TB6-05011

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-05011 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision June 15, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Edward Bosveld Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Paul Vandervennen Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS AND DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX(the Appellant), a citizen of Ethiopa, appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. He has submitted no new evidence in support of his appeal. The Appellant asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to set aside the determination of the RPD and find him to be a Convention refugee. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. This appeal is dismissed. Background [3] The Appellant alleged before the RPD that he worked for the government-run XXXX XXXX for more than XXXX years. He claimed that he was detained and mistreated twice, once in 2011 and again in 2014, because of activities that were perceived to be anti-government. In 2015 he joined the XXXX XXXX Party, and later that year learned that the police were seeking him for his political activities. He went into hiding and fled to Canada, where he made a refugee claim. [4] The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (the Minister) intervened in the Appellant's claim before the RPD, taking the position that the Appellant was trying to circumvent immigration regulations and was lacking in credibility.1 [5] The Appellant's application for refugee protection was heard on March 4, 2016. By a decision of March 18, 2016, the RPD rejected the claim on the basis of credibility. The RPD made several credibility and plausibility findings and concluded that the Appellant was generally lacking in credibility. [6] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in making improper findings of implausibility, and further made erroneous credibility findings. ANALYSIS The Role of the RAD [7] While the IRPA sets out grounds for appeal as well as possible remedies, it does not specify the standard by which the RAD is to review the decision of the lower tribunal. [8] It is settled law that the RAD is not to review decisions of the RPD in the manner of a judicial review.2 [9] The Appellant submits that the RAD is to apply a correctness standard of review, carrying out its own analysis of the record to determine whether the RPD erred, and then providing a final determination of his refugee claim. [10] The RAD is a creature of statute and so is the appeal before it; its role and jurisdiction are best determined by looking at the legislative provisions creating the RAD and the appeal.3 Such an appeal (i) is directed at the decision of the RPD, (ii) unless new evidence is accepted, is to be entertained on the basis of the record as it was constituted at the time of the RPD's decision, and (iii) is to be concerned solely with the errors of law, of fact or of mixed fact and law that, according to the appellant, the RPD made. This is the statutory configuration of an appeal before the RAD.4 [11] According to the Federal Court of Appeal, the RAD is to carefully consider the RPD's decision and then carry out its own analysis of the record to determine whether, as submitted by the Appellant, the RPD erred. It is then to provide a final determination, either confirming the RPD's decision or setting it aside and substituting the RAD's own determination of the refugee claim. If the RAD cannot provide such a final determination without hearing the oral evidence already presented to the RPD, the matter can be referred back to the RPD.5 [12] With respect to findings of fact and of mixed fact and law, the RAD is to review the RPD's decision applying a standard of correctness.6 When applying that standard, the RAD will not show deference to the RPD's reasoning process; it will rather undertake its own analysis of the question. The analysis will bring the RAD to decide whether it agrees with the determination of the RPD; if not, the RAD will substitute its own view and provide the correct answer.7 [13] There are, however, cases where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage over the RAD in making findings of fact or mixed fact and law, because such findings require an assessment of the credibility or weight to be given to oral evidence heard by the RPD.8 The Federal Court of Appeal, in discussing the standard of review to be applied by the RAD to the RPD's decision, has declined to provide the scope and degree of deference to be shown by the RAD: The RAD should be given the opportunity to develop its own jurisprudence in that respect; there is thus no need for me to pigeon-hole the RAD to the level of deference owed in each case.9 [14] While it is clear that some level of deference is warranted, it is less obvious how much deference is owed, and to what findings. As the Federal Court observed in Akuffo: [T]here also appears to be a consensus that when no hearing is held before the RAD, the latter owes deference to the RPD's credibility findings. The opinions rather diverge on: i) the level of deference that is owed or its exact definition; and ii) the scope of the questions of fact and questions of mixed fact and law for which deference is owed.10 [15] The RAD will show deference to the RPD's findings where the RPD was in an advantageous position to reach such conclusions. The RPD's advantage comes from seeing claimants and witnesses and hearing oral testimony. As such, credibility findings arising from that oral testimony are deserving of deference, as are other findings of fact based on oral evidence, as are findings based on the RPD's specialized knowledge of a particular matter where the RAD does not have its own specialized knowledge with respect to the same factual issue. The RPD's advantage may even extend to personal documents in situations where it has questioned the claimant or witness about such documents and where the resulting testimony gives rise to credibility concerns. [16] Not every finding relating to credibility warrants deference. Where the RPD has made a finding of implausibility, as is the case here, it has no advantage where the determination of plausibility is based on the RPD's own reasoning, or on objective documents, and does not arise directly from the oral evidence.11 Similarly, where the RPD draws an inference - a credibility finding based on deduction and reasoning, rather than a contradiction in evidence - the RAD may see no reason to show deference, as the appellate tribunal can be expected to have equal expertise in the inferential process.12 [17] How much deference is owed by the RAD to findings of the RPD? In Huruglica, the Federal Court held that the RAD can recognize and respect the conclusion of the RPD on such issues as credibility and/or where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage in reaching such a conclusion but it is not restricted, as an appellate court is, to intervening on facts only where there is a "palpable and overriding error".13 This passage has subsequently been endorsed by other decisions of the Court. [18] Although the Court did not explain what level of deference is established by recognizing and respecting a conclusion of the RPD, it has repeatedly upheld decisions in which the RAD applied a reasonableness standard to decisions of the RPD.14 In the RAD's view, this suggests that "recognize and respect" is indeed somewhat similar to reasonableness. [19] In Dunsmuir, the Supreme Court discussed two elements of a deferential review: process and outcome. 15 Despite the difference between judicial review and a RAD appeal, the RAD finds this framework helpful in considering its own approach to deference. [20] Even where the RAD is to show deference to findings of the RPD, those findings must still be the result of a comprehensible reasoning process. The RAD must be able to read the RPD's decision and understand how the RPD's conclusions were reached. [21] Further, the outcome of that process must be a result that is based on and supported by the evidence that was before the RPD. For this reason, it is particularly important that the RAD engage in its own review of the evidence in the RPD's record, in order to determine whether the RPD's finding is supported by that evidence. [22] The RAD will apply a standard of correctness to its consideration of the RPD's decision: it will conduct its own review of the evidence and undertake its own analysis of the question. If this does not lead the RAD to the same conclusion as the RPD, the RPD's finding is wrong. [23] However, the RAD will not interfere with the RPD's findings where such conclusions result from the RPD's distinct advantages or from a comprehensible reasoning process whose premises are rooted in such advantages. If either the process or the outcome does not meet these requirements, the RAD will determine the findings to be in error. [24] Having done this, the RAD will provide a final determination, either by confirming the RPD's decision or setting it aside and substituting its own determination. If it cannot do so without hearing oral evidence that was already heard by the RPD, it will refer the matter back for redetermination. The RPD's Findings [25] The Appellant argues that the RPD made numerous errors in finding him lacking in credibility. Implausibilities [26] The Appellant submits, and the RAD agrees, that findings of implausibility should be made only in the clearest of cases; a tribunal must be careful when rendering a decision based on a lack of plausibility because refugee claimants come from diverse cultures, and actions which appear implausible by Canadian standards might be plausible in the claimant's milieu.16 [27] The RPD considered the Appellant's evidence that the police in Ethiopia sought him while he was on vacation in Dubai. The Appellant claimed that he was unaware of this until he returned to Ethiopia. The RPD found it implausible that the Appellant's wife and friends were unable to reach him in Dubai, even though he had explained that his cell phone did not work in Dubai and that he was there for a short period of time.17 The Appellant submits on appeal that there was nothing implausible about his evidence here, and that the RPD engaged in sheer speculation. The RAD agrees. This was not the clearest of cases; in fact, the RPD did not explain why it concluded that the Appellant's family and friends should have been able to contact him during his brief vacation. This finding was in error. [28] The RPD also found it implausible that the Appellant was able to return to Ethiopia on XXXX XXXX, 2015 without being detected, and to flee the country four days later, if the police were indeed looking for him.18 The RPD referred to objective evidence about the extensive monitoring and surveillance capabilities of the Ethiopian authorities, including of low-level political opponents, considered the Appellant's employment by a government-run company, and concluded that the police would have been expecting him upon his return and would have detected him upon his departure. [29] The Appellant argues on appeal that the RPD misconstrued the objective evidence, which does not indicate that low-level political dissidents are prevented from entering or leaving the country. In the Appellant's view, the RPD's finding here is not based on the evidence. [30] The RAD has reviewed the evidence in the RPD's record, including those documents relied upon by the RPD and cited by the Appellant. Objective reports indicate that the Ethiopian authorities detain political opponents, sometimes without charges;19 telephone tapping, electronic eavesdropping, and paid informants are also used to monitor individuals from opposition political parties.20 Government surveillance of online and mobile phone communication is pervasive, and the Ethiopian authorities employ a centralized electronic monitoring system which allows them to monitor phone calls and text messages, and even to locate targeted individuals through real-time geo-location tracking of their mobile phones.21 Telephone and email conversations of dissidents are intercepted by government officials.22 High-profile dissidents are encouraged to leave the country; however, low-level opposition members are at risk of being detained or killed. Opposition members who wish to leave the country generally avoid exiting via the airport for fear of being apprehended. The Ethiopian authorities have an extensive security network and monitor even low-level opposition members.23 [31] The Appellant's own evidence must be considered in the context of the objective evidence discussed above. He claims that he was detained in XXXX of 2011, accused of participating in an illegal political group. He was detained again in XXXX of 2014 after filing a grievance against his employer, XXXX XXXX. He claims that while he was on vacation in XXXX of 2015, the police executed a search warrant on his home and told his wife that they would arrest him.24 Despite this, and despite objective evidence of the extensive surveillance and monitoring systems employed by the Ethiopian authorities, he was able to enter Ethiopia via the airport, without incident. Four days later, he exited the country, again via the airport and using his true passport, without being apprehended. The RAD agrees with the RPD: it is implausible that the Appellant, if truly sought by the authorities, was able to both enter and exit the country via the airport, using his true identity, without incident. [32] The RPD found it implausible that the Appellant would involve himself with the XXXX Party, knowing the risk that this presented.25 The Appellant points to the decision of the Federal Court in Roozbahani: To suggest that it is implausible that the Applicant would engage in activities against an oppressive regime, on the basis that he had been mistreated by the same regime and would be put in harm's way, is patently unreasonable.26 [33] The RAD agrees that this implausibility finding is problematic: the RPD appears to imply that the only plausible response to political persecution is to refrain from political activity. In the RAD's view, it is equally plausible that the Appellant would seek to oppose the government that allegedly violated his rights. [34] While the RAD agrees that this aspect of the RPD's implausibility finding was in error, it notes that the RPD made a further credibility finding with respect to the Appellant's XXXX Party activities. The Appellant told the RPD that he wanted to be secretly associated with the party, and the RPD was surprised that the Appellant nevertheless openly attended the party's headquarters to make donations, obtained receipts, and carried a membership card. The RAD agrees that this is a significant inconsistency, not challenged by the Appellant on appeal, which damages his credibility. [35] Finally, the Appellant argues that the RPD erred in finding it implausible that XXXX XXXX did not require him to undergo additional security checks after he was hired,27 as this was based on sheer speculation. He submits that he was an XXXX and there was no reason for him to be subjected to ongoing security checks. He also challenges the RPD's finding that it was implausible for him to receive employment verification letters from his employer when he was in fact detained and abused for filing a grievance against that employer. [36] The RAD sees no basis for the RPD's expectation that the Appellant undergo regular security checks. In fact, the objective evidence discussed above indicates that the Ethiopian authorities closely monitor dissidents; it is unclear why the RPD expected the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to undertake some sort of additional process for the Appellant, an XXXX. Further, the RAD has reviewed what the RPD refers to as "letters of recommendation" from XXXX XXXX. One of these documents is an award for XXXX years of service,28 and the other is recognition for completing some sort of training program.29 These are not letters of recommendation, but fill-in-the-blank certificates, and the RAD sees no reason why their issue to the Appellant is implausible. [37] The RPD made a further finding with respect to the Appellant's employment by XXXX XXXX. The lower tribunal found it implausible that XXXX XXXX would continue to employ the Appellant after he was twice detained by the authorities, the second time because of his opposition to the actions of the XXXX itself. The Appellant does not challenge this finding on appeal, and the RAD notes objective evidence that union activists were fired by Ethiopian employers,30 and further reports that the government discriminated in employment against individuals not affiliated with the ruling party.31 This implausibility conclusion finds support in objective evidence. [38] Having reviewed the implausibility findings made by the RPD, the RAD agrees with the Appellant that some of these were in error. However, as explained below, these errors are not fatal to the RPD's determination of the Appellant's refugee claim. Credibility [39] The Appellant also challenges a number of the RPD's credibility findings. Re-availment and delay in departure [40] The RPD noted the Appellant's extensive travels, which included visits to Sweden, France, Italy, and Denmark. The Appellant told the RPD that he was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as part of his employment with XXXX XXXX. The RPD made a negative credibility finding with respect to the Appellant's continued returns to Ethiopia; he had been detained and mistreated twice but continued to travel without seeking protection elsewhere.32 The Appellant argues on appeal that the RPD ignored his reasonable explanation: each detention had been with respect to a specific incident, and he had no reason to believe that these problems would recur. He had a good job, was continuing his education, and his wife was expecting a baby.33 [41] The Appellant's Basis of Claim narrative describes his detention in 2011; after he was released on intrusive conditions, he was "extremely cautious" and the government's "intimidation worked for years."34 He was detained in XXXX of 2014 for filing a grievance, and was beaten and threatened; this terrorized his family. When a friend later asked him to support an opposition party, he was "afraid to become involved." The Appellant subsequently learned that the police were seeking him; he wrote in his BOC narrative that "the trauma of my two times in prison was still fresh."35 [42] Much of the Appellant's international travel took place between his first and second detention. The RAD agrees with the Appellant that he has provided a reasonable explanation for returning to Ethiopia during this period; he had been detained in specific circumstances and he did not expect these to be repeated. However, it is difficult to understand why, after a second incident of detention, threats, and beatings, he left the country still planning to return. He claims he was intimidated, his family was terrorized, he was afraid to become involved in opposing the government, and his trauma was still fresh in his mind. In this context, it is hard to understand why he planned to voluntarily return to the country of persecution after a vacation. While this issue in itself is not determinative of his refugee claim, the RAD agrees that his re-availment to Ethiopia after the second detention damages his credibility. His explanation is not reasonable: his family, education, and job would all be negatively affected by further detention, and it makes little sense that he would continue to expose himself to persecution for these reasons. U.S. visa applications [43] The Minister intervened in the Appellant's refugee hearing, providing evidence that the Appellant made multiple requests to visit the United States between XXXX 2006 and XXXX 2014. The Appellant did not reveal these applications when completing Canadian immigration forms, despite a question on this subject. The RPD did not accept the Appellant's explanation that the question was difficult to understand, as the Appellant is sophisticated and well-educated and used the services of an interpreter to complete the immigration form. The RPD also considered the fact that the Appellant had obtained a Canadian visa a few weeks prior to the time that the police allegedly began to seek him, and doubted his explanation that he was planning to travel to Canada to visit a friend of his wife's, whom he had never even met. The RPD concluded that the Appellant failed to disclose his U.S. visa applications in an effort to hide his on-going attempts to travel to North America. [44] The Appellant submits on appeal that he had no reason to hide those applications, as he had travelled frequently to other countries. He argues that the question is awkward, poorly-written, multi-faceted, and confusing, even for a native English speaker. [45] The question, on Schedule A of the IMM-5669 form, asks: "Have you, or, if you are the principal applicant, any of your family members listed in your application for permanent residence in Canada, ever: ...been refused refugee status, an immigrant or permanent resident visa (including a Certificat de selection du Quebec (CSQ) or application to the Provincial Nominee Program) or visitor or temporary resident visa, to Canada or any other country?"36 While the RAD agrees that the question is lengthy and awkward, it is not unclear. The Appellant has studied XXXX, has a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and was working on his M.B.A. when he left Ethiopia.37 He is well-travelled, speaks English,38and also had the services of an interpreter. In this context, the RAD cannot accept his explanation that he was confused by the question. The Appellant made repeated unsuccessful attempts to travel to the U.S., which he failed to disclose, and then obtained a Canadian visa just before the authorities began to seek him. The RAD agrees with the conclusion of the RPD that this damages his credibility. XXXX Party membership card [46] The RPD examined the original of the Appellant's XXXX Party membership card. It observed that the top of the card appeared to be cut by hand, that the party's logo appeared to have been cut and pasted on the paper, as part of the logo was cut off. The printing on the card was misaligned. The Appellant told the RPD that this was how the party prepared the card, but the RPD suspected that it was fraudulent and gave it no weight.39 [47] The Appellant submits that there was no objective evidence before the RPD about how the XXXX Party creates membership cards, and that the RPD's finding was based on sheer speculation. [48] The RAD has reviewed the copy of the membership card. The original was not submitted along with his appeal, nor is it necessary for the RAD to view the original, as the Appellant does not challenge the RPD's finding that the card's edge was hand cut; the RAD can see that the logo is partially cut off. [49] While there is limited information about the XXXX Party in the RPD's record, there is evidence that the party is country-wide in Ethiopia, is certified by the National Electoral Board, and has reported that "large groups" of its members have been detained.40 The evidence does not suggest that the party is so small and unsophisticated that it cuts out membership cards by hand, or is incapable of keeping its own logo intact on such a card. Further, in the RAD's view, this matter must be considered in the context of the rest of the Appellant's evidence. He claimed that he intended to keep his membership in the party a secret, for his own safety. It makes little sense that he would nevertheless obtain a membership card. The RAD agrees with the conclusion of the RPD here, that the card is suspicious and deserves no weight. Police summons [50] The RPD considered a summons from the Federal Police Commission,41 which the Appellant alleged was delivered to his wife while he was on vacation in Dubai. The RPD observed that the form contains a spelling error, has no security features, lacks an address for the police station, does not list the Appellant's address, and does not conform to the format of summonses described in objective evidence.42 The RPD suspected that the document is false and gave it little weight. [51] The Appellant argues on appeal that the objective evidence cited by the RPD relates to summonses issued under the Criminal Procedure Code; he was not charged with a criminal offence but instead was subjected to non-judicial, police administrative procedures. He points out that the Federal Court has held that it is an error to reject an official document absent evidence tending to show its invalidity. [52] In the RAD's view, this document deserves little weight. Although the Appellant argues that he was not charged with a criminal offence, the document clearly indicates that he was "charged with crime" previously and has subsequently violated the terms of his release. However, even if this is not the type of summons described in the objective evidence, it deserves little weight. First, it contains a noticeable spelling error in what appears to be the pre-printed portion of the form. Such an error would hardly be remarkable in the portion of the letter allegedly filled in by the police commander; however, this error appears in the form itself, stating in English "NOTE: Quite our Ref. In Response to our letter," presumably meaning something to the effect that the reference number on the form should be quoted in response. The fact that such an error appears on a pre-printed document, in a country where English is the major foreign language taught in schools,43 raises concerns about the veracity of the document, though such a concern is not enough to find the document fraudulent. The document also does not include the Appellant's address, even though the police allegedly conducted a search at his home. Most importantly, it does not contain any address information for the police station itself. Neither the letterhead nor the body of the letter provides address information - despite the letter's direction that the Appellant present himself to the police office within twenty-four hours of receipt. It simply makes no sense that the Federal Police Commission would order the Appellant to appear but would not think to tell him where he should go. Having considered all of this, the RAD agrees that this document is not genuine. Sur place claim. [53] The Appellant claims that, while in Canada, he participated in a demonstration against the Ethiopian government, and is therefore at risk upon return.44 The RPD considered his evidence that the demonstration did not proceed past any Ethiopian diplomatic missions, and observed that the Appellant was wearing sunglasses, a hat, and a scarf. The lower tribunal concluded that there was no more than a mere possibility that the Ethiopian authorities would have been able to observe or identify the Appellant, and also found that he had participated in the demonstration only to bolster his refugee claim. [54] The Appellant argues on appeal that the Ethiopian government uses spies to monitor political activities in the diaspora, so there may be been persons present in the demonstration reporting on the participants. In this context, his reasons for attending are not relevant, as he faces a risk of persecution regardless of his motives. [55] The RAD cannot accept this argument. The Appellant was well-disguised and the demonstration did not approach an Ethiopian embassy or consulate. Even if there was a spy in the group, the Appellant does not explain how this spy would know his identity in order to report him to the Ethiopian authorities. It is for the Appellant to establish that his participation in the demonstration has created a risk of persecution; it is not sufficient to invite the RPD and RAD to speculate that he may have been observed or identified. Having reviewed the evidence, the RAD agrees that there is not a reasonable possibility that such identification took place. CONCLUSION [56] The RPD found that the Appellant was lacking in credibility with respect to the allegations forming the basis of his claim. While the RPD made some errors, these mistakes are not fatal to the determination of the Appellant's refugee claim. The Appellant concealed important information with respect to his immigration history; traveled through the airport twice without incident, despite allegedly being sought by a regime which engages in constant monitoring and surveillance; returned to Ethiopia even after two alleged incidents of persecution; gave contradictory evidence about his participation in the XXXX Party; and was continually employed by a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, despite allegedly being viewed as an opponent of the government. Two of his key documents - a purported XXXX Party membership card and a purported police summons - were defective and not genuine. [57] Having considered all this evidence, the RAD agrees that the Appellant is generally lacking in credibility. He has not established with credible or trustworthy evidence that he was or was perceived as being opposed to the government, or that he supported the XXXX Party, or that he was or is sought by the authorities in Ethiopia for any reason. [58] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. This appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Edward Bosveld" Edward Bosveld June 15, 2016 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, , p. 264. 2 See, for example, Akuffo, Edwin Yaw Sarfo v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6640-13), Gagné, November 12, 2014, 2014 FC 1063, para. 33. 3 Dhillon, Jatinder Singh v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5156-14), LeBlanc, March 13, 2015, 2015 FC 321, para. 14; M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93, para. 46. 4 Dhillon, paras. 14-18. 5 Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, para. 103. 6 Ibid. 7 Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9; [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, para. 50. 8 Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, para. 70. 9 Ibid., para. 74. 10 Akuffo, paras. 34-35; see also Meilina, Yani v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-642-14), Gagné, December 18, 2014, 2014 FC 1233, para. 11. 11 See Ghannadi, Vahid v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1458-14), Manson, September 15, 2014, 2014 FC 879, para. 32; see also M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93, para. 72. 12 An inference is "a conclusion reached by considering other facts and deducing a logical consequence from them" (Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed., page 781); the Federal Court has described an inference as a legal concept with the same meaning as a plausibility finding (para. 58, K.K. v. M.C.I., IMM-11142-12, 2014 FC 78, which decision contains a thorough discussion of the drawing of inferences.). 13 Huruglica, Bujar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6362-13), Phelan, August 22, 2014, 2014 FC 799, para. 55. 14 See Yin, Sarom v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2845-14), Noël, December 12, 2014, 2014 FC 1209, para. 36, citing Njeukam, Gaelle Leonelle Nguedo v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-7280-13), Locke, September 10, 2014, 2014 FC 859, Akuffo, Edwin Yaw Sarfo v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6640-13), Gagné, November 12, 2014, 2014 FC 1063, Allalou, Abedelkrim v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-7217-13), Shore, December 17, 2014, 2014 FC 1084, and Sajad, Zeeshan v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-926-14), Shore, November 21, 2014, 2014 FC 1107; also Bui, Van Son v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1654-14), Shore, November 28, 2014, 2014 FC 1145. 15Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, at para. 47: "A court conducting a review for reasonableness inquires into the qualities that make a decision reasonable, referring both to the process of articulating the reasons and to outcomes. In judicial review, reasonableness is concerned mostly with the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process. But it is also concerned with whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law." 16 See Valtchev, Rousko v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4497-99), Muldoon, July 6, 2001, 2001 FCT 776, para. 7. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, RPD's Reasons, paras. 12-13. 18 Ibid., paras. 11-14. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Ethiopia(January 29, 2016), item 2.1, p. 9. 20 Ibid, p. 10. 21 Ibid, item 11.2, pp. 12-13. 22 Ibid, item 11.3, p. 4. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, pp. 286-287. 24 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, pp. 18-21, Basis of Claim Narrative. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, RPD's Reasons, para. 25. 26 Roozbahani, Alireza v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-9483-04), Blanchard, November 9, 2005, 2005 FC 1524, para. 18. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, RPD's Reasons, para. 40. 28 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 255. 29 Ibid., p. 256. 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record , NDP for Ethiopia (January 29, 2016), item 2.1, p. 38. 31 Ibid., pp.14-15. 32 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, RPD's Reasons, pars. 15-18. 33 See Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 24, Basis of Claim, Question 2(h). 34 Ibid., p. 19, lines 14-15. 35 Ibid., p.21, line 67. 36 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 38, IMM-5669, Schedule A. 37 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p.39. 38 Ibid., p. 18, Question 1(g). 39 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, RPD's Reasons, para. 30. 40 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for Ethiopia (January 29, 2016), item 4.10. 41 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 280. 42 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, RPD's Reasons, paras. 34-39. 43 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for Ethiopia (January 29, 2016), item 1.3, p. 2, "Languages." 44 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, pp. 258-259, photographs. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-05011