TC2-19524

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC2-19524 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Date of decision November 28, 2022 Date de la décision Panel C. Prowse Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Monique Ann Ashamalla Conseil de la|des personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] I dismiss the appeal of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (Appellant). The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention1 refugee nor a person in need of protection. [2] The following is a brief summary of the Appellant's allegations in his Basis of Claim (BOC) form and amended narrative. It does not purport to be exhaustive of the contents of his BOC: * The Appellant is a citizen of Jordan. His wife and two children reside in Jordan. * He fears being killed or harmed by Islamist extremists because he rejects their religious beliefs. * The Appellant was a store owner in Amman, Jordan. * On Friday, XXXX XXXX, 2018, he was scolded by three unknown men for keeping his store open during Friday prayers. They demanded that he close the shop and called him an apostate. When the Appellant refused, one of the men hit the Appellant with a sharp object, causing him to lose consciousness. The Appellant was hospitalized. * On XXXX XXXX, 2018, upon leaving the hospital, he filed a complaint with the police. * On XXXX XXXX, 2018, the Appellant learned that the store had been ransacked. While he was cleaning up the store, he was confronted by a man who told him that he knew that a complaint had been filed, and that if the police took any action, the Appellant and his family would be killed. * The Appellant took his family to his sister's house in XXXX, then returned to Amman. He closed the store on XXXX XXXX, 2018. * The Appellant arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2018, and made a refugee claim two months later. * In XXXX 2021, the Appellant's wife received threatening text messages from an unknown number. She reported the threats to the police, who transferred the case to the Criminal Investigations Unit for investigation. * On XXXX XXXX, 2022, the Appellant's wife was the victim of a shooting attack at her new residence in Amman. She was unharmed. She filed a police report. The police collected evidence and are awaiting the results of a forensic examination to locate the attackers. [3] The determinative issue for the RPD was state protection. The RPD found that the Appellant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with "clear and convincing"2 evidence that the state was unable or unwilling to protect him. [4] The Appellant argues that the RPD made numerous errors in its state protection analysis, and that his personal evidence and the objective country documentation more than meet his burden of demonstrating that state protection would be inadequate in his circumstances. [5] I find that the Appellant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection in Jordan. Although I agree with the Appellant that the RPD did not sufficiently examine the operational adequacy of state protection in Jordan, I have remedied this on appeal through my own analysis. On a balance of probabilities, I find that Jordan provides operationally adequate protection under the circumstances. Overall, the RPD Decision is correct. BACKGROUND [6] The following is a brief summary of the administrative history of the Appellant's refugee claim: * The Appellant's application for refugee protection was rejected by the RPD on May 21, 2021. * On December 22, 2021, a different Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) Panel determined that there had been a breach of procedural fairness relating to the absence of part of an audio recording or transcript of the RPD hearing. The RAD referred the matter to the RPD for determination by a differently constituted panel. * On June 28, 2022, a different RPD Panel heard the Appellant's refugee claim. On July 8, 2022, the RPD rejected the Appellant's claim. It is this RPD Decision that is the subject of this appeal. NEW EVIDENCE [7] Subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act3 states that an Appellant may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or that was not reasonably available, or that they could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented at the time of the rejection. It is for the Appellant to provide full and detailed submissions in their memorandum about how any proposed new evidence meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) and how that evidence relates to them. [8] If the new evidence meets the requirements in subsection 110(4), then the RAD must also apply the adapted Raza factors endorsed in Singh. In Singh, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the RAD should assess the admissibility of the new evidence for its credibility, relevance, and newness.4 The evidence presented by the Appellants is allowed [9] The Appellant submits the following document as new evidence: * Appellant's affidavit dated XXXX XXXX, 2022 [10] In brief, the Appellant states in the affidavit that the police have not contacted his wife regarding the shooting in XXXX 2022, posted guards outside his home, or taken any action to prevent another incident. He also states that his wife and children continue to live in hiding and fear. [11] I find that this evidence arose after the rejection of the Appellant's claim. I have no reason to doubt the credibility of the affidavit. The evidence is relevant to the issue of state protection and the facts presented are new. Therefore, I find that the evidence meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) and the Raza/Singh factors, and I allow this evidence. ORAL HEARING [12] My jurisdiction to hold an oral hearing is limited to situations where admissible new evidence raises a serious issue of credibility; is central to the decision; and determinative of the claim.5 [13] As the new evidence does not raise a serious issue of credibility, I have no jurisdiction to hold a hearing. ANALYSIS [14] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision after conducting an independent assessment.6 [15] The determinative issue in this claim is state protection. State Protection [16] The relevant principles of state protection are as follows: * States are presumed to be capable of protecting their nationals, and a refugee claimant must provide "clear and convincing" evidence of the state's inability to protect its citizens.7 * The burden of proof on the claimant is proportional to the level of democracy in the state in question. The more democratic the state and its institutions, the more the claimant must have done to exhaust the course of action available to him.8 * The claimant must show that they have taken all steps reasonable in the circumstances to seek state protection, taking into account their personal circumstances, country conditions, and their interactions with authorities.9 * The degree of protection required is not perfection, but adequacy. Where a state is in effective control of its territory and makes serious efforts to protect its citizens, the mere fact that it is not always successful is insufficient to rebut the presumption.10 * In assessing the adequacy of state protection, it is important to consider more than just state efforts and the analysis should focus on the operational adequacy of state protection for the claimant and individuals in like circumstances.11 [17] The RPD found that Jordan is a country with both democratic and non-democratic government institutions. Overall, it found that the country has a mixed record of providing independent and accountable security forces and judiciary, and that the "burden of rebutting the presumption of state protection is consequently lower than it would be for a fully democratic country with a transparent system of checks and balances." However, the RPD also noted that Jordan is not in a state of breakdown, and there are effective state apparatuses for addressing crime, including the police. [18] The RPD considered the personal interactions of the Appellant and his wife with the police in Jordan: * On XXXX XXXX, 2018, the Appellant filed a complaint with the police after he was attacked in his shop. The Appellant followed up with the police on XXXX XXXX, at which point he was told that "[his] complaint would be processed when they got to it."12 * The Appellant's wife filed a complaint with the police in XXXX 2021, after she received threatening text messages. According to the Appellant, the police were able to link the messages to the Appellant's complaint of XXXX 2018. The police moved the matter to the Criminal Investigation Unit, and the investigation is "ongoing." * Following the shooting in XXXX 2022, the police "collected any evidence they could find" and are "are awaiting the results of the forensic laboratory in order to try to locate the shooters"13 according to the Appellant's wife. [19] The RPD found that rather than providing clear and convincing evidence of the state's inability or unwillingness to protect the Appellant and his family, these facts demonstrate that the police are making serious efforts to protect them. Although the police have not demonstrated the urgency that the Appellant expected, the standard of protection is adequacy not perfection. Overall, the RPD found that the Appellants failed to meet their burden of rebutting the presumption of state protection. [20] The Appellant argues that the RPD failed to consider the operational adequacy of state protection and focused on the "serious efforts" of the police which are not determinative of the issue. He submits that the objective documentary evidence suffices to establish that state protection is inadequate, noting the failures of the police to protect similarly situated individuals in Jordan. The Appellant also argues that the police have repeatedly failed in practice to protect him and his family, and that he has met his burden in rebutting the presumption of state protection. He submits that the RPD failed to consider his profile as an ethnic Palestinian and non-practicing Muslim in its analysis of state protection. [21] I find that the Appellant failed to meet his burden of rebutting the presumption of state protection with "clear and convincing evidence." While I agree with the Appellant that the RPD erred by failing to provide a comprehensive analysis of the operational adequacy of state protection relative to his circumstances, in my independent assessment, the Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the state is unable or unwilling to protect him and his family. [22] As outlined by Ward and other jurisprudence, a claimant can establish, with "clear and convincing evidence" that state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming (thus rebutting the presumption) where: * there is a complete breakdown of state apparatus, such as that recognized in Lebanon in Zalzali;14 * there is evidence "...similarly situated individuals [were] let down by the state protection arrangements...;"15 * there is evidence "...of past personal incidents in which state protection did not materialize."16 [23] I find that the Appellant hasnot met his burden of rebutting the presumption of state protection. Jordan is a limited democracy [24] The Appellant submits that Jordan is not a functioning democracy. Respectfully, I find that this is an inaccurate reflection of the available objective documentary evidence about the country. The RPD's analysis, which I find is correct, is that Jordan is a limited democracy, with a mix of democratic and undemocratic government institutions. For example, Jordan is a constitutional monarchy with an elected house of representatives. The most recent elections were considered free and fair.17 Although there is no independent civilian police oversight body in Jordan,18 there are formal mechanisms for making complaints against the police, and civilian authorities maintain effective control over the security forces.19 [25] Although the RAD has previously found Jordan not to be a functioning democracy,20 as the Appellant points out, I find that I am not bound by other decisions of this tribunal. Notwithstanding this, I find that the facts of this case should be distinguished from the case identified by the Appellant. That case relied primarily on evidence from a considerably older version of the NDP, including information about previous elections that were problematic. [26] Overall, I agree with the RPD's assessment that the burden of proof on the Appellant is less than it would be in a fully democratic nation, however Jordan is nonetheless on the "democracy spectrum" and even though the burden of proof varies with the level of democratic functioning, the Appellant nonetheless bears the burden of providing "clear and convincing" evidence of the state's inability or unwillingness to protect.21 For the following reasons, I find that he has not met this burden. The Appellant failed to demonstrate that similarly situated individuals were let down by state protection arrangements [27] The Appellant argues that the RPD failed to consider all the relevant objective documentary evidence about state protection in Jordan, including the experiences of similarly situated individuals. He submits that this evidence is sufficient to rebut the presumption of state protection. [28] The Appellant argues that the RPD only relied on one National Documentation Package (NDP) document, the United States Department of State Report on Human Rights.22 However, even in that report, there is evidence of a lack of state protection. He refers to incidents of unresolved police misconduct; allegations that police have committed gross violations of human rights; imprisonment of persons for "offending religious beliefs"; and discrimination faced by four distinct groups of Palestinians who reside in Jordan. [29] He also refers to other objective documentary evidence indicating that the state has failed to protect similarly situated persons. This includes failing to prosecute honour killings; cracking down on people criticizing the government's handling of the COVID-19 crisis; criminalizing blasphemy and curtailing freedom of expression for persons discussing cultural and religious topics on social media; detaining women for perceived moral crimes, such as extra-marital sex; failing to resolve the high level of terrorism threat; not meeting international standards when it comes to trafficking of children; and the inability of the police to offer adequate protection when tribal issues at play. [30] The Appellant argues that this evidence is relevant to this situation, because as a non-practicing Muslim, who kept his business open on a Friday, his actions could be seen as offending Islam. Also, he argues that as an ethnic Palestinian, he does not have the same access to state protection in Jordan as other citizens. [31] Respectfully, I disagree with the Appellant. [32] Except for the treatment of Palestinians, which I will address momentarily, I find that these are not similarly situated individuals or relevant scenarios in the context of state protection. Issues such as child-trafficking and tribal disputes simply have no bearing on this case. There is no evidence that merely being a non-practicing Sunni Muslim, as the Appellant self-identifies, is a barrier to obtaining operationally adequate state protection in Jordan. While proselytizing Muslims or committing blasphemy are offences in Jordan that may lead to prosecution,23 there is no evidence that the Appellant was or would be perceived as having committed a religious or moral offence in the eyes of the Jordanian state. The Appellant has not shown that merely operating a store on Friday is a crime or would be considered by the police as one. Nor has the Appellant provided any evidence that the police were unwilling to hear his complaints because he is a non-practicing Muslim. The Appellant has reported to the police that he believes that he has been targeted by a "Salafist group."24 The objective documentary evidence shows that the state is opposed to and has officially rejected "Salafi-Jihadi" interpretations of Islam.25 The government has successfully disrupted numerous plots by violent religious extremists at various stages of planning and has introduced many initiatives to deter religious radicalism.26 [33] The Appellant is a Jordanian citizen of Palestinian descent. According to the objective documentary evidence, up to seventy percent of Jordan's population fits this description.27 The overwhelming majority of Palestinians in Jordan are Jordanian citizens, which the same access to public services as other Jordanian citizens.28 I find that the Appellant falls into this category of Jordanians of Palestinian descent. There is no evidence that persons in this category are disadvantaged in terms of their access to state protection. [34] I agree with the Appellant that there are categories of Palestinians in Jordan who face significant discrimination. In general, these are Palestinians who are not entitled to Jordanian citizenship, such as refugees who fled Gaza after the 1967 war, or contemporary refugees from Syria who live in refugee camps. These Palestinians face barriers to receiving government services, and in the case of refugees from Syria, severe restrictions on their freedom of movement.29 However, the Appellant and his family members do not fall into these categories of Palestinians in Jordan. [35] According to the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, "...there is no official policy for security forces to make life more difficult for Palestinians. However, personality-driven discrimination by individual officers against Palestinians and others can and does occur."30 There is no evidence in the present case that such anti-Palestinian discrimination was or is a factor in the Appellant's access to state protection. [36] I agree with the Appellant that evidence of police abuses, corruption and impunity are relevant considerations in the state protection analysis. However, I find that the Appellant has not demonstrated that he is a victim of these irregularities, or that they are so widespread and serious as to render state protection operationally inadequate. Nor has he shown that being a Palestinian non-practicing Muslim would cumulatively create obstacles to seeking and obtaining state protection. [37] For these reasons, I find that the Appellant has not provided clear and convincing evidence that similarly situated individuals were let down by state protection arrangements. The Appellant failed to demonstrate past personal incidents in which state protection did not materialize and he has not rebutted the presumption of state protection [38] The Appellant argues that he has not been successful in obtaining state protection. He submits that he and his wife's combined three attempts to seek state protection have had no measurable impact on their safety in Jordan. He submits that the Jordanian authorities have repeatedly failed to protect himself and his family, and that some three years after the initial incident, they continue to be targeted. The Appellant submits that he has met his burden of rebutting the presumption of state protection. [39] Respectfully, I disagree with the Appellant. [40] A refugee claimant is not required to show that they exhausted all avenues of state protection.31 However, they must demonstrate that they have taken all steps reasonable in the circumstances, taking into account the context of the country or origin in general, the steps taken and the claimant's interactions with the authorities. In determining if the claimant took reasonable steps, the decision-maker must consider the claimant's personal circumstances and characteristics as well as previous efforts to access state protection. [41] For the following reasons, I find that the Appellant did not take all steps reasonable in the circumstances to seek state protection, and that he is holding the Jordanian state to a level of protection beyond operational adequacy and closer to perfection. [42] On the face of the evidence provided by the Appellant, the Jordanian police have launched an ongoing investigation into the attacks and threats experienced by the Appellant and his wife. This investigation was apparently elevated in 2021, with the matter being referred to the Criminal Investigation Unit. [43] There is no evidence that the Appellant or his wife followed up with the police about the status of their complaints or the investigation, apart from when the Appellant called the police less than one week after the initial incident in XXXX 2018. At that time, the police indicated that his complaint would be processed in turn. I agree with the RPD that this is not clear and convincing evidence that the police were unable or unwilling to protect him. [44] In his affidavit dated XXXX XXXX, 2022, the Appellant states that the police did not follow up with his wife after the shooting, failed to post guards outside his home, and took no action to protect his family. However, it is unclear that the forensic and criminal investigation that the police undertook after the event in XXXX 2022, should have yielded results in six months. The Appellant does not offer any justification for this belief. Moreover, as neither the Appellant nor his wife followed up with the police after this incident, I find that they are merely speculating that the police took no action in this matter. It is understandable that the Appellant would like the police to post guards outside his home, however the state cannot be expected to provide perfect protection. I find that this is not clear and convincing evidence of the state's inability or unwillingness to protect him or his family. [45] There is no evidence that the Appellant or his wife availed themselves of the available mechanisms to complain about the actions of the police if they believed them to be inadequate. According to the objective documentary evidence, the Public Security Directorate (PSD), which includes the police, can receive complaints through public prosecutors.32 Additionally, the PSD Human Rights and Transparency Office receives complaints about police officers.33 Many of these complaints have been referred to the courts for resolution, suggesting that this mechanism yields results.34 [46] The Appellant submits that there is evidence of police corruption in his investigation, since this is the only way that the man who threatened him on XXXX XXXX, 2018, could have known that he had filed a police complaint. I find that the Appellant is relying on speculation or inference, and I give no weight to this assertion. The mere fact that the person who threatened him accused him of filing a police complaint is not sufficient evidence that police officers involved in his case are corrupt, or even that the man himself knew about the complaint. [47] The Appellant points out that the Courts have found that "serious efforts" by the state to provide protection are not the same thing as "adequate protection." The former merely indicates that the state has taken steps to provide protection, while the latter is concerned with the actual outcome of protection in the country.35 I agree. Notwithstanding this, I find that adequate protection is not a guarantee of safety or that the perpetrators have been or will be apprehended. The Appellant's evidence suggests that the police have taken appropriate and concrete steps commensurate with the attacks and threats experienced by the Appellant and his wife. The Appellant believes that the state is unable or unwilling to protect him, however this subjective belief is insufficient to rebut the presumption of state protection, in view of a lack of any significant or serious efforts to find out about the status of his complaints or the investigation, or to file a complaint with a public prosecutor or the PSD. [48] For these reasons, I find that the Appellant failed to demonstrate past personal incidents in which state protection did not materialize. The Appellant failed to meet his burden of establishing that Jordan would not provide operationally adequate protection [49] As already noted, I agree with the Appellant that the RPD did not fully consider the operational adequacy of state protection in Jordan, considering his personal circumstances. I have remedied this through my own analysis of the issue. Many of the Appellant's arguments in this respect have already been addressed above. [50] The Appellant submits that there is a dearth of records on Jordan's ability to counter serious and organized crime, and that crime in the country has steadily increased since 2010. I agree with the Appellant that there is not a great deal of evidence in the NDP concerning the operational success of the police. However, I find that neither this, nor the overall increase in crime, provide clear and convincing evidence that state protection in Jordan is operationally inadequate. [51] The available objective documentary evidence generally indicates that the police are effective in terms of dealing with crime, and that they are perceived by Jordanian citizens as trustworthy and useful when it comes to resolving problems. [52] According to the Overseas Security Advisory Council report on Jordan for 2021, the "PSD is proactive and responsive when dealing with criminal activity."36 [53] The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands undertook a study in Jordan during which they surveyed Jordanian residents about their pressing legal problems and the tools that they use to resolve them. According to this study, respondents indicated a relatively high level of trust in official justice institutions in Jordan, with the police enjoying the highest level of trust.37 Respondents considered going to the police as a relatively effective strategy to resolve problems, which the majority indicating that their problem was thereby resolved completely or partially.38 [54] The objective evidence referenced above indicates that the Palestinian authorities are opposed to "Salafi-Jihadi" interpretations of Islam have been effective in stopping attacks by violent religious extremists. [55] As already noted, I find that the Appellant has not established that his profile as a non-practicing Muslim of Palestinian descent is a barrier to state protection. [56] For these reasons, I find that the Appellant has failed to meet his burden of establishing, through clear and convincing evidence, that Jordan is unable or unwilling to protect him and his family. CONCLUSION [57] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) C. Prowse C. Prowse November 28, 2022 Date 1 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, "Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status", under the 1951 Convention. 2 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85. 3 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, section 110(4). 4 Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FCA 96, [2016] 4 FCR 230; Raza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385. 5 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, subsection 110(6). 6 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, [2016] 4 FCR 157; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145, [2019] 2 FCR 597. 7 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85. 8 MCI v. Kadenko (1996) 143 DLR 4th 532, at 536 (FCA). 9 Lakatos, Brigitta v. M.C.I (F.C. no IMM-3939-17), Diner, April 5, 2018; 2018 FC 367; Peralta, Gloria Del Carmen v. M.C.I (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5451-01), Heneghan, September 20, 2002; 2022 FCT 989; Moreno Maniero Ronald Antonio v. M.C.I (F.C., no IMM-8536-11), Zinn, June 19, 2012; 2012 FC 776. 10 M.E.I. v Villafranca, Ignacio (F.C.A., no. A-69-90), Hugessen, Marceau, Décary, December 18, 1992. 11 Burai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 966; Gonzalez Camargo, Hernando v. MCI (F.C., no. IMM 38-14), Gleeson, September 2, 2015; 2015 FC 1044. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at p. 6, para. 12. 13 Ibid., para. 14. 14 Zalzali v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1991] 3 F.C. 605 (C.A.). 15 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85. 16 Ibid. 17 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Jordan (April 29, 2022), item 2.1: Jordan. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2021, United States. Department of State. 18 Ibid., item 10.1: Jordan. The Law on Police Use of Force Worldwide, University of Pretoria. Institute for International and Comparative Law in Africa. 19 Ibid., item 2.1. 20 X (Re), 2020 CanLII 122876 at para 25. 21 Kadenko v Canada (MCI) 1996 CanLII 3981 (FCA), [1996] FCJ No 1376 at para 5; Avila v Canada (MCI), 2006 FC 359 at para 30; Capitaine v Canada (MCI) 2008 FC 98 at paras 20-22; Sow v Canada (MCI), 2011 FC 646 at para 10 22 NDP for Jordan (April 29, 2022), item 2.1. 23 Ibid., item 12.1: Jordan. International Religious Freedom Report for 2020, United States. Department of State. 24 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 108. 25 NDP for Jordan (April 29, 2022), item 7.2: Jordan. Country Reports on Terrorism 2019, United States. Department of State. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid., item 13.1: Jordan. DFAT Thematic Report: Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon, Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid., item 2.1. 30 Ibid., item 13.1. 31 Peralta, Gloria Del Carmen v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5451-01), Heneghan, September 20, 2002; 2002 FCT 989. 32 NDP for Jordan (April 29, 2022), item 10.1. 33 Ibid., item 2.1. 34 Ibid. 35 Burai v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 565, at para. 28. 36 NDP for Jordan (April 29, 2022), item 7.3: Jordan Country Security Report, United States. Overseas Security Advisory Council. 37 Ibid., item 9.3: Justice Needs and Satisfaction in Jordan 2017, Hague Institute for Innovation of Law. 38 Ibid. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC2-19524 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) 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 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français