MB6-02587

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 File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB6-02587 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision - Motifs et décision Appellant XXXX XXXX XXXX Appelant Respondent The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Intimé(e) Appeal Considered At Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of Decision August 20, 2018 Date de la décision Panel Me Alain Bissonnette Tribunal Counsel for the Respondent Me Stéphanie Valois Conseil de l'intimé Designated Representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister Salvatore D'Aloia Conseil du ministre REASONS AND DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX, the appellant, a citizen of Ethiopia, is appealing against the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD). He is submitting evidence and has requested an oral hearing. He submits that the RPD erred in concluding that his identity had not been established, as it failed to take into account all of the documents he had obtained and the efforts he had made to establish his identity. [2] The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada (the Minister) intervened before the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). [3] In an initial decision, the RAD allowed the appeal.1 However, that decision was set aside by the Federal Court of Canada.2 [4] The RAD dismisses the appeal pursuant to section 111 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). I. BACKGROUND A. Summary of alleged facts [5] Since this appeal exclusively concerns the issue of whether the RPD erred in concluding that the appellant had not established his identity, I will limit my summary of the content of his Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form) to that issue. [6] In the BOC Form he signed in 2015, the appellant, then referred to as the claimant, stated that his surname is XXXX and that his given names are XXXX XXXX. He also stated that in 2009 he went to Norway, where he filed an asylum claim under a false identity; this claim was accepted. [7] In his BOC Form, the appellant stated that, in 2012, he received a telephone call. Like him, the caller was from Ethiopia, but supported the party in power in their country. This person threatened to turn him in to the Norwegian authorities in order to have him deported to Ethiopia. Faced with this situation, the appellant tried to go to the United States, but did not obtain the necessary visa. He managed to obtain a Mexican visa and went to that country, then headed to the United States, where he lied to the authorities. On February 27, 2015, he pled guilty to the charge of making a false statement in his asylum claim in that country. Faced with the prospect of being deported to Ethiopia, the appellant requested the help of all Ethiopians, finally made it to Canada in the summer of 2015, and decided to tell the full story of what had happened to him.3 [8] In addition to his BOC Form, the appellant, then referred to as the claimant, filed a number of documents in evidence before the RPD, some of which concerned his identity.4 B. Minister's intervention before the RPD [9] The Minister intervened before the RPD and filed a number of documents into evidence.5 [10] In his intervention dated December 16, 2015, the Minister informed the RPD that, since the claimant's identity had not been satisfactorily established, additional steps needed to be taken by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and by the refugee protection claimant himself.6 [11] In his response dated April 5, 2016, the Minister submitted to the RPD that he still questioned whether the claimant was XXXX XXXX XXXX, born on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, born on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX, born on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; or XXXX XXXX XXXX, born on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The Minister further submitted that the identity documents filed in evidence were tertiary and unreliable, that it should not be concluded that the claimant had lost his refugee status in Norway, and that nothing showed that he was not in fact XXXX XXXX XXXX.7 B. RPD decision [12] The hearing was held on November 25, 2015, and on February 3, March 9 and March 31, 2016, before the RPD, and the decision rejecting the refugee protection claim was rendered on April 27, 2016.8 [13] For the sake of efficiency, I will reproduce below the summary of the RPD decision provided by Justice LeBlanc in his own decision: [8] On April 27, 2016, the RPD denied the respondent's refugee claim, being of the view that the respondent had not established his identity. In particular, the RPD was not satisfied with the respondent's efforts to obtain information, whether from the Norwegian or the American authorities, including the passport seized by the Norwegian authorities in 2009 or, at the very least, a copy of that passport, which the RPD deemed of prime importance. Moreover, in the absence of this passport and of the American refugee claim file, the RPD gave little weight to the national identity card filed by the respondent: it deemed it to be in "pitiful condition" and noted that the year of birth appearing on the card-1966-did not correspond to any of the birth dates in the file. [9] The RPD also gave little weight to the other documents provided by the respondent to establish his identity as XXXX XXXX XXXX since they were not State-issued identity documents. There was a document related to a vehicle, an insurance certificate, photographs taken from a graduation album, a diploma from the Ministry of Education, a general Agriculture diploma, an education certificate, a translated passage from a newspaper related to a name change request from XXXX [sic]9 to XXXX, two documents from "XXXX XXXX XXXX" and a document entitled "Student clearance/withdrawal form." [10] Finally, the RPD noted the imbroglio surrounding the respondent's date of birth, specifying that the respondent appeared in Canada claiming he was born on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, even though other birth dates appear in his file: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, according to the passport provided in support of his American visa application of 2007, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the date of birth associated with XXXX XXXX XXXX; and XXXX, which is the year of birth appearing on the national identity card. The RPD deemed it had not received information that would have cleared up this issue. [11] In addition, the RPD rejected the respondent's attempts to explain the discrepancies among the birth dates and the confusion surrounding his true date of birth. In the first case, the discrepancies could be explained by the use of a calendar other than the Gregorian calendar in Ethiopia. Nevertheless, the RPD noted that even when the two calendars were aligned, the years of birth did not agree. In the second case, the respondent claimed he did not know his true date of birth, and thus he had always used a fictitious date, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The RPD noted, however, that this did not explain why this date-or at the very least XXXX XXXX-did not appear in the other dates of birth in the file. It found that the confusion surrounding the respondent's date of birth was such that it was unable to determine what said date could be, even though this is an important part of establishing a refugee claimant's identity.10 II. EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON APPEAL [14] In his memorandum,11 the appellant states that he filed affidavits from people living in Canada and the United States who could attest to his identity, as they knew him in Ethiopia and have maintained fairly regular contact with him since then.12 [15] The appellant states that these documents fall under the third category of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, that is, evidence that he could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented at the time of the rejection, even if they were reasonably available, given that he had already provided numerous documents to corroborate his identity and submitted evidence of the efforts he had made with the Norwegian and US authorities. [16] The appellant further states that he filed a copy of his father's passport, as well as photographs of himself and members of his family that corroborate his identity.13 [17] In his memorandum as intervener in the appeal, the Minister submits that the documents presented by the appellant do not meet the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA.14 [18] In Singh, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the explicit conditions set out in subsection 110(4) of the IRPA are inescapable, have to be met and leave no room for discretion on the part of the RAD. It also stated that the criteria set out in the case law with respect to the credibility and relevance of evidence arise implicitly from the wording of this subsection. In short, there is a clear legislative intention to not authorize any new evidence on appeal before the RAD other than in very specific and carefully defined circumstances. Its role is not to provide the opportunity to complete a deficient record, but to allow for any errors committed by the RPD to be corrected.15 [19] In Ilias, the Federal Court points out that appellants cannot offer new evidence every time they are surprised by the RPD's decision. The Court also reiterates that the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA with respect to the admissibility of new evidence leave no room for discretion on the part of the RAD and must be narrowly interpreted.16 [20] In my opinion, the evidence presented in the appellant's record does not meet the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. My reasons follow. - Affidavits [21] The affidavits are dated May 24, June 3, June 4 and June 6, 2016, respectively. The information to which they generally refer arose before the RPD's rejection of the refugee protection claim. Thus, these affidavits do not meet the first requirement of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, that is, evidence that arose after April 27, 2016, the date on which the refugee protection claim was rejected.17 [22] As for the appellant's argument that he could not reasonably have been expected to present this evidence to the RPD, even though it was reasonably available, as he had already provided numerous documents to corroborate his identity and submitted evidence of the efforts he had made with the Norwegian and US authorities, in my opinion, this argument cannot succeed. From the very first session of the RPD hearing, on November 25, 2015, the issue of identity was clearly stated. Considering the burden on him in that regard, it is not reasonable that he would not have considered it useful or necessary to present these affidavits to the RPD. Thus, the affidavits fail to meet the other two explicit requirements of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. In my view, they are essentially intended to complete a deficient record. But, as the Federal Court recently noted, an appellant cannot offer new evidence every time he or she is surprised by the RPD's decision.18 Consequently, these documents are not admissible in evidence in the appeal. - Passport [23] The surname of the bearer of this passport issued on March 31, 2016, is XXXX, and his given names are XXXX XXXX XXXX In his BOC Form, however, the appellant stated that his father's surname was XXXX. In any case, this document contains no reference to any information that arose after the rejection of the refugee protection claim by the RPD. Thus, it does not meet the first requirement of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. [24] Furthermore, there is nothing in the appellant's memorandum to establish that he could not reasonably have been expected to have presented this passport to the RPD. Thus, this document fails to meet the other two explicit requirements of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. Consequently, the document is not admissible in evidence in the appeal. - Photographs [25] With respect to the photographs, there is nothing to establish where or the precise dates on which they were taken, with the exception of one, on which it is possible read 10 12 '03. Nor do they indicate the names of the persons in the photographs, with the exception of one, which is marked with the name XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. However, one can infer that these photographs were taken before the RPD rejected the refugee protection claim. Consequently, they do not meet the first requirement of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. [26] In his memorandum, the appellant offers no explanation for why he could not reasonably have been expected to present these photographs to the RPD. Thus, these photographs fail to meet the other two explicit requirements of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. Consequently, they are not admissible in evidence in the appeal. III. ORAL HEARING BEFORE THE RAD [27] In his memorandum, the appellant requests an oral hearing before the RAD, arguing that the documents presented in his appeal meet the criteria in subsection 110(6) of the IRPA, namely that, in addition to being credible and relevant, they are material.19 [28] According to the case law, the onus rests with the RAD to determine whether or not the criteria set out in subsection 110(6) of the IRPA have been met.20 [29] One of the determining factors set out in subsection 110(6) of the IRPA is that evidence presented on appeal was deemed admissible. However, the documents submitted by the appellant have not been deemed admissible; therefore, there is no new documentary evidence to be assessed in the context of an oral hearing before the RAD.21 IV. GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND DECISION SOUGHT [30] In his memorandum, the appellant argues that, while the RPD may consider the fact that he lived under a different identity in the past, it should not have refused to examine the evidence before it concerning his identity. He further submits that the RPD did not consider his national identity card and his vehicle registration, although these are genuine documents issued by the Ethiopian authorities that could have been analyzed by a CBSA expert.22 [31] In his memorandum, the appellant argues that he explained to the RPD that he did not know his date of birth and, furthermore, that there is discrepancy depending on which calendar is used. He further submits that the RPD failed to consider several other documents that corroborated his testimony about his identity, as it should have done, because they might have served to establish his identity.23 [32] Finally, the appellant argues in his memorandum that the RPD did not take into account the steps he took to obtain information about the passport held in Norway and the file in the United States.24 [33] In conclusion, the appellant submits that the RPD ignored the evidence on the record and that he should benefit from Canada's protection, and asks to be recognized as a Convention refugee.25 [34] The Minister argues that the RPD did not err and that it did assess the appellant's national identity card and the other identity documents he submitted, as well as the fact that he did not provide a copy of his passport or his asylum claim file from the United States or Norway, before concluding that he had failed to establish his identity.26 V. STANDARD OF REVIEW [35] In his memorandum, the appellant submits that the RAD has jurisdiction to hear de novo appeals, that it must analyze the evidence submitted to it and draw its own conclusions, and that it owes no deference to the RPD. He further submits that, given the errors in the RPD's decision, the RAD has no option but to conduct its own assessment of his credibility.27 [36] According to the case law, the RAD reviews RPD decisions on a correctness standard of review after conducting its own analysis of the record. The exception to this rule arises where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage in assessing the credibility or weight to be given to the oral evidence it hears; the RAD may then apply a reasonableness standard of review, modified to apply to the RAD context.28 That being said, the RAD's role is not to carry out a de novo consideration of the refugee protection claim, but rather, to determine whether, as the appellant submits, the RPD did in fact err.29 [37] After conducting my own analysis of the record, including the recording of the hearing before the RPD,30 and reviewing the evidence concerning the appellant's identity,31 I am of the opinion that the correctness standard of review must be applied, given that in order to render my decision, I must assess certain evidence for which the RPD enjoyed no particular advantage for having been able to observe the appellant's demeanour first-hand.32 VI. ANALYSIS OF THE APPEAL [38] Having applied this standard of review, I am of the opinion that the correct decision was to reject the refugee protection claim because the appellant's arguments are unfounded, and the RPD did not err in concluding that his identity had not been established. My reasons follow. [39] Whether a claimant has established their identity is a question of fact and credibility.33 That person has the burden of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that they are the person they claim to be, identity being central to any refugee protection claim.34 They are required to provide acceptable documentation establishing their identity, failing which they must explain why they do not have such documentation and what steps they took to obtain it.35 [40] It is settled law that it is the task of the RPD to weigh the documentary and testimonial evidence and to draw conclusions as to whether the evidence is sufficient to establish a refugee protection claimant's identity on a balance of probabilities.36 - Birth date and differences between the calendars [41] Regarding the appellant's argument that he did not know his date of birth and that there are differences between the Julian and Gregorian calendars, in my opinion, this argument is unfounded. It should be noted that, in his BOC Form, the appellant stated that he was born onXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, without adding any information that might diminish the truth or accuracy of that statement.37 He confirmed this information at the start of the RPD hearing when he declared that the information in the form was true, complete and correct38-after making a number of changes to his narrative on October 13, 2015.39 [42] It is true that the claimant stated during the hearing that he was not sure of his date of birth. He also stated that, in order to obtain the Ethiopian passport that was issued to him in 2006, he had presented his national identity card. On this passport, his date of birth is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.40 On his national identity card, his date of birth is XXXX XXXX41 Confronted with this discrepancy between the dates, the claimant stated that he changed his identity card every year and that he simply chose a random date, because he did not see why it mattered. When asked where the identity card bearing the date that is on his passport was, the claimant replied that the authorities keep the old card when they give you a new card.42 In my opinion, the claimant's explanations are not reasonable. His statement that he provided a random date of birth shows a cavalier attitude. In addition, he offered no evidence indicating that national identity cards in Ethiopia are in fact changed every year and that the date of birth can vary from one card to another. Moreover, according to his own testimony, he could not recall when the national identity card he filed in evidence before the RPD had been renewed.43 [43] With respect to the differences between the Julian and Gregorian calendars, when the claimant was asked during the hearing how those differences could explain the differences in his own birth date, he was unable to provide a clear explanation and instead reiterated his statement that he does not know his date of birth.44 [44] In its reasons for decision, the RPD referred to the different birth dates appearing in the claimant's documents and to his testimony before concluding that the claimant had failed to establish his own date of birth, which constituted an important aspect of his identity.45 Based on my independent analysis of the record, I am of the opinion that the RPD did not err on this point. - National identity card, vehicle registration and other documents [45] With respect to the argument that the RPD did not take into account the appellant's national identity card, vehicle registration and other documents that corroborated his testimony regarding his identity, in my opinion, this argument is not founded. A simple reading of the reasons for decision shows that the RPD took these documents into account; that said, the RPD explained very clearly why it attached little probative value to them.46 Based on my independent analysis of the record, I am of the opinion that the RPD assessed all of the evidence and committed no error. - Efforts made to establish his identity [46] With respect to the argument that the RPD did not take into account the appellant's efforts to establish his identity, in my opinion, this argument is not founded. In my opinion, in this case, this is the most important issue. [47] In light of all the evidence, and as his counsel admitted in her submissions, it is clear that the Norwegian authorities were holding the appellant's passport, the passport with which he had left his country and entered Norway and which attests to his true identity.47 In my opinion, the appellant did not make the efforts that could be expected of him in order to obtain this document from the Norwegian authorities. [48] The letter dated April 1, 2016, signed by XXXX XXXX from Action Réfugiés Montréal [refugee action Montréal] indicates that she had given the appellant a telephone number and a calling card to allow him to contact the Norwegian authorities.48 At the hearing before the RPD, the claimant stated that upon leaving the Laval detention centre, he called the Norwegian immigration office and that they told him he had to physically come to the office in Norway, otherwise they could not help him.49 No document was filed in evidence to support his statement in that regard. Furthermore, the claimant did not claim to have made any more substantive effort than that, for example with his counsel's help, to recover this passport by contacting the Norwegian embassy in Canada, or even the Norwegian immigration authorities, or by giving a Norwegian lawyer power of attorney to act on his behalf. [49] Having failed to make any actual effort to obtain this passport, which would have constituted direct and trustworthy evidence of his true identity, the appellant criticizes the RPD for incorrectly assessing the secondary evidence available to it. However, the onus is on the claimant to establish his identity by presenting acceptable documents. [50] In addition, I did not find any document in the record from any member of the appellant's family, in the form of either an affidavit or a letter, that could support his statement that he is truly the person he claims to be. Yet two passports belonging to members of his family were filed in evidence.50 In her submissions to the RPD, his counsel stated that the originals of these passports were obtained and sent to the CBSA and that the surnames of these two individuals match the claimant's surname.51 Clearly, it was possible to communicate with these individuals. Therefore, why not ask them to declare that they are indeed and in fact the sisters of the person claiming refugee protection in Canada who has the same name as them? On this last point, it should be noted that failing to file supporting documentation that it is reasonable to expect may have an impact on the refugee protection claimant's credibility.52 In my opinion, in the circumstances, it was reasonable to expect the claimant to file an affidavit or a letter from the individuals he presented as being his sisters. - Rejecting the claim was the correct decision [51] In my opinion, in light of my independent assessment of the evidence as a whole, I conclude that the decision that should have been rendered-the correct decision, in other words-was to reject the refugee protection claim, as the claimant failed to establish his identity. [52] Because the appellant's identity has not been established, there is no reason to continue the analysis of his narrative or his allegations regarding his fear of persecution or of a risk to his life; consequently, his claim must be rejected.53 CONCLUSION [53] For the foregoing reasons, I confirm the RPD's determination, namely, that XXXX XXXX XXXX failed to establish his identity and, as a result, is not a Convention refugee under section 96 or a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA. [54] The appeal is dismissed. Alain Bissonnette Me Alain Bissonnette August 20, 2018 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 RAD reasons and decision, September 5, 2017, 15 pages. 2 Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. XXXXXXXXX No. IMM-4058-17, LeBlanc, April 6, 2018; 2018 FC 374. 3 Appellant's Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form), pages 17 to 29 of the RPD record. 4 In this regard, see the consolidated list of documents reproduced at page 78 of the RPD record. The documents pertaining to his identity are reproduced at pages 114 and 115 (P-12), 123 and 124 (P-14), 125 (P-15), 126 (P-17), 127 (P-18), 128 and 129 (P-19), 130 and 131 (P-20), 132 to 135 (P-21 and P-22), 140 (P-25), 145 to 148 (P-29), 172 (P-36), 173 (P-37) and 174 (P-38) of the record. 5 These documents are reproduced at pages 229 to 271 and 279 to 330 of the RPD record. 6 Intervention - Amendment of evidence, December 16, 2015, pages 225, 226 and 227 of the RPD record. 7 Response, April 5, 2016, pages 384 to 387 of the RPD record. 8 RPD reasons and decision, April 27, 2016, pages 3 to 14 of the RPD record. 9 The name was actually XXXXXX not XXXXXX. The documents are reproduced at pages 172 to 173 of the RPD record. 10 XXXXXXXXX, supra, footnote 2, paragraphs 8 to 11. 11 Appellant's memorandum, page 26 of the appeal record. 12 These affidavits are reproduced at pages 14 to 17 of the appeal record. 13 This passport and these photographs are reproduced at pages 18 to 23 of the appeal record. 14 Memorandum of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, June 30, 2016, paragraphs 4 to 8. 15 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, No. A-512-14, de Montigny, Gauthier, Nadon, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 96. 16 Ilias v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-5152-17, Bell, June 27, 2018; 2018 FC 661, at paragraphs 34 and 35. 17 Andrade v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-4988-17, Phelan, May 14, 2018; 2018 FC 505, at paragraph 14. 18 Ilias, supra, footnote 16, paragraph 34, referring to three other decisions rendered by the same court. 19 Appellant's memorandum, page 27 of the appeal record. 20 Horvath v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-3425-17, Mosley, February 8, 2018; 2018 FC 147, paragraph 18. 21 Borubaev v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-3026-17, Diner, February 5, 2018; 2018 FC 125, paragraph 21. 22 Appellant's memorandum, pages 30 and 31 of the appeal record. 23 Ibid., pages 31, 32 and 33 of the appeal record. 24 Ibid., pages 33 and 34 of the appeal record. 25 Ibid., page 35 of the appeal record. 26 Minister's memorandum, paragraphs 9 to 20. 27 Appellant's memorandum, pages 27 and 28 of the appeal record. 28 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, No. A-470-14, Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 93. X (Re), 2017 CanLII 33034 (CA IRB). 29 XXXXXXXXX, supra, footnote 2, paragraph 25. Dahal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-330-17, Crampton, December 4, 2017; 2017 FC 1102, paragraphs 30 and 31. 30 Recording of the first session of the hearing held on November 25, 2015, 00:01 to 47:39, primarily concerning the Minister's postponement request. Recording of the second session of the hearing held on February 3, 2016, 00:01 to 02:56:25. Recording of the third session of the hearing held on March 9, 2016, 00:01 to 02:47:03. Recording of the fourth session of the hearing held on March 31, 2016, 00:01 to 01:41:56, during which the Minister's representative and claimant's counsel made their submissions. 31 Ali v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-30-18, Diner, July 5, 2018; 2018 FC 688, paragraph 25. 32 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Abdul Salam, No. IMM-5358-17, Grammond, July 3, 2018; 2018 FC 676, paragraph 16. 33 Balde v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-5553-05, Shore, April 6, 2006; 2006 FC 438, paragraph 10. Hodanu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-4712-10, Rennie, April 20, 2011; 2011 FC 474, paragraphs 10 and 22. 34 Matingou-Testie v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-5205-11, Martineau, April 3, 2012; 2012 FC 389, paragraph 2. 35 Hadi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-4513-17, Walker, June 7, 2018; 2018 FC 590, paragraph 15. 36 Fritzner Julien v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-4886-09, Boivin, March 31, 2010; 2010 FC 351, paragraph 37. 37 Appellant's BOC Form, response to question 1(c), page 18 of the RPD record. 38 Recording of the second session of the hearing held on February 3, 2016, 13:25 to 14:40. 39 These amendments appear at pages 379, 380 and 381 of the RPD record. 40 See document M-2, reproduced at pages 289 to 292 of the RPD record. 41 See document M-1, reproduced at pages 279 to 288 of the RPD record. 42 Recording of the third session of the hearing held on March 9, 2016, 18:40 to 27:00. 43 Ibid., 38:00 to 39:00. 44 Ibid., 27:00 to 38:00. 45 RPD reasons and decision, paragraphs 34 and 35, pages 12 and 13 of the RPD record. 46 Ibid., paragraphs 31, 32 and 36, pages 11, 12 and 13 of the RPD record. 47 Recording of the fourth session of the hearing held on March 31, 2016, 46:00 to 47:00. 48 This document, P-42, is reproduced at pages 189 and 190 of the RPD record. 49 Recording of the second session of the hearing held on February 3, 2016, 45:00 to 48:25. 50 The two passports, P-21 and P-22, are reproduced at pages 132 to 135 of the RPD record. 51 Recording of the fourth session of the hearing held on March 31, 2016, 54:00 to 54:30. 52 Mercado v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-4493-09, Gauthier, March 12, 2010; 2010 FC 289, paragraph 32. 53 Salajova v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-369-18, McDonald, August 10, 2018; 2018 FC 823, paragraphs 22 and 23. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB5-04774 RAD.25.02 (2014.09.11) Disponible en français RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB6-02587 14