TB3-04899

RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB3-04899 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision November 6, 2013 Date de la décision Panel Daniel McSweeney Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Cari Gombinsky Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du (de la) ministre REASONS AND DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX, who alleges that she is a citizen of Somalia, has appealed a negative determination of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dated July 2, 2013. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to ss. 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) sets aside the determination and substitutes its own determination that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee nor is she a person in need of protection. BACKGROUND [3] Ms. XXXX(the Appellant) alleges that she is from Somalia and is from a minority clan. In XXXX2011, some men from al Shabaab came to her father's XXXX XXXXand attempted to recruit him. When her father refused, he was killed. The Appellant began to XXXX XXXX XXXXand was later warned by a friend that al Shabaab wanted to stone her for crimes against Islam for XXXX XXXX XXXX. The Appellant alleged in her first Basis of Claim (BoC) narrative1 that she went to Ethiopia in XXXXof 2012 while arrangements were made for her to come to Canada. The Appellant fears al Shababb and larger clans and militias, should she return to Somalia. [4] The Appellant submitted a BoC amendment2 on April 24, 2013 indicating that she did not tell the complete truth when she was preparing her claim. The amendment came after the disclosure by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) of a biometric report3 which indicated that the Appellant had made an application for a non-immigrant visa to the US under a different name, date of birth, and citizenship. The Appellant's BoC amendment indicated that she fled Somalia to Kenya where she spent two years. She came to Canada on a Kenyan passport. [5] The Appellant came to Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2013 and made her claim for protection on February 11, 2013. [6] The Appellant had a refugee determination hearing on April 26, 2013. Written reasons dismissing the claim were issued on July 2, 2013. In its decision, the RPD panel found the following: 1. The RPD found that the Appellant was not a credible witness given her vague testimony; unreasonable explanations regarding discrepancies and omissions in her testimony; responses that did not make sense; her false statement that she was in Ethiopia after she fled Somalia; her failure to disclose in her original BoC that she had travelled to Canada from Kenya on a Kenyan passport; discrepancy in the amount of time she was out of Somalia before coming to Canada; problems in her description of her religion; implausibilities in the story of her father's attempted recruitment into al Shabaab; omissions of the forced recruitment of her brothers into al Shabaab from her two BoC narratives; and the implausibility of her raising $3,000 in two months as a XXXX XXXX. 2. The Appellant did not provide any objective documentation establishing her nationality as a Somali citizen or her clan affiliation. 3. The Appellant's failure to provide evidence to indicate that she was in Kenya for two years before she came to Canada was found not to be reasonable. [7] On August 13, 2013, the Appellant's representative requested an extension to perfect the appeal, as the Appellant was waiting for identity documents from abroad and for statutory declarations from family and community members, and the Appellant needed to transcribe transcripts to include in the memorandum. The extension request was allowed by the Acting Assistant Deputy Chair. The RAD noted that no documents were presented from abroad, and no portions of a transcript accompanied the pleadings. [8] In the pleadings, the Appellant's representative alleged that the RPD made several errors including: 1. The RPD erred by rejecting the Appellant's explanations for her false statements on her original BoC (false identity, departure dates, departing from Kenya). 2. The RPD erred in drawing a negative inference to the Appellant's failure to provide documents from Somalia given the overall circumstances in Somalia. 3. The RPD erred by drawing a negative inference to the Appellant's response that she was Muslim instead of Sunni. 4. The RPD erred in finding that it was implausible that al Shabaab wanted to recruit the Appellant's 61-year-old father. 5. The RPD erred in assigning a negative inference to the Appellant's explanation as to why she omitted the fact that her brothers were recruited by al Shabaab. 6. The RPD erred in its finding that it was implausible for the Appellant to raise $3000 in two months as a XXXX XXXX. [9] The Appellant has provided post-hearing evidence as part of the pleadings to establish her identity. [10] The Appellant asks the RAD to substitute the negative determination with a positive determination based on the new evidence. The Appellant also asks for an oral hearing on the issues of identity and credibility. The RAD considered this request. Holding a hearing is dependent on the acceptance of documentary evidence by the RAD. As outlined below, the RAD has rejected all of evidence presented to the RAD in the Appeal. As such, the RAD dismisses the request for a hearing, as it does not conform to the provisions of Section 110(6) of IRPA. ADMISSIBILITY OF NEW EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON APPEAL [11] Section 110(4) of IRPA indicates that: "the person who is the subject of the appeal may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or that was not reasonably available, or that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection". [12] The Appellant provided an affidavit4 and eight statutory declarations5 in support of her pleadings. The affidavit was sworn on July 30, and the statutory declarations were signed on July 31 and August 9, 2013. All of the documents were obtained well after the Appellant's hearing on April 26, 2013 and after the negative determination was issued on July 2, 2013. [13] The Appellant submitted a confirmation of new evidence and request for an oral hearing6 as part of the pleadings. In this document, the Appellant indicated that: "the enclosed documents have only been recently made available to the applicant after the date she received the refusal and reason for refusal for her refugee claim". Other than this vague statement, the document does not provide an explanation for why the documents were not available at the time of the rejection or why the Appellant could not reasonably be expected to have presented the documents at the time of the rejection. In this regard, the pleadings do not conform to the requirements of RAD Rule 3(3)(g)(iii), which directs appellants to include an explanation of how any documentary evidence referred to in paragraph (e) meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) of IRPA. [14] The pleadings indicate that: "While in Canada, she was able to meet with relatives and friends from her childhood in Somalia who can attest to her identity... Due to the short time frame the applicant did not have time to find and discuss her claim with these persons before her claim was heard."7 The RAD notes that the documents were all produced in Southern Ontario which was not at a great distance from the Appellant's residence in Toronto. The affidavit and statutory declarations were completed by family members of the Appellant, including an uncle, cousin, and aunt. The Appellant also obtained declarations from former neighbours in Somalia. [15] The RAD finds that the purported new evidence provided by the Appellant does not conform to subsection 110(4) of IRPA or the RAD rules for several reasons. Firstly, the Appellant made her claim for refugee protection on February 11, 2013. She was represented by experienced counsel from the time that she submitted her BoC, and therefore the RAD finds that she would have been aware that the onus was on her to establish her personal identity and nationality. The Appellant had approximately 2.5 months to gather evidence in support of her personal identity and nationality before her hearing, and she did not do so, despite the fact that a biometric match was made indicating that an application for a non-immigrant visa to the US was made using her fingerprints but providing a different name, date of birth, and indicating that her citizenship as Kenyan.8 The RAD finds that two months was a reasonable time for the Appellant and her counsel to gather at least one affidavit or statutory declaration from an identity witness and/or to arrange for an identity witness to appear at the hearing. The Appeal Record does not indicate what efforts were made, if any, to obtain evidence from Canada before the hearing and why these efforts were unsuccessful. The RAD noted that the affidavit and several of the declarations were signed by relatives who lived in Southern Ontario. It would have been reasonable for the Appellant to have made efforts to obtain evidence from her relatives before the hearing, not to mention between the hearing and the negative determination. Furthermore, four pieces of the submitted new evidence were signed by persons who lived in the Greater Toronto Area and therefore were accessible to the Appellant and/or her counsel. The Appellant also did not provide any documents from Somalia or Kenya, the arrival of which the representative indicated as an explanation for the late submission of the pleadings. [16] Finally, as outlined below, the RAD finds that there was sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence before it to find that the Appellant was XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Kenya. Given that the Appellant deceived Canadian officials about her allegations and her country of reference, the RAD places more weight on the identity evidence produced by a foreign government (US) rather than on identity evidence arranged for by the Appellant who has demonstrated a lack of truthfulness and integrity in her dealings with Canadian officials regarding her refugee claim. [17] For the reasons outlined above, the RAD finds that the evidence presented did not conform to the requirements of subsection 110(4) of IRPA and therefore are not admissible as new evidence. Given that no new evidence has been accepted, the Appellant's request for an oral hearing is denied pursuant to subsection 110(6) of IRPA. STANDARD OF REVIEW [18] The RAD focused on two issues in assessing this appeal: a) Did the RPD err in its finding that the Appellant was not a credible witness? b) Did the RPD err in its determination that the Appellant has failed to provide sufficient credible or trustworthy evidence in support of her personal identity and nationality? [19] In assessing and selecting the appropriate standard of review, the RAD considered the factors outlined in Newton v. Criminal Trial Lawyers' Association,9 which take into account the list of factors in Dunsmuir.10 The Newton factors are applied to determine the standard of review for any issue of fact, mixed fact and law, or law. These factors include: a) the respective roles of the tribunal of first instance and the appellate tribunal, as determined by interpreting the enabling legislation; b) the nature of the question in issue; c) the interpretation of the statute as a whole; d) the expertise and advantageous position of the tribunal of first instance, compared to that of the appellate tribunal; e) the need to limit the number, length and cost of appeals; f) preserving the economy and integrity of the proceedings in the tribunal of first instance; and g) other factors that are relevant in the particular context. [20] The Newton factors deal with the standard of review to be applied by an appellate administrative tribunal to the decision of an administrative tribunal of first instance, and, as such, these factors are very relevant to the relationship between the RPD and the RAD. [21] Based on the guidance in Newton, the RAD focused on the factors listed below to determine the standard of review. The Supreme Court of Canada, in Khosa,11 noted that the factors in deciding the standard of review are not a checklist of criteria: a contextualized approach is appropriate in deciding which factors are most relevant. In assessing the relationship between the RAD and the RPD with respect to the Newton factors, the RAD considered the following three most significant factors: * the respective roles of the RPD and RAD in the context of IRPA; * the expertise and advantageous position of the RPD member compared to that of the RAD; and * the nature of the question in issue. [22] Both the RPD and the RAD derive their jurisdiction from and interpret the same statute: the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). Section 162 of IRPA gives each Division the same powers, including the Refugee Protection Division, "in respect of proceedings brought before it under this Act, sole and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions of law and fact, including questions of jurisdiction." With respect to the respective roles of the RPD and RAD in the context of IRPA, the powers of each Division are the same, although their roles are not the same. It is the primary role of the RPD to hear testimony, review evidence and determine a claim on its merits, while the RAD reviews those determinations based on questions of law, fact, or mixed fact and law. However, the fact that the RAD may, where appropriate, substitute a different determination than that made by the RPD does make its role similar to the RPD in that each Division is engaged in refugee determination. [23] The RAD decides appeals of RPD decisions related to refugee protection on questions of law, of fact, or of mixed law and fact;12 however, the presence of a right of appeal in and of itself does not warrant a correctness standard of review given the proscribed relationship between the RPD and RAD, and the limits imposed on RAD in IRPA highlighted below. [24] The RPD is a tribunal of first instance which has been given the authority in IRPA to make a decision to accept or reject a claim for protection.13 RPD members have expertise in interpreting and applying IRPA and as well are experts in assessing claims based on country conditions. The RPD must conduct a hearing14 and assesses the totality of the evidence, including evidence related to the credibility of the Appellant and witnesses, after it has had an opportunity to see the claimants, hear their testimony and question them. The RPD has expertise in making findings of fact after evaluating, first hand, the testimony of witnesses. [25] In contrast to the RPD's authority to assess a claim for protection, IRPA limits the RAD's ability to consider evidence. The RAD is not a tribunal of first instance but reviews decisions made by the RPD or considers the decision in light of new evidence. The RAD must proceed without a hearing on the basis of the record, submissions by the parties, and new evidence.15 The RAD's authority to consider new evidence and hold hearings in the case of appeals brought by a refugee protection claimant, unless responding to evidence presented by the Minister, is limited to evidence that arose after the rejection of the claim or that was not reasonably available, or that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection.16 Oral hearings are limited to circumstances where the new evidence raises a serious credibility issue.17 [26] Given that the RPD has held a hearing on the totality of the evidence and given that the RPD has heard from the Appellant directly at a hearing, and given that the RAD's authority to consider new evidence is limited in IRPA; the RPD is in the best position to assess the credibility of the Appellant and to make findings on issues of fact, and mixed law and fact related to the claim. This position is consistent with Newton, at paragraph 82, where it indicates with respect to the appellate division that: "The Board is not a tribunal of first instance, and cannot simply ignore the proceedings before the presiding officer, and the conclusions reached by him".18 [27] Newton concludes that: "a decision on such questions of fact by the presiding officer, as the tribunal of first instance, are entitled to deference. Unless the findings of fact are unreasonable, the Board should not interfere".19 Newton adopts the definition of "reasonableness" in Dunsmuir. Reasonableness is concerned mostly with the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process of the RPD; and that the RPD decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.20 [28] In the case at hand, the Appellant alleges that the RPD made errors of fact in the assessment of the evidence. As such, the RAD afforded the RPD with deference and considered the reasonableness of the determination for these errors. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL [29] As identified above, based on a review of all of the evidence and pleadings in the Appeal, the RAD focused on the following questions of fact: a) Did the RPD err in its finding that the Appellant was not a credible witness? b) Did the RPD err in its determination that the Appellant has failed to provide sufficient credible or trustworthy evidence in support of her personal identity and nationality? Credibility Findings [30] The RPD found that the Appellant was not a credible witness based on vague testimony, discrepancies, omissions and implausibilities in her evidence, and false statements. The Appellant's representative argued that the RPD erred by not placing weight on the explanations provided for these credibility concerns. [31] Since the determinative issue in this claim is whether or not the Appellant has provided sufficient credible or trustworthy evidence to establish her personal identity and nationality, the RAD will focus its credibility analysis on the issue of the false statements provided by the Appellant in her original BoC. The Appellant's original BoC narrative indicated that the Appellant fled to Ethiopia in XXXX 2012, and she travelled from Ethiopia to Canada. The Biometrics Report indicated that the Appellant had made an application for a US visitor's visa in Kenya on XXXX XXXX, 2011 under the name XXXX XXXX XXXX, born on XXXX XXXX, 1989 and with Kenyan citizenship. A visitor's visa was issued on XXXX XXXX, 2012 in Nairobi, Kenya. After this disclosure, the Appellant submitted a BoC amendment, which indicated that she did not tell the truth in her claim documents and that she came to Canada on a Kenyan passport. She fled Somalia to Kenya in September of 2011, where she remained until coming to Canada. At the hearing, the Appellant testified that, if the Biometrics Report had not been disclosed, she would not have informed the RPD that she did not flee to Ethiopia and that she had lived in Kenya for two years before coming to Canada. [32] The Appellant's representative argued that the RPD erred in the weight that it placed on the Appellant's explanations regarding her evidence. The RAD finds that the record shows that the Appellant deliberately misled Canadian officials and her counsel about her allegations, her country of reference, and her having a fraudulent or genuine Kenyan passport. The Appellant also admitted at the hearing that she had no intention to reveal the deception and to tell the truth to the RPD. She testified that she decided to issue a BoC amendment as a result of the biometric evidence. [33] The RPD explored the false statements at the hearing. A review of the recording of the hearing confirms that the Appellant testified that she obtained a fraudulent passport in the name of XXXX XXXX XXXXin Kenya, which she used to travel to Canada. The RAD notes that this does not conform to the RPD's written reasons which indicated that the Appellant had never heard the name XXXX XXXX XXXX. When asked to explain the false statements, the Appellant indicated that she lied in her application because of what she had gone through in Somalia, and she did not want to return to Somalia. The RPD rejected this explanation, as the Appellant signed her BoC as complete, true and correct. [34] When asked why she indicated in her original BoC that she went to Ethiopia rather than Kenya, the Appellant explained that she was scared. She indicated that she was afraid that, if she was not allowed to enter Canada, she would be returned to Kenya, as she had travelled on a fraudulent Kenyan passport. She preferred to return to Ethiopia, if she was required to leave Canada. The RPD found this explanation not to be reasonable as the explanation was not a strong reason for not telling the truth. [35] As outlined below, based on the evidence provided in the biometric match, the RAD finds that the Appellant is a Kenyan citizen. Given this, the RAD finds that the Appellant's statements in her original BoC that she fled to Ethiopia and came to Canada directly from there were an attempt to deflect any suspicion that she was indeed a citizen of Kenya. Given this, the Appellant's explanation for the deception (she preferred to be returned to Ethiopia) was not reasonable, and the RPD's findings that the Appellant was not credible were justified. [36] The RPD went on its reasons to analyze and make findings on several other omissions and implausibilities in the Appellant's allegations. The RAD finds that there was no need to explore whether or not these omissions or implausibilities were reasonable or not, given that the Appellant was found to have deceived Canadian officials about her personal identity and nationality, and her country of reference without a reasonable explanation. The RAD finds that these deceptions were central to the Appellant's alleged identity and nationality and were sufficient enough to undermine her overall credibility as a witness, and to rebut the presumption of truth as per Sheikh21 where Justice MacGuigan found that: ...even without disbelieving every word [a claimant] has uttered, a...panel may find him so reasonably lacking in credibility that it concludes that there is no credible evidence relevant to his claim...In other words, a general finding of a lack of credibility on the part of the [claimant] may conceivably extend to all relevant evidence emanating from his testimony. [37] Given the serious nature of the Appellant's deception, the RAD finds that the RPD's finding that the Appellant was not credible overall was reasonable as it fell within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law. Credible and Trustworthy Evidence in Support of Identity and Nationality [38] The RPD concluded that it did not know who the Appellant is: whether or not the Appellant is XXXX XXXX XXXX, a Somali citizen, or XXXX XXXX XXXX, a Kenyan national, or XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Ethiopia. Upon review of the recording of the hearing, the RAD finds that this RPD finding was an error, as it was not supported in the evidence and testimony provided at the hearing. In addition, the RAD finds that there was sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence before the RPD to find that the Appellant was, in fact, XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Kenya. [39] As outlined above, the RPD erred in its statement that the Appellant had never heard of the name XXXX XXXX XXXX. At the hearing, the Appellant testified that she was issued a fraudulent passport in this name and that this was the passport she used to enter Canada. The RAD also found that the RPD erred in concluding that it did not know whether the Appellant was a citizen of Ethiopia. The RAD noted that the Appellant testified at the hearing that she had not gone to Ethiopia as indicated in her original BoC. These allegations were complete falsifications. Given this, the RAD finds that it would be reasonable to conclude that the identity used in the deception (XXXX XXXX, citizen of Ethiopia) was also a fabrication. Given this, the RAD finds that the RPD erred in finding that it did not know if the Appellant was XXXX XXXX. [40] Upon review of all of the evidence before the RAD, the RAD finds that there is sufficient evidence on the record to persuade the RAD of the Appellant's personal identity and nationality as XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Kenya. The RAD makes these findings based on the content of the Biometrics Report22 and the Appellant's failure to provide sufficient explanations or evidence to rebut the contents of the Biometrics Report. [41] The RAD noted that US government officials have found the person with the identical fingerprints of the Appellant to be XXXX XXXX XXXX. US officials were persuaded of the personal identity and nationality of Ms. XXXXand issued a genuine visa on Ms. XXXXpassport. The RAD compared the photo provided with the Biometrics Report23 with the photo on the Appellant Generic Application form.24 The RAD noted that both the photos show a woman with a mole or other form of mark on the left side of the face below the lip. The RAD also noted that the shape of the eyes, nose, and lips were similar. Given the similarities (especially the same facial mark), the RAD finds that the photos appeared to be of the same person. [42] The Appellant did not deny that she had ever lived in Kenya. In fact, as a result of the disclosure of the Biometrics Report, the Appellant "came clean" with the RPD and indicted that she had lived in Kenya for two years, and she came to Canada from Kenya. The Appellant did not provide any evidence to rebut the fact that US officials in Nairobi had taken her fingerprints and had issued her a passport using the identity of another person, other than asserting that the Kenyan passport she travelled on was fraudulent. The Appellant did not provide evidence to undermine the veracity of the Biometrics Report findings. [43] The RAD finds that the issuance of a valid visa by US officials indicates that the Appellant had established her personal identity and nationality to US officials in Kenya. There is no evidence before the RAD that the Appellant's personal identity or nationality was questioned by US authorities. The Appellant testified that she used her Kenyan passport to travel to Canada. There is no evidence before the RAD to indicate that CBSA officials in Canada had any reason to question the authenticity of the Appellant's passport and her identity as XXXX XXXX XXXX. [44] The Appellant did not provide any additional government-issued documents to persuade the RPD that she was XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Somalia. As outlined above, the RAD rejected the affidavit and statutory declarations from individuals in Canada attesting to the Appellant's personal identity and nationality as a citizen of Somalia. The Appellant was also found by the RPD not to be a credible witness overall given her history of deceiving Canadian officials. For these reasons, the RAD finds that the Appellant has failed to provide sufficient credible or trustworthy evidence to attest to her identity as XXXX XXXX XXXXand her citizenship as a Somali. [45] Given that the Appellant's personal identity and nationality has been accepted by both US and Canadian immigration officials, and given the lack of credible or trustworthy evidence before the RAD to the contrary, the RAD finds that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant's passport was genuine and that she is XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Kenya. [46] Given that there was sufficient evidence before the RAD to attest to the fact that the Appellant was a citizen of Kenya, the RAD finds that there is no need to evaluate the issue of the Appellant's citizenship as a citizen of Somalia. The Appellant did not provide any evidence to the RPD to ground a well-founded fear of persecution or harm in Kenya. As such, the RAD finds that the Appellant would not face a serious possibility of persecution should she return to Kenya. For the same reasons, the RAD finds that the Appellant would not be personally subject to a risk to her life, or a risk of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture should she return to Kenya. SUMMARY AND DETERMINATION [47] The RAD found that the RPD's determination that the Appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish her personal identity and nationality was not reasonable. The RAD finds that there was sufficient evidence before the RPD to establish the Appellant's personal identity as XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Kenya. As such, the RAD sets aside and substitutes the RPD's determination as per Section 111(1)(b) of IRPA. [48] Given the Appellant's history of deceiving Canadian officials, and given her deception related to her personal identity and nationality, the RAD also finds that there was no credible or trustworthy evidence upon which it could have made a favourable decision, as per ss. 107(2) of IRPA. The RAD also finds that the claim is manifestly unfounded, as per s. 107.1 of IRPA. [49] For the reasons outlined above, the RAD finds that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee, nor is she a person in need of protection. [50] The RAD dismisses the Appeal. (signed) "Daniel McSweeney" Daniel McSweeney November 6, 2013 Date 1 RPD Record, Exhibit -1, Original BoC, pp. 19 - 28. 2 RPD Record, Exhibit - 3, Amended BoC, pp. 91 - 94. 3 RPD Record, Exhibit - 6, Biometric Report, pp. 131 - 133. 4 Appellant's Pleadings, Affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX, pp. 16 - 17. 5 Appellant's Pleadings, 8 statutory declarations and identity documents, pp. 18 - 35. 6 Appellant's Pleadings, Confirmation of new evidence and request for oral hearing, p. 15. 7 Appellant's Pleadings, Paragraph 4. 8 RPD Record, Exhibit - 6, Biometric Report, pp. 131 - 133. 9 Newton v. Criminal Trial Lawyers' Association, 2010 ABCA 399, paragraph 44. 10 Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, 2008 SCC 9. 11 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Khosa, 2009 SCC 12, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339. 12 IRPA, s. 110 (1). 13 IRPA, s. 107. 14 IRPA, s. 170. 15 IRPA, s. 110(3). 16 IRPA, s. 110(4). 17 RAD Rule 57. 18 Newton v. Criminal Trial Lawyers' Association, 2010 ABCA 399, paragraph 82. 19 Newton v. Criminal Trial Lawyers' Association, 2010 ABCA 399, paragraph 95. 20 Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, 2008 SCC 9, at para 47. 21 Sheikh v. M.E.I., [1990] 3 F.C. 238 (C.A.) at 244, per MacGuigan, J.A. 22 RPD Record, Exhibit 6, Biometrics Report, pp. 131 - 133. 23 RPD Record, Exhibit 6, Biometrics Report, p. 133. 24 RPD Record, Exhibit 4, IMM0008, p. 1 of 6. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (April 9, 2013) Disponible en français RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB3-04899