TB9-26522

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-26522 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision November 19, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Cynthia Pay Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Adrienne C. Smith Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] This decision is about XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant) who is a citizen of Jamaica. She is appealing a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting her claim for refugee protection. She alleges that she is at risk because of threats by her former abusive husband. The RPD rejected her claim on the basis of credibility and its finding that she does not face a forward-facing risk. The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its credibility findings, as it did not properly consider her explanations for omissions and inconsistencies, focused on microscopic and peripheral issues, and ignored evidence in support of her claim. She also argues that the RPD failed to consider her explanation for her re-availment to Jamaica after a number of trips to Canada. Based on my review of her arguments and the record, I find that the RPD did not err in its finding that the Appellant has not established that she faces a forward-looking risk, as I too find that there were a number of significant credibility concerns regarding her evidence of her forward-looking risk, and that her repeated returns to Jamaica from Canada undermine her claim that she feared for her safety there. DECISION [2] After considering her arguments and all of the evidence, I dismiss the Appellant's appeal, and confirm the determination of the RPD pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant claims that she is at risk based on ongoing threats by her former husband. She reports that they were together since 1984 and that they married in 1991. They have two children together and she has another child from a previous relationship. The relationship was initially good, but later her husband became physically abusive, and she left the marriage in 2008. After they separated, she claims that he initially did not know where she lived, but that he later found her and continued to stalk and threaten her. She travelled to Canada to visit her child and grandchild in 2016, and in 2017 she decided to make a refugee claim here on the basis of her claim of ongoing fear of her husband. [4] Her claim was heard by the RPD on July 26, 2019. In its reasons dated September 6, 2019, the RPD rejected the Appellant's claim on the basis of credibility and a lack of a forward-looking risk. It found that there were a number of inconsistencies and omissions in the details of her claim; for example, there was inconsistent evidence regarding when the abuse by her husband started, and she omitted her claim that she left her husband in 2008 from her Basis of Claim (BOC) form narrative. It found that there were further inconsistencies and omissions about her claim that his abuse continued after their separation in 2008; for example, during the RPD hearing the Appellant claimed that her former husband assaulted her at a supermarket in 2012, but this was also omitted from her BOC form. The RPD found that her evidence about ongoing abuse between 2008 and 2017 was vague, lacking in detail and evolving, which further diminished its credibility, and that some of these claims, such as the ongoing calls from her ex-husband, were omitted from a support letter from her mother. Further, it found that the Appellant delayed making a refugee claim here and repeatedly re-availed to Jamaica from Canada between 2016 and 2017, and that this further diminished the credibility of her subjective fear. It found that her documentary evidence did not overcome these credibility issues. [5] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in these findings. She argues that the RPD erred in failing to consider her explanation that she might have mixed up the dates regarding when the abuse started, and that it failed to consider the impact of domestic violence on her memory as recommended in the Gender Guidelines. She argues that the RPD "guided" her to answer and provide the incorrect date regarding the onset of the abuse, and that it was also microscopic. Regarding the BOC omissions, such as the claimed incident of assault in 2012, the Appellant thought that she would be able to fill in supplementary or collateral details at the hearing, and this was not central to her claim. Her 2008 separation, although omitted from her BOC narrative, was corroborated by other documentary evidence. The RPD accepted that there was a history of domestic violence but ignored evidence of ongoing issues such as stalking and anonymous calls, and the fact that her husband was a XXXX XXXX XXXX as a factor regarding her ongoing risk. The RPD's credibility finding based on the omission of claimed ongoing threats in her mother's letter was faulty, as it should have considered what the letter did say rather than what it did not. Her delay in claiming and re-availment were explained by the fact that she initially did not know that she had the option of making a refugee claim and she had a valid visitor visa for Canada. Once she became aware of her option to make a refugee claim, her temporary returns to Jamaica were to wrap up loose ends and not intended to be a permanent return. She does not submit new evidence or request an oral hearing. ANALYSIS Role of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) [6] As held by the Federal Court of Appeal in Huruglica,1 the RAD must review RPD decisions on a correctness standard with respect to questions of law and findings of fact (and mixed fact and law) which raise no issue of the credibility of oral evidence. Deference may be required when the RPD is in an advantageous position with respect to the assessment of oral evidence.2 In this case, my findings are based on a correctness standard. I find that the RPD was not in an advantageous position regarding the assessment of the Appellant's evidence, as I was able to review and clearly understand the record of the hearing. The Appellant has not established that she faces a forward-looking risk [7] The RPD found that the Appellant did not establish that she faces a forward-looking risk. It found that she provided insufficient evidence to establish that there is an ongoing, forward-facing risk from her former husband. [8] The Appellant claimed during her hearing that, after she separated from her husband in 2008, he continued to pose a threat, as he stalked her at her new home, attacked a co-worker/friend who had given her a ride home, made threatening calls to her, and assaulted her in 2012 at a supermarket. The RPD found that she had not established her claim based on a number of credibility concerns, which will be discussed below. Claimed incident at the supermarket in 2012 [9] The Appellant claimed that she was assaulted in 2012 at a supermarket when she encountered her former husband there. This claim was raised in her testimony, but not mentioned in her Basis of Claim form narrative. The RPD found that this was a significant omission which undermined the credibility of the claim. As noted above, the Appellant argues that she believed that she could provide more information about her claim at her hearing, and that this omission is a supplementary or collateral detail that should not result in a negative credibility finding. [10] I disagree with this argument and find that the omission of the claimed 2012 incident from the Appellant's BOC narrative does diminish the credibility of her claim of an ongoing, forward-facing risk from her ex-husband. I disagree with the Appellant's argument that this was a supplementary or collateral detail, and find that it is rather a significant incident, not peripheral or minor, as it is the only incident of claimed physical assault after their separation in 2008. Further, it was not corroborated, for example in the support letters from her mother, daughter and her friend XXXX. Her testimony about the alleged incident was also lacking in detail. All she said about this was that she bumped into her husband at the supermarket in 2012 and "we started arguing and, you know, he draped (ph) me up, you know, and persons were there, so they no, no, no, this is not going to happen."3 I found that this account to be vague and lacking in detail, which also diminishes its credibility. Claimed ongoing threats after the Appellant announced her intention to get a divorce [11] The RPD found that the evidence about whether or not the Appellant continued to receive threats from her ex-husband after announcing her plans to divorce him was inconsistent and therefore lacking in credibility, and that this significantly damaged her claim of a forward-looking risk. [12] The Appellant claimed that she notified her ex-husband about her intention to divorce him in XXXX 2016, and that infuriated him and gave him motivation to want to harm her. When asked by the panel if she was threatened or abused by her ex-husband after XXXX 2016, the Appellant testified that while she was in Canada for the most part of 2017, her ex-husband went to her mother's house a number of times to ask about her, and sent threatening messages to her through her mother. She also stated that she did not receive any threatening messages or have contact with her ex-husband while she was in Canada.4 In contrast, her mother's support letter states that "while she was away in Canada she mentioned to me that he keep calling her phone and said that she can run but cannot hide;"5 however, the letter does not mention the Appellant's claim that her ex-husband visited her mother's home to look for her and to communicate threats via her mother. [13] The RPD asked the Appellant to explain the inconsistencies in the evidence regarding whether or not she received ongoing threats from her husband after she came to Canada. She stated that her mother did not mention the alleged visits by her ex-husband to her mother's home and threats in her letter because she forgets things a lot, which the RPD did not accept, as her mother provided other details about the alleged abuse dating back to 1985, and there was no other evidence corroborating any memory issues. The RPD found that the Appellant's testimony regarding ongoing threats was also evolving, as it found that the Appellant first said that she did not get calls in Canada as she had changed her phone, but then she said she kept her old SIM card and did use it to retrieve contact numbers, suggesting that she could receive calls at her old phone number. The RPD found that these inconsistencies diminished the credibility of her claim of an ongoing threat by her ex-husband. [14] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in these findings, as it should not have made a negative credibility finding regarding what her mother's letter did not say. Rather, it should have assessed what the letter did say, as it did support her claim that her husband was abusive and that her mother believed that she was in danger from him. [15] I do not agree that the RPD erred in relying on an omission of the visits and threats to the Appellant's mother from her mother's letter, as I would expect that a letter from her mother in support of her refugee claim would include the alleged visits to her home and threats by the Appellant's ex-husband, as these were significant and central incidents to her claim, and were allegedly experienced first-hand by the Appellant's mother. In essence, the RPD found that there was a lack of expected corroboration of the claimed threats by the Appellant's mother. I agree with the RPD that the Appellant did not establish her explanation that the alleged visits and threats were left out of her mother's letter because of memory issues. The failure to provide corroboration can be considered when there are valid reasons to doubt the claimant's credibility,6 or where the explanation for failing to provide this evidence when it would reasonably be expected is not accepted.7 This is the case here, where there are significant credibility concerns about the alleged threats, and a lack of expected corroboration about the threats by the Appellant's mother. [16] Further, even if the RPD erred in relying on the omission of the Appellant's ex-husband's visits and threats, I find that the Appellant's mother's letter is inconsistent with the Appellant's evidence about the alleged ongoing threats, and that this gives rise to additional concerns regarding the credibility of the claimed ongoing threats. The Appellant's mother's letter states that the Appellant had told her that her ex-husband was calling and threatening the Appellant in Canada.8 Yet the Appellant testified during her hearing that she did not have contact with her husband in Canada,9 and further that her husband was visiting her mother's home to look for her and pass on threats.10 When asked to clarify this inconsistency, the Appellant first stated that her mother's letter must be talking about the claimed calls by her ex-husband to her mother. When the panel pointed out that her mother explicitly stated that the Appellant was the one receiving the threatening phone calls, she then stated that she was getting calls from her ex-husband when she first came to Canada until she changed her phone, but that she still kept her old SIM card to use to access her old contacts, and that she still had her old phone. The RPD found that this testimony to be evolving and lacking credibility. [17] Based on my review of her testimony and mother's letter, I also find that the evidence regarding possible calls and threats by the Appellant's ex-husband to be inconsistent and evolving. As found by the RPD, the Appellant claimed that her mother was the one receiving visits and calls from her ex-husband when she was in Canada, and that she did not have contact with him once she was here. When asked why she fears going back to Jamaica, she testified that: My mother, he would call her or cause he know where my mother lives - he goes, where is her? She's my wife and it's not going - she can't leave, you know. I need my wife and he with his constant threat and with what is happening in Jamaica now, honestly, I don't trust this man. I remember even when where I was working and based on as I said what's happening in Jamaica, men tend to kill, especially if it's a woman leave them.11 Yet her mother's letter is silent regarding the Appellant's claim that her ex-husband was visiting her home to look for the Appellant and to pass on threats against her, and states rather that the Appellant has been telling her that while she was in Canada, her ex-husband "... keep calling her phone and said that she can run but cannot hide."12 I find that this inconsistency detracts from the credibility of the claimed ongoing threats and I agree with the RPD's finding. [18] The RPD also found that the Appellant's evidence about ongoing abuse and threats after the separation in 2008 was vague and lacking in detail: She stated that he was always at her workplace and gated residence to verbally abuse/threaten her. She could not provide much details asides repeating the same threats she alleged he made at her residence and workplace; specifically that no one would have the claimant because the claimant belongs to him and that he would get the claimant wherever she goes. When asked for more specific instances of abuse or incidents of harm from 2008 to 2017, the claimant testified about an incident that occurred in 2012 that was not included in her BOC; the claimant also vaguely testified that she did not know how she survived all those years in Jamaica.13 [19] Based on my review of the Appellant's evidence, I agree with the RPD and find that there was a lack of detail in the Appellant's evidence regarding her claim of ongoing abuse and threats by her husband after their separation. As noted above, when asked why she was afraid to return to Jamaica, the Appellant only raised the alleged threats and visits by her husband to her mother's house, and no other specific details. I have found that these threats via her mother have not been established because of credibility concerns. I note that elsewhere she also raised the incident at the supermarket in 2012, but as discussed above, her evidence on this point was vague, and was omitted from her BOC narrative. She also discussed the claimed threat in general terms; for example, stating that she was afraid "... based on the trend that is happening in Jamaica now where men killing females and I don't want that to happen to me,"14 rather than citing specific incidents or threats that gave rise to her fear. I consider the provisions of Chairperson's Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution (Gender Guideline), which reminds adjudicators that women refugee claimants face special problems in demonstrating that their claims are credible, for example because of stigma associated with claims of gender-based violence.15 In the Appellant's case, however, I find that the credibility issues arising from her evidence, such as inconsistencies and lack of detail, do not appear to arise as the result of stigma or cross-cultural misunderstandings, and based on my review of the hearing, did not see any evidence that was the case. I agree with the RPD that the lack of detail and vagueness of her evidence further diminishes the credibility of the Appellant's claim that she faced ongoing threats by her ex-husband. Delay in claiming and re-availment to Jamaica [20] The RPD found that the Appellant delayed making her refugee claim, and repeatedly re-availed to Jamaica during the period of time that she claims that she feared for her safety from her ex-husband, and that these actions reduced the credibility of her subjective fear. [21] The Appellant argues that any delay in claiming was explained by the fact that she was initially not aware of her option of making a refugee claim, and that she had a valid visitor visa for Canada and was not in danger of being returned to Jamaica before she filed her claim. I accept these arguments, find that she did not delay in making her claim, and make no negative inference on that basis. [22] Regarding her multiple re-availments to Jamaica, the Appellant argues that no negative inference should be made, as she was not aware of her options; only returned to Jamaica briefly to settle her administrative affairs and to ensure her children were settled there; and that temporary visits should not mean a loss of refugee status. [23] Based on my review, I disagree with these arguments, and find that the Appellant's multiple returns to Jamaica from Canada are not reasonably explained in light of her claimed circumstances, and that her multiple trips back to the country where she claims that she is in fear for her life reduce the credibility of her claimed subjective fear. [24] As noted by the RPD, the Appellant returned to Jamaica from Canada numerous times in the period in question, and for extended periods of time: The claimant testified that she visited Canada in XXXX 2016 for 10 days and returned back to Jamaica. She stated that she came to visit her son and granddaughter and also to discuss her domestic abuse situation with her son. The claimant visited Canada again in XXXX 2016, stayed for the long weekend and returned back to Jamaica in XXXX 2016. The claimant visited Canada in XXXX 2016 for 8 days and then went back to Jamaica. The claimant visited Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2017, travelled to the USA, came back to Canada in XXXX 2017 and then travelled back to Jamaica in XXXX 2017. The claimant's last entry to Canada was on XXXX XXXX, 2017 and the claimant made a claim for refugee protection in July 2018.16 [25] As outlined above, the Appellant returned to Jamaica from Canada four times between 2016 and 2018, when she made her refugee claim here. These stays back in Jamaica ranged from two to three months from XXXX to XXXX 2016; four to five months from XXXX to XXXX 2016; approximately four months from XXXX 2016 to XXXX 2017; and about two months between XXXX 2017 and XXXX 2017. These were multiple and extended stays, which suggest an intention to re-avail to Jamaica, and also undermine the credibility of her claimed subjective fear. [26] When asked by the panel during the hearing why she returned to Jamaica so many times, the Appellant stated that it was: Cause I had my job then and my kids cause I'm always concerned with my kids and my mom is there, being an only child. So, I'm always, like, protective of them in a sense cause I know he doesn't have a relationship with them and I - he's like angry at everybody, so to speak...17 When asked again by the panel to explain her returns to Jamaica, she further mentioned her job, not knowing about the protection available here, and relocating her children.18 [27] Based on my review, I find that the Appellant has not provided a reasonable explanation for her multiple returns to Jamaica. As noted, she kept her job there until she resigned in 2017,19 which is not consistent with her claim that she made only brief, temporary visits there. She has not provided evidence of any efforts to look into her options to stay in Canada until she met with her legal representative in 2018, despite being a XXXX XXXX XXXX person working in an XXXX capacity20 with the resources to travel both to Canada and the United States during the relevant time period. Her children are adults and both employed, and she provided no detail to substantiate her claim that she needed to go back and ensure that they were settled before she left, or regarding any support needed for her mother. She also had a valid Canadian visitor visa that does not expire until 2025, meaning that she could have legally stayed in Canada for longer stretches of time, rather than returning to Jamaica where she claims that she fears for her safety.21 [28] I contrast her situation to that of claimants in the cases cited by the Appellant regarding temporary visits to the country of claimed persecution. In one case, the claimant returned to his country of persecution, Colombia, for only four days to flee men who were pursuing him in Ecuador, and remained in hiding for those four days until coming to Canada;22 or another case, the claimant had to briefly return to his country of persecution, Mexico, twice for one month periods in order to renew his student visa, and while there did not return to his home city.23 In those cases, in contrast to the Appellant, the claimants established that they had no choice but to return to their respective countries of persecution, did so only for brief periods, and showed no intention of remaining there. I find that she has not done so. [29] As a result of these factors, I find that the Appellant re-availed to Jamaica on a number of occasions, and that her re-availment diminishes the credibility of her claimed subjective fear. Other credibility findings [30] The RPD also found that the Appellant provided inconsistent evidence regarding when the abuse with her husband started, and she omitted that she moved out of the matrimonial home in 2008 from her BOC narrative, giving rise to concerns about the credibility of her claim. [31] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in these findings, as they were microscopic and not central to her claim. Further, even if omitted from her BOC, her separation in 2008 was corroborated by other evidence such as the support letter from her daughter. She argues that the RPD failed to consider the Gender Guideline, especially regarding the impact of abuse on memory; and that the RPD panel "guided" her through its questions to the error in the date regarding when the abuse started. [32] I find that even if the RPD erred with respect to the credibility issues about when the abuse started and the omission of the claimed 2008 separation from her BOC narrative, these are less relevant to the determinative question of the Appellant's forward-facing risk and claimed subjective fear, and would not affect the outcome of the appeal. As outlined above, I have found on the basis of a number of credibility issues that the Appellant has not established that she faces a serious possibility of harm or a forward-looking risk. With respect to that issue, I agree with the Appellant's argument that the inconsistent evidence regarding when the abuse began, and the omission of her claimed 2008 separation, were not central. Even assuming that the RPD erred in these findings, I find that this does not affect my determinative finding that the Appellant has not established that she has a forward-facing risk. [33] I also do not agree with the Appellant's argument that the RPD "guided" her to make the inconsistent statement regarding when the abuse happened. Based on my review of the hearing, I find that the RPD asked open-ended questions such as "when did the relationship deteriorate?" In response, the Appellant stated it began one year after the marriage began.24 Later, the panel asked "I just need you to clarify. Did it come up a year after you got married or how many years after did it come up?,"25 which I find was not leading or guiding, but rather appeared to be an attempt to provide the Appellant an opportunity to clarify her answer, as it was not consistent with her BOC, which states that the abuse "occurred 8 years into our marriage."26 The question referenced by the Appellant in her memorandum related to the third time that the RPD attempted to clarify the dates, and was based on the Appellant's own testimony.27 I find that based on my review of the hearing, the RPD did not "guide" the Appellant to provide an inconsistent answer, but in fact was giving her several opportunities to clarify testimony that was inconsistent with her BOC narrative. [34] She further argues that the RPD accepted that she was a victim of domestic violence, but ignored relevant evidence relating to her forward-facing risk such as the fact that her husband was a XXXX XXXX XXXX, stalked her and attacked a co-worker; as well as incorrectly giving little weight to support letters by her daughter, mother and friend. [35] Regarding the claim that her ex-husband was a XXXX XXXX XXXX and that he stalked her and accosted her co-worker, I have considered the Appellant's evidence about these claims, but note that this does not impact my finding that the Appellant has not established her claim of a forward-facing risk, as I have found that she has not established her claim that he continued to pursue her. Regarding the allegations of stalking and accosting her co-worker/friend who gave her a ride home, as discussed above, I have found that there are significant credibility issues relating to the claim of ongoing threats, which include the claim of stalking, and which are not overcome by these additional allegations. [36] With respect to the support letters from the Appellant's mother, daughter and friend, I disagree that the RPD ignored this evidence and gave it no weight. As discussed above, the RPD considered the Appellant's mother's letter in its reasons with respect to the allegation of ongoing threats by her ex-husband. It also addressed her daughter's letter regarding the date of separation, and gave both the Appellant's daughter's and friend's letter some weight in relation to its finding that the Appellant was in an abusive relationship and separated in 2008. Based on my own review, I find that the Appellant's daughter's and friend's letters are of little help in establishing the claim of ongoing threats by her ex-husband, as I find that they provide little detail about this allegation. [37] Regarding the Gender Guidelines, as discussed above, I do not agree that the Appellant has established that memory issues related to the impact of abuse are the source of the credibility concerns about her claim, and at any rate, I do not rely on a finding regarding the inconsistency of the dates when the abuse began. I further find that the RPD did not rely on stereotypic assumptions about domestic violence, such as the idea that the abuse may end when the relationship is over, and I recognize that stalking and other forms of abuse can continue for many years after a survivor of abuse leaves the relationship. Nevertheless, I find based on the specific facts of the Appellant's case, that there is insufficient credible evidence that there is an ongoing risk from her ex-husband and find that she has not established a serious possibility of harm. CONCLUSION [38] On the basis of the findings outlined above, I dismiss the appeal. I find that the Appellant has not established that she is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection. [39] As a result, I confirm the determination of the RPD, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. The appeal is dismissed. (signed) Cynthia Pay Cynthia Pay November 19, 2020 Date 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration ) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93 (CanLII), [2016] 4 FCR 157. 2 Ibid., at para. 70; X(Re), 2017 CanLII 33034 (CA Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada). 3 Transcript of July 26, 2019 RPD Hearing, at p. 38. 4 Ibid., at pp. 48, 55-56. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at p. 108. 6 Amarapala v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 12 (CanLII). 7 Rojas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 849 (CanLII), at para 6. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at p. 108. 9 Transcript of July 26, 2019 RPD Hearing, at p. 55. 10 Ibid., at p. 20. 11 Ibid. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at p. 108. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at p. 7, para. 18. 14 Transcript of July 26, 2019 RPD Hearing, at pp. 21, 54-55. 15 Chairperson Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Guideline Issued by the Chairperson Pursuant to Section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), Ottawa, Effective date: November 13, 1996. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at p. 10, para. 28. 17 Transcript of July 26, 2019 RPD Hearing, at p. 40. 18 Ibid., at pp. 41, 46-48. 19 Ibid., at p. 58; Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, at p. 39. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, at p. 39. 21 Ibid., at p. 57. 22 Camargo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1434 (CanLII). 23 Gutierrez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 266 (CanLII). 24 Transcript of July 26, 2019 RPD Hearing, at p. 21. 25 Ibid., at p. 22. 26 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, at p. 15. 27 Transcript of July 26, 2019 RPD Hearing, at pp. 22-23. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-26522 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français 2 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