TB9-35535

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-35535 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 14 April 2021 Date de la décision Panel S. Thompson Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Micheal Crane 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 Appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Iran, is appealing a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dated December 9, 2019, refusing his claim for refugee protection. [2] For the following reasons, I dismiss this appeal. BACKGROUND OF APPEAL The Appellant's claim, the RPD's decision, and the Appellant's arguments before the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) [3] Before the RPD, the Appellant alleged he suffered from depression due to incidents in his childhood and youth. He came to Canada on a student permit but did not take up his place at XXXX XXXX due to depression. He testified that in December 2018, he began attending church on the recommendation of a friend. On XXXX XXXX, 2019 he returned to Iran and re-entered Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019 but was refused entry by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). Immediately thereafter he made a refugee claim. The Appellant alleged he faced a serious forward-looking risk of persecution in Iran due to his Christian faith. [4] The RPD refused the Appellant's claim. The determinative issue was credibility. [5] Before the RAD, the Appellant submits the RPD erred: - By finding his psychological state was irrelevant in explaining inconsistencies in his evidence; - By finding he misrepresented his reasons for coming to Canada; - By being microscopic about church attendance and about his conversion; and - That the RPD also failed to assess the Appellant's sur place claim, which arises from the fact that he would be perceived by authorities in Iran to be a Christian upon returning to that country. REQUEST TO ADMIT NEW EVIDENCE [6] The Appellant has not asked that I convene an oral hearing of this appeal in accordance with subsection 110(6) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1 He has, however, asked that I admit as new evidence a letter from the XXXX XXXX XXXX dated February 3, 2020.2 By law,3 I can only accept evidence that: i. arose after the RPD decision; or ii. was not reasonably available at the time of the decision; or iii. that the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to bring to the RPD before the decision. [7] If the evidence meets one or more of these requirements, I must decide if the evidence is new, credible and relevant before I can accept it.4 [8] In his affidavit dated February 4, 2020, the Appellant states he "did not get a letter from XXXX XXXX for the Refugee hearing because [he] did not think [he] had to show that [he] was volunteering there."5 According to his written submissions on appeal, the Appellant 'could not reasonably have been expected ... to have presented'" the letter "'at the time of the rejection'" because "[i]t was not foreseeable that the RPD would take issue with ... the Appellant's evidence that he was not being paid" while working in 2019.6 [9] The letter post-dates the RPD's reasons of December 9, 2019. The letter meets the minimum threshold of credibility required for consideration as new evidence, and while the content, which concerns the period from December 17, 2018 to February 6, 2019, is not novel, the letter is relevant to my assessment of issues arising in the appeal. I therefore admit the document as new evidence. [10] Given my assessment that the letter does not raise a serious issue with the Appellant's credibility, I find there is no basis for me to convene an oral hearing of the appeal in accordance with subsection 110(6) of the IRPA. ANALYSIS [11] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.7 I will apply the correctness standard of review after independently assessing the record to determine whether the RPD erred. I will only show deference to the RPD's credibility assessment and/or to its weighing of the oral evidence in situations where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage. If I find the RPD had a particular advantage, my reasons will explain why. [12] My determination is based on my independent assessment of the evidence before me. This includes: the records prepared by the RPD and the Appellant; an audio recording of the Appellant's RPD hearing on November 21, 2019; and documents contained in the current compilation of the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Iran. Does the Appellant face a serious forward-looking risk of persecution in Iran on the grounds that he is a genuine convert from Islam to Christianity? [13] The RPD found the Appellant's claim was "not credible"8 and that he had "feigned Christian conversion to gain immigration status in Canada."9 As well, the RPD found material inconsistencies in the Appellant's CBSA interview were not reasonably explained. Specifically, the RPD found the Appellant's credibility was undermined by inconsistencies in his evidence about why he initially came to Canada that were not explained by his assertion that he was suffering from depression.10 The RPD also found the Appellant's credibility was undermined by his inconsistent evidence about his church attendance after December 25, 2018.11 While the RPD acknowledged the Appellant's testimony about the principles of Christianity and the impact of Christianity on his life,12 the panel found his testimony and other evidence about his depression failed to explain his inconsistent evidence about his Christian conversion. [14] The Appellant submits that even if his conversion to Christianity was opportunistic, he is still entitled to protection, and that the RPD erred by failing to consider that he would be perceived as a Christian upon returning to Iran.13 He submits that even if the RAD finds he is not credible concerning his conversion to Christianity, the RAD must nonetheless assess whether he would be at risk "for having manifested a Christian faith in Canada."14 He submits further that he faces a serious forward-looking risk of persecution in Iran simply for being a failed refugee claimant.15 [15] In my independent assessment, the foundation of the RPD's finding that the Appellant was not a genuine Christian was its belief that he would not be perceived as such by public authorities in Iran upon returning to that country. The RPD's belief was premised on its finding that the Appellant was not truly a Christian. If, however, the Appellant is in fact a genuine convert to Christianity, it is clear he would face a serious forward-looking risk of persecution in Iran. [16] The determinative issue is whether the RPD erred in its assessment of not only the Appellant's credibility as a witness overall but also of matters going to the heart of his claim. The RPD's treatment of the Appellant's statements during the CBSA interviews [17] First, I agree with the Appellant's submission, that the RPD erred in adopting the CBSA's finding that he entered Canada to work illegally. [18] While I accept the RPD was entitled to question the Appellant's testimony that he was volunteering at the XXXX XXXX XXXX "as a matter of common sense,"16 the RPD's reference to "the preponderance of the evidence" supporting "the CBSA's officer's conclusion"17 is misleading because the RPD's presumption that "[r]easonable people do not work in commercial enterprises without expectation of payment"18 was a plausibility finding made without reference to any objective evidence to support it. [19] According to the Appellant, the RPD was "irrational" in finding not only that the Appellant "could not be volunteering without pay" but also that he never volunteered at the XXXX XXXX XXXX at all. The RPD's reasons briefly acknowledge19 the Appellant's testimony that he volunteered at the XXXX XXXX XXXX because he was interested in the job, liked doing it, and that he had to be busy in a job so that he could get out of the mental and emotional state he was in.20 [20] However, the Appellant also testified: that he knew it would be illegal for him to be paid to work for the company; that he was interested in the work, which involved XXXX XXXX and XXXX; and that he didn't need money because his brother sent him money from Iran.21 The fact this testimony was not referenced by the RPD in the Reasons weakens its finding on this point. As well, in my independent assessment, the new evidence22 corroborates the Appellant's testimony on this point and I give the letter from AM Group Studio Inc. some weight for that specific and limited purpose. [21] Ultimately, however, I do not see how this issue of whether the Appellant was paid to work or not was in any way material to the issue at the heart of the claim, which was whether the Appellant's professed conversion to Christianity was genuine. [22] While the RPD found the Appellant's testimony on this issue not credible23 and called into question the truthfulness of all his related allegations,24 I am persuaded by the Appellant's submission that whether he was paid to work at the XXXX XXXX XXXX was extraneous because the RPD accepted that this was where he met XXXX XXXX, who invited the Appellant to church and introduced him to Christianity. Whether the Appellant was a paid employee or unpaid volunteer when he met XXXX is irrelevant. [23] In my independent assessment, the RPD's insistence that whether the Appellant was working illegally was integral to its assessment of the credibility of his claim overall is not supported by the evidence. [24] I have also considered the Appellant's submission that the RPD erred: in rejecting as not credible the Appellant's testimony that he did not go to XXXX XXXX because of his emotional state;25 erred further in finding the Appellant's depression was "irrelevant" to its assessment of his statements to the CBSA in April 2019;26; in finding the Appellant "has depression but is abusing the diagnosis;"27 and failing to make an explicit finding about whether he had depression.28 [25] The RPD noted the Appellant invoked his depression to explain his failure to attend XXXX XXXX29 and his inability to remember his conversation with CBSA officers,30 and found that neither "the [Appellant's] poor memory or depression, even if true, addresses the inconsistency"31 in his evidence about whether he entered Canada to study at XXXX XXXX or for another purpose. [26] Having reviewed the oral proceedings before the RPD, I find the Appellant's testimony about why he did not attend XXXX - that upon arrival he planned to move to Hamilton later because he believed his courses started in three months, but while he stayed in the Richmond Hill house his emotional state and state of mind were so bad he could do nothing32 - was somewhat inconsistent with the reason given in his Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative, that he did not attend because he was depressed and disliked the program,33 as his BOC narrative does not mention his belief that the courses started three months' after his arrival in Canada. [27] However, the Appellant's BOC narrative, which states he applied for the Canadian study permit because he "wanted out of Iran" 34 does not directly contradict his statements to the CBSA35 or the RPD. As well, despite the RPD's insistence that "studying at XXXX XXXX was the predicate [reason why the Appellant] was in Canada in the first place" and that any inconsistency in his evidence on this point undermines his overall credibility as a witness, the Appellant does not appear to have misled either the CBSA36 or the RPD37 about the fact that he never attended the university. [28] However, even if there is merit to the RPD's finding that the Appellant "misrepresented his reasons for being in Canada"38 and its suggestion that he "only sought protection in Canada as a Christian because he could not otherwise enter Canada legally,"39 this finding should not undermine the credibility of the Appellant's claim, since refugee claimants must sometimes either violate immigration rules to enter a country in order to claim protection, or misrepresent themselves to immigration authorities in order to obtain travel permits on false pretenses and use those documents to reach ports of entry in Canada so that they can claim protection in relative safety. [29] Although the RPD asked the Appellant why he did not claim refugee protection on April 2, 2019,40 the Reasons only summarise the Appellant's testimony in response. The RPD Reasons not only fail to analyse the Appellant's explanation for why he failed to claim refugee protection on April 2, 2019, they also fail to explicitly consider whether the timing of the Appellant's claim on April 3, 2019 impacted its assessment of the credibility of his subjective fear. [30] Given the foregoing, in my independent assessment the RPD erred in "draw[ing] a negative inference against [the Appellant's] claim"41 simply from the fact that he may have misrepresented himself to obtain Canadian temporary resident visa documents, as the RPD failed to show how this was relevant to its assessment of the credibility of the Appellant's subjective fear of persecution. [31] As well, to the extent the Appellant's evidence that he suffered from depression42 was relevant to the RPD's assessment of his credibility as a witness, it was wrong for the RPD to have rejected the evidence he disclosed from his psychiatrist in Iran and his psychologist in Canada, as both reports corroborate the Appellant's testimony that he suffered from depression when he first came to Canada in XXXX 2018 and was being treated for depression long before his arrival in Canada. [32] In my independent assessment, the RPD erred in dismissing the Appellant's evidence about the state of his mental health "as a scapegoat" to explain what it believed were material inconsistencies in both his evidence about his intentions in coming to Canada,43 and his evidence about his conversion to Christianity.44 The RPD's assessment of the Appellant's Christian practice in Canada [33] The Appellant submits the RPD was microscopic in its assessment of his evidence about the dates on which he attended a Christian church in Canada. The Appellant submits the RPD erred in assessing the content of a supporting letter from his friend XXXX XXXX against his testimony about when he attended church.45 [34] According to the RPD, the Appellant testified he first attended church in Canada on December 25, 2018 at the invitation of his friend XXXX, and that thereafter he did not attend church in Canada again until April 4 or 5, 2019.46 The RPD asked the Appellant why he had not attended church between December 25, 2018 and February 8, 2019, when he left Canada to visit his family in Iran. It rejected as not credible the Appellant's explanation, that he did not know the church offered Bible study courses and thought he could acquire an adequate knowledge of Christianity by speaking with XXXX and watching YouTube and the internet.47 [35] Having reviewed the relevant part of the oral proceedings before the RPD,48 I agree with the panel's finding that the Appellant's explanation lacked credibility, especially his statement that he was unaware the church held Bible study classes. This is because near the start of the hearing the Appellant testified that XXXX, the same friend who introduced him to the church, was also a minister in the church and led Bible study classes in the church.49 Later, when the RPD asked him why he didn't attend church again until April 2019 after he first attended at Christmas 2018, the Appellant testified that he was not in a good emotional state at that time and was in any event always discussing Christianity with XXXX.50 [36] Given the above, it was open to the RPD to question the credibility of the Appellant's explanation for not going to church between December 25, 2018 and February 8, 2019, in particular his statement that he was unaware that Bible study classes were available in the church. In my independent assessment, the RPD did not err in finding the Appellant's explanation was not credible. [37] The Appellant also submits the RPD erred in finding his BOC narrative implied that he converted after he first attended church on December 25, 2018. The Appellant submits there are no inconsistencies in his evidence about when he converted to Christianity.51 [38] In the Reasons, the RPD remarked that the Appellant's "BOC and XXXX letter both convey that the [Appellant] began regularly attending church after December 25, 2018 and had completed his moral and psychological conversion shortly after that point," but that his "statements to CBSA conveyed ... significantly, that he was not yet Christian."52 [39] I have read the notes of the Appellant's interviews with CBSA officers in 2019, on April 2,53 3,54 and 11,55 and I accept the Appellant first expressed a desire to convert to Christianity in the April 3, 2019 CBSA interview,56 a desire he repeated in the April 11, 2019 CBSA interview.57 [40] I have also reviewed the oral proceedings before the RPD, and I note that when the RPD asked the Appellant early in the hearing if there was a specific date on which he considered himself to have completed his conversion, the Appellant testified that it was the day his friend XXXX gifted him a Bible, which was the day after Christmas 2018.58 [41] However, the RPD's Reasons do not cite this testimony as a basis for its finding that the Appellant's evidence about his conversion to Christianity was inconsistent. In assessing the credibility of the Appellant's evidence about conversion, the RPD's Reasons focus only on the assessment of the Appellant's BOC narrative and the supporting letter from XXXX XXXX. [42] I have read XXXX XXXX supporting letter.59 While its statement that the Appellant "showed more passion to attend at church in the coming sessions" is forward-looking, it makes no reference to a specific period. Also, the Appellant's BOC narrative states he "attended the Spirit of Truth Church on Christmas Day" and has "been attending it ever since," but does not specify the dates of his ongoing attendance at the church. For this reason, I do not think either document supports the RPD's finding that the Appellant began attending church continuously immediately after going to the church's Christmas party in December 2018. [43] Nor do I agree with the RPD's finding that the Appellant's BOC narrative and XXXX supporting letter suggest the Appellant "had completed his moral and psychological conversion shortly after" he attended church on December 25, 2018. The Appellant's narrative states he has attended church since that time, that he finds "the music and teaching and support of the congregants has helped" with his depression and expresses his "hope to be baptized."60 [44] XXXX supporting letter states that "[a]fter a while, [the Appellant] believed in the truth of [the] Bible and the Lord Jesus Christ and God's salvation" and that "[t]he effect of this faith was noticeable in his daily behaviour and words."61 In my independent assessment, XXXX observation that the Appellant appeared to have accepted key principles of Christianity "after a while" is not a strong enough basis to infer that the Appellant had completed his conversion to Christianity as of the specific date of December 25, 2018. [45] For these reasons, while it was open to the RPD to find that the Appellant's explanation that he could not remember his conversations with the CBSA was "evasive"62 as it failed to address the RPD's concern, I do not accept that his explanation was "designed to minimize the inconsistency"63 in his evidence about his alleged conversion to Christianity, as in my opinion there was no inconsistency. [46] I therefore reject the RPD's finding that one could infer anything about the timing of the Appellant's conversion from either XXXX XXXX supporting letter or the Appellant's BOC narrative. I find the RPD erred in drawing a negative inference about the Appellant's credibility from non-existent inconsistencies between his BOC narrative, CBSA interview notes and XXXX XXXX supporting letter. The RPD's assessment of the Appellant's Christian faith and knowledge; whether the Appellant faces a serious forward-looking risk of persecution in Iran [47] The Appellant also submits the RPD failed to "give due weight to the fact that [he] spoke knowledgeably about Christianity."64 The RPD's reasons acknowledge that the Appellant "spoke knowledgeably about Christianity and about how it has positively impacted his life" but found this testimony did not outweigh its negative credibility findings.65 [48] The RPD Reasons state the Appellant "spoke about Christianity, its basic principles, what it means to him, and the impact it has had upon his life."66 In my independent assessment of the proceedings before the RPD, the Appellant did exhibit knowledge of Christianity, in particular Christian holidays67 and principles.68 He also testified that he had expressed a desire to be baptized to his pastor, who advised him he needed to attend Bible study classes in the church regularly and study before he could be baptized.69 [49] The RPD's observation that "Christianity changed the [Appellant]"70 appears to have been based on the Appellant's testimony in response to the panel's question about why Christianity was important in his life. The Appellant testified that prior to coming to Canada and joining the church he was a non-religious person who was angry, under stress, and was depressed and without hope for his life or future.71 [50] Having reviewed the oral proceedings before the RPD and considered the totality of the evidence, I find the Appellant's testimony and other evidence about his Christian faith and practice is unlikely to give rise to the perception that he is a practicing Christian were he to return to Iran. Although the Appellant demonstrated some knowledge of Christian scripture, principles and practice, the mere fact of having knowledge does not mean that one has a sincere and genuine belief in Christianity. [51] I place some weight on the RPD's finding that the Appellant's failure to adequately explain why he did not go to church between December 25, 2018 and February 8, 2019, undermined the credibility of his profession of Christian faith. I would have expected that the Appellant would have attended church given his testimony that Christianity was vitally important to him in easing his depression and giving his life new purpose. [52] As well, given the Appellant's statements to CBSA officers in April 2019 that he wanted to be baptised in the Christian faith, and his testimony that he asked his pastor about being baptized three months before the RPD hearing and was told that he needed to attend Bible study regularly to become ready to be baptised in the church, I would have expected to see evidence that the Appellant had taken steps to fulfill this traditional obligation of the Christian faith in between the RPD's determination of his claim and the perfection of his RAD appeal. No such evidence is before me. I find on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant is not a genuine convert to Christianity, notwithstanding his demonstrated knowledge and past Christian practice in Canada. [53] Nor do I believe the Appellant's opportunistic Christian practice in Canada would give rise to a serious forward-looking risk of persecution for him in Iran, as I do not believe his practice is regular or robust enough to ground a finding that he is a true convert to Christianity from Islam. In my opinion, a sincere belief in Christianity is unlikely to be imputed to him by public authorities in Iran, as his Christian practice has been too sporadic to support a finding that he could be even an opportunistic convert to Christianity. [54] Finally, despite the Appellant's submission that he faces a serious forward-looking risk in Iran as a failed refugee claimant, I note a March 2015 Response to Information Request (RIR) in the March 29, 2019 NDP compilation for Iran states that failed refugee claimants may face arrest and detention upon returning to Iran if they are forcibly returned and their refugee claims become known to the authorities. As well, some sources in the same RIR indicated that returnees "from Australia and elsewhere have been subjected to varying degrees of ill-treatment by authorities upon return, ranging from monitoring, [to] interrogation and detention".72 [55] The RIR, however, also indicates Iran's government is interested in prosecuting returnees who have been politically active or who have committed crimes abroad.73 In my independent assessment, the facts of this appeal do not support a finding that the Appellant would be considered to have been politically active abroad, and that his activities in Canada in attending church only sporadically are unlikely to give rise to a finding on the part of public authorities in Iran that he had converted to Christianity and was therefore guilty of apostasy or any other religious offence. Summary of RAD findings [56] Although the RPD made several errors in its assessment of the Appellant's claim at first instance, in my independent assessment the panel did not err in determining ultimately that the Appellant was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. I therefore dismiss this appeal. 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) S. Thompson S. Thompson 14 April 2021 Date 1 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 3 at para. 2. 2 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 2. 3 Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. 4 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Raza, 2007 FC 385. 5 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 1 at para. 2. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 3 at para. 5. 7 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 4 at para. 4. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 14 at para. 52. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, pp. 5-6 at paras. 5-11. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, pp. 9-12 at paras. 27-33, 35-40, 45. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 12 at para. 44. 13 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, pp. 9-13 at paras. 64-65, 67-68, 72, 81-83, 86-93. 14 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 9 at para. 65. 15 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, pp. 10-11 at paras. 74-76. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 8 at para. 23. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 8 at para. 24. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 8 at para. 23. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 7 at para. 16. 20 Audio recording of hearing in RPD file no. TB9-09863 at timestamps 01:11:36 to 01:14:58. 21 Audio recording of hearing in RPD file no. TB9-09863 at timestamps 01:48:41 to 01:51:25. 22 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 2. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 8 at paras. 23, 24. 24 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, pp. 8-9 at para. 25. 25 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 5 at para. 29. 26 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 5 at para. 32. 27 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 6 at para. 37. 28 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 5 at para. 30. 29 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, pp. 6-7 at para. 14. 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 7 at para. 19. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 7 at para. 20. 32 Audio recording of hearing in RPD file no. TB9-09863 at timestamps 1:04:40 to 1:05:58. 33 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, p. 24 at para. 6. 34 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, p. 24 at para. 6. 35 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, p. 55 ("[Q:] DID YOU EVER COME TO STUDY IN CANADA, THE FIRST TIME YOU CAME IN SEPTEMBER? A: NO"). 36 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, p. 55. 37 Audio recording of hearing in RPD file no. TB9-09863 at timestamps 52:36 to 54:23. 38 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 9 at para. 26. 39 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 6 at para. 11. 40 Audio recording of hearing in RPD file no. TB9-09863 at timestamps 56:35 to 59:57. 41 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 9 at para. 26. 42 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, pp. 189-190, pp. 206-212. 43 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 8 at para. 22. 44 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, pp. 13-14 at para. 51. 45 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, pp. 7-8 at paras. 47-51. 46 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 10 at para. 30. 47 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 10 at para. 33. 48 Audio recording of hearing in RPD file no. TB9-09863 at timestamps 01:30:40 to 01:32:22. 49 Audio recording of hearing in RPD file no. TB9-09863 at timestamps 23:07 to 25:19. 50 Audio recording of hearing in RPD file no. TB9-09863 at timestamps 46:43 to 47:29. 51 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, pp. 7-8 at paras. 47-57. 52 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 11 at para. 37. 53 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, pp. 52-56. 54 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, pp. 60-61. 55 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, pp. 62-67. 56 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, p. 61. 57 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, p. 66. 58 Audio recording of hearing in RPD file no. TB9-09863 at timestamps 23:07 to 25:19. 59 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, pp. 180-181. 60 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, p. 25 at para. 7. 61 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, p. 180. 62 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 11 at para. 37. 63 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 11 at para. 37. 64 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 8 at para. 60. 65 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 13 at para. 50. 66 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 12 at para. 44. 67 Audio recording of hearing in RPD file no. TB9-09863 at timestamps 36:35 to 38:44. 68 Audio recording of hearing in RPD file no. TB9-09863 at timestamps 34:47 to 36:27. 69 Audio recording of hearing in RPD file no. TB9-09863 at timestamps 40:50 to 41:55. 70 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 12 at para. 44. 71 Audio recording of hearing in RPD file no. TB9-09863 at timestamps 38:56 to 40:47. 72 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Iran, March 29, 2019, item 14.2. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Response to Information Request, IRN105089.E. March 10, 2015. 73 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Iran, March 29, 2019, item 14.2. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-35535 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