MB9-15834

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB9-15834 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision July 30, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Me Isabelle Parizeau Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Me Carolina Roa Sanchez Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (appellant), a citizen of Venezuela, is appealing against the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting her claim for refugee protection. [2] The appellant fears being detained, imprisoned or assaulted by representatives of the current regime due to her imputed political opinion. [3] According to the RPD, the appellant's testimony does not support the statements in her account that she was persecuted for several years and identified as a critic of the current regime. In addition, the appellant has not demonstrated a subjective fear, and the evidence does not establish that the government perceived her as a political opponent. [4] The appellant submits that the RPD failed to consider important and relevant elements that are consistent with her account. It should have analyzed her subjective fear at the time she claimed refugee protection in Canada and not in relation to past years when she travelled to Canada and the United States. The RPD ignored evidence that shows an objective basis for the refugee protection claim. It lacked rigour in concluding that a person who is not a party in the case is not a refugee or a person in need of protection. The appellant criticizes the RPD for its conduct during the hearing. [5] The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) is of the opinion that the determinative issues are credibility, objective basis of fear, natural justice, and procedural fairness. [6] The RAD confirms the determination of the RPD and dismisses the appeal. BACKGROUND [7] The appellant was a XXXX XXXX from 1990 to 2002, and then a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX until her retirement in 2011. She chose to take early retirement because she was afraid that the government would force her to render decisions in violation of the law. [8] After 2011, the appellant allegedly participated in marches and meetings with anti-government groups. [9] Between 2008 and 2016, the appellant came to Canada several times to visit her son, who was living here with his family. She returned to Venezuela after each visit. [10] On XXXX XXXX, 2018, she came to visit her son in Canada and claimed refugee protection here. Her Canadian visa was valid until 2019. ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS [11] In the context of the RAD's gradual return to business during the COVID-19 pandemic, a news release was issued to counsel, designated representatives and the Minister's counsel providing an update on the plans to resume operations. Pursuant to this news release, the RAD issued a notice to counsel, including the appellant's counsel, on June 15, 2020. For files assigned to members, including this file, the notice stated as follows: [Translation] The purpose of this letter is to provide you with an update on the status of some of your appeals, as indicated in the communiqué to counsel, designated representatives and the Minister's counsel appended to the Practice Notice on Resumption of Time Limits at the RAD posted on June 12, 2020, on the IRB website. ... Unless a request for specific submissions has been communicated as described in #2 above, counsel or the designated representative will have 30 days from the date they receive notice to submit any document or written submission in support of the appeal. A document or written submissions in support of the appeal will be accepted without an application. Rule 29 and subsection 110(4) continue to apply. Due consideration will be given to the novel circumstances related to COVID-19. The Minister is also being informed of assigned appeals. [12] On July 15, 2020, the appellant sent written submissions (additional submissions) to the RAD in support of her appeal. The document is entitled "Observations écrites à l'appui de l'appel déposé le 5 août 2019 (En réponse à l'avis de la SAR daté du 15 juin 2020)" [Written submissions in support of the appeal filed August 5, 2019 (In response to the RAD notice of June 15, 2020)]. [13] The RAD does not accept these additional submissions for the following reasons. [14] The notice of June 15, 2020, states that written submissions in support of the appeal will be accepted without an application but that "[r]ule 29 and subsection 110(4) continue to apply." [15] Under subrule 29(1) of the Refugee Appeal Division Rules (SOR/2012-257, current to May 22, 2019, last amended on December 15, 2012) (RAD Rules), a document or written submissions cannot be used unless allowed by the RAD. [16] Under paragraph 29(4)(c) of the RAD Rules, in deciding whether to allow an application to provide additional submissions, the RAD must consider any relevant factor, including: "(c) whether the person who is the subject of the appeal, with reasonable effort, could have provided the document or written submissions with the appellant's record, respondent's record or reply record." [17] In the additional submissions, the appellant addresses the following questions: [translation] "I. Is the appellant credible?", "II. Is there a subjective fear?" and "III. Did the RPD consider whether there was a serious possibility that the claimant would be persecuted in the future because of her actual or perceived political opinion?" For the credibility and subjective fear assessments, the appellant stated from the outset that she wanted to add arguments. With respect to prospective risk, she submits that the RPD erred in its analysis and she explains why. The appellant cites court decisions and documents in the National Documentation Package on Venezuela that were available at the time the appeal was perfected. [18] The introductory paragraph of the appellant's additional submissions is as follows: [Translation] When the world is being shaken by a pandemic and the Refugee Appeal Division is indicating that the new circumstances arising from COVID-19 will be duly taken into account in the various cases, we consider it important to stress that the appellant cannot return to Venezuela; [19] Despite this introduction, in her additional submissions, the appellant does not refer to any new circumstances arising from COVID-19. [20] The appellant also fails to explain why, with reasonable effort, she could not have provided these written submissions with the appellant's record. The record was perfected on September 16, 2019, and nothing was done between that date and the COVID-19 pandemic. [21] After carefully reading the additional submissions, the RAD is of the opinion that the appellant could have, with reasonable effort, included them in her memorandum of appeal and hence in her appeal record. [22] The RAD denies the appellant's request to use the additional submissions. ANALYSIS [23] The RAD conducted an independent analysis of all the evidence, which included listening to the recording of the RPD hearing, and applied the correctness standard.1 Credibility The appellant's account and her testimony do not demonstrate that she was persecuted during her tenure XXXX XXXX XXXX [24] According to the appellant, the RPD erred in concluding that she had only experienced problems at work and had not been persecuted. The RPD did not consider the jurisprudential principles relating to good faith. It erred in stating that her account had been embellished. The RPD impugned her credibility when she has a spotless reputation. [25] The appellant agrees with the RPD's finding that she testified, consistent with her written account, that she did not publicly express her political opinion against the government during her tenure XXXX XXXX XXXX. But the situation is not so straightforward, and the RPD has provided an incomplete description of the incidents she experienced. [26] According to the RPD, the evidence does not show that the appellant was identified and targeted in connection with her opposition to the government. Furthermore, the appellant's written account was inconsistent with her testimony. The events reported by the appellant at the hearing were completely different from the assertion in her written account2 that she was [translation] "persecuted for not belonging to the governing party" or was "still clearly identified within XXXX XXXX as being critical and opposed to the regime in place." [27] The RAD is not of the opinion that the appellant necessarily embellished her account. However, it shares the RPD's view that the incidents that occurred while the appellant was a XXXX do not support the conclusion that she was the victim of persecution or that she is still identified as an opponent of the regime. [28] According to the appellant, in 2010 a Supreme Court judge told a friend that she was a member of the COPEI party. The appellant does not know if people were present and why the judge would have made this remark. She was in fact a member of this party when she was young. The appellant criticizes the RPD for failing to consider her full testimony. The judge in question reportedly stated that the [translation] "only bad thing about her" was that she was an opponent of the government and a member of the COPEI party.3 In her memorandum, the appellant states that this demonstrates that the Supreme Court judges identified her as an opponent of the regime, which is consistent with what she indicated in her written account. Unlike the appellant, the RAD does not agree that the Supreme Court judge's remarks demonstrate that she was viewed by all judges of that court as an opponent of the regime. [29] The appellant testified4 that she did not remember the year that same judge intervened XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX her. The appellant criticizes the RPD for failing to note that this was the judge who had spoken ill of her. According to the appellant, this is a material error because this judge [translation] "could be an identifiable agent of persecution." The RAD does not share this opinion. It did not find any evidence to show that this judge could have been such an agent. [30] According to the appellant's testimony,5 the two colleagues XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX were also against the regime. They were allegedly taken off a case in favour of three XXXX XXXX. The appellant does not know what year this allegedly occurred. In her memorandum, she submits that her removal from the case demonstrates that the government does not trust her and controls XXXX XXXX according to its interests. The RAD does not agree with such a conclusion, as the appellant stated that she was only removed from two cases during her entire 21-year career XXXX XXXX XXXX, including 9 years at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [31] In its reasons, the RPD notes that the appellant claimed she saw inspectors on several occasions checking the files XXXX XXXX XXXX to which she was assigned. The appellant points out that this is not consistent with her testimony and her written account in which she states that the inspections were very frequent and that her employees had told her that they were looking for errors to possibly dismiss her. There is nothing in the evidence about what exactly was checked. The XXXX XXXX XXXX had XXXX XXXX XXXX and the frequency of checks in this room is unknown. The RAD cannot draw any inference from the checks cited by the appellant. [32] The appellant criticizes the RPD for not having correctly described the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of a colleague XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The RPD supposedly noted that this XXXX was dismissed because of her anti-government allegiances, whereas the appellant testified that it was because she had had conversations with a governor. The RAD does not see how this slightly different description constitutes an error. [33] The RPD noted the appellant's testimony that she was not invited to the opening ceremonies that took place every year. The appellant claims that she testified that she was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX excluded from any public activity and that she gave the opening ceremonies for the XXXX XXXX as an example. As stated earlier, the RAD does not see how this slightly different description constitutes an error, especially since the appellant gave only one example of a situation where she was supposedly excluded. [34] The RAD is of the opinion that the RPD was correct in its analysis of the problems reported by the appellant during her tenure XXXX XXXX XXXX and in its finding that this does not demonstrate that she was persecuted or targeted by those in power. The appellant's written account and her testimony do not establish that she was persecuted after she retired XXXX XXXX XXXX [35] In 2018, the appellant was allegedly called names twice at a bank. She submits that the RPD trivialized these incidents. She claims that she was called an "Escualida," a term used to describe opponents; was accused of supporting President Trump; and in one case, that her attacker was a soldier because he was wearing military boots. [36] According to the RPD, the appellant was simply cursed at, and pushed once by a thug while she was standing in line at the bank. [37] The RAD is of the opinion that that these two incidents alone do not establish that the appellant was persecuted or targeted in any way. [38] In listening to the recording of the hearing, the RAD notes that the appellant testified that she participated in political meetings and marches-and exposed herself to being pursued and persecuted by state forces-and that a person can be attacked anywhere in Venezuela.6 [39] The appellant recounted7 that one day in 2018 when she was standing in line at a bank, someone treated her roughly and swore at her for being in the opposition and supporting President Trump. He allegedly spoke harshly against imperialism and pushed her. [40] On another occasion when she was standing in line at the bank, she testified8 that she received a WhatsApp message on her phone. She stated that she showed it to the person in front of her. It was a photograph showing a message against the government. This person allegedly started to defend the government, and when she looked at his shoes, she supposedly realized that they were military boots. She ended her testimony about this incident by saying that there is no freedom of speech in Venezuela and you have to careful who you talk to. [41] Like the RPD, the RAD does not find that these incidents demonstrate that the appellant was persecuted or targeted by the government in power. The appellant did not demonstrate a subjective fear [42] The appellant was not a member of any political party. In 2017, she reportedly attended meetings of opposition groups. At the beginning of the year, she stated that she took part in a march. She allegedly attended five meetings of Ms. Machado's party. She did not know the name of the party. She supposedly collaborated by providing food. She allegedly attended two meetings of the Primero Justicia group. In XXXX 2018, she stated that she was present at a meeting of the Movimiento de Salvación Nacional group. After realizing that the discussion was about overthrowing the government, she stated that she left the meeting. [43] The appellant travelled to Canada in 2008, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016 and 2018 to visit her son, and she went to the United States once in 2016. She voluntarily returned to Venezuela after each trip except the one in XXXX 2018. During all these years, she did not claim refugee protection in Canada or the United States. [44] The appellant claims that the RPD erred in finding her trips prior to 2018 relevant to analyzing her fear. During these years, the appellant had some fear, but she did not consider her integrity, her freedom and her life to be at risk. She argues that by 2018 the government had become tougher on the opposition. In her memorandum, the appellant bases this assertion on the Human Rights Watch report of November 29, 2017.9 [45] The RPD found that the appellant had failed to show that she had a subjective fear or that she had been perceived as a political opponent. The appellant never had any problems when she returned to her country after each trip, despite her account that she was perceived as a political opponent for at least 20 years. If she were perceived as such, the RPD was of the opinion that she would have considered leaving her country long before 2018 and would not have returned there after her various trips to Canada. According to the RPD, the situation of political opponents worsened after the Maduro government took measures against them, and the appellant acknowledged that the situation deteriorated further in 2016. [46] The RAD is of the opinion that the appellant has not demonstrated a subjective fear. [47] She testified that she kept her political opinion to herself while she was XXXX XXXX from 1990 to 201110 because in that capacity she had a duty of discretion and she was independent. She nonetheless states in her account11 that she was perceived as a political opponent for 20 years. [48] After 2011, her political activities were concentrated in 2017, with the exception of one activity in 2018. In her written account,12 she states: [translation] "It's because of all the activities that I participated in that I was clearly identified by these groups and these people, and if I were found and held by the regime, I would be clearly identified as their collaborator and conspirator against the current government, that's why I now feel my personal safety is at risk, ever since the Venezuelan regime intensified its persecution of people in the opposition...." [49] The appellant arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, and she signed the documents for her refugee protection claim on December 14, 2018. She stated that she did not intend to claim refugee protection in Canada when she arrived. She testified13 that she felt afraid about returning to Venezuela as scheduled on XXXX XXXX, 2019, when she learned through social media and calls from her friends that the situation in her country was getting worse and that people in the opposition were being arrested. [50] The documentary evidence referred to by the appellant14 is dated November 29, 2017. It does not deal with a situation that supposedly deteriorated in Venezuela between early November 2018 and mid-December. It reports that more than 5,400 people have been arrested since April 2017 following massive anti-government demonstrations. Demonstrators, but also political opponents, were allegedly arrested: The government responded with widespread violence and brutality against antigovernment protesters and detainees, and has denied detainees' due process rights. While it was not the first crackdown on dissent under Maduro, the scope and severity of the repression in 2017 reached levels unseen in Venezuela in recent memory. ... Since early April, more than 5,400 people have been detained in the context of massive antigovernment demonstrations in Venezuela, according to data gathered by the Penal Forum. While those arrested included demonstrators, bystanders, and people filming demonstrations-as had happened during the suppression of protests in 2014-this year saw an increase in the number of detentions carried out by intelligence or security agents in incidents completely unrelated to the protests. Those detained in such cases were political opponents, including lesser known activists, or people whom the government claimed had links to the political opposition. In some of these politically motivated prosecutions, detainees were taken away from homes or arrested hours or days after demonstrations in unrelated incidents. ... In several cases, those arrested described being driven around and parked in different places for hours-a practice called "spinning around" or "ruletear" in Venezuela-instead of being taken directly to a detention center or before a judge. During this period, security forces often harassed and threatened detainees, at times putting them in armored vehicles and detonating teargas canisters inside the vehicles, rubbing teargas powder on their faces, or subjecting them to heavy beatings. Security agents and members of colectivos sometimes stole such personal belongings as money or cell phones from detainees during arrests. [51] Assuming that the appellant was perceived as a political opponent by the regime in power, the RAD has trouble explaining her behaviour. Already in 2017, when she was participating in meetings of organizations opposed to the regime, there was, as described in the documentary evidence that she cites, an unprecedented crackdown by the Maduro regime, not only against demonstrators, but also against opponents of the regime. If she were a political opponent, one would have expected her to consider leaving Venezuela at that time or before. [52] The appellant argues in her memorandum that she fears that she will now be attacked and imprisoned under the new 2017 anti-hate law. The appellant testified15 that she could be arrested under this law because of what she allegedly said against Chavez. Under the circumstances, one would have expected the appellant to leave Venezuela after this law was passed. [53] The RAD is of the opinion that the RPD's finding of lack of credibility and subjective fear is correct. No objective basis [54] According to the appellant, the RPD failed to provide a clear rationale for its finding concerning the lack of objective basis. It failed to consider very important evidence and the National Documentation Package on Venezuela. [55] The appellant established a serious possibility of persecution due to her opposition to President Maduro and her profile as a former government employee. According to the documentary evidence,16 the government has a history of firing government employees who do not support the regime in power. Those who oppose the government are targeted. [56] The appellant argues that the RPD disregarded documentary evidence17 that refugee protection claimants return to Venezuela after their claims are rejected may not be able to find employment, could have their passport cancelled, could be imprisoned or could be subjected to arbitrary surveillance. [57] In addition, the appellant criticizes the RPD for not giving any weight or probative value to a document of about 70 pages18 concerning her Facebook posts against the Maduro government. These messages were posted between 2013 and 2019. The RPD was unreasonable in requiring the appellant to demonstrate that the regime in power was aware of these messages. [58] The RPD found that the evidence did not support the view that the government perceived the appellant as a political opponent. She had been XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. She had kept her position and had even been appointed to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. She may not have supported the government, but she had not been persecuted or targeted. The appellant confirmed that she continues to receive her small pension. [59] Further, according to the RPD, the appellant's profile as a retired XXXX alone cannot justify a fear. Her Facebook posts are critical of the regime in power, but nothing in the evidence establishes that the government was aware of her comments or that they caused her to have problems or she received threats because of them. [60] The RAD is of the opinion that the appellant has not demonstrated an objective basis for her refugee protection claim. [61] The RAD disagrees with the appellant's assertion that she quit her job XXXX XXXX XXXX because she was seen as a person who did not support the regime. Instead, as she testified, she left because she was afraid she would be forced to XXXX XXXX that would be in violation of the law. But she did not testify that she was forced to do so. [62] The documentary evidence cited by the appellant relating to the history of dismissal and exclusion of government employees shows19 that the Research Directorate found little information on the treatment by government or pro-government groups of suspected whistleblowers or former government employees. It cites the specific case of a few people. In any event, the evidence does not show that the appellant had any problems after her retirement in 2011. [63] The documentary evidence concerning the treatment of failed refugee protection claimants referred to by the appellant20 cites the coordinator of the international research team "Voice of the Venezuelan Diaspora" (La voz de la diaspora venezolana), whose research focuses on the Venezuelan diaspora. He explains that "failed refugee claimants who return to Venezuela may face, among other things, the following consequences: not being able to find employment, having their passport cancelled or being imprisoned [translation] "without a regular trial, since the judicial system is subordinate to the executive power" (La voz de la diaspora venezolana, 19 Dec. 2017)." Another source states the following: The treatment of failed refugee claimants who return to the country depends on the situation of the claimant: why did they leave the country, what was their role or occupation, and what was the nature of the conflict with the government. For example, a lawyer or judge who leaves Venezuela because they [translation] "are literally on the wrong side of the regime" could face difficulties upon their return, such as being monitored. If the failed refugee claimant was charged with a crime before leaving Venezuela, that would be a more obvious "scenario of problems." In the case of a person who worked for the government but not in a politically sensitive area, they might not be monitored when they return, but they might not be able to find a job in the same sector or within the government (assistant professor 13 Dec. 2017). [64] It seems certain that a failed refugee protection claimant returning to Venezuela may face certain difficulties. The appellant does not have the same profile as the individuals mentioned above. She is not looking for employment, she has not XXXX XXXX XXXX for many years, she has not committed a crime, and she has not shown that she is in conflict with the government. [65] Contrary to the appellant's assertion, the RAD believes that the RPD took her Facebook posts into account. It is the RAD's opinion, however, that the appellant did not have the burden of demonstrating that the government was aware of her statements. [66] The appellant points out in her memorandum that she testified that she filed a refugee protection claim in 2018 because the government had increased its attacks during that year. The RAD finds it hard to understand why she posted criticisms of the government in power throughout 2018 without being concerned. [67] The 70-page document produced by the appellant contains only one post per year from 2013 to 2017, with the exception of 2014 during which there are two posts. For 2018, there are 12 texts. For example, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, she posted [translation] "XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX there are no stretchers, Maduro, you are the biggest piece of shit Venezuela has ever seen,"21 and on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, she wrote [translation] 22 "XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX because of a treacherous dictator like Maduro, the world has to know, if they are moved, they will help us out of this misery." The 2018 messages were posted between January XXXX and October XXXX. In 2019, there were 10 texts. For example, on XXXX XXXX, 2019, the appellant reproduced a text titled "Nicolas Maduro: XXXX and Chaos in Venezuela." [68] Listening to the recording,23 the RAD notes the appellant's assertion that she could be arrested for her comments on Facebook. The RPD stated that many people are against the government now and that there was a big movement of people protesting every day and speaking out on social media. The RPD asked what the difference was between these people and the appellant. She replied that she was a known public figure because she had XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The RAD is not satisfied with this explanation. If she could be arrested for her posts if she returned to Venezuela because of her profile, why was she not arrested in 2018 when she was living there, posting various texts on Facebook criticizing the regime and participating in meetings and marches against the regime in power? [69] The RAD agrees with the RPD's finding concerning the lack of objective basis. Conduct of the RPD during the hearing, impartiality, principles of natural justice and procedural fairness [70] The appellant submits that all refugee protection claimants deserve to be treated with respect. She served as an XXXX XXXX XXXX and has more than 21 years of experience XXXX XXXX XXXX. The RPD treated her like a child who did not understand anything. The RPD's passive-aggressive behaviour affected her testimony. The RPD constantly interrupted her, distorted and undermined her answers, criticized them, and acted with an inferiority complex. [71] The appellant did not provide any examples in her memorandum of such conduct by the RPD. Listening to the recording of the hearing before the RPD, the RAD did not find any lack of respect toward the appellant by the RPD. It is true that it interrupted her on several occasions, often to remind her of the question asked and the importance of listening to the question before answering. The RAD did not note any "passive-aggressive" behaviour or distortions of the appellant's answers. [72] According to the appellant, even though the RPD member was once a member of the RAD, she should not be accorded particular deference, especially since she clearly rendered an appalling decision in this case. The RAD does not give deference to the RPD member because she was previously a member of the RAD. [73] The appellant claims that the errors in the RPD's reasoning suggest bias. By not taking all of the evidence into account, it violated the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. [74] The RAD does not accept this argument. [75] In Ching,24 the Federal Court reiterates the factors on which procedural fairness is based: ...procedural fairness is based on the principle that individuals affected by decisions should have the opportunity to present their case and to have decisions affecting their rights and interests made in a fair and impartial and open process "appropriate to the statutory, institutional, and social context of the decision." [76] The appellant criticizes the RPD for some aspects of the hearing discussed above but does not criticize the RPD for preventing her from presenting her point of view. The appellant does not specify how the RPD allegedly failed to follow a fair, impartial and transparent process. [77] The appellant submits that the RPD's finding that a person who is not a party in the case is not a refugee or a person in need of protection demonstrates its lack of rigour and diligence. [78] The RAD is of the opinion that the RPD did not violate the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. [79] The RAD notes the name error in the conclusion of the decision. It uses the word error because that is what it is. The Reasons and Decision front page contains the appellant's name and the context leaves no doubt that the finding applies to her. [80] The RAD agrees with the RPD's determination that the appellant has not established a well-founded fear of persecution or that she would be subjected to a risk to her life or to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. [81] The RAD concludes that the RPD's decision is correct. CONCLUSION [82] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the determination of the RPD that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (Signed) Isabelle Parizeau Isabelle Parizeau July 30, 2020 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Canada v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93. 2 SPR-1, Refugee Protection Division (RPD) record, appellant's account, pp. 24 to 26. 3 Audio recording of the RPD hearing, see approximately 0:32:58 to 0:38:46. 4 Ibid. see approximately 0:38:47 to 0:42:50. 5 Ibid., see approximately 00:42:56 to 0:44:03. 6 Ibid. see approximately 0:54:11 to 0:56:14. 7 Ibid. see approximately 0:56:17 to 0:59:36. 8 Ibid., see approximately 0:59:54 to 1:02:15. 9 National Documentation Package on Venezuela (May 31, 2018), Tab 2.10: Crackdown On Dissent: Brutality, Torture and Political Persecution in Venezuela Results, Human Rights Watch, November 29, 2017. 10 Audio recording of the RPD hearing, see approximately 1:23:32 to 1:24:01. 11 Supra, endnote 2, p. 24. 12 Supra, endnote 2, p. 25. 13 Audio recording of the RPD hearing, see approximately 1:54:35 to 1:55:48. 14 Supra, endnote 9, pp. 6 and 9. 15 Audio recording of the hearing before the RPD, see approximately 1:57:11 to 1:58:50. 16 National Documentation Package on Venezuela (May 31, 2017, May 31, 2018, March 29, 2019, August 30, 2019, March 31, 2020), Tab 7.1: Treatment of suspected whistleblowers or former government employees, by the government or pro-government groups (2015-May 2017), May 19, 2017, VEN105784.E. 17 National Documentation Package on Venezuela (May 31,2018, March 29, 2019, August 30, 2019, March 31,2020), Tab 14.3: Treatment by the authorities and pro-government groups of failed refugee claimants who return to the country (2016-December 2017 (2016-December 2017), January 5, 2018, VEN106031.FE. 18 SPR-1, RPD record, Exhibit C-12, pp. 143 to 211. 19 Supra, endnote 16, p. 5. 20 Supra, endnote 17, p. 2. 21 SPR-1, RPD record, pp. 178 and 179. 22 Ibid., pp. 172 and 173. 23 Audio recording of the RPD hearing, see approximately 1:59:45 to 2:01:29. 24 Ching v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 725, para 75. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB9-15834 RAD.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français 17 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