TB8-31130

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-31130 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 May 16, 2019 Date de la décision Panel M. Lee Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Jerome Fanmi Olorunpomi 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 [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX, the Appellant, is a citizen of Nigeria, and appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. [2] The Appellant asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to find him to be a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. In the alternative, the Appellant asks that the matter be referred back to a different member of the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination. DETERMINATION [3] In accordance with paragraph 111(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA),1 the RAD refers the matter to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination. [4] The appeal is allowed. BACKGROUND [5] The Appellant alleges to be a bisexual man who fears persecution in Nigeria because of his sexual orientation. [6] The Appellant fled Nigeria for the United States in XXXX XXXX, 2016. He remained in the United States until he crossed the border on foot into Canada, in August 2017. [7] The Appellant's refugee claim was rejected on November 7, 2018 on the determinative issue of credibility. The Appellant alleges that the RPD's decision contains a number of reviewable errors. [8] The RAD carefully considered the merits of this appeal in rendering its decision below. Role of the RAD [9] According to the Federal Court of Appeal's ruling in Huruglica,2 the RAD will review decisions of the RPD on a standard of correctness after conducting an independent analysis of the evidence. [10] The RAD will defer to certain findings of the RPD where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in assessing the oral evidence at the hearing. ANALYSIS OF MERITS OF APPEAL [11] The Appellant is not making an application under section 110(4) of the IRPA to admit new evidence. However, the Appellant is requesting an oral hearing to be held pursuant to section 110(6) of the IRPA, but is not making an application for a change of venue or language.3 [12] Oral hearings are only permitted where there is new evidence that meets the criteria under section 110(6). Since the Appellant has not provided any new evidence, the RAD has no jurisdiction to hold an oral hearing. Therefore, the Appellant's request is denied. RPD did not breach the Appellant's right to procedural fairness [13] The RAD finds that there was no breach of procedural fairness by the RPD. The RPD drew negative inferences from the following inconsistencies: whether the Appellant's car was grey or white, and whether his vehicle was purchased in 2000 or in 2012.4 At the hearing, the Appellant indicated he and his partner were sitting in a white XXXX XXXX purchased in 2000.5 [14] The Appellant submits that the RPD breached the Appellant's right to procedural fairness, as the RPD did not seek clarification regarding these discrepancies.6 [15] Upon review of the oral record, the RAD finds that the RPD did put these concerns to the Appellant. The RPD asked the Appellant to describe the make and model of his car, and the approximate year he purchased it.7 The RPD confronted the Appellant with the inconsistency in the year of purchase of the vehicle, in his oral testimony and the vehicle-related documents.8 Counsel had an opportunity to have the Appellant clarify which car he was using at the time of the incident, and which car he was describing initially to the RPD. The Appellant explained that at the incident, he was using the 2000 XXXX XXXX, but he accidentally described his wife's car rather than his own car to the RPD, which was the 2012 XXXX XXXX.9 [16] In its decision, the RPD considered these parts of the testimony and the explanations provided by the Appellant. The RPD chose to reject the Appellant's explanations. This does not amount to a breach of procedural fairness, as the Appellant was provided an opportunity to explain his allegations, and the discrepancies were put to him. Simply because the Appellant disagreed with the RPD's findings drawn from the explanations does not make it a breach of procedural fairness. [17] Nonetheless, in the decision below, the RAD also considered whether the RPD's implausibility findings regarding the car were in error. RPD did not err in drawing a negative inference based on the Appellant's hope for a better situation in Nigeria [18] The RAD finds that the RPD was correct to draw a negative inference to the Appellant's overall credibility, based on his belief that the situation for LGBTQ people in Nigeria would improve someday. The Appellant left Nigeria for the United States on his visitor visa, and remained there for one year and five months, without making efforts to regularize his status. The RPD did not find it plausible or credible that the Appellant would have delayed claiming asylum in the United States because he was under the impression that the situation in Nigeria would improve, allowing him to return.10 [19] The Appellant submits that even in Canada before same-sex marriage was legalized in July 20, 2005, many LGBTQ persons did not believe that their situation would improve.11 Conversely, the Appellant submits that it is wrong to assume that the situation in Nigeria also could not improve, and therefore it is not implausible for someone to believe so. [20] The RAD finds that the Appellant's analogy is not entirely accurate of the Appellant's personal situation. This negative inference was drawn in the context of a delay in claiming. The Appellant only had temporary visitor status at the time he entered the United States. Believing that the situation for LGBTQ people would improve someday in the future is very vague. This belief would not prevent the Appellant from regularizing his status in the meantime, to prevent himself from being deported back to his alleged country of persecution. There is no indication in the documentary evidence that the political and social climate for LGBTQ people would be improving in the near future. The RAD also takes into account that the Appellant made no efforts to seek legal advice regarding his status during that entire time. [21] The RAD agrees with the RPD that the Appellant is an educated person who speaks English, and could have either made an asylum claim in the United States, or could have left the United States for Canada to make an asylum claim at a much earlier point in time. Therefore, the RAD agrees with the RPD that the lengthy delay in claiming undermines the Appellant's credibility. RPD erred in finding that the BOC omission of the phone conversation with the brother undermined the Appellant's credibility [22] The RAD finds that the RPD erred in finding that the omission of the telephone conversation with the Appellant's brother in the Basis of Claim Form (BOC) narrative undermined the Appellant's credibility. The RPD found that the Appellant alleged that he had spoken with his brother prior to making a refugee claim, and that his brother helped him by mediating between his wife and children as they were coping with the news about the Appellant's sexual orientation.12 The RPD found that this omission affected the very heart of the claim as the brother could have been able to provide corroborative evidence on his sexual identity. [23] The Appellant submits that the RPD displayed a zeal to find instances of contradiction in the Appellant's testimony.13 The RAD agrees with the Appellant. The RAD does not find that failing to include a conversation with the brother goes to the heart of the claim. According to the Appellant's testimony, the brother only recently learned about the Appellant's sexual orientation after the incident. No evidence was provided regarding whether the brother had knowledge or suspicion of the Appellant's same-sex partners, or how the Appellant came to know his sexual orientation at a young age. The brother was also not a witness to the incident, nor did he assist the Appellant in escaping Nigeria, since he was living abroad. Therefore, the brother's alleged knowledge of the Appellant's sexuality after the fact is not core to the claim itself. The RAD finds that the negative inference drawn from the BOC omission is made in error. RPD erred in drawing a negative inference as to whether there was one or two rumours regarding the incident [24] The RAD finds that the RPD erred in drawing a negative inference to whether there was one or two rumours regarding the incident. The RPD found that the BOC only mentioned one rumour in the community after the incident, regarding a hit-and-run.14 The BOC did not mention that there was also a rumour about two gay men being found. [25] The Appellant submits that the RPD misunderstood the evidence, and rather, the two rumours emanated from the same people in the community, and so there was no real discrepancy.15 [26] The RAD agrees with the Appellant. In reviewing the written decision, the RPD did not challenge the Appellant's testimony regarding his partner being arrested by police, and learning that his partner likely died in custody. The RPD also did not challenge whether the Appellant overheard two strangers on the street who happened to talk about the incident. Therefore, if the RPD accepted that police arrested the Appellant's partner for same-sex activities, and that some community members knew about the incident, then it is insignificant whether or not two strangers on the street happened to also hear a rumour about the men in the alleged hit-and-run being gay. This does not affect the overall credibility of the allegations. RPD erred in finding implausible testimony undermines the Appellant's credibility [27] The RAD finds that the RPD erred in finding it implausible that the Appellant would display affection with his same-sex partner in a reckless manner, leading him to be caught by members of the community. The RPD found that it was implausible, given the dangerous environment that exists for LGBTQ people in Nigeria that the Appellant and his partner would engage in spontaneous cuddling in a public place.16 The RPD rejected the Appellant's explanation that he was concerned for his safety, but went ahead and cuddled his partner anyways. [28] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred by failing to consider that the Appellant was under the influence of alcohol at the time, and that it was 7:30 in the evening, and it was dark, and that this influenced their heightened state of affection towards each other.17 [29] The RAD agrees with the Appellant. Upon reviewing the oral record, the Appellant explained to the RPD that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time he was in the car with his partner, and this played a part in their display of affection.18 Although the Appellant mentioned that he was not entirely intoxicated, the Appellant explained that his consumption of alcohol affected his judgment.19 In its decision, the RPD mentions that the Appellant and his partner had consumed alcohol, but the RPD did not indicate why the Appellant's alcohol consumption was not a satisfactory explanation for their public display of affection.20 [30] The RAD finds that a person under the influence of alcohol can exhibit poor judgment, and put their own lives at risk, despite their level of education, and despite being in a residential neighbourhood and living in a country where he risked arrest for same-sex activities. The RAD finds this is not one of the clearest of cases for an implausibility finding, and therefore this finding is in error. RPD erred in finding it implausible that the police would allow the Appellant to run away without pursuing him [31] The RAD finds that the RPD erred in finding it implausible that the Appellant ran away from the angry mob, and the police did not pursue him. The RPD found that the police witnessed a mob chase after the Appellant, and simply allowed him to get away and hide in an empty house.21 [32] The Appellant submits that the RPD made its finding based on its own speculation.22 [33] The RAD finds it unclear by what the RPD means when it indicates that the police "allowed" the Appellant to run into an empty house without pursuing him. At the oral hearing, the Appellant described a mob of over ten to fifteen people chasing him. He indicated that he was able to outrun them, after being beaten.23 In the midst of running, he was able to catch sight of his partner being arrested and his car being set on fire. From the testimony, the RAD finds that the Appellant provides a very chaotic sequence of events. It is uncertain whether the police were occupied with arresting the partner while the Appellant ran off, or whether they willingly let the Appellant run free. [34] The RAD finds that there is insufficient evidence on record to uphold this implausibility finding. No evidence was elicited regarding how far the Appellant had to run to seek refuge, or the extent of the Appellant's injuries after being beaten by the mob. Therefore, the RAD does not find that this incident is the clearest of cases for an implausibility finding, and so this finding is made in error. RPD erred in finding inconsistent oral and documentary evidence undermine the Appellant's credibility [35] The RAD finds that the RPD erred in finding that the inconsistency in the car ownership certificate negatively impacted the Appellant's credibility. The address on the certificate in the year 2000 is different from the address provided by the Appellant, when he was asked where he was living in the year 2000.24 The RPD found that the address on the Appellant's car ownership certificate, police clearance, road taxation and police registration certificate all suggest that his car was purchased in the year 2000. This car was allegedly the one that the Appellant and his partner were found in at the time of the incident. However, the Appellant explained that he believed he purchased his car four years before the incident in 2016. As indicated earlier, the RPD also drew a negative inference from the Appellant's testimony indicating his car was white, when his vehicle-related documents indicated his car was grey. [36] The RPD found this to be contradictory to the certificates that suggest he purchased his car at a much earlier point in time. The RPD also rejected the Appellant's explanation that he had confused the car he purchased for his wife and his own car.25 The RPD found that it was implausible that the Appellant would not be able to remember whether a car was his own or whether it belonged to his wife. [37] The Appellant submits that the RPD deviated from the core of the claim and focused on irrelevancies.26 The RAD agrees with the Appellant. After reviewing the oral record and the written decision, it is unclear how the colour of the car or when the car was purchased affects the overall credibility of the Appellant's sexual orientation. It is also unclear whether the RPD is suggesting that these documents were fabricated by the Appellant to demonstrate he had a particular vehicle at the time of the incident. Furthermore, the RPD did not explain why the Appellant's confusion with his vehicle and his wife's vehicle was unreasonable, given that the Appellant and his wife were married and therefore shared property and likely their vehicles together, for over ten years. [38] Whether or not the Appellant was found with his partner in a grey or white vehicle purchased in 2000 or in 2012, is unrelated to whether or not he is bisexual. A significant portion of the two sittings was dedicated to testimony about the Appellant's vehicle. The RAD agrees with the Appellant, that this deviates from the core of the claim. Therefore, the RAD does not find that this inconsistency undermines the Appellant's credibility and finds that this implausibility finding is made in error. RPD erred in part by giving text messages no weight due to poor grammar [39] The RAD finds that the RPD erred in part by giving the text messages from the Appellant's co-worker no weight due to the poor grammar and spelling. The RPD found that the poor grammar and spelling used in the text messages would be unlikely written by a person who was well-educated and working in the same office as the Appellant.27 The RPD concluded that the text messages were either fraudulent or fraudulently obtained, and assigned them no weight. [40] The Appellant submits that there is no universal way of communicating through text message, and the sender did not envisage that these messages would be tendered into evidence.28 [41] The RAD agrees with the Appellant. Text messages sent over social media are not sworn documents or formal support letters. The Appellant explained that the sender chose to write the message with the poor grammar as a way to ridicule him.29 The RPD did not explain why it rejected this explanation. Whether one chooses to communicate with poor grammar or slang over a social media forum is not necessarily indicative of a person's education level, or capability to write properly. Therefore, the RAD finds that it is an error to conclude that these messages were fraudulent solely on the basis of poor grammar and spelling. [42] Nonetheless, in reviewing the content of the text messages themselves, the RAD finds that parts of the messages are partially unintelligible due to the nature of cryptic slang.30 Also, there is no name attached to the phone number on the print-out of these text messages, other than the mention of a first name in the messages. Therefore, it makes it difficult to identify the sender of these messages. There is also no date attached to the messages, so it is uncertain when this conversation took place. The Appellant indicated that he no longer has the phone containing this message, so it could not be further examined by the RPD.31 The RAD finds that the text messages have low probative value, as it is unclear in parts of the messages what the sender is trying to communicate to the Appellant, and there is very little evidence to corroborate the identity of the sender. RPD did not err in assigning no weight to the brother's letter [43] The RAD finds that the RPD did not err in giving the Appellant's brother's letter no weight. In its decision, the RPD indicated that the Appellant requested this letter from his brother after arriving in Canada in XXXX 2017.32 However, the brother's letter is dated XXXX XXXX, 2017, eight months before the Appellant came to Canada to make his refugee claim. The RPD rejected the Appellant's explanation that this was a typographical error, and that he in fact received this letter in XXXX 2018. [44] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred by focusing on one typographical error and failed to assess the contents of the affidavit itself.33 One typographical error is not an appropriate basis to sweepingly assign low probative value to the letter when the contents consistently corroborate the Appellant's claims.34 [45] The RAD disagrees with the Appellant. In reviewing the oral record, the RPD asked the Appellant three times to explain why the letter predated the incident.35 Initially, the Appellant gave a vague response, and indicated that "it depends on the process at the time".36 When asked again, the Appellant then explained that the letter was received XXXX 2018, and that the 2017 date must be a typographical error. [46] However, the RAD finds that there is no evidence to suggest that this was a typographical error, or whether this letter was written and sent to the Appellant in January 2018. The letter itself has a date at the very top indicating that it was faxed to the Appellant's Counsel in September 7, 2018.37 This still does not corroborate the Appellant's belief that the letter was received by him in January 2018. [47] The letter is addressed to "whom it may concern". The letter also makes reference to the Appellant having fled to the United States, but the brother makes no mention of the Appellant having fled to Canada to make an asylum claim. Therefore, nothing in the letter suggests that this letter was written after the Appellant arrived in Canada to make a refugee claim. The RAD finds that how and when evidence is received is very significant, as it can affect the probative and reliable value of the document's contents, and the credibility of the claim itself. A letter predating the refugee claim indicates that the letter was written in an effort to bolster the claim. Therefore, the RAD finds that the RPD was correct in assigning the letter no weight. RPD erred by drawing a negative inference for failing to obtain letter from wife [48] The RAD finds that the RPD erred in finding it implausible that the Appellant's wife would not provide him with a support letter, if she sent him other documents from Nigeria for his refugee hearing. The RPD found it reasonable to expect that since his wife and children have largely forgiven him, and his wife was willing to send him all his original documents, that the wife would be willing to provide a letter or affidavit to confirm the Appellant's sexual orientation. The RPD drew a negative inference to the Appellant's credibility for his failure to obtain a support letter.38 [49] The Appellant submits that the RPD failed to consider that the Appellant's wife is still traumatized to learn about his sexual orientation.39 The Appellant further submits that his wife might be angry at him, but also does not want him dead. [50] The RAD agrees with the Appellant. Implausibility findings must be made in the clearest of cases, and the RAD does not find that this is one of such cases. The wife herself was not a witness at the hearing, and so it is difficult to understand another person's alleged state of mind and the choices that they make. The RAD finds that making an implausibility finding on this basis is simply too far removed. When describing his relationship with his wife, the Appellant testified that his wife still held a grudge against him from time to time.40 The RAD also considers that the Appellant had been married to his wife for over ten years at the time he left Nigeria, and they share three children together. The RAD finds that this is evidence that the relationship between the Appellant and his wife is presently complicated. Furthermore, the Appellant also explained that his wife advised him that the authorities approached her at their home, looking for the Appellant, even threatening to arrest her.41 The RPD did not consider these factors in its analysis. [51] In light of the above cited evidence, the RAD does not find that it is beyond the realm of possibility that the wife could refuse to provide a support letter recounting the allegations, and finds that the RPD erred in making this implausibility finding. RPD did not err in failing to conduct section 97 analysis [52] The RAD does not find that the RPD erred by failing to conduct a section 97 analysis. The Appellant submits that the RPD did not conduct a section 97 analysis of the allegations.42 The Appellant submits that the RPD is obliged to consider a section 97 analysis even if all of the Appellant's testimony is disbelieved. [53] The RAD does not find that the RPD erred by failing to conduct a section 97 analysis. The RPD rendered its decision based on the determinative issue of credibility, which is a key issue in every hearing. The RPD found that the Appellant was not credible in his allegations, on a balance of probabilities. The RPD then concluded that the Appellant was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, based on its credibility analysis. [54] Also, the Federal Court has determined that neither the RAD nor the RPD are required to conduct a section 97 analysis where the claimants, or in this case, the Appellant, was not found to be credible. [55] This principle is clearly stated in the Federal Court decision of Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Sellan, 2008 FCA 381 at paragraphs 2 and 3: [2] The Judge also certified a question, namely: where there is relevant objective evidence that may support a claim for protection, but where the Refugee Protection Division does not find the claimant's subjective evidence credible except as to identity, is the Refugee Protection Division required to assess that objective evidence under s. 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act? [3] In our view, that question should be answered in the following way: where the Board makes a general finding that the claimant lacks credibility, that determination is sufficient to dispose of the claim unless there is independent and credible documentary evidence in the record capable of supporting a positive disposition of the claim. The claimant bears the onus of demonstrating there was such evidence. [56] In light of the above cited decision, the Appellant has not presented any evidence or submissions regarding whether his claim should still be supported, despite the RPD's negative credibility finding. Therefore, the RAD finds that the RPD did not err by failing to conduct a section 97 analysis, as it had found the Appellant not to be credible. Whether the Appellant will face a serious possibility of persecution due to his sexual orientation [57] The RAD took issue with a number of the RPD's implausibility findings, as they had little relevance to the core of the claim. The RAD found that the RPD's finding regarding the colour and year of purchase of the Appellant's vehicle did not affect the credibility of the Appellant's sexual identity. The RAD also did not find it implausible that the Appellant did not have a support letter from his wife, or that the Appellant and his partner could have exhibited poor judgment by publicly displaying affection and putting their lives at risk. [58] However, the RAD finds it very troubling that the Appellant delayed in claiming asylum by over one year while residing in the United States, when he could have made a claim at a much earlier point in time. The inconsistent address information on his American friend's letter and identity card call into question where the Appellant actually resided in the United States, and how he spent his time. The RAD finds that this damages the Appellant's credibility. The RAD also finds that the brother's letter was created prior to the hearing, in an effort to bolster his claim. The RAD also assigned the alleged text messages from the Appellant's co-worker little weight, as it does little to corroborate the allegations. [59] The Appellant did not challenge the RPD's finding that his involvement in various LGBTQ organizations was insufficient to establish his sexual identity, and so that finding is upheld.43 [60] As the role of the RAD is not to re-open the hearing to elicit new evidence, the RAD is left to evaluate the remaining evidence that is on record. However, the RAD finds that the majority of the RPD's decision and the evidence elicited from the oral hearing focused on peripheral issues such as the type of vehicle driven by the Appellant at the time of the alleged incident. The RAD finds that the RPD did not make any findings in its decision regarding relationship or partner-specific evidence. No evidence was elicited at the hearing regarding how or when the Appellant allegedly came to terms with his sexuality while in Nigeria. [61] Given that the RAD has credibility concerns as indicated above, the RAD finds that it has insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion on the Appellant's sexual orientation. The RAD finds that it cannot make a decision to substitute a determination or to dismiss the appeal, without hearing evidence that was presented to the RPD.44 Therefore, the RAD finds that the Appellant's claim must be returned to the RPD for re-determination before a differently constituted panel. CONCLUSION [62] Therefore, the RAD refers the matter back to the RPD, according to paragraph 111(1)(c) of the IRPA. [63] The appeal is allowed. (signed) "M. Lee" M. Lee May 16, 2019 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. 2 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, [2016] 4 FCR 157, 2016 FCA 93, at paragraph 78. 3 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Statement pursuant to Rule 3(3)D of RAD Rules, at page 19. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at pp. 10-13, paragraphs 20, 23-24. 5 RPD Hearing Recording, first sitting, at 1:25:19. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at pages 69-85. 7 RPD Hearing Recording, first sitting, at 1:25:19. 8 RPD Hearing Recording, first sitting, at 1:40:06. 9 RPD Hearing Recording, second sitting, at 1:21:46. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at page 6, paragraph 9. 11 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at pages 74-75, paragraph 21. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at page 7, paragraph 11. 13 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at page 76, paragraph 23. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, BOC narrative, at page 34, paragraph 22. 15 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at pages 77-78, paragraph 25. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at page 10, paragraphs 18-19. 17 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at page 78, paragraph 26. 18 RPD Hearing Recording, second sitting, at 46:00. 19 RPD Hearing Recording, second sitting, at 46:02. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at page 10, paragraph 18. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at page 10, paragraph 19. 22 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at page 78, paragraph 28. 23 RPD Hearing Recording, second sitting, at 1:04:55. 24 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at page 12, paragraph 23. 25 Ibid. 26 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at page 80, paragraph 33. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at page 13, paragraphs 25-26. 28 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at page 80, paragraph 33. 29 RPD Hearing Recording, first sitting, at 2:29:30. 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 9, at pages 254-255. 31 RPD Hearing Recording, first sitting, at 2:27:20. 32 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at page 14, paragraph 27. 33 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at page 83, paragraph 36. 34 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at page 83, paragraph 36. 35 RPD Hearing Recording, first sitting, at 1:14:50. 36 Ibid. 37 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 9, at page 247. 38 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at page 16, paragraph 30. 39 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at page 85, paragraph 40. 40 RPD Hearing Recording, first sitting, at 2:39:26. 41 RPD Hearing Recording, first sitting, at 52:04. 42 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at page 85, paragraph 41. 43 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at pages 16-17, paragraphs 31-32. 44 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, at paragraph 111(2)(b). --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-31130 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) 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 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français