VC0-00471

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VC0-00471 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision April 6, 2021 Date de la décision Panel G. Cohen Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Nok Hei (Keith) Yuen Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative N/A Représentante désignée Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the "Appellant") is a citizen of Ecuador. He claims to fear persecution and/or a risk of harm (i.e. a risk to his life, a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture) with respect to recruitment by drug traffickers and related threats to his life, in Ecuador. [2] The Appellant appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (the "RPD") rejecting his claim for refugee protection. The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its assessment of the evidence and his related risk of persecution and harm, particularly with respect to its finding that the Appellant has an internal flight alternative ("IFA") in Cuenca, Ecuador. DECISION [3] The appeal is dismissed, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the "IRPA").1 The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. BACKGROUND [4] The RPD heard the Appellant's refugee claim on December 19, 2019 and rejected it in a written decision dated January 6, 2020. Therein, the RPD found that the Appellant has an IFA in Cuenca, Ecuador. ANALYSIS The Role of the Refugee Appeal Division (the "RAD") [5] Jurisprudence provides that the RAD is required to undertake an independent assessment of the evidence and reach its own determination, including as to whether the RPD made the correct decision.2 [6] Deference is owed to the RPD only where it held a meaningful advantage in assessing evidence. In the present case, given the lack of advantage, I have not shown deference to the RPD's findings. As such, I have applied a correctness standard and arrived at independent findings and conclusions based upon my assessment of the evidence before me.3 The Appellant's New Evidence and Oral Hearing Request [7] The Appellant has submitted voluminous new evidence in his appeal, involving approximately 16 documents. However, I have largely rejected admission of the Appellant's new evidence, pursuant to subsection 110(4) of IRPA. This subsection states that, on appeal, the person who is the subject of the appeal may only present evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim (i.e. January 6, 2020), that was not reasonably available, or that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the claim's rejection. If the evidence meets one or more of these requirements, I must decide if the evidence is new, credible, and relevant before I can accept it.4 [8] In this case, none of the Appellant's new evidence listed below meet the requirements for admission: a. an article from News Ecuador dated October 6, 2019 (C1);5 b. an article regarding "Gringos Abroad" dated June 1, 2019 (C2);6 c. a document from the Canadian government dated December 30, 2019 (C3);7 d. a travel advisory dated July 11, 2019 (C6);8 e. a crime rate document for Cuenca dated September 8, 2012 (C7);9 f. an article regarding a shooting near a market in Cuenca dated March 22, 2017 (C8);10 and g. an article from Ecuador News regarding Cuenca highlife dated April 11, 2016 (C9);11 h. an article regarding Cuenca as a retirement destination dated 2016 (C10);12 i. an article from El Tiempo on racism dated March 22, 2018 (C11);13 j. a United Nations resolution related document dated October 2, 2007 (C12);14 k. an article from Amnesty International dated August 9, 2018 (C13);15 l. an article from Lonely Planet on "Indigenous Ecuador" dated August 7, 2019 (C14);16 m. an Amnesty International report dated February 22, 2017 (C15);17 and n. a Cuenca Highlife article dated October 16, 2019 (C16).18 [9] Given that all of the above items predate the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim, and they were reasonably available, and could reasonably have been expected under the circumstance to have been presented at that time, they fail to satisfy the requirements pursuant to subsection 110(4) of IRPA. Therefore, the above items cannot be accepted as new evidence. [10] The Appellant has argued that the IFA location of Cuenca was identified at the RPD hearing, and therefore he could not reasonably have been expected to present such evidence at the time his claim was rejected.19 However, I find this argument untenable. The RPD raised the issue of IFA during the Appellant's hearing on December 19, 2019, identifying Cuenca as the proposed location, thereby putting the Appellant on notice that IFA was an issue in his claim with a clear and sufficient expression of its forthcoming inquiry. The rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim was provided in a written decision dated January 6, 2020. [11] As such, the Appellant had ample opportunity, once the issue was raised, to provide detailed and complete evidence showing that he does not have an IFA. This includes answering the questions posed by the RPD, the opportunity for counsel to question the Appellant on this issue at length and in detail, to present submissions regarding IFA at the conclusion of the hearing, and to present documentary evidence to support his assertions both at the hearing and/or afterwards, with a request to provide post-hearing disclosure, if the Appellant believed that he had not adduced sufficient persuasive evidence to support his allegations or testimony in this regard. Furthermore, it is well established that the onus rests with the Appellant to show that he does not have an IFA with actual and concrete evidence, and the Appellant has been represented by counsel throughout his refugee determination process (and at the RAD). [12] Additionally, the provision of evidence regarding potential IFA locations arises pursuant to Rule 11 of the RPD Rules to establish all of the elements of a claimant's refugee claim.20 In this regard, it is clear that to be recognized as a Convention refugee or person in need of protection all claimants are required to establish that they would face a serious possibility of persecution or risk of harm throughout a particular country, in this case, Ecuador, and they cannot do so if there is a place in that country where they could seek refuge, hence the concept of an IFA. [13] Furthermore, the Federal Court reiterated in Eshetie that, "A RAD appeal is not a second chance to submit evidence to answer weaknesses identified by the RPD." Instead, an appellant must "put his or her best foot forward to the RPD" and not present evidence that could have and should have been presented in their refugee claim.21 [14] Moreover, in Abdullahi, the Federal Court provided that: ...responding to an inadequacy identified by the RPD in a party's case cannot be a legitimate foundation for the party to claim that had she known about the deficiency she could have presented better evidence that was always in existence...This would make the RPD process a monumental waste of time, which is surely not Parliament's intention in providing appeal rights.22 [15] As such, insofar as the Appellant is seeking to rely on new evidence that is inadmissible, this is obviously not possible. And, the Appellant is seeking to further explain why the suggested IFA location is unsuitable in light of the RPD Reasons, which is not appropriate or acceptable and would undermine the appeal process.23 [16] Ultimately, the Appellant cannot support an argument that he did not have an opportunity to present evidence before the RPD to establish that he does not have an IFA in Cuenca, Ecuador. Again, the RPD raised the issue, asked its questions, and subsequently gave the Appellant the opportunity for his counsel to ask him questions so that he could testify to this effect, and to make submissions in this regard, and/or to present or refer to documentary evidence. As such, I have not accepted the Appellant's evidence or his related arguments. [17] Additionally, the Appellant provided the following documents as new evidence: a. a document from the United Kingdom government regarding Ecuador dated January 15, 2020 (C4);24 and b. a crime report and accident report (C5).25 Where the above items postdate the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim, I must decide if this evidence is new, credible, and relevant before I can accept it.26 [18] The United Kingdom document on Ecuador was updated on January 15, 2020.27 However, while this document can be considered new and credible, I find that it is not relevant. It provides travel advisory related information for Ecuador but does not address risks posed to the Appellant in Cuenca who is an indigenous Ecuadorean fearful of drug traffickers or ethnic persecution. Instead, it touches upon general safety and security issues, including with respect to the Ecuador/Colombia border, telecommunications, volunteer and adventure activities, hiking, road, rail, and air travel, local laws and customs, entry and visa requirements, health considerations and high altitude, natural disasters and seasonal concerns, and currency related matters. This information is primarily geared towards (British) tourists and is not relevant with respect to the Appellant's refugee claim or appeal or whether Cuenca is a viable IFA location for him. As such, despite carefully reviewing this document, I have not accepted it as evidence on appeal. [19] The Appellant has provided excerpts from a Crime Report and Accident Report presented on The Cuenca Dispatch website from Volume 4, Issues 1-25.28 These documents describe various criminal incidents and traffic accidents that have occurred in and around Cuenca. However, not all of the issues presented or the related subject matter postdate the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim. While Issues 24-25 deal with subject matter that postdates the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim, the remainder of the excerpts and the related subject matter (i.e. Issues 1-23) predate the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim. [20] For example, Issue 23 describes criminal activity from Saturday December 28, 2019, the arrest of individuals who committed a crime dating back to July 2018, a drunk driving incident that occurred on December 26, 2019, and a robbery related arrest on December 28, 2019. And, Issues 1-22, further predate the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim, covering incidents and accidents dating as far back as July 2019. As such, while I have carefully reviewed all of these crime and accident reports, I have not accepted Issues 1-2329 as these predate the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim, they were reasonably available and could reasonably have been expected under the circumstance to have been presented at that time. Therefore, Issues 1-23 fail to satisfy the requirements pursuant to subsection 110(4) of IRPA and cannot be accepted as new evidence. [21] Given that Issues 24-2530 postdate the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim, I have considered these documents for admission as evidence, in terms of whether they are new, credible, and relevant. While I find that these documents are new and credible, I find that the traffic accident reports are not relevant to the Appellant's refugee claim or appeal. I have however, considered the criminal activity reports in assessing the viability of Cuenca as a proposed IFA location.31 My analysis in this regard, will be provided further below. [22] Additionally, the Appellant requests an oral hearing at the RAD in light of the new evidence, pursuant to subsection 110(6) of IRPA.32 However, I have rejected all of the Appellant's new evidence other than two issues of the Crime Report and Accident Report, which I ultimately found do not support the Appellant's assertions regarding the viability of the proposed IFA location of Cuenca, Ecuador. Furthermore, the two issues of the report that I have accepted, do not justify allowing or rejecting the Appellant's refugee claim, are not central to the refugee claim decision, and do not raise a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellant. Therefore, I have rejected the Appellant's request to hold a hearing at the RAD, pursuant to subsection 110(6) of IRPA. Determinative Issue - IFA [23] Overall, this appeal examines whether the RPD erred in determining that the Appellant's risk of persecution and/or harm has not been established, such that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. [24] The determinative issue in this case at the RPD was IFA. In that regard, the RPD found that the Appellant has an IFA in Cuenca, Ecuador. Conversely, the Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its IFA findings, particularly by: (1) not addressing all of his concerns regarding Cuenca as an IFA; (2) 'downplaying' the importance of the Appellant's indigenous background; and (3) not considering that there is a smaller indigenous population in southern Ecuador than in the north - increasing the likelihood of the Appellant experiencing discrimination in Cuenca.33 [25] As such, in conducting an independent assessment of the evidence before me, I have examined the IFA analysis conducted by the RPD, as well as all relevant issues and grounds pursuant to subsections 96 and 97(1) of IRPA, while addressing the issues raised by the Appellants and the RPD as well. [26] For the reasons that follow, I find the RPD's overall analysis to be correct in rejecting the Appellant's refugee claim and dismiss the appeal. This includes RPD conclusions that the Appellant has an IFA in Cuenca, Ecuador and that he has presented insufficient evidence to support his allegations or fears, which are speculative in nature. Moreover, I found that the Appellant's arguments fail to overcome these concerns. The RPD addressed whether the Appellant has an IFA in Cuenca including with respect to his indigenous background [27] The Appellant argues that the RPD "only focused on the concern that the original drug trafficker may be able to track me down but has not addressed my other concerns with regards to the IFA of Cuenca."34 Furthermore, the Appellant argues that the RPD: ...played down on the importance of my indigenous background and the fact that there are way less indigenous population in Southern Ecuador in comparison to the North that it is more likely for me to subject to discrimination in Cuenca compared to my hometown...35 [28] However, I do not agree, and find that this is not an accurate portrayal of the RPD decision. The RPD did not only focus on whether the alleged drug traffickers could find the Appellant in Cuenca and addressed concerns regarding the Appellant's indigenous background with respect to the viability of Cuenca as an IFA location. [29] In particular, the RPD acknowledged the Appellant's testimony that indigenous people in Ecuador face discrimination; and referred to the National Documentation Package for Ecuador (the "NDP") regarding concerns with the treatment of the indigenous population in northern Ecuador over land rights.36 Furthermore, the RPD correctly concluded that there is insufficient evidence to show that country conditions would make it, "unreasonable for the Appellant to move to Cuenca because of his indigenous heritage."37 I agree. [30] To begin with, the RPD correctly explained the two-pronged test for assessing the issue of IFA and the onus that rests with the Appellant. For added specificity, the test for assessing an IFA has been established by the Federal Court of Appeal.38 First, a decision maker must be satisfied that there is no serious possibility of the Appellant being persecuted in the IFA location and/or that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant would not personally be subjected to a risk to his life, a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture there. [31] Secondly, the conditions in the IFA location must be such that it would not be unreasonable in all the circumstances, including those particular to the Appellant, for him to seek refuge there.39 Additionally, the RPD correctly mentioned that: The burden placed on a claimant is fairly high in order to show that the internal flight alternative is unreasonable. It requires nothing less than the existence of conditions that would jeopardize the life and safety of the Claimant in relocating to a safe area. Actual and concrete evidence of adverse conditions is required.40 [32] The Appellant asserts that "the majority of my indigenous group, the Andean Kichwa, resides in six provinces in the central north mountains" and that the "lack of presence of my people in Cuenca would make me a vulnerable target of discrimination and also perhaps, abuse."41 In this regard, the RPD properly considered the Appellant's indigenous background, and noted that among the Andean Kichwa population in Ecuador, approximately 15 percent live in the southern mountains and coastal regions (i.e. 7.3 percent in the southern mountains and 8.3 percent in coastal regions) as compared with 60.3 percent that live in the six provinces of the northern mountains.42 [33] This further supports the notion that the RPD did not: (1) only focus on whether the alleged drug traffickers could find the Appellant; or (2) downplay the importance of the Appellant's indigenous background or the demographic information regarding the Andean Kichwa population in Ecuador. The RPD recognized the demographic contrasts involving the Andean Kichwa and noted concerns with the treatment of indigenous peoples in Ecuador, including with respect to land disputes. Furthermore, the RPD did not accept that the country conditions supported a finding that it would be unreasonable for the Appellant to move to Cuenca because of his indigenous heritage, having considered his education, work experience, freedom of movement, and ability to access housing, employment, and education in Cuenca.43 I agree and find analysis this correct. [34] Furthermore, while indigenous people may face discrimination in Ecuador, a central question is whether this would rise to the level of persecution, and moreover, whether the Appellant would therefore face a serious possibility of persecution if he relocated to Cuenca. Given the obvious importance of protecting indigenous ethnicities and rights and preventing related persecution, I have conducted a careful review of the documentary evidence in this case, as discussed below. [35] Ultimately, I find that there is insufficient persuasive evidence to establish that concerns with possible treatment or discrimination of the Appellant, as an Andean Kichwa, would rise to the level of persecution, particularly in Cuenca, with the proportionately smaller distribution of Andean Kichwa in the southern highlands. Therefore, I do not accept the Appellant's arguments in this regard, and find the RPD decision to be correct, regarding the proposed IFA location of Cuenca for the Appellant. Furthermore, the Appellant's assertion that a smaller proportion of Andean Kichwa in Cuenca would make him "a vulnerable target of discrimination and also perhaps, abuse"44 is not supported by the evidence and is speculative. This assertion and the related evidence does not establish a serious possibility of persecution for the Appellant in the proposed IFA location. [36] In particular, indigenous peoples in Ecuador account for over 1 million inhabitants out of a total population of 17 million, of which the Kichwa/Quichua represent a large proportion.45 In fact, the Quichua is one of the largest indigenous groups worldwide. And, while indigenous peoples do face socio-economic challenges, they are socially organized and politically active in Ecuador, with widespread support, including among students, unions, and neighbourhood and women's groups. 46 [37] As a result of a strong indigenous movement in Ecuador, significant progress has been made to uphold collective rights and create autonomous institutions controlled by indigenous organizations. These include the Council for the Advancement of the Nations and Peoples of Ecuador, the Development Fund for the Indigenous Nations and Peoples of Ecuador and the National Directorate for Intercultural Health.47 [38] Furthermore, through participation in elections, indigenous representatives have held positions in local governments, developing innovative management models. Progress has also been made in the recognition of indigenous lands and territories, despite ongoing concerns regarding property and resource rights and adequate consultation. 48 Nonetheless, in 2006, Ecuador elected an indigenous president, Rafael Correa, who was re-elected twice and served until 2017. Moreover, President Correa significantly amended the Constitution in 2008, thereby increasing protections and rights for indigenous peoples.49 [39] As such, the Constitution grants the right of self-determination to indigenous communities, including provisions granting freedom to "develop and strengthen their identity, feeling of belonging, ancestral traditions and form of social organization."50 In this regard, indigenous collective and community rights are formally protected in Ecuador, and some areas have secured unique forms of sovereignty.51 Additionally, the Constitutional Court of Ecuador considers equality and discrimination related claims, and has provided rulings relevant to protecting against mistreatment based on ethnic origin, particularly for upholding cultural rights of indigenous peoples and preventing discrimination.52 [40] And, when the new administration took office in 2017, the President expressed support for increased consultation with the indigenous movement and has acted upon its commitment to indigenous rights at the international level. In addition, indigenous individuals have since been nominated or appointed to prominent positions in State institutions such as the National Electoral Council and the Council for Citizen Participation and Social Control.53 [41] Beyond the analysis provided above regarding the situation for indigenous peoples in Ecuador, I have found insufficient persuasive evidence to establish that the Appellant would face a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA location of Cuenca, Ecuador, and/or that if he did face discrimination, that this would rise to the level of persecution. [42] Furthermore, regarding the drug traffickers that the Appellant allegedly fears, I have similarly found that there is insufficient persuasive evidence to establish that the alleged traffickers would seek to find the Appellant or could locate him in Cuenca. Furthermore, the Appellant has not provided any persuasive evidence to suggest that the alleged agents of harm have taken any steps to locate him since he was in Ecuador. [43] Additionally, I have considered Issues 24-25 of the Crime Reports provided by the Appellant as new evidence.54 While these largely describe general cases of robbery, theft, assault, fraud, and extortion, and none of the reports mention the targeting of individuals because of their indigenous ethnicity - there is one report involving police operations against "micro-trafficking" of marijuana and the related seizure of drugs.55 [44] Ultimately, I find that these reports do not support a finding that the alleged traffickers the Appellant fears could find him in Cuenca or explain how they would do so, in a metropolitan area of over 600,000 inhabitants, or that they have the means to do so. Moreover, I find that these reports do not establish that the Appellant would face a serious possibility of persecution based on his indigenous ethnicity or that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant would personally face a risk to his life, a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture in Cuenca. [45] While the above information largely pertains to the first prong of the IFA analysis, which the RPD correctly undertook, I have also considered whether the conditions in Cuenca are such that it would be objectively unreasonable, under the circumstances, including those particular to the Appellant, for him to relocate to Cuenca and seek refuge there. However, I find that the RPD is correct in its determination that it would not be objectively unreasonable for the Appellant to seek refugee in Cuenca. In particular, the Appellant is educated and has employment experience, he is bilingual, and he has travel experience, in conjunction with his freedom of movement in Ecuador, and his ability to access housing, employment, and education in Cuenca.56 [46] Moreover, the Appellant has not satisfied his burden of showing that this is not the case with actual and concrete evidence. I therefore agree with the RPD's findings in this regard, which are correct, and I do not accept the Appellant's related arguments. Ultimately, I find that the Appellant has an IFA in Cuenca and that he has failed to establish otherwise. On this basis the appeal can be dismissed and the RPD decision upheld, given that I find that the RPD did not err with respect to the Appellant's IFA in Cuenca. Determinative Issues and Findings [47] Overall, the determinative issue in this appeal is IFA. This involves an examination of whether the RPD erred in determining that the Appellant has a viable IFA in Cuenca, and that ultimately the Appellant's risk of persecution and/or harm has not been established, such that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection. [48] Moreover, upon completing my independent review, I found that the RPD did not err in its analysis of these issues and agree with its overall conclusions. Furthermore, the Appellant's arguments are not persuasive with respect to overcoming these concerns or to establishing that the RPD erred in its analysis or that I should find otherwise, such that this appeal must be dismissed. CONCLUSION [49] The appeal is dismissed, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of IRPA. I confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. (Signed) G. Cohen G. Cohen April 6, 2021 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, as amended, c. 27 ("IRPA"). 2 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 3 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; see also Rozas Del Solar, Paola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 4 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Raza 2007 FC 385. 5 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 14-17. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 18-28. 7 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 29-49. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 92-94. 9 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 95-96. 10 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 97-98. 11 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 99-102. 12 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 103-105. 13 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 106-109. 14 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 110-121. 15 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 122-125. 16 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 126-128. 17 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 129-131. 18 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 132-150. 19 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 183-189. 20 Refugee Protection Division Rules ("RPD"), SOR/2012-256, as amended, Rule 11. 21 Eshetie v. Canada (Citizen and Immigration), 2019 FC 1036. 22 Abdullahi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 260 at para. 15. 23 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record at pp. 20-28 and 29-47. 24 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 50-64. 25 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 65-91. 26 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Raza 2007 FC 385. 27 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 50-63. 28 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 65-90. 29 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 69-90. 30 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 65-68. 31 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 65, 68. 32 IRPA, S.C. 2001, as amended, c. 27, ss. 110(4)-(6). 33 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 183, at para. 2. 34 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 183, at paras. 1-2. 35 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 183, at para. 2. 36 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, p. 6, at lines 14-28. 37 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, p. 6, at lines 25-28. 38 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.). 39 Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.). 40 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, p. 4, at lines 30-33. 41 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 183, at para. 2. 42 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, p. 6, lines 19-23. 43 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, p. 6, lines 2-12. 44 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 183, at para. 2. 45 National Documentation Package ("NDP") for Ecuador, (26 February 2021), Item 13.1, International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, April 2020. 46 NDP for Ecuador, (26 February 2021), Item 13.6, Minority Rights Group International, May 2018. 47 NDP for Ecuador, (26 February 2021), Item 5.1, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, December 7, 2018. 48 NDP for Ecuador, (26 February 2021), Items 5.1, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, December 7, 2018; and 13.4, United Nations. Human Rights Council, July 4, 2019. 49 NDP for Ecuador, (26 February 2021), Item 13.4, United Nations. Human Rights Council, July 4, 2019. 50 NDP for Ecuador, (26 February 2021), Item 12.1, United States. Department of State, June 10, 2020. 51 NDP for Ecuador, (26 February 2021), Item 7.3, United States. Overseas Security Advisory Council, March 3, 2020. 52 NDP for Ecuador, 26 February 2021, Item 13.5, Ecuador, August 5, 2020. 53 NDP for Ecuador, 26 February 2021, Item 13.4, United Nations. Human Rights Council, July 4, 2019. 54 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 65-68. 55 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 65. 56 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, p. 6, lines 2-12. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VC0-00471 RAD.25.02 (January 14, 2020) Disponible en français 15 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 14, 2020) Disponible en français