TB8-24861

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-24861 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Redetermination of Appeal - Nouvel examen de l'appel Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision April 20, 2021 Date de la décision Panel C. Marcinkiewicz Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Meredith Shannon Black Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] The Appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, is a citizen of the Republic of the Sudan and appeals the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated August 24, 2018, rejecting his claim for refugee protection. The Appellant asks that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) substitutes a finding that he is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection or refer the matter for redetermination to the RPD.1 DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA),2 I am setting aside the decision of the RPD and substituting it with my own. Specifically, on the evidence before me, I find that the Appellant is a Convention refugee as he faces a serious possibility of persecution based on his real and/or perceived political opinion. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant was born in Saudi Arabia to Sudanese parents who were residing in Saudi Arabia for employment purposes. The Appellant returned to Sudan with his mother in the summer of 2015 to visit his aunt, his mother's sister, in Khartoum. He made some friends in the neighbour and extended his stay longer than anticipated. However, in late June 2015, the Appellant and his group of friends were approached by a man in civilian clothing who wanted them to head home, cursing at them, and referring to them as street kids. When the Appellant responded, the man noted his accent and that he was not from Sudan and ordered him into a pickup truck, threatening to teach him a lesson. The man eventually identified himself as an officer with the National Intelligence and Security Services (NISS) and took the Appellant to a building and forced the Appellant into a small room, where he was held for almost one week, threatened and beaten, resulting in four broken teeth, a broken wrist, and a cut around his eye. [4] He was released after his aunt and her son in law were able to find the Appellant. He was ordered to sign an undertaking that he would not leave Sudan and would join the military at age 18. His father arranged for him to leave Sudan for Saudi Arabia shortly after his release from detention. The Appellant remained in Saudi Arabia until XXXX 2016 when he was granted a scholarship to study English in the United States of America (USA). Around the completion of his 9-month course, his father informed him that the Saudi government imposed a new tax for foreign residents and their dependants which his father would be unable to pay and suggested he stay in the USA, with his mother suggesting the Appellant go to Canada to file an asylum claim. [5] The Appellant entered Canada in XXXX 2017 and initiated a refugee claim. He fears returning to Sudan for a number of reasons, including: his departure from Sudan after signing an undertaking with the NISS that he would not leave, his failure to attend for military service after turning 18 years of age, and the making of a refugee claim in Canada, all of which he believes would be viewed as anti-government political opinions, either imputed through his actions or real as he does not want to report for military service as he believes they commit human rights abuses and he does not wish to be sent to a war zone to fight for the Sudanese military. ROLE OF RAD [6] My role is to conduct an independent assessment of the evidence and review the RPD decision on a standard of correctness. The exception to this rule is where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in the assessment and weighing of oral testimony, which in some cases attracts deference. Unless specifically stated below, I have applied a correctness standard.3 PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND APPROACH TO APPEAL [7] The Appellant's refugee claim was heard by the RPD on July 25, 2018. The claim was rejected by way of a written decision on August 24, 2018. The Appellant filed an appeal against the negative RPD decision to the RAD. The RAD refused to admit new evidence on appeal or to hold an oral hearing, rejected the Appellant's arguments that his former counsel provided inadequate advice relating to evidence that should have been provided to the RPD, and ultimately the RAD upheld the rejection of the claim by the RPD and dismissed the appeal. [8] The Appellant sought and was granted leave for judicial review at the Federal Court on November 22, 2019. [9] By way of a decision dated December 11, 2020, Justice McHaffie granted the judicial review application and set the RAD decision aside.4 Specifically, Justice McHaffie found that while the RAD was not required to hold an oral hearing before rejecting the Appellant's new evidence, the RAD's decision to refuse to admit new evidence was unreasonable, as was the RAD's decision to dismiss the appeal based on the RPD's credibility findings that the RAD upheld. Justice McHaffie ordered the matter be redetermined by a different RAD panel. This is that appeal. [10] Along with the previous appeal record and memorandum which consisted of numerous applications to admit new and late evidence, the Appellant submitted a supplemental memorandum along with new evidence and submissions on February 11, 2021 and post-dating the Federal Court decision. Additionally, the Appellant's arguments for the admission of some of the new evidence alleges ineffective representation from his former counsel, an issue I will return to later. ANALYSIS [11] The determinative issue for the RPD was a lack of a well-founded fear of persecution based on numerous adverse credibility findings. Specifically, the RPD found the documentary evidence the Appellant provided from his father, aunt, and a hospital were worthy of little weight. The RPD also drew a negative inference due to the Appellant's lack of knowledge regarding the identity or name of the NISS officer who detained and abused him and found the Appellant fabricated this evidence. Furthermore, along similar lines, the RPD drew a negative credibility inference based on the Appellant's lack of knowledge regarding military national service requirements in Sudan, including steps one can take to reduce the time of service or find alternatives to military service. Finally, the RPD drew a negative inference due to the Appellant's failure to seek asylum in the USA, also noted that the Appellant's family in Sudan has not been contacted by the authorities about the Appellant and found on a balance of probabilities this was indicative of them not being interested or seeking out the Appellant. [12] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in each of these findings by ignoring or misconstruing pertinent evidence the Appellant did provide, making erroneous credibility findings which should have been considered as implausibility findings and were not, and erring in failing to consider the Appellant's particular profile and the risk it would subject him to if returned to Sudan, including under section 97 of the IRPA. Finally, the Appellant argues that the representation he received from his former counsel was ineffective and inadequate, which also formed the basis for his request to admit new evidence on appeal. [13] After my independent review of the evidence, for the reasons that follow, I find the RPD erred in each of the areas identified by the Appellant on appeal, as well as its treatment of the supporting documentary evidence and the Appellant's sworn testimony. Furthermore, I find that my independent analysis leads me to conclude there is sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence before me that was before the RPD in order to establish that the Appellant faces a serious possibility of persecution due to his real and/or perceived political opinion that likely would be viewed as anti-government based on his prior non-conformity with NISS requirements by leaving the country and failing to appear for military service and his objection to being conscripted into the military. CREDIBILITY [14] While the RPD does not explicitly state that it does not accept the Appellant's account as a whole, in my view a reasonable inference from several major aspects of its decision, in particular, the findings that the NISS Officer was fabricated and that the Appellant's family has not been approached since his absence about his whereabouts, leads to the conclusion that the RPD simply did not accept any of the Appellant's claim. Respectfully, based on my analysis below, I find the evidence does not support this conclusion. Failure to Claim in the USA [15] The RPD drew a negative credibility inference from the Appellant's lack of efforts to seek asylum during his stay in the USA despite him considering that as an option. While noting he had already turned 18 years old and therefore exposing him to national service in Sudan, the RPD found the Appellant's actions of failing to claim asylum in the USA was inconsistent with someone who fears return to Sudan. [16] The Appellant argues that the RPD ignored the evidence from the Appellant that it was only in July 2017 that he was informed by his father that returning to Saudi Arabia would not be possible due to the fees imposed on family members of residents and a lack of employment for the Appellant, something that may result in the entire family returning to Sudan. Further, the Appellant's evidence was that his father advised him to seek asylum in the USA while his mother opposed this suggestion and wanted the Appellant to claim asylum in Canada as she learned of anti-Muslim sentiments in the USA from the news. It is argued the RPD ignored this evidence. [17] Having independently reviewed the evidence, I agree with the Appellant that the RPD erred in respect to this finding. The Appellant clearly explained the circumstances in which he found himself in while in the USA when he was informed a return to Saudi Arabia would not be possible. This resulted in exploring a refugee claim in the USA and when his mother objected and wanted him to go to Canada,5 the Appellant testified that he researched this option on a Facebook discussion group.6 He came to Canada the following month and filed a refugee claim. [18] In my view, the RPD erred by ignoring the evidence and explanation provided as it is not sufficient to draw a negative inference from someone not claiming asylum elsewhere without a consideration of their explanation for not doing so. I find that the Appellant's explanation for his failure to claim in the USA is reasonable. When he learned that a return to Saudi Arabia, a country he has lived in his entire life, was looking impossible, he explored seeking asylum in the USA. When his mother did not approve and suggested he go to Canada, he researched this option and almost immediately proceeded to Canada and claimed asylum. These are reasonable actions of a 19-year-old young adult in a foreign country on his own. [19] Furthermore, I must add that at the time the Appellant was in the USA he was on a student visa permitting him to study for 9 months. This is significant as he had lawful status and therefore not at risk of being returned to Sudan. This only became a reality in July 2017 when his father informed him about the issue of returning to Saudi Arabia at which point the Appellant took reasonable actions in terms of exploring his options for making an asylum claim in the USA and Canada. [20] As a result, I draw no negative inference in respect to the Appellant's subjective fear or general credibility due to a failure to claim asylum in the USA. Credibility Findings Arising from Implausibility - Officer's Identity and Research of National Service Obligations Identity of NISS Officer [21] The RPD found the Appellant's lack of effort and as a result his inability to identify the NISS Officer who detained and abused him undermined his credibility. The RPD asked if the Appellant inquired about the Officer's identity from his aunt who the Appellant stated may have known the Officer's identity and when he replied that he had not, the RPD found this to be unreasonable especially once he was safely in Saudi Arabia, USA, or Canada. The RPD found that one could expect someone in the Appellant's circumstances to have made efforts to identify the main agent of persecution and his failure to do so led the RPD to find that the Appellant had fabricated the officer to bolster his claim. [22] The Appellant argues that in essence the findings made by the RPD in respect to this evidence were that of implausibility. Further, it is argued that the Appellant was traumatized by this incident and as a coping mechanism he avoided the details and memories of this Officer and therefore did not seek out the identity of the Officer, something the RPD failed to address or explain why it was implausible. Moreover, the Appellant argues his actions of avoidance regarding the identity of the Officer was not implausible, especially in light of his trauma and experiences at the hands of the Officer. [23] I agree with the Appellant and find the RPD erred in respect to this credibility finding. While not explicitly referring to the Appellant's evidence as implausible, in essence, this was the finding made by the RPD. Put another way, the RPD did not accept as plausible that someone who underwent the detention and beating as the Appellant claims he did, would not in turn undertake efforts to try to identify the culprit. [24] It must be noted that the courts have been clear in respect to implausibility findings, that they are to be made, ...only in the clearest of cases, i.e., if the facts as presented are outside the realm of what could reasonably be expected, or where the documentary evidence demonstrates that the events could not have happened in the manner asserted by the claimant. A tribunal must be careful when rendering a decision based on a lack of plausibility because refugee claimants come from diverse cultures, and actions which appear implausible when judged from Canadian standards might be plausible when considered within the claimant's milieu.7 [25] Additionally, the courts have commented that implausibility findings are ...inherently subjective assessments which are largely dependant on the individual Board member's perceptions of what constitutes rational behaviour. The appropriateness of a particular finding can therefore only be assessed if the Board's decision clearly identifies all of the facts which form the basis for their conclusions. The Board will therefore err when it fails to refer to relevant evidence which could potentially refute their conclusions of implausibility.8 [26] Taking into account his youthful age, the severity of the abuse resulting in broken teeth and broken bones, and the duration of the detention lasting almost a week in dungeon like conditions, I find it reasonable and plausible that someone in the Appellant's circumstances would try to block such memories and avoid having to relive them. Furthermore, it is unclear to me what identifying the Officer would accomplish for the Appellant, regardless of whether he was safely in Saudi Arabia or North America, as knowing the Officer's identity would likely have no impact on his trauma or change the experiences he underwent. [27] I find that the Appellant's actions are plausible and insufficient to undermine his credibility nor is this evidence sufficient to conclude, on this basis alone, that the Officer was a fabrication. It must be noted that the Appellant's testimony was sworn and consistent and there was nothing in his evidence to undermine aspects of his claim relating to the detention and abuse by a particular NISS Officer other than the flawed plausibility finding noted. As a result, I accept his evidence about the mistreatment and existence of the NISS Officer and draw no negative inference due to his inability or efforts to try to identify the Officer in question. Research Concerning National Service Obligations [28] The RPD considered the objective evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP) which refers to conscription for men to the military beginning at age 18 and up to 45 years of age, that it can range from one year for post-secondary graduates, 18 months for high school graduates, and 2 years for everyone else, and that completing such service is not a prerequisite to obtaining employment in either the public or private sectors. The RPD considered the Appellant's evidence regarding national service and noted that he was only able to state that it began at age 18 and did not know the upper age limit being 45 years of age. Further, the RPD noted the Appellant did not know if educational achievements, such as a university degree, affected the length of military service, and based on all of evidence the RPD concluded that the Appellant's lack of knowledge negatively impacted his credibility. Finally, in respect to alternatives to national service, the RPD noted the Appellant failed to conduct any independent research of such options and instead only relied on the information his aunt provided and found this to be unreasonable and inconsistent with someone who fears military service, ultimately concluding his fear of military service was a fabrication. [29] The Appellant argues this is another example of the RPD making an unreasonable credibility finding based on implausibility. Specifically, it is argued the RPD erred by unreasonably faulting the Appellant for failing to research topics or subjects regarding national service not applicable to him or not affecting his military service. As examples, the Appellant points outs he had not attended university nor was there any evidence that this was a plan or expectation for him going forward, the maximum age of 45 for conscription is irrelevant to him as he was concerned about being conscripted at age 18, and the lack of any alternatives to military service for conscientious objectors like the Appellant who would be punished with two years imprisonment. [30] After my independent assessment of the evidence, I agree with the Appellant that these findings were those of implausibility. The RPD simply did not accept that the Appellant, facing military service at age 18, would not research how he could avoid or reduce such service. To be clear, it must be highlighted that the RPD's finding was not that the Appellant did not conduct any research, but rather that he did not conduct independent research on these areas. I find this to be problematic for two reasons. [31] First, the Appellant did indeed conduct research by asking his aunt about military service and being informed that individuals are conscripted into the military and then sent to war. Given he was only a teenager and lived his whole life in Saudi Arabia while his aunt lived in Sudan and he stayed with her during his trip there, it is reasonable that he would accept her information as being accurate and sufficient to satisfy himself that he did not want to be conscripted into the military. [32] Secondly, and in light of the evidence above, I do not find it implausible that he would not research other aspects of military service, especially ones that were not applicable to him. As identified, there is no evidence the Appellant pursued or planned to pursue a university education or that the maximum age for conscription was applicable in his circumstances as he was a mere teenager and feared being conscripted after turning 18 years of age. [33] As a result, I do not find his actions of asking his aunt for such details, and his inactions of conducting "independent" research as implausible and draw no negative inference from this evidence. Consequently, I disagree with the RPD's finding that the Appellant's fear of being conscripted into the military is a fabrication. [34] For the above reasons, I find that the Appellant's allegation of being detained and beaten by an NISS Officer and his fears of being conscripted into the military have been established on a balance of probabilities. Documentary Evidence in Support of the Claim [35] The RPD considered the documentary evidence in support of the Appellant's case and apparently placed little weight on the evidence. I write apparently as the RPD was not explicit in some of their findings or the weight attributed to certain documentary evidence. For example, the RPD notes the hospital medical record confirming the Appellant's attendance and injuries but indicates no details as to what may have caused the injuries and that there are limitations to such medical certificates. Regarding the letter from the Appellant's father, the RPD noted it was all second-hand knowledge and as a result was worthy of little weight. Finally, the letter from the Appellant's aunt in Sudan was considered by the RPD and acknowledged it confirmed some of the details and had the "most probative value",9 but it is unclear what weight was attributed to this evidence. [36] The Appellant argues the RPD ignored or misconstrued the documentary evidence before it. As noted above, the RPD mentioned the documentary evidence and certain aspects of it only once, especially the aunt's letter, but failed to mention that the physical description the aunt provided in her letter of the Appellant upon his release from the NISS detention or how scared he was after his release. It is argued this evidence corroborates the Appellant's claim of being detained and beaten by the NISS and the RPD failed to explain why this evidence did not support the Appellant's claim, seemingly ignoring highly relevant evidence. [37] Having conducted my own independent assessment, I agree with the Appellant and find the RPD erred in its treatment of the documentary evidence. In my view, the documentary evidence presented supports an otherwise credible claim. [38] First of all, the medical certificate confirms attendance at the hospital after release from NISS detention as well as the various injuries suffered. There is no evidence or finding by the RPD to impugn the authenticity of the report or its content. As such, I give this evidence significant weight in support of the Appellant's claim. [39] Secondly, the father's letter, even if second hand, does confirm many aspects of the Appellant's claim, including his trip to Sudan in XXXX 2015, his detention and injuries at the hands of NISS officials, and his escape from Sudan after release. I must note that the RPD is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence,10 and as such may consider hearsay evidence. I find it was an error to give this evidence little weight on this basis alone without any other findings detrimental to the letter. In my view, the letter is worthy of moderate weight as there are no issues regarding its authenticity and it confirms some of the significant facts around the Appellant's claim. [40] Finally, I find the RPD erred with respect to the aunt's letter by being selective to the evidence it provides and conversely seemingly ignoring other important aspects of her evidence. The aunt's letter confirmed also that she and her son in law searched for the Appellant at NISS offices, the Appellant had visible injuries when released, he was crying, she took him to the hospital for treatment, he felt scared and said people were watching him after his release, and she explains the manner in which the Appellant was able to leave Sudan.11 None of these aspects of her evidence were mentioned by the RPD. Given the detailed nature of her evidence, I give it significant weight in support of the Appellant's claim. [41] In summary, based on the above findings, I find the Appellant has established on a balance of probabilities that he was detained and abused by a NISS Officer in Sudan, forced to sign an undertaking not to leave the country and report for military service at age 18, and that he does not want to engage in military service as he does not want to be sent to a war zone to fight. Objective Evidence Regarding Those Viewed as Opposing the Government or Military Service [42] I have considered the available and most recent documentary evidence regarding the general situation in Sudan and the specific treatment of young males who may come to the attention of the security services (now known as the General Intelligence Services) and object to military service. [43] The objective evidence paints a troubling picture of the country, which saw the transition of power from an authoritarian president in 2019 to a new government.12 This transition, appears to have resulted in some improvements for the citizenry. The United States Department of State report indicates that under the former government authorities engaged in "unlawful or arbitrary killings; forced disappearance; torture; and arbitrary detention, all by security forces; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; political prisoners; arrests and intimidation of journalists, censorship...widespread corruption".13 It is also reported without specific examples that, generally, respect for human rights "greatly improved" under the new government.14 [44] It appears that these improvements were short-lived, as Human Rights Watch reported for 2020 that "[t]he government introduced some reforms but has not yet implemented most of the institutional and law reforms called for in the August 2019 constitutional charter".15 Further, the same source reports that the government "has not embarked on security sector reform beyond renaming the National Intelligence and Security (NISS) as the General Intelligence Service (GIS) and removing its arrest and detention powers".16 In terms of treatment of citizens protesting, there are report that police have used violence, killing one person and injuring others and there are also reports of security forces killing "at least eight people and injuring others in the eastern state of Kassala".17 [45] However, and perhaps most importantly for the purposes of this case given the Appellant's fear of the security services officials, Human Rights Watch reports that "[s]ecurity officials continued to arbitrarily detain civilians".18 Also, "[g]overnment security forces arrested and detained civilians in Kutum, North Darfur, and Kass, South Darfur, following protests in both locations. At least one of the released detainees from Kutum held by military officials told Human Rights Watch he was subjected to ill-treatment that could amount to torture while in detention".19 [46] Most recently, a report by the African Centre for Justice and Peace, published July 2020, notes the "endemic" use of torture and other forms of mistreatment by Sudanese authorities for the past three decades.20 The same source reports that there is evidence of torture in four different contexts, one of which includes that which was perpetrated by the NISS "in unofficial detention centres and inhumane prisons called 'ghosts houses'". This account is consistent with the Appellant's mistreatment by NISS in an undisclosed detention centre. Furthermore, there are reports of arbitrary arrests, detentions, and torture before and after the change in government of those who participated or were perceived as participating in protests, with individuals reporting threats of rape, beating during interrogations, and other inhumane treatments.21 [47] In terms of military service and those who either avoid or otherwise refuse to participate may range from fines, prison sentences or being forced into the military.22 Furthermore, those who left the country and avoided military service, such as the Appellant, the same source reports that such individuals may be punished when they return to Sudan.23 [48] In light of the above evidence, I find the Appellant faces a serious possibility of persecution based on his prior non-compliance with the NISS by leaving the country and avoiding his military service which would reasonably be viewed by Sudanese authorities as opposing the government and holding anti-government political views or opinions. ADMISSIBILITY OF NEW EVIDENCE AND INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL ARGUMENT [49] The Appellant sought to admit new evidence throughout various stages of his appeal and again after the matter was referred back to the RAD by the Federal Courts. However, I have found that the initial evidence presented to the RPD sufficiently and credibly established the Appellant's claim. As a result, I do not see it necessary to address the new evidence. [50] Additionally, given my findings specifically on the evidence available and my overall conclusion that the Appellant is a Convention refugee, I find it unnecessary to consider the Appellant's arguments regarding ineffective counsel as the evidence established the pertinent aspects of the Appellant's claim and has resulted in a positive determination. Moreover, it would be difficult and unnecessary in the context of this case to determine what exactly happened between the Appellant and his former counsel based solely on their opposing affidavits. In my view, it is fair to say former counsel is of the view he sufficiently prepared the Appellant for the refugee claim and informed him what would assist that process, and the Appellant is likely of the view, in the face of a negative RPD decision, more could have been done and should have been done by his former counsel. It is possible both the Appellant and former counsel are equally correct in their beliefs with former counsel's effectiveness perhaps supported by my redetermination of the appeal and the Appellant's ability to obtain further evidence in support of his case exhibited through the numerous new pieces of evidence he was clearly able to acquire. As a result, I make no determination as to the alleged ineffectiveness of former counsel. CONCLUSION [51] The RAD, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the IRPA, sets aside the decision of the RPD and substitutes a decision that the Appellant is a Convention refugee. (signed) Christopher Marcinkiewicz Christopher Marcinkiewicz April 20, 2021 Date 1 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, October 22, 2018, at p. 259. 2 Paragraph 111(1)(b), Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, as amended. 3 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, [2016] 4 FCR 157, 2016 FCA 93, at para. 103. 4 Mohamed v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 1145 (CanLII). 5 Transcript of 25 July 2018 RPD Hearing, at p. 21-22. 6 Ibid., at p. 23. 7 Valtchev v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 776 (CanLII), at para. 7. 8 Leung v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1994, 81 F.T.R. 303, p. 307, at para. 15, as cited in Valtchev v. Canada, 2001 FCT 776, at para. 8. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, p. 6, at para. 13. 10 Paragraph 170(g), Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, as amended.) 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at p. 78. 12 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Sudan (31 March 2021), Item 2.1: Sudan. Country Reports on Human Rights Practice for 2019, United States Department of State, 11 March 2020, at pp. 1-2. 13 Ibid., at p. 3. 14 Ibid., at p. 3. 15 NDP for Sudan (31 March 2021), Item 2.5: Sudan. World Report 2021: Events of 2020, Human Rights Watch, 2021, at p. 1. 16 Ibid., at p. 2. 17 Ibid., at p. 3. 18 Ibid., at p. 3. 19 Ibid., at p. 4. 20 NDP for Sudan (31 March 2021), Item 2.17: (Post)-Covid19 era in Sudan: The urgency to unravel the torture and inhuman treatments system one year after the Transition, African Centre for Justice and Peace Studies; World Organisation Against Torture, July 2020, at p. 3. 21 Ibid, at p. 3-5. 22 NDP for Sudan (31 March 2021), Item 8.1: Information on militry service, including deferment for the purpose of attending university: information on punishiment for refusing or evading military service, including upon return to Sudan after an extended absence, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), Response to Information Request (RIR) SDN105640.E., at p. 5 23 Ibid, at p. 6-7. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-24861 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français 2 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français