TB8-07529

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 : TB8-07529 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision August 2, 2018 Date de la décision Panel D. Goff Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Ashley Erin Fisch Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) XXXX XXXX Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a sixteen-year old citizen of Bahamas, appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying her claim for refugee protection. The appellant asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to set aside the negative determination of the RPD and either grant her claim for protection or refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination before a differently constituted panel. She has provided new evidence in support of her appeal. She has not requested an oral hearing. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the "Act"),1 the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection and dismisses the appeal. BACKGROUND [3] In June 2017, the appellant was sent to Canada by her mother to live with her godmother, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX is also from Bahamas and had recently obtained refugee status in Canada based upon her sexual orientation as a lesbian woman. [4] In July 2017, the appellant initiated an inland claim for refugee protection alleging a fear of persecution in Bahamas due to her sexual orientation as a lesbian woman and also her fear of retaliation by gang members who murdered her father. [5] Prior to the appellant's hearing, the RPD appointed an independent designated representative (DR), Mr. XXXX XXXX, to act on her behalf. [6] After consultation with the appellant's DR and counsel, the appellant's hearing scheduled for September 8, 2017 was also postponed to allow the appellant additional time to seek a psychiatric assessment report. A report was subsequently completed on October 26, 2017. [7] The appellant's subsequent application for procedural accommodation as a vulnerable person due to her age, mental condition and persecution as an LGBTI individual2 was granted. [8] The appellant's rescheduled hearing for November 15, 2017 was again postponed due to circumstances involving the appellant's care while living with XXXX. The RPD was advised that another unaccompanied minor child had been sent from the Bahamas to live with XXXX. The Peel Children's Aid Society (CAS) removed the second minor child from XXXX care. The CAS also obtained a Supervision Order from the Ontario Court of Justice with conditions regarding XXXX care of the appellant. The RPD notified the Minister of possible concerns pursuant to Rule 27 of the RPD Rules.3 [9] On January 29, 2018, the appellant's claim was heard. The appellant, as well as her DR and counsel were present. Having carefully listened to the audio recording of the proceedings, the RAD notes that the RPD held a pre-hearing conference prior to hearing testimony. The appellant's counsel advised the RPD that the CAS had arranged weekly counselling for the appellant. The appellant had been regularly attending this counselling for about one month. The appellant's counsel further advised the RPD that in her opinion, the appellant's "psychological condition seems a lot stronger definitely" and that she had a "positive reaction from the appellant" about her experience with the counselling and school.4 Counsel further advised that neither she nor Dr. Agarwal had any concerns with the DR being male. The DR similarly informed the RPD that the appellant "is a lot happier" and has "made lots of friends at school".5 In the RPD's reasons for decision, the RPD also described observing that "[t]he claimant was visibly happier; she was talkative and animated. She asked questions and spoke to me about things that interested her at school".6 [10] The RAD further notes the RPD adopted a number of procedural accommodations at the hearing finally held in January, including as recommended in the psychiatric report, including: using a soft voice when asking questions, providing additional time to the appellant to think about the questions before requiring her to answer, repeating and rephrasing questions and taking multiple breaks etc. Having listened to the audio recording of the hearing, the RAD confirmed the procedural accommodations were in fact adopted at the hearing. The RAD further notes the RPD panel member (and her counsel) was female. [11] In a written decision dated March 1, 2018, the RPD rejected the appellant's claim. The determinative issue was credibility. The RPD concluded the appellant was generally not credible and failed to provide sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence to support her fear of returning to the Bahamas. In its credibility analysis, the RPD highlighted the appellant did not know the name of the alleged friend who exposed her sexual orientation and she similarly knew very little about her alleged same-sex partners. The RPD further found the basis upon which the appellant was sent to Canada was not credible, particularly in light of contradicting evidence from the CAS. The RPD also noted that a general finding of a lack of credibility on the part of a refugee claimant may conceivably extend to all relevant information emanating from her testimony. [12] The appellant argues the RPD erred in its credibility analysis on the following grounds: a. The RPD erred in failing to give more credence to the psychological report; b. The RPD committed a fatal error in failing to explicitly refer to the Chairperson's Guideline 9, Proceedings before the IRB involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression ("SOGIE Guideline");7 and, c. The RPD erred by giving weight to testimony from the appellant's CAS worker.8 [13] Having independently reviewed the evidence, the RAD is not persuaded the RPD erred. The RPD correctly concluded that the appellant failed to credibly establish her claim for protection, including her sexual orientation. ANALYSIS The Role of the RAD [14] Pursuant to the Federal Court of Appeal's (FCA) decision in Huruglica,9 the RAD is to review the RPD's findings of law, fact (and mixed fact and law), which raised no issue of credibility of oral evidence, applying the correctness standard. [15] In assessing the credibility of oral evidence, the RPD may have a meaningful advantage. The Court has reiterated that the review of a tribunal's credibility findings requires the reviewing court to give "significant deference is due to the findings of a tribunal",10 recognizing that "the role of this Court is a very limited one because the tribunal had the advantage of hearing the witnesses testify, observed their demeanor and is alive to all the factual nuances and contradictions in the evidence".11 [16] The role of the RAD as an appeal tribunal is to review the RPD's credibility findings on a standard of reasonableness that has been modified/expanded to apply to the RAD context. The RAD is accordingly to show deference, while also considering both the process and the outcome of the RPD's findings. In other words, the RAD must be satisfied the RPD's credibility findings are a result of a comprehensible reasoning process and based upon the evidence.12 [17] Finally, the role of the RAD is not to undertake a microscopic search for errors in the RPD's reasons, as the appellant's memorandum would seemingly have the RAD do. Admissibility of new evidence presented on appeal [18] The admissibility of new evidence before the RAD is subject to strict criteria.13 Subsection 110(4) of the Act provides that the appellant may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of her claim or that was not reasonably available, or that she could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection of her claim. The RAD has no discretion to disregard the statutory requirements. [19] The burden of proof for admitting new evidence lies with the appellant. The RAD Rules further require that the appellant "must" explain how any new documentary evidence meet the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the Act and how that evidence relates to her.14 The appellant has not done so and simply indicates she is relying on a new letter from Dr. Parul Agarwal15 as contemplated in section 110(4) of the Act. She has not provided any other submissions on the admissibility of this letter as new evidence. [20] The RAD has nevertheless carefully reviewed the proposed document. The RAD notes Dr. Agarwal already provided a detailed psychiatric assessment report to the RPD.16 Indeed, the RPD adopted Dr. Agarwal's recommendations for procedural accommodations, including the appointment of a DR and that questions at the hearing be asked in a calm and soft tone. The RAD further notes that most of the information in the new letter is a reiteration of evidence already presented to the RPD, including the appellant's self-reported suicidal thoughts and history of self-harm. The information is therefore not "new" within the meaning of subsection 110(4) of the Act. Given also that there is no explanation from the appellant as to why this letter should be accepted as new evidence pursuant to the Act and RAD Rules, the RAD finds the appellant has not met her burden of proof for admitting this document as new evidence. The RAD thus finds the letter does not meet the statutory requirements and is, therefore, not admitted as evidence. Request for an Oral Hearing [21] The appellant has not requested an oral hearing. Further, no new evidence in support of her claim has been accepted. Accordingly, an oral hearing has not been held. The RPD Findings [22] The RPD did not find the appellant and her allegations to be credible, including her sexual orientation as a lesbian and the alleged incidents of persecution having occurred. [23] The appellant argues the RPD erred in its credibility findings, as outlined below. Psychiatrist Report [24] The appellant argues the RPD should have given more credence to the assessment report authored by Dr. Agarwal than it did when it made its negative credibility inferences. The appellant argues the appellant's inability to provide additional details outside of her narrative was likely due to the setting and nature of the questions being asked by the RPD. [25] Having independently reviewed the evidence, the RAD does not agree with the appellant's argument. The onus was on the appellant to establish, on a balance of probabilities, the facts underlying her refugee protection claim. In this regard, the RAD does not agree with the appellant that the RPD made an error in not giving "more credence" to the report in evaluating the credibility of the appellant's allegations. [26] The RAD further notes the assessment report was based primarily upon one interview held in October 2017 and contained information self-reported by the appellant. For example, in his report, Dr. Agarwal describes the appellant disclosed having "suicidal thoughts for a long time because of feeling rejected and judged in Bahamas. She said that she started cutting herself with knives and scissors in the Bahamas".17 The report concludes that the appellant's self-reported history, symptoms and presentation during this assessment were consistent with significant Chronic-Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and severe and chronic Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). However, as Justice Michael Phelan stated in Saha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 304, at paragraph 16: It is within the RPD's mandate to discount psychological evidence when the doctor merely regurgitates what the patient says are the reasons for his stress and then reaches a medical conclusion that the patient suffers stress because of those reasons. This is particularly the case where the RPD rejects the underlying facts of the diagnosis. In this case, there were no independent clinical studies performed to support the psychological assessment and no other medical basis for the diagnosis.18 [27] In the circumstances of this claim, there was similarly no evidence presented of any independent clinical studies performed to support the assessment and further no other medical basis for Dr. Agarwal's conclusions. [28] Moreover, it is clear the RPD considered the report in assessing the appellant's claim, including in adopting the procedural accommodations recommended by Dr. Agarwal and in assessing the appellant's credibility. For example, Dr. Agarwal noted that the appellant needed constant validation and emotional support to be able to answer questions. In this regard, the RAD notes the RPD asked the appellant valid and relevant questions in a calm and respectful manner about the central elements of her claim, including asking her to elaborate upon how her sexual orientation was discovered and any details about her alleged same-sex relationships. The RPD also repeated and rephrased questions, as necessary. The RAD notes the appellant also had her counsel, DR, and CAS caseworker present as familiar supports during the hearing process. At no time during did it appear the appellant was unable to appreciate the nature of the proceedings and/or that she failed to understand the questions beings asked of her. As indicated in the procedural history of this claim, the appellant was also already familiar with the RPD panel member having previously appeared before the same panel member when her originally scheduled hearing dates were postponed to allow her additional time to prepare for the hearing. As also previously indicated, the appellant's counsel and DR had also advised the RPD on the date of the hearing of the appellant's marked improvement in her current, psychological condition and her responsiveness to them, including in expressing her levels of happiness. [29] After accounting for the report, the RPD concluded the appellant's vague testimony and inability to provide any additional details about central elements of her claim not to be reasonable under the circumstances and drew a negative inference as to the credibility of the allegations. The RAD finds no error in the RPD's analysis and reasons for doing so. In this regard, the RPD's negative credibility findings are also transparent and intelligible. Further, the RAD agrees the report did not adequately account for the issues in the appellant's evidence, including the appellant's inability to provide additional details outside of her written narrative. [30] For example, in response to the RPD's questions, the appellant testified her sexual orientation was discovered after she confided in a friend at school, who later exposed her secret to her schoolmates. The RPD accordingly asked the appellant valid and relevant follow-up questions, including to identify her friend. The appellant responded that she did not know. The RPD repeated and rephrased the question. The appellant again responded that she did not know her friend's name. The RPD did not find this response to be reasonable under the circumstances and drew a negative inference. In making this finding, the RPD provided a detailed analysis of why the appellant's response was not reasonable. For example, the RPD "considered the psychiatrist's report where it states very briefly, without detail, that the claimant has "memory problems;" however, I find that, even with "memory problems," this person is so central to the claimant's life, it is not reasonable that she would forget this person's name, if they really existed and this actually happened to her".19 [31] Having independently reviewed the evidence, including the appellant's testimony and the report by Dr. Agarwal, the RAD finds no error in the RPD's analysis or finding. The appellant's response that she did not know the name of her self-described "friend", who she was close enough to confide her sexual orientation to and who later spread this secret at school, is not reasonable under the circumstances. Further, this is not a minor nor peripheral detail. This alleged incident with the appellant's "friend" forms the basis of why and how she suffered persecution at school due to her sexual orientation and also resulted in her being kicked out of her home. The RAD thus finds no error in the RPD's treatment of the report in light of the appellant's vague testimony on this and other central elements of her claim, including about her alleged same-sex relationships. [32] For example, the appellant was also unable to elaborate upon her recent same-sex relationships with XXXX and XXXX. She testified that she met XXXX in class and "one thing led to another" and they began dating; however, she was unable to provide any other details about their relationship and indicated she could "not really" remember any other moments other than meeting in class. The appellant similarly could not provide any additional details about her same-sex relationship with XXXX outside of her narrative. Further, the appellant's evidence was also inconsistent with regards to whether her relationship with XXXX was open or secret. The RPD concluded, "I have considered the psychiatrist report; however, I find that, even with "memory problems," the claimant's girlfriends are so central to her life, it is not reasonable that the claimant would not know or be able to express basic details about them, if they really existed".20 [33] In her submissions to the RAD, the appellant argues that she is a teenager and thus should not have been expected to provide additional details about XXXX and XXXX, including about whether they were also bullied at school. The RAD does not find the appellant's submissions to be persuasive. The appellant is sixteen years old and her alleged intimate relationships occurred recently. The questions asked of her were not difficult nor complicated or controversial. Rather, they were simple questions asking for any additional information or descriptions or memories about the appellant's romantic partners and their relationships. As summarized above, the appellant was unable to do so and failed to provide any other information other than what was in her written narrative. The RAD accordingly agrees with the RPD's analysis in considering the appellant's vague responses and inconsistent evidence in taking a negative inference as to the credibility of the appellant's alleged same-sex relationships having occurred. In this regard, the RAD further notes courts have stated psychological assessment reports cannot possibly serve "as a cure-all for any and all deficiencies" in a RPD (or RAD) decision.21 SOGIE Guideline [34] The appellant argues the RPD made a fatal error by not mentioning the SOGIE Guideline. Having carefully reviewed the record, including the questioning by the RPD and its credibility analysis, the RAD does not agree with the appellant. The RPD's failure to specifically mention the SOGIE Guideline does not mean that it was not considered and is not material or fatal to the RPD's decision. The RPD is presumed to have taken all the evidence into account, and there is nothing that suggests the RPD did not consider or fail to apply the SOGIE Guideline.22 [35] The SOGIE Guideline reiterates that the assessment of credibility in a claim involving sexual orientation may be more difficult than in other cases. The SOGIE Guideline accordingly establishes "guiding principles" for decision-makers in adjudicating cases involving SOGIE. There is no evidence that the RPD failed to follow these guiding principles i.e., that the RPD erred in its credibility analysis by relying on stereotypes or that it failed to consider the challenges faced by individuals with diverse SOGIE in establishing their sexual orientation. For example, the inconsistencies in the appellant's evidence highlighted by the RPD, such as about whether the appellant had a secret or open relationship with Moriah, were not based on stereotypes or inappropriate suggestions. The RPD further provided specific reasons why the appellant's vague testimony, including about the central element of her claim wherein her sexual orientation was exposed, supported a negative credibility finding. In this regard, the RAD further notes the appellant's vague testimony was not about intangible issues, such as in response to questions about her feelings or sexual identity. Rather, the questions being asked of her were to respectfully elicit details about the alleged incident at school forming the basis of her claim, as well as about her recent, romantic relationships. [36] Moreover, the RAD finds the RPD demonstrated that it was especially sensitive to the challenges this appellant may face in establishing her claim. As previously noted, the RPD appointed an independent DR on her behalf. The RPD also designated the appellant as a "vulnerable person" as requested by counsel due to her young age, mental condition and alleged persecution as an LGBTI individual. The RPD also postponed the hearing multiple times to allow the appellant additional time. As recommended in the SOGIE Guideline, questioning by the RPD was also "done in a sensitive, non-confrontational manner". The RAD finds the RPD demonstrated that it was very much attuned and sensitive to the intersecting factors that might create challenges for the appellant in establishing her claim. The RAD thus finds the RPD demonstrated that it followed the guiding principles of the Guideline even if it did not mention it explicitly in its reasons. [37] Finally, the RAD notes the Chairperson's Guidelines are not intended to serve as a cure for all deficiencies in the appellant's claim or evidence. The appellant still bears the onus of credibly proving her claim.23 Purpose for which the appellant was sent to Canada [38] The RPD also had credibility concerns as to the true purpose for which the appellant was sent to Canada in light of the contradictory evidence provided by the CAS. [39] The appellant submits the RPD erred in giving any weight to the evidence from the CAS. The appellant also argues the RPD erred by failing to consider "[i]f the appellant's refugee claim is refused and the appellant is returned to Bahamas, the CAS worker's caseload is lightened by one. This is a significant vested interest that the panel failed to consider".24 [40] Having independently assessed the evidence, including the written and oral evidence from the CAS, the RAD disagrees with the appellant's argument. The appellant alleges XXXX is a lesbian. Indeed, XXXX obtained refugee status in Canada on this basis. However, this is very clearly contradicted by information XXXX (herself) provided to the CAS. Kim advised the CAS that she was living with her boyfriend "XXXX XXXX". The CAS confirmed Travis was indeed living with XXXX and the appellant. Accordingly, both XXXX and XXXX were formerly assessed as caregivers for the appellant by the CAS. In fact, XXXX completed a "Kin Assessment" for the CAS. In this regard, the appellant's CAS Child Protection Worker "XXXX XXXX", Hons B.S.W., M.S.W, provided clear and consistent testimony that XXXX presented XXXX as her boyfriend. Further, there is an official letter on CAS letterhead and signed by both the CAS worker and a CAS supervisor "XXXX XXXX", B.A., B.S.W., M.S.W., describing the living arrangements wherein the appellant was living with XXXX, XXXX boyfriend, and another unaccompanied minor. The letter describes XXXX and "her boyfriend agreed to be assessed by the Society as kin caregivers".25 [41] The RAD further finds the appellant's argument that the CAS evidence is not credible because the CAS worker has a "significant vested interest" in the appellant's refugee claim failing so that she could have a lightened caseload to be wholly without merit. [42] Accordingly, while not determinative, the RAD agrees with the RPD that the evidence from the CAS contradicting the appellant's evidence about the purpose of the appellant's travel to Canada and residence with XXXX, is relevant and added to the cumulative credibility concerns with this claim. In this regard, the RAD also gives greater weight to the evidence provided by the CAS as compared to the untested documents from XXXX and XXXX, which were clearly contradicted by the independent information provided by the sworn, oral evidence and documents from the CAS. Overall Credibility [43] Having independently reviewed the evidence, the RAD finds no error with the RPD's overall credibility assessment. Throughout, the RPD also demonstrated that it used care and sensitivity and an awareness of the intersecting factors that could inhibit the appellant's ability to establish her claim. For example, the RPD asked questions of the appellant in a calm and respectful manner about very relevant aspects her claim, including about her alleged same-sex relationships. The RPD confirmed that she understood the questions and then followed up to ask her about any apparent lack of detail or, inconsistencies etc. The RPD did not find the appellant's responses to be reasonable nor credible under the circumstances. The RAD agrees and does not find the appellant's explanation that she is a teenager and thus should not be reasonably expected to remember details about her alleged romantic relationships to be reasonable nor persuasive under the circumstances. The RAD further does not find the RPD's credibility findings to be based on minor or peripheral issues, but rather go to the heart of her claim. In this regard, the RAD does not find the appellant's psychological assessment report nor the SOGIE Guideline cures the negative credibility findings, particularly about the central elements of her claim. [44] The RAD notes the RPD also determined the appellant failed to establish her claim due to a risk from gang members. The appellant has not challenged this finding. The appellant has similarly not challenged the RPD's treatment of her other documents, including handwritten and untested letters from her friend and mother, related to her allegations of persecution. CONCLUSION [45] The RPD found the appellant to be generally lacking in credibility. Having independently reviewed the evidence, the RAD has reached the same conclusion. As such, the RAD does not find the appellant and her allegations of a serious possibility of persecution to be credible. [46] Accordingly, based upon its own review of the evidence in its entirety and after accounting for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Guidelines on International Protection No. 9 (including the credibility analysis of establishing sexual orientation),26 the Chairperson's Guideline 3: Child Refugee Claimants-Procedural and Evidentiary Issues,27 and the SOGIE Guideline the RAD does not find on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant provided sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence to establish her allegations, including that of her sexual orientation as a lesbian woman. [47] The RAD, therefore, finds there is not a serious possibility the appellant would be persecuted if she was returned to Bahamas, pursuant to section 96 of Act. The panel similarly finds that, on a balance of probabilities, the appellant would not be personally subjected to a danger of torture or face a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in Bahamas pursuant to section 97 of the Act. DECISION [48] On the basis of the findings noted above, and after its own assessment of all the evidence in the record, the RAD finds that the RPD's refugee determination is correct. [49] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Act, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. [50] The appeal is dismissed. (signed) "D. Goff" D. Goff August 2, 2018 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, last amended on February 6, 2014. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, at pp. 220-223. 3 Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012-0256. 4 Audio Recording of Hearing, January 29, 2018. 5 Ibid. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Reasons, at p. 7, para 15. 7 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), Chairperson's Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression, issued by the Chairperson, pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, May 1, 2017 ("SOGIE Guideline"). 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at pp. 156-177. 9 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 10 Rahal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 319 at para 22 11 Ibid, at para 42, as highly cited, including in Hadi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 590 at para 12. 12 X (Re), 2017 CanLII 33034 (CA IRB). 13 Singh, Parminder v. M.C.I. 2016 (F.C.A., no. A-512-14), Nadon, Gauthier, de Montigny, March 29, 2016, FCA 96. 14 Rule 3(3)(g)(iii), IRB, Refugee Appeal Division Rules, SOR/2012-257. 15 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 19-23. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 7, at pp. 213-217. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 7, at p. 215. 18 As quoted in Avagyan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2014 FC 1003 at para 59. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Reasons, at p. 10, para 25. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Reasons, at p. 14, para 38. 21 Khatun, Syeda Hasinav v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2124-11), Russell, February 6, 2012, 2012 FC 159, at para 94; Mahari, Aden v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-404-12), Mandamin, August 16, 2012, 2012 FC 999, at para 25. 22 See e.g.) S.I. v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2004 FC 1662 (CanLII), as quoted in Manage v. Canada 2014 FC 374. 23 See e.g.) Karanuja v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2006 FC 574 (CanLII) at paras 5-7. 24 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at pp. 176-177. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, Exhibit 9, at pp. 224-225. 26 Guidelines On International Protection No. 9: Claims to Refugee Status based on Sexual Orientation and/or Gender Identity within the context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967, Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), October 23, 2012. 27 IRB, Chairperson's Guideline 3: Child Refuge Claimants - Procedural and Evidentiary Issues. 1996. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB8-07529