TB5-08141

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 : TB5-08141 TB5-08142 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision February 17, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Atam Uppal Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Bola Adetunji Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister K COWMAN Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (Appellant), and her minor son XXXX XXXX (minor), claim to be citizens of Nigeria, and they appeal a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated July 15, 2015, rejecting their claims for refugee protection. [2] The RPD appointed the designated representative for the minor. DETERMINATION [3] Pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA or Act), the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) confirms the determination of the RPD. The Appeal is dismissed. BACKGROUND [4] The Appellant alleged before the RPD that that she was forcibly moved by her parents to the country house of XXXX XXXX XXXX (XXXX XXXX), a rich businessman and a member of the ruling People's Democratic Party (PDP) for the state of Imo. The Appellant was to be the XXXX third wife. [5] In XXXX 2008, she was made to undergo female circumcision which led to excessive bleeding. After treatment in a hospital for five days, she was returned to the home of XXXX XXXX. [6] She was mistreated by XXXX XXXX for about three years. She escaped with her boyfriend/husband XXXX when the XXXX travelled to the United States (USA). XXXX and the Appellant fled to Spain where they had the minor, born in 2011. [7] The Appellants arrived from Spain in XXXX 2014 using Spanish passports and claimed protection. [8] Their claims were heard by the RPD in two sittings in April and July 2015. On July 15, 2015, the RPD found that the Appellants were neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. [9] The RPD, in arriving at its decision, found, "that the claimant and her son are not who they say they are, as well as the claimant is not a credible witness" [10] The Minister intervened at the RPD and at the RAD hearings by providing documentary evidence. [11] The Appellant in the Memorandum dated September 25, 2015 provided a document1 to be considered as new evidence to establish the appellant's identities and submitted that the RPD's credibility determination is based on absence of corroborative documentary evidence which is an error. [12] The Appellants request that the RAD set aside the RPD's determination and hold a hearing pursuant to section 110(6) of the Act. In the alternative, the Appellants request that the RAD find that the Appellants are Convention refugees or remit the matter back to the RPD for a De Novo hearing. STANDARD OF REVIEW [13] The Appellants cite Huruglica2 and suggest that the RAD "should conduct a hybrid evaluation when assessing an appeal and must come to an independent assessment of whether the claimant is a convention refugee." [14] The federal court in Huruglica stated that the RAD is to conduct its own independent assessment of the evidence and decide if the person is in need of refugee protection, and that the RAD is to show deference to RPD credibility findings and findings in areas where the RPD has a particular advantage (over the RAD). The Court's decision reads as follows: [54] Having concluded that the RAD erred in reviewing the RPD's decision on the standard of reasonableness, I have further concluded that for the reasons above, the RAD is required to conduct a hybrid appeal. It must review all aspects of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the claimant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Where its assessment departs from that of the RPD, the RAD must substitute its own decision. [55] In conducting its assessment, it can recognize and respect the conclusion of the RPD on such issues as credibility and/or where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage in reaching such a conclusion but it is not restricted, as an appellate court is, to intervening on facts only where there is a "palpable and overriding error". [15] The Federal Court of Appeal is at present considering the certified question following Huruglica regarding the Role of the RAD. In the interim, Huruglica is widely accepted and followed. The RAD will follow the direction of the court in Huruglica and will conduct its own assessment of the evidence. The RAD would also recognize and respect the RPD's credibility determination where it enjoyed a particular advantage. New evidence pursuant to section 110 (4) [16] Section 110(4) of the IRPA reads as follows: Evidence that may be presented (4) On appeal, the person who is the subject of the appeal may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or 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 rejection. [17] The RAD will consider whether the new document submitted for consideration as new evidence meets the express statutory conditions, and whether it is material, relevant and credible. [18] The Federal Court of Appeal3 has stated regarding express statutory conditions: (a) If the evidence is capable of proving only an event that occurred or circumstances that arose prior to the RPD hearing, then has the applicant established either that the evidence was not reasonably available to him or her for presentation at the RPD hearing, or that he or she could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented the evidence at the RPD hearing? If not, the evidence need not be considered. (b) If the evidence is capable of proving an event that occurred or circumstances that arose after the RPD hearing, then the evidence must be considered (unless it is rejected because it is not credible, not relevant, not new or not material). [19] The Appellant submitted a one page photocopy4 that contains the bio-data page from a passport and a copy of a driver's licence. This page has an impression from a rubber stamp that reads: "Certified at the Nigeria High Commission, Ottawa, Canada." [20] The Appellant submits that, "Following the hearing, the identity documents of the principal applicant were certified by the Nigeria High Commission", and that the document that was not in their possession at the time of the hearing. [21] The Minister submits that the RAD should not accept this document as new evidence as it was readily obtainable before the RPD hearing and the Appellants chose not to obtain it prior to the hearing or prior to the decision being rendered by the RPD. [22] This document (without rubber stamp) was before the RPD,5 and the RPD did not find the Appellant's testimony regarding these documents to be credible. For example, the RPD stated in its reasons that: ...at the hearing she provided her Nigerian passport, her driver's license and her birth certificate. She testified that her passport was sent to her by her husband in Ghana while other documents were sent to her by her mother in Nigeria...Her testimony is not reasonable since she stated at the POE interview that she had surrendered her Nigerian passport to the authorities when she received her Spanish passport. Also, at the POE interviews and the documents she filled out she indicated that she had no identity document and she had no valid passport or a national identity document. At the POE, the claimant did not state that the birth certificate and the driver's license she provided were to follow. [23] The Appellant submits that since this document is certified therefore it should be accepted as it goes to establish the Appellant's identity. [24] I am not persuaded by the Appellant's arguments for the following reasons. First, the RPD has seen the document and therefore this document did not arise after the rejection of the claim. The only difference now is that this one page document also has a rubber stamp that states "certified at the Nigeria High Commission". The RAD notes that there is no indication of when this document was certified by the Nigerian High Commission, nor does it state what was certified. Is this a certified photocopy of a photocopy or is it a certified copy of a genuine Nigerian passport? There is no indication that the Nigerian High Commission sought the original document. There is no correspondence from the High Commission stating what they certified and to what effect. Moreover, there is no certification regarding the identity of the minor. [25] Based on the foregoing, the RAD does not accept this document as it does not meet the statutory requirements of the act. Moreover the RAD finds that even if it meets the statutory requirements of the act this document cannot be found to be credible for the reasons mentioned above. Appellant's Record Addendum [26] Several days after sending the Appellant's Record, the Appellant submitted another package with the title "Appellant's Record (Addendum)." The Appellant did not provide any rationale as to why this document should be accepted as new evidence and it is not accompanied by an appropriate application as required by the RAD rules. [27] This Addendum contains portions the transcript of the hearing.6 An audio recording of the hearing is already in evidence. [28] Based on the foregoing, the RAD finds on a balance of probabilities that the remaining pages in the Addendum, submitted for consideration as new evidence, do not meet the statutory requirements and are neither material nor relevant. [29] The RAD notes that even if the document was accepted as new evidence, it would only result in making a finding that the Appellant is a citizen of Nigeria. The issue of identity of the minor will still remain. Moreover, there is the issue of credibility of the Appellant. Application for an Oral Hearing [30] The Appellant requests an oral hearing pursuant to section 110(6) of the IRPA. [31] Section 110(3) of the IRPA requires that the RAD proceed without a hearing, on the basis of the RPD's record, while allowing the RAD to accept documentary evidence and submissions from the Minister and the Appellant. The person who is the subject of the appeal may, pursuant to section 110(4), present "only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or 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 rejection." [32] According to section 110(6), upon which the Appellant relies, the RAD may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, there is documentary evidence referred to in 110(3) that raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellant, that is central to the RPD's decision, and that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. In this appeal, where there is no evidence from or in response to the Minister, the documentary evidence referred to in section 110(3) must be understood in relation to section 110(4). [33] When read together, sections 110(3), (4), and (6) establish that the RAD must not hold a hearing in an appeal such as this unless there is new (section 110(4)) evidence, in which case the RAD may hold a hearing if that new evidence raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellant, is central to the RPD's decision, and that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. [34] Since there is no new evidence accepted in support of the appeal, therefore the RAD must proceed without a hearing in this appeal, and the application for an oral hearing is denied. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL Identity [35] Before analyzing the issue of identity, the RAD notes and agrees with the Appellant that the RPD found that the claimant established her identity to the satisfaction of the Board, but then stated that she had not established her identity to the satisfaction of the Board. This is a clear contradiction on the part of the RPD. However, considering the RPD's decision and its reasons in totality, it becomes clear that it is a typographical error. The RPD's reasons, when read as a whole, make it clear that the RPD was not satisfied that the Appellant had established her or her minor son's identities, on a balance of probabilities. [36] It is trite law and as the Federal Court has found on numerous occasions, the issue of identity is at the very core of the RPD's expertise.7 [37] Canadian jurisprudence is well established that a failure by a refugee claimant to establish his or her identity is fatal to a claim. In situations where a claimant has not established identity, a negative conclusion as to credibility will almost inevitably be drawn, and can, in and of itself, be dispositive of a claim.8 [38] Section 106 of the IRPA provides that: The Refugee Protection Division must take into account, with respect to the credibility of a claimant, whether the claimant possesses acceptable documentation establishing identity, and if not, whether they have provided a reasonable explanation for the lack of documentation or have taken reasonable steps to obtain the documentation. [39] Section 11 of the RPD Rules provides that: The claimant must provide acceptable documents establishing their identity and other elements of the claim. A claimant who does not provide acceptable documents must explain why they did not provide the documents and what steps they took to obtain them. [40] The Basis of Claim (BOC) form, which was completed by the Appellant, directs refugee claimants to: Attach two copies of any documents you have to support your claim, such as travel documents (including your passport) and identity, medical, psychological or police documents..... A copy of any other document in support of your claim that you get after submitting your BOC form must be received by the IRB and by the Minister, if the Minister is a party, at least 10 days before your hearing.9 [41] The Appendix to the Basis of Claim form gives the following instructions under the heading "Documents": You must show the IRB evidence of who you are by giving the IRB official documents with your name and date of birth on them. For example, you can give a passport, national identity card, birth certificate, school certificate, driver's licence, military document, professional or religious membership card. If you do not have documents like this with you, you need to do everything you can to get them immediately. If you still cannot get these documents, you will need to explain the reason for this at your hearing and show that you did everything you could to get them. Attach two copies of all documents (identity, travel or other documents) that you have with you now to support your claim for refugee protection, including documents that are not genuine, documents that you got in an irregular or illegal way or by giving information that is not true, and documents you used that do not really belong to you. In addition to the documents listed above, you can include proof of membership in political organizations, medical or psychological reports, police documents, business records, news clippings, visas, and airplane, train or bus tickets. Include certified translations in English or French for all documents if they are in a language other than English or French. Translations are certified when they include the translator's name, the language and dialect, if any, translated, and a statement that the translation is accurate, signed by the translator. You must pay for these translations yourself. You must bring the originals to your hearing (or give them to the IRB sooner if the IRB asks for them), unless the documents have been seized by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) or Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). Please see the Claimant's Guide for more information. If you get more identity or travel documents that support your claim after you have provided your BOC Form, give two copies to the IRB without delay. If you get more documents, other than identity or travel documents, that support your claim after you have provided your BOC Form, give one copy to the IRB and a copy to the Minister, if the Minister is a party, at least 10 days before your hearing. [42] It is hard to conceive, given the provisions of the Act, the Rules, and the instructions in the BOC, that the Appellants could have been unaware that identity would be an issue at their RPD hearing. [43] The RAD finds that the Appellants, who were represented before the RPD by experienced counsel, could have reasonably been expected to know that identity would be an issue in their refugee hearing. Therefore it is not unreasonable for the RPD to expect sufficient credible evidence to establish Appellants' identities on balance of probabilities. [44] The identity of the minor Appellant also remains an issue. The Appellant provided a one page photocopy of the minor's birth certificate showing that he was born in Spain, and a copy of the passport she used for the minor that has a name of a girl. This is not persuasive evidence to establish the minor's identity on a balance of probabilities. [45] The Appellant declared at her first interview on XXXX XXXX, 2014 with the CBSA that she was coming to Canada to celebrate XXXX. The Appellant also declared that she lived in Spain for 14 years and after 10 years of her residency in Spain she was able to acquire Spanish citizenship in 2010. The Appellant also declared that she was a XXXX and her husband was in XXXX. [46] The Appellant declared that her son was born in 2011 in Spain. If the Appellant was a citizen of Spain at the time of birth of her son, the minor Appellant, it reasons that he is a Spanish citizen. The burden is on the Appellant, and the designated representative, to provide satisfactory evidence to the RPD to establish on a balance of probability the identity of the minor. [47] The Appellant declared that she has no other documents for the minor. This raises certain questions, such as was the minor vaccinated as is required in most Western nations, did he ever go to see any physician for any medical care in the first years of his life, and if so, why is there no evidence to support this? The RAD recognizes that Appellants are not able to provide corroborative evidence in every situation; however, the Appellant did not provide reasonable explanation for the lack of documents concerning the minors identity. [48] It is trite law that a person's first account of events is usually more reliable and can be considered more trustworthy (especially if it is prejudicial).10 The Appellant's first statement was that she is a citizen of Spain. The following day the Appellant changed her story and declared that she was a citizen of Nigeria. [49] The Appellant submitted that the Appellant's spoke a Nigerian language as a proof of their citizenship. The RAD is not persuaded and agrees with the Minister's submission that just because the: ...Appellant testified in a local Nigerian dialect is not determinative as to their identities as citizens of Nigeria. It only shows that the Appellant can speak a language. The identities of the Appellants cannot be solely based on their ability to speak a language and the cumulative effect of the credibility concerns and finding by the panel that the documents were unreliable, the language cannot overcome those concerns. [50] Based on the foregoing, the RAD confirms the RPD's finding that the Appellant's have not established their identities, on a balance of probabilities, and did not provide reasonable explanation either. Credibility [51] The Appellant testified that she is afraid of XXXX XXXX and nobody else in Nigeria. She was his third wife, and since she is not with him he wants the money back that he spent on his marriage with the Appellant.11 The Appellant also testified that she lived with the XXXX for two to three years. The Appellant provided no evidence of this marriage, photos or marriage certificate that shows the amount of money the bridegroom paid to the bride. There is no credible evidence to corroborate her marriage to the XXXX. [52] The Appellant testified that the XXXX forced her to undergo female circumcision that resulted in severe bleeding; as a result she spent five days in hospital. The Appellant provided evidence that she is circumcised but provided no evidence of ever being in hospital. The Appellant's explanation that she cannot get any documents without the XXXX permission12 was found to be unreasonable by the RPD. The RAD concurs - the Appellant has been out of the country for several years (the exact number of years is unknown), and there is no evidence that she made any attempts to approach the hospital or any other authorities even though she has been away from the XXXX or his influence for many years. [53] The Appellant provided conflicting testimony about the XXXX political activities. The Appellant initially testified and confirmed that the XXXX was only a businessman and is not a politician. Afterwards the Appellant contradicted her own testimony by stating that the XXXX is a politician and a member of the ruling party. The RPD's concern that they too many XXXX in the country were put to the Appellant. This contradiction is not reasonably explained by the Appellant. [54] The Minister's search for the Appellants alleged husband, the XXXX, did not render any results that this XXXX exists. When the RPD expressed this concern to the Appellant, in explanation the Appellant testified that there are so many people with the same name and one cannot expect one person with that name to show up in a search. I am not persuaded by this argument. If the Appellant's alleged husband is a prominent businessman and a member of the ruling party and a politician, it is not unreasonable to consider that the Minister should have been able to find this person. [55] The Appellant's argument that she is not expected to provide corroborating documentary evidence lacks merit because of several concerns about the Appellant's credibility. The RAD recognizes that under certain circumstances, it can be an error to demand corroborative evidence from the Appellant, however this is not one of those cases. [56] The Appellant submitted that it is an error on the part of the RPD to ask for corroborative evidence regarding citizenship laws of Spain. The RAD agrees with the Minister's submission: ...that it is not an error to find that the failure of claimants to provide documentary evidence to show that a particular law exists. In Adu v. Canada (Minister o(Employment and immigration), [1995J F.e.]. No. 114, paragraph 1. The Federal Court held that "a law is a very public fact and where as here, there is comprehensive documentary evidence of country conditions: it is entirely within its rights when it found that "the absence of documentary evidence ... suggests that no such law exists. [57] They were too many errors, omissions and inconsistencies in the Appellant's testimony, including: the Appellant's first story was that she came to Canada to celebrate XXXX with her son; the Appellant also declared that she was here in Canada to work and look after her son and her unborn child; next day her story changed that she was afraid to return to Nigeria because of the bombing whereby Muslims were targeting Christians13 and two of her sisters were killed in one such bombing. The Appellant changed her story once again in her narrative, that she is afraid of the XXXX and no one else. The Appellant declared that her husband had gone back to Ghana. [58] The Appellant, when questioned about possible internal flight alternatives, responded that it was up to her husband, the father of the minor to decide, however this husband is in Ghana, by her own testimony. [59] The Appellant in these stories over three different interviews made no reference to the XXXX, or her marriage to the XXXX, or her fear of the XXXX, or that the XXXX wants the money he spent on an alleged marriage. The story of the XXXX appears in her narrative for the first time. The RAD also notes that the Appellant's husband's letter in support14 of her refugee claim states, "the situation we had been going through" and makes absolutely no reference to the threats or fear of the alleged XXXX. [60] The Appellant declared that she was a citizen of Spain, and she acquired that citizenship in 2010 after a 10 year stay in the country. Later on she recanted and testified that she made up the story to be consistent with the passport she was traveling with. The Appellant testified that she is a citizen of Nigeria and provided a copy of a birth certificate,15 a copy of a passport, and a copy of driver's license. [61] The birth certificate shows that she was born at XXXX XXXX Hospital. The RPD had some concerns about this document, however the RAD also notes that the documents used for a birth certificate prior to certain date should include either Attestation Letters or Declaration of Age. [62] Objective documentary evidence16 regarding birth certificates in Nigeria states: ...birth certificates are only issued to children born in Nigeria under the age of 18 years old whose births are registered (Nigeria 25 Oct. 2013a). He stated that people over 18 who were not registered at the time of their births are issued "attestation letters" (ibid.). He said an attestation letter is a "legal document issued to back up the age declaration affidavit of an individual who is over 18 years of age" (ibid.). He added that, before 1988, a declaration of age affidavit was sufficient, but now the affidavit must be accompanied by an attestation letter issued by the NPC (ibid. 25 Oct. 2013b). In contrast, the investigator indicated that, although some people do have both documents, "a declaration of age can stand on its own as proof of one's date of birth. [63] Based on the foregoing, it raises doubts about the Appellant's birth certificate. [64] The Appellant also argues that a lack of physical presence of an interpreter during her interviews with the CBSA may be a factor in some of the problems with her testimony. The RAD is not persuaded for the following reasons. The official language of Nigeria is English, and the Appellant confirmed at the CBSA interview17 that she did not need an interpreter. [65] The Appellant testified that she never worked prior to her coming to Canada, yet the Appellant declared that she worked as a XXXX in Spain for years. [66] The RAD notes that there are gaps in the time lines in the Appellant's story. Even if one were to accept that she was forced to marry a XXXX, she allegedly escaped from his house in 2009 when he was traveling to the United States. The Appellant arrived in Canada towards the end of XXXX 2014 - that is five years after she escaped from the XXXX. The Appellant also testified that she lived in Spain for three years.18 The Appellant's testimony and documentary evidence leave a gap of two years that remains unexplained. [67] The Appellant testified at the RPD hearing that, "what I said here is the truth."19 Testimony given under oath is presumed to be truthful, however, the presumption is lost when there are too many contradictions, errors and omissions. The RAD also finds that the Appellant was evasive at times, for example, when she was questioned about who gave her the false documents. RPD is not required to mention each and every piece of evidence before it. [68] It is trite law that the RPD's decision has to be considered as a whole. [69] The Federal Court in Imaniraguha v. Canada20 stated: And as my colleague Justice de Montigny observed in Jarada v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 CF 409 (CanLII) at para 22, [2005] FCJ No 506, given that the RPD credibility finding with respect to the Applicant relied on a number of elements and implausibilities, "the reasons of an administrative tribunal must be taken as a whole in determining whether its decision was reasonable, and analysis does not involve determining whether each point in its reasoning meets the reasonableness test [...]." This observation applies to the present matter. [70] Based on the foregoing and recognizing and respecting the RPD's credibility determination where it enjoyed an advantage, the RAD finds that the RPD's determination is supportable. The RAD also finds that that the Appellant's arguments about the RPD's credibility findings are not supported by facts. [71] The RAD also considered whether the Panel erred when it failed to conduct a section 97 IRPA analysis as the Appellant alleges. [72] The Justice Phelan of the Federal Court in Balakumar21 stated: It is not necessary that there be a rigid bright line between the s. 96 and s. 97 considerations. A finding that the objective element of s. 96 had not been met could, depending on the circumstances, dispose of the s. 97 issue as well. However, the rejection of the subjective element of s. 96 does not entitle the Board to ignore the objective element of fear particularly in respect of s. 97. The form in which that consideration occurs is not one which the Court should direct -- what is important is that it be done and appear to be done. [73] After conducting an independent assessment of the entirety of the evidence, the RAD is of the opinion that there were numerous credibility concerns in the record before it, and thus the RPD did not err in its determination. Moreover, there is no objective evidence to support a finding that on balance of probabilities, the Appellant would be personally subjected to a danger of torture or face a risk to life, or face a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. [74] The RAD further finds that the Appellant has not satisfied her burden of establishing a serious possibility that she would be persecuted or that she would be personally subjected to a risk to her life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture by any authority or individual in Nigeria. [75] The Appellant has alleged that the RPD erred in rejecting this claim. The RAD finds no such errors and, upon review of the evidence, has reached the conclusion that the Appellant is lacking in credibility and does not require Canada's protection. CONCLUSION [76] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. [77] Accordingly, the Appellant's appeal fails. (signed) "Atam Uppal" Atam Uppal February 17, 2016 Date 1 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 21-22. 2 Huruglica, Bujar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6362-13), Phelan, August 22, 2014, 2014 FC 799. 3 Raza, Syed Masood v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-11-07), Linden, Sharlow, Ryer, December 6, 2007, 2007 FCA 385. 4 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 21. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, pp. 193-194. 6 Exhibit P-3, Appellant's Record (Addendum), pp. 5-54. 7 Lama, Barry v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2086-13), Shore, January 7, 2014, 2014 FC 8. 8 Ibid. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 15, Basis of Claim Form, Question 2. 10 Mapangu Ishaku, Ambroise v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-3882-10), Shore, January 14, 2011, 2011 FC 44. 11 Exhibit P-3, Appellant's Record (Addendum), p. 46 (handwritten). 12 Exhibit P-3, Appellant's Record (Addendum), at p. 31. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 81. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 195. 15 Ibid., p. 199. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (November 28, 2014), item 3.11, NGA104601.E. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 175. 18 Exhibit P-3, Appellant's Record (Addendum), p. 16. 19 Ibid., p. 23. 20 Imaniraguha, Robert v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4416-13), Noël, April 10, 2014; 2014 FC 349. 21 Balakumar, Sutha v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4558-06), Phelan, January 8, 2008, 2008 FC 20. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR :