VB5-03200

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 : VB5-03200 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause the subject of the appeal Appeal considered at Vancouver, BC Appel instruit à Date of decision April 28, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Rena Dhir Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) Jason Ford Conseil(s) du (de la/des) the subject of the appeal Barrister and Solicitor personne(s) en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the "appellant"), a citizen of Ghana, appeals the September 23, 2015 determination of the Refugee Protection Division (the "RPD"). The claim was heard by the RPD on September 15, 2015 with a Notice of Decision being sent to the appellant on October 2, 2015. The RPD found that the appellant is neither a Convention1 refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the "Act").2 DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL [2] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Act, the Refugee Appeal Division (the "RAD") confirms the determination of the RPD, namely, that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act nor a person in need of protection pursuant to section 97 of the Act. This appeal is therefore dismissed. BACKGROUND [3] Counsel for the appellant before the RAD is different than he had at the RPD. The Minister has not intervened before the RPD or the RAD. [4] A transcript of the RPD proceedings has not been included in the Appellant's Record.3 [5] The appellant does not seek to present "new" evidence4 to the RAD pursuant to subsection 110(4) of the Act. BASIS OF CLAIM [6] According to the allegations set out in the appellant's Basis of Claim Form (BOC),5 the appellant is from Ghana. The appellant alleges that he was beaten by the anti-gay gangs on XXXX XXXX, 2006 and XXXX XXXX, 2013 because he was suspected to be gay. His boyfriend, XXXX XXXX was also harmed and mistreated by the anti-gay gang. [7] The appellant decided to get married to stop being threatened by the anti-gay gang. He continued to be threatened. He approached the police on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2006 but the police did not help to protect him. [8] After the appellant was married and had children, he continued to receive threats from the public and some youth but it was not dangerous. He left Ghana on XXXX XXXX, 2014 to come to Canada as a foreign worker. Since he left, his boyfriend, XXXX, has been arrested by the police for being a homosexual. The appellant's wife has informed him that the police also will arrest him as they know he is gay. XXXX managed to escape and went to France. The appellant made a claim for refugee protection in Canada. GROUNDS OF APPEAL [9] The appellant's submissions6 as to the grounds of this appeal can be summarized as follows: a) Did the RPD Member make factual errors in her decision? b) Should the appellant be afforded an oral hearing with the RAD? REMEDY SOUGHT [10] The appellant has not submitted what remedy he is seeking in this RAD appeal. I am empowered, under the Act, to confirm the determination of the RPD as per paragraph 111(1)(a), or under paragraph 111(1)(b) of the Act, I can set aside the determination of the RPD and substitute a determination that the appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, or allow the appeal and refer the matter to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel as per paragraph 111(1)(c) of the Act. CONSIDERATION OF NEW EVIDENCE [11] Subsection 110(4) of the Act provides 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 they could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. [12] The appellant has submitted the following four documents as new evidence at the time the appeal was perfected pursuant to subsection 110(4) of the Act.7 a) Fact Sheet - Alberta Government Temporary Foreign Worker; b) Emails dated October 24, 2015; c) Refusal for a work permit by CIC dated XXXX XXXX, 2015; d) Application to Change Conditions for CIC. [13] In reviewing the appellant's Record,8 there was no clear indication that he had presented new evidence for this RAD appeal. The appellant did not indicate which exhibits are to be considered 'new evidence'. However, after my thorough review, I noted that there were some pages that were not included in the RPD Record.9 I have singled these out to the best of my ability and without the guidance from the appellant or his counsel. I find the appellant had ample opportunities to provide these documents attesting to his status in Canada at the RPD hearing. [14] I find the appellant has not provided any submissions for why these documents were not provided at the RPD hearing. I also note that the appellant had counsel representing him at the RPD hearing. I would expect the appellant to provide these documents or to even request to have these documents disclosed before the RPD Member made her final decision. The appellant has not provided any explanations as to why he did not provide this evidence at the hearing. As such, this evidence does not represent new evidence within the meaning of subsection 110(4) of the Act. APPLICATION FOR AN ORAL HEARING [15] The appellant has requested an oral hearing pursuant to subsection 110(6) of the Act. [16] Subsection 110(3) of the Act requires that the RAD proceed without a hearing, on the basis of the RPD Record, while allowing the RAD to accept documentary evidence and submissions from the Minister and the appellant. [17] According to subsection 110(6), the RAD may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, there is documentary evidence referred to in subsection 110(3) that raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the appellant, that is central to the RPD decision, and that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. [18] When read together, subsections 110(3), (4), and (6) establish that the RAD must not hold a hearing in an appeal such as this unless there is new evidence,10 in which case the RAD may hold a hearing if that new evidence raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the appellant, is central to the RPD decision, and that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. [19] However, no 'new evidence' has been presented by the appellant for this RAD appeal. Thus, the application for an oral hearing is denied. [20] As such, the RAD will proceed without a hearing in this appeal. ROLE OF THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION (RAD) [21] Although the Act sets out grounds for appeal as well as possible remedies, it does not specify the standard of review to be applied by the RAD. [22] RAD, being a new Division, has struggled with the standard of review to be used in RAD appeals based on several Court cases that have differed in their approach of what standard should be used. [23] The Federal Court Huruglica11 decision is the most thorough of the decisions and the first where the Court certified a question for the Federal Court of Appeal. [24] In Huruglica, Justice Phelan found that the RAD erred in reviewing the RPD's decision on the standard of reasonableness and concluded that the RAD is required to conduct a hybrid appeal. "It must review all aspects of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the claimant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection."12 Justice Phelan also states that: [. . .] notion may well justify deference to a RPD's decision in a circumstance where a witness' credibility is critical or determinative. Where there is no adverse finding of credibility, the policy rationale for deference is not sustainable.13 [25] The appellant submits14 that "with respect to the standard of review to be applied by the RAD, the appellant submits that correctness is the appropriate standard." The appellant relies on the decision by the Federal Court in Huruglica.15 [26] In the Federal Court of Appeal decision for Huruglica Justice Gauthier states: [103] I conclude from my statutory analysis that with respect to findings of fact (and mixed fact and law) such as the one involved here, which raised no issue of credibility of oral evidence, the RAD is to review RPD decisions applying the correctness standard. Thus, after carefully considering the RPD decision, the RAD carries out its own analysis of the record to determine whether, as submitted by the appellant, the RPD erred. Having done this, the RAD is to provide a final determination, either by confirming the RPD decision or setting it aside and substituting its own determination of the merits of the refugee claim. It is only when the RAD is of the opinion that it cannot provide such a final determination without hearing the oral evidence presented to the RPD that the matter can be referred back to the RPD for redetermination. No other interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions is reasonable.16 [27] In a number of recent decisions,17 the Court confirmed that the RAD may show a certain level of deference towards the RPD's finding when credibility issues are involved, and that the RAD must conduct an independent assessment of the evidence as a whole. Furthermore, the RAD has a duty of deference regarding the credibility findings of the RPD as the RPD has had the opportunity to hear the witness.18 This has also been stated by the recent Federal Court of Appeal decision, Huruglica,19 where Justice Gauthier states: [11] [. . .] These respective roles suggest deference is owed to findings of fact, or findings of mixed fact and law, that can be traced back to evidence given at the RPD hearing. Where the RAD has new evidence before it, either through documents or from an oral hearing, less deference may be owed, as the RPD will not have considered this evidence. [14] Turning to the expertise and advantageous position of the RPD versus that of the RAD, the RAD underlined that the RPD always has the advantage of seeing and questioning refugee claimants, while the RAD will unfrequently have this opportunity. This "suggests that the RAD show deference to the RPD on findings of fact and particularly in respect to credibility, other than in situations where the RAD holds an oral hearing and therefore has opportunity to consider evidence first hand".20 [28] In this appeal, and taking into consideration the recent Federal Court of Appeal decision in Huruglica,21 with respect to findings of fact (and mixed fact and law), which raise no issue of credibility of oral evidence, the RAD is to review RPD decisions applying the correctness standard. Otherwise, where an issue concerning credibility of oral evidence is evident, I will be applying the points set out in Huruglica22 which is to conduct an independent assessment of all the evidence to determine whether the appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, while giving certain deference to the RPD's findings regarding the appellant's credibility and any other issues where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage. As well, it is clear from the many recent Federal Court cases that have been previously mentioned, all agree that the standard of correctness should be used for any error of law found in the RPD decision on appeal to the RAD. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL [29] The appellant submits that "the Board Member erred in law when she failed to consider all of the documentary evidence and specifically the items which substantiate the appellant's being a homosexual male in Ghana."23 I note that the appellant has failed to adequately identify the RPD allegedly made. Specifically, the appellant has not directed the RAD to what documentary evidence and other evidence relating to the appellant's homosexuality was not considered by the RPD Member. I refer to the Federal Court of Appeal decision, Huruglica, in which Justice Gauthier said: [103] [. . .] after carefully considering the RPD decision, the RAD carries out its own analysis of the record to determine whether, as submitted by the appellant, the RPD erred.24 [30] Thus, I will base my analysis on the issues submitted by the appellant and through my own independent assessment of the evidence before the RPD and the RAD, determine whether the RPD erred. The appellant does submit that the RPD Member made several factual errors in her decision for which my analysis is below. Status in Canada [31] The appellant submits that the RPD Member erred in her written decision when she stated that the appellant's status in Canada expired on June 1, 2015. The appellant submits25 that the work permit was to expire on July 23, 2015 and an extension was sent on July 15, 2015. According to the permit in the appellant's passport,26 it lists the expiry date as June 1, 2015. However, on the actual work permit27 that is also enclosed in the same RPD record, it states that the work permit expires on July 23, 2015. The RPD Member finds:28 [5] The claimant came to Canada, as a Temporary Foreign Worker, (TFW) in XXXX XXXX, 2014. His status was valid until June 1, 2015 and was not renewed by Canadian officials, although the claimant had sought to extend his status. [32] Although there is a discrepancy in the permits with two different expiry dates, I note that the RPD Member did not make any findings on this issue. Rather, I note that the RPD Member states this in her 'allegations'29 section of her decision. I also do not find the appellant has provided persuasive arguments as to how this issue raised has a bearing on the RPD's final determination. I also do not find that this has a bearing on the outcome of this claim. Meeting on Train [33] The appellant submits30 that the RPD Member incorrectly stated in Paragraph 1131 the man the appellant met on the train in Calgary went "together to an internet café". The appellant submits32 that the "man simply told him to go on the internet to learn about the refugee process in Canada". Although this is a minor error, in my opinion, I find that it cannot sustain an argument that the RPD erred in its determination of the claim. Secluded and Hidden Life [34] The appellant submits33 that the RPD erred by stating in paragraph 12 "The claimant did not testify to having lived a secluded and hidden life as a bisexual in Ghana, in fact he testified to having attended parties and been part of a community of sorts, in the face of persecution and open discrimination." The appellant further submits34 that he had testified that he attended "one party in XXXX XXXX XXXX 2013 when he was attacked and slashed with a bottle. As to being part of a community, he was to attend the gay-lesbian conference in Accra but it was cancelled". [35] The RPD Member finds further in paragraph 12 of the written decision:35 [12] [. . .] The panel would reasonably find that a community such as the sexual minority community Ghana would be close knit, in order to protect each other. The claimant's allegations of having been part of this community for 20 years and been in some sort of a relationship with a person who he testified to being a person of some profile in the community, the claimant would have had some sources to draw upon to support his allegations in Ghana. The panel therefore finds that the claimant in not having a single person to corroborate almost 20 years of an almost open lifestyle further undermines his allegations before this panel. [36] I do not find the appellant has provided persuasive evidence as to how the RPD Member erred in her assessment of this evidence. The RPD Member finds that since the appellant alleged that he had been part of the sexual minority community, it was reasonable for him to provide corroborative evidence to attest to his sexual orientation. I find the onus is on the appellant to provide corroborative evidence to support his claim. I recognize that corroborating evidence is not always required to substantiate a credible claim. In my review of the Compact Disc (CD) of the RPD hearing, the appellant did not provide a reasonable explanation of why he did not provide such corroboration. Furthermore, I note that the appellant did not provide reasonable explanations for why he did not have corroborating evidence from Ghana. I find that the RPD Member's finding that this undermines the appellant's credibility is accurate. The RPD Member lack of corroboration combined with the appellant's lack of a reasonable explanation undermines his credibility and leads the RPD Member to find him not credible, on a balance of probabilities, that he is a homosexual. I also note that the RPD Member found other inconsistencies that attributed to the final determination. I do not find the RPD Member has erred in her finding. Witness Testimony [37] One of the most important findings in the RPD Member's decision was in regards to the witness testimony at the RPD hearing. The RPD Member found inconsistencies in the witness testimony and the witness letter submitted to the RPD. The witness was the appellant's wife. The RPD Member finds the following:36 [13] Finally, the claimant was asked at the hearing by the panel if it would be possible to call the claimant's wife as a witness as she had written the letter to him and could corroborate the claimant's assertions of the targeting against him by anti-gay gangs in Ghana. The claimant had testified to the panel, that she had not known about his claim for protection. However, the claimant agreed to speak to her. The wife was questioned by the panel as to the circumstances she had written in her letter and her communications with her husband as to his sexual orientation. The claimant had identified at the hearing that he had spoken to his wife when they were first together in 2006 about his past sexual relationships but had promised to stop. The claimant's wife was not a credible witness. She was almost entirely inconsistent with her written letter. In testimony, she said she did not recognize the man with the anti-gay gang, when they had come to her home to find her husband. In her letter she had stated it was XXXX, a number of times, who is the claimant's alleged boyfriend. In testimony she said the police had come, in the letter there is no mention of the police. In testimony, she had said that she did not know how these people had identified her husband as gay and had said it might have been just known around the neighborhood. In her letter she had stated that she had taken a phone to get repaired which had incriminating photos on it. The witness appeared to be reluctant to answer the question as to when she had communicated with her husband about his past relationship, but reluctantly, had testified to this conversation happening prior to his departure to Canada. The incidents in question are less than six months ago. It would be reasonable, that the witness would be recall this significant event with some clarity. The fact that there is almost no consistency between her letter and her testimony is sufficient for me to conclude that the witness and the written letter have no material value in corroborating the claimant's allegations. [38] The appellant submits37 that the RPD Member erred in her written decision when she states that "In testimony she said the police had come, in the letter there is no mention of the police." The appellant points out38 that the witness letter does state that "he was finally taking away by the antigay group to the Police". I find that these are two separate scenarios as in the letter, the witness does not state that the police came to her house whereas in her testimony39 she stated that the police did come to her house. As well, the witness testified40 that she does not know how the anti-gay gang came to know about her husband as gay and in the letter41 she states that she took the appellant's phone for repair and that is how others came to know by seeing the contents on the phone. I concur with the RPD Member's findings regarding the witness testimony. There were inconsistencies and contradictions that undermined the appellant's credibility and the witness credibility. [39] I note the appellant has been married since 2006 to his wife. The wife was repeatedly asked by the Member and counsel when the appellant spoke about his gay relationships with her. The witness did not provide an adequate answer when repeatedly prompted with this question. I do find that given the inconsistencies found in the testimony, it is reasonable to give this testimony of this witness little weight. It would be reasonable to expect the witness to be consistent in details of what has happened to her husband, the appellant, due to his homosexuality, and to the questions central to the claim. It would also be reasonable to expect the witness to be consistent with what she has written in her letter that was before the RPD and her testimony. I find the RPD Member has not erred in her assessment of this evidence and I concur with her findings. [40] Assessing a refugee claimant's sexual orientation is a difficult task. I find that I agree with the RPD Member that the appellant's testimony, the witness' letter, and the witness' testimony contained inconsistencies that were central to the claim and not reasonably explained and which were detrimental the appellant's allegations of being perceived as a homosexual by the anti-gay groups and police in Ghana. I find that I concur with the RPD Member that the evidence before the RPD, and the RAD, including the testimony, is not credible with respect to the appellant's sexual orientation claim. Justice Zinn in Kandolo42 cites Ayodele,43 'a case where it was held that contradictions in the Applicant's testimony would have been as apparent to the claimant's counsel as to the refugee Board, denies that there was any "duty to confront" incumbent upon the RPD'. In this case, I concur with the RPD Member's assessment of the witness testimony in relation to the witness letter presented to the RPD Member prior to the RPD oral hearing. Sexual Orientation [41] The appellant also argues44 that the "Board Member erred in law when she failed to consider all of the documentary evidence and specifically the items which substantiate the appellant's being a homosexual male in Ghana." However, the appellant has failed to identify what documentary evidence the RPD Member failed to consider. Again, I have reviewed all the evidence before the RPD and RAD. I have listened to the CD of the RPD oral hearing in its entirety. I also note that the RPD Member finds "There was no testimony from the claimant, regarding desires to change his identity, to having perceptions of being different, or even to hide his sexuality."45 The appellant's testimony regarding his relationship with XXXX was vague and the appellant has not provided persuasive evidence that he was in a homosexual relationship with XXXX. Furthermore, after my review of the RPD oral hearing and the evidence before the RPD and now the RAD, I note that there is no credible or persuasive evidence that the appellant identifies himself as a homosexual. In fact, his BOC states that "I was suspected to be gay".46 The RAD reviewed the recording with particular attention to the interchange between the appellant and the RPD on this issue and I concur with the RPD Member. I note that the RPD Member made credibility findings which are determinative of the appellant's allegations based on his sexual orientation. Based on these credibility findings, the RPD Member finds the appellant not to be credible in regards to his alleged sexual orientation and also to his allegations that he is perceived to be gay in Ghana. Again, the appellant has not provided persuasive arguments as to how the RPD Member erred in her findings. [42] I note that the RPD Member made clear findings with respect to the appellant's credibility as it relates to his alleged identity as a gay man in Ghana. It is up to the RPD Member to assess all the evidence before him to make a refugee determination. The appellant has provided oral testimony about the central component in his claim. In assessing the credibility of the evidence presented by the appellant in support of his claim for Convention refugee status and for his claim to be a person in need of protection, the RAD is guided by the principles established in the Federal Court of Appeal's decision of Maldonado,47 wherein the court states, in part: "When an applicant swears to the truth of certain allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there be reason to doubt their truthfulness." Furthermore, the RPD Member stated in her reasons that:48 [7] [. . .] The panel is mindful of gender-sensitive techniques to obtain information from sexual minority claimants and the particular guidelines and protocols for claims relating to sexual orientation.49 [43] In this case, the RAD has reviewed several reasons to doubt the truthfulness and thus the credibility of the appellant. After conducting my own independent assessment of the evidence before the RPD and the RAD, I uphold the finding of the RPD with respect to its credibility assessment surrounding the appellant's allegations that he is gay. [44] Most importantly, in the context of reviewing this RAD appeal, I note that the appellant has failed to provide any examples of where the RPD Member may have erred in her credibility assessment on the appellant's identity as a gay man from Ghana. Although the appellant has presented much case law in his memorandum, he has failed to adequately establish how this case law relates to his situation. Assessing a sexual orientation claim is a very difficult task. I also note that the Federal Court of Appeal stated in Zhou50 that "There is no general obligation on the Board to point out specifically any and all items of documentary evidence on which it might rely." However, I find that the inconsistencies found by the RPD Member, which I concur with, are substantial in not finding the appellant credible that he is a homosexual. [45] Given the totality of the evidence, including the serious concerns with the credibility of the appellant and the witness, the RAD concurs with the RPD's findings that the appellant is not a homosexual man and nor is he perceived to be a homosexual man in Ghana. CONCLUSION [46] As well, having considered all the evidence before the RPD and RAD, including the recording of the proceedings, I concur with the RPD's credibility findings that the appellant was generally lacking in credibility regarding his sexual orientation as a gay person. Furthermore, I find, through my own independent assessment of all the evidence, that the RPD did not err in its credibility findings, and I find that the appellant has not established his sexual orientation. Thus, the RAD concurs with the RPD as the RAD would have come to the same conclusions. REMEDY [47] For all these reasons, I confirm the determination of the RPD in accordance with paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Act, namely, that XXXX XXXX XXXX, is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. This appeal is therefore dismissed. (signed) "Rena Dhir" Rena Dhir April 28, 2016 Date 1 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, "Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status", under the 1951 Convention. 2 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the "Act"), S.C. 2001, c. 27. 3 Exhibit 2, Appellant's Record (AR). 4 Exhibit 2, AR. 5 Exhibit 3, Refugee Protection Division Record (RPDR), Basis of Claim (BOC). 6 Exhibit 2, AR. 7 Exhibit 2, AR. 8 Exhibit 2, AR. 9 Exhibit 3, RPDR. 10 Subsection 110(6) of the Act. 11 Huruglica v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 799. 12 Huruglica v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 799, para. 54. 13 Huruglica v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 799, para. 54. 14 Exhibit 2, AR, Memorandum. 15 Huruglica v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 799. 16 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 93. 17 Youkap v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 249. 18 Koffi v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 4. 19 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 93. 20 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 93. 21 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 93. 22 Huruglica v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 799. 23 Exhibit 2, AR, Memorandum. 24 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 93. 25 Exhibit 2, AR, Memorandum. 26 Exhibit 3, RPDR, pg. 50. 27 Exhibit 3, RPDR, pg. 51. 28 Exhibit 3, RPDR, Member's Decision, para. 5. 29 Exhibit 3, RPDR, Member's Decision. 30 Exhibit 2, AR, Memorandum. 31 Exhibit 3, RPDR, Member's Decision, para. 11. 32 Exhibit 2, AR, Memorandum. 33 Exhibit 2, AR, Memorandum. 34 Exhibit 2, AR, Memorandum. 35 Exhibit 3, RPDR, Member's Decision, para. 12. 35 Exhibit 2, AR, Memorandum. 36 Exhibit 3, RPDR, Member's Decision, para. 13. 36 Exhibit 2, AR, Memorandum. 37 Exhibit 2, AR, Memorandum. 38 Exhibit 2, AR, Memorandum. 39 Exhibit 3, RPDR, CD-Oral Hearing: 01:35:26. 40 Exhibit 3, RPDR, CD-Oral Hearing: 01:42:03. 41 Exhibit 3, RPDR, pg. 56-57. 42 Kandolo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 1176. 43 Ayodele v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] F.C.J. No. 1833. 44 Exhibit 2, AR, Memorandum. 45 Exhibit 3, RPDR, Member's Decision. 46 Exhibit 3, RPDR, BOC. 47 Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C .A.). 48 Exhibit 3, RPDR, Member's Decision, para. 7. 49 Exhibit 3, RPDR, Ex. 4: Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and the Refugee Determination Process in Canada, pg. 134-171. 50 M.E.I.v. Zhou, Ting Yu (F.C.A., no. A-492-91), Heald, Desjardins, Linden, July 18, 1994. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : VB5-03200