MC1-05286

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MC1-05286 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Date of decision December 21, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Rouba Al-Salem Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Kolade Oladokun Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (Appellant) is a citizen of Nigeria of Christian faith, originally from the town Ikale in Ondo State. He is appealing a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated July 5, 2021, rejecting his refugee protection claim. [2] The Appellant alleges that he fears returning to Nigeria because he would be physically harmed and kidnapped by traditionalists from his home village to force him to become a traditional XXXX knows as XXXX.1 [3] According to the Appellant, events which took place in 2015 and in 2017, as well as his fear of further harm, promoted him and his family to relocate from Ikale to Ilorin in Kawara State, about nine hours away by car, and then to another town, which is a two-hour drive from Ilorin.2 On XXXX XXXX, 2017, the Appellant fled Nigeria to the USA.3 He then travelled to Canada on October 15, 2017,4 where he filed his refugee claim. [4] In its decision, the RPD established that the availability of an internal flight alternative (IFA) is the determinative issue.5 It concluded that Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX has a viable IFA in Lagos, Abuja or Ibadan and dismissed his claim.6 [5] On appeal, Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX submits that the RPD erred in its decision to reject his claim. This is because the RPD erred in its analysis of the IFA test and engaged in speculation not supported by either his testimony or evidence.7 DECISION [6] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. BACKGROUND [7] On XXXX XXXX, 2014, during Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX absence from home for a business trip, five men allegedly came by his home in Ilorin and demanded from the wife to know his whereabouts. They also accused her of hiding him and manhandled her.8 [8] On XXXX XXXX, 2015, four men allegedly tried to force their way into the house of the Appellant at night. They left, but not before leaving blood and fetish objects in his compound.9 As a result, Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX and his family decided to move in with his in-laws, who live in Oro, which is a two-hour drive from Ilorin in Kwara State.10 [9] On XXXX XXXX, 2015, Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX was allegedly attacked by three men with sticks while he was buying bread. As they beat and kicked him, they reiterated that he can't hide from them. Following this incident, he allegedly was hospitalized for several days.11 [10] On XXXX XXXX, 2017, two weeks after Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX departure to the USA, his wife was allegedly attacked by three men demanding to know his whereabouts and that of their son. ANALYSIS [11] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.12 I based my assessment on the IFA two-prong test, namely that (1) there must be no serious possibility of the Appellants being persecuted in the part of the country identified as an IFA or that on a balance of probabilities, they would not be subjected personally to a danger of torture or a risk to his life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in the part of the country identified as the IFA,13 and (2) that the conditions in those locations must be such that it would not be objectively unreasonable in all the circumstances, including those particular to the Appellants for them to seek refuge there.14 In carrying out my assessment, I also considered the personal circumstances of the Appellant. [12] In its decision, the RPD found that there is insufficient evidence that there is a serious possibility that the agents of persecution would have the means or motivation to pursue the Appellant in Lagos, Abuja or Ibadan, in order to force him to fulfill his designated role as XXXX.15 The panel also found that after considering the personal circumstances of the Appellant,16 it would be objectively reasonable for the Appellant to relocate to any of the proposed IFA locations.17 [13] On appeal, Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX submits that the RPD went ahead and proposed the IFA locations of Lagos, Abuja, and Ibadan, even though Lagos and Ibadan are closer to Ikale than Ilorin where he had moved with his family for safety.18 Furthermore, the Appellant claims that the RPD failed to take note of and give proper weight to his testimony and to factors that were supportive of his claim.19 (i) First Prong: Is there a possibility of persecution or likelihood of harm for the Appellant in the proposed IFAs? [14] In determining whether or not the Appellant would be personally subjected to a risk of harm in Abuja, Lagos and Ibadan, I have assessed whether the alleged agents of harm have the "the means" and motivation to locate him in those proposed IFA locations.20 [15] For the following reasons, I do not find that Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX has established that this would be the case. The Motivation [16] In his oral testimony, Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX testified that the reason why the agents of harm would be motivated to find him is that since he is XXXX XXXX XXXX in his family, they want to have him appointed as a XXXX who XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, something that he rejects.21 He also alleges that he might be forced to undergo a harmful and possibly deadly ritual of having to be XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, should the latter die.22 Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX submits that this is a requirement because his family is of XXXX XXXX and because the tradition followed by some members of his family, requires this of the XXXX XXXX XXXX son in the family, such as himself.23 [17] The Appellant also added that they are looking for him because eventually he would be XXXX if the XXXX XXXX.24 According to him, refusal to conform with the tradition means that they are determined to have him kidnapped,25 and to find him because of the tradition.26 Moreover, Counsel for the Appellant submitted during the RPD hearing that as long as the current XXXX is on XXXX XXXX, the agents of harm will continue looking for his client because no one is currently performing the role of XXXX.27 [18] Counsel before the RPD underscored that a letter allegedly sent by the national headquarters of the Ikale Community to the association's network in the 36 states of Nigeria, including Lagos (thereafter letter), instructs its members to look for the Appellant, and that this indicates that he remains a person of interest.28 Similarly, Counsel and the Appellant pointed out to a video29 submitted by the Appellant as evidence, showing an individual allegedly questioning his father about his whereabouts, as well as a traditional ceremony. Here too, they argued that this evidence is proof that the agents of harm remain motivated to find him in order to harm him.30 [19] In its decision, the RPD concluded that the Appellant did not establish that there is a serious possibility that the alleged agents of harm would be motivated to find him in the proposed IFAs in order to force him to fulfill his designated role as XXXX.31 This is because the panel found that there was insufficient evidence to support this contention. I agree with the RPD. [20] In reaching this conclusion, the RPD first pointed out that Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX testified that he lived with his family at his in-laws' place of residence since XXXX 2015, also in Kawara State, from the time of the attack in XXXX 2015, up until he fled Nigeria in 2017.32 During that time, and as per the Appellant's testimony, he did not hear from the agents of harm or encounter any renewed threats or efforts to harm him. This was the case from when the alleged 2015 attack took place up until the incident with his wife in XXXX 2017, and which took place after the Appellant had left Nigeria.33 [21] When the RPD asked the Appellant why he thought that he did not hear from them, or encounter any efforts by them to find and/or harm him between XXXX 2015 and XXXX 2017, he responded that he did not answer unknown calls and did not know why they had done so.34 The RPD also underscored that the Appellant continued to work the same job and lived at the same address with his in-laws during that period, and that he was not in hiding.35 In addition, while the Appellant testified that he frequently travelled, the panel pointed out that he also testified that during this period the agents of harm did not seek to contact his wife in order to find him either.36 [22] Secondly, the RPD noted that even though it accepts Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX allegations that the agents of harm questioned his wife about his whereabouts in XXXX 2017, it was the only time, per his testimony, in which they contacted her since he left Nigeria in XXXX 2017.37 In relation to this, the panel also pointed out that the Appellant's wife remained in Ilorin or its surrounding suburbs, and continued to work there, and was not in hiding, even though this is the place where the threatening incidents had taken place.38 [23] I agree with the RPD. This is because the Appellant testified that he lived in Kwara State, either in Ilorin or very close to it, during all of the time that he alleges he was being sought after by the agents of harm. For example, he stated that from 2003 till 2015 he lived Ilorin, then he moved in with his in-laws in Oro, also in Kawara State (two hours away from Ilorin), and that he remained there until he left the country.39 He also testified that he remained at the same address (with his in- laws) after he was first attacked in XXXX 2015. Furthermore, when questioned by the RPD, he stated that he did not suffer from any further attacks or any efforts by the agents of harm to contact him after that attack and despite the fact that he remained at the same address. [24] In relation to this, when the RPD asked him why he thinks that he did not hear from the agents of harm from 2015 up until he left in 2017, even though he was living at the same address, he responded that maybe it is because he does not pick up calls from people he doesn't know, otherwise he does not know why: "I don't know, I don't know what they are doing. I don't know, I don't know anything (inaudible)."40 [25] Here, the Appellant submits on appeal that the RPD failed to take proper note of his testimony that between 2015 and XXXX 2017, he was travelling a lot and not stable in one location, and that this may explain why there was no contact or attempt to reach him, coupled with the fact that he refrained from answering calls from anonymous callers.41 [26] I do not agree with the Appellant that he sought to justify that they did not contact him or attempt to reach him by saying that he used to travel frequently. Rather, as the transcript of the RPD hearing reveals, he made that statement in response to a question by the RPD as to how long he lived with his in-laws after 2015: RPD: Okay. How long did you live with your in-laws after 2015? Appellant: It is, you know, it, I travel a lot because during that time it, it, I have some (inaudible) I was (inaudible) so I was off and on, so also what my wife and my kids they were there with them, (inaudible) if she has some other things to do, so I think the whole 2016 even (inaudible) 2016 yeah we were there, my wife and my kid they were mostly there and yeah. RPD: Did you live there until you left the country? Appellant: Yeah, like you know it's, that is what I would say technically that we live there till (inaudible) I have to go, but I travel a lot, you know, sometime I can go out for like (inaudible).42 [27] I therefore do not agree with the Appellant that the RPD misconstrued his testimony. [28] I also agree with the RPD that the fact that the alleged agents of harm questioned the Appellant's wife about his whereabouts, does not corroborate Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX allegations that on a balance of probabilities, they would be motivated to find him and his family in the proposed IFA locations. I also point out that when the RPD inquired with the Appellant if at the moment of the RPD hearing (i.e. June 2021) his wife was still living there, he responded in the affirmative, noting that she was living in Kawara state and that she had moved to a place on the outskirts of Ilorin.43 He also testified that she is working and that the children are going to school, and that since 2017, no one had tried to contact her to find out about his whereabouts.44 I find that even if I am ready to assume that there was motivation to find and harm the Appellant in 2017, there is insufficient evidence from his testimony to corroborate that this remains the case, or that the agents of harm would be motivated to find him if he relocated to any of the proposed IFA locations. [29] During the RPD hearing, Counsel for the Appellant argued that if the agents of harm were motivated and capable of finding his client in Ilorin, which is about an eight to nine-hour drive from his hometown in Ikale, they would be motivated and able to find him in any of the proposed IFAs. This, he argued, is the case, given that Ibadan and Lagos are closer to his home village than Ilorin (and which according to the Appellant are only an estimated five and six hours drive away from Ilorin respectively).45 On appeal, the Appellant reiterates that the RPD erred in its assessment because of proposing IFA locations closer to Ikale than Ilorin.46 [30] However, I do not find that just because the IFA locations are closer in physical distance to Ikale than Ilorin necessarily indicates that they will have the motivation to find and harm Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX there. This is because I do not find that he has persuasively established that there is an on-going motivation to find him in the first place. In addition, as I will discuss in a subsequent part of this decision, I do not find that the Appellant has established that the agents of harm have the means to find and harm him in any of the proposed IFA locations. Hence, I do not find that the physical distance of the IFA locations in and of itself corroborates his allegation that the harm would be forthcoming. [31] Thirdly, the RPD assessed Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX evidence to collaborate the central allegations to his claim. Here, the panel first examined a letter, allegedly drafted by the Ikale Community Association, instructing the Ikale people supporters to look for him in other states. The letter, I note, is not dated. [32] The panel considered the Appellant's explanation, namely that he first became aware of it in 2018, that he had obtained a copy of it from his father, and that he had it translated it in 2021. However, the panel then concluded that as the date is unknown, and 2018 is not recent, it fails to support Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX allegations that the agents of harm are currently motivated to locate and harm him in the proposed IFA locations.47 On appeal, the Appellant alleges that his inability to provide the date of the document, should not be fatal given that the content of it leaves no doubt as to what is to be achieved.48 [33] I have examined the letter. The letter is not dated. Hence, it would be difficult to ascertain whether the alleged decision of the Ikale community to instruct its followers and chairpersons of the network to look for the Appellant is recent and that it has been issued within the timeframe during which central events to the Appellant's claim allegedly took place in an effort to find the Appellant. I therefore find that the RPD was correct in its decision not to give the letter probative value. In this regard, I do not agree with Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX that the date of the letter is trivial, as it is important in establishing whether the motivation to find him is still on-going and with respect to central allegations to his claim. [34] With respect to the video recording, the RPD pointed out that it allegedly shows an agent coming to meet Mr. XXXX father to demand that he inform him of the former's whereabouts. It also shows his parent arguing with an individual as well as scenes from what appears to be a festival. Although the RPD accepts Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX testimony that one of these men is indeed his father, it underscores that the language spoken in the video is neither English nor French and that no translation or caption has been provided for the video.49 The panel also points out that although the Appellant testified that he believed the video was created in 2019, it was not time-stamped. Moreover, the RPD indicated that his father did not provide any corroborating evidence about it nor was the Appellant present during the event being recorded. 50As a result, the panel gave no probative value to the evidence.51 [35] Article 32(1) of the RPD rules stipulates that all documents used by a claimant or protected person in a proceeding must be in English or French, or if in another language, be provided with an English or French translation and a declaration signed by the translator.52 And while the video is not technically a document, it is a piece of evidence submitted by the Appellant to the RPD to corroborate his claim. I find that it is reasonable to assume that this requirement extends to visual pieces of evidence involving dialogue that have been submitted to the RPD. [36] And while I find that the RPD should have asked the Appellant to explain why the video dialogue has not been translated, I do not find that this error by the RPD is serious enough to undermine the correctness of the overall RPD decision. This is because the Appellant was represented by Counsel. Nor has Counsel before the RAD provided any explanation on behalf of his client why the translation of the video dialogue was not readily available at the time or did not seek to provide the translation on appeal. I therefore find that the RPD did not err in its decision not to give the video any probative value. [37] Fourthly, the RPD drew a negative inference from the fact that contrary to his original narrative attached to his BoC, Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX failed to mention in either his oral testimony or his revised written narrative, attached to his BoC, that he fears that the agents of harm would try to force him to become king one day. The panel then indicated that it gives more weight to the revised written narrative and spontaneous testimony regarding his fear of return, and that therefore, there is no serious possibility that the agents of harm would be motivated to track him down in the proposed IFA for this reason.53 [38] While I agree with the RPD that the Appellant omitted this from his oral testimony and revised written narrative, I find that this is not a significant omission, as he did testify that they wanted to find him to take on the role of XXXX XXXX as a way of continuing the tradition. Whether the agents of harm are seeking to find him to become XXXX XXXX or XXXX is a small detail, and I do not find that it has any consequences for an objective assessment of the motivation of the agents of harm to find him in the proposed IFA locations. [39] Considering the above, I find that the RPD is correct in its conclusion that based on the Appellant's oral and written testimony, there is insufficient persuasive evidence that the agents of harm are motivated to find him and harm him in the proposed IFA locations. I find that he Appellant has not credibly established that there is a serious possibility that the agents of harm would, on a balance of probabilities, have the motivation to locate him, if he moved to any of the proposed IFA locations. The Means [40] In its decision, the RPD found that Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX did not establish that there is a serious possibility that the people he fears would have the means to find and harm him in the proposed IFA locations of Lagos, Abuja or Ibadan.54 In this regard, the panel first underscored that the agents of harm have not contacted the Appellant between XXXX 2015-XXXX 2019, nor his wife since XXXX 2017, and that this is indicative of a lack of means to pursue him (and not just the lack of motivation).55 [41] Secondly, the RPD explained that while it accepts that the association is located across Nigeria and that it wrote the letter in evidence at some point before 2018, there is not sufficient evidence to establish that the type of connections that it presides over, allows the agents of harm to have the means or motivation to find him.56 [42] Thirdly, while Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX argued that they have the means to find him due to his online presence as a professional in the area of XXXX XXXX,57 the RPD found that there was insufficient evidence that this would be the case.58 In addition, the panel decided that it would be reasonable to expect the Appellant to take safety precautions in his employment, and the manner in which he manages his online social media presence, and that doing so, would not constitute a deprivation of a fundamental human right, or amount to hiding.59 [43] Fourthly, the RPD underscored that nothing in the Appellant's testimony suggests that any of his family members were at risk if they refused to tell the agents where he is. In this regard, the panel pointed out that his father still resided in his home village, where the agents of harm are, and that he did not allege that his father was in danger of being harmed for refusing to tell the agents where his son is. In addition, they have not contacted his wife since XXXX 2017. As a result, the RPD concluded that the Appellant would not be forced to cut off communication with his family in order for him or for his family members to remain safe.60 [44] I find that the RPD was correct in its conclusion that there was not sufficient persuasive evidence by Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX to corroborate his allegation that the agents of harm have the means to find him and harm him if they relocated to any of the proposed IFA locations because of his online presence. I reach this conclusion for the same reasons laid out by the RPD. I find that on a balance of probabilities, if the agents of harm had the means to find and harm him, they would have sought to find him between 2015 and 2017, or at the very least, to seek out his family members who continued to reside at their habitual places of residence. [45] In addition, I find that the Appellant has not established that the agents of harm have the capacity to find him through the association which allegedly drafted the letter. Here, I note that Mr. XXXX XXXX testimony as to their outreach and influence is very vague and does not sufficiently establish that they are of an extent that would allow them to find and harm the Appellant in any of the proposed IFA locations. RPD: How would, do you know how they would be able to find you in one of these locations? Appellant: Say that again. RPD: Do you know how they would be able to find you in Lagos, Ibadan or Abuja? Appellant: I don't know, but what I am saying is that this letter suggests to me, this (inaudible) letter suggests to me that if they can go to that length and writing letter to those people how do I make sure that somebody somehow will not see me or they will not kind of use that network to get to where I live or how I do my business. [...] RPD: Do you know anything about how the association would be able to find you? Appellant: I don't know but the only thing I know is that they have a spread network that was the only, that was what gives me that, I might say that (inaudible), they have a very strong network. RPD: Okay. Beside through the association do you know any other way that they would be able to find you? Appellant: No.61 [46] During the RPD hearing, the Appellant also testified that he was a member of the association for one year and precisely in XXXX.62 In relation to this, he underscored that he helped with a youth organization, but that they are rich and have lots of connections.63 Given that he was a former member of the association, I find that it is reasonable to expect him to provide a more detailed response as to why he thinks that this association has the means to find him in the proposed IFA locations. [47] Finally, I agree with the RPD that there was insufficient evidence that they would find Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX because of his online presence, or that his family would be at risk of harm if they failed to indicate the whereabouts of the Appellant to the agent of harm. These last two conclusions were not challenged by him on appeal. I find that the RPD's conclusions are correct. [48] Given all of the above, I find that the RPD was correct in its conclusion that the Appellant failed to establish that the agents of harm have the means to find him and harm him in any of the IFA locations. (ii) Would it be objectively unreasonable for the Appellant, considering his personal circumstances, to relocate to any of the proposed IFA locations? [49] With respect to the second prong, the RPD concluded that given the education and skilled work experience of the Appellant, that it would be objectively reasonable for him to relocate to Lagos, Abuja, or Ibadan, given that he could reasonably gain employment, secure accommodation, and generally live in the proposed IFA. This, the panel found to be the case in the absence of evidence by the Appellant to the contrary (and other than the risks he had already outlined, and which were discussed above).64 [50] During the RPD hearing, the panel questioned the Appellant if besides the risks he had mentioned with respect to the agents of harm, he foresees any other reason why he cannot live safely in any of the IFAs. Mr. XXXX XXXX responded with "No not anything I know."65 [51] After weighing the evidence and considering the Appellant's personal circumstances, I find that the RPD is correct in concluding that on a balance of probabilities the hardship which the Appellant may face as a result of relocating to any of the proposed IFAs of Lagos, Abuja or Ibadan do not rise to the level that would render the conditions therein unreasonable. The Appellant has not contested this conclusion, and I agree with the RPD. CONCLUSION [52] I conclude that the RPD panel was correct in concluding that, there was a viable IFA for the Appellant in Lagos, Abuja or Ibadan. DECISION [53] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) Rouba Al-Salem Rouba Al-Salem December 21, 2021 Date RAS/lp 1 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 4. 2 P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal at para. 9. 3 RPD-1, RPD Record, Appellant's Basis of Claim (BoC) at item 2e. 4 RPD-1, RPD Record, Appellant's Generic Application Form at item 11. 5 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 6. 6 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at paras. 2-3 and paras. 37 and 40. 7 P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal at para. 8. 8 RPD-1, RPD Record, Appellant's amended narrative attached to his BoC at p. 2. 9 RPD-1, RPD Record, Appellant's amended narrative attached to his BoC at p. 2. 10 RPD-1, RPD Record, Appellant's amended narrative attached to his BoC at pp. 2-3. RPD decision at para. 11.Transcript of the RPD hearing (June 3, 2021) at p. 11. 11 RPD-1, RPD Record, Appellant's amended narrative attached to his BoC at p. 3. 12Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145 13 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.). 14 Ranganathan v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, [2001] 2 F.C. 164 (C.A.), at paras 15-16. 15 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 31. 16 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 34. 17 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 33 and 36. 18 P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal at para. 9. 19 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 11. 20 Mayorga v. Canada (MCI), 2012 FC 987, at para 31; Nimako v. Canada (MCI), 2013 FC 540, at para 7. 21 Transcript of the RPD hearing (June 3, 2021) at p. 6. 22 RPD-1, RPD Record, Appellant's original narrative attached to his BoC. 23 RPD-1, RPD Record, Appellant's original narrative attached to his BoC. 24 Transcript of the RPD hearing (June 3, 2021) at p. 7. 25 Transcript of the RPD hearing (June 3, 2021) at p. 10. 26 Transcript of the RPD hearing (June 3, 2021) at p. 18. 27 Transcript of the RPD hearing (June 3, 2021) at p. 27. 28 RPD-1, RPD Record, Appellant's personal evidence submitted to the RPD item 2 available on p. 115 of the electronic RPD file. 29 RPD-1, RPD Record, Appellant's personal evidence submitted to the RPD item 1. 30 Transcript of the RPD hearing (June 3, 2021) at pp. 20 and 32. 31 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at paras 9 and 18. 32 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 13. 33 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 13. 34 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 13. 35 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 13. 36 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 13. 37 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 14. 38 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 14 39 Transcript of the RPD hearing (June 3, 2021) at pp. 10-11. 40 Transcript of the RPD hearing (June 3, 2021) at p. 20. 41 Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal at para. 11. 42 Transcript of the RPD hearing (June 3, 2021) at pp. 12-13. 43 Transcript of the RPD hearing (June 3, 2021) at pp. 16-17. 44 Transcript of the RPD hearing (June 3, 2021) at p. 17. 45 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 12. Transcript of the RPD hearing (June 3, 2021) at p. 30. 46 P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal at para. 9. 47 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 15. 48 P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal at para. 10. 49 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 16. 50 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 17. 51 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 16. 52 Article 32(1) of the RPD rules. 53 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 19. 54 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 20. 55 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 21. 56 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 22. 57 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at paras. 23-24. 58 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 24. 59 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at paras. 28-29. 60 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 27. 61 Transcript of the RPD hearing (June 3, 2021) at p. 24. 62 Transcript of the RPD hearing (June 3, 2021) at p. 26. 63 Transcript of the RPD hearing (June 3, 2021) at p. 27. 64 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 34. 65 Transcript of the RPD hearing (June 3, 2021) at p. 25.