TB9-32456

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-32456 TB9-32457 / TB9-32458 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montreal, QC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision January 6, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Max Wolpert Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal John W Grice Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] I dismiss these appeals. [2] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a 39-year-old Bahamian citizen of Haitian descent. XXXX XXXX XXXX, now 20 years old, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, 16, are her two older children. They are either citizens of the Bahamas or stateless persons whose only country of former habitual residence was The Bahamas. [3] The Appellants alleged a fear of persecution or other grave harm from retaliation by a Bahamian criminal gang for a murderous gang war that two of Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX cousins started in 2000. The RPD dismissed their claims because it found they had not established sufficient risk of harm. I agree with the RPD. Allegations [4] The Appellants' allegations were well summarised by the RPD at paragraphs 5 to 7 of its reasons:1 [5] The principal claimant alleged that she and her family are at risk of persecution and fear for their lives in the Bahamas because two of her maternal cousins [with whom she was raised] are engaged in gang activity that has resulted in a long sequence of retaliatory killings between members of rival gangs. Innocent relatives have been caught up in the killings, and she and her daughters as, cousins of XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX) and XXXX XXXX, are at risk. [6] XXXX and XXXX XXXX were members of the XXXX XXXX gang. In 2002, XXXX XXXX shot a member of the rival gang, the XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX. This killing would set in motion a chain of events that culminated in the family having to leave the Bahamas and to seek Canada's protection. [7] The principal claimant alleged the following events in her narrative: • In XXXX 2000, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX shot and killed XXXX XXXX (a.k.a XXXX XXXX), a member of the rival gang, the XXXX XXXX XXXX. Retaliation was swift. That very day the XXXX XXXX XXXX killed the mother and six-year old brother of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. • At the same time a 'hit' was ordered on XXXX XXXXand XXXX XXXX. • Shortly afterwards, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX fled to Haiti, where they remained until 2003. • In 2003, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX return to the Bahamas. • Eight years later, on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2011, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXshot XXXX XXXX. • In XXXX 2011, XXXX XXXX was murdered. • In XXXX 2011, XXXX XXXX friend, XXXX, was also murdered. • XXXX 2012, XXXX XXXXkilled XXXX XXXX. • XXXX 2013, the claimant and her family [including her now ex-husband] were confronted at gun point in their home by XXXX XXXXand XXXX XXXX. The family had returned home from an XXXX function to find the two in their home. XXXX XXXXand XXXX XXXX were looking for XXXX XXXX, but fled the home when the family screamed loudly, but not before threatening [to kill] them [all] if [next time] they were found to be hiding XXXX XXXX. The police did not respond to their complaint, instead they told them that Haitians were responsible for much of the crime in the Bahamas and they had nothing to investigate because no one was dead. • In XXXX and XXXX 2013, the family home was vandalised but nothing was taken. Around the same time, XXXX XXXXand XXXX XXXX sent a message to [Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX] threatening to harm the family. • XXXX 2013, the family took the children out of school. They moved to a friend's home for XXXX weeks. These steps were intended to prevent the XXXX XXXX XXXX from harming the family. • XXXX XXXX XXXX 2013, the claimants attempt to travel to Florida. [A]t the [Nassau airport] U.S.A. immigration preclearance, they discovered that United States (US) Homeland security, acting on a tip, had cancelled the [claimant's] [multiple-entry]visa. The tipster had told Homeland Security that the family had disposed of its property in the Bahamas, and had removed the children from school, all with a view of travelling to the US and settling there permanently. • On XXXX XXXX, 2013, the claimant and her family left Nassau to come to Canada. • On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2013 the claimant gave birth to their third child. • In 2013, the claimants attempted to make refugee claims, but were deterred by both the Fort Erie Multicultural Centre and an independent lawyer. • On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2013 four people were killed at a party in Fox Hill, Nassau. • In XXXX 2014, XXXX XXXX, a cousin of the claimant, was killed. • From XXXX 2014 to present further gang-related killings occurred in the Bahamas. RPD REASONS No nexus - RPD correct [5] The RPD first held that the Appellants' alleged fear was one of crime or vendetta not linked to any of the five grounds in the definition of Convention refugee. It rejected the submission that the Appellants are members of a particular social group, the family of Ms. XXXX gang-member cousins. That was, the RPD found, a derivative claim that had no nexus to the Convention because both of those cousins had been targeted for non-Convention reasons.2 [6] The RPD therefore analysed the Appellants' alleged risks solely under IRPA section 97. Nexus - Appellants' position [7] Counsel submits that: [8] Family is well recognised as a Convention social group. [9] The Appellants' relatives had been victims of reprisals and vengeance because they were related to the gang members. The Appellants were threatened and nearly killed because of their family association. They have thus demonstrated that they fear not merely indirect or derivative persecution, but persecution based on a personal nexus to the Convention. Nexus - analysis [10] For a claim based on family membership to succeed, the family member who is the initial target of the persecution must be subject to persecution for a Convention reason. When the initial victim of persecution does not come within the Convention refugee definition, any derivative Convention refugee claim based on family group cannot be sustained. [11] The Appellants were allegedly threatened with harm because Ms. XXXX close cousins were involved in a gang and its violent crimes. The RPD did not err in holding that the Appellants did not belong to a particular social group within the meaning of the Convention definition, as their difficulties were due solely to their connection to cousins who were targeted for non-Convention reasons. [12] In any event, this point is not determinative of my decision, because I have found that the Appellants would not face more than a mere possibility of persecution for any reason should they return to The Bahamas.3 Insufficient risk of harm - RPD correct [13] The RPD next held that the Appellants had not established sufficient risk of harm to qualify for protection. It observed that, assuming the alleged XXXX 2013 home invasion and death threat took place, that was the only time in the previous eleven years since the retaliatory gang killings had begun that the Appellants were directly involved. [14] In addition, the RPD emphasised, one of the two home invaders was now dead and the other, XXXX XXXX, had been charged with his murder. The RPD found the Appellants' contention that this did not mean retaliatory killings would cease or that they would no longer be at risk, highly speculative. It noted that the only incident where other innocent relatives had been targeted was the 2000 killing of the mother and brother of Ms. XXXX gangster cousin's associate right after he and the associate launched the gang war by killing a member of a rival gang. Otherwise, the RPD remarked, the killings appeared largely to have been confined to gang members. In fact, the RPD wrote, few incidents of any kind in the fourteen-year chronology involved persons who were not gang members.4 Risk of harm - Appellants' position [15] Counsel submits the RPD erred in finding the Appellants faced insufficient risk as they had only been threatened once, in XXXX 2013, because: [16] First, the Appellants' home was vandalized twice around that time, and the home invaders sent a threatening message to Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX. This showed that the Appellants were directly involved more than once and suggested they were important targets of these gang members. [17] Second, it is possible the Appellants were not directly targeted more often simply because they fled the Bahamas soon after the threats they received in XXXX and XXXX 2013. [18] Thirdly, Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX had been wanted by the police for the 2000 murder of XXXX XXXX, yet was killed by a member of another gang in 2011. The eleven-year lapse shows that the gangs' desire for revenge does not diminish over time. [19] Fourth, the RPD was incorrect that there had been only one incident victimising the Appellants' innocent relatives. The RPD's chronology mentioned four people killed at a party in XXXX 2013. The news accounts5 suggested that not all the victims, who also included seven wounded, were gang members. In addition, in XXXX 2014 XXXX XXXX was murdered in his car, but the evidence stated two others were shot, and XXXX fiancé was in the car during the murder.6 [20] Finally, though XXXX XXXX, one of the two men who had threatened the Appellants in 2013, was dead, and the other one, XXXX XXXX, had been arrested for his murder, the Appellants fear their XXXX XXXX XXXX associates as well. The fact remains the Appellants were targeted because of their family connection to a rival gang's members. That connection continues. Groups like the XXXX XXXX XXXX are more powerful than one or two of their members. The gang are well-connected criminals who carry out revenge killings against rival gang members and their relatives and have other members who can do so against the Appellants. Risk of harm - analysis [21] The Appellants' home may have been vandalised twice around the time of its invasion by XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX and a second threat conveyed, but the evidence is that only those two men were involved in both threats. No other XXXX XXXX XXXX members confronted or threatened any of the Appellants during the thirteen years of gang warfare before the Appellants left The Bahamas. [22] XXXX XXXX was killed in XXXX 2014. [23] The evidence before the RPD from news articles about XXXX XXXX was that he: i. Had been wanted by police, along with XXXX, for the XXXX 2013 mass killing mentioned above;7 ii. Had soon turned himself in, but was released a few days later;8 iii. Had been sought and captured by police for the XXXX 2014 murder of XXXX.9 [24] The RPD thus based its analysis on XXXX being dead and XXXX in police custody charged with his murder. [25] Updated information about XXXX XXXX, which I located by an internet search, reveals, however, that he had not been convicted on that charge, nor for that matter of several other murders he had been suspected of or accused of before and after that one. XXXX XXXX: i. Had been arrested and charged in XXXX 2008 for attempted murder, but was apparently acquitted;10 ii. Was acquitted in XXXX 2013 of a 2010 murder and attempted murder after the judge threw out his written confession;11 iii. Had turned himself in to police in XXXX 2016 for questioning about a recent murder [but apparently was not charged];12 iv. Was arrested and arraigned in XXXX 2017 for a murder of that same month;13 v. Was released from custody on bail, which the Court of Appeal later upheld;14 vi. Was reportedly wounded by a shot to the head in XXXX 2019, but survived;15 vii. Had reportedly become the leader of the XXXX XXXX XXXX and was reportedly suspected of being behind the late 2020 murders of several rival gang members.16 [26] All this would have countered the RPD's inference that XXXX XXXX was behind bars and out of commission as far as the Appellants were concerned. [27] On XXXX XXXX, 2020, however, XXXX XXXX was himself murdered.17 In the end, that brings us back to where the RPD was as far as he is personally concerned, only more so.18 [28] That being the case, I also agree with the RPD that the Appellants do not face a serious chance of persecution by other gang members. It is striking that, as the RPD observed, no gang member had bothered the Appellants since their cousins triggered the gang war in 2000 until XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX threatened them in XXXX and XXXX 2013. At that time, XXXX and XXXX were simply looking for Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX surviving gangster cousin. Their threats, as they pronounced them, would take effect were they to return to the Appellants' home and not find the cousin there. That didn't happen. Now it can never happen. [29] There is no evidence that any other gang members were ever concerned with the Appellants. I agree with the RPD that any alleged risk of that happening in future is highly speculative. The fact that persons, perhaps innocent, were killed while in the company of gang members attacked by other gangsters does not translate to a serious risk to the Appellants, who do not regularly find or place themselves in that situation. [30] The only instance where a gang member's innocent relatives were killed not in the course of an attack on that member was the one the same day in 2000 when Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX late cousin carried out the killing that started the gang war. Nothing like that happened in all the years after. The evidence supports neither a conclusion that the killing of Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX cousin XXXX XXXX in XXXX 2014 was simply because she was a relative of their mutual gangster cousins, nor that it demonstrates a similar risk for the Appellants. [31] I find that the RPD correctly concluded that the Appellants had not established sufficient risk of harm flowing from being relatives of gang members to qualify for protection. Persecution because of Haitian ethnicity - not established - RPD correct Allegations [32] Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX wrote in her BOC that in The Bahamas, people perceived to be of Haitian origin are persecuted and treated like second-class citizens. People often blame Haitian immigrants for crimes and treat them as though they do not deserve to be in the country. The Bahamian police are also less inclined to help gang victims whom they regard as Haitian. Haitian ethnicity - RPD reasons [33] The RPD noted that, other than in describing the police lack of response to her report of the XXXX 2013 threats by XXXXand XXXX, Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX had alluded to in her testimony, but had not focused on, the Haitian aspect of the Appellants' claims. [34] The RPD accepted that there was prejudice and discrimination against Haitians in The Bahamas. It cited the 2018 US Department of State human rights report that many of the tens of thousands Bahamian residents of Haitian descent lived in shantytowns and complained of job discrimination. [35] Nevertheless, the RPD found that anti-Haitian discrimination had not risen to the level of persecution. Haitians, it observed, are not prevented from attending schools or seeking employment, neither are they denied access to social services. The RPD rejected the Appellants' suggestion that the fact Haitians are not automatically accorded citizenship at birth when born in The Bahamas [to non-Bahamians] was evidence of discrimination and persecution. The citizenship law, it held, is a law of general application and does not single out Haitians. [36] The RPD concluded that the discrimination the Appellants may have experienced in The Bahamas because of their Haitian backgrounds did not, on a cumulative basis, amount to persecution.19 Haitian ethnicity - Appellants' position [37] Counsel submits that the RPD erred in considering the NDP documentary evidence. She cites a 2012 Response to Information Request saying the Haitian community is characterized by high poverty and unemployment rates, low educational achievement and poor health conditions, and that Haitians generally had difficulty in securing citizenship, residence, or work permits in The Bahamas. The RIR also reports that stateless children of Haitian background were illegally made to pay foreign student tuition rates or sometimes denied schooling. Children of Haitian migrants born in the Bahamas also were considered "stateless" because Haitian citizenship is acquired by birth within Haiti. [38] The 2012 evidence stated that "[p]ersons born in The Bahamas to married non-Bahamian parents may apply for Bahamian citizenship between their 18th and 19th birthday only." The process for applying for citizenship, however, can take a number of years, making it difficult for "many" young people, to find jobs, travel or even open a bank account. According to the authors of a 2009 report, "many" young Haitians under 18 years remain stateless because the process for applying for citizenship is complicated, particularly with regard to the documentary requirements and lengthy processing times for applications. [39] Counsel also cites a passage that: prejudice and resentment over Haitian immigration is still "common" in the Bahamas, and that Haitians "have frequently been targets for harassment and forced repatriations" (2008). The Nassau Guardian reported that during the Haitian president's visit to the Bahamas in February 2012, he stated that he had received reports of cases in which Haitians were arrested for "illegal immigration" even though they had permits to work or reside in the country (11 Feb. 2012). According to MRG, the "anti-Haitian attitudes" of the Bahamian population may be the result of the Bahamian government's efforts to stop the "steady" influx of illegal Haitian immigrants (2008). In 2009, the BBC cited the Bahamian minister of national security as saying that the number of Haitians living in the Bahamas has become "overwhelming" and that it was creating an "extreme" strain on social services, such as healthcare and education (20 Sept. 2009). [40] Counsel submits that the documentary evidence demonstrated widespread and severe discrimination amounting to persecution of persons of Haitian descent living in The Bahamas. The treatment went beyond access to schooling or social services. It showed that Haitians were being targeted by the Bahamian government for discrimination and by intentionally complicating their access to services. Combined with severe discrimination in housing, employment and education, the evidence established a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of ethnicity. Haitian ethnicity - analysis [41] Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX is not a Haitian migrant in The Bahamas. She may have been born to parents from Haiti, but she became a Bahamian citizen. That process even required her to renounce Haitian citizenship or any right to it. There is no evidence that she has been or may be forced by or with the government's condonation to leave The Bahamas for Haiti or anywhere else. [42] Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX was able to graduate high school in The Bahamas. For two years before her 2011 marriage, she worked as a XXXX XXXX. There is no evidence that she lived in a shantytown or was denied social or medical services. While she may be subject to general anti-Haitian discrimination, the RPD was correct that in her own case there is not a serious possibility that she will be persecuted because of her ethnic or national background. [43] It is not clear whether XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is yet a Bahamian citizen or is stateless. If the latter, she will be constitutionally entitled to apply for Bahamian citizenship between XXXX 2022, when she turns 18, and XXXX 2023. Although a response may take a long time, there is no evidence that she would be denied schooling, medical care or other social services in the meantime, just as there was not such evidence when she lived in The Bahamas. [44] For example, individuals born in the country even to non-Bahamian parents are eligible to apply for "belonger" status that entitles them to work and have access to public high-school level education and fee-for-service health-care insurance. Belonger permits have been readily available. Authorities allow individuals born in the country even to non-Bahamian parents to pay the tuition rate for Bahamian students when enrolled in college and while waiting for their request for citizenship to be processed.20 As XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was born in The Bahamas to a Bahamian citizen mother (and father), her situation would be at least as good or better than that of a "belonger". [45] Even if XXXX XXXX XXXX is stateless, she would be entitled to a belonger permit and all the benefits to which it entitles the beholder. Like her sister, she attended school full time in The Bahamas until the month before she came to Canada. There is no evidence she was or would be denied medical or social services. [46] A scholarly article the Appellants filed with the RPD states that Bahamians regard Haitians as culturally, ethnically, and economically inferior. Haitians are thought to deprive Bahamian nationals of government resources. This has resulted in intolerance and discrimination towards Haitians by Bahamian local and government bodies.21 Yet, unlike many precarious Haitian migrants to The Bahamas, the Appellants had lived all their lives there and were far more integrated. [47] In sum, the RPD was correct that these particular Appellants, unlike arguably some Haitian immigrants, do not have a well-founded fear of persecution in The Bahamas by reason of their Haitian backgrounds. Compelling reasons - RPD correct [48] Counsel submits that the RPD also erred by failing to consider "compelling reasons" as a basis to accept the Appellants' refugee claims. She argues that: "The Appellants' multiple family members being murdered, and the threats they received from gang members before they fled would support a finding that the experiences would inflict significant fear on their mental state and constitute a compelling reason not to return the Appellants to their country of origin." [49] Counsel points out that in order for the "compelling reasons" exception to apply, a claimant does not need to show a subsisting well-founded fear of persecution or an ongoing subjective fear of persecution. She also observes correctly that they must, however, first establish that they suffered, at some point in the past, persecution, torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Arguably, that happened in 2013 when XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX were still alive. [50] The Appellants' lack of nexus to the Convention eliminates the relevance of any past persecution. The absence of government involvement or condonation of any mistreatment the Appellants suffered eliminates past torture, even assuming there were any, from consideration under compelling reasons. That leaves any past cruel and unusual treatment or punishment to be examined. [51] At any rate, and apart from that, the past mistreatment the Appellants or any of them may have suffered must either have been, according to most Canadian jurisprudence, appalling or atrocious, even in comparison to that most persons entitled to protection endured, or according to other court decisions, more holistically determined, based on all the circumstances of the case, including a consideration of the trauma caused by repatriation. [52] Under either approach, I find that none of the Appellants qualify. Their direct mistreatment was one threatening encounter in XXXX 2013 with two persons now dead and a second threat those persons delivered in XXXX 2013. That, and the deaths of some members of their extended family together do not meet the high threshold for the compelling reasons exception to apply. [53] While many claimants might consider the persecution they have suffered to fit within the scope of that exception, it must be remembered that the nature of all persecution, by definition, involves death, physical harm or other penalties. The compelling reasons exception only applies to extraordinary cases in which the persecution is relatively so exceptional that even in the wake of changed circumstances, it would be wrong to return claimants. This is not such a case. [53] As a result, I find the RPD did not err by not applying the compelling reasons exception to any of the Appellants' claims. Conclusion [54] I conclude that the RPD was correct to hold that the Appellants' claims do not have a nexus to the Convention refugee definition, and that they had not established sufficient risk to qualify for protection. DECISION [55] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellants XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. (signed) Max Wolpert Max Wolpert January 6, 2021 Date MW/lp 1 Contents in square brackets added or modified by me. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, paragraphs 26 to 31 3 Interestingly, the IRB's own Legal Services has publicly stated, after analysing Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal jurisprudence, that "The preferred position of Legal Services is that all three grounds of protection [under IRPA s.97, namely torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment] should be decided using the same standard of proof, namely the Adjei test, 'reasonable chance or serious possibility'." Consolidated Grounds in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: Persons in Need of Protection - Danger of Torture, May 15, 2002, section 4.6, https://irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/legal-policy/legal-concepts/Pages/ProtectTorture.aspx#n44, consulted December 31, 2020. If that position is correct, less hinges on nexus determinations than is often supposed. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, paragraph 33. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 240, 236-37, 244-45 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 241 and 242 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 237 and 377 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 239 and 242 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 241 to 243 and 246 10 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, 2008. Page 1 XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, 2021. 11 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, 2013, XXXX 12 XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, 2016, XXXX 13 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, 2017, XXXX 14 Judgements - Bahama Court of Appeal, Case #XXXX of 2018, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, courtofappeal.org.bs 15 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, 2019, as reported on its Facebook page 16 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, 2020, XXXX/ 17 Ibid; also XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, 2021; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX 2021 18 I have not disclosed to Counsel any of the additional evidence about XXXX XXXX that I found on the internet, as his ultimate death is an absolute fact that simply brought the context of his direct personal danger to the Appellants back to where the RPD and the Appellants had assumed it to be, only now permanently so. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, paragraphs 46 to 48 20 National Documentation Package, Bahamas, 30 April 2020, tab 2.1: ?Bahamas. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019. United States. Department of State. 11 March 2020, page 10. The same information appears at pages 10 to 11 of the 2018 Country Report that was before the RPD. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 494 to 502. A.D. Knowles, Case Study: Preventing and Resolving Conflict Between Bahamian Nationals and the Haitian Diaspora that Reside in The Bahamas, International Journal of Law and Public Administration, Vol. 1, No. 2; December 2018, page 24. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File/Dossier de la SAR : TB9-32456 TB9-32457/TB9-32458 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