TB7-05161

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 : TB7-05161 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision September 14, 2017 Date de la décision Panel D. Goff Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Johnson Babalola 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 ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Nigeria, appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. The Appellant asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to set aside the negative determination of the RPD and either grant his claim for protection or refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination. He has provided new evidence in support of his appeal, and he has requested an oral hearing. DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL [2] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the "Act"),1 the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection and dismisses the appeal. BACKGROUND [3] In 2011, the Appellant relocated to the United Kingdom (UK) for graduate studies. The Appellant remained residing in the UK between 2011-16, inclusive. The Appellant worked as a XXXX XXXX XXXX in London. He also worked in Scotland. The Appellant's status in the UK is unclear, as he testified he has a UK residence card but left it at home (in Canada).2 The Appellant's wife and two children remain living in XXXX, Scotland. [4] In 2013, the Appellant completed a Post Graduate Diploma in XXXX Studies at XXXX XXXX XXXX College in London. In 2015, the Appellant completed his Master's in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX University in XXXX. In 2016, the Appellant completed his Masters in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at the University of XXXX in XXXX, UK. [5] In XXXX, 2016, the Appellant was issued a visa to travel to Canada. His previous visa application(s) were denied over concerns of the bona fides of his applications and concerns whether he would depart from the country etc.3 [6] In XXXX, 2016, the Appellant travelled to Canada and then returned to the UK. [7] In XXXX, 2016, the Appellant was issued a visa to travel to the United States (US). [8] In XXXX, 2016, the Appellant returned to Canada. The day after his arrival, the Appellant alleges his cousin called him from Nigeria to inform him an oracle indicated the Appellant had been involved in bisexual activities. The Appellant's "Uncle XXXX" also called from Nigeria that same night asking when the Appellant would be in Nigeria. [9] In XXXX, 2016, the Appellant initiated a claim for refugee protection in Canada alleging a fear of persecution in Nigeria due to his sexual orientation as a bisexual man. [10] The Appellant's claim for refugee protection was heard on March 1, 2017. In a decision of March 3, 2017, the RPD rejected the Appellant's claim finding that the Appellant and his allegations were not credible. The Appellant submits the RPD erred in its credibility analysis and treatment of the documents. ANALYSIS Role of the RAD [11] Pursuant to the Federal Court of Appeal's (FCA) decision in Huruglica,4 the RAD is to review RPD findings of law, fact (and mixed fact and law), which raised no issue of credibility of oral evidence, applying the correctness standard. [12] In assessing the credibility of oral evidence, the RPD may have a meaningful advantage as the RPD directly sees, observes, and selects questions to ask of the witnesses etc. The RAD is accordingly to review those RPD's findings on a standard of reasonableness, modified to apply to the RAD context. The RAD is to show deference, while also considering both the process and the outcome of the RPD's findings. In other words, the RAD must be satisfied the RPD's findings are a result of a comprehensible reasoning process and based upon the evidence.5 Admissibility of new evidence presented on appeal [13] Subsection 110(4) of the Act provides that the Appellant may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of his claim or that was not reasonably available, or that he could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection of the claim. The burden of proof for admitting new evidence lies with the Appellant. The RAD Rules further require that the Appellant "must" explain how any new documentary evidence meet the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the Act and how that evidence relates to him.6 The RAD does not have discretion to admit evidence that does not meet the statutory requirements. [14] The Appellant has submitted an affidavit from his brother, dated April 5, 2017 and a treasury receipt, dated February 16, 2017.7 The Appellant has failed to explain why the receipt from February 2017 was not reasonably available prior to the rejection of his claim and should be accepted as evidence. The RAD finds the Appellant has therefore failed to meet his burden of proof for explaining why this document - which is dated before the rejection of his claim- should be admitted. The receipt accordingly does not meet the statutory requirements and is therefore not admitted as evidence. [15] The proposed affidavit from the Appellant's brother appears to meet the statutory requirements to be admitted as new evidence, as it postdates the rejection of the claim. However, before it can be admitted as new evidence, further assessment of the document must be done. The RAD is guided by the considerations in the Raza8 decision, subject to the necessary adaptations. The RAD finds that after its assessment of the document in accordance with the Raza factors, the credibility of the document, including as to its source and the circumstances of its creation are called into question and is therefore not admitted for the reasons below. [16] The RAD has serious concerns with the credibility of the affidavit. The affidavit is purportedly from the Appellant's brother "XXXX XXXX." The Appellant has previously submitted an affidavit from XXXX, as well as copies of correspondence between them. The RAD notes the RPD had concerns as to the credibility of the brother's previous affidavit.9 The proposed new affidavit from him includes two passport sized photos of two different people. It is unclear who these individuals are and why their pictures are attached to the affidavit. It is also unclear whether one of the photos is of the person notarizing the document and, if so, why the notary public would provide his picture, especially considering the contents of the affidavit. Moreover, the RAD notes the exact same picture of one of the individuals appears on at least two of the Appellant's previously filed affidavits.10 However, despite those affidavits all having the same picture, the affiants and individuals notarizing the documents are different. Further, the letterhead and stamped names of the notaries are also different. The RAD also notes obvious spelling and grammatical errors in the documents. The RAD also notes the inconsistent spelling of the brother's name. For example, the Appellant spells his brother's name (XXXX XXXX XXXX) differently as compared to how his brother spells his own name in his affidavit and other correspondence. It is reasonable to expect the Appellant to know how to spell his brother's name. [17] The RAD has also considered the objective country documentation on documents from Nigeria. The country documents describe the widespread availability of fraudulent documents from and in Nigeria, including fraudulent affidavits that are "widely available."11 The documents further describe that affidavits are "rampantly forged," particularly in Lagos.12 Finally, the RAD notes that no supporting identification is attached with the affidavit. Further, there is no envelope or email or any other tracking of how the document purportedly arrived from Nigeria. [18] Finally, the RAD does not find it to be credible under the circumstances that the brother would swear to an affidavit about and in support of the Appellant, especially if the Appellant is indeed wanted by the authorities and also considering the contents of the brother's other affidavit and correspondence etc. For example, the brother previously described himself as being "furious" with the Appellant and having "bitter fillings [sic]."13 Moreover, the brother also purportedly sent very hostile and threatening correspondence in which he describes the Appellant as a "disgrace to our tradition and African race" and that he will "personally fetch for you no matter the part of the earth you are. See the shameful act the lust of flesh has cost you...."14 The RAD accordingly does not find it to be credible that he would now submit a new affidavit supporting the Appellant, while also risking himself to the other alleged agents of persecution, including the authorities. For all of these reasons, the affidavit is not admitted, primarily due to concerns with its credibility. Request for an oral hearing [19] The Appellant has requested an oral hearing. However, he has failed to explain why the RAD should hold a hearing under subsection 110(6) of the Act.15 Furthermore, no new evidence in support of this claim has been accepted. Therefore, the request for an oral hearing is dismissed. The RPD Findings [20] The RPD found that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant was not credible in his allegations, including his sexual orientation as a bisexual - actual or perceived. The Appellant's Alleged Sexual Orientation [21] The RPD determined the Appellant's evidence was inconsistent and contradictory, including about his sexual orientation and his one same-sex relationship with "XXXX," including when and how he learned XXXX was a transvestite, how often they met together, and the Appellant's attraction to other men. Throughout the hearing, the RPD asked the Appellant to elaborate upon his vague allegations, as well as to explain the inconsistent evidence. The Appellant simply responded that he did not understand the direction of the RPD member's questions. The RPD did not find the Appellant's explanation to be credible under the circumstances. [22] The Appellant argues there were no inconsistencies in his evidence and the RPD misinterpreted his testimony. The Appellant further argues the information cited by the RPD was peripheral to his claim. [23] Having independently reviewed the evidence, including the transcript of the proceedings, the RAD does not agree with the Appellant's arguments. The Appellant's evidence was clearly inconsistent in key areas and he failed to provide reasonable explanations for the inconsistencies. For example, the Appellant's Basis of Claim (BOC) specifically describes, "[f]rom that day on [after learning XXXX was a man] XXXX and I would get together several times a week and we became secret lovers". 16 [emphasis added by member] However, the Appellant testified he would see XXXX either weekly or every two weeks after discovering XXXX was a man. The RPD asked the Appellant to explain his inconsistent evidence. The Appellant responded that he had seen XXXX several times a week up until discovering that XXXX was male and thereafter less. The RPD did not find the Appellant's response to be reasonable, as it failed to address the clear discrepancy in his evidence. The RAD agrees and finds no error with the RPD's negative credibility finding for the clearly inconsistent evidence. [24] The RAD similarly finds the Appellant's allegations to be very vague, including about his alleged same-sex relationship with XXXX. For example, the Appellant testified he lost contact with XXXX in 2013 and has no way to contact him. The RPD asked the Appellant various questions about his relationship with XXXX, including the circumstances of how his wife learned about his affair with XXXX in 2016. The Appellant vaguely described someone named "XXXX" told his wife because he was angry at him. The RPD asked the Appellant follow up questions, including to explain why XXXX would tell his wife about XXXX in 2016 when the relationship ended in 2013 etc. Upon its own review of the evidence, the RAD finds the Appellant's responses to the RPD's questions about XXXX, his wife, and XXXX to be vague, evolving and inconsistent. This added to the RAD's own concerns with the Appellant's credibility and that of his allegations. Inconsistent Evidence, BOC Omissions [25] The RPD further noted omissions in the Appellant's BOC. For example, the Appellant testified he discovered his feelings for the same-sex in university and was attracted to two of his male schoolmates. The Appellant also testified he attended a gay bar in the hopes of meeting a man. However, this information was not in the Appellant's BOC. The RPD asked the Appellant to explain the omissions from his BOC. The Appellant responded that he was under pressure when preparing the document and did not need to go into detail. The RPD did not find the Appellant's response to be reasonable under the circumstances and took a negative inference. [26] The Appellant argues the RPD erred because he was "simply adding detail and fleshing out his story" at the hearing.17 The RAD does not agree with the Appellant's argument. The onus is on the Appellant to establish his claim for refugee protection. The Appellant is highly educated with three post-graduate degrees and diplomas from the UK, he is fluent in English, and has been represented by experienced legal counsel throughout his claim, including when he first completed his BOC, at his refugee hearing, and for the purposes of this appeal. Further, the RAD does not agree that the problems with the Appellant's evidence, including his BOC omissions, are minor and peripheral only, as they go to the heart of the Appellant's claim as a bisexual man. [27] Moreover, the RAD notes the Appellant's responses to the RPD's questions about his various BOC omissions and inconsistent evidence are also contradicted by the Appellant's own BOC. For example, the Appellant testified he realized he was attracted to men when he was in university. The RAD notes the Appellant was in university at XXXX State University in 1995-99, inclusive.18 The Appellant testified that he was attracted to his male schoolmates XXXX and XXXX. The Appellant testified that he felt "like having sex with him [XXXX]."19 However, his testimony is contradicted by his BOC wherein he describes that he "was very surprised to have enjoyed having sex with another male" in 2012 with XXXX, who he had presumed was female. The Appellant's inconsistent evidence and vague and evolving allegations added to the RAD's concerns with the Appellant's credibility and that of his allegations of persecution. Delay, Failure to Claim Elsewhere [28] The Appellant resided in the UK from 2011-16, but failed to seek asylum there. The RPD asked the Appellant to explain why he did not seek protection there. The Appellant responded he was not threatened until the oracle revealed his sexual orientation while he was in Canada. The RPD did not accept the Appellant's response to be reasonable and determined the Appellant's failure to seek asylum in the UK weighed against finding his allegations trustworthy. [29] The Appellant argues the RPD erred because he gave a reasonable explanation for his failure to seek protection elsewhere and earlier, as his life was only endangered when he was in Canada and it was therefore reasonable for him to seek protection in Canada only. [30] Upon its own independent review of the evidence, the RAD does not agree with the Appellant's argument. By his own evidence, the Appellant knew he had feelings toward the same-sex since university (during the period, 1995-1999). He was also actively in a same-sex relationship with another man in 2012. He also demonstrated knowledge of and submitted various country documents on the very hostile treatment by Nigerian authorities towards sexual minorities. He also confirmed his wife knew out about his affair with a man well before his visit to Canada. The RAD further notes the Appellant is a very well-educated man, fluent in English, and with diverse travel experiences. For example, he resided, studied and worked in the UK for several years (and had successfully researched and obtained a visa to do so). He also successfully obtained visas to the US and Canada. Accordingly, the RAD finds the Appellant's failure to seek protection earlier and elsewhere, and his corresponding reason for not doing so, undermines his subjective fear as well as his overall credibility and that of his allegations of persecution. Documents [31] The RPD gave the Appellant's documents little weight and determined they were insufficient to cure the several problems with the Appellant's credibility. For example, the RPD gave little weight to documents showing some participation in the local LGBTQ community in Canada, as it postdated his arrival in Canada by a material period, and was subsequent to his making a refugee claim. [32] The Appellant argues the RPD erred in giving his documents little weight. [33] The panel notes that an appeal before RAD is not a de novo hearing and/or a second chance to present his claim. The Appellant has already enjoyed a full hearing before the RPD. The RPD tested the Appellant's credibility and that of his documents at the hearing. The RPD found the Appellant's responses not to be credible and, therefore, accorded little probative weight to the untested affidavits and correspondence purportedly from Nigeria etc. The RPD also considered and gave greater weight to the objective documentary evidence compared to the Appellant's vague responses. The Appellant alleges this was an error. The RAD does not agree. The RPD's analysis and findings are in accordance with settled law; particularly that when a general negative credibility finding is made by the RPD, it is open for it to give low probative value to other documents, including if they reflect the claimant's own statements. As has been stated by the courts: [C]onsequently, in my opinion, the applicant's assertion that the Board is bound to analyze the documentary evidence "independently from the applicant's testimony" must be examined in the context of the informal proceedings which prevail before the Board. Once a Board, as the present Board did, comes to the conclusion that an applicant is not credible, in most cases, it will necessarily follow that the Board will not give that applicant's documents much probative value, unless the applicant has been able to prove satisfactorily that the documents in question are truly genuine. In the present case, the Board was not satisfied with the applicant's proof and refused to give the documents at issue any probative value. Put another way, where the Board is of the view, like here, that the applicant is not credible, it will not be sufficient for the applicant to file a document and affirm that it is genuine and that the information contained therein is true. Some form of corroboration or independent proof will be required to "offset" the Board's negative conclusion on credibility.20 [34] Having independently reviewed the Appellant's documents, as well as the transcript of the RPD's questions and the Appellant's responses at the hearing, the RAD finds the RPD was correct to give minimal weight to the Appellant's documents. This is because of the Appellant's vague testimony about the circumstances of how he obtained the documents (e.g. from his friend "XXXX" in the UK) and whether the affiants (including his brother XXXX) would swear affidavits in support of the Appellant in the face of the severe consequences due to the anti-homosexual legislation in the country; the cumulative credibility concerns; and the documentary evidence21 of the widespread availability of false documents from and in Nigeria, specifically including Lagos where the documents are purportedly from. The jurisprudence has indicated where there is sufficient evidence to cast doubt on its authenticity, whether because of an irregularity on its face or the questionable circumstances in which it was obtained or provided, a document may be assigned little or no weight, without expert verification or where such verification is inconclusive.22 [35] The RPD also considered a "Psychological Assessment" authored by XXXX XXXX, a registered psychologist.23 The RPD noted the report, using "language ... very similar to that reported in other cases" in which he has provided evidence,24 Dr. XXXX stated that the Appellant is suffering from conditions that might explain the problems with his testimony. Dr. XXXX did not attend the hearing to explain and defend his conclusions. The RPD also noted counsel for the Appellant did not seek to have the Appellant declared a vulnerable person25 or ask for any accommodations. The RPD concluded the conclusions in the psychological assessment did not rehabilitate the credibility problems with the Appellant's evidence on a balance of probabilities. [36] The Appellant argues the RPD erred as it "had a duty to consider the psychological report which it failed to mention in its reasons."26 The Appellant also argues the RPD "committed a fatal omission by failing to mention or even consider the psychological report which may have accounted for the manner the Appellant testified at the hearing". Contrary to the Appellant's arguments, the RPD did clearly mention and consider the psychological assessment in its reasons, as briefly summarized above. For example, the RPD assessed the source and contents of the psychological report, as well as counsel's lack of request for any accommodations at the hearing, in its reasons. The RAD accordingly questions whether the Appellant (and/or his counsel) read the contents and analysis of the RPD decision before initiating and submitting their arguments in this appeal. [37] Moreover, based upon its own independent assessment of the report authored by Dr. XXXX, the RAD finds the RPD was correct to give the report minimal weight. The RAD notes the report by Dr. XXXX was based primarily upon one interview lasting approximately 60 minutes. The RAD also notes the summary of allegations in the report were self-reported by the Appellant. However, this does not necessarily corroborate the situation as the Appellant alleges. Moreover, the RAD notes the allegations in Dr. XXXX report is contradicted by the Appellant. For example, Dr. XXXX describes the Appellant was "exposed to traumatic events" in Nigeria.27 He does not elaborate or identify the apparent traumatic events. In this regard, the RAD notes the Appellant has been continuously residing in the UK for the past five+ years and his alleged sexual orientation was only recently revealed while the Appellant was in Canada. The RAD further notes Dr. XXXX describes the Appellant "has been involved in a committed, romantic relationship with a woman for one week".28 It is unclear who this woman is, as the Appellant failed to provide any such details in his BOC. When asked to explain these issues by the RPD, the Appellant simply responded Dr. XXXX might have "deduced such a report" and "there's a lady I met here in Canada...but things have not really gone well."29 The RAD does not find the Appellant's response to be reasonable nor persuasive under the circumstances. [38] In his report, Dr. XXXX also concludes the Appellant satisfies diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder with dissociative symptoms etc. However, as the court stated in Danailov, "opinion evidence is only as valid as the truth of the facts on which it is based."30 Thus, if the underlying facts are disbelieved, a report of post-traumatic stress disorder etc. based on those facts may be discounted. As the underlying facts in this case are contradictory, the RAD gives little weight to the conclusions made by Dr. XXXX, particularly in sufficiently addressing the shortcomings in the Appellant's evidence, including concerns with the Appellant's overall credibility and his inconsistent and contradictory evidence. Finally, reports such as by Dr. XXXX cannot possibly serve "as a cure-all for any and all deficiencies" in a RPD (or RAD) decision.31 [39] The RAD similarly does not find the Appellant's recent and limited attendance at local community groups in Canada, such as the XXXX XXXX Church to be persuasive, and notes mere membership in a community organization does not establish sexual identity nor does it overcome the credibility issues in the Appellant's claim. In this regard, the RAD also notes the Appellant failed to provide any such letters from LGBTQ groups in the UK despite the Appellant having resided there for at least 5 years and allegedly being in a same-sex relationship and attending gay bars there. CONCLUSION [40] The RPD found the Appellant to be generally lacking in credibility. Having independently reviewed the evidence, the RAD has reached the same conclusion. As such, the RAD does not find the Appellant and his allegations of a serious possibility of persecution to be credible. [41] Accordingly, based upon its own review of the evidence in its entirety and after accounting for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Guidelines on International Protection No. 9 (including the credibility analysis of establishing sexual orientation)32 and the Chairperson's Guidelines on Proceedings Before the IRB [Immigration and Refugee Board] Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression,33 the RAD does not find on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant provided sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence to establish his allegations, including that of his sexual orientation as a bisexual man. [42] The RAD, therefore, finds there is not a serious possibility the Appellant would be persecuted if he was returned to Nigeria, pursuant to section 96 of Act. The panel similarly finds that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant would not be personally subjected to a danger of torture or face a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in Nigeria pursuant to section 97 of the Act. DECISION [43] On the basis of the findings noted above, and after its own assessment of all the evidence in the record, the RAD finds that the RPD's refugee determination is correct. [44] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Act, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection and dismisses the appeal. (signed) "D. Goff" D. Goff September 14, 2017 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, last amended on February 6, 2014. 2 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 41. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 60-139. 4 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 5 X (Re), 2017 CanLII 33034 (CA IRB). 6 Rule 3(3)(g)(iii), Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Appeal Division Rules, SOR/2012-257. 7 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 74-8. 8 Raza v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-11-07), Linden, Sharlow, Ryer, December 6, 2007, 2007 FCA 384. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 9. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 396-9. 11 See e.g.) Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for Nigeria (30 November 2016), item 3.11, Responses to Information Requests (RIR), NGA104601.E, and at item 9.2, RIR, NGA104978.E. 12 Ibid., at item 9.2 RIR, NGA104978.E. 13 Ibid., at p. 397. 14 Ibid., at p. 424. 15 Section 3(3)(g)(v), Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Appeal Division Rules, SOR/2012-257. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 20. 17 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 91. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 42. 19 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 43. 20 Hamid v. Canada (MEI) (1995), 58 A.C.W.S. (3d) 469, Nadon J. (as he then was), at para 21. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for Nigeria, item 3.11, RIR, NGA104601.E. 22 Grozdev v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1996] FCJ 983(QL). 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 132-6. 24 Molefe v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 317 (CanLII), paragraph 33, citing Mico v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 964 (CanLII), Fidan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1190 (CanLII). 25 See Chairperson Guideline 8: Procedures With Respect to Vulnerable Persons Appearing Before the IRB. 26 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 104. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 402-3. 28 Ibid. at p. 404. 29 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 60. 30 Danailov, Vasco Valdimorov v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. t-273-93), Reed, October 6, 1993, at p. 2. 31 Khatun v. Canada, 2012 FC 159, at para 94; Mahara v. Canada, 2012 FC 999, at para 25. 32 Guidelines On International Protection No. 9: Claims to Refugee Status based on Sexual Orientation and/or Gender Identity within the context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967, Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), October 23, 2012. 33 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), Chairperson's Guideline 9: Proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression, May 1, 2017. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB7-05161