MB9-26138

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB9-26138 MB9-26139 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision December 8, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Me Alain Bissonnette Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Me François Kasenda Kabemba Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, you are a citizen of the Republic of Congo and you have stated that you fear persecution in your country because of your political activities and because you were a victim of sexual violence1 in the past. [2] You are the designated representative for your minor son,2 who is a citizen of the United States of America.3 [3] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected your refugee protection claim after concluding that you had not established that you would have a reasonable fear of persecution or that you would face a risk to your life if you were to return to live in your country of origin. It further concluded that you had not put forward a specific fear for your minor child with respect to the United States.4 [4] On appeal, you submitted a psychotherapist's report and requested an oral hearing.5 You argue that the RPD erred in finding that you were not credible, in not following Guideline 4 and in not applying the appropriate standard of proof or test for establishing whether you are a Convention refugee. You further argue that the RPD did not take into account the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which requires that the best interests6 of a child be considered when making any decision affecting that child. [5] I have concluded (I) that the psychotherapist's report is not admissible as evidence in your appeal, (II) that a hearing is not warranted, and (III) that the RPD did not err as you allege. [6] In light of these conclusions, your appeal is dismissed. I. EVIDENCE FILED ON APPEAL [7] The Refugee Appeal Division Rules (RAD Rules) provide that an appellant must submit a memorandum that includes full and detailed submissions regarding how any documentary evidence they wish to present on appeal meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and how it relates to them or to their situation.7 In your view, the report meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act [8] In your memorandum, you state that the XXXX assessment report and treatment plan were submitted to the RAD on November 29, 2019, i.e., more than 30 days after the RPD rendered its decision, which meets the legal criterion set out in subsection 110(4) of the IRPA.8 [9] You submit that when testifying before the RPD, you mentioned several times that you are still suffering the effects of your difficult experiences, in particular that you were raped, and that this is the cause of your XXXX XXXX. You also submit that you did not have a chance to be seen by a XXXX until after the RPD rejected your refugee protection claim and that this is why the report could not have been provided to the RPD.9 [10] Finally, you argue that the report is credible and relevant, that it confirms that you were raped based on the symptoms detected, and that the RPD would have rendered a positive decision if the report had been available.10 [11] The report in question is dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, and is signed by a XXXX who describes his professional background. After explaining why you were referred to him, the XXXX outlines your past based on what is in your Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form); he then describes your XXXX XXXXand your XXXX XXXXtoXXXX XXXXand XXXX XXXX XXXXand XXXX. He then explains the method he used and finally determines that your symptoms may be related to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, though his analysis is not a XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The XXXX is also of the opinion that you need immediate assistance and recommends that you XXXX XXXX XXXX of XXXX.11 In my view, this report does not meet the requirements of subsection 110(4) [12] In my view, the XXXX report that you submitted on appeal does not meet the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, as interpreted by the relevant case law.12 My reasons are as follows. [13] First, I believe it is important to note that when you appeared before the RPD, neither you nor your counsel requested any procedural accommodations. The Chairperson's Guideline 8 provides for procedural accommodations for those whose ability to present their case is severely impaired. Counsel wishing to have their client identified as a vulnerable person must make an application specifying the nature of the vulnerability, the type of procedural accommodations being sought and the rationale for the particular accommodations. A XXXX report describing the individual's specific difficulty in participating in the hearing, including their ability to give coherent testimony, can help the RPD make its decision in this regard.13 That said, the absence of expert evidence does not necessarily lead to a refusal to declare that an individual is a vulnerable person.14 [14] In any case, during the RPD hearing, you stated that you have problems that were caused by the trauma you experienced in your country, in the United States and then in Canada.15 The RPD took this into consideration. Consequently, I find that the XXXX report you are asking to have admitted in your appeal does not address anything that arose after the RPD rejected your claim. Furthermore, given that the RPD took into account your difficulty testifying and, together with your counsel, acted in such a way as to help you testify, I am of the opinion that the XXXX report can have no bearing on the outcome of this appeal. In other words, even if this report had been before the RPD, your refugee protection claim would not have been allowed. [15] Even accepting that a XXXX or medical report about your medical condition was not accessible or available at the time of your RPD hearing, the fact remains that the report presented on appeal cannot, on its own, restore your credibility. [16] It is true that the RAD, like the RPD, must take into consideration the claimant's medical condition. A medical or XXXX report can shed light on how the individual's physical or XXXX health can affect their behaviour during the hearing.16 It would be an error to make findings concerning a claimant's credibility without taking into account their XXXX assessment, for example.17 However, a report provided by a XXXX XXXX XXXX or other expert that is based on a claimant's discredited story cannot rehabilitate the credibility of that story.18 [17] In my view, you are submitting this report on appeal in order to rehabilitate the lost credibility of your testimony before the RPD. [18] Finally, you argue that this report confirms that you were raped based on the symptoms detected and that the RPD's decision would have been positive if the RPD had had the report. [19] With respect, this argument is without merit. [20] First, according to the case law, expert evidence will be rejected if it is cast in a fashion that has more impact in revealing the expert's belief of the person concerned than in educating the trier of fact about the behaviours and characteristics of the type of conduct.19 In addition, according to the Chairperson's Guideline 8, an expert's opinion is not in itself proof of the truthfulness of the information upon which it is based, as the weight given to the report will depend, among other things, on the credibility of the underlying facts.20 Finally, in my view, the XXXX did not comply with the Guideline, in that he offers opinions on issues within the exclusive jurisdiction of the decision-maker.21 [21] In the section of the report describing your past, the XXXX indicates that he was relying on your own account.22 Then, in his analysis of the various factors associated with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, he draws a conclusion on the basis of your allegation that you were raped by a police officer in 2016: Criterion A: stressor (one required). The person was exposed to: death, threatened death, actual or threatened serious injury, or actual or threatened sexual violence, in at least one of the following way(s): direct exposure, witnessing the trauma, learning that a relative or close friend was exposed to a trauma, indirect exposure to aversive details of the trauma. Criterion met: XXXX XXXX XXXX was raped by the police officer in 2016.23 [22] However, the XXXX does not have the expertise to assess this allegation, and furthermore, the assessment of this issue is the exclusive jurisdiction of the decision-maker. [23] In closing, I find it necessary to note that subsection 110(3) of the IRPA expressly provides that the RAD generally proceeds without a hearing, on the basis of the record of the proceedings of the RPD. Subsection 110(4) creates an exception to this general rule. The existence of criteria governing the admissibility of new evidence on appeal helps to preserve the integrity of the judicial process by promoting finality with respect to the factual record at the first level of decision-making (with very limited exceptions) and encouraging the narrowing of issues as matters move up the appellate ladder.24 I find that the psychotherapist's report you have submitted on appeal does not justify ignoring the general rule that the RAD must proceed on the basis of the RPD record. II. ORAL HEARING BEFORE THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION [24] The RAD Rules provide that an appellant must include in their memorandum full and detailed submissions regarding why the RAD should hold a hearing.25 [25] You requested an oral hearing under subsection 110(6) of the IRPA. However, you did not include in your memorandum full and detailed submissions regarding why the RAD should hold a hearing. [26] In any case, the onus is on the RAD to determine whether or not the criteria under subsection 110(6) of the IRPA have been met.26 [27] One of the criteria set out in this subsection is that at least one piece of evidence presented on appeal must have been deemed admissible. I find that the report you presented on appeal does not meet the criteria of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA and therefore is not admissible. Consequently, an oral hearing cannot be held.27 III. ANALYSIS OF THE APPEAL [28] The RAD's role is not to conduct a de novo examination of a claim for refugee protection, but rather to establish whether the RPD erred as alleged.28 [29] I have conducted my own analysis of the record by listening to the recording of the RPD hearing,29 reviewing the documentary evidence and considering the Chairperson's Guideline 4.30 I conclude that it is appropriate to apply the correctness standard of review.31 The Refugee Protection Division's alleged errors [30] Subparagraph 3(3)(g)(ii) of the RAD Rules provides that an appellant must specify: i) the errors that are the grounds of the appeal, and ii) where the errors are located in the RPD's decision or in the transcript or in any recording of the hearing.32 [31] In your memorandum, you submit that: - The RPD's finding that you were not credible is erroneous as it is not based on all the evidence. - The RPD admitted that it breached procedural fairness by not giving you the opportunity to explain the medical document, which is an important piece of evidence that confirms that you were raped. - The RPD did not follow the guidelines for assessing evidence in gender-based refugee protection claims and did not demonstrate its expertise in assessing such claims. - The RPD did not apply the appropriate standard of proof or the test required to assess whether you are a Convention refugee. - The RPD did not consider the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child that require the best interests33 of a child to be considered when making any decision that affects that child. The Refugee Protection Division did not err as you allege [32] With respect, based on my own analysis of your file, I conclude that the RPD did not err as you allege. My reasons are as follows. Chairperson's Guideline 4 [33] It is important for the RPD, as it is for the RAD, to listen with sensitivity and compassion in refugee protection claims involving allegations that a woman has been a victim of violence.34 Guideline 4 states specifically that women who have suffered sexual violence may exhibit a pattern of symptoms referred to as Rape Trauma Syndrome and may require extremely sensitive handling.35 The RPD, like the RAD, must avoid relying on stereotypical assumptions when making a decision in this type of refugee protection claim.36 That said, the Chairperson's Guideline 4 cannot be used to set aside findings that are reasonable and based upon the evidence provided.37 [34] In its decision, the RPD indicated that it had considered the Guideline in rendering its decision on your refugee protection claim.38 I have listened to the recording of the hearing and reviewed the decision, and I note that the RPD asked its questions, allowed your counsel to question you when you did not seem to understand the RPD's questions, listened to your answers and wrote its decision while showing sensitivity to your allegation that you were detained and raped in your country. [35] Early in the hearing, the member clearly indicated that there are guidelines on how to prepare, how to hold a hearing and how to render a decision when a woman alleges that she may be persecuted because of her gender. He indicated that you did not need to provide details of the more sensitive aspects of your claim during your testimony and that he would not ask you questions about those. He added that you could speak about what you were comfortable discussing, that it was important that you feel at ease testifying and that he was there to listen to you and understand your allegations.39 [36] Throughout the hearing, the member asked you questions in a courteous, sensitive and empathetic way. For example, when you told the panel there were some events that were painful to remember-such as the time men entered your home and began beating you and your sister-and that, if you could, you would erase them from your memory, he considered what you told him and tried to understand what had happened by asking his questions calmly to help you testify.40 [37] The member's conduct clearly demonstrated that he was aware that you could adopt certain defense mechanisms, including avoidance, in order to avoid discussing certain events. He was also aware that it might be difficult for you to remember certain events or to focus on the questions you were asked. I find that he also sought to minimize any fears or distrust you might have toward him. [38] When a claimant alleges that they have experienced sexual violence or been a victim of torture, their testimony can raise doubts about their credibility. It is therefore important for the RPD to be alert, as some of these doubts may arise regarding an alleged situation that indeed occurred. However, some individuals may falsely allege that they were the victim of such a situation. The RPD must therefore strike the right balance by conducting a thorough examination of the claim, while not traumatizing the claimant. [39] Based on my analysis of your file, the RPD was able to strike the right balance throughout your hearing. As a result, I conclude that the RPD did not err with respect to taking into account and implementing the Chairperson's Guideline 4. Your credibility [40] When claimants swear to the truth of certain allegations, they are presumed to be telling the truth. However, this presumption is rebuttable where the evidence is inconsistent with the testimony or where the RPD is unsatisfied with the explanation provided for those inconsistencies.41 The RPD may draw negative inferences based on implausibilities, inconsistencies or omissions. It is the entirety of the evidence that must be assessed.42 [41] In its decision, the RPD noted that when you testified you were unable to remember many elements of your refugee protection claim that were noted in your BOC Form. The RPD took into account your testimony and your counsel's submissions that your many memory lapses were the result of the trauma you experienced both in your country of origin and later. The RPD noted that neither you nor your counsel had made any reference to these problems until you were confronted with a significant contradiction between your testimony and your written account. Although it took into account the memory problems that may result from trauma, the panel found that you simply did not remember anything about a written account that had been learned. Ultimately, it found that your answers about your political activities were general, that your testimony about the times you were detained was muddled, and that there were significant omissions with respect to the sequence of events that you allegedly experienced, which you were unable to explain.43 Your political activities [42] In your memorandum, you submit that the RPD showed a lack of transparency in its reasons with respect to your political profile, as it did not refer to some of the answers you gave during the hearing. You further argue that it erred with respect to your duties within the Union panafricaine pour la démocratie sociale (UPADS) [pan-African union for social democracy].44 [43] I have listened carefully to your testimony before the RPD. Based on my analysis of your testimony and the documentary evidence you submitted, whether or not you were the national secretary for UPADS, the RPD did not err in concluding that you failed to establish that you participated in this party's activities in a significant way. [44] When the RPD asked if you remembered when you had obtained your membership card, you initially stated that you did not. You then answered that you thought it was in XXXX 2011.45 Your card indicates that it was issued to you on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2013.46 When asked which federation you belonged to, you answered that you did not understand the question. Your counsel intervened and rephrased the question, but you still did not provide an answer.47 Yet your membership card clearly indicates that you belong to the Makélékélé 1 federation.48 When asked to describe the party's structure, you mentioned only the key officers.49 When asked to describe the meetings held by your party, your answers were very general: you stated that members talked about what was happening, the current state of the country, the internal organization, and party members' complaints and suggestions.50 When asked if you were still in contact with party members, you answered that you were with some,51 but you did not submit any documents from any of these party members. Your alleged detentions and rape [45] In your memorandum, you submit that the RPD made an erroneous inference about a contradiction when, as a result of your memory being muddled, you stated that you had been arrested twice instead of the three times reported in your written account. You further submit that the RPD erred in stating that there was no medical document in your file, whereas there is a medical document indicating that on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016, you were examined by a nurse who noted that you had been sexually assaulted the day before. Lastly, you argue that the RPD breached procedural fairness by failing to analyze this medical document confirming that you were raped, which was also corroborated by your sister's letter.52 [46] First, when the RPD noted the absence of a medical document, it was referring to your allegations about your memory loss. The RPD stated the following: [translation] In the absence of a medical document or a proactive disclosure of memory loss, that is to say before the claimant was confronted with contradictions between her written account and her testimony, and considering the lack of a credible explanation, these omissions and contradictions undermine the claimant's overall credibility.53 [47] In listening to the recording of your testimony before the RPD, it is clear that your testimony contradicted some of the information provided in your BOC Form and omitted important elements contained in your written account.54 This was the case with respect to the number of times you were allegedly detained; when you were allegedly incarcerated for the first time; that you were present when your sister was raped; how many days you were allegedly incarcerated; that your party's president was incarcerated with you; and where you hid before leaving your country-in your home village of Ludjima (which is in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, yet you were born in Brazzaville) or in Pointe-Noire, as stated in your BOC Form.55 [48] Finally, in its decision, the RPD analyzed your sister's letter and your medical certificate, but gave them no weight given that your testimony raised a number of problems that seriously undermined your credibility.56 In your memorandum, you argue that the RPD erred in failing to consider all the evidence and in rejecting the documents that were consistent with your claim. In my opinion, this argument is unfounded. [49] Documentary evidence is not assessed in isolation from the overall claim. Since the RPD found that you were not credible, it was entitled to doubt the credibility of the documentary evidence presented in support of your claim.57 The weight of evidence is the persuasiveness of some evidence in comparison with other evidence.58 [50] Based on my own assessment of the record, the RPD did not err in giving no probative value to these documents and in explaining why it did so. Your minor child's refugee protection claim [51] In your memorandum, you submit that the RPD failed to consider the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which require that the best interests of a child be considered when making any decision affecting that child. In my opinion, this argument is unfounded. [52] You acted as the designated representative for your minor child before the RPD, as you are now doing before the RAD. At the hearing, you confirmed that you understood the responsibilities this involved.59 These responsibilities include assisting in gathering and providing evidence to support your minor child's refugee protection claim, being a witness at the hearing, protecting their interests and putting forward the best possible case to the RPD.60 During the RPD hearing, you did not provide any evidence specifically relating to your minor child's fear with respect to the US, his country of citizenship. [53] It has been well established in the case law that it is improper and pure speculation for a tribunal to decide a case on the mere fact of a potential separation of children from their parents when the IRPA already contains statutory provisions such as section 25 to consider the children's best interests.61 Consequently, rejecting your son's refugee protection claim because you did not submit evidence establishing the existence of a fear of persecution, a risk to his life, a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or a danger of torture in the US does not contravene Canada's commitment to protect children. [54] As no fear or risk was established with respect to your minor son's country of citizenship, his fear with respect to the Republic of Congo did not need to be analyzed.62 CONCLUSION [55] For these reasons, I confirm the RPD's determination, namely, that you and your minor son are neither refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA. [56] Your appeal is dismissed. (signed) Alain Bissonnette Me Alain Bissonnette December 8, 2020 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Your Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form) and that of your minor son are reproduced at pages 17 to 82, and the documents you filed in evidence are reproduced at pages 157 to 235 of the electronic version of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) record. 2 Designation of a representative, November 8, 2019, pages 20 and 21 of the electronic version of the administrative documents. 3 See BOC Form, page 74, and birth certificate at page 235 of the electronic version of the RPD record. 4 RPD reasons and decision, October 11, 2019, pages 5 to 16 of the electronic version of the RPD record. 5 Written statements, pages 18 and 19 of the electronic version of your appeal record. 6 Your memorandum, December 20, 2019, pages 80 to 107 of the electronic version of your appeal record. 7 Refugee Appeal Division Rules (RAD Rules), SOR/2012-257, subparagraph 3(3)(g)(iii). 8 Your memorandum, supra, endnote 6, paragraphs 19 to 23. 9 Ibid., paragraph 23. 10 Ibid., paragraphs 24 to 27. 11 XXXX Assessment Report & Treatment Plan, reproduced at pages 27 to 35 of the electronic version of your appeal record. 12 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, No. A-512-14, de Montigny, Gauthier, Nadon, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 96. Casilimas Murcia v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-775-19, Pamel, September 17, 2019; 2019 FC 1182, paragraphs 43, 49 and 50. Arana del Angel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-2915-19, LeBlanc, February 14, 2020; 2020 FC 253, at paragraph 35. 13 Al-Sarhan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-1920-19, Strickland, November 15, 2019; 2019 FC 1438, paragraph 25, citing Chairperson's Guideline 8, subsections 1.1, 2.1, 7.4 and 8.1 and paragraph 8.3(g). 14 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), Chairperson's Guideline 8: Procedures With Respect to Vulnerable Persons Appearing Before the IRB, effective December 15, 2006, amended December 15, 2012, section 8.6. 15 Recording of the hearing held before the RPD on September 9, 2019, 00:01 to 02:18:03, that is, from 1 second to 2 hours, 18 minutes and 3 seconds, particularly from 01:34:30 to 01:35:30. 16 Atay v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-1205-07, O'Keefe, February 15, 2008; 2008 FC 201, paragraph 32. 17 Yasun v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-3669-18, Grammond, March 20, 2019; 2019 FC 342, paragraphs 10 to 17. 18 Al-Sharan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-1920-19, Strickland, November 15, 2019; 2019 FC 1438, paragraph 34. Nduongo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-4397-18, Le Blanc, April 30, 2019; 2019 FC 541, paragraph 26. 19 Moffat v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-3484-19, Annis, July 5, 2019; 2019 FC 896, paragraphs 64 to 71. 20 IRB, Guideline 8, supra, endnote 14, section 8.5. 21 Ibid., section 8.4. 22 XXXX Assessment Report, supra, endnote 11, page 29 of the electronic version of your appeal record. 23 Ibid., page 32 of the electronic version of your appeal record. 24 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Davoodabadi, No. IMM-1047-18, Norris, March 21, 2019 ; 2019 FC 350, paragraph 21, citing the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Singh, supra, endnote 12. 25 RAD Rules, supra, endnote 7, subparagraph 3(3)(g)(v). 26 Horvath v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-3425-17, Mosley, February 8, 2018; 2018 FC 147, paragraph 18. 27 Abdi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-566-18, Boswell, January 16, 2019; 2019 FC 54, paragraph 29. 28 Dahal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-330-17, Crampton, December 4, 2017; 2017 FC 1102, paragraphs 30 and 31. Kanawati v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-6486-18, Norris, January 3, 2020; 2020 FC 12, paragraphs 23 and 24. 29 Recording of the hearing, supra, endnote 15. 30 IRB, Chairperson's Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, effective November 13, 1996. These guidelines are available on the IRB website. 31 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, No. A-470-14, Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 93. 32 RAD Rules, SOR/2012-257. 33 Your memorandum, supra, paragraphs 14 and 28 to 73. 34 Odia v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-1180-13, Gagné, July 8, 2014; 2014 FC 663, paragraph 9. Arachchilage v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-1179-18, Gleeson, October 4, 2018; 2018 FC 994, paragraph 29. 35 Chairperson's Guideline 4, supra, endnote 30, point 3 under D. Special Problems at Determination Hearings. 36 Velasco Chavarro v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-3453-19, Brown, February 26, 2020; 2020 FC 310, paragraphs 18 to 26. 37 Liang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-3335-19, Russell, January 23, 2020; 2020 FC 116, paragraph 33. 38 RPD reasons and decision, supra, endnote 4, paragraphs 3, 18 and 33. 39 Recording of the hearing, supra, endnote 15, 18:20 to 20:30. 40 Ibid., 58:00 to 01:01:00. 41 Lawani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-21-18, Gascon, September 17, 2018; 2018 FC 924, paragraph 21. 42 Edmond v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-112-17, Roy, July 4, 2017; 2017 FC 644, paragraphs 22 and 27. 43 RPD reasons and decision, supra, endnote 4, paragraphs 16 to 44. 44 Your memorandum, supra, endnote 6, paragraphs 28 to 35. 45 Recording of the hearing, supra, endnote 15, 40:30 to 41:10. 46 This card (C-4) is reproduced at pages 176 and 177 of the electronic version of the RPD record. 47 Recording of the hearing, supra, endnote 15, 41:10 to 42:40. 48 C-4, supra, endnote 44. 49 Recording of the hearing, supra, endnote 15, 42:40 to 44:00. 50 Ibid., 44:00 to 46:30. 51 Ibid., 49:00 to 49:50. 52 Your memorandum, supra, endnote 6, paragraphs 28 to 35. 53 RPD reasons and decision, supra, endnote 4, paragraph 44. 54 BOC Form, pages 24 to 27 of the electronic version of the RPD record. 55 Recording of the hearing, supra, endnote 15, 54:20 to 01:22:00, 01:25:30 to 01:33:20 and 01:36:00 to 01:36:45. 56 RPD reasons and decision, supra, endnote 4, paragraphs 45, 46 and 47. 57 Ogaulu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-3862-18, McDonald, April 30, 2019; 2019 FC 547, paragraph 26. Jean v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-836-19, Mosley, September 3, 2019; 2019 FC 1127, paragraph 23. 58 Magonza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-1506-18, Grammond, January 7, 2019; 2019 FC 14, paragraphs 27 to 31. 59 Recording of the hearing, supra, endnote 15, 11:00 to 11:15. 60 Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012-256, subrule 20(10). 61 Gomez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-4136-09, Lemieux, March 1, 2010; 2010 FC 237, paragraph 40. 62 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 SCR 689, pages 694, 751 and 752. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB9-26138 MB9-26139 RAD.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français 3 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français