That law also provides conditions under which foreigners may acquire Ethiopian nationality. The appellants, however, are not foreigners. Although they were born in Saudi Arabia, their parents never renounced their Ethiopian nationality or chose Eritrean citizenship. [30] In 2004 the authorities promulgated the Directive Issued to Determine the Residence Status of Eritrean Nationals residing in Ethiopia.30 The stated objective of the government policy was to ensure that Eritreans did not find themselves in a situation where they were the subject of both the Eritrean and Ethiopian governments. While the RAD realizes that the appellants and their parents were outside of Ethiopia at the time of the decree, the intent of the directive was that those persons of Eritrean origin who had not opted for Eritrean nationality would be deemed to have decided to maintain their Ethiopian nationality and that their Ethiopian nationality would be guaranteed. The directive further states that those who did not choose Eritrean citizenship would be considered Ethiopian citizens. [31] The appellants also state that they are Jeberti. The Jeberti people are Tigrinya-speaking Muslims in Eritrea31. The Eritrean Peoples' Liberation Front (EPLF) stigmatized the Jeberti whom they saw as cooperating with Ethiopian government and saw them as "subversive" to the Eritrean struggle for independence. Jeberti leaders were loyal to Ethiopia before Eritrean independence and did not support the EPLF. Many Jeberti went into exile from Eritrea after its independence. Members of the Jeberti created the Eritrean Al-Nahda Party (ENP) in 2005. The ENP is part of the opposition against the Eritrean government and the main office is in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, due to the difficulty of operating in Eritrea. 32 [32] The appellants stated that their father had been a long-time member of the Al Nahda party. In his interview with the immigration official, the younger brother, XXXX, had stated that his Ethiopian passport had been obtained some ten years ago by his father with the help of Al Nahda. Considering the father's involvement in this organization, and that many Jeberti are against the Eritrean government, it is not inconceivable, that this organization would have been instrumental in helping the father to obtain Ethiopian passports for the members of his family as the appellant had stated. [33] The Ethiopian government has denied citizenship to those Eritreans who had served in the Eritrean government, had Eritrean citizenship, or who had voted in the referendum on Eritrean independence. While the young appellants are not political in any way, the elder brother, XXXX XXXX appears to have summarized the whole citizenship dilemma aptly when he told the immigration official that some persons had been able to get Eritrean passports while others were able to get Ethiopian. [34] The RPD stated it took care to review the document prepared by Dr. XXXX on Whether an Eritrean holder of an Ethiopian passport is entitled to Ethiopian citizenship33 and examined the refugee claim TB3-00452 for which the expert report had been provided. The claimant in that case had been in possession of an Eritrean Identification card which is a document that confers Eritrean nationality and he had applied for the card himself in 2012 in order to establish that he is a citizen of Eritrea. Dr. XXXX had stated in his report that the claimant's possession of an Eritrean national ID card would be seen as evidence of his Eritrean nationality. The RAD believes this is true. But the scenario for the appellants in the present case is very different. The appellants do not have and have never applied for Eritrean ID cards. [35] The second report by Dr. XXXX XXXX dated April 6, 201334, had not been considered by the RPD because of the administrative mix-up and had been presented only as new evidence at the RAD. This report was provided for the refugee claim TB-01502. While in that decision the RPD member had concluded that the claimant could not be Ethiopian, the claimant in that case had been able to enter Ethiopia there times, in 2003, 2006 and 2010, each time on his Ethiopian passport which he maintained had been fraudulently obtained. Each time he had been interrogated at the airport. Dr. XXXX concluded that the claimant's entitlement to Ethiopian citizenship is unlikely to be recognized by the authorities in Ethiopia because he is very likely to be questioned by immigration officials on arrival at the airport due to his inability to speak Amharic. Nevertheless, despite the periods of questioning the claimant in that case had been able to enter Ethiopia on all three occasions. [36] While it was maintained that the Ethiopian passports obtained by the appellants in this case were obtained through bribery, the possession of a passport creates a presumption of nationality that cannot be rebutted by only an assertion that this is a passport of convenience. There is nothing in the appellants' passports to indicate that it is anything other than a genuine Ethiopian passport issued in their own names. The payment of a bribe in order to secure a passport, if this was in fact done, does not in and of itself render that passport as invalid. [37] The appellants have rights to Ethiopian citizenship. There is no mention in their passports that they are Eritrean. The appellants were able to travel extensively on their Ethiopian passports and such extensive use of the passport suggests that it is actually genuine, and that the bearer is an Ethiopian citizen. [38] The appellants had not been asked if their father had voted in the referendum of 1993 and it is likely that they may not have known the answer. They are young and not politically minded and one of the appellants had even wrongly given the date for Eritrean independence as being in 1996 when interviewed by the immigration official. From what had been stated about the father's political views, it appears that he was against the Eritrean EPLF and would not likely have compromised his Ethiopian citizenship in favor of Eritrean. Furthermore the father stated in his affidavit that he never had an Eritrean passport. [39] The RPD had not accepted that the appellants would suffer persecution in returning to Ethiopia. The RAD member recognized that the appellants had no family in that country and that they did not speak Amharic but concluded that their fears had more to do with adapting to a new country than a fear of persecution. Counsel alleges that the RPD failed to conduct a proper assessment of risk upon return to Ethiopia and argues that the RPD misrepresented what the appellants had actually said in the hearing. [40] The appellants are young and have never lived in Ethiopia. It is difficult for them to imagine what problems they would face, other than the personal and psychological toll that living in a country where they have no family and do not know the language would have. They worry about their future and the possibility of obtaining good employment in their respective fields. The appellants in this case have not faced persecution in the past as they have never lived in Ethiopia and they can only speak about what they have heard from others who have gone back. The RAD finds that indeed during the hearing the appellants had mentioned their fears of being treated as enemies or spies if they were to return, because Eritreans and Ethiopians do not get along and that they had heard of people who had returned and had been mistreated. 35 [41] The RPD member rightly noted that the appellants would not be expelled to Eritrea. Forcible deportation from Ethiopia of persons of Eritrean origin has not occurred since June 2001. Nevertheless, serious problems in the country do exist. Freedom House36 gives Ethiopia a rating of 6 with respect to civil liberties and political rights, with 7 being the worst. It is listed as a country that is "not free". A recent Response to Information Request37states that Eritreans living in Ethiopia still face "marginalization" and face such difficulties as constant animosity from a large portion of the population and discrimination when dealing with lower-ranking public employees. Mention is made that Ethiopian citizens of Eritrean origin often hide their origins because they fear being discriminated against, especially in the workplace. It would be difficult for the appellants, however, to hide their origins since they do not even speak Amharic. The appellants are also Muslim. While the constitution guarantees religious freedom, the government has increasingly harassed the Muslim community, which has grown to rival the Ethiopian Orthodox Church as the country's largest religious group. [42] Furthermore, in addition to these factors, the risk of persecution may be heightened in cases of increased tension between Ethiopia and Eritrea, such as the onset of any new hostilities. This remains a distinct possibility as tensions have remained high between Ethiopia and Eritrea. In March 2012, for example, Ethiopian troops carried out a series of military incursions into Eritrea, the first since the end of the war.38 Based on an assessment of the risks that the appellants would face should they return to Ethiopia, a country which is theirs but that they do not know, the RAD finds that there is an objective basis to their fears. In considering the personal profiles of the appellants, the RAD finds that there is more than a mere possibility that the appellants would suffer persecution and determines that they are "Convention refugees" under section 96 of IRPA. CONCLUSION [43] For the foregoing reasons, the RAD sets aside the determination of the RPD and determines that the appellants, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, are "Convention refugees". [44] The appeal is allowed. Anna Brychcy Anna Brychcy January 6, 2015 Date /kp 1 April 11, 2013 Report of Dr. XXXX XXXX, Appellant's Record p. 62. 2 Raza, Syed Masood v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-11-07), Linden, Sharlow, Ryer, December 6, 2007; 2007 FCA 385 [2008] 1 F.C.R. 3 Ibid. Raza, paras. 13-15. 4 Iyamuremye, Oscar v. M.C.I. (F.C.,no. IMM-5282-13), Shore, May 26, 2014; 2014 FC 494 5 Refugee Appeal Division Rules, Section 3(3)(g)(iii). 6 Appellant's Record, p.75-77. 7 Appellant's Record, p.78-87, see counsel's letter, dated September 2, 2014 with new translations. 8 Appellant's Record, p.88-94. 9 Appellant's Record, p.95-96. 10 Appellant's Record, p. 97-98. 11 Appellant's Record, p.99-102. 12 Appellant's Record, p.103-104. 13 Appellant's Record, p.105-112. 14 Appellant's Record, p.113-118. 15 See counsel's letter dated September 2, 2014. 16 Appellant's Record, p. 119-120. 17 Appellant's Record, p.121-124. 18 Appellant's Record, p.125-129. 19 Iyamuremye, Oscar v M.C.I. (F.C.,No. IMM-5282-13), Shore, May 26, 2014; 2014 FC 494 . 20 Malhotra v. M.C.I., 2014 FC 768. 21 Huruglica, Bujar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6362-13), Phelan, August 22, 2014; 2014 FC 799. 22 Huruglica, para. 45. 23 Exhibit A-2: NDP on Eritrea. Tab. 2.4. U.K. Country of Origin Information. p.17-18. 24 Appellant's record p. 113-118. 25 Appellant's record p. 105 26 Country of Origin Research and Information (CORI), CORI Country Report: Ethiopia, January 2010, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/4b9e03f92.html. 27 Ibid. see footnote 508: Writenet, Ethiopia. A Sociopolitical Assessment, 1 May 2006. http://www.uhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/44f29d704.pdf. 28 Ibid. 29 Exhibit A-2: NDP on Ethiopia. Tab. 3.4 Proclamation on Ethiopian Nationality. No. 278/2003. 30 Appellant's record. P. 245 31 Exhibit A-2: NDP Eritrea. Tab. 13.1. Treatment of Jeberti people by government authorities, including Jeberti returnees (2010-August 2013). ERI104540.E. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 17 September 2013 32 Ibid. 33 Appellant's record p.241-249. 34 Dr. XXXX report, dated April 26, 2013. P. 88-94. 35 Transcript of RPD hearing, p. 29-31, 36 Exhibit A-2: NDP on Ethiopia. Tab. 2.4. Ethiopia. Freedom in the World 2013. Freedom House. 37 Exhibit A-2: NDP on Ethiopia. Tab.13.2. The treatment of Eritreans by the Ethiopian government authorities (2008-2009). ETH103319.F.E. 14 January 2010. 38 Exhibit A-2: NDP on Ethiopia. Tab. 2.4. Ethiopia. Freedom in the World 2013. Freedom House. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB4-02906 MB4-02907 2 RAD.25.02 (2014.09.11) Disponible en français