MB4-00971

RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB4-00971 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 Appeal considered/heard at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of decision June 5, 2014 Date de la décision Panel Me Alain Bissonnette Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Me Jamal Addine Fraygui Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant désigné Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS AND DECISION I. INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the appellant, who is a Congolese citizen, is appealing against a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD). The appellant is alleging that it rendered a decision based on errors in its assessment of his credibility. II. DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL [2] Pursuant to subsection 111(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismisses the appeal and confirms the determination of the RPD, namely that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is neither a "Convention refugee" under section 96 of the IRPA, nor a "person in need of protection" within the meaning of section 97 of the IRPA. III. BACKGROUND A. Basis of the claim [3] In his Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form), which he signed on October 30, 2013, the appellant states that he is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), born on XXXX XXXX, 1979, who speaks French, Lingala and Kikongo. He also states that he had a common-law partner and two sons living in Cameroon, a daughter, father, brother and two sisters living in Angola, and a daughter, mother, sister, two brothers and ex-partner living in the DRC at the time.1 [4] In his BOC Form, the appellant states that two of his brothers were killed in the XXXX prison by the country's authorities and that he, himself, had been arrested and beaten nearly to death by officers of the Agence nationale des renseignements (ANR) [national intelligence agency] and the Garde spéciale de la sécurité présidentielle [special forces of the presidential guard] on XXXX XXXX, 2005, in XXXX, on the side of the Congo River.2 [5] In his BOC Form, the appellant states that, from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, 2011, he was stopped and imprisoned at XXXX XXXX XXXX by the police d'intervention rapide (PIR) [rapid response police] in XXXX XXXX XXXX, where he was subjected to atrocious torture.3 [6] In his BOC Form, the appellant states that, if he were to return to the DRC, he believes he would be subjected to harm, mistreatment or threats by the authorities in power and by officers of the ANR and the Garde spéciale de la sécurité présidentielle, and that he would thus be very unsafe as long as Mr. Kabila is in power.4 [7] In his BOC Form, the appellant states that he did not seek protection or assistance from the authorities in his country because they are the ones responsible and the ones who are trying to kill him under the pretense that he is an accomplice to rebels, particularly to General Faustin Menene. He also states that even representatives from human rights organizations are persecuted and killed in the DRC and that the police would be more than happy to hand him over directly to the authorities.5 [8] In his BOC Form, the appellant states that he did not relocate to another part of his country to seek refuge because the entire Congolese territory is ruled by the same authorities and there is nowhere he can live in peace.6 [9] In his BOC Form, the appellant states that he left his country on XXXX XXXX, 2011, not sooner or later, because he feared and had already been subjected to persecution and mistreatment. He also alleges that, had he waited any later to leave, the unexpected and irreparable would have taken him, since he had no one to protect his life.7 [10] In his BOC Form, the appellant states that, on XXXX XXXX, 2005, he went to Cameroon after being subjected to persecution and mistreatment by ANR and GSSP officers, where he remained until XXXX XXXX, 2011, hoping to re-enter Kinshasa without any problems. He also states that, unfortunately, his XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX were burned by PIR officers, but that he fled once again and re-entered Cameroon on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2011.8 [11] In his BOC Form, the appellant states that, in Cameroon, he did not think to seek asylum because he loved his country. He also states that, following the torture of XXXX XXXX, 2011, Father XXXX had promised to help him leave Africa.9 [12] In his BOC Form, the appellant also includes an account of what he allegedly went through.10 [13] Later, the appellant made an amendment to his BOC Form, at that point stating that, on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2012, his younger brother XXXX XXXX had been arrested in his home by ANR and PIR officers, who thought he was him. He also states that these officers tortured his younger brother and released him only once he showed them his voter's card, proving that he was not the appellant.11 [14] In addition to his BOC Form, the appellant submitted the following documents as evidence before the RPD: P-2: document published by Radio France international (RFI) on March 20, 2012, titled: "RDC : l'ONU pointe de graves violations des droits de l'homme pendant les élections de 2011" [DRC: The UN reports serious human rights violations during the 2011 elections];12 P-3: excerpt of the 2012 report by the U.S. Department of State on human rights in the DRC;13 P-4: statement by the Réseau national des ONGs des droits de l'homme de la RDC (RENADHOC) [national network of human rights NGOs in the DRC] on tracking down "kuluna" in the city of Kinshasa in the DRC;14 P-5: letter from Father XXXX;15 P-6: certificate of family composition;16 P-7: article published in Le Phare newspaper on August 18, 2003, titled: "Kinshasa : Les épouses et proches des détenus portés disparus de la Démiap réclament justice ou le pardon de Joseph Kabila" [Kinshasa: the wives and loved ones of missing Démiap detainees demand justice or a pardon from Joseph Kabila];17 P-8: article published by eventsrdc on November 26, 2011, titled: "Les victimes du coup d'État de 2003 toujours en danger en RDC" [victims of the 2003 coup still in danger in the DRC];18 P-9: article published by RSS on June 9, 2005, titled: "Évasion à la prison centrale de la Kasapa, à Lubumbashi" [Escape from Kasapa central prison, Lubumbashi];19 Exhibit P-10: article published by La référence on August 22, 2011, titled: "L'arrestation des ressortissants de l'Équateur à Kinshasa" [people from Équateur arrested in Kinshasa];20 P-11: arrest warrant;21 P-12: diplomas and transcripts;22 P-13: birth certificates of the appellant's children;23 and P-14: Acknowledgment of receipt from the International Committee of the Red Cross.24 B. RPD decision [15] The hearing before the RPD was held on December 31, 2013, and February 18, 2014, and the decision to reject the claim for refugee protection was rendered on March 4, 2014.25 [16] In its reasons for decision, the RPD indicates that the appellant, referred to as the claimant at the time, was not credible and that, in terms of the key aspects of his refugee protection claim, his testimony was unreliable given the implausibilities in and contradictions between the documents submitted as evidence and his testimony.26 [17] The RPD first expressed serious doubts regarding the unfolding of events on XXXX XXXX, 2005, based on the fact that the appellant was unable to offer a plausible explanation as to the eight individuals who came to his house whom he believed to be members of the Red Cross even though they did not conduct themselves as Red Cross personnel usually did. This undermined the appellant's credibility. The RPD also found it made no sense that the appellant told these individuals that citizens XXXX and XXXX were his brothers and were imprisoned in Lumumbashi, when in fact he had obtained this information from that organization.27 [18] The RPD also found that the appellant's credibility was undermined by a contradiction in his testimony, namely that he left his country on XXXX XXXX, 2005, and that the birth date of his daughter XXXX is XXXX XXXX, 2006. When questioned about the fact that these two dates are more than nine months apart and that a pregnancy lasts approximately nine months, the appellant then explained that his wife had [translation] "wound up pregnant" in his house and that therefore, this child was his. The RPD did not find this to be a credible explanation.28 [19] The appellant's credibility was also undermined by the fact that he had written a letter to a visa officer in which he states that he had returned to the DRC in 2011 on vacation. The appellant, however, explained that someone else had written that letter. The RPD did not find this credible as it did not believe that the appellant would have signed a letter without reading its contents and as it was of the opinion that he was attempting to adjust his testimony.29 [20] When questioned about the fact that he was able to return to the DRC in 2011, the appellant then stated that he had worn a clergyman's cassock and let his beard grow out. The RPD then pointed out that he had entered the DRC under his real identity, to which the appellant responded that, in 2005, he had been left to die and so his country's authorities were not looking for him. When invited to explain how the authorities in his country were able to issue him a passport and consular card if they believed him to be deceased, the appellant responded that a third party had put his name on the list of religious officials who wanted a passport and that this person had made arrangements with a diplomat from the DRC. The RPD rejected these explanations as it found that they lacked credibility and were contradictory: either the appellant has been wanted since 2005-in which case, how could he have managed to enter the DRC with his passport?-or his country's authorities believe he died near the river in 2005-in which case they could not have been looking for him as he alleges in his written account. This caused it to find the appellant's credibility undermined once again.30 [21] When invited to explain why he did not seek medical attention after being badly beaten while in prison, first the appellant stated that he had bought himself some products, but that he had not gone to the hospital, upon returning to Cameroon, because he had no money. When questioned about the fact that Father XXXX was his benefactor, the appellant stated before the RPD that Father XXXX did not live with him and could not pay his bills, and that you would need a lot of money to corrupt the doctors to get them to treat you. The RPD found this lacked credibility, since the same man had helped him get a passport, a consular card, an airplane ticket to the DRC and a visa application to come to Canada. And once again, this undermined the appellant's credibility.31 [22] The RPD also found that the appellant's explanations regarding his being able to take the airplane on XXXX XXXX to leave the DRC, when the return date on his airplane ticket was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, simply did not hold up.32 [23] The RPD also noted two omissions in the appellant's written statements: first, the fact that he allegedly intended to seek asylum in Cameroon in 2011, and second, the fact that he reportedly lived in hiding in that country. The RPD also dismissed the appellant's explanation to the effect that he had not thought of it.33 [24] Its final conclusion was therefore that it did not believe any part of the appellant's story; as a result, documents P-5 and P-7 to P-12 and P-14 were given no probative value.34 C. Grounds of appeal and remedy sought [25] In his memorandum, the appellant submits that the RPD erred in its assessment of his credibility. [26] In that regard, he criticizes the RPD for failing to consider his explanations when it found that his credibility was undermined over the issue of the visit from Red Cross volunteers.35 [27] He also criticizes it for finding that his credibility was undermined regarding the birth of one of his daughters more than nine months after his departure from the DRC, even when he explained that, according to custom, when a man lives under the same roof as his wife and his wife becomes pregnant in his absence, the child automatically becomes his.36 [28] After reproducing in their entirety paragraphs 25 and 26 of the RPD's reasons for decision, the appellant indicates that he explained that he simply followed the advice of Father XXXX, and that it was he who gave the instructions and made the rules, as Father XXXX had a great deal of influence on him.37 [29] After reproducing in their entirety paragraphs 27, 28 and 29 of the RPD's reasons for decision, the appellant indicates that he clearly explained to the RPD that in XXXX 2005, he was assaulted and left to die. Consequently, between XXXX 2005 and XXXX 2011, Congolese authorities could not have been looking for him, which explains how, with the help of Father XXXX, he was able to obtain a passport and return to the DRC without any issues, while taking the precaution of disguising himself. He adds that after his return to the DRC to the same house he was living in in XXXX 2005, the word of his return spread and the authorities visited him then.38 [30] After reproducing in its entirety paragraph 35 of the RPD's reasons for decision, the appellant indicates that he explained to the RPD that Father XXXX had no money to pay hospital fees. He adds that it would be reasonable to think that there was a limit to how much help Father XXXX could provide and that he was not obligated to meet all his demands.39 [31] After reproducing in its entirety paragraph 36 of the RPD's reasons for decision, the appellant indicates that the RPD was obligated to evaluate the facts in their sociocultural context. He explains that the commanding officer who helped him fly back to Cameroon was part of a very powerful army, that he was paid a 400-dollar bribe and that it was in his best interests that the date be changed to make the deal a success.40 [32] After reproducing in their entirety paragraphs 37, 38 and 41 of the RPD's reasons for decision, the appellant submits that his credibility could not be rebutted simply due to his delay in making a claim for refugee status.41 [33] Finally, the appellant submits that RPD's failure to properly assess his credibility affected the decision according to which he would not be persecuted in his country. He also submits that the RPD made an erroneous decision regarding his case as some principles of fundamental rights were not respected.42 [34] The appellant is asking the RAD to allow his appeal and set aside the RPD's determination.43 IV. HEARING BEFORE THE RAD A. The appellant did not present any new evidence on appeal, but he requests that a hearing be held before the RAD [35] The appellant indicates neither in his written statement, nor in his memorandum that he was presenting new evidence within the meaning of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. However, he expresses his desire for the RAD to allow a hearing before making a decision regarding his appeal.44 [36] It should be noted that, pursuant to subsection 110(3) of the IRPA, the RAD generally proceeds without a hearing, on the basis of the record of the proceedings of the RPD: 110. (3) Subject to subsections (3.1), (4) and (6), the Refugee Appeal Division must proceed without a hearing, on the basis of the record of the proceedings of the Refugee Protection Division, and may accept documentary evidence and written submissions from the Minister and the person who is the subject of the appeal and, in the case of a matter that is conducted before a panel of three members, written submissions from a representative or agent of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and any other person described in the rules of the Board. 110. (3) Sous réserve des paragraphes (3.1), (4) et (6), la section procède sans tenir d'audience en se fondant sur le dossier de la Section de la protection des réfugiés, mais peut recevoir des éléments de preuve documentaire et des observations écrites du ministre et de la personne en cause ainsi que, s'agissant d'une affaire tenue devant un tribunal constitué de trois commissaires, des observations écrites du représentant ou mandataire du Haut-Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés et de toute autre personne visée par les règles de la Commission. B. Tests under subsection 110(6) of the IRPA [37] Pursuant to subsection 110(6) of the IRPA, when evidence presented on appeal is found to be admissible, it should be determined whether it raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the person who is the subject of the appeal, whether it is central to the decision with respect to the refugee protection claim, and whether it justifies allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. If the answer is affirmative, the RAD may hold a hearing. 110. (6) The Refugee Appeal Division may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, there is documentary evidence referred to in subsection (3) (a) that raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the person who is the subject of the appeal; (b) that is central to the decision with respect to the refugee protection claim; and (c) that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. 110. (6) La section peut tenir une audience si elle estime qu'il existe des éléments de preuve documentaire visés au paragraphe (3) qui, à la fois : a) soulèvent une question importante en ce qui concerne la crédibilité de la personne en cause; b) sont essentiels pour la prise de la décision relative à la demande d'asile; c) à supposer qu'ils soient admis, justifieraient que la demande d'asile soit accordée ou refusée, selon le cas. C. No cause to hold a hearing before the RAD [38] In this case, the appellant did not present any new evidence as defined in subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. [39] Consequently, I am of the opinion that there is no cause to hold a hearing before the RAD. V. STANDARD OF REVIEW TO BE APPLIED IN THIS APPEAL [40] The question of whether or not the RPD properly assessed the credibility of a person claiming refugee protection and took all the evidence into account does not fall under the principle of procedural fairness, but rather of the assessment of the evidence, which is a question of fact. Using case law as a guide, I am of the opinion that the standard of review that must be applied in similar cases is that of reasonableness.45 [41] When a decision is reviewed on the reasonableness standard, the analysis must be concerned with the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process, as well as with whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.46 VI. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL Did the RPD make errors in its assessment of the appellant's credibility? [42] I have concluded that the RPD did not make errors in its assessment of the appellant's credibility and that its decision that the appellant is not credible falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law. Here is why. [43] I have reviewed the information in the appellant's BOC Form as well as the evidence he presented to the RPD. I have also read the arguments he presented in his memorandum. In my opinion, these arguments simply aim to repeat the explanations already presented before the RAD, explanations that it did not consider reasonable or credible. [44] For example, the RPD took into consideration the appellant's explanation when it found that his credibility was undermined by the fact that he had written a letter to a visa officer in which he stated that he had returned to the DRC in 2011 on vacation.47 However, it did not find the explanation that the letter was written by somebody else credible and found that, in any case, since the appellant signed the letter, he should have read its contents. I am of the opinion that the RPD made no error here. [45] Another example is that the RPD took into consideration the appellant's explanation when it found that his credibility was undermined by the fact that the DRC authorities issued him a passport in his name and that he was able to enter the country without a problem. However, it did not find credible the appellant's explanations that a third party had put his name on the list of religious officials who wanted a passport and that this person had made arrangements with a diplomat from the DRC, or found that these explanations contradicted the fact that the authorities believed him dead. I am of the opinion that the RPD made no error here. [46] Another example is that the RPD took into consideration the appellant's explanation when it found that his credibility was undermined by the fact that he did not seek medical attention at a hospital in Cameroon after being severely tortured in the DRC. However, it did not find credible the explanation that Father XXXX was not able to pay his bills and that he would need a lot of money to corrupt the doctors to get them to treat him, given that Father XXXX had helped him obtain a passport, a consular card, and an airplane ticket and fill out a visa application to come to Canada. I am of the opinion that the RPD made no error here. [47] That said, the appellant also criticized the RPD for failing to take into account the sociocultural context when it concluded that some of his explanations were not credible. In fact, the RPD found that the appellant's explanations regarding his being able to take the airplane on XXXX XXXX, 2011, to leave the DRC, when the date on his return ticket to Cameroon was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, 2011, simply did not hold up. The RPD wrote the following about this matter: [translation] ...the claimant explained that it was the commanding officer who led him to the bottom of the airplane and gave him his passport. If this is the case, why would the commanding officer in question have bothered to ask whether he could return to the DRC and whether he went to his mother's house to pick up his airplane ticket?48 [48] This is not a sociocultural matter, but simply a question of consistency between the appellant's various declarations. I conclude that the RPD could reasonably arrive at its conclusion and that it made no error. [49] In his memorandum, the appellant submits that his credibility could not be rebutted simply due to his delay in making a claim for refugee status. A reading of the RPD's reasons for decision shows that the RPD did not find that the appellant's credibility was affected or undermined simply because of his delay in claiming refugee status. In fact, it clearly explained why the appellant's credibility was affected or undermined, regarding several other issues. Furthermore, the RPD noted omissions in the appellant's written statements on his reasons for not seeking asylum in Cameroon. First, there was the fact that he allegedly intended to seek asylum in Cameroon in 2011. Second, there was the fact that he reportedly lived in hiding in that country. The RPD also dismissed the appellant's explanation to the effect that he had not thought of writing this information in his BOC Form.1. [50] A refugee protection claimant has the onus of establishing before the RPD that they have a well-founded fear of persecution or that it is more likely than not that they would be personally subjected to a risk to their life, to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or to a danger of torture if they returned to live in their country of citizenship. [51] The RPD is entitled to make findings based on implausibility, common sense and rationality.50 All relevant and important facts should be included in the BOC Form, and the oral evidence presented at the hearing should go on to explain the information contained in the BOC Form.51 Moreover, the accumulation of contradictions and omissions can be fatal to a refugee protection claimant's credibility.52 The case law has also clearly established that the RPD may reject an explanation provided with respect to such contradictions or omissions when it finds the explanation is unsatisfactory.53 [52] In this case, that is precisely what the RPD did, and it found that in the end, it did not believe the appellant's story. [53] Acting as the RPD did in this case is, in my opinion, entirely consistent with one of the objectives of the IRPA, namely, to establish fair and efficient procedures that will maintain the integrity of this process, while upholding Canada's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all human beings.54 VII. REMEDY [54] For these reasons, I confirm the determination of the RPD, namely that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is neither a "Convention refugee" under section 96 of the IRPA, nor a "person in need of protection" within the meaning of section 97 of the IRPA. [55] The appeal is dismissed. Alain Bissonnette Me Alain Bissonnette June 5, 2014 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Basis of Claim Form, pages 14, 20, 21 and 26 of the RPD record. 2 Idem, page 14 of the RPD record. 3 Idem. 4 Idem, page 15 of the RPD record. 5 Idem. 6 Idem, page 16 of the RPD record. 7 Idem. 8 Idem, page 18 of the RPD record. 9 Idem. 10 Idem, pages 22, 23 and 24 of the RPD record. 11 This amendment is reproduced at page 166 of the RPD record. 12 This document is reproduced at pages 131 and 132 of the RPD record. 13 This excerpt is reproduced at pages 133 to 144 of the RPD record. 14 This statement is reproduced at pages 145 to 148 of the RPD record. 15 This letter is reproduced at pages 150 and 151 of the RPD record. 16 This certificate is reproduced at page 152 of the RPD record. 17 This article is reproduced at page 153 of the RPD record. 18 This article is reproduced at pages 154 and 155 of the RPD record. 19 This article is reproduced at page 157 of the RPD record. 20 This article is reproduced at pages 158 and 159 of the RPD record. 21 This arrest warrant is reproduced at page 160 of the RPD record. 22 These documents are reproduced at pages 161 to 165 of the RPD record. 23 These documents are reproduced at pages 168 to 173 of the RPD record. 24 This document is reproduced at page 174 of the RPD record. 25 RPD decision, pages 3 to 12 of the RPD record. 26 Idem, paragraph 15, page 6 of the RPD record. 27 Idem, paragraphs 16 to 20, pages 6 and 7 of the RPD record. 28 Idem, paragraphs 21 to 23, pages 7 and 8 of the RPD record. 29 Idem, paragraphs 24 to 26, page 8 of the RPD record. 30 Idem, paragraphs 27 to 30, page 9 of the RPD record. 31 Idem, paragraphs 31 to 35, pages 9 and 10 of the RPD record. 32 Idem, paragraph 36, pages 10 and 11 of the RPD record. 33 Idem, paragraphs 37 to 40, pages 11 and 12 of the RPD record. 34 Idem, paragraph 41, page 12 of the RPD record. 35 Appellant's memorandum, paragraphs 30 and 31, pages 24 and 25 of the appeal record. 36 Idem, paragraphs 32 to 35, page 25 of the appeal record. 37 Idem, paragraphs 36 to 38, pages 25 and 26 of the appeal record. 38 Idem, paragraphs 39 and 40, pages 26 and 27 of the appeal record. 39 Idem, paragraphs 41 and 42, page 27 of the appeal record. 40 Idem, paragraphs 43 and 44, pages 27 and 28 of the appeal record. 41 Idem, paragraphs 45 to 49, pages 28 and 29 of the appeal record. 42 Idem, paragraphs 50, 51 and 52, page 29 of the appeal record. 43 Idem, page 30 of the appeal record. 44 Appellant's written statement, dated March 27, 2014, paragraph 27, page 17 of the appeal record. 45 Iyamuremye v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-5282-13, Shore, May 26, 2014; 2014 FC 494, at paragraphs 39 and 40. 46 Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9; [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, at paragraph 47. Gabor Miroslav v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-3466-09, Russell, April 12, 2010; 2010 FC 383, at paragraph 22. Bethany Lanae Smith v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-5699-11, Mosley, November 2, 2012; 2012 FC 1283, at paragraph 19. 47 This letter is reproduced at page 226 of the RPD record and is part of the documents presented as evidence by the representative for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration as part of her intervention before the RPD. The notice of intervention is reproduced at pages 176 to 180 of the RPD record and the list of the intervenor's exhibits is reproduced at page 181 of the RPD record. 48 RPD decision, paragraph 36, page 11 of the RPD record. 49 Idem, paragraphs 37 to 40, pages 11 and 12 of the RPD record. 50 Laszlo v. Canada (Department of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-3507-04, Von Finckenstein, April 6, 2005; 2005 FC 456, at paragraph 10. 51 Ocampo Aguilar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-2728-11, Scott, February 3, 2012; 2012 FC 150, at paragraph 39. 52 Ocampo Aguilar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-2728-11, Scott, February 3, 2012; 2012 FC 150, at paragraph 42. 53 Vazquez Bizarro v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-5378-12, Noël, February 8, 2013; 2013 FC 140, at paragraph 18. 54 Paragraph 3(2)(e) of the IRPA. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR: MB4-00971 RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB4-00971 16