TB9-34555

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-34555 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 December 16, 2020 Date de la décision Panel M. Oh Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Liyusew S. Kidane Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX ("the Appellant") is a citizen of Ethiopia who claims to fear political persecution from the Ethiopian government. The Refugee Protection Division ("RPD") rejected his claim, as he had failed to establish his personal identity. The RPD found he was not a credible witness. In addition, the RPD determined that a change of circumstances had occurred in Ethiopia, such that his fears of persecution were no longer well founded. The Appellant disputes the RPD's findings on each of these issues. [2] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act ("IRPA"),1 the appeal is dismissed. The Appellant's identity is the determinative issue in this appeal. I agree with the RPD's analysis of this issue. The Appellant did not provide acceptable evidence of his identity. His passport had been tampered with, and his other primary identity documents contained dates of birth that were inconsistent with the passport and the Appellant's asserted date of birth. The Appellant has not established his personal identity on a balance of probabilities. The Refugee Appeal Division ("RAD") therefore confirms the RPD's negative decision. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant begins his narrative with a protest that occurred in his neighbourhood in Addis Ababa on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2005, following the results of the 2005 national elections. His mother was shot and the Appellant claims he was knocked out by police, who broke his nose. The Appellant's mother died from her injuries. The Appellant says he remains traumatized by this experience. In 2008, the Appellant moved to the United Arab Emirates ("UAE") in 2008, where he lived for about six years. [4] Soon after his return to Ethiopia in 2014, the Appellant was arrested by police after officers overheard him talking about politics with a friend. The Appellant was beaten and interrogated. The officers attempted to connect his time in the UAE to political activities. Two years later, in XXXX 2016, the Appellant was detained a second time. This time, protests had erupted after the Irreecha massacre, and police were conducting arrests in Addis Ababa. The Appellant claims he was beaten at the police station, and released a couple of days later. The Appellant was treated in hospital for a brain concussion. A local officer from the Tigrayan People's Liberation Front ("TPLF") warned the Appellant not to participate in any activities against the government. The Appellant felt he could no longer live safely in Ethiopia. He had already found an agent to obtain a Canadian visa for him. The Appellant believes this agent altered his passport by affixing visas and stamps to it. The Appellant insists that until he came to Canada, he had only ever traveled to the UAE. [5] On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, the Appellant left Ethiopia for Canada, and initiated a refugee claim in Canada. He says that shortly after his departure, the local TPLF officer questioned one of his friends and then detained the Appellant's brother to interrogate him about the Appellant's whereabouts. [6] The RPD heard the Appellant's claim on November 7, 2019 and gave an oral decision at the conclusion of the hearing. The RPD rejected the claim. The Appellant's identity had not been established. The RPD was not willing to place any significant weight on the Appellant's passport since it had been fraudulently altered. Other identity documents contained different dates of birth, each contradicting the Appellant's asserted date of birth. The discrepancies in those documents were not reasonably explained. Complicating the identity issue were documents submitted in the Appellant's visa application, including a fraudulent marriage certificate for a fictitious wife and a birth certificate for a non-existent son. The Appellant gave inconsistent and evolving testimony about how the marriage certificate was produced. These documents were not consistent with the Appellant's asserted background and identity. As a result of these discrepancies, the RPD could not be satisfied of the Appellant's personal identity. [7] The RPD also found that the Appellant was not credible in relation to his allegations that he is wanted by Ethiopian authorities. The Appellant was not a credible witness in general. The XXXX report in evidence did not account for all the credibility issues that arose. In addition, the panel considered that there had been a change of circumstances in Ethiopia for political dissidents since Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed took office. The RPD believed there was no longer a serious possibility of persecution based on the Appellant's real or imputed political opinion. The RPD also rejected the Appellant's claim to the compelling reasons exception, as the Appellant's alleged experience did not reach the high threshold required, as it was not atrocious or appalling. Role of the Refugee Appeal Division [8] The jurisprudence establishes that the RAD is required to undertake an independent assessment of the evidence and reach its own determination. Deference is owed to the RPD only where the RPD held a meaningful advantage in assessing evidence.2 In the present case, I see no reason to show deference to any of the RPD's findings. I have applied a correctness standard and arrived at independent findings based on the evidence before me. ANALYSIS [9] The RPD included alternative reasons for rejecting the Appellant's claim. However, the Appellant's refugee claim cannot be accepted if he has not established his identity. The jurisprudence is well settled on this. Identity is a critical threshold issue. Once the RPD determined that the Appellant had failed to establish his identity, it did not need to go any further to assess the merits of his claim against Ethiopia or the compelling reasons exception.3 [10] The determinative issue in this appeal is whether the RPD erred in its findings about the Appellant's identity. For the reasons that follow, I agree with the RPD's conclusions. The Appellant has not established his personal identity, on a balance of probabilities. The primary identity evidence submitted to the RPD included the Appellant's Ethiopian passport, his kebele ID, and his driver's license. The Appellant disputes the RPD's treatment of each of these documents, however I find no material errors in the RPD's analysis that would alter the outcome of this decision. The RPD correctly determined that these documents were not reliable evidence of the Appellant's identity. Weight of the Appellant's Ethiopian passport [11] The Appellant makes numerous arguments about the RPD's treatment of his passport, which he insists is genuine. [12] The Appellant was in possession of an Ethiopian passport, however the RPD refused to place much weight on this document, since it had been fraudulently altered. The Appellant described that his agent had affixed false Indian and Turkish visas to the passport, and added fake stamps to the passport pages. However, the passport copy in evidence did not contain the Indian and Turkish visas.4 The Appellant believed his agent had subsequently removed those visas from the passport. There was also a South Korean visa in the passport, but it seems this might have been a visa that was genuinely issued. The Appellant described that he signed a visa application and the agent then obtained the South Korean visa for him. However, the Appellant could not explain why the South Korean visa also contained stamps, indicating a visit to that country. The Appellant's arguments [13] The Appellant points to how the RPD failed to make any explicit finding as to whether the passport was genuine or fraudulent. The Appellant submits this is an error. He says that if the passport was considered fraudulent, the RPD ought to have stated that the document carried no weight at all, as compared to less weight. According to the jurisprudence, evidence is either genuine or false, and the RPD must make this determination in clear terms. [14] The Appellant also argues that the RPD's findings were based on speculation, and without regard to the evidence. He says the RPD should have applied the presumption of the passport's authenticity, as a document issued by a foreign government. The Appellant says the RPD overlooked documentary evidence about the reliability of Ethiopian passports, which have advanced security features. As a result of those security features, fraudulent passports are rare and expensive, and the passports can generally be trusted as being reliable and genuine. [15] The Appellant says that absent any irregularities on the face of the passport, the RPD should not have questioned the passport's reliability. Though the RPD noted that the passport had been fraudulently altered, the Appellant disputes this characterization. He says only some pages of his passport were altered, and this was because his agent added fraudulent visas and then removed them. This was only done to demonstrate a travel history and increase the Appellant's odds of obtaining a Canadian visa. However, he never testified that the passport, as a whole, was altered. [16] According to the Appellant, the RPD rejected his passport simply because he used fraudulent documents, such as a fake marriage certificate, to obtain his Canadian visa. Although the contents of the visa application may properly raise questions about the Appellant's identity, the Appellant argues that the removal of visas from the passport and the existence of other fraudulent documents have no connection to the authenticity of his passport or his personal identity. The fact of his agent's ability to produce high quality fabrications did not mean that all the Appellant's documents were false. Misrepresentations in visa applications are peripheral to a refugee claimant's credibility. The Appellant emphasizes that apart from the different dates of birth, his identity is consistently reflected across all the documents. He says the RPD's decision punishes him for telling the truth about the fraudulent nature of the documents submitted in the visa application. He stresses that he could have simply lied to the RPD and stood by the genuineness of the information contained in his visa application. The RAD's independent assessment [17] I am unpersuaded by the Appellant's arguments. Where the RPD declined to make an explicit factual determination on the passport's genuineness, the RAD has conducted an independent assessment. On a balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied that the passport is a genuine, properly obtained document that has been applied for and issued in good faith. [18] I also do not believe the RPD erred by failing to specifically mention the documentary evidence about Ethiopian passports. The fact that fraudulent Ethiopian passports are rare and expensive to produce does not mean the RPD was obliged to presume that the Appellant's passport was authentic and properly issued, particularly in the present context. Although not particularly common, the documentary evidence indicates that fraudulent passports do appear.5 The cost of a fraudulent passport would be prohibitive for many Ethiopians, but in this case the Appellant testified to having paid XXXX XXXX XXXX United States dollars to his agent. Therefore, even the Appellant's own evidence is that he had the means to pay for fraudulent documents, such as a passport. The Appellant stated that the agent had tampered with the current passport by adding visas and stamps to it, and then removing the visas from the pages. Contrary to the Appellant's argument, I see a significant connection between the tampering of the passport's pages, the contradictions in the Appellant's date of birth, and the passport's reliability as an identity document. Once the RPD had reason to believe that this passport had been altered, the presumption of its authenticity was placed in doubt. This was the basis for the RPD's treatment of the passport, and I see no error in it. [19] In addition, even if the passport were issued by Ethiopian passport authorities, the documentary evidence acknowledged that it was common to see genuine passports based on fraudulent feeder documents.6 According to the evidence on this subject, the kebele card formed the documentary basis for the issuance of the passport. As kebele card fraud was rampant, there were significant problems with the integrity of the passport issuance process.7 Therefore, the existence of security features on passports does not eliminate the concern here, which is the reliability of the Appellant's passport as evidence of his identity. [20] As for the impact of the contents of the Appellant's visa application, I do not believe the RPD erred. The Appellant seems to misapprehend the RPD's reasons. Though the Appellant claims that his visa application was full of misrepresentations and false documents, the RPD was not so sure of this. It noted how the marriage and birth certificates would be very convincing fakes. The Appellant gave inconsistent and evolving testimony about how the marriage certificate was produced. In light of this, the RPD cannot seriously be faulted for seeing competing identity evidence-listing different dates of birth and indicating that the Appellant is a married man with a child-and deciding that this tended to undermine the Appellant's asserted identity. The RPD did not rely on the existence of other false documents to determine that the Appellant's passport must also be false. Instead, the RPD correctly identified how, according to the Appellant, the passport had been fraudulently altered, and therefore could not be trusted as a reliable identity document. Kebele ID and Driver's License [21] Had the Appellant's other evidence been consistent, the issue with the passport might have been overcome. However, the Appellant's passport was not the only identity document that had problems. [22] At his hearing, the Appellant presented an original kebele card and a photocopy of his driver's license. He insisted these were genuine. Though the Appellant's passport gives his date of birth as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,8 the driver's license gives the Appellant's date of birth as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,9 while his kebele card lists it as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.10 The Appellant claimed the passport contained his true date of birth, and that the dates of birth in his other documents resulted from administrative errors. The Appellant claimed he was aware of the errors in the documents at the time they were issued, but when he requested that they be corrected, the officials refused. He was told these mistakes would be corrected only upon renewal. [23] In support of this explanation, the Appellant submitted an opinion letter from the XXXX XXXX to the XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at Addis Ababa XXXX.11 That individual gives the view that it is common to see errors in official documents in Ethiopia. He bases this on his own personal experience, what he has heard from others, and his work experience scrutinizing documents for screening purposes at Addis Ababa XXXX. However, the RPD considered that the opinion letter did not support the Appellant's explanation, as the author indicated it was possible to have mistakes corrected. For instance, the author wrote of how he was able to have his son's birth records corrected. [24] The RPD therefore did not accept the Appellant's explanation about his inability to correct the dates on his documents. As the driver's license and kebele card contained incorrect dates of birth, the RPD gave them no weight. The Appellant's arguments [25] The Appellant argues that a reasonable explanation was provided for the errors in his kebele card and driver's license. He says the RPD was speculating when it found that the opinion letter indicated he could simply correct the information in his documents. The opinion letter instead states that errors in documents can remain for a long time, and that it is not uncommon to see spelling, translation, and other errors in official documents issued by government and public institutions. The Appellant submits that the RPD ignored this information, and selectively relied on the opinion letter's statement about the author's ability to get errors corrected. He adds that the experience described in the opinion letter is merely anecdotal evidence that cannot be relied upon as evidence that authorities must immediately correct errors that come to their attention. The RAD's independent assessment [26] I reach the same conclusion as the RPD and place no weight on the kebele card and driver's license. The documents contained different dates of birth and therefore could not be given weight as reliable evidence of the Appellant's identity. It is a rather incredible coincidence that the dates of birth on both the driver's license and kebele card were issued in error, while every other piece of information in the documents was issued correctly. [27] I agree with the Appellant that the opinion letter does not go so far as to directly contradict the Appellant's testimony about his ability to correct the documents. However, it does not support his explanation either. The fact that errors can remain for long periods of time does not establish that authorities refuse to correct them. There remains no objective support for the Appellant's claim that these issuing offices would refuse to correct errors brought to their attention, nor is there anything to confirm that they will only do so at the time of renewal. I would consider such a refusal, especially from two different government offices, to be highly unusual. The fact that these documents contained inconsistent dates of birth, and wrong dates of birth according to the Appellant, meant that they could not be trusted as reliable evidence of the Appellant's identity. Marriage certificate and birth certificate [28] The Appellant claims he used an agent to facilitate his travel to Canada. This agent submitted three separate Canadian visa applications in 2017, containing false information and documents. Only the third attempt was successful. The application stated the Appellant was the XXXX XXXX of a construction company, and that he was coming to Canada on a business trip. The application included a marriage certificate as well as his child's birth certificate.12 However, in his refugee claim, the Appellant insists he has never been married, and has no children. He says the marriage and birth certificates were fraudulent. The RPD was not so certain, as these were rather convincing fabrications and as the Appellant's testimony about the false production of the marriage certificate was not credible. [29] When the RPD questioned the Appellant about his fraudulent marriage certificate, the panel noted how he gave inconsistent and evolving testimony. The Appellant testified that his agent requested photographs from him, and so he provided two sets of photographs. A photo from the first set was used for the visa application, and a photo from the second set appeared in the marriage certificate. However, the RPD noted that the Appellant looked far younger and remarkably different in the photograph contained in his marriage certificate,13 as compared to his visa application.14 When confronted about this, the Appellant changed his testimony, saying that one set of photographs had already been taken previously when he had returned to Ethiopia from the UAE in 2014. He later also testified that one of the photos was for his agent, and another was for his business license. Absent a reasonable explanation for the marriage certificate, the RPD found this undermined the Appellant's asserted identity. The Appellant's arguments [30] The Appellant faults the RPD for conducting a microscopic assessment of his testimony with respect to the marriage and birth certificates. He denies any inconsistency in his testimony and denies ever indicating that he had two sets of photographs taken in 2017. He submits that he provided a reasonable explanation for the photo in his marriage certificate. He emphasizes that he applied for Canadian visas on three separate occasions, and so it was unreasonable to expect him to remember all his transactions with the agent every time he met him. The Appellant says he could not remember how many photographs he provided to his agent, but this should not have been used against him, especially since it was totally unconnected to the merits of his claim. The Appellant points to his XXXX report, which states he has XXXX problems due to the trauma he experienced in Ethiopia. The Appellant faults the RPD for ignoring this XXXX report. [31] The Appellant also argues that the RPD breached its duty of procedural fairness by wrongly relying on specialized knowledge and by failing to alert the Appellant to its reliance on its undisclosed knowledge. The issue is around the RPD's comments about the Appellant's marriage and birth certificates. The RPD stated that it had seen many of these documents from Ethiopia, and that while it was not an expert, the documents looked very convincing. The Appellant says the RPD made inferences from its experience in seeing similar documents from Ethiopia. However, the RPD's knowledge was unverifiable and unquantifiable, and therefore cannot qualify as specialized knowledge. [32] Finally, the Appellant argues the RPD wrongly used his testimony for two contradictory purposes. It used his testimony to conclude that the marriage and birth certificates were false, and simultaneously relied on it to impugn his credibility. He says this violates the principles set out in the jurisprudence. The RAD's independent assessment [33] I am again unpersuaded by the Appellant's arguments. I have reviewed the hearing recording. Contrary to the Appellant's argument, his testimony was indeed inconsistent. The RPD was extremely sensitive to the Appellant. The RPD provided him with many opportunities to explain himself. When he began to struggle in his testimony, the RPD agreed to take a break. The panel encouraged his counsel to alert the panel to the need for breaks. Although numerous inconsistencies arose in the hearing, the RPD did not rely on most of these. [34] In regard to the photograph attached to his marriage certificate, the RPD canvassed the matter very carefully. It explained the concerns in clear and simple terms. However, the Appellant's testimony was not reflective of a lack of memory recall, nor was his inability to recall even given as the explanation for his evolving testimony. [35] All three of the Appellant's Canadian visa applications were submitted in 2017. When questioned about what he provided to his agent, the Appellant indicated that he provided two different photos, one of which was the photo in his marriage certificate. After the first application was refused, he had to go again and have another set taken. He explained that when the photos were taken, they were made in batches of four. In total, he had to go and take two sets of four photos, since his visa applications had been refused twice. He provided all of the photos from each set to his agent. He stated he had no other photos. The RPD very carefully confirmed this with the Appellant. Naturally, by providing all photographs from each set of photos to his agent, this would leave no others from either batch for the Appellant to use for other purposes. [36] The RPD clearly put to him how he looked considerably younger in the photograph attached to the marriage certificate. His appearance in that photo was not consistent with his testimony that he had taken two sets of photos in 2017 for his visa applications. The Appellant stated he did not know, and then went on to say that when he came from Dubai, he had a photo taken and that is what he gave the agent. Given how this was clearly different from what he had previously alleged, about having had to take two different sets of photos because of the refusals of the two visa applications, the RPD confronted the Appellant with the inconsistency. The RPD attempted to explain its concern multiple times. The XXXX assessment states that the Appellant reports memory issues, particularly in regard to dates and minor details.15 However, the Appellant did not describe that he was having any difficulties remembering these details when the RPD asked about the photograph. His final explanation was about using photos from a batch already taken for his business license. [37] To date, none of the Appellant's explanations resolve the concern. By now, the Appellant has had a great deal of time to reflect on this issue. In support of his explanation about using a photo that had already been taken for his business license, the Appellant points to his business license. That document was issued in XXXX 2016, and the photograph there matches the one in his marriage certificate.16 He says this shows how, after returning to Ethiopia from the UAE in XXXX 2014, he took this photograph and used it for his business license. A photograph from the same batch was later given to his agent for the marriage certificate. However, even this does not resolve the problem. As the RPD noted, the Appellant looks remarkably younger and different in this photograph. It contrasts against his appearance in the visa application photo17 and his passport.18 The Appellant's explanation does not allay this concern, since the Appellant's appearance in the marriage certificate is still very distinct-even from the work identification documents he had while living in the UAE.19 I fail to understand why the Appellant appears remarkably older in his earlier ID documents from his time in the UAE, as compared to a photograph supposedly taken when he later moved from the UAE to Ethiopia in 2014. His appearance in the UAE documents aligns much more closely with his appearance in his visa application photo and passport. Even if the psychological report can partially explain a momentary lapse in memory during the hearing, it cannot reasonably support the Appellant's continued lack of explanation for this problem. [38] I also see no use of specialized knowledge in this case. Although the RPD commented that it had seen marriage and birth certificates from Ethiopia, it did not go on to rely on any particular facts gained from that experience. The RPD was merely pointing to the various features on the marriage and birth certificates, such as stamps and photographs. However, the existence of such features and their tendency to strengthen the reliability of documents is not particular to the RPD's experience with Ethiopian identity documents. This would be the case for any documents purportedly issued from a public authority. In any event, I have restricted my independent review to the same limited assessment, making no reliance on any previous experience in dealing with Ethiopian identity documents. [39] As for the RPD's use of the Appellant's testimony, I believe the Appellant misapprehends the RPD's reasons. The RPD did not conclude that the marriage and birth certificates had to be false. That was the Appellant's assertion, but the RPD was not convinced of this. The RPD found that these documents undermined the Appellant's asserted identity as a childless, unmarried man. I am not persuaded that the RPD relied on the testimony in the way alleged. The Appellant's lack of a credible explanation about the marriage certificate was a valid concern. I agree with the RPD that the existence of the marriage certificate and birth certificate undermine the Appellant's allegations about his true identity. The RAD's determination on identity [40] I have independently reviewed the evidence and reach the same conclusion as the RPD. The Appellant's passport was not reliable evidence of his identity, as it had been tampered with by his agent and as the date of birth on the passport was inconsistent with the dates of birth on the Appellant's other primary documents, such as the kebele card and driver's license. The explanations for these discrepancies and his inability to correct the errors were not credible, nor were they well supported by corroborating evidence. These documents, considered either individually or together, could not establish the Appellant's identity. Ultimately, the primary identity documents contained dates of birth that were inconsistent with one another. The marriage and birth certificates contained in the visa application compounded the issues with the Appellant's identity. [41] The Appellant has provided other evidence in his claim, such as a secondary school certificate, employment ID cards from the UAE, his mother's death certificate, various business registration documents, and support letters. However, none of these documents contain information about the Appellant's date of birth, which is the primary discrepancy with respect to his identity. These documents are incapable of overcoming the concerns with the Appellant's primary identity documents. [42] Section 106 of the IRPA requires the RPD to take into account whether the claimant possesses acceptable documentation establishing identity, and if not, whether they have provided a reasonable explanation for the lack of documentation or whether they have taken reasonable steps to obtain the documentation. In this case, the RPD correctly rejected the Appellant's explanations for his lack of acceptable identity evidence. I agree that the Appellant has not established his personal identity on a balance of probabilities. CONCLUSION [43] For the above reasons, I agree with the RPD's conclusions about the Appellant's identity. As the RAD cannot accept the Appellant's claim without first accepting his identity, I cannot recognize him as a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. I therefore confirm the RPD's decision. [44] The appeal is dismissed, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. (signed) M. Oh M. Oh December 16, 2020 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. 2 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; see also Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 3 Najam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 425, at paras. 14-16; Jin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 126, at para. 13; Elmi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 773, at para. 4; see also Liu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 831, at para. 18. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, at pp. 55-59. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Ethiopia (March 29, 2019), item 1.5, at section 5.39. 6 Ibid. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (March 29, 2019), item 3.2. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, at p. 55. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at pp. 160-161. 10 Ibid., at pp. 162-163. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, at pp. 312-314. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, at pp. 140-141. 13 Ibid., at p. 140. 14 Ibid., at p. 122. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at pp. 200-203. 16 Ibid., at p. 181. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, at p. 122. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, at p. 55. 19 Ibid., Exhibit 5, at pp. 165-166. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-34555 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