MB4-03258

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 : MB4-03258 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 August 5, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Anna Brychcy Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Me Laura Setzer Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant désigné Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant is XXXX XXXX. He is a citizen of Cameroon. He is appealing a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting his claim for refugee protection. The appellant is presenting new evidence and is asking for an oral hearing. He asks that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the RPD's decision and replace it with a determination that he is a "Convention refugee" or a " person in need of protection" or, in the alternative, that the matter be referred back to a different member of the RPD for a redetermination. DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL [2] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD, namely, that the appellant is neither a "Convention refugee" according to section 96 of IRPA, nor is he a "person in need of protection" under section 97(1) of IRPA. [3] The appeal is dismissed. BACKGROUND [4] The appellant is basing his claim of a well-founded fear of persecution on his sexual orientation as a gay man from Cameroon where homosexuality is illegal. Being gay in Cameroon puts an individual at risk of persecution, with no chance of state protection, since the state criminalizes homosexuality. [5] The appellant alleges to have been beaten when his homosexuality was discovered and he had to be hospitalized as a result. After being hospitalized the appellant was charged with homosexual acts and convicted on XXXX XXXX, 2011. He was sentenced to 5 years in jail. [6] The appellant had been in jail for 13 months when his father began to feel sorry for him and got him out of prison by paying a large sum of money. On XXXX XXXX, 2012 he was smuggled out of prison. The appellant's father then made arrangements to get the appellant out of the country. [7] The appellant came to Canada on a student visa on May 31, 2013. He made his refugee claim in February 2014. The appellant's refugee claim was heard on May 2, 2014 by the RPD and in a notice of decision, dated August 1, 2014, the appellant was notified that his claim had been refused. [8] The decision was appealed to the RAD. In a decision, dated December 30, 2014, the RAD dismissed the appeal. In an order of the Federal Court, dated XXXX XXXX, 2015, the Federal Court set aside the decision of the RAD and referred the matter back to a differently constituted panel of the RAD for redetermination. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT [9] In the second appeal to the RAD the appellant's counsel filed a new Memorandum of Argument to be read in conjunction with the original Appellant's Record. Counsel for the appellant argues that the RPD' s decision in not finding the appellant credible that he is homosexual was based on the fact that he had failed to provide corroborating documents. In particular, the RPD had wanted to see court documents that the appellant had been convicted of homosexual acts and that he had been imprisoned. [10] The issues for the appellant are whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment and in its assessment of the documentary evidence and in its consideration of the issue of delay in claiming. [11] The RPD had drawn a negative inference from the failure of the appellant to produce proof of his conviction and sentence for the crime of homosexuality and had stated that the appellant had had plenty of time to secure such evidence and that his lack of efforts were not reasonable. Counsel argues that hearings are now scheduled within 60 days of the refugee protection claim being made and that this is not a lengthy delay especially to obtain evidence from Africa. Contrary to the RPD's finding, the appellant had made efforts to obtain proof but since he had had no lawyer for his court case in Cameroon and since his father was being watched by police it was difficult for him to get the documents. [12] After his RPD hearing the appellant had managed to obtain a scanned copy of the court documents in his case and had submitted this to the RAD on the first appeal. The RAD had concluded that this evidence was not credible because it had been printed on the same printer and on the same paper. The appellant had argued in his application for judicial review that this was an improper basis on which to base a negative credibility finding. It is argued that the RAD erred by not putting its concerns to the appellant and by giving him an opportunity to respond. [13] The appellant had explained his delay in claiming by saying that he was monitoring the situation for homosexuals in his country. He was hoping that the situation would improve so that by the time he finished his studies in a few years he would be able to return. His explanation was therefore reasonable. He had legal status in Canada until February 2015 and made his refugee claim one year earlier. [14] The RPD gave no probative value to the medical report because the medical officer had not been identified. The RPD erred in its conclusion because the name of the medical officer had been indicated on the form. [15] In concluding that the appellant was not credible in having escaped from prison, the RAD on the first appeal had ignored the extent of corruption in Cameroon and, considering that the appellant came from a family of means, they would have had the resources to bribe prison officials. It was an error for the RAD to find that this was implausible. Implausibility findings are made when it is outside the realm of what would reasonably be expected. The documentation on Cameroon supports the appellant's version of events. [16] The RPD erred by basing its credibility findings on the lack of corroborative evidence. Yet whether he was jailed is an issue but it is not determinative of whether the appellant is homosexual. There is credible evidence that as a gay man in Cameroon he fits the profile of a person at risk of persecution in a country where there is no state protection for homosexuals. The RPD never explored this issue. ADMISSIBILLITY OF NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL [17] In the second appeal the appellant is presenting an affidavit where he states that he is presenting new evidence about his life in Canada as a homosexual. He alleges that he had been suffering from trauma when he first came to Canada and that it had been some time before he became involved in the gay community. He submits the following documents as evidence of his homosexuality. - Exhibit A: This is a copy of a membership letter and card from the gay organization 519 which the appellant joined after moving to XXXX in February 2015. - Exhibit B: This is an affidavit from XXXX XXXX, a friend he met at a gay book club, dated May 11, 2015. - Exhibit C: This is a letter from the Peel HIV/AIDS Network about the appellant's membership in the gay book club, dated April 2015. [18] Subsection 110(4) of IRPA states that the person who is the subject of the appeal may present before the RAD 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. It should be noted that the time limit referred to in subsection 110(4) is the rejection of the appellant's refugee protection claim, not the hearing before the RPD. A party who wants to provide a document as evidence after a hearing before the RPD but before a decision takes effect may make an application to the Division.1 [19] Exhibits A, B, and C are accepted as new evidence. The exhibits however are given little probative value by this RAD member and the reasons are explained below. [20] The issue of the credibility of the appellant's homosexuality had been raised at the RPD hearing. Exhibits A, B and C are affidavits which attempt to correct the deficiencies that the RPD had noted, namely that there was no corroborative evidence. The appellant however had counsel at his hearing who would have been able to advise him about submitting proof of sexual identity to the RPD. It had been an issue at the hearing and yet no evidence was presented in the two month time period after the hearing and before the RPD decision had been rendered. Also no such evidence was presented on the first appeal. [21] The appellant is now stating in his affidavit that he has only become active in the gay community since his recent move to XXXX and that such affidavits would not have been available to him earlier. The three exhibits are all very recent. Exhibit B is the affidavit of XXXX XXXX, a man the appellant met in the gay book club which began operation on April 1, 2015. This affidavit is dated May 11, 2015. The appellant is not in a relationship with this man and he has not known him for any length of time. The fact that the appellant began attending a gay book club and joined a gay organization is not evidence that he is homosexual. The claims of sexual orientation in the documents are based only on the appellant's own self-disclosed statements about his sexuality. The three exhibits all date from after the appellant's Federal Court decision. The appellant has been in this country since May 2013 and yet has not been able to present any affidavits or letters from persons who knew him at that time and who could attest to his homosexuality. [22] On July 13, 2015 the appellant submitted an additional piece of evidence to the RAD which is a letter stating that he volunteered at the Green Space Festival. While the RAD accepts this as new evidence, the fact that the appellant volunteered for a gay festival is not proof of his homosexuality as anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, can volunteer to help the organization. [23] The appellant is also submitting Exhibit D which is the Amnesty International Report for 2014-2015 for Cameroon which describes the dangerous situation for homosexuals in that country. Given that this document post-dates the hearing it was not available to present to the RPD before the claim was rejected. It meets the statutory test of subsection 110(4) of IRPA and it is accepted. [24] Exhibit E is the hard copy of the court judgement which is being submitted as new evidence in this appeal. The RAD accepts it into new evidence. The appellant explains that the document had not been reasonably available at the time of the hearing given the difficulties in obtaining it from Africa. At the first RAD appeal only the scanned copy had been available. The RAD member on the first appeal had rejected the scanned copy. In applying the Raza factors the RAD member at the first appeal had found the document lacking in credibility because it appeared to have the same print and be printed on the same paper. [25] While counsel argues that the appellant never had the opportunity to respond to the first RAD member's credibility concerns concerning this document, the appellant would have had the opportunity at this appeal to respond to the concerns of the RAD member at the first appeal. However no submissions had been made in the new Memorandum of Argument commenting on the observations made by the RAD member at the first appeal on the questionable features he had noted in the scanned copy. [26] While the appellant refers to this new evidence as a "hard copy", he was asked by this RAD member if he could submit the original of the document by July 13, 2015. No answer to this request has yet been received, although on July 14th the appellant submitted the new evidence that he had volunteered with the Green Space Festival. In his attached affidavit he makes no attempt to respond to this RAD member's request. [27] In examining the hard copies of Exhibit E, the RAD notes the following: 1. The court document is not written on any letterhead paper. 2. The court document font type is the same as that used by the lawyer's request for an application for the copy of the judgment and the style of type and paper is the same. 3. The stamp on the court document appears to have been placed before the document was written as the type appears over the stamp. The practice of stamping a blank document would be an unorthodox practice as documents are normally stamped after they are written. 4. The lawyer's request letter bears a stamp that it was received by the Tribunal de Première Instance along with the date on which it was received. Yet this is a stamp that acknowledges receipt of a document by the Court making it odd that the lawyer would have the Court stamp on the document in his possession. [28] For these reasons this RAD member finds that the court judgment is not authentic. Request for an oral hearing [29] The appellant is asking the RAD to convene an oral hearing under section 110(6) of IRPA. The provisions of the Act make it clear that the RAD conducts a paper based appeal, subject to specific exceptions. Under subsection 110(6) of IRPA, the RAD may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, the new evidence presented on appeal is admissible and meets the following three criteria: 1) it raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the person; 2) it is central to the decision with respect to the refugee protection claim; 3) if accepted, it would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. [30] Exhibits A, B and C and the new piece of evidence received on July 14th have been given no probative value in indicating that the appellant is homosexual. Exhibit D, which is the article from Amnesty International, is general in nature and speaks about the situation of homosexuals in Cameroon and does not meet the criteria mentioned above. With respect to Exhibit E, which are the hard copies of the documents which had not been available at the first RAD appeal, this RAD member does not find these documents to be credible for the reasons stated above. The appellant, despite being aware of the concerns of the previous RAD member, has not responded to the concerns raised and did not respond to the request for the originals. The appellant was not in Cameroon when the court documents were obtained and would not be in a position to attest to their authenticity. As a result, the RAD is of the opinion that there is no cause to hold a hearing in this appeal to question the appellant about the documents. There are other credibility issues which will be examined in the section on the Analysis of the Merits of the Appeal which are determinative of the appeal. The appellant's request for an oral hearing is denied. ROLE OF THE RAD [31] 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. [32] 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. The panel finds that the recent Federal Court decision, in Huruglica,2 provides the RAD with guidance in relation to the appropriate review the RAD should conduct of an RPD decision. [33] While the Court had endorsed the standard of reasonableness in Iyamuremye,3 and accepted it in Malhotra,4 more recently, the Court, in Huruglica,5 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 simply reviewing a decision for reasonableness, the RAD would merely be duplicating what occurs on judicial review at the Federal Court and this would be inconsistent with the creation of the RAD and the extensive legislative framework. 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.6 It is to review all aspects of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of the appellant's refugee claim. Where the RAD's assessment departs from that of the RPD, the RAD must substitute its own determination. [34] It appears that the RAD, as a tribunal specialized in refugee protection matters, must examine all the evidence to determine whether the decision is well founded in light of the evidence filed before the RPD and contained in the RAD record. Considering that the RPD views the evidence first-hand, deference may be afforded to the credibility findings of the RPD or to other findings where the RPD has a particular advantage in reaching its conclusions. The RPD has the advantage of seeing and hearing the appellant and is therefore in a better position to make findings regarding credibility. Nevertheless, when it is a matter of interpreting the documentary evidence on country conditions there is no reason for the RAD to defer to the RPD on this type of assessment.7 [35] 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 appellant is a "Convention refugee" or a "person in need of protection". ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL [36] The RAD does not find it credible that the appellant had been imprisoned for 13 months in Cameroon because of his homosexuality. The appellant alleged that after his father had paid a bribe, he had been released on XXXX XXXX, 2012. He alleges to have gone into hiding and that his father had then made plans to get him out of the country. He also alleges that he had made applications to study abroad before his imprisonment and when he received a response from Canada he decided that he would come to this country. [37] The appellant's visa application had been included in the RPD file. The problem with his story is that the visa application contains a document which shows that the appellant appeared in person for an English language exam under the auspices of the British Council on XXXX XXXX, 2012, at the very time that he was allegedly serving his 5 year sentence in prison.8 The RPD member had questioned the appellant about this and he had responded that he had paid the guards to accompany him to the exam. He had also testified at the hearing that, in addition to the English language tests, he had attended the exams for his university program on more than one occasion, again by bribing the prison guards. [38] The visa information contains a letter from the appellant's employer stating that the appellant was working as a XXXX XXXX from March 2011 to January 2013. While the appellant alleges that it was his father who had handled his visa application, the RAD notes that his signature on that form is the same as that on his BOC form, indicating that the appellant was aware of the contents of the visa application form. [39] The appellant's explanations that he was able to leave prison to write the English language test and take university exams is simply not credible. For one, the appellant was allegedly serving a 5-year prison sentence. One could ask why he would be taking the English language test, which is a requirement for foreign students who want to study abroad, when he was no way near the end of his 5-year prison sentence. The test form states clearly that the language result tests should be re-assessed again two years after the date of the test and the appellant would not be leaving the prison any time soon. [40] In examining the prison conditions in Cameroon, this RAD member notes the following. The 2013 U.S. Country Reports for Cameroon states that conditions in prison are harsh and life threatening. 9 Torture is widespread, overcrowding is pervasive and prisoners are kept in dilapidated buildings with inadequate sanitation and medical care common in all prisons. Deaths from illness, malnutrition and lack of medical care occurred with disease, such as tuberculosis and dehydration and numerous other untreated conditions being rampant. Sick inmates were not systematically separated from the general population. Potable water was inadequate and officials expected prisoner's families to provide food for them. The picture is indeed a grim one. [41] The appellant's counsel appears to pay particular attention to the one phrase in this document which states that " prisoners bribed wardens for special favors or treatment, including temporary freedom, beds, and transfer to less-crowded areas of the prisons" which leads her to conclude that the RAD, in the first appeal, in concluding that it was not plausible for the appellant to have studied in jail and bribed prison guards to let him write examinations, had ignored the extent of corruption in Cameroon and had also ignored the fact that the appellant was from a family of means who had the financial resources to pay prison officials for special treatment. [42] The appellant however alleges that his family had abandoned him in prison for 13 months. The RAD also notes that the appellant had not stated that he had bribed the warden, but rather an ordinary prison guard to write his exams. While a warden may be able to give temporary freedom it is doubtful that prison guards would have that authority or that they would have the possibility or be even willing to take the time and risk involved in escorting the appellant to and from his examinations at whatever moment he desired. The same documentary evidence also mentions that prison guards sometimes threatened detainees and required them to pay "cell fees" to avoid abuse. In the corrupt prison system of Cameroon, one could ask why any prison guard, knowing that if the appellant had money, would go to the trouble of escorting a prisoner out of prison, waiting for him to write his exam and then risk bringing him back, when he could simply extort money from him under threats of abuse if he did not comply. One could also ask why, if the appellant had been able to pay to leave the prison on more than one occasion, could he not have paid the guards to arrange for his escape, once and for all, instead of, as he said, "rotting in prison for 13 months" until the time his father allegedly changed his mind and agreed to help him. [43] The RAD finds, that while corruption exists in the prison system, the prison conditions are so appalling that the likelihood of a prisoner being able to leave for his exams is, all things considered, extremely minimal. The RPD member chose not to write about this point in his decision. However, it is very clear from the member's comments at the hearing that he found the possibility of the appellant leaving prison for his examinations to be unbelievable. This member of the RAD is in agreement with my colleague at the first RAD appeal, that the appellant is not credible in his allegations of being able to leave prison. Furthermore, since the appellant's visa application, signed by him, contained information that he had been working as a XXXX XXXX and since it is not credible that he would have taken his English language assessment tests while in prison, the RAD finds that the allegations of imprisonment are simply untrue. This severely damages the appellant's credibility. [44] Not only does the RAD not accept that the appellant was imprisoned for homosexuality, the RAD finds that there are credibility issues related to his hospitalization after the alleged attacks on him because his homosexuality had been discovered. The appellant describes being hospitalized under police guard for two months to ensure that he would not escape. From the transcript of the hearing and from the decision of the RAD member at the first appeal it is clear that both the RPD member and the RAD member did not find it credible that the appellant would have been hospitalized for such a long period of time and kept under police guard until he recovered and was taken to prison. This member of the RAD agrees. The injuries mentioned in the medical report were not of the type that would require such an extended period of hospitalization. The appellant allegedly had bleeding nostrils and a wound to his left eyebrow which required stitches and contusions. Considering the prison and detention conditions described above, with severe overcrowding and appalling conditions which indicate a severe lack of resources in the country, it is unlikely that the appellant would have been given such consideration as to have been kept in hospital under constant police guard for such a lengthy period of time until he recovered. This is especially so since the documentary evidence speaks of disease being rampant in the prison system with no segregation of sick prisoners from other inmates and no medical attention. While the RPD appears to have erred in stating that the medical certificate presented did not contain a doctor's signature, this RAD member nevertheless gives the medical certificate little probative value for the reasons just mentioned. [45] The appellant was not credible in his allegations of imprisonment and his length of stay in hospital is not consistent with the nature of his injuries or the prison and detention system in his country. Furthermore, fraudulent documents are common in Cameroon. The documentary evidence in the National Documentation Package mentions widespread identity card fraud 10 fraudulent police notices11 and widespread corruption in Cameroon where journalists take bribes and falsify articles or submit fake news stories for the purpose of refugee claims abroad.12 For this reason the summons for police questioning that the father received is also given no probative value. The documentary evidence states that fraudulent notices to appear are produced for various purposes. Very often, fraudulent notices to appear are almost identical to the real notices to appear, except that they are not registered with a police station or issuing service.13 [46] The RAD not only finds the appellant's story of imprisonment to be not credible but also does not find his hospitalization under police surveillance to be credible and thus does not find it credible that the appellant was ever attacked in Cameroon. [47] In examining the delay in claiming the RAD finds that, given the appalling prison conditions in Cameroon and his allegations that he had been in prison for 13 months, given that he alleges to have escaped from prison, given that the appellant could not attend the school he was planning to attend in Canada and for which he had obtained his Canadian student visa, it is extremely unlikely then that the appellant would not have claimed refugee protection immediately considering what he alleges to have experienced. While he stated that he believed things might change in his country before it was time for him to go back, the RAD finds that this would not be the actions of an individual who had been recently imprisoned, who alleges to have been threatened by inmates there and who, having escaped from prison, had lived in hiding and feared consequences upon return to his country. Such an individual, upon learning that the school he planned to attend had been closed by the government, would not likely take any chances. The appellant's conduct does not reflect the alleged fears. The jurisprudence has already indicated that lack of subjective fear is an indication of credibility. The RAD would like to quote Assadi 14: Failure to immediately seek protection can impugn the claimant's credibility, including his or her testimony about events in his country of origin. [48] The RAD finds the RPD did not err in finding that the appellant's delay in claiming undermined his subjective fear as well as his credibility. The RPD member had considered the appellant's explanations but had rejected his explanations. The RPD had clearly stated that the appellant's delay in claiming did not make sense, given the situation in Cameroon and the existing persecution and ostracism of homosexuals in that country. The RAD finds that the RPD did not ignore the country conditions. The RAD finds that the appellant was not credible in his allegations of having been imprisoned for homosexuality or that he had suffered an assault for being homosexual in his country. The court documents he had presented were not found to be authentic. His allegations that he was imprisoned in Cameroon for homosexuality were at the heart of his claim but he did not credibly establish that he had been found guilty of homosexuality by a court in his country or that he spent 13 months in prison. Once in Canada, the appellant's delay in claiming also did not reflect his alleged fears. The appellant waited until other avenues of staying in Canada were exhausted before claiming refugee protection in this country. The affidavits from Canadians in the gay community presented as new evidence are not accepted as proof of the appellant's homosexuality, given their very recent nature, and the fact that the information contained in these documents is based solely on what the appellant had told these individuals. The appellant would reasonably have been expected to have presented some form of evidence of his homosexuality either for his refugee hearing or in the time period between his refugee hearing and the rejection of his claim. Since the RAD does not find it credible that the appellant is homosexual, there would be no danger for him to return to Cameroon. [49] Having considered the RPD's reasons and engaged in an independent review of the evidence, the RAD agrees with the RPD's conclusion that the appellant is generally lacking in credibility and is, therefore, neither a "Convention refugee" nor a "person in need of protection". CONCLUSION [50] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the appellant is neither a "Convention refugee" under section 96 of IRPA nor is he a "person in need of protection" under section 97(1) of the same Act. [51] This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Anna Brychcy Anna Brychcy August 5, 2015 Date /kp 1 RPD Rules, SOR/2012-256, rule 43. 2 Huruglica v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6362-13), Phelan, August 22, 2014; 2014 FC 799. 3 Iyamuremye v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5282-13), Shore, May 26, 2014; 2014 FC 494. 4 Malhotra v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6899-13), Bédard, August 1, 2014; 2014 FC 768. 5 Huruglica v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6362-13), Phelan, August 22, 2014; 2014 FC 799. 6 Huruglica, para. 45. 7 Huruglica, para. 38. 8 RPD file, p. 91. 9 National Documentation Package (NDP) on Cameroon, April 30, 2014, Tab. 2.1 Cameroon. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2013. United States. Department of State. 27 February 2014. 10 Idem, Tab. 3.1. Cameroon: Information on fraudulent identity documents, including national identity cards (2007-March 2014). CMR104811.E. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 11 April 2014. 11 Idem, Tab 10. 1. Notices to appear issued by the General Delegation for National Security (Délégation générale à la Sûreté nationale, DGSN), including the issuing procedure; the content and appearance of the notices to appear, and whether it is the same at all police... CMR104623.FE. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 23 October 2013. 12 Idem, Tab. 11. 2. Cameroon: Corruption of journalists; the falsification of newspaper articles for the purpose of refugee claims. CMR103998.FE. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.13 April 2012. 13 Idem, Tab 10. 1. Notices to appear issued by the General Delegation for National Security (Délégation générale à la Sûreté nationale, DGSN), including the issuing procedure; the content and appearance of the notices to appear, and whether it is the same at all police... CMR104623.FE. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.23 October 2013. 14 Assadi, Nasser-Eddin v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., IMM-2683-96), Teitelbaum, March 25, 1997. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB4-03258 12 RAD.25.02 (2014.09.11) Disponible en français