TB9-08854

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-08854 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 Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision August 12, 2020 Date de la décision Panel T. Cheung Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Liyusew S Kidane Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] The appeal is allowed. The Appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, appealed the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision that rejected her refugee claim. The RPD found insufficient credible evidence to establish that the Appellant has a fear of persecution by the Ethiopian government on the basis of her political opinion. The RPD further determined that the Appellant's Tigre ethnicity, in and of itself, is insufficient to support a refugee claim. The RPD also rejected the sur place claim.1 The RPD's reasons for decision [2] The RPD made negative credibility findings based on the following inconsistences and omissions in the evidence: a. When questioned about the specifics of her active involvement in the Blue Party, the Appellant omitted in her testimony that she provided financial contributions to the party, as such was stated in the Basis of Claim (BOC), and the receipts of the financial contributions were submitted in the documentary evidence. This is a material omission because the objective country evidence indicates that such financial contribution receipts are used as informal proof of membership.2 b. The RPD disbelieved that the Appellant was ever detained because she was internally inconsistent in her testimony as to whether she was detained in 2015 or 2017, and the BOC was silent on whether the Appellant reported to the authorities, as required, after she was released from detention.3 c. Due to the Appellant's inconsistent testimony regarding the detention and the discrepancies in the medical report, the RPD disbelieved that the Appellant was beaten by the authorities during a protest she attended in 2015.4 d. The psychological report did not allay the RPD's credibility concerns because the report is based on the Appellant's self-reporting, and the Appellant was not credible in regards to what she was feeling at the first sitting and other aspects of the claim. The RPD found it is not credible that the Appellant did not know that her anxiety affected her testimony until the psychologist informed her.5 e. The RPD found the Appellant's association with the Blue Party support group in Canada is not genuine for reasons that this group was not mentioned in the BOC and its amendments; and the Appellant did not know the full name of author of the support letter or the proper name of the group.6 f. The RPD rejected the sur place claim for reasons that her association with the Blue Party support group in Canada is not genuine; it is not credible that she was unable to ascertain on her own the threatening nature of an anonymous phone call she received in Canada; and, it is not likely that officials in Ethiopia would become aware of her activities in Canada.7 g. The Appellant's ethnicity, in and of itself, does not support a risk of persecution because the Ethiopian government is led by ethnic Tigreans.8 Appellant's arguments [3] The Appellant argued that the omissions identified by the RPD are peripheral and not material to the claim, and that the psychological report rehabilitates the RPD's credibility concerns. The omission of minor and collateral details from the BOC is not a cause of concern as the BOC is often prepared by representatives holding different views of materiality.9 DECISION [4] The appeal is allowed. I substitute my own decision that the Appellant is a Convention refugee. ROLE OF THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION (RAD) [5] The standard of review at the RAD is correctness on questions of law, fact, or mixed fact and law.10 The RAD can defer to an RPD finding where the RPD had a meaningful advantage in assessing the credibility of oral testimony.11 The RAD carries out its own analysis of the record, on a correctness standard, to determine whether the RPD erred.12 As the RPD had no meaningful advantage in assessing the credibility of oral testimony in this claim, I apply the standard of review of correctness to the RPD decision. ANALYSIS Psychological report [6] Following the first sitting of the RPD hearing, the Appellant submitted a psychological report which was considered in the second sitting of the RPD hearing. The RPD made errors in the assessment of the psychological report, which led the RPD panel to dismiss the report in the assessment of the Appellant's testimony. In doing so, the RPD erred in not considering the Appellant's state of mental health during the testimony. [7] The psychological report determined that the Appellant was exhibiting symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress, generalized anxiety and major depression. The psychologist found the Appellant to be deeply traumatized by the harassment, threats, violence, and fear she experienced in Ethiopia. According to the psychological report, the Appellant reported she felt confused and had difficulty hearing or speaking at the first sitting of the RPD hearing. She reported re-experiencing the traumatic events, and being distracted by negative thoughts, which adversely impacted her concentration and short-term memory. This manifested in difficulty retaining and recalling information.13 [8] The RPD made obvious errors in its assessment of the psychological report. The RPD wrote that the psychological report stated that the RPD's questions reminded the claimant of her being interrogated which caused her to have an aversive physiological arousal, including crying.14 The RPD misconstrued the psychological report when the RPD denied the Appellant was crying at the RPD hearing.15 The psychological report did not state that the Appellant was crying at the RPD hearing, but rather that the Appellant cried during the interview with the psychologist.16 [9] Another error of the RPD was to reject the professional opinions expressed in the psychological report because the Appellant did not convey how she was feeling to the RPD member.17 At the first sitting of the RPD hearing, the Appellant signaled a need to take a minute to recall her memories.18 As she explained at the second sitting, she did not know at the first sitting, that she had to disclose her feelings in the hearing room.19 Because psychological counselling produces self-awareness into one's mental state that can be articulated, I accept the Appellant's explanation that she only became aware of her anxiety issues after the psychologist made her aware of the fact.20 Inconsistencies in the testimony are due to the Appellant's re-traumatization [10] Under the heading "Detention", the BOC narrative described an incident in 2015 when the Appellant was beaten by police during an anti-government protest. She was able to escape arrest because the police left her to beat another protester. She lost a tooth in this incident. Further along in the BOC narrative under the heading "Decision to leave the country", the Appellant claimed she was detained for 8 days in XXXX 2017 for handing out leaflets opposing unfair taxation. During the detention, she was subjected to harassment and humiliation when interrogated. The Appellant was released upon bail being posted by her mother, and on the condition that the Appellant report to the police every month.21 [11] The Appellant wavered in her testimony as to whether she was detained in 2015 or 2017: she first testified to being detained on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2015, and then she testified that she was detained on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017. She then testified that she was only detained once and that occurred in 2015. After the RPD's follow-up questions to clarify the testimony, the Appellant's testimony reverted back to 2017 as the date of the detention.22 When asked to explain the discrepancy as to whether she was detained in 2015 or in 2017, the Appellant testified that she was recalling the time she was tortured which resulted in the loss of her tooth.23 [12] I accept the Appellant's argument that the psychological report provides an explanation for the changing testimony related to the date of the detention. I do not agree with the RPD's finding that the pauses in the testimony is an indication that she rehearsed the narrative and bungled the recitation of the narrative.24 \ [13] [14] [15] The RPD's explanation for the negative credibility finding lacked logic and intelligibility in associating the Appellant's birthday in XXXX with the same month of the beating at the protest.25 [1] [13] Bearing in mind the psychological report when I independently reviewed the testimony, I find the discrepancies in the testimony and the explanation for the discrepancies reflect the Appellant re-experiencing the traumatic events. I accept the opinion of the psychological report that the re-traumatization distracted the Appellant's concentration and ability to recall information.26 [14] I accept the Appellant's argument that she was pausing during the testimony in order to recall the incident.27 During the questioning related to the detention, she indicated several times that she was trying to remember in order to answer the RPD's questions. She also asked for a minute to recall facts.28 At the second sitting of the RPD hearing, the Appellant explained that she had asked for a minute at the first sitting in order to calm herself so that she could remember the events in order to answer the RPD's questions.29 I find the Appellant's need to take a moment in her testimony to recall the facts is due to the psychological state of the re-traumatization. Omissions in the evidence do not negatively impact the Appellant's credibility Omission of the financial contributions from the testimony [15] When asked in what ways she was an active as a member of the Blue Party, the Appellant testified that she attended student meetings, attended demonstrations, promoted the elections, and recruited student members, but she never mentioned her financial contributions,30 even though the receipts of those monetary contributions are in the documentary evidence.31 [16] I do not draw an adverse inference from the omission. In light of the psychological report, I accept the Appellant's explanation that the financial contributions simply did not come to mind during the testimony.32 Moreover, even without the psychological report, the omission is immaterial to draw an adverse inference, given the RPD's question was about her "active" participation,33 and it is arguable that financial contributions are not a form of active participation. To illustrate the distinction between active participation and making financial contributions, an analogy can be made to being a volunteer versus making a financial donation. Volunteering is an active form of participation, and financial contributions are arguably more passive. As the RPD specifically asked about active participation, the Appellant responded with activities that required her active engagement, such as attending meetings, demonstrations, and promoting elections. By contrast, making a financial contribution is a passive form of support that does not require active engagement with other people. [17] After the RPD examined the original receipts of the financial contributions, it noted no indicia of fraud on the face of the receipts. As such, the RPD erred in assigning no weight to the receipts and in finding that the omission in the testimony materially undermined the claim that she was a member of the Blue Party in Ethiopia.34 [18] Based on the RAD's independent review of the evidence, I find the Appellant's testimony on her involvement in the Blue Party is materially consistent with the BOC. The claim that she is a member of the Blue Party has been established by her testimony, the receipts of the financial contributions, and the objective evidence that financial contributions are proof of membership in the party.35 Omission of the details of the brother's claim of persecution from the BOC [19] The BOC omitted the details that the Appellant's brother was beaten, threatened and prohibited from attending school by the Ethiopian authorities.36 The Appellant argued that her brother's experience, which caused him to claim asylum in Switzerland in 2013, is not a central aspect of her claim.37 I accept the Appellant's testimony that the BOC omitted the details about her brother's experience because she believed her refugee claim was dependent only on her own situation.38 The BOC is not intended to be an encyclopedic recitation of the evidence, and the details of the brother's experiences are collateral to the Appellant's claim.39 Omission of family information in the visa application [20] The RPD erred in drawing a negative inference from the omission of the Appellant's siblings in her visa application. The Appellant testified that she omitted her siblings' information from the visa application because she was following the instructions of the person at the travel agency who prepared the visa application.40 I am guided by the jurisprudence that it is not uncommon for a person fleeing persecution to follow the instructions of the person organizing their escape, and therefore whether they were truthful in regards to the documents they use to escape has little direct bearing on whether the person indeed is a refugee.41 As such, I find the Appellant's omission of her siblings from her visa application is immaterial to the issue of credibility. Omission of activities in Canada from the BOC [21] The Appellant testified about her activities with the Blue Party in Canada, but these details are not in the BOC.42 I find the omission from the BOC about her activities in the Blue Party in Canada is a material omission with regards to the sur place claim; however, the omission does not impact the credibility of the allegations in the main claim of persecution in Ethiopia. Exit from Ethiopia [22] In the RAD's independent review, I have considered items 14.2 and 14.3 in the National Documentation Package (NDP),43 and the expert opinion of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX submitted by the Appellant.44 [23] The RPD considered the objective country conditions evidence that even low-level opposition members are at risk of being detained, jailed or killed in Ethiopia, and most opposition members who leave Ethiopia generally travel to Kenya by bus or other ground transportation to avoid being apprehended.45 The RPD correctly noted that the claimant exposed herself to a risk by choosing air travel.46 However, the Appellant argued that the RPD exaggerated the risk of choosing air travel after it misconstrued XXXX XXXX XXXX expert opinion that the Ethiopian government, on the one hand prevents party leaders from leaving the country, while on the other hand, allows rank and file party members to leave the country to prevent them from rising to leadership.47 [24] I am guided by the Federal Court of Canada jurisprudence that the country conditions evidence indicates a risk, not an implausibility, for Ethiopians opposing the government to leave the country by air travel. Inherent in a risk is the potential outcome that the risk never actually materializes.48 I agree with the Appellant's argument that the RPD should have put the question to the Appellant as to how she perceives the risk of using air travel to leave Ethiopia before making a negative credibility finding based on the choice of air travel. [25] I have set aside the RPD's negative credibility findings that the Appellant was reciting rehearsed testimony and that she was not a member of the Blue Party in Ethiopia. In the absence of these negative credibility findings, I find the Appellant's decision to take a risk to depart Ethiopia by air travel is a neutral consideration in the assessment of credibility. Reavailment to Ethiopia from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) [26] The RPD found the Appellant embellished the claim that her family was targeted in Ethiopia because she had the opportunity to leave Ethiopia permanently when she travelled to the UAE in XXXX 2014 for vacation, but she chose to return to Ethiopia.49 She explained that she would not be safe in Dubai given its proximity to Ethiopia. [27] I find the Appellant's decision to return to Ethiopia after travelling to Dubai is a neutral consideration that does not support a negative inference. Three criteria must be present for a finding of reavailment under the Convention: (a) the reavailment must be voluntary; (b) the claimant must have intended to reavail themselves of the protection of the country of nationality; and (c) the person must actually obtain such protection.50 I find the Appellant never intended to reavail herself for the protection of the state when she returned to Ethiopia; nor did she obtain such protection, because she was detained, interrogated and threatened in 2017, which instigated her to leave Ethiopia several months later. [28] I accept the Appellant's testimony that despite her family being targeted, she did not leave Ethiopia until 2018 because she believed her political activism could bring about change. It was after she was released from detention in XXXX 2017 that she decided to leave Ethiopia because the authorities gave her a final warning that she should join the Hewat (phonetic) Party.51 Her efforts to bring about political change are evident throughout the evidence. She had earlier testified to receiving anonymous intimidating phone calls when she was in university threatening that she should be part of the Tigray People's Liberation Front party.52 This testimony is consistent with the claims in the BOC narrative that she received phone calls attempting to intimidate her into changing her political beliefs.53 Letters of support [29] The RPD erred in rejecting letters of support from the Appellant's parents and friends based on what the letters do not say, rather than what the letters contain: a. The RPD found the parents' letter to lack credibility because it does not provide updated information about the Appellant and her parents' circumstances, and whether there were any consequences for her failure to report to the police.54 b. The RPD assigned no weight to the letter from XXXX XXXX, the university friend who was arrested with the Appellant for protesting unfair taxes, because it does not mention the requirement for the Appellant to report to the police after she was released on bail.55 c. The RPD assigned no weight to the letter from XXXX XXXX, the friend who asked the Appellant to join the Blue Party in Ethiopia, because it does not mention the Appellant making financial contributions.56 d. The RPD assigned no weight to the letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX the friend of the Appellant who wrote about their high school activities, because it did not mention the Appellant's political activities.57 [30] The Federal Court of Canada has cautioned against negative credibility findings based on what the documentary evidence does not say, as not every piece of evidence is directed to every specific point in issue. Some pieces of evidence are background information and some documents fill in gaps. No piece should be dismissed merely because it is a piece of the whole.58 Therefore, I find the RPD erred in not assessing the probative value of the letters based on what the letters say in the context of the entirety of the evidence. [31] Based on the RAD's independent review of the documentary evidence: e. I assign positive weight to the parents' letter because it corroborates the Appellant's activities with the Blue Party in Ethiopia, including the rally in 2015 wherein she was beaten, and the Appellant's arrest and detention in 2017 following her opposition to the unfair taxation of small businesses in their community. The letter describes the bail money posted for the Appellant's release; the condition of release for the Appellant to report to police; and the money collected by the family to aid her departure from Ethiopia.59 f. I assign positive weight to the letter from XXXX XXXX which speaks to the Appellant distributing flyers to oppose unfair taxation. The author of the letter was arrested with the Appellant.60 g. I assign positive weight to the letter from XXXX XXXX. The letter is probative of the author asking the Appellant to join the Blue Party in Ethiopia.61 h. I assign no weight to the letter from XXXX XXXX as the letter describes the Appellant's activities in high school, which is not probative of the allegations in the claim.62 i. I assign no weight to the medical note as it is illegible.63 It is not possible to ascertain the writing in the medical note which purports to corroborate the Appellant losing a tooth after being beaten at that protest. [32] As the presumption of truth has not been rebutted, I accept the Appellant's testimony that she reported to the police on the last days of the month, in accordance with the conditions of her release from detention, and she last reported to the police in XXXX 2017.64 [33] I find sufficient evidence to establish that the incidents in Ethiopia support a forward-facing fear of persecution based on political opinion if the Appellant returns to Ethiopia. As I have accepted the main refugee claim, it is not necessary to assess the sur place claim. CONCLUSION [34] The appeal is allowed. I substitute my own decision that the Appellant is a Convention refugee. (signed) T. Cheung T. Cheung August 12, 2020 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, p. 5, para 6. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, pp. 6 to 7, para. 9 to 10, pp. 8 to 9, para. 17. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, pp. 9 to 10, para. 18 to 21. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, p. 10, para. 22 to 23. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, pp. 7 to 8, paras. 11, 15, 16. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, pp. 11 to 13, paras. 24 to 33. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, pp. 20 to 21, para. 55 to 60. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Reasons and Decision, pp. 21 to 22, paras. 61 to 63. 9 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum of Argument, pp. 15 to 17, paras. 14 to 21. 10 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93, para. 103. 11 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93, para. 70. 12 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93, para. 103. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, pp. 301 to 304, Psychological report dated XXXX XXXX 2018. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, p. 8, para. 14. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, p. 8, para. 14. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, pp. 301 to 304, Psychological report dated XXXX XXXX 2018 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, pp, 7 to 8, para. 13. 18 Transcript of testimony (December 11, 2018), p. 32. 19 Transcript of testimony (January 15, 2019), pp. 21 to 22. 20 Transcript of testimony (January 15, 2019), pp. 21 to 22. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, BOC narrative, pp. 34 to 36. 22 Transcript of testimony (December 11, 2018), pp. 32 to 33. 23 Transcript of testimony (December 11, 2018), pp. 32 to 36. 24 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, p. 9, para. 19. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, p. 9, para. 19. 26 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, pp. 302 to 303, Psychological report dated XXXX XXXX, 2018. 27 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum of Argument, pp. 21 to 22, para. 39 to 44. 28 Transcript of testimony (December 11, 2018), p. 33. 29 Transcript of testimony (January 15, 2019), pp. 21 to 22. 30 Transcript of testimony (December 11, 2018), pp. 25 to 26. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, pp. 191 to 196. 32 Transcript of testimony (December 11, 2018), p. 26. 33 Transcript of testimony (December 11, 2018), p. 26. 34 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, pp. 8 to 9, para. 17. 35 National Documentation Package, Ethiopia, 31 March 2020, tab 4.13: ?Information on membership procedures to join the Semayawi Party (Blue Party); whether the party issues membership cards, including who issues them and for what purpose; whether members are required to pay monthly dues; whether the party issues receipts for dues paid (2014-August 2016). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 18 August 2016. ETH105565.E, p. 2. 36 Transcript of testimony (December 11, 2018), p. 21. 37 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum of Argument, p. 19, para. 32. 38 Transcript of testimony (December 11, 2018), pp. 21 to 22. 39 Feradov v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 101 (CanLII), paras. 18 and 19, 40 Transcript of testimony (December 11, 2018), pp. 17 to 18. 41 Rasheed v Canada (M.E.I.), 2004 Federal Court 587 (CanLII), at para. 18. 42 Transcript of testimony (December 11, 2018), pp. 30 to 31. 43 Archive - National Documentation Package, Ethiopia, 30 April 2018, tab 14.2: ?Information on exit screenings at Bole International Airport, including whether a person released on bail from Gondar When Bet jail on the condition not to leave Gondar would be stopped during exit screenings at Bole International Airport in Addi... Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 18 February 2016. ETH105426.E.; and Archive - National Documentation Package, Ethiopia, 30 April 2018, tab 14.3: ?Exit controls at Bole International Airport in Addis Ababa, including screening procedures for those departing on international flights; treatment of members of opposition parties at the airport (February 2011-December 2013). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 2 January 2014. ETH104707.E. 44 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 9, letter and resume from XXXX XXXX, pp. 307 to 317. 45 Archive - National Documentation Package, Ethiopia, 30 April 2018, tab 14.3: ?Exit controls at Bole International Airport in Addis Ababa, including screening procedures for those departing on international flights; treatment of members of opposition parties at the airport (February 2011-December 2013). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 2 January 2014. ETH104707.E, p.3. 46 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, p. 17, para. 48. 47 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 9, letter and resume from XXXX XXXX, pp. 307 to 317; Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum of Argument, p. 24, para. 49. 48 Tegene v. Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 787, para. 17 and 18. 49 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, p. 14, para. 40. 50 Cabrera Cadena v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2012 Federal Court 67 (CanLII), citing Nsende v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 Federal Court 531, [2009] 1 FCR 49. 51 Transcript of testimony (December 11, 2018), pp. 36 to 37. 52 Transcript of testimony (December 11, 2018), p. 31. 53 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, BOC narrative, pp. 34 to 35, para 10. 54 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, p. 14, para.39. 55 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, p. 18, paras. 50 to 51. 56 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, p. 19, para. 52. 57 RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, p. 19, para. 53.. 58 Teganya v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 Federal Court 42 (CanLII), para. 25; Arslan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 252 (CanLII), para. 88. 59 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, pp. 197 to 199. 60 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, p. 212. 61 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, pp. 216 to 217. 62 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, p. 221. 63 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, p. 190. 64 Transcript of testimony (December 11, 2018), pp. 33 to 35. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-08854 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