MC0-03061

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-03061 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 Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision November 12, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Me Alain Bissonnette Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Me Kibondo Max M Kilongozi 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 INTRODUCTION [1] Ms. XXXX, you are a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). In your refugee protection claim, you state that you fear the Agence nationale de renseignements (ANR) [national intelligence agency], which targeted you because you told a friend of the opposition about irregularities committed within the Commission électorale nationale indépendante (CENI) [independent national electoral commission].1 [2] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected your claim for refugee protection after concluding that you failed to establish the existence of a potential risk that you would be subjected to a serious possibility of persecution or, on a balance of probabilities, a risk if you were to return to your country. The RPD specified that, in its opinion, the determinative issue was potential risk, although it also identified issues with your credibility.2 [3] On appeal, you provided documents and argued that the RPD erred when it found that you were not credible and when it failed to apply the appropriate standard of proof while assessing your fear of persecution. You also argued that in light of the new evidence and the evidence presented before the RPD, it is unreasonable to reject your refugee protection claim.3 [4] After analyzing your record, I concluded that the evidence presented on appeal is admissible (I) but that there is no cause to hold a hearing (II). [5] I also concluded that, even when taking the most recent documentary evidence into account, the RPD did not err when it determined that you failed to establish a reasonable fear of persecution or that you would be subject to a risk if you were to move back to the DRC (III). [6] In light of these conclusions, your appeal is dismissed. I. EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON APPEAL [7] The Refugee Appeal Division Rules (RAD Rules) provide that an appellant must submit a memorandum that includes full and detailed submissions regarding how the documentary evidence they wish to cite on appeal meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and how that evidence relates to them or their situation.4 [8] In your memorandum, you argue that you introduced several new pieces of evidence,5 via your affidavit,6 that could not reasonably have been presented at the time of the rejection of your refugee protection claim.7 You added that you were obliged to present this new evidence because it responds to new questions raised by the RPD's decision.8 You also argue that the new evidence complies with the five principles established by the Federal Court of Appeal in Raza9 and that it meets the express conditions set out under subsection 110(4) of the IRPA.10 [9] Based on subsection 110(4) of the IRPA and the relevant case law,11 I am of the opinion that this evidence is admissible on appeal, as it provides relevant, trustworthy information on the recent political situation in the DRC. I note that some of it was published prior to the rejection of your refugee protection claim; however, I accept your argument that you could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented it before the RPD. II. ORAL HEARING BEFORE THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION [10] In your affidavit and your memorandum, you did not request that an oral hearing be held pursuant to subsection 110(6) of the IRPA. [11] In any event, it is up to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to determine whether or not the tests under subsection 110(6) of the IRPA have been met.12 [12] With respect to the evidence that I deemed admissible in your appeal, I am of the opinion that it is not central to the decision with respect to your refugee protection claim and that the evidence alone cannot justify allowing or rejecting your refugee protection claim. Consequently, the three conditions necessary for holding a hearing under subsection 110(6) of the IRPA have not been met. III. ANALYSIS OF THE APPEAL [13] The role of the RAD is not to conduct a de novo consideration of a claim for refugee protection but rather to determine whether the RPD erred as alleged.13 I conducted my own analysis of your record, primarily by listening to the recording,14 reading the transcript of the RPD hearing15 and reviewing the documentary evidence. I concluded that the correctness standard of review must be applied.16 A. The Refugee Protection Division's alleged errors [14] The RAD Rules provide that an appellant must state: i) the errors that are the grounds of the appeal, and ii) where the errors are located in the RPD's decision or in the transcript or in any recording of the hearing.17 With respect to the assessment of your credibility [15] In your memorandum, you argue that the RPD erred when it found that you were not credible by reason of two contradictions. The first was in relation to when your contract at the CENI had ended and the second concerned your failure to state that you were being sought by the ANR in the DRC in your IMM 0008 form.18 [16] You argue that three principles identified by the Federal Court should be considered during the credibility assessment: whether the facts are outside the realm of what could reasonably be expected; whether the documentary evidence demonstrates that the events could not have happened in the manner asserted by the refugee protection claimant; and that the refugee protection claimant's culture and milieu should be taken into account.19 [17] You then argue that the RPD failed to comply with these principles.20 With respect to all of the evidence [18] In your memorandum, you also argue that in light of the new evidence presented on appeal and the evidence presented before the RPD, it is unreasonable to reject your claim for refugee protection. In essence, you argue that the documentary evidence rebuts the RPD's conclusion that Félix Tshisekedi's election ended the arrest of former opponents of the previous regime, namely, Mr. Kabila's regime.21 With respect to the standard of proof to establish a fear of persecution [19] In your memorandum, you argue that simply citing a standard in the conclusion of a decision is not enough to conclude that it was applied while assessing the evidence. [20] You also argue that the RPD based its decision solely on the evidence from the National Documentation Package (NDP) in its possession, casually discarding certain relevant evidence that you had submitted before it and assessing other evidence based on what is found in the NDPs. In your opinion, nowhere in this decision is reference made to evidence that establishes the existence of a serious probability of persecution.22 B. The Refugee Protection Division did not err with respect to your fear of persecution [21] After conducting my own analysis of your record, I conclude that, even when taking the most recent documentary evidence into account, the RPD did not err when it determined that you failed to establish a reasonable fear of persecution within the meaning of section 96 of the IRPA or that you would be subject to a risk within the meaning of section 97 of the IRPA if you were to return to the DRC. The reasons are as follows. The principles to apply when assessing credibility [22] The Federal Court decision in Valtchev, which you refer to in your memorandum, primarily concerns assessing elements that could be considered implausible.23 [23] According to the case law, here are the principles that apply with respect to the credibility of refugee protection claimants. When claimants swear to the truth of certain allegations, they are presumed to be telling the truth. However, this presumption is rebuttable where the evidence is inconsistent with the testimony or where the RPD is unsatisfied with the explanation provided for those inconsistencies.24 The RPD may make adverse findings based on implausibilities, inconsistencies or omissions. It is the entirety of the evidence that must be assessed.25 The RPD's decision with respect to your fear of persecution [24] In its decision, the RPD concluded that your profile is similar to those of other people who continue to denounce the legitimacy of Félix Tshisekedi's election due to irregularities. In light of the documentary evidence, it concluded that, since the president took office in January 2019, no objective evidence has suggested that people who criticized election irregularities in the past or who are still contesting the election are subject to a risk of persecution, to a risk to their life, to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or to a danger of torture.26 [25] In its decision, the RPD explained that it gave more weight to the objective evidence and your profile than to the letter from the secretary general of Engagement pour la Citoyenneté et le Développement (ECIDÉ) [engagement for citizenship and development] that you provided as evidence before it.27 It also explained why it gave little weight to this letter. First, the secretary general has no personal knowledge of the facts as alleged in the letter. Second, he states that one of the reasons why you would be subject to a risk in the DRC is because you have information about a deal made between President Tshisekedi and President Kabila; however, you never made reference to this.28 [26] In its decision, the RPD also analyzed your personal situation. After taking into account the letters of support that you provided as evidence before it, it concluded that you and your family members had not been targeted by the authorities in 2018 or 2019 after the DRC's new president had taken office and that your brother-in-law had been released after being detained by the ANR, although he had allegedly been mistaken for another person.29 Analysis of the most recent documentary evidence [27] In April 2020, Amnesty International published a detailed analysis of the situation in the DRC in 2019.30 I will refer to it in the following paragraphs as I am of the opinion that it provides a concise general overview of the situation. [28] According to the analysis, several hundreds of prisoners of conscience and other detainees were released, and some exiled activists were allowed to return to the country. However, the authorities continued to restrict the right to freedoms of expression, association and assembly.31 [29] According to the same analysis, following the presidential elections in December 2018, the CENI released the provisional results and declared Félix-Antoine Tshisekedi Tshimlombo the country's new president on January 10, 2019. On January 15, information from independent tallies and leaked data obtained from the CENI's servers suggested that the candidate Martin Fayulu Madidi had received the most votes. On January 20, the Constitutional Court rejected Martin Fayulu Madidi's request for a recount, confirming Mr. Tshisekedi as the winner.32 [30] Following legislative elections also held in December 2018, the coalition led by former President Kabila, the Front commun pour le Congo (FCC) [common front for the Congo], won the majority of parliamentary seats. President Tshisekedi's government was inaugurated in September 2019 and was made up of a majority of FCC members. According to Amnesty International, this fact could limit the new president's ability to carry out crucial reforms, including in relation to the justice system. Amnesty International reports the occurrence of violent clashes between various political supporters against a backdrop of disputes over power sharing. The organization also reports that several politicians and senior officers suspected of serious human rights abuses retained, or were given, privileged positions in state institutions, including the army and police.33 [31] According to Amnesty International, all illegal detention centres operated by the ANR were closed on orders from the president. Meanwhile, over 700 people were released from prison, including prisoners of conscience and others who had been held in prolonged arbitrary detention. Several political activists, human rights defenders and foreign journalists were allowed to return to the country and carry out their activities. That being said, Amnesty International also reports that civil authorities and the police continued to ban and violently repress peaceful assemblies and demonstrations. For example, in August 2019, police officers used violence to prevent a rally in favour of the Union pour la démocratie et le progrès social [union for democracy and social progress] party, which was held to denounce government corruption and promote good governance.34 [32] The documents you presented on appeal also provide information concerning the situation in the DRC. According to these documents, it is permitted to speak about an agreement between the DRC's current president and his predecessor, although there are still tensions within this coalition.35 [33] These documents report that MP Mike Mukebayi, a close associate of Martin Fayulu Madidi, went on a hunger strike in February 2020, protesting the fact that he had been kept in detention despite a recent Constitutional Court decision authorizing his release and the fact that he subsequently had to face new complaints made against him and criticizing the instrumentalization of the law to his detriment.36 [34] These documents also report that a number of people doubt the willingness and ability of the new head of the ANR to bring about real change.37 [35] According to these documents, some people were able to obtain a presidential pardon from President Kabila near the end of his term.38 Others were released by the new president, President Tshisekedi, but were only granted conditional release.39 In addition, former opposition leader, Jean-Pierre Bemba, returned to the DRC in August 2018 but not without restrictions.40 [36] Some documents report that the Congolese opposition appears to be divided about what position to take with respect to President Tshisekedi's power.41 They report that in January 2020, the coordinator of the Mouvement des indignés de la situation sécuritaire dans l'Est de la RDC [movement of those outraged by the security situation in eastern DRC] was arrested while taking part in a sit-in in front of the Rwandan embassy in Kinshasa.42 [37] On appeal, you argue that the documentary evidence rebuts the RPD's conclusion that Félix Tshisekedi's election ended the arrest of former opponents of the previous regime, namely, Mr. Kabila's regime. [38] Based on my own analysis of the most recent documentary evidence, I am of the opinion that since the DRC's new president was elected, significant problems have persisted in relation to protecting basic human rights, both those of former opponents of the previous president's regime and those of people who are currently criticizing the authorities in power in the DRC. On that note, I conclude that it is acceptable to refine the RPD's conclusion on the consequences of the DRC's new president taking office. [39] In your memorandum, you also argue that in light of the new evidence presented on appeal and the evidence presented before the RPD, it is unreasonable to reject your claim for refugee protection. [40] According to my own analysis of your record, this last argument is unfounded. First, it should be noted that none of the documents I just referred to concern your personal situation. Second, you failed to establish before the RPD or in your appeal that you have any personal or institutional ties to MP Mike Mukebayi, for example. Last, simply referring to documentary evidence is not sufficient to establish that you have a well-founded fear of persecution in your country, as it is understood that you must establish a link between the general documentary evidence and your specific circumstances.43 In my opinion, you have not done so. With respect to the assessment of your credibility [41] In its decision, the RPD identified two contradictions between your testimony and certain statements you made in your immigration forms for which you failed to provide a satisfactory explanation in its opinion.44 [42] In your memorandum, you argue that the RPD erred, as the criterion to be applied consisted in verifying whether the period you continued to work after the end of September 2017 and your failure to mention that you were being sought by the ANR were outside the realm of what could reasonably be expected.45 In my opinion, you have made reference to a criterion that is used to analyze implausibilities. [43] That said, according to the case law, it is important to be careful not to place undue reliance on statements made on forms completed at a Canadian port of entry, since the circumstances surrounding the taking of those statements are far from ideal and questions about their reliability often arise.46 [44] I listened to the recording and read the transcript of the hearing before the RPD. [45] When the RPD asked you why you did not state that you were being sought by the authorities in your country in response to question 9 of Schedule 12,47 you responded that you had filled out that form at the border but had not understood that you also had to answer with regard to the DRC, that you had been tired, that there had been a long wait and that they had helped you to fill it out. After the RPD stated that you had had time to prepare yourself while you were in the United States prior to entering Canada, you responded that you had had time to prepare yourself to enter Canada but upon arriving at the border, you had taken the evening and they had helped you to fill out the form. The RPD then showed you the said form and told you that, according to your signature, you filled out the form 2 weeks after entering Canada and therefore had not filled it out at the border. You responded that you had filled out the form the same day but signed it to turn it back in on January 16. That part of your testimony was not included in the transcript you provided on appeal. However, I gained access to it by carefully listening to the recording of the hearing.48 [46] In my opinion, your explanations are unacceptable. According to the immigration form in question, you entered Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017. On January 15, 2018, you signed the declaration certifying that the information you provided in the form was truthful, complete and correct. On January 16, 2018, you solemnly affirmed and signed before a Government of Canada representative that this information was truthful, complete and correct and that your declaration had the same force and effect as if it had been made under oath.49 [47] The RPD asked you why you wrote that you had worked for the CENI until XXXX 2017 in response to question 8 of Schedule A,50 as that differs from your testimony that you had worked there until XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017. You responded that from XXXX onwards, you had been at the CENI centre in Gombe working on compilation and that if you had not written that in the form, it was your mistake.51 [48] In my opinion, your explanation is unacceptable. On January 16, 2018, you solemnly affirmed and signed before a Government of Canada representative that this information is truthful, complete and correct and that your declaration has the same force and effect as if it had been made under oath.52 [49] According to my own analysis of your record, there are other reasons to find you not credible with respect to these two questions. [50] First, with regard to the allegation that you were being sought by the ANR, you failed to provide as evidence any document from the said organization that could have established that organization members had come to your home and had wanted to arrest you or interrogate you. According to the documentary evidence, the ANR carries out its activities throughout the national territory and is especially present in Kinshasa, where you lived until you left the country. It issues notices to appear, which are sometimes called invitations, to people likely to threaten the safety of the state or to people who lead a subversive group or who have a philosophy that aims to destabilize existing institutions. Furthermore, ANR officers may use notices to appear to settle scores with people they do not like. These notices to appear or invitations may be delivered to the recipient's home or to their work and may be delivered to a third party.53 [51] You also failed to provide as evidence any document from the CENI that could have established that their management had asked you to work for them after XXXX 2017 and that you had done so until XXXX XXXX, 2017. However, in my opinion, it was reasonable to expect that you would have made efforts to obtain such a document. [52] According to my own analysis of your record, your testimony and the documentary evidence you presented before the RPD is far from convincing with regard to how you reported the irregularities committed within the CENI to a friend who is a member of the opposition, which the ANR allegedly ended up finding out about. [53] During the hearing, the RPD asked you to explain why you did not include any details about this friend, such as his name, in your written account included in your BOC Form. You responded that it is because you had written my friend. The RPD also asked you to explain why you did not refer to your friend's party in your written account. You responded that you were not a member of that political party and that you did not provide those details.54 In my opinion, these omissions undermine your credibility. [54] Furthermore, at one point during the hearing, you identified your friend who worked for the opposition as Patrick Mbouyi Zikubédi, but at another point you referred to him as Papi Malanda.55 In my opinion, this contradiction undermines your credibility. [55] During the hearing, the RPD also asked you to explain the contradiction between your BOC Form, which states that your friend allegedly made the irregularities you had told him about public and your testimony, in which you stated that he had told his political party about them. You responded that your friend had inadvertently spoken about the irregularities you had told him about and due to individuals who had infiltrated his party, the ANR had found out.56 In my opinion, your explanation is unsatisfactory and undermines your credibility yet again. [56] Furthermore, in the letter from the secretary general of the concerned political party that you provided as evidence before the RPD,57 he states that you were their informant and that you had provided all the information needed to thwart the manoeuvres that the Kabila government had planned in order to cheat in the December 2018 presidential and parliamentary elections. There is no mention of your friend who, according to your testimony, was the one who reported the irregularities you had witnessed to the said party. In my opinion, this statement contradicts your own testimony and once again undermines your credibility. [57] In my opinion, I am permitted to conclude that there are credibility issues without giving you the opportunity to explain yourself, given that your credibility does not constitute a new issue under this appeal.58 CONCLUSION [58] For these reasons, I confirm the RPD's determination that you are neither a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA nor a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA. [59] Your appeal is dismissed. (signed) Alain Bissonnette Me Alain Bissonnette November 12, 2020 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 SPR-1, Your Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form) and the changes made thereto are reproduced at pages 29 to 45, and the documents you produced as evidence before the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) are reproduced at pages 164 to 210 of the scanned version of the RPD record. 2 SPR-1, RPD Reasons and Decision, December 10, 2019, French version, at pages 5 to 17, and English version, at pages 18 to 28 of the scanned version of the RPD record. 3 P-2, Your memorandum, March 30, 2020, at pages 225 to 237 of the scanned version of the appeal record. 4 Refugee Appeal Division Rules (RAD Rules), SOR/2012-257, subparagraph 3(3)(g)(iii). 5 P-2, Your affidavit, March 30, 2020, at pages 17 to 31 of the scanned version of the appeal record. 6 P-2, This evidence (Exhibit A to Exhibit U) is reproduced at pages 95 to 196 of the scanned version of the appeal record. It should be noted that one of the articles has been reproduced twice under both Exhibit E and Exhibit F. 7 Your memorandum, supra, endnote 3, at paragraph 5. 8 Ibid., at paragraph 18. 9 Ibid., at paragraphs 20 to 45. 10 Ibid., at paragraph 46. 11 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, No. A-512-14, de Montigny, Gauthier and Nadon, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 96, at paragraphs 38 to 51. Casilimas Murcia v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-775-19, Pamel, September 17, 2019; 2019 FC 1182, at paragraphs 43, 49 and 50. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Davoodabadi, No. IMM-1047-18, Norris, March 21, 2019; 2019 FC 350, at paragraph 21. Arana del Angel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-2915-19, LeBlanc, February 14, 2020; 2020 FC 253, at paragraph 35. 12 Horvath v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-3425-17, Mosley, February 8, 2018; 2018 FC 147, at paragraph 18. 13 Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Gebrewold, No. IMM-4058-17, LeBlanc, April 6, 2018; 2018 FC 374, at paragraph 25. 14 Recording of the hearing before the RPD on October 31, 2019, 00:01 to 02:03:55. 15 P-2, Transcript of the hearing before the RPD on October 31, 2019, reproduced at pages 33 to 94 of the appeal record. This transcript is incomplete, as pages 31 to 34, 36 to 38 and 77 are missing. 16 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, No. A-470-14, Gauthier, Webb and Near, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 93. 17 RAD Rules, supra, endnote 4, subparagraph 3(3)(g)(ii). 18 Your memorandum, supra, endnote 3, at paragraph 8. 19 Ibid., at paragraphs 9 and 10, citing the RPD's decision in Valtchev. 20 Ibid., at paragraphs 11 to 17. 21 Ibid., at paragraphs 23 to 39 and 43. 22 Ibid., at paragraphs 47 to 51. 23 Valtchev v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-4497-99, Muldoon, July 6, 2001; 2001 FCT 776, at paragraphs 6 to 26. 24 Lawani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-21-18, Gascon, September 17, 2018; 2018 FC 924, at paragraph 21. 25 Edmond v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-112-17, Roy, July 4, 2017; 2017 FC 644, at paragraphs 22 and 27. 26 RPD Reasons and Decision, supra, endnote 2, at paragraphs 9 to 17. 27 SPR-1, This letter (C-3) is reproduced at page 175 of the scanned version of the RPD record. 28 RPD Reasons and Decision, supra, endnote 2, at paragraphs 18 to 21. 29 Ibid., at paragraphs 22 to 27. 30 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), National Documentation Package (NDP) on the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), 11 May 2020, Tab 2.15: The Democratic Republic of Congo. Human Rights in Africa: Review of 2019, Amnesty International, 8 April 2020, 3 pages. 31 Ibid., at page 1. 32 Ibid., at page 2. 33 Ibid., at page 2. 34 Ibid., at page 3. 35 P-2, Exhibit A, at pages 96 to 98, Exhibit C, at pages 106 and 107, Exhibit D, at pages 113 and 114 of the scanned version of the appeal record. 36 P-2, Exhibit B, at page 103, Exhibit P, at pages 174 and 175, Exhibit Q, at pages 180 and 181, Exhibit S, at page 187, Exhibit T, at pages 189 to 191 of the scanned version of the appeal record. 37 P-2, Exhibit H, at pages 137, 138 and 139 of the scanned version of the appeal record. 38 P-2, Exhibit I, at pages 144 to 149, Exhibit J, at pages 150 and 151, Exhibit K, at page 154 of the scanned version of the appeal record. 39 P-2, Exhibit L, at page 158 of the scanned version of the appeal record. 40 P-2, Exhibit M, at pages 161 and 162, Exhibit N, at pages 164 to 167 of the scanned version of the appeal record. 41 P-2, Exhibit O, at pages 169 and 170 of the scanned version of the appeal record. 42 P-2, Exhibit U, at pages 194 and 195 of the scanned version of the appeal record. 43 Shina v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-5499-19, Favel, September 30, 2020; 2020 FC 940, at paragraph 18, Balogh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-4331-15, LeBlanc, April 18, 2016; 2016 FC 426, at paragraph 18. 44 RPD Reasons and Decision, supra, endnote 2, at paragraphs 28 to 32. 45 Your memorandum, supra, endnote 3, at paragraphs 8 to 17. 46 Mahadjir Djibrine v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-1663-19, MacHaffie, November 6, 2020; 2020 FC 1036, at paragraph 36. Wu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-647-10, O'Reilly, November 8, 2010; 2010 FC 1102, at paragraph 16. 47 SPR-1, This form is reproduced at pages 93 to 96 of the scanned version of the RPD record. 48 Recording of the hearing, 01:18:00 to 01:24:50. Transcript of the hearing, at pages 70 to 74 of the scanned version of the appeal record, page 77 of the transcript was missing. 49 SPR-1, At page 96 of the scanned version of the RPD record. 50 SPR-1, This form is reproduced at pages 97 to 101 of the scanned version of the RPD record. 51 Recording of the hearing, 01:12:30 to 01:18:50. Transcript of the hearing, at pages 67 to 70 of the scanned version of the appeal record. 52 SPR-1, At page 101 of the scanned version of the appeal record. 53 IRB, NDP on the DRC, supra, endnote 30, Tab 10.2: Response to Information Request (RIR) COD104668.FE, Democratic Republic of Congo: the notices to appear issued by the National Intelligence Agency (Agence nationale de renseignements, ANR) in Kinshasa, including the information indicated on them, the office and rank of the issuing authority, the circumstances in which they are issued and the time between the date they are issued and the date they are received; whether they are delivered directly to the person concerned or whether they may be delivered through a third party (2006-November 2013), Research Directorate, IRB, 20 December 2013, 10 pages. Ibid., Tab 10.5: RIR COD106324.FE, Democratic Republic of the Congo: The National Intelligence Agency (Agence nationale de renseignements, ANR), including its mission, structure, territorial jurisdictions, co-operation with other state actors, and the documents it issues (2017-July 2019), Research Directorate, IRB, 12 July 2019, 12 pages. 54 Recording of the hearing, 01:28:10 to 01:29:30. Transcript of the hearing, at pages 76 and 77 of the scanned version of the appeal record. 55 Recording of the hearing, 29:40 to 30:40 and 39:55 to 42:45. Transcript of the hearing, at pages 45, 46, 51 and 52 of the scanned version of the appeal record. 56 Recording of the hearing, 01:25:00 to 01:28:10. Transcript of the hearing, at pages 74 to 76 of the scanned version of the appeal record. 57 SPR-1, This letter (C-3) is reproduced at page 175 of the scanned version of the RPD record. 58 Corvil v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-4055-18, LeBlanc, March 12, 2019; 2019 FC 300, at paragraphs 13, 14 and 15. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-03061 RAD.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français 14 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