TB8-07329

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-07329 TB8-07330 / TB8-07331 / TB8-07332 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montreal, QC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision September 15, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Me Richard Sheitoyan Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Penny Yektaeian Guetter, Barrister Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] I allow this appeal. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, his wife XXXX XXXX XXXX, her daughter XXXX XXXX XXXX and their daughter XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are citizens of Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda. [2] Upon their daughter's birth in 2004, Mrs. XXXX boyfriend neglected them, resurfacing in 2013 in a bid to re-establish a relationship. Already in a committed relationship with Mr. XXXX, she declined these insistent overtures through phone calls and the intervention of third parties such as his family and friends. [3] Her marriage to Mr. XXXX in 2014 as well as the birth of their daughter in 2015 did not lessen his resolve and numerous anonymous threatening phone calls from different numbers were received by Mrs. XXXX throughout this period. On XXXX XXXX, 2016, he presented himself to her and told her that, unless she changed her mind, she, her children as well as her husband would suffer the consequences. She fled for Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2016. [4] Remaining behind in Antigua, Mr. XXXX first incident occurred on XXXX XXXX, 2016 when a group surrounded him, ganging up to kick him and hit him with a board. He was able to escape a second attack in XXXX 2016, finally leaving for Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016. [5] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) determined they had not established a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground, should they return to Antigua, nor had they established, on a balance of probabilities, a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or torture upon return to Antigua. It concluded to the existence of state protection which they had not made use of. [6] The Memorandum of Appeal claims the RPD erred in that: - its assessment of state protection is fundamentally flawed; - it failed to assess their claim against Jamaica, a State against which they are equally claiming protection; - counsel's incompetence amounts to a breach of procedural fairness. [7] Additionally, numerous new evidences were submitted concerning the situation in Antigua and Barbuda, in Jamaica and regarding counsel incompetence. [8] The determinative issues are available State protection in Antigua and whether there is a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground, should they return to Jamaica or, on a balance of probabilities, a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or torture upon return to Jamaica. DECISION [9] The appeal is admitted. I substitute my own decision that the Appellants are persons in need of protection. NEW EVIDENCE The evidence presented by the Appellants is partially accepted [10] According to the law,1 I can only accept evidence that: i. arose after the RPD decision; or ii. was not reasonably available at the time of the decision; or iii. that you could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to bring to the RPD before the decision. [11] If the evidence meets one or more of these requirements, I must decide if the evidence is new, credible and relevant before I can accept it.2 A-B1 and A-W1: Copies of Mr. XXXX and Mrs. XXXX Jamaican passports (referenced in both Mr. XXXX (A-B) and Mrs. XXXX (A-W) supporting affidavits as Exhibit A) [12] The passports existed prior to the RPD's rejection of the claim, however, as mentioned in their supporting affidavits, they had been discouraged from submitting them as counsel did not consider Jamaican citizenship an issue. As authentic documents, I consider them to be credible and relevant as their Jamaican nationalities are an important consideration of the appeal. Although having disclosed their Jamaican nationalities, I consider these documents to be new and admit them. A-W2: Copy of a Facebook post made by Mrs. XXXX in reference to a colleague who had disappeared (referenced in Mrs. XXXX affidavit as Exhibit B) [13] Mrs. XXXX Facebook post is dated XXXX XXXX, 2017, prior to the decision. It concerned allegations of personal knowledge of domestic violence. In her affidavit, Mrs. XXXX does not recall whether or not she mentioned the person of which she posted. Mention was made of this person in the course of the hearing. I cannot admit it as it was available and should have been submitted prior to the hearing. A-W3 : Two letters from friends of Mrs. XXXX confirming knowledge of her ex-boyfriend's Jamaican citizenship (referenced in Mrs. XXXX affidavit as Exhibit C) [14] Two letters, dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018 and the second dated XXXX XXXX, 2018, from friends of Mrs. XXXX, confirm the Jamaican nationality of Mrs. XXXX agent of persecution. In light of counsel's advice, the necessity of providing information relating to the Jamaican ties of her agent of persecution could not have been expected to be provided. The evidence is credible, relevant and new. I admit them. A-W4: Letter from Mrs. XXXX mother (referenced in Mrs. XXXX affidavit as Exhibit D) [15] The letter from Mrs. XXXX mother is dated XXXX XXXX, 2018. Although it is dated after the decision was rendered, it refers to events which took place prior to it. Considering it refers to events at the basis of the claim, it was reasonably expected to be provided before the hearing. I cannot admit it. A-B2: Copy of an excerpt from the Jamaican Constitution (referenced in Mr. XXXX affidavit as Exhibit B) [16] The Jamaican Constitution's existence pre-dates the RPD's rejection of the claim, however, counsel's decision to not address Jamaican ties for the purpose of the refugee protection application reasonably prevented them from expecting to have to provide proof of such. It is credible and I admit it. A-B3: Reports about conditions in Antigua and Barbuda as well as newspaper articles about police corruption and brutality and news reports about people victims of domestic violence mentioned in testimony (referenced in Mr. XXXX affidavit as Exhibit C) a- Research report entitled Domestic Violence in Antigua and Barbuda: Final Research Report dated December 2017: [17] The research report is a study of domestic violence in Antigua and Barbuda which predates the decision. The affidavit alleges the document was reasonably expected to have been provided but wasn't because of counsel's incompetence. It is a report funded by the European Union and presents a situational analysis of domestic violence in Antigua and Barbuda based on various types of data collection. The scope and breadth of its analysis of varied data and information obtained from third parties appears credible. However, much of the information contained in it is coherent with information already contained in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Antigua and Barbuda. Although credible, it is not new and therefore will not be admitted. b- Antigua and Barbuda 2016 UPR: Joint Submission from the United Nations Subregional Team for Barbados and OECS: [18] The joint submission report pre-dates the decision. The facts contained in it have been the object of similar content in the National Documentation Package for Antigua and Barbuda. Although credible, it is not new and therefore will not be admitted. c- Compliance of Antigua and Barbuda with the Convention against Torture reviewed in the absence of a report and a delegation: [19] The document dated July 25, 2017 pre-dates the decision. The information contained in it does not pertain to be a report but principally the result of questions to open up discussions. As such, the credibility of the information contained is not established, nor is it new. It will therefore not be admitted. d- The Daily Observer articles dated: November 30, 2016 titled: Mother Chopped to Death; November 30, 2016 titled: Gender Affairs Dpt. Speaks on the passing of Sheriece Henry, 22, Following Domestic Abuse; May 17, 2017 titled: Two Police Officers Detained For Alleged Rape; May 18, 2017 titled: Cops Accused of Rape; May 19, 2017 titled: Low Public Trust in Police; May 31, 2017 titled: Family clings to hope Vincia James will be found alive; May 10, 2017 titled: Police Charge Vincia James' ex-boyfriend with murder; January 16, 2018 titled: Local Police Force Labelled As Undisciplined. [20] These articles pre-date the decision. They were reasonably expected to be provided but the appellants were prevented from so doing, given their counsel's advice. They pertain to establish facts that are not disputed and seeing as how they aren't new elements, aren't admitted. April 5, 2018 titled: Police Commissioner Wendel Robinson Suspended; April 17, 2018 titled: Probe Continues Into Passport Scandal Allegedly Involving A Cop; [21] These articles are dated after the decision. Though they are from a credible journalistic source, they are not pertinent to the matter at hand and aren't admitted. e- DaVibes articles dated: June 6, 2015 titled: J'can Man Accuses Police of Brutality in Antigua; June 1, 2017 titled: Court of Appeal Overturns Another Rape Conviction in Antigua. [22] These articles pre-date the decision. They were reasonably expected to be provided but the appellants were prevented from so doing, given their counsel's advice. They pertain to establish facts that are not disputed but seeing as how they aren't new elements, aren't admitted. f- Jamaica Observer article dated July 5, 2015 titled: Antigua Group Calls for Suspension of Cops in Alleged Beating of Blind Man. [23] This article pre-dates the decision. It was reasonably expected to be provided but the appellants were prevented from so doing, given their counsel's advice. It pertains to establish facts that are not disputed and seeing as how it isn't a new element, isn't admitted. g- Liberty Radio article dated August 17, 2016 titled: Man Cries Police Brutality. [24] This article pre-dates the decision. It was reasonably expected to be provided but the appellants were prevented from so doing, given their counsel's advice. It pertains to establish facts that are not disputed and seeing as how it isn't a new element, isn't admitted. h- BBC News article dated December 18, 2016 titled: Antigua's Prisoners Face Rough Conditions in Colonial-Era Jail. [25] This article pre-dates the decision. It was reasonably expected to be provided but the appellants were prevented from so doing, given their counsel's advice. It pertains to establish facts that are not disputed nor relevant and isn't admitted. i- Articles from undisclosed sources dated: December 30, 2016 titled: Social Transformation Ministry to Roll Out Aggressive Campaign In 2017 to End Domestic Violence; July 20, 2017 titled: Family Recounts Terrifying Ordeal At Hands of Police. [26] These articles pre-date the decision. They were reasonably expected to be provided but the appellants were prevented from so doing, given their counsel's advice. They aren't admitted as the credibility of their sources are unknown while pertaining to establish undisputed facts which aren't new. j- Times Caribbean Online article dated March 24, 2017 titled: Jamaican Charged With Attempted Murder Of Partner In Antigua. [27] This article pre-dates the decision. It was reasonably expected to be provided but the appellants were prevented from so doing, given their counsel's advice. It pertains to establish facts that are not disputed and seeing as how it isn't a new element, isn't admitted. k- News 784 article dated May 13, 2017 titled: Antigua: Two Officers Charged with Kidnapping, Corruption, Assault. [28] This article pre-dates the decision. It was reasonably expected to be provided but the appellants were prevented from so doing, given their counsel's advice. It pertains to establish facts that are not disputed and seeing as how it isn't a new element, isn't admitted. A-B4: Reports about conditions in Jamaica as well as newspaper articles about police corruption and brutality and news reports about people victims of domestic violence mentioned in testimony (referenced in Mr. XXXX affidavit as Exhibit D) a- The Gleaner article dated December 18, 2016 titled: SHAME!-Twenty-Four Women Killed In 2016; Former Victim Of Domestic Violence Urges Women To Protect Themselves. [29] This article pre-dates the decision. It was reasonably expected to be provided but the appellants were prevented from so doing, given their counsel's advice. It pertains to establish facts that are not new and isn't admitted. b- Amnesty International article dated March 15, 2018 titled: Jamaica: Amnesty International Supporters Take Half A Million Actions To End Impunity For Unlawful Police Killings. [30] This article follows the decision. Its source is credible and serves to establish facts that are relevant. Having been prevented from presenting evidence regarding Jamaica, they are considered new and are admitted. c- Documents taken from Tabs 2.13, 2.54, 2.65, 7.36 of the February 28, 2018 edition of the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Jamaica. [31] These documents are from the National Documentation Package for Jamaica and already constituted part of the RPD record. d- AP News article dated November 23, 2016 titled: Report: Jamaica Fosters Culture Of Fear With Police Impunity. [32] This article pre-dates the decision. It was reasonably expected to be provided but the appellants were prevented from so doing, given their counsel's advice. It pertains to establish facts that are not new so it isn't admitted. A-B5: XXXX XXXX XXXX (referenced in Mr. XXXX affidavit as Exhibit E): [33] The document attesting to Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX contains an expiration date of XXXX 2018, meaning its issuance pre-dates the decision. Mr. XXXX occupation as a XXXX is not relevant so it is not admitted. A-B6: Copy of the Retainer Agreement with former counsel (referenced in Mr. XXXX affidavit as Exhibit F): [34] Submitted in light of allegations concerning their previous counsel, the evidence is credible, relevant and new. It is admitted. A-B7: Affidavits of former clients of the former counsel (referenced in Mr. XXXX affidavit as Exhibit G): [35] The documents follow the decision. In light of allegations against their former counsel, they could not reasonably have been expected to provide such. They are credible, pertinent and new so are admitted. A-B8: Complaint filed with the former counsel's regulating body (referenced in Mr. XXXX affidavit as Exhibit H): [36] This document follows the decision. They could not reasonably have been expected to provide such as it is only after having consulted with a lawyer that they were made aware of the issues with their counsel's representation. It pertains to establish facts that are pertinent, credible and new so it is admitted. A-B9: Photograph of Mr. XXXX damaged computer (referenced in Mr. XXXX affidavit as Exhibit I): [37] This document pre-dates the decision. It was reasonably expected to be provided. It pertains to establish facts that are not new so it isn't admitted. ANALYSIS [38] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.7 [39] Citizen of Antigua and Jamaica, problems began for Mrs. XXXX in 2013 when, in an attempt to rekindle a relationship, her former boyfriend and father of her eldest daughter re-appeared after nine years of absence. Irrespective of her committed relationship with Mr. XXXX, his insistent advances manifested themselves through phone calls and third-party interventions from his family and friends. [40] Marriage to Mr. XXXX in 2014 and the birth of their child in 2015 failed to change his objective. Throughout this period, she received numerous anonymous threatening phone calls from different numbers. Things came to a head on XXXX XXXX, 2016 when he presented himself to her and said she, her children as well as her husband would suffer the consequences unless she changed her mind. This prompted her departure to Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2016. [41] Mr. XXXX, equally a citizen of Antigua and Jamaica, remained behind. His first incident occurred on XXXX XXXX, 2016 when a group surrounded him, ganging up to kick him and hit him with a board. At that moment, he was able to grasp the attack had been initiated by and involved his wife's former partner. He was able to escape a second attack in XXXX 2016, finally leaving for Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2016. [42] The RPD's decision focused solely on the availability of Antiguan State protection and determined the appellants had failed to rebut its presumption by not engaging with the State. It examined the state of existing legislation to address issues of domestic violence and underlined the Domestic Violence Bill of 2015 which: - improved victims' abilities to obtain both interim and permanent protection orders; - enhanced the definition of what constitutes domestic violence and to whom it applies; - enhanced obligations for police to respond to every complaint and complete a domestic violence report; - harshened sentences for domestic abusers and recidivists; [43] The Memorandum of Appeal argues the RPD erred in that: - its analysis of State protection is flawed; - it failed to assess the appellants' claims against Jamaica; - counsel's incompetency amounts to a breach in procedural fairness. State protection analysis [44] The first appellate issue is with respect to the RPD's erroneous analysis of state protection in that it: - confuses serious efforts for State protection with its effectiveness; - finds the appellants credible but not their reasons for not accessing police protection notwithstanding corroborating objective evidence; - fails to determine if the Domestic Violence Bill of 2015 has brought about meaningful, effective and durable change. [45] The RPD analysis detailed steps undertaken by the Antiguan government to address domestic violence. It is argued identification of steps merely show the State's ability and willingness to implement a framework but not evidence of effective implementation. [46] Furthermore, it is also argued the implementation of this new law is irrelevant in assessing state protection in the present case as its implementation occurred after Mrs. XXXX departure and two months before Mr. XXXX. [47] Under the pre-existing law applicable at the time Mrs. XXXX resided in Antigua, availing oneself of a protection order required both victim and abuser to be in the same household which clearly was not applicable to her situation. [48] Furthermore, it is argued the evidence found in the Antiguan National Documentation Package dated March 31st, 2017 and February 28th, 2018 speak of serious problems concerning domestic violence and particularly violence against women. [49] Mrs. XXXX testimony was clear and attested to the numerous problems faced by women, some of whom she personally knew, in their spousal relationships. She explained: - not having called the police throughout her dealings with her ex-boyfriend because the end result was likely to exacerbate the situation; - the possible detention of her ex-boyfriend would likely bring about unwanted interaction with his friends, intent on avenging him, further exacerbated upon his eventual release; - calling upon the police in such matters brought about a certain stigmatization which could lead to even more problems. [50] The RPD's conclusion as to Mrs. XXXX credibility contrasts markedly with its conclusion as to her reasons for not having made use of available state protection mechanisms. [51] Furthermore, the RPD's analysis of the Antiguan government's efforts to implement a new law dealing with domestic violence and addressing problematic issues highlighted in the past speaks loudly to those issues testified to by Mrs. XXXX. [52] In that context: - the credibility of her testimony; - the objective proof of her allegations demonstrated by new laws in response to those in place when she was in Antigua; - her sensible explanations for her actions further highlighted by her personal experience with similarly situated people; contradicts sharply with the RPD's incorrect conclusion regarding availability of State protection and Mrs. XXXX failure to engage it. Assessment of the claim against Jamaica [53] The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) specifically obliges people who are claiming refugee protection to demonstrate that they are unable or, due to fear, unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of each of their countries of nationality. [54] The appellants claim they were informed not to discuss the matter of their Jamaican citizenship since counsel considered it was not useful to the claim which concerned Antigua. Previous counsel's failure to establish evidence of a serious possibility of persecution or, on a balance of probabilities, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or torture in Jamaica is erroneous. [55] The RPD's review of the file, particularly sections 3 and 4 of the Basis of Claim which indicate Jamaica as both a country of citizenship and one where the appellants believe they are at risk of serious harm, required an examination of the likelihood of harm in that country. Failing to have done so is incorrect. Inadequate representation amounts to breach of procedural fairness [56] The Memorandum's last argument invokes a breach of procedural fairness due to previous counsel's incompetence, notably in that: - he allegedly advised the appellants against submitting proof of their Jamaican citizenship; - failed to indicate usefulness of proof highlighting similarly situated people; - submitted outdated evidence concerning domestic violence in Antigua whilst failing to submit any new evidence both with respect to Antigua and Jamaica even though the appellants are equally claiming protection against it. [57] As per the Practice Notice - Allegations Against Former Counsel, former counsel was informed of the allegation against him and provided with a copy of the complaint filed with the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC). [58] The allegations of former counsel's competency put forth in the appeal are substantially the same as the ones which constitute the basis of the complaint with ICCRC. [59] Previous counsel's failings highlighted by new counsel are tantamount to a breach in procedural fairness for the appellants. Representations concerning their second country of citizenship were not made nor were they raised by the RPD. Information concerning country conditions of Antigua were outdated and those for Jamaica were inexistent. Evidence supporting the appellants testimonies regarding reasons for fear in Jamaica were not put forth. Claim against Antigua and Barbuda [60] Appellants' testimonies regarding their agent of persecution are credible. Failing to have reported the incidents to the police are, in light of the existing laws at the time and explanations provided for their failure to do so, equally credible. Objective documentation shows legislative changes in response to past deficiencies confirming appellants' observations and justifications for their past actions. [61] Antigua's small size (280 Km2) makes relocation to escape their agent of persecution difficult. Furthermore, their agent of persecution's work as a bus driver further increases the likelihood they would be located. Claim against Jamaica [62] The appellants are citizens of Jamaica and, as such, are expected to seek its protection. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, they justify not doing so, alleging that on a balance of probabilities, they are likely to face a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in Jamaica. [63] Mrs. XXXX supporting affidavit specifies the agent of persecution: - is equally of Jamaican nationality and travels back on a regular basis; - hails from the area of XXXX XXXX XXXX, the same as the appellants; - furthermore, originates from the same parish as Mr. XXXX. [64] The parties' neighboring proximity in Jamaica means that on a balance of probabilities, there is a likelihood their relocation to Jamaica, with the precise area where they find themselves, will be discovered by their agent of persecution. [65] Mrs. XXXX ex-boyfriend's insistence on re-establishing a relationship with her, irrespective of the serious developments in her relationship with Mr. XXXX including marriage and another child, is indicative of his interest in them. He has the means to find them and he has demonstrated a continued interest in doing so. State protection in Jamaica [66] The Memorandum of Appeal argues documentary evidence clearly shows the absence of available State protection in Jamaica in that: - it has one of the highest murder rates in the world; - there is police brutality including extra-judicial killings; - domestic violence is a widespread and alarming problem with weak enforcement laws. [67] The United Kingdom Home Office Country Policy and Information Note. Jamaica: Women fearing domestic violence. Version 2.0 8indicates an absence of available statistics on the prevalence of domestic violence in Jamaica though it is reportedly a serious and widespread problem. It goes on to say there is clear evidence that in general the Government of Jamaica is not only willing, but also able to provide through its legal system a reasonable level of protection from ill treatment to its citizens who fear criminal acts in Jamaica. [68] Although a number of legislative measures to improve the situation of women fearing domestic violence does exist, incidents are underreported due to cultural norms, stigma and fear of retribution. [69] Furthermore, courts are overburdened and hampered by inadequate infrastructure, human and financial resources. A deterrent to reporting incidences of crime has been attributed to the length of time to investigate and prosecute them. Furthermore, domestic violence is not frequently viewed as a crime with insufficient awareness and training among judges, prosecutors, police officers and health professionals about violence against women. [70] Mrs. XXXX cultural norms and the stigma she encounters in formulating a complaint are important considerations. Compounded with this difficulty is the uncertainty she faces for the reception of the complaint, its outcome and delays involved to see it through to its conclusion. Throughout, the possibility of reprisals from her ex-boyfriend remains a real possibility. In that context, on a balance of probabilities, adequate State protection is not available for the particularities of the situation. [71] On a balance of probabilities, internal flight alternative in Jamaica poses a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger of torture to the family. Their agent of persecution's ability to pursue them in whatever proposed Jamaican site of relocation they may find themselves is facilitated by the proximity of mutual acquaintances and the relatively small size of the island. CONCLUSION [72] The appeal is admitted. I substitute my own decision that the Appellants are persons in need of protection. (signed) Me Richard Sheitoyan Me Richard Sheitoyan September 15, 2020 Date RS/dd 1 Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. 2 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Raza FC 385. 3 Archive - National Documentation Package (NDP), Jamaica, 28 February 2018, tab 2.1: Jamaica. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2016. United States. Department of State. 3 March 2017. 4 Archive - National Documentation Package (NDP), Jamaica, 28 February 2018, tab 2.5: Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Jamaica. Organization of American States. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. 10 August 2012. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.144. 5 Archive - National Documentation Package (NDP), Jamaica, 28 February 2018, tab 2.6: Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Jamaica. United Nations. Human Rights Committee. 22 November 2016. CCPR/C/JAM/CO/4. 6 Archive - National Documentation Package (NDP), Jamaica, 28 February 2018, tab 7.3: Crime situation, including organized crime; police and state response, including effectiveness; state protection for witnesses and victims of crime (2009-December 2012). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 14 January 2013. JAM104263.E. 7 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 8 National Documentation Package (NDP), Jamaica, 30 April 2019, tab 1.4: Country Policy and Information Note. Jamaica: Women fearing domestic violence. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. January 2017. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-07329 TB8-07330 / TB8-07331 / TB8-07332 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