TC0-03070

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC0-03070 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 / heard at Ottawa, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision March 30, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Susan Brown Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Jacqueline M. Lewis Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister Victor Sokolov Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] The Appellant XXXX XXXX XXXX is a citizen of Djibouti who seeks protection due to his ethnicity and political opinion. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found that the Appellant failed to offer credible and trustworthy evidence in support of his claim. [2] The Appellant argues that the RPD breached procedural fairness in failing to designate him a vulnerable person. The Appellant also argues that the RPD erred in its assessment of his credibility and in failing to consider his claim under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). [3] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Minister) intervened and presented submissions and documents pursuant to section 110(3) of the IRPA. The Appellant did not make any submissions or submit evidence in response. [4] Following my independent assessment, I find that the RPD did not err when it found that the Appellant failed to credibly establish his claim. DECISION [5] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. MINISTER'S INTERVENTION [6] The Minister's notice of intervention1 and documentary evidence2 were received on October 21, 2020. [7] The Minister intervenes in the appeal on the narrow grounds that the Minister's evidence demonstrates that the Appellant did not make Canadian visa applications in an attempt to leave Djibouti in 1992, 1993 or following the death of his son in 2013. This evidence contradicts the Appellant's testimony at the RPD hearing and his submissions on this appeal. [8] The Appellant has not presented any reply evidence or submissions in response to the Minister's intervention. SCOPE OF THE RAD REVIEW [9] The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) reviews decisions of the RPD on a standard of correctness after conducting an independent assessment of the evidence before it.3 The exception to this rule is where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in assessing and weighing the oral testimony heard, which in particular cases attracts a standard of review of reasonableness adapted to the RAD.4 Unless specifically stated below, I have applied the correctness standard. ANALYSIS [10] The RPD found that the Appellant did not provide sufficient credible evidence to establish his claim for protection. Specifically, the RPD found the Appellant's testimony was contradictory and inconsistent about his party membership, arrests, length of detention and his documentary evidence was not credible or trustworthy. The RPD also found that the Appellant did not demonstrate subjective fear by delaying his departure from Djibouti for many years and waiting to claim refugee protection in Canada. [11] The RPD found that the Appellant did not establish his claim under section 97 since his testimony about his political activities and memberships was not credible. The RPD found that the risks the Appellant faces if he returns to Djibouti are no different to those faced generally by the population of Djibouti. [12] The Appellant identifies the four issues with the RPD decision. The Appellant submits that the RPD breached procedural fairness in failing to ensure procedural safeguards were in place to allow him the opportunity to present his case and be heard. The Appellant also submits that the RPD erred in its assessment of his delays in leaving Djibouti and claiming refugee status in Canada and of his evidence. Finally, the Appellant argues that the RPD erred in failing to consider his claim under section 97 of the IRPA. [13] I have reviewed the evidence on the record, the transcript of the October 5, 2019 hearing, the Appellant's submissions about each of the issues it identified and the Minister's intervention. As detailed below I do not find that there was a breach of procedural fairness or natural justice or that the RPD erred when it found that the Appellant is not a vulnerable person. I also find that the RPD findings on the Appellant's delay in leaving Djibouti and claiming refugee protection in Canada and inconsistencies and contradictions in the Appellant's evidence about his visa applications in 1992 and 1993, party membership, arrests and length of detention, even though insufficient when taken individually or in isolation, cumulatively support a negative conclusion about the Appellant's credibility. Vulnerable person application [14] The Appellant made an "Application for Vulnerable Person Designation and/or Accommodations"5 pursuant to the Guideline on Vulnerable Persons.6 In his application the Appellant asked for the following accommodations:7 a. He be given adequate time to process questions; b. Small breaks be permitted, as requested, in the event he becomes confused, tired to needs to stretch his injured/healing leg; c. XXXX XXXX, his case manager at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, be permitted to sit next to him throughout the hearing for support; d. The delivery of a decision and reasons as soon as possible after the hearing; and e. Other procedural accommodations requested during the hearing which the RPD may deem reasonable. [15] At the commencement of the hearing, XXXX XXXX XXXX was identified as attending the hearing in the capacity of a support worker for the Appellant as detailed in his application to be designated a vulnerable person.8 The Appellant's application to be designated a vulnerable person was addressed by the RPD at the commencing of the hearing:9 RPD: I have before me, Counsel, an application to declare a vulnerable person, the threshold, as you may be aware, is being severely impaired in one's ability to testify. COUNSEL: Yeah. RPD: Is that opinion expressed anywhere in the materials you've provided? COUNSEL: No, it's -- it's more about accommodating [the Appellant]. If you don't -- if you don't believe that he's -- he reaches that threshold or -- pardon me -- passes the threshold for vulnerable person, it's been my experience that individuals who are in [the Appellant's] position can be accommodated nonetheless, and that is my desire for today's hearing. RPD: Okay. I'll be happy to hear the evidence and then make a declaration. I'll reserve that portion of the -- of the application decision. And just -- let's clarify the nature of the -- the accommodation that's being requested, is it requested that XXXX XXXX XXXX intervene in any way during the hearing? COUNSEL: No. It's -- it's exactly what is in the application... RPD: Her presence. COUNSEL: That is correct, sir. RPD: Okay. So, XXXX XXXX XXXX, I'm happy to have you remain this morning - and to provide your support to [the Appellant], but I ask you not to intervene in the hearing unless you detect a serious problem on behalf of [the Appellant]. Then, you may raise your hand, and - and we'll deal with it. [16] The RPD made it clear to the Appellant that if he did not understand a question, that he advise the RPD so that the question could be rephrased and that if he did not know the answer, to say so.10 [17] Before starting the RPD told the Appellant, "If you need a break, you want to go to the washroom, get a drink of water, or just have rest, let me know." The RPD then asked the Appellant and his counsel if they had any questions before starting, and the Appellant said "no" and his counsel raised an unrelated issue relating to an exhibit.11 [18] The vulnerable person application was raised by the Appellant's counsel at the end of the RPD hearing. The RPD noted that it did not make a decision and that it did not have to make a finding if it granted the accommodations requested. Appellant's counsel confirmed that the accommodations had been made "I would say all the accommodations have been made."12 [19] The RPD reasons state the following: that the answer to the application was not given at the hearing; nevertheless, the RPD extended the accommodations requested including taking breaks more often for the benefit of the Appellant, to repeating questions and asking questions in a simplified form; and no objection was made by the Appellant or his counsel to the accommodations made.13 The RPD determined that Appellant was not a vulnerable person because there was no evidence presented that the Appellant suffers from any impairment in his ability to testify, let alone that his ability to tell his story was "severely impaired" as required by the Guideline on Vulnerable Persons.14 [20] The Appellant argues that the RPD breached procedural fairness in failing to accommodate him so that, as a severely traumatized man, he would be capable of presenting his case. Following my own review, I do not agree. [21] First, although the Appellant presented three medical reports, none of those reports complied with Guideline on Vulnerable Persons which says that experts' reports should contain the following information: "the expert's opinion about the person's condition and ability to participate in the hearing process, including any suggested procedural accommodations and why particular procedural accommodations are recommended."15 [22] Second, the Appellant was provided all the accommodations requested in his application as confirmed by his counsel at the RPD hearing. This included allowing the Appellant's support worker to be present throughout the hearing and inviting her to bring any serious problems to the attention of the RPD and asking simple questions and rephrasing them as required. I agree with the Appellant that there was only one break and note that it was initiated by the RPD. None of the Appellant, his support worker or his counsel asked for any specific accommodations during the hearing although they were invited to do so by the RPD, including asking for any other breaks. [23] Third, following my own review of the hearing, I find that the Appellant's testimony was confused, contradictory and inconsistent, correctly resulting in a negative credibility finding by the RPD. However, I agree with the RPD that it did not rise to the level that the Appellant's ability to tell his story was "severely impaired." I note that at the end of the hearing when the RPD stated that it had not found evidence of severe impairment, the Appellant's counsel said, "Okay" and did not make any submissions about the testimony of the Appellant evidencing severe impairment at that time.16 Appellant's counsel did, however, make written submissions two weeks later, claiming that while he "is able to appreciate the nature of the proceedings, he has difficulty with the pacing of more complex questions."17 I find that there was consensus that the Appellant was able to appreciate the nature of the proceedings. [24] For all of these reasons I do not find that there was a breach of procedural fairness or natural justice. While the RPD did not designate the Appellant a vulnerable person, it granted him all the accommodations he requested and conducted the hearing in a manner which reflected those accommodations. Delay [25] While not determinative, I find that the RPD did not err when it found that the Appellant's long delay in leaving Djibouti and passing six months in Canada without status before claiming refugee protection both indicate a lack of subjective fear and support a negative credibility finding. [26] The RPD asked the Appellant when he decided to leave Djibouti. He replied that he decided a long time ago in 1992. The RPD asked him if there was any reason he did not leave until 2017, and the Appellant replied, "lack of money, as well as lack of visa." The RPD then asked the Appellant how many visas he applied for between 1992 and 2017. He replied that he applied twice in 1992 and 1993 to Turkey and Canada but visas were not issued. He said that the Canadian government did not refuse his visa but advised him to hire a lawyer.18 [27] The RPD found that although the Appellant's Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative said he spent "so many years trying to come to Canada,"19 the Appellant was not diligent in applying for visas and considered the 24-year delay in leaving Djibouti a sign that the Appellant was not under particular duress in Djibouti and that he therefore lacked subjective fear.20 [28] The Appellant argues that the RPD failed to consider the Appellant's profile as well as his circumstances in Djibouti. The Appellant argues he wasn't arrested until 2011, family obligations kept him in Djibouti following the refusal of his visa requests in 1992 and 1993 and he had only ever lived his life in Djibouti as a victim of persecution. "He had wanted to escape persecution in the past but when he was denied the opportunity twice, he decided to focus on his priorities in Djibouti."21 [29] I find that the Appellant's credibility and arguments are seriously undermined by the Minister's evidence that he did not apply for visas to Canada in either 1992 or 1993. I agree with the RPD that the Appellant's long delay in leaving Djibouti is indicative of a lack of subjective fear. [30] The Appellant testified that that when he left Djibouti in 2016, it was not his intention to return. When the RPD asked him why he waited until July 2017, XXXX months after the expiry of his visa, to apply for refugee protection the Appellant testified that he was confused, sick and did not understand the process until he saw a lawyer.22 [31] The RPD found this another example of the lack of subjective fear of the Appellant which detracted from his overall credibility.23 [32] The Appellant argues that he had a valid visa and did not face an immediate risk of being removed from Canada. This does not address why he did not apply for a visa extension and risked being without status in Canada for over six months. While I agree that the Appellant's waiting to claim during the period his visa protected him would not impugn his subjective fear, I find that the RPD did not err when it concluded that delaying his claim until well after his visa expired demonstrates a lack of subjective fear. Testimony and documentary evidence [33] I agree with the RPD that the Appellant's testimony was contradictory and inconsistent about party membership, arrests, length of detention and his siblings and his documentary evidence was not credible or trustworthy. As detailed above the Appellant's testimony that he applied for visas to Canada in 1992 and 1993 was refuted by the Minister. The Federal Court has found that although they may be insufficient when taken individually or in isolation, the accumulation of contradictions, inconsistencies and omissions regarding crucial elements of a refugee claim can support a negative conclusion about an applicant's credibility.24 Party membership [34] The RPD identified the following contradictory and inconsistent evidence about the Appellant's party membership: BOC25 BOC amendment26 Testimony I first joined the opposition in 1993 I became a member of the PRD in 2005 By 2012 all of the opposition groups united under the USN I have been a member of the opposition since 1987 I first joined the PRD in 1993 it status was revoked in 1997 and I became a member of the new PRD in 2005 By 2012 all of the opposition groups united under the USN We started the movement in 198727 I joined the BND in 1993 which was led by Djame Elabe and was not a member of any other party28 I forgot I was a member of the PRD from 1993 to 2012 -'1129 I joined the USN in 199330 smaller organizations joined as USN in 2013 [35] The Appellant argues that the evidence provided in his BOC narrative and amendments and his testimony at the hearing are not different at all. "Rather, they build upon and clarify one another."31 I disagree and find, as detailed above, that the Appellant's BOC evidence and testimony was not consistent. The RPD did not err when it made a negative credibility finding based on the Appellant's contradictory and inconsistent evidence about his party membership. Arrests and length of detention [36] In his original BOC signed in XXXX 2017 the Appellant said that he was arrested one time on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2011 and held for XXXX days. In his immigration form32 the Appellant said that he was detained once in XXXX 2011 for XXXX days. [37] In his first BOC amendment signed in October 2017 he said he was arrested three times and added arrests of XXXX XXXX XXXX 2013 and in XXXX 2014 saying that he was held for XXXX days each time. In his second BOC amendment signed in September 2019 the Appellant said that he was held for XXXX XXXX, not XXXX days, in each of the 2013 and 2014 arrests. [38] When asked about the omission of two arrests in his original BOC, the Appellant said that he had a problem with the interpreter.33 When asked why he said that the detentions were XXXX days when they were XXXX XXXX, he said he was confused, suffering the effects of his son's death in 2013 and did not have a place to stay.34 [39] The RPD found that the Appellant did not state in his BOC and amendments that he had problems with interpretation, and he did not amend his immigration form. The RPD concluded that the Appellant's failure in the first instance to identify how many times he was detained and for how long and to promptly correct the errors detracts significantly from his credibility. [40] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred when he did not reference problems with interpretation. I agree. In his September 2019 BOC amendment he says, "I had an interpreter who did not speak my exact dialect."35 [41] The Appellant also submits that it was an error for the RPD to discount the Appellant's testimony based on any inconsistent oral statements made by the Appellant after taking his profile into consideration specifically his limited education, mental and physical health. [42] I do not agree. The Federal Court has clearly stated that refugee claimants are presumed to tell the truth, but this is a presumption rebuttable by the claimant's lack of credibility, for example where the evidence is inconsistent with sworn testimony or where the claimant's explanation for the inconsistencies is not satisfactory.36 Federal Court jurisprudence also confirms that a psychological report cannot serve as a cure-all for any and all deficiencies in a claimant's testimony.37 [43] While I find that the Appellant's failure in the first instance to identify how many times he was detained and for how long and to promptly correct the errors would not, on its own, be determinative of his credibility, it does support a negative credibility finding. Siblings [44] The Appellant did not identify any brothers and sisters in his BOC but listed three brothers and one sister in his visa application.38 When asked to explain this inconsistency, the Appellant said, "I forgot about them."39 The RPD found that "while the number of siblings a claimant has does not go to the core of the claim, a claimant's casual approach to answering questions renders it difficult to believe someone who is not interested or concerned about rendering the "whole truth."40 The Appellant does not make any submissions about this finding and the RPD correctly stated that the omission does not go to the core of the claim. Documentary evidence [45] The Appellant submits that the RPD did not assess his documentary evidence and "has performed a grave injustice" by finding that he did not provide sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence to support his claim. I do not agree. The RPD referenced the following documentary evidence submitted by the Appellant in its reasons: the psychiatric assessment;41 support letters from his wife, neighbour and daughter;42 and letters from political organizations, the MRD and PRD.43 Following my own review I find that support letters are not authentic and the letters from the political organizations are unreliable. I agree with the RPD that the Appellant did not provide credible and trustworthy evidence to support his claim. Psychiatric assessment [46] The RPD found that the weight given to the psychiatric assessment was diminished to the extent that it was unintelligible but nonetheless accepted that the report as evidence that the Appellant suffers from significant stressors, misses his family, suffered a significant injury in Ethiopia and that the death of his son in a 2013 motor vehicle accident in Canada caused him significant stress and grief. The RPD accepted that the Appellant's stress level is high but noted that the psychiatric report did not address the effect of the stress on the Appellant's testimony generally or specifically whether it would cause the Appellant to omit significant details, give erroneous answers or contradict himself.44 [47] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred by assigning the psychiatric report "little weight" and so disregarded vital evidence. I disagree. As detailed above the RPD clearly took account of the psychiatric assessment and its content. Support letters [48] The support letters from the Appellant's wife, neighbour and son are all written in English. The Appellant testified that his wife does not read or write and was taken to some people who wrote the letter for her. When asked why there was no declaration of translation the Appellant testified that they were "clerical people" and "once they take their money, that was it."45 [49] The RPD found that the letters from the Appellant's wife and neighbour bear the same heading and font and the letter from his daughter bears the same heading and the same introductory phrase as the other letters. All the letters are in English; the RPD noted objective evidence46 that there are four official languages in Djibouti but English is not one of them.47 The Appellant did not provide evidence that any of the authors speak English or that the contents of the letter were interpreted to them before they signed. In absence of such evidence the RPD found, on a balance of probabilities, that the authors were not aware of what they signed and attributed no weight to the letters. [50] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in not contacting the authors of the letters citing a 2016 decision of the Federal Court.48 More recently the Federal Court has found:49 I disagree that an administrative tribunal has an obligation to contact a witness to obtain information. This is not its role. The onus rests with the Applicant to bring forward evidence it intends to rely upon and in doing so, always to put the best foot forward. It is not up to the RPD to chase down evidence from a witness to be satisfied that the document is authentic and that a person exists who has sworn to the truth of its contents before someone authorized to confirm that fact. This onus rests with the Applicant who should provide the necessary information authenticating the author and the document. [51] Following my own review, I noted that the names of the Appellant's wife and daughter are not consistent in the documentation. Most alarming is the difference between the name used on the daughter's letter and that on her national identity card. Author BOC Immigration Letter Daughter ID50 Wife XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX51 XXXX XXXX XXXX52 XXXX XXXX XXXX53 XXXX XXXX Daughter XXXX XXXX XXXXe54 XXXX XXXX XXXX55 XXXX XXXX XXXX [52] I agree with the RPD that the Appellant did not meet his onus to provide the necessary information confirming that the authors understood the content of the letter written in English and this is supported by the inconsistencies in the author's names. I am not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the letters from the Appellant's wife, neighbour and daughter are authentic. Letters from political organizations [53] The RPD found that the letters were unreliable. The MRD letter contradicted the Appellant's narrative stating he was dismissed from his job as a XXXX XXXX with XXXX, while his narrative said, "thankfully the company did not fire me." The PRD letter says that the Appellant was a "founder" of the PRD, which is not even claimed by the Appellant. The Appellant does not make any submissions about these findings, which I see no reason to disturb. Section 97 [54] The RPD found that since it found that the Appellant's claims about his political activities and memberships were not credible that his risks of torture, losing his life or being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in Djibouti were the same risks faced generally by other citizens of Djibouti. The RPD found that the Appellant did not establish his claim under section 97. [55] The Appellant submits that the RPD failed to take into account the entirety of his evidence, especially the letters of support, and in so doing the RPD conducted an unreasonable integrated assessed of sections 96 and 97. [56] I do not agree. The jurisprudence56 is clear that an independent section 97 analysis is not necessary where a claimant has been found to be not credible as is the case in the Appellant's claim. CONCLUSION [57] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) "Susan Brown" Susan Brown March 30, 2021 Date 1 M-1, Minister's Record, pages 1-6, notice of intervention. 2 M-1, Minister's Record, pages 3-16, documentary evidence. 3 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, [2016] 4 FCR 157, 2016 FCA 93 (CanLII). 4 Ibid., and X (Re), 2017 CanLII 33034 (CA IRB). 5 RPD-2, Supplementary RPD Record, pages 2-12. 6 Chairperson Guideline 8: Procedures With Respect to Vulnerable Persons Appearing Before the IRB. Guideline issued by the Chairperson pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Effective date: December 15, 2006, as amended December 15, 2012. 7 RPD-2, Supplementary RPD Record, page 2. 8 Hearing of October 7, 2019, Transcript, page 3. 9 Hearing of October 7, 2019, Transcript, page 5, Audio recording 0:12:16. 10 Hearing of October 7, 2019, Transcript, page 6. 11 Hearing of October 7, 2019, Transcript, page 6. 12 Hearing of October 7, 2019, Transcript, page 42. 13 RPD-1, RPD Reasons, pages 7 and 8, RPD Reasons, para. 16. 14 RPD-1, RPD Reasons, page 8, RPD Reason, para. 17. 15 Supra, note 6, Guideline on Vulnerable Persons, section 8.3.g. 16 Hearing of October 7, 2019, Transcript, page 42. 17 RPD-2, Supplementary RPD Record, page 15. 18 Hearing of October 7, 2019, Transcript, pages 11 and 12. 19 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 29, Exhibit 2, 1st revised BOC narrative, para. 19. 20 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 6, RPD Reasons, para. 10. 21 P-2, Appellant's Record, page 19, Appellant's Memorandum, para. 46. 22 Hearing of October 7, 2019, Transcript, page 13. 23 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 6, RPD Reasons, para. 11. 24 Lawani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 924 (CanLII) para. 22. 25 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, pages 15 and 16, BOC narrative. 26 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, page 139, Revised BOC narrative. 27 Hearing of October 7, 2019, Transcript, page 8. 28 Hearing of October 7, 2019, Transcript, page 15. 29 Hearing of October 7, 2019, Transcript, page 16. 30 Hearing of October 7, 2019, Transcript, page 14. 31 P-2, Appellant's Record, page 25, Appellant's Memorandum, para. 61. 32 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 48, Exhibit 1, Schedule A. 33 Hearing of October 7, 2019, Transcript, page 10 34 Hearing of October 7, 2019, Transcript, pages 35 and 36 35 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 35, Exhibit 2, 2nd revised BOC narrative, para. 22. 36 Lawani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 924 (CanLII) para. 21. 37 Shatirishvili v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 407 (CanLII), para. 46. 38 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 92, Exhibit 4. 39 Hearing of October 7, 2019, Transcript, page 11. 40 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 6, RPD Reasons, para. 9. 41 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 172-175, Exhibit 6. 42 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 160, 162 and 165, Exhibit 6. 43 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 168 and 169, Exhibit 6. 44 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 8 and 9, RPD Reasons, paras. 20-23. 45 Hearing of October 7, 2019, Transcript, page 18. 46 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Djibouti, 28 June 2019, tab 1.3:Djibouti. The World Factbook. United States. Central Intelligence Agency. June 25, 2019, page 3. 47 The objective evidence at tab 1.3 actually says that there are four languages in Djibouti: two official, French and Arabic, and two others, Somali and Afar. 48 Paxi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 905, para. 52. 49 Mohamed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1537, para. 88. 50 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 166, Exhibit 6. 51 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 21, Exhibit 2, BOC. 52 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 43, Exhibit 1, Generic application. 53 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 165, Exhibit 6. 54 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 22, Exhibit 2, BOC. 55 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 160, Exhibit 6. 56 Al-Abayechi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 360 at para. 20 citing Ismaili v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 84 at para. 64. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC0-03070 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français 2 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.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français