TB5-01752

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-01752 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 / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision May 21, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Lesley Mason Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Richard Wazana Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant), who claims to be a citizen of Zimbabwe, appeals the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. He has submitted new evidence in support of his appeal. He has not requested an oral hearing. The Appellant asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to set aside the RPD's decision and replace it with a determination that the Appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection or in the alternative, that the matter be referred back to a different member of the RPD for re-determination. DETERMINATION [2] This appeal is allowed. Pursuant to section 111(1) (b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD sets aside the determination of the RPD and substitutes its own determination that the Appellant is a Convention refugee. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant became a member of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) political party in 2004. After the Appellant attended a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, his family home was spray painted with anti-MDC graffiti. [4] During the run-up to the 2005 elections, the Appellant campaigned for the MDC. While attending an MDC XXXX gathering in XXXX 2005, the Appellant was arrested and subsequently fingerprinted along with other MDC members. During XXXX XXXX in detention, the Appellant was beaten, harassed and threatened. He was released the following day on condition that he stop campaigning for the MDC. [5] On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, a large gathering was organized at a stadium to celebrate the birthday of President Robert Mugabe. The Appellant was arrested during an MDC boycott of the celebration. He was detained for XXXX nights during which time he was threatened with his life if he was caught again. He was again fingerprinted. The Appellant was released when a lawyer, who was also the Appellant's XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX intervened. [6] On XXXX XXXX, 2006, the Appellant was involved in a fight between XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX youth members. The Appellant was cut with a XXXX during the fight. When riot police arrived, the Appellant escaped to his home where he picked up identity documents. He then went to the home of his aunt where he remained in hiding for three weeks. During this time his family home was raided by the police and his mother and brothers were assaulted. [7] The Appellant obtained a visa to South Africa. Upon his arrival in South Africa on XXXX XXXX, 2006 he sought refugee protection. He was granted temporary asylum status which he continued to renew every three months until it was revoked in 2010. He then obtained a work permit. While in South Africa the Appellant returned to Zimbabwe on XXXX occasions because of his mother's serious illness. In 2013 the Appellant left South Africa for XXXX months to work on a XXXX XXXX. When he returned to South Africa, his work permit was revoked and he was given ninety days to remain as a visitor. The Appellant obtained a visa to the United States (US). After again finding employment XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the Appellant arrived in the US in XXXX 2014. Shortly thereafter he applied for a visitor's visa to Canada. [8] The Appellant arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2014 and made a claim for protection on September 10, 2014. ADMISSIBILITY OF NEW EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON APPEAL [9] Section 110(4) of IRPA provides that the Appellant may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of his claim or that was not reasonably available, or that he could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. All documents provided as new evidence are dated after the RPD decision was made. Affidavits and Letters [10] The Appellant provided an affidavit from his brother, XXXX XXXX, dated February 12, 2015,1 and from his sister, XXXX XXXX, dated February 27, 2015.2 The affidavits provide information regarding attempts made to obtain information regarding the continued interest of the police in the Appellant. [11] The Appellant provided an affidavit from XXXX XXXX, dated February 18, 2015,3 and a letter from XXXX XXXX, dated February 23, 2015.4 The Appellant provided an undated e-mail from a person who signed the message "XXXX".5 Mr. XXXX, Ms. XXXX and XXXX provide information regarding the possibility of an internal flight alternative in Zimbabwe. [12] In his appeal, the Appellant states that he did not provide the above information at his hearing before the RPD because he had been instructed to obtain evidence about his MDC membership and arrests which he did with a letter from XXXX XXXX6 and a medical letter.7 One of the two determinative issues was IFA. The affidavits shed further light on the problems of an IFA in XXXX. Internet article [13] The Appellant provided an internet article about an MDC politician, XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX, 2013.8 The Appellant states in his appeal that during the hearing before the RPD, the RPD member questioned the authenticity of the letter he provided for his hearing from Mr. XXXX9 and in her written decision, stated that Mr. XXXX is not an active member. The Appellant provided the article as evidence that Mr. XXXX is a member of the MDC and a politician in Zimbabwe. [14] The RAD accepts the Appellant's reasons regarding why he did not provide the new evidence for his hearing before the RPD. The RAD agrees that there would have been no foreseeable reason to have provided such evidence for his hearing. The new evidence is provided in response to the RPD member's decision on a number of issues. In its analysis, the RAD will assign what it believes to be appropriate weight to these documents. ROLE OF THE RAD [15] In the appeal, counsel for the Appellant referred to the recent Huruglica10 decision as a means of assessing the appeal. In this decision, Justice Phelan had indicated that the RAD conducts a hybrid appeal and is required to review all aspects of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the Appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. This authority comes from the broad remedial powers of the RAD, including the power to set aside and substitute the RPD determination that, in its opinion, should have been made as per section 111(1)(b) of IRPA. The RAD can recognize and respect the conclusions of the RPD on issues such as credibility and/or where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage in reaching its conclusion; however, the RAD has equal or greater expertise to the RPD in the interpretation of country condition evidence. The RAD is not restricted to intervening on facts where there is a palpable and overriding error. It is not necessary for the RAD to find an error on some standard of review basis in order to trigger its remedial power. The RAD will, accordingly, assess the claim based on the guidance in the Huruglica11 decision. ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE Did the Board err in its credibility findings? The Appellant's political profile [16] The RPD member found that the Appellant's vague testimony about his political involvement added to her concerns about the credibility of the Appellant's political association with the MDC. In her decision the RPD member referred to the Appellant's response when, during the hearing, she asked him why he joined the MDC: "It was the right thing to do".12 The RPD member found that the Appellant was unable to provide any specific MDC policies or objectives. [17] The Appellant submits in his appeal that the Board erred in concluding he had submitted insufficient evidence of his political profile by repeatedly ignoring his testimony. The Appellant also argues that the Board never asked him to provide specific MDC policies or objectives. [18] The RAD has listened to the recording of the hearing and, consequently agrees with the Appellant. When the RPD member asked the Appellant why he decided to join the MDC he did, indeed, respond that it was the right thing to do. However, he continued with a forthright and detailed explanation as to why this was the case. The Appellant testified that the country was going to the dogs. He testified further that with the government in power the citizens did not have basic necessities such as food, electricity, and petrol; he testified that hospitals and schools were shut down. He explained that they were hearing and living and feeling the situation. The Appellant then testified that he wanted to join the MDC because the party promised at that time to make changes in the country and he wished to be part of the change. The RPD member interrupted the Appellant at this point in his testimony by asking a question about his friends in the MDC. [19] The RAD notes that there is no indication that the RPD member questioned the Appellant about MDC policies or objectives. The RAD believes that the Appellant was denied the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice in this instance. According to jurisprudence, the Court in Chehar stated the following: Generally, the Board is in a better position than a reviewing Court to weigh the credibility of those who testified before it: Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.). However, in arriving at its findings, the Board must be careful to afford the applicant the opportunity to address key issues upon which the Board intends to rely, and must not draw adverse inferences on findings of fact which are manifestly in error: Gracielome v. M.E.I. (1989), 9 Imm. L.R. (2d) 237 (F.C.A.)...13 [20] The recording of the hearing indicates that when the RPD member asked the Appellant what he did upon joining the MDC in 2004, the Appellant gave considerable detail in a straightforward manner. The Appellant testified that he bought a membership card and was introduced to the MDC in his district where he was inducted into the party and the manifesto was explained. The Appellant explained that the youth wing was the engine of the MDC party. He testified further that he began to attend rallies and helped to organize rallies. The Appellant testified that he bought a membership card again in 2005. At another juncture of the hearing the Appellant testified that he helped to recruit youth and older people; he characterized as "fishing for men"; he testified that he campaigned and distributed literature. [21] In her reasons, the RPD member stated that the Appellant testified that he forgot to renew his MDC membership in 2006. On listening to a recording of the hearing, the RAD finds that this not to be the case. The Appellant testified that after his second arrest in XXXX he decided to lay low. He testified further that he did not renew his membership in 2006 because authorities, during his second arrest, had told him they meant business when they threatened him to not be involved with the MDC. [22] The RPD member found that the Appellant did not submit his MDC membership card as evidence. She stated that the Appellant had testified he lost the card and he did not seek a replacement card. While the RAD acknowledges the deference it should show to the RPD's findings, nonetheless, the RAD cannot recognize and respect these findings. The RAD on listening to the recording of the hearing finds that the Appellant provided reasonable explanations for the lack of a membership card. The Appellant testified that he lost the card when he left Zimbabwe in a hurry in 2006. He testified further that he thought that everything he left at home related to the MDC was confiscated by the authorities when they raided his family home after he left the country. While the Appellant may be speculating with regards to actions taken by authorities, the RAD finds it reasonable that the Appellant did not take his membership card with him when he left the country and that in the intervening years the card has gone missing. The RAD has also considered the independent documentary evidence with regards to the possibility of obtaining a replacement of an MDC membership card. A Response to Information Request (RIR) provides the following information: The former chairperson explained that it is "almost impossible" to confirm the membership of those MDC members whose cards were issued in Zimbabwe since doing so involves having to contact someone at the issuing branch in Zimbabwe. If local representatives can be reached, they are reluctant to provide confirmation due to the "atmosphere of fear" in Zimbabwe. He added that the local representatives in Zimbabwe are protective of their members and want to ensure their safety. An additional difficulty is that records are not computerized and must be physically checked. The former chairperson also said that MDC offices in Zimbabwe are often vandalized and the records destroyed.14 [23] The RAD, therefore, does not draw a negative inference from the lack of the Appellant's MDC membership card. [24] For his hearing before the RPD the Appellant provided a letter from XXXX XXXX, MDC MP XXXX XXXX.15 Mr. XXXX confirms that the Appellant became a party member in 2004 and was an operator in the youth wing. Mr. XXXX states that the Appellant left Zimbabwe in 2006 "due to political harassment and threats from the combined forces of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX"16 The RPD member gave the letter less weight for a number of reasons: the letter was not witnessed or notarized and no supporting identification was attached; the Appellant testified that he did not speak directly to Mr. XXXX to obtain the letter, and the Appellant confirmed during the hearing that Mr. XXXX was not an active member when the Appellant was in Zimbabwe. [25] The Appellant argues that the RPD member erred in her treatment of the letter from Mr. XXXX. The Appellant submits that the member erroneously stated that he confirmed that Mr. XXXX was not an active member. The Appellant argues that the member erred further by doubting the authenticity of the letter. For his appeal the Appellant provided an article entitled 'XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as evidence of Mr. XXXX position in the MDC party.17 [26] The RAD agrees with the Appellant. Upon listening to the recording of the hearing, the Appellant testified that when he left Zimbabwe in 2006 Mr. XXXX was a member of the MDC but not an active member. The RAD, thus, finds the RPD member mischaracterized Mr. XXXX's association with the MDC. The Appellant testified further that in the intervening years Mr. XXXX has become a political representative of the MDC. While Mr. XXXX may not have been active within the party when the Appellant was in Zimbabwe this does not preclude Mr. XXXX from being aware of the Appellant's political activities. The RAD has examined the original letter which contains MDC letterhead and is stamped with an MDC stamp; the letter is signed and dated. The RAD finds no irregularity on the face of the letter. The RAD does not find the letter was obtained under questionable circumstances; the RAD finds it reasonable that the Appellant asked a friend in Zimbabwe to assist him in obtaining evidence. The RAD finds the new evidence in the form of an article regarding Mr. XXXX provides further evidence that he is a member of the MDC. The RAD, thus, gives the letter and the article considerable weight. [27] In her decision the RPD member provided her negative credibility finding regarding the Appellant's political activities in one paragraph.18 The member emphasised that the Appellant had "no" involvement with the MDC while he lived in South Africa and "no" involvement with the MDC in the US or Canada [emphasis in original]. The RAD has considered the Appellant's testimony in this regard and finds he provided reasonable explanations for his lack of political involvement in South Africa or Canada. The Appellant testified that the MDC party in South Africa was in shambles and one could not be sure where the membership money was going. He explained further that he was fed up and his time and energy was spent earning money to provide for six family members and his ill mother in Zimbabwe. The RAD notes that the Appellant testified that although he did not join the MDC party in South Africa he supported the party by providing accommodation to MDC members who arrived from Zimbabwe. When asked, the Appellant testified that he had not involved himself in the MDC party in the US or Canada because the party has split into three separate parties and he found this to be discouraging. He testified that he is now XXXX XXXX XXXX years old, with no family of his own, and wants to organize his personal life. He explained that the MDC is for a good cause but it would not help him in his present situation. In addition for finding the Appellant's explanations reasonable, the RAD notes that the Appellant spent little time in the US and had been in Canada for just over four months when he had his hearing for refugee protection - hardly time for a person preparing for their refugee hearing to become politically involved. [28] As a result of the above analysis, the RAD finds that the Appellant provided credible evidence with oral testimony and documentary evidence that he was an active member of the MDC in Zimbabwe. The two arrests and detentions [29] The RPD member stated in her reasons that the Appellant alleged that he was arrested and fingerprinted twice by authorities in XXXX due to his political activities. The RPD member found the Appellant's "multiple returns back to Zimbabwe cast doubt upon the credibility of his alleged fear in Zimbabwe."19 The RPD member also found the Appellant's "failure to claim in the US and his corresponding reasons for not doing so undermines his subjective fear, as well as his credibility."20 The RPD member also took "a negative inference as to the credibility of his [the Appellant's] allegations that he was beaten due to his political activities"21 because he provided no evidence in the form of a police report, medical documentation from Zimbabwe or an affidavit from his aunt corroborating his allegations.22 [30] The Appellant pleads that the RPD member failed to ask him a single question on the two arrests in XXXX, the most important incidents in his BOC narrative. The Appellant submits that since the Board failed to question him about any of the pertinent incidents in his BOC, this evidence is presumed to be true. In this regard, the Appellant depends upon a recent case before the RAD. The RPD found the Appellant has not provided sufficient credible evidence to establish her sexual orientation ...The RAD notes that there is no indication that the RPD challenged any inconsistencies or omission in the evidence presented in the BOC. Given the lack of a clear finding related to the Appellant's allegations of mistreatment in Jamaica and a lack of state protection, it is assumed that the RPD accepted these allegations as truthful, including the Appellant's allegation that she was denied state protection on the two occasions when she reported the mistreatment to the police. Therefore, the evidence presented in the BOC is presumed to be true. The RPD cannot make negative credibility finding with respect to the Appellant's sexual orientation or her fears in Jamaica without addressing the totality of the evidence. As such, the RPD erred by ignoring the evidence with regard to the Appellant's subjective fear. [Emphasis added]23 [31] After carefully listening to the recording of the hearing, the RAD finds that the RPD did not question the Appellant about the two incidents in which he was arrested, detained and abused by the authorities. The RAD, therefore, concurs with the Appellant. Subjective Fear [32] The RPD member found the Appellant's failure to claim in the US and his corresponding reason for not doing so undermines his subjective fear as well as his credibility. In her decision the RPD member referred to the Appellant's failure to request asylum during the number of times he was in the US between 2013 and 2014. The RPD member states that when she asked the Appellant why he failed to claim in the US he testified he was working and didn't have time; when she asked the Appellant if he had made inquiries about making a claim in the US, the Appellant testified that he had already made up his mind to go to Canada. [33] The Appellant argues that during the hearing he provided a much more detailed explanation as to why he did not make a refugee claim in the US; he then provided some detail about this particular testimony. [34] Having carefully considered the evidence, including the recording of the hearing, the RAD agrees with the Appellant that the RPD member mischaracterized the Appellant's testimony. Nevertheless, the RAD agrees with the RPD member in finding the Appellant's credibility undermined. [35] In the port-of-entry (POE) notes, the Appellant indicated that he worked out of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, from XXXX 2013 until XXXX 2013 and out of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, from XXXX XXXX, 2013 until XXXX XXXX, 2014. He states he was in the US from XXXX 2014 until XXXX 2014.24 Stamps in the Appellant's passport indicate that the Appellant entered the US on XXXX XXXX, 2013, XXXX XXXX, 2013 and XXXX XXXX, 2014.25 Post-hearing evidence from the Minister, provided by the US Department of Homeland Security, indicates that the Appellant entered the US on the dates which correspond to those found in his passport and that he entered the US at the XXXX XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX, 2013 and again on XXXX XXXX, 2013.26 [36] The recording of the hearing indicates that the Appellant explained that he made no claim in the US when XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX because there was little time for employees to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. When asked, the Appellant testified that before coming to Canada he was in the US from XXXX XXXX, 2014 until XXXX XXXX, 2014. When asked why he did not make a claim in the US during that time, the Appellant testified that he had time to consider his next move and consider applying for asylum. The Appellant explained that he looked at the possibility of Jamaica, the US and Canada. He testified that he learned through the news that the immigration laws in the US are broken and a person could wait ten years like he had done in South Africa and he explained that he didn't want such uncertainty again. When the RPD member then asked the Appellant if he had ever sought legal advice or information from an immigration office, the Appellant testified that he had made his decision to come to Canada and he had to wait in the US for the processing of his visa application to Canada. [37] The RAD is aware of the jurisprudence with respect to failure to claim. In the decision of Hibo Farah Mohamed and Ardo Abdi Omer v. MCI, the Court held: The Geneva Convention exists for persons who require protection and not to assist persons who simply prefer asylum in one country over another. The Convention and the Immigration Act should be interpreted with the correct purpose in mind.27 [38] In the Gomez Bedoya decision, the Federal Court declared: the fact remains that the U.S. has ratified the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and there is no reason to believe it does not abide by its obligations. The fact that the rate of successful applications may be lower there than in Canada does not justify the applicants' failure to seek refugee protection in the U.S. The Board could certainly take that factor into consideration in assessing Mrs. Bedoya's subjective fear: Breucop v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 117; Pissareva v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 2001 (F.C.T.D.).28 [39] In the Case of Assadi, Nasser-Eddin v MCI, the Court held: Failure to immediately seek protection can impugn the claimant's credibility, including his or her testimony about events in his country of origin.29 [40] While the RAD understands the Appellant's fear of continued uncertainty in his life, according to his testimony he made no proper inquiries in the US with regards to the possibility of making a claim for refugee protection. The Appellant is a well-educated man, with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.30 The Appellant testified coherently in English throughout his hearing. The RAD believes the Appellant capable of making proper inquiries in the US. As a result, the RAD agrees with the RPD member in that the Appellant's failure to claim in the US undermines his credibility. Despite this finding, the RAD finds the Appellant otherwise credible and, thus, this one credibility issue cannot defeat the claim. [41] The RAD wishes to note that the Appellant testified that when he left Zimbabwe in 2006 he immediately sought refugee protection in South Africa. He testified that he was granted temporary asylum and he continued to renew this status every three months until it was revoked in 2010. He explained he then was able to obtain a work permit. The Appellant testified that the work permit was revoked when he was out of the country a second time working XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; he was then given 90 days to remain as a visitor. The Appellant testified that at that time he applied for another visa to the US and arrived in the US in XXXX 2014. The Appellant provided a number of Asylum Seeker Temporary Status documents as evidence of his status in South Africa.31 One such document has date stamps at three month intervals32 while another, dated XXXX XXXX, 2010, indicates that the temporary status was revoked.33 The new evidence, a letter from XXXX XXXX, also confirms his refugee status in South Africa.34 The RAD notes that the Appellant remained in South Africa with temporary status for approximate XXXX years and did not leave until required to do so. The RAD finds this behaviour supports his credibility in regards to subjective fear. Re-availment [42] The RPD member found that if the Appellant had been fingerprinted in Zimbabwe and was wanted by authorities, it is reasonable to conclude that it would not have been so easy for him to acquire a passport, leave the country and then return and leave the country again at least four times. The RPD member found that this added to her concerns about the credibility of the Appellant's allegations. The RPD member also found that the Appellant's multiple returns to Zimbabwe cast doubt on his alleged fear in Zimbabwe. [43] The Appellant argues that the Board again ignored his testimony. [44] The RAD acknowledges the deference it should show to the RPD's findings, nonetheless, the RAD cannot recognize and respect these findings. Having carefully listened to the recording of the hearing, the RAD agrees with the Appellant. [45] At the beginning of the hearing, the Appellant testified that he obtained his passport in 2005 as a requirement XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. When asked if he had had any difficulty obtaining the passport, the Appellant testified that he attended the passport office at least three times and then, once his name was in the system, it was a long wait. He explained that he waited six or seven months before the passport was issued. The documentary evidence shows that the Appellant's passport was issued on XXXX XXXX, 2005.35 Later in the hearing the Appellant testified that he was twice arrested and detained. When the RPD member asked the Appellant how he was able to obtain a passport after his first detention, the Appellant again testified that he had applied for the passport before the first detention. He testified that he didn't know for a fact, but thought that during that time the government was having problems in the system and officials didn't make connections with his first arrest when they gave him the passport. He explained that in any case he had been given a standing order not to be involved again with the MDC and he thought this did not impede the issuance of the passport. The RAD finds the Appellant provided a reasonable explanation for the ability to have a passport issued after his first arrest, and thus, draws no negative inference. [46] During the hearing the Appellant testified that he returned to Zimbabwe XXXX times during his years in South Africa; the first time was three years after he first left the country when his mother became very ill with diabetes. He testified that he returned again XXXX XXXX 2010, XXXX 2011 and XXXX 2013. The Appellant testified that his returns to Zimbabwe were not for pleasure and that he had to sneak into a danger zone. He explained that the conditions were such in Zimbabwe that, besides no insulin or painkillers for his mother, there was not even drinking water. He testified that besides medication, he carried water 3,000 kilometres from South Africa to his family in Zimbabwe. He added that during that period his mother also developed high blood pressure. The Appellant testified that it was a desperate and trying time in Zimbabwe and he had to do something. [47] The RAD considered the jurisprudence which says that a credibility assessment regarding re-availment requires the Board to provide reasons in clear and unmistakeable terms.36 The RAD finds that the RPD member conflated her concerns with how the Appellant was able to enter and exit Zimbabwe XXXX times with why he returned to Zimbabwe when he had reason to fear the authorities. The RAD finds that while return to the country of nationality may indicate that a well-founded fear of persecution is lacking, it is necessary to consider the Appellant's motivation. The RAD finds it quite understandable that the Appellant risked his own safety for the health of his mother. The RAD notes that the Appellant provided evidence of his mother's ill health in the form of a medical letter from Dr. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Dr. XXXX states that the Appellant's mother, Mrs. XXXX XXXX, has been under his care since 1996 as a patient with XXXX XXXXdiabetes. He states that at times she suffered life threatening episodes due to the shortage of medication in Zimbabwe. Dr. XXXX states further that Mrs. XXXX's family in South Africa have assisted in alleviating her health problems.37 The independent documentary evidence supports the Appellant's allegations of shortages of the necessities of life in Zimbabwe. The Country of Origin Information (COI) Report from the UK indicates that in July 2007 the government had made a desperate attempt to control inflation, which brought persistent shortages of fuel, food, and other goods, by forcing firms and supermarkets to reduce prices by half, which resulted in severe shortages of basic commodities.38 The RAD, therefore, draws no negative inference as a result of the Appellant's behaviour of returning to Zimbabwe to provide needed medication and other commodities for his mother. [48] As stated above, the RPD member found that it would not have been so easy for the Appellant to return to Zimbabwe XXXX times if he had been fingerprinted and was wanted by authorities. The RAD, having considered the Appellant's oral testimony and other evidence in his claim, does not agree with the RPD member's finding. The RAD's reasons follow. [49] The Appellant testified that he travelled by bus from XXXX directly to XXXX, crossing the border at XXXXe. Stamps in the Appellant's passport corroborate this testimony.39 A map contained in the NDP locates XXXX in Zimbabwe, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and designates XXXX as a "town/village".40 The Appellant testified that he chose to travel so that he entered Zimbabwe in the dark and then had a remaining six hour journey to XXXX. The Appellant testified that he had connections with bus drivers and conductors as well as compliance officers who would help him cross the border unnoticed by authorities. The Appellant testified that his passport was stamped when he entered and exited but his information was not entered into a computer. The Appellant testified that the people working at the border had a side business, a black market thing, and the bus driver would explain on his behalf that he had a problem. The Appellant added that lots of people crossing the border had problems of various scenarios. The Appellant testified further that he would be asked the length of his visit and he was usually given a fourteen days visa. He again testified that this information was not entered into a computer. When asked, the Appellant explained that a stamp was required in the passport for government officials who might stop the bus along the way. The RAD notes that in the POE notes the Appellant listed his employment in Zimbabwe from 2003 to 2006 as a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.41 He provided similar testimony at one point during the hearing. The RAD finds it reasonable to infer that, as a result of his employment at a XXXX XXXX, the Appellant may have been able to make connections with people in XXXX XXXX XXXX who later assisted him in crossing the border at XXXX. In any case, the independent documentary evidence provides information regarding low wages and corruption among government officials. According to the COI, political turmoil and poor management of the economy have led to considerable economic hardships. The wages are low with the average monthly wage at US $150 while the average urban family of six needed US$504 to survive.42 The Department of State (DOS) report43 indicates that government corruption remained widespread, including at the local level. Although the law provides criminal penalties for bribery and corruption, the government did not implement the law effectively or impartially, and officials frequently engaged in corrupt practices with impunity.44 The RAD, thus, finds that it is probable that the Appellant was able to enter and exit Zimbabwe as he testified. Lack of Documentary Evidence [50] The RPD member took a negative inference based on the unreasonable explanations provided by the Appellant for not providing police reports, medical documents from a doctor or hospital in Zimbabwe to corroborate the stabbing incident in 2006, or an affidavit from his aunt with whom he had hidden before he left Zimbabwe to corroborate the 2006 incident. [51] The RPD member gave little weight to a medical note45 from a doctor in Toronto because the doctor's examination was conducted years after the alleged incident in Zimbabwe and the note includes a summary of allegations as provided by the Appellant. [52] The Appellant argues that the Board erred with respect to the lack of police reports since, as stated earlier, the Board never questioned the Appellant about the two incidents involving his arrests in XXXX. The Appellant argues further that the Board cannot conclude that the "claimant's story has been found to be implausible or otherwise lacking in credibility" and cannot undermine his credibility due to the absence of corroborative evidence. The Appellant pleads that it is well established that corroborative evidence is only required if there are credibility issues and, since the Board's credibility issues are not legally sustainable, it erred in requiring corroborative evidence. [53] The RAD is aware that where a claimant's story has been found to be implausible or otherwise lacking in credibility,46 a lack of documentary corroboration, or a lack of effort to obtain the documentation,47 can be a valid consideration for purposes of assessing credibility. However, in this case the RAD agrees with the Appellant. The RAD again finds that the Appellant was denied the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice since he was not questioned during the hearing about either of the two arrests and subsequent detentions. Thus, the Appellant's credibility cannot be found lacking as a result of the lack of corroborating evidence regarding incidents about which he was not questioned. The RAD notes that the Appellant testified that he did not obtain medical care for his wound because doing so would have required a police report which was not possible to obtain since he was wanted by the police at that time. The RAD finds this a reasonable explanation. [54] The RAD has considered the medical evidence from Dr. XXXX XXXX, dated November 20, 2014, which includes a letter and two photographs XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.48 Dr. XXXX states that he has been in practice for over thirty-seven years during which time he has examined more than 5000 patients for evidence of torture. Apparently, the Appellant informed the doctor that he did not see the instrument with which he was cut, but he assumed it was a XXXX. The Appellant informed the doctor that he did not have stitches for the wound, that the wound healed by itself. The doctor observed a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX consistent with the Appellant's history of "traumatic laceration". Given the doctor's professional opinion and the RAD's finding of the Appellant's credibility, the RAD assigns considerable weight to the medical document. [55] The RAD requested and received the original documents provided as new evidence as well as envelopes in which the evidence was mailed. The RAD has considered the two original affidavits and a note from the Department of the Registrar General attached to one of the affidavits as well as the envelope in which they were mailed.49 The affidavit from XXXX XXXX, the Appellant's brother, was affirmed in South Africa through the South Africa Police Service.50 The deponent provided a copy of his passport as evidence of his identity. Mr. XXXX states that he used reliable people in Zimbabwe to contact the police and enquire as to whether the Appellant is wanted by the police. Mr. XXXX has been informed that the Appellant remains wanted on a XXXX XXXX that has been aggravated by the Appellant fleeing in 2006.51 The affidavit from the Appellant's sister, XXXX XXXX, was affirmed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Ms. XXXX states that upon the Appellant's instructions she requested an identity card and police clearance/warrant of arrest from the police. She states that the police refused her request because they want to see the Appellant in person. Ms. XXXX was provided with a handwritten note on Department of the Registrar General stationery, stamped and dated XXXX XXXX 2015, which she included with her affidavit. The note states that the Appellant's name was flagged by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXbefore an ID can be issued. The RAD has no reason to doubt to information in the affidavits or the note from the Department of the Registrar General. Thus, the RAD gives considerable weight to these documents. Did the Board err in concluding that the Appellant has an internal flight alternative (IFA) in XXXX? [56] The RPD member considered the two prongs of the test for IFA and then found that the Appellant had a viable IFA in XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. The member stated in her decision that when, during the hearing, she asked the Appellant if he could reside in XXXX, he testified that he had never been there before. The RPD member did not find this to be an acceptable explanation for not being able to relocate to the designated IFA. In her conclusions on the issue of IFA, the RPD member referred to information found in the latest Operational Guidance Note from the United Kingdom (UK) found in the National Documentary Package (NDP).52 In particular, the RPD member quoted the Note as follows: "In general those returning to MDC dominated rural areas of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX would generally be highly unlikely to face significant difficulty from ZANU-PF elements, including the security forces."53 [57] The Appellant argues that the Board member grossly mischaracterised the Appellant's answer and, in her decision regarding a viable IFA, she ignored testimonial evidence and documentary evidence. [58] The RAD, having closely listened to the recording of the hearing and considered the independent documentary evidence, finds the Appellant's argument has merit. Tribal Issues in XXXX [59] During the hearing the Appellant provided considerable testimony when he was asked if he could safely locate to XXXX. For example, he testified that there are tribal issues between the XXXX, the native tribe of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the tribe to which he belongs. He testified that when there was war in that area thousands were killed. The RAD notes that in his Basis of Claim (BOC) form the Appellant listed 'XXXX' as the tribe to which he belongs.54 [60] As the Appellant pointed out in his appeal, the DOS report provides information regarding the present XXXX XXXX XXXX relations: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.55 [61] The RAD notes that the COI report from the UK Home Office provides context for the ongoing negative relations between XXXX XXXX XXXX:56 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [62] The Operational Guidance Note provides further information regarding the on-going tensions between the XXXX XXXX XXXX people caused by the unwillingness to acknowledge past atrocities, than that referred to the RPD member in her decision. The Note states that a decision maker, in considering the possibility of an IFA, is to consider many factors including the ethnicity of the claimant.57 The RAD finds particularly important for the case at bar, the Note states that "relocation to XXXX (including XXXX) may be negated by discrimination where the returnee is XXXX."58 [63] The RAD has previously found, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant was active in the MDC when he resided in Zimbabwe and came to the attention of authorities on a number of occasions. The RAD notes that as part of the UK Border Agency's fact-find mission to Zimbabwe, referred to by the RPD member in her decision, a representative of a major NGO stated that there were no express legal restrictions on internal relocation but the intelligence systems of the main political parties are sophisticated and it would not be possible for those who have come to the adverse attention of a party to avoid that risk by relocating within Zimbabwe. The NGO representative stated further that this applies equally to rural and urban areas.59 [64] According to independent documentary evidence, MDC supporters, human rights defenders and other opponents of ZANU-PF, or those perceived to be such, who are able to establish that their political opinions or perceived political activities in Zimbabwe and/or the UK mean that they are at real risk of coming to the attention of ZANU-PF or its supporters and who cannot avoid that risk by internally relocating will have a well-founded fear of persecution and should be granted asylum.60 [65] Independent documentary evidence indicates that records are kept by various groups and authorities including the CIO, local police and ZANU-PF party organizations and the war veterans but the existence of these records do not materially add to the assessment of the risk of persecution in an individual case which depends on the applicant's profile and background. It seems unlikely that someone who has been caught up in random and intimidating violence would without more be regarded as of continuing interest to the authorities. However, the fact that these records exist may indicate that a person found to be at risk is unlikely to be able to relocate in safety.61 [66] The Appellant provided as new evidence a letter from XXXX XXXX who identifies herself as a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.62 Ms. XXXX has worked for twelve years for XXXX XXXX XXXX in various African countries, including Zimbabwe. She met the Appellant in South Africa in 2006 in her capacity as a XXXX XXXX. Ms. XXXX has provides information regarding the strict ethnic and tribal lines by which Africans historically identify themselves. She states that the Appellant, as a XXXX XXXX would be treated with contempt, even in the form of violence, by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX This information is consistent with information contained in the NDP and, as such, the RAD gives the letter considerable weight. [67] The Appellant also provided as new evidence an affidavit from XXXX XXXX who identifies himself as the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.63 The business card of Mr. XXXX was attached to the affidavit. Mr. XXXX provides information regarding the on-going problematic situation in XXXX which, the RAD notes, is corroborated by the independent documentary evidence. Mr. XXXX states that the tensions between XXXX and XXXX have been exacerbated with the present clandestine deployment of state security agents into XXXX. While there is no specific information in this regard in the NDP, the RAD will comment below on the politically motivated human rights violations committed by security forces within Zimbabwe. Additionally, the Operational Guidance Note provides the following information: the least number of human rights violations were recorded in XXXX and XXXX as five and seven cases respectively. An MDC-T activist was found dead on XXXX XXXX 2013 in XXXX in a suspected case of political violence. The RAD, therefore, gives significant weight to the affidavit from Mr. XXXX. [68] The RAD, thus, concludes that as a result of the Appellant's identity as a member of the XXXX tribe the proposed IFA is not viable. The Appellant's Profile [69] The RPD member found that the Appellant "would have an IFA, particularly in any of the MDC dominated areas where in general returnees do not suffer adverse attention from ZANU-PF members, even if they have a significant MDC profile, whereas in this case the claimant has a very low-level MDC profile at best."64 The member also stated that she carefully considered the documentary evidence when finding that the Appellant would not be at risk as a returnee from abroad. In this finding the RPD member depended upon information provided from a nine day fact-finding mission by the UK Border Agency during August 2010.65 In particular, the fact- finding mission "has not come across any cases of returnees from the UK being mistreated and would expect to know of any such cases because its member organization are represented across the country."66 [70] The Appellant pleads that the independent documentary evidence justifies his fears based on the fact that the records of his arrests would get him in trouble. The Appellant argues further that the Board engaged in a selective reading of the evidence in this regard. [71] The RAD agrees with the Appellant. The RAD considered the independent documentary evidence regarding an IFA for a failed refugee claimant with the Appellant's profile returning to Zimbabwe. [72] The UK Operational Guidance Note advises that the decision maker in a refugee claim make an assessment of the risk on return to XXXX airport.67 [73] The Operational Guidance Note states that the process of screening returning passengers is an intelligence-led process and the Central Intelligence Organization (CIO) will generally have identified from the passenger manifest in advance, based upon such intelligence, those passengers in whom there is any possible interest. The fact of having made an asylum claim abroad is not something that in itself will give rise to adverse interest on return. A deportee from the United Kingdom who, having been subjected to the first stage interview at the airport, is allowed to pass through the airport is likely to be the subject of some monitoring in his home area by the local police or the CIO but the evidence does not indicate a real risk of persecutory ill-treatment for those who are being monitored solely because of their return from the United Kingdom. [74] However, the fact-finding mission referred to earlier in this decision states that they are unable to say that there have been no cases of risk for returnees but if there have been they have been isolated examples. They do, however, have concerns that those who are known to have claimed asylum in the UK would be considered necessarily to have been disloyal to Zimbabwe and may therefore face additional problems reintegrating because the fact that they had claimed asylum would become known. This would not apply to returning economic migrants unless their families were known to be political activists.68 [75] The RAD, thus, concludes that if the Appellant returns to Zimbabwe there is more than a mere possibility that he will be screened by the CIO as a person of interest because of his previous political activities in Zimbabwe. If he does pass through the first screening, his activities will be monitored. The Appellant would, more than likely, be discovered by the authorities to be not only a failed asylum seeker but a former activist with the MDC. [76] The RAD wishes to note the following advice provided in the Operational Guidance Note: The current atmosphere of hostility to the return of failed asylum seekers does not of itself put at risk those who would otherwise not be at real risk but does serve to reinforce the fact that asylum claims must be considered with care and where there is any uncertainty, any doubts must be resolved in the applicant's favour.69 Objective Evidence [77] Given that the RAD finds the Appellant was, on a balance of probabilities, an active member of the MDC in Zimbabwe and, as such, is a person of interest to the authorities, the RAD has considered the independent documentary evidence with regards to people with such a profile. [78] The CIO from the UK Home Office provides the following information.70 The most important human rights problems in the country remained the government's targeting for harassment, arrest, abuse, and torture of members of non-ZANU-PF parties and civil society activists, widespread disregard for the rule of law among security forces and the judiciary, and restrictions on civil liberties. [79] There are continuing reports of politically motivated abductions during the year. The NDP also lists MDC supporters and human rights defenders and other perceived opponents of the ZANU-PF as a specific profile of persons who are at risk of persecution in Zimbabwe by the ZANU-PF ruling party.71 [80] The Freedom in the World report corroborates the brutal campaign of violence against the MDC members and their suspected supporters and civil society and the press. Again it reiterates that Zimbabwe is not an electoral democracy. Mugabe and the ZANU-PF have dominated political landscape since 1980 overseeing amendments to continually expand the constitution to continue to attempt to legitimize his stay in power.72 [81] The DOS report indicates that ZANU-PF supporters, often with tacit support from police, continued to assault and torture scores of persons, including suspected and known MDC members, their families, civil society activists, and student leaders. Many incidents are reported in the report. For example, from January through September, according to one NGO, 334 persons sought treatment for injuries and trauma sustained from security force abuse, compared with 289 persons in 2012. Observers attributed the increase to the constitutional referendum in March and the July 31 elections. Nearly 50 percent of the cases took place in XXXX, and the vast majority of the victims were affiliated with MDC.73 [82] The latest report from Human Rights Watch, January 2014 states that the security forces have a long history of partisanship on behalf of President Mugabe and the ruling ZANU-PF party. The partisanship of the security forces' leadership has translated into abuses by these forces against MDC members and supporters, and civil society organizations.74 [83] Amnesty International provides the following information: Human rights defenders and political activists - other than ZANU-PF members - continued to operate under heavy restrictions. In urban areas, police were the main perpetrators, using the Public Order and Security Act to arbitrarily limit the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, including by blocking legitimate meetings and activities of human rights defenders and other political parties. In semi-urban and rural areas, local ZANU-PF activists continued to disrupt legitimate activities of their opponents with impunity. Some traditional leaders were also used by ZANUPF to restrict access to rural areas. Incidents of uniformed soldiers assaulting people attending meetings organized by the two MDC parties were recorded.75 [84] The UK Operational Guidance Note concludes that: MDC supporters, human rights defenders and other opponents of ZANU-PF, or those perceived to be such, who are able to establish that their political opinions or perceived political activities in Zimbabwe and/or the UK mean that they are at real risk of coming to the attention of ZANU-PF or its supporters and who cannot avoid that risk by internally relocating will have a well-founded fear of persecution and should be granted asylum.76 [85] RAD finds that the objective evidence supports the Appellant's subjective fears. The RAD, therefore, finds that there is more than a mere possibility that the Appellant would be persecuted if he were to return to Zimbabwe. DETERMINATION [86] The Appellant is entitled to the presumption of truthfulness. The RAD finds that the Appellant has established, with credible evidence, a well-founded fear of persecution in Zimbabwe. As the state is the agent of persecution, he cannot expect adequate state protection in his particular circumstances. The RAD has found that the Appellant cannot avail himself of a viable internal flight alternative. CONCLUSION [87] Pursuant to Section 111(1)(b) of IRPA, the RAD sets aside the determination of the RPD and substitutes its own determination that the Appellant is a Convention refugee, as he has a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of his political opinion. This appeal is allowed. (signed) "Lesley Mason" Lesley Mason May 21, 2015 Date 1 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pages 17-19. 2 Ibid., pages 20-21. 3 Ibid., pages 25-27. 4 Ibid., pages 23-24. 5 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pages 28-29. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, page 118. 7 Ibid., pages 130-132. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record pages 30-31. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, page 118. 10 Huruglica, Bujar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6362-13), Phelan, August 22, 2014; 2014 FC 799. 11 Ibid. 12 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, page 5, para 15. 13 Chehar, Kathirgamalingam v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4540-96), Wetston, October 20, 1997. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 99-115, NDP Zimbabwe, 27 June 2014, at item 4.4, RIR ZWE103731.E. 15 Ibid., page 118. 16 Ibid. 17 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pages 30-31. 18 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, page 5, para 15. 19 Ibid., page 6, para 17. 20 Ibid, page 6, para 18. 21 Ibid., page 6, para 19. 22 Ibid., page 6, para 19. 23 RAD file TB4-03433, July 14, 2014. 24 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, page 45, question 12. 25 Ibid., pages 60-62. 26 Ibid., pages 158-161. 27 Mohamed, Hibo Farah v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2248-96), Rothstein, April 9, 1997, para 9. 28 Gomez Bedoya, Dreny Amparo v. MCI, de Montigny J., 10 May 2007 (at para. 22), 2007 FC 505. 29 Assadi, Nasser-Eddin v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2683-96), Teitelbaum, March 25, 1997. 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, page 43, question 7. 31 Ibid., pages 66-73. 32 Ibid., page 71. 33 Ibid., page 68. 34 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pages 23-24. 35 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, page 54. 36 Ghulam v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 303. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid., pages 99-115, NDP Zimbabwe, 27 June 2014, at item 2.2. 39 Ibid., pages 56-58. 40Ibid., pages 99-115, NDP Zimbabwe, 27 June 2014, at item 1.2. 41 Ibid., page 44. 42 Ibid., pages 99-115, NDP Zimbabwe, 27 June 2014, at item 2.2. 43 Ibid., at item 2.1. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid., pages 130-132. 46 Syed, Naqeeb-Ur-Rehman v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1613-97), MacKay, March 13, 1998. 47 Quichindo, Esperanca Rocha v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3225-01), Lemieux, March 28, 2002. 48 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 130-132. 49 Exhibit P-2,Appellant's Record, pages 17-22. 50 Ibid., pages 17-19. 51 Ibid. 52Ibid., pages 99-115, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 53 Ibid. 54 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, page 14, question 1e). 55 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 99-115, NDP Zimbabwe, 27 June 2014, at item 2.1 Zimbabwe: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2013; US DOS. 56 Ibid., at item 2.2, Zimbabwe: COI, UK Home Office, 13 July 2012. 57 Ibid., at item 1.4. 58 Ibid. 59 Ibid., at item 2.2. 60 Ibid., at item 1.4. 61 Ibid. 62 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pages 23-24. 63 Ibid., pages 25-27. 64 Ibid., page 9, para 25. 65 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 99-115, NDP Zimbabwe, 27 June 2014, at item 2.2. 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid., at item 1.4. 68 Ibid., at item 2.2. 69 Ibid., at item 1.4. 70 Ibid., at item 2.2. 71 Ibid., at item 1.4. 72 Ibid., at time 2.4. 73 Ibid., at item 2.1. 74 Ibid., at item 2.3. 75 Ibid., at item 2.5. 76 Ibid. at item 1.4. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-01752