MB6-06072

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 / Dossier de la SAR : MB6-06072 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered at Montréal, Québec Appel instruit à Date of decision November 17, 2017 Date de la décision Panel Me Julie Corry Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal Jagsharan Mahal Conseil(s) (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a citizen of Cameroon appealing against the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD). [2] She requests that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) accept her claim, substitute the RPD's decision and find that she is a Convention Refugee and a person in need of protection. In the alternative, the Appellant requests the return of her claim to the RPD to be reconsidered by a different panel. [3] The Appellant submits new evidence pursuant to sec. 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) but does not request an oral hearing pursuant to sec. 110(6) of the IRPA. [4] The Minister did not intervene before the RPD and has not intervened before the RAD. DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL [5] Pursuant to section 111 of the IRPA, the RAD allows the appeal, sets aside the RPD determination and substitutes the determination that, in its opinion, should have been made, namely that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA. [6] The RPD erred and its determination is incorrect. BACKGROUND Summary of alleged facts [7] The facts alleged are essentially detailed in the Appellant's Basis of Claim Form (BOC) 1 and her narrative addendum2, as well as in her oral testimony before the RPD. [8] The Appellant alleges that she cannot return safely to Cameroon because she fears the police and members of the public who are opposed to her sexual orientation. She alleges that she is a lesbian. [9] Homosexuality is a criminal offence in Cameroon. [10] The Appellant's sexual orientation became public knowledge when she and her girlfriend were seen kissing at a celebration in her village. She was detained for twelve days by the traditional chief of her village, before being handed over to the police. She was in police custody for 3 days and then in prison for a further 5 days. [11] In XXXX 2014 the Appellant obtained release from prison through an intervention of a corrupted police commissioner. Her mother had paid a bribe. [12] The Appellant then went into hiding until her mother could obtain a student visa for her to exit the country. She left Cameroon on XXXX XXXX, 2015, and arrived in Canada the following day. [13] She completed one semester of studies at XXXX XXXX College. [14] While she was in Canada, the Appellant learned from her mother that the police had come to the house looking for her in XXXX and XXXX of 2015. [15] The Appellant made her refugee claim on October 6, 2015. [16] In addition to her BOC, the Appellant submitted other documents into evidence before the RPD, including an affidavit from her mother, letters, medical reports, police reports and a photograph.3 RPD decision [17] The hearings before the RPD were held on December 8, 2015, and April 14, 2016 and the decision rejecting the refugee protection claim was rendered on May 6, 2016.4 [18] The RPD agreed with the Appellant's depiction of Cameroon as a country that represses homosexuality through public perception and anti-gay legislation. The country documentation confirms this.5 [19] However, the RPD found that the claimant's testimony contained contradictions, a number of inconsistencies, and it was of the opinion that the evidence submitted by the claimant was neither credible nor trustworthy.6 The RPD also found that the Appellant's testimony was vague and evasive on certain points and evolved during the telling. Appellant's arguments [20] In her memorandum of appeal, the Appellant submits that the RPD's decision was unreasonable. [21] She submits that the RPD did a microscopic analysis and failed to appreciate the evidence in its totality, thus making erroneous credibility findings without any factual basis. [22] With the appeal record filed July 20, 2016, the Appellant also submits new evidence with respect to her studies. [23] The Appellant made further submissions with more new evidence in December 2016. She refers to recent happenings in her country and how these demonstrate human rights abuses which add to her fear of being persecuted as a homosexual in Cameroon. She also adds that now her life is at risk because she is an Anglophone and from the southern part of the country. ADMISSIBILITY OF NEW EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON APPEAL The Appellant filed new evidence on appeal [24] In her appeal record filed July 20, 2016, the Appellant included three documents in relation to her studies: * Attestation of Registration, University of XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX, 2014; * Transcript, University of XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX, 2014; * Email from the Appellant to the XXXX School of XXXX and their response regarding the MBA program dated XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, 2015.7 [25] After her appeal record was filed, the Appellant sent in further new evidence to the RAD, in December 2016, with a written statement explaining her reasons for submitting this evidence and why it is relevant to her claim. The new evidence includes printed press articles about human rights violations in Cameroon as well as a USB key containing videos and photos: * 'We Spoke to Human Rights Lawyer Alice Nkom About What It's Like Defending Cameroon's LGBT People' by Cliff Joannou and dated April 21, 2015; * 'Rights groups call for probe into protesters' deaths in Cameroon' by Radina Gigova and dated December 15, 2016; * 'Cameroon urged to investigate deaths amid Anglophone protests' by Eyong Blaise Okie and dated December 13, 2016; * USB Key contents: 10 videos and 20 photos. Test for admissibility [26] Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA provides that the person who is the subject of the appeal may present to the RAD only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or that was not reasonably available, or that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. It should be noted that the time limit referred to in subsection 110(4) refers to the rejection of the Appellant's claim for refugee protection as the time limit, not the hearing before the RPD. After the hearing before the RPD, but before a decision takes effect, a party wishing to provide a document as evidence may make an application to that effect.8 [27] The Federal Court of Appeal finds that the explicit conditions set out in subsection 110(4) of the IRPA are inescapable, must be met, and leave no room for discretion on the part of the RAD.9 It also finds that the criteria set out in case law with respect to the credibility and relevance of evidence arise implicitly from the wording of the subsection in question.10 In short, there is clear legislative intention to not authorize any new evidence on appeal before the RAD other than in very specific and carefully defined circumstances, as the role of the RAD is not to provide the opportunity to complete a deficient record submitted before the RPD, but to allow for errors of fact, errors in law or mixed errors of fact and law to be corrected.11 [28] Lastly, the Refugee Appeal Division Rules state that the appeal record must contain, among other things, a written statement indicating whether the Appellant is relying on any evidence referred to in subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, as well as a memorandum that includes full and detailed submissions regarding how that evidence meets the requirements of that subsection and how it relates to the Appellant.12 RAD decision on the admissibility of the new evidence School records and email [29] With respect to the school records and the email exchange between the Appellant and the University of XXXX, submitted with the appeal record on July 20, 2016, the Appellant argues in her memorandum of appeal that these three documents comply with section 110(4) of the IRPA as the evidence was either not available at the time of the hearing or that it was not reasonably expected that the RPD would ask for this new evidence. This is not an accurate description of the test for admissibility, as elaborated on above. [30] All three documents pre-date the RPD hearings, and the rejection of the claim. The facts attested to by the documents also pre-date the RPD hearings, as well as the rejection of the claim. [31] No explanation has been provided as to why these documents were not reasonably available before, or why the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented them, before the rejection of her claim, except to say that she did not expect the RPD to ask for them. [32] Consequently, in light of the wording of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA and the relevant case law, I am of the opinion that these documents are inadmissible in this appeal. Press articles * 'We Spoke to Human Rights Lawyer Alice Nkom About What It's Like Defending Cameroon's LGBT People' by Cliff Joannou and dated April 21, 2015. [33] This press article pre-dates the RPD hearings and the rejection of the claim. It was received by the RAD by fax on December 16, 2016 with a written text by the Appellant explaining that recent happenings in her country help demonstrate how human rights are being abused and making submissions about how each article is relevant to her situation. The Appellant uses this article to bolster her explanation of why she does not have evidence about her relationship with her girlfriend, as the article describes how an individual was convicted for homosexual acts based on a text message. [34] No explanation has been provided as to why this article dated April 21, 2015 was not reasonably available before, or why the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented it before the rejection of her claim. [35] Consequently, in light of the wording of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, Rule 29(4) of the Refugee Appeal Division Rules, and the relevant case law, I am of the opinion that this article is inadmissible in this appeal. * 'Rights groups call for probe into protesters' deaths in Cameroon' by Radina Gigova and dated December 15, 2016; * 'Cameroon urged to investigate deaths amid Anglophone protests' by Eyong Blaise Okie and dated December 13, 2016. [36] These two articles are dated after the RPD rendered its decision and were received by the RAD by fax on December 16, 2016 with a written text by the Appellant explaining that recent happenings in her country help demonstrate how human rights are being abused and making submissions about how each article is relevant to her situation. [37] The two articles in question refer to facts that took place after the date of the RPD decision, about events surrounding anti-government protests and clashes in Cameroon's Anglophone regions. There is no explanation of how this relates to the Appellant, except to provide examples of human rights abuses against anti-government Anglophone protesters and how journalists have been harassed by the authorities. There is no direct relation to the Appellant's claim for asylum for homosexuality, and no direct relation to the Appellant as these events took place while she was in Canada. [38] At the end of her submissions accompanying these articles, which were submitted to the RAD shortly after the events described took place in Cameroon, the Appellant adds that her life is also in danger in Cameroon due to the present political instability and she is not safe because she is Anglophone and from the southern part of the country. This is the first time the Appellant has alleged fearing persecution for a reason other than her homosexuality and the RPD hearings did not delve into this basis of claim as the events in question took place after the RPD rendered its decision. [39] Consequently, in light of the wording of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, Rule 29(4) of the Refugee Appeal Division Rules, and the relevant case law, I am of the opinion that these two press articles are admissible in this appeal. USB Key - Videos and photos [40] This USB key was received by the RAD by mail on December 22, 2016. It was referred to in the written submissions of the Appellant faxed in on December 16, 2016 and contains 10 videos and 20 photos. The videos and photos are saved in a folder named 'XXXX and no explanation is provided as to who XXXX is. The written submissions state that these videos and photos help demonstrate the current atrocities committed by the Cameroonian government against the people of Cameroon and will help the Appellant explain why her life is in danger if she goes back to Cameroon. At the end of her written submissions, the Appellant adds that her life is also in danger in Cameroon due to the present political instability and she is not safe because she is Anglophone and from the southern part of the country. [41] This is the first time the Appellant has alleged fearing persecution for a reason other than her homosexuality and the RPD hearings did not delve into this basis of claim as the events in question seem to have taken place after the RPD rendered its decision. [42] I have viewed the videos and photos and none of them contain any identifying features or source information except for the video numbered 1482267933352 which is a recording of a BBC World radio report, with scrolling photos, and one of the scrolling photos is dated 2016-12-05. The report speaks about the protests and abuses that were referred to in the two press articles dated December 2016 and discussed above. The other videos or photos are dated between December 13th and 21st 2016 however I have no way of telling who took these images, where they were taken, who is in the images, or who is speaking, when voices are recorded. [43] Consequently, in light of the wording of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, Rule 29(4) of the Refugee Appeal Division Rules and the relevant case law, I am of the opinion that the videos and photos on the USB key are inadmissible in this appeal, except for the video numbered 1482267933352. STANDARD OF REVIEW [44] In her memorandum, the Appellant submits that the RPD's credibility decision must be granted a degree of deference however the RAD must provide its own assessment of the evidence to reach a conclusion.13 [45] For questions of fact, mixed fact and law, and law, I have applied the standard of correctness as per Huruglica.14 In assessing issues involving credibility of oral testimony, I may apply the RAD modified standard of reasonableness in those situations where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in making a particular finding as per the recent decision in X(Re), 2017 CanLII 33034 (CA IRB). DETERMINATIVE QUESTION [46] The determinative question in this appeal is credibility: * Did the RPD err in its analysis of the Appellant's credibility? More precisely, if the Appellant were to return to Cameroon, is there objective and credible evidence on the record that there is a serious possibility that she would be persecuted by the authorities or other members of society because of her sexual orientation? ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL Chairperson's Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression [47] The Chairperson's Guideline 9 must be considered in appropriate cases. It is incumbent on IRB decision-makers to exhibit the knowledge required, and to apply it in an understanding, fulsome and sensitive manner when deciding issues relating to matters of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression (SOGIE). [48] At the time of the hearing and the decision of the RPD, Guideline 9 was not in effect. It became so on May 1, 2017. In the present decision and reasons, and in my analysis of the testimony and the evidence in the file, I have considered Guideline 9 and the fact that the Appellant alleges that she fears persecution in her country because of her sexual orientation. [49] Having conducted an independent assessment of the record and having considered the new evidence that I found to be admissible on appeal, I am of the opinion that the RPD erred in its analysis of the Appellant's credibility. Here is why. Credibility Analysis Exit from Cameroon [50] The RPD noted that despite apparently facing prosecution for homosexuality offences, and having escaped custody using a bribe, the Appellant left Cameroon legally through the international airport under her own name and cited documentary evidence about roadblocks and checkpoints that security forces used as immigration control measures, amongst other things.15 [51] This raised credibility concerns for the RDP about whether the Appellant was actually a criminal escaping from custody. [52] The RPD also described what it understood as an inconsistent explanation in the Appellant's testimony when during her first hearing, the Appellant stated that the authorities were not looking for her because she was not guilty. During the second hearing she stated that the bribe for her release also paid for her exit, and that the corrupted police official said that she would have no trouble at the border. The RPD found it odd that the Appellant would not have said this during the first hearing. [53] In her memorandum of appeal, the Appellant pointed out that the RPD admitted that it did not have documentary evidence specifically about airport exit screening for fugitives and argued that her testimony during the second hearing was merely further explanation of what she said during the first hearing. She explained that because she had not been found guilty by a court of law and that since she had paid a bribe to the police for her release, then no charges were laid and therefore no warrants were issued. As a result, there was no reason for the police to look for her and to stop her on her trip through the airport. [54] This is a context where the RPD may have had a meaningful advantage in assessing the credibility of the Appellant's oral testimony, due to its capacity to see, hear and question the witness, and therefore I must show deference. That being said, I find that the RPD erred in its assessment and that it was unreasonable for it to interpret the Appellant's testimony in such a way that it drew a negative credibility finding. I listened to the recording of the hearings attentively and I found that the testimony given at both hearings was spontaneous and logical. The Appellant gave a good explanation and description throughout of how she was able to leave Cameroon after having paid a bribe to the police for her release before charges were officially laid and before she stood trial, thus avoiding any warrants being issued for her, going into hiding, and obtaining a student visa and leaving via the airport. [55] In this instance, and using the standard of RAD reasonableness, I find that the RPD's credibility finding is unreasonable. Specifically, it was unreasonable to conclude that the Appellant was not credible because of how she explained her release from prison from one hearing to the second and to simply state that it was odd that she would not have elaborated more during the first hearing. I heard the Appellant's explanation of how she was able to leave Cameroon at the first hearing and I find that it made sense and was adequate, and I agree that what she said during the second hearing was merely further explanation of the same facts. The evidence establishes that she would have had time to leave the country before it was noticed that she was missing from the prison, because of the payment of a bribe to a police commissioner. The Appellant's mother corroborated this story with her own testimony, by affidavit and by telephone. Finally, as the RPD and the Appellant both pointed out, there is no documentary evidence specifically on airport exit screening for fugitives. Delay of Claim [56] The RPD was also concerned with the delay of some ten months that the Appellant took to make her claim for asylum, given that she was an educated person who attended post-secondary school and understands English. The RPD found that the Appellant had the capacity to learn about the refugee process and file a claim well before XXXX 2015, were she genuinely motivated by fear. [57] The Appellant explained that her claim was prompted by news from her mother in XXXX 2015 that the police had come to her home. Previously, she did not know what to do and was taking things one step at a time. She assumed the police would forget about her. The RPD found this inconsistent with the Appellant's original narrative which states that there is no safe place in Cameroon for homosexuals. [58] Instead, the RPD surmised that the Appellant claimed in XXXX 2015 because she was no longer complying with the conditions of her student visa allowing her to be in Canada. [59] The Appellant gave different reasons for not enrolling in school for the fall 2015 semester and the RPD found that her answers were vague and that they evolved during the telling. The RPD decided that the Appellant's answers about her education plans in Canada raised a concern that she came to Canada to study, but could not maintain enrollment, and was making a claim for asylum to avoid having to return to Cameroon ahead of schedule. [60] In her memorandum of appeal, the Appellant points out that the RPD stated that a delay in claiming is not in itself determinative of credibility and repeats that she was moving with caution as she was unsure if she could make a claim based on sexual orientation, and also that she was operating under the assumption that the police would forget about her due to the bribe she had paid and with a promise from the police that there would be no prosecution against her. [61] The Appellant rebuts the RPD's conclusion that she was claiming asylum because she had not maintained enrollment in a school by explaining that once she had successfully completed her first semester at XXXX XXXX College she received copies of her university degree and transcripts from home and therefore wanted to pursue university studies in Canada. She contacted the University of XXXX promptly and thought she would make her refugee claim simultaneously. She was later informed by the University of XXXX and other colleges that she could not study pending the determination of her refugee claim and she alleges this was why she did not pursue her studies in Canada. She also testified that other schools told her she was too late to enroll. [62] The RPD rejected this explanation because the Appellant's refugee claim was referred after the start of the fall semester. [63] This is a context where the RPD may have had a meaningful advantage in assessing the credibility of the Appellant's oral testimony, due to its capacity to see, hear and question the witness, and therefore I must show deference. That being said, I find that the RPD erred in its assessment and that it was unreasonable for it to interpret the Appellant's testimony in such a way that it drew another negative credibility finding. As has been pointed out, the delay to claim asylum is not determinative, and the Appellant was present in Canada on a valid student visa until June 3, 2016. [64] I listened to the recording of both hearings attentively and I found that the testimony given by the Appellant was spontaneous and authentic. The sequence of events from XXXX and then XXXX 2015 when she realized that the police in Cameroon were actually looking for her and were not going to forget about her case was complicated by her move from XXXX XXXX to XXXX and her search for university admissions. I find it believable that she could have been late, and that she would not have known until after beginning the application process that she could not pursue university studies while claiming refugee status. [65] In this instance, and using the standard of RAD reasonableness, it is my opinion that the RPD's credibility finding is unreasonable. Specifically, it was unreasonable to conclude that the Appellant was not credible because of how she explained what prompted her refugee claim and the efforts she made to enroll for the fall 2015 semester in Alberta. I heard the Appellant's explanation of when she decided to make a refugee claim once she heard about the police in Cameroon looking for her and her desire to pursue university studies in Alberta. Her testimony was believable, however, it was clear to me that there was a lack of understanding between the RPD member and the Appellant. The flow of questions and answers started and stopped and the Appellant had to often ask the member to repeat or clarify his questions. It seemed like the Appellant did not fully understand what the RPD member was talking about, and therefore I did not get the impression that her testimony was vague or evolving. Evidence regarding girlfriend [66] The Appellant testified that people learned she was gay because she was seen kissing her girlfriend on the dance floor at a party, yet she knew that homosexuality was illegal. She testified that the incident took place because they were inebriated at a party. [67] At the first hearing the Appellant testified that she had no evidence about her girlfriend, that she had only communicated by text message, and that the phone used for receiving those text messages was either seized by the police, or that it was with her mother. The Appellant then testified that her mother had the phone, but the SIM card was broken and the memory was thrown away. Her mother had done this out of anger because there were pictures of the Appellant and her girlfriend on the phone. [68] The RPD found these answers about the phone to be inconsistent and suggestive of evasiveness, which negatively affected the Appellant's credibility. [69] The RPD was also not satisfied with the Appellant's physical description of her girlfriend, which was too generic. The Appellant also testified that her girlfriend hated wigs and liked short hair, specifically short dreads. [70] After the first hearing was conducted, a picture was submitted of the Appellant and her girlfriend as post-hearing evidence. Nothing in the picture indicates any particular intimacy, and the girlfriend had straight hair done up on her head except for chin-length bangs, as opposed to short hair. When asked about the hair length, the Appellant testified that her girlfriend was in disguise. The Appellant's mother also testified that the girlfriend had short hair, like a man's. The RPD found this contradictory evidence was insufficiently explained and that this created an additional negative perception of the Appellant's credibility. [71] In her memorandum of appeal, the Appellant argues that her testimony should be presumed to be true, and that her failure to provide corroborating evidence should not be held against her, especially since she was seeking asylum from a homophobic society where there is undisputed persecution of homosexuals.16 [72] The Appellant repeats that her mother ended up with her phone, which contained evidence of her relationship with her girlfriend, but her mother destroyed the memory card out of anger over the relationship with the girlfriend. She was able to find a picture later, through a friend and after much searching and some random chance. [73] The Appellant also repeated some of the physical description of her girlfriend that she testified to and explained that her girlfriend wore wigs with longer hair to avoid attention from the police for what would otherwise be considered a masculine look. The Appellant confirms that this same evidence and description was given by her mother, in her affidavit and in her testimony over the phone. [74] This is a context where the RPD may have had a meaningful advantage in assessing the credibility of the Appellant's oral testimony, due to its capacity to see, hear and question the witness, and therefore I must show deference. That being said, I find that the RPD erred in its assessment and that it was unreasonable for it to interpret the Appellant's testimony in such a way that it drew further negative credibility findings. [75] I listened to the recording of the hearings attentively and I found that the testimony given by the Appellant about her girlfriend was sufficiently detailed. She also testified at the end of the first hearing about her girlfriend's personality and gave examples of what made her attractive and her favourite features. I believe that she had a relationship with this person, and this was also corroborated by the testimony of the Appellant's mother, in a general sense, but also with respect to certain spontaneous details, such as the length of the relationship and how the mother felt when the girlfriend visited their house. [76] In this instance, and using the standard of RAD reasonableness, it is my opinion that the RPD's credibility finding is unreasonable. Specifically, it was unreasonable to conclude that the Appellant was not credible because of how she described the physical appearance of her girlfriend and the length of her hair. The Appellant explained that her girlfriend preferred short hair but wore wigs when she went out so as not to attract unwanted attention for having a masculine look. This explains why her hair was done up in the photograph that was produced, and explains the Appellant's mother's description of the girlfriend and it is reasonable. I understand the Appellant's explanation of why she does not possess other documentary evidence to prove the existence of her girlfriend, given the circumstances of Cameroon and her departure, and I agree that her failure to provide corroborating evidence should not be held against her. The Chairperson's Guideline 9 also recognizes the particular challenges individuals with SOGIE issues may face in obtaining corroborating evidence. Credibility - RAD conclusion [77] The determinative question in this appeal is whether the Appellant is credible and as a result, if she is a lesbian. [78] Her testimony about the circumstances surrounding her exit from Cameroon, her delay in claiming asylum in Canada and details about her girlfriend was authentic, coherent and satisfactory, to such a point that, on a balance of probabilities, I believe her story and that she is a lesbian. [79] I find that the RPD erred in its analysis of the Appellant's credibility and its conclusion is incorrect. The Appellant's fear of persecution in light of the documentary evidence [80] In this case, I find that the documentary evidence establishes the objective basis for the Appellant's fear. [81] The Response to Information Request CMR104749.E dated January 17, 201417 mentions that homosexual acts are illegal in Cameroon and subject to prison terms ranging from six months to 5 years. Serious human rights violations based on sexual orientation are frequent. Also, torture and abuse are committed against presumed gay and lesbian persons by government authorities. [82] In light of this situation, I find that the Appellant has established the objective basis for her fear of persecution, given that she is a lesbian and homosexuality is a criminal offence in Cameroon. The RPD agreed with the Appellant on the country conditions and I have no reason to interfere with that aspect of the decision. State protection and internal flight alternative (IFA) [83] Given the serious human rights violations in Cameroon and specifically the anti-gay legislation that is in effect and enforced, I am of the opinion that I do not need to provide a lengthy analysis of the presumption that the state is willing and able to adequately protect its citizens. In my opinion, the documentary evidence clearly establishes that this presumption is now reversed in Cameroon. [84] In this context, I find that an IFA is not an option, since the state is participating in that which amounts to persecution.18 [85] In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the Appellant has therefore established a well-founded fear of being persecuted if she were to return to live in Cameroon. CONCLUSION [86] For these reasons, I set aside the determination of the RPD and substitute the determination that, in my opinion, should have been made, namely, that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA. [87] The RPD erred and its determination is incorrect. [88] The appeal is allowed. Julie Corry Me Julie Corry November 17, 2017 Date /me 1 Basis of Claim Form (BOC) signed by the Appellant on October 2, 2015. 2 Narrative Addendum signed by the Appellant on November 26, 2015. 3 The list of documents is reproduced at page 14 of the RPD record. 4 RPD reasons and decision, pages 3 to 13 of the RPD record. 5 Ibid, para. 14. 6 Ibid, paras. 52-55. 7 These documents are reproduced on pages 19 to 21 of the appeal record. 8 Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012-256, rule 43. 9 Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Parminder Singh, No. A-512-14, de Montigny, Gauthier and Nadon, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 96, paragraphs 38 to 51. 10 Ibid, paragraphs 34 and 35. 11 Ibid, paragraph 54. 12 Refugee Appeal Division Rules, SOR/2012-257, subrule 3(3). 13 Appellant's memorandum, page 1 of 4, last paragraph, page 15 of the appeal record. 14 Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Huruglica, No. A-470-14, Gauthier, Webb and Near, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 93. 15 RPD reasons and decision, pages 3 to 13 of the RPD record, para. 17. 16 Appellant's memorandum, page 3 of 4, paragraphs 3-4, page 17 of the appeal record. 17 National Documentation Package on Cameroon, April 28, 2017, Document 6.1: Response to Information Request CMR104749.E dated January 17, 2014 and titled "Cameroon: Situation of sexual minorities, including legislation; treatment by government and society, including state protection and support services (2011-January 2014)". 18 Li v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), Shore, August 20, 2014, No. IMM-6180-13; 2014 FC 811, paragraph 27. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (September 11, 2014) Disponible en français RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB6-06072 18