MC2-03197

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC2-03197 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 Date of decision July 27, 2022 Date de la décision Panel Me Agnès Connat Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Robin Dejardin Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister Christian Parent Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (appellant) is a citizen of Mexico who fears a police officer and his accomplices who targeted him in XXXX 2018, when he had just started a new job. [2] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found that the appellant was not credible. [3] The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (the Minister) intervened in writing before the RPD concerning the issue of credibility. [4] The appellant submits that the RPD erred in its assessment of his credibility by failing to apply the presumption of truthfulness to his testimony. [5] The determinative issues for the Refugee Appeal Division are procedural fairness and credibility. DETERMINATION [6] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD correctly determined that the appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. ANALYSIS [7] My role is to examine all of the evidence, including listening to the hearing,1 and to establish whether the RPD's decision is correct.2 [8] My obligation to conduct an independent assessment of the evidence and of the RPD's decision falls within the parameters of the Refugee Appeal Division Rules.3 [9] The appellant must identify the errors made by the RPD and make submissions accordingly. In his memorandum, several of his submissions are made in a general manner. For example, he does not specify at what point in the hearing he was [translation] "confused" by the member's line of questioning, or at what points he felt tricked by a question, at what point the RPD tried to undermine his credibility with plays on words or expressions or insinuations, what questions at the hearing were asked as if he had done something wrong, or at what point the RPD allegedly tricked him. He does not explain what additional information enhances his Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form), which the RPD should have [translation] "positively" considered. He refers to information about his relocation when the RPD did not draw any conclusion regarding the internal flight alternative (IFA). He does not specify which omissions should not have led to a lack of credibility and which should not be considered significant. [10] I conducted an independent assessment of the evidence and the various RPD credibility findings despite the lack of specific submissions in the memorandum and considering the importance of the decision for the appellant. The appellant failed to establish any breach of procedural fairness Admissibility of border services officers' statements and reports [11] The RPD did not give preference to the allegations of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) over those of the appellant. It analyzed and weighed the evidence before drawing conclusions on a balance of probabilities in accordance with its role. [12] The appellant frames the issue of the CBSA officers' statutory declarations of XXXX XXXX, 2019, as a credibility one. He submits that the officers were not present at the hearing, that he had not signed the contents of the statutory declarations of officers XXXX XXXX. (CP) and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. (VAJ), and that the interpreter/translator had not signed it either. [13] As the Federal Court pointed out, the RPD's acceptance of the statutory declarations into evidence is more of a procedural fairness issue.4 The appellant was required to raise this issue at the earliest opportunity, when he received the Minister's notice and copy of the statutory declarations or, at the very least, at the hearing. He did not do so. Yet, he was accompanied by counsel during the proceedings. [14] The appellant made no objections before the RPD about the truthfulness of the content of the statements, or about any problems with the translation of the reports or with the interpretation during the interview. His counsel noted in his submissions at the end of the hearing that he did not know how the questions were asked by the officers, whether they were subjective, for instance. He did not make any other comments or mention attempting to summon the officers to the hearing. Yet, in his appeal memorandum, the appellant appears to challenge the truthfulness of the officers' statements, the accuracy of the interpretation or the transcription of his words. If he thought it would help with his record, he should have called said agents as witnesses, or even the interpreter.5 He did not do so. He cannot now challenge the content of the reports or their admissibility. [15] The RPD correctly assessed all of the evidence, including the appellant's testimony. It weighed the evidence and drew conclusions in accordance with its role. My assessment of the appellant's testimony in light of his previous statements to the CBSA officers and the evidence is set out in my reasons. The appellant failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias by the Refugee Protection Division [16] In his memorandum, the appellant appears to raise an appearance of bias on the part of the member without expressing it clearly. He submits that it did not want to know his story and asked him questions that were not part of his story, that it tricked him, commented on minor details [translation] "looking for something" and that it was not interested in his story of persecution. He is of the opinion that the RPD failed to analyze the facts and the testimonial and documentary evidence. He considers that this evidence is consistent and credible and is at the basis of his claim. He is of the opinion that the RPD opted to focus on apparent contradictions to undermine his record at the risk of creating an impression of overzealousness. [17] It is well-established that the test for reasonable apprehension of bias is whether an informed person, reviewing the matter realistically and practically, and having thought the matter through, would conclude that the decision-maker would not decide fairly, whether consciously or unconsciously.6 This threshold of a reasonable apprehension of bias is high, as decision-makers are presumed to be impartial. The members must swear the oath,7 perform their role formally and quickly,8 do any other thing they consider necessary to provide a full and proper hearing9 and approach each case with an open mind.10 [18] After listening to the recording of the hearing before the RPD and reading its reasons, the appellant has not presented any evidence from which I could realistically and practically conclude that the RPD showed bias. He does not explain at what point it did not ask specific questions or where it allegedly tricked him. The questions asked were clear, calmly articulated, allowing time for the interpreter, and they were respectful. The RPD's reasons are clear and based on the evidence on the record. [19] Since the appellant alleges that he was attacked by individuals when newly employed as a XXXX XXXX, the RPD correctly questioned him regarding the date he started the job, the hiring process, the duties and the training completed. These questions were designed to assess, on a balance of probabilities, whether he had really held that job. It then asked him about the attack of XXXX XXXX, the circumstances surrounding the attack, the attackers and their vehicle. Then, it questioned him about the second attack, the circumstances, what happened afterwards, and finally about the third alleged attack, the date, the place, his injuries and his forcible confinement. This information is relevant to assessing the credibility of the appellant's allegations. [20] The RPD asked questions regarding the motivation of the agents of harm, and regarding his son, his father as well as the IFA. These questions are relevant. The ones about his son, his previous statements, and his tattoos relate to elements mentioned in the Minister's intervention. I do not see any trick or attempt to trick the appellant in the questions asked. The appellant does not explain how this is the case. The RPD had concerns about omissions, contradictions and inconsistencies in the appellant's account at the hearing regarding the evidence. Its role is to ask questions to give the appellant the opportunity to explain. This is what it did. [21] After approximately two hours of hearing, counsel for the appellant was able to supplement his evidence with questions, including issues not addressed by the RPD, such as the alleged suicide of the ex-spouse, the exhibits submitted in evidence, the attacks, and the appellant's tattoos and their significance with respect to the Minister's evidence on the XXXX XXXX XXXX criminal group. Counsel for the appellant did not make any argument regarding the member's bias at the hearing. [22] After analyzing the evidence on the record and having thought the matter through, realistically and practically, I do not consider, in all likelihood, that the RPD did not render an informed decision, and I have no reasonable apprehension of bias on the member's part. The Refugee Protection Division articulated its rationale in its reasons [23] I do not accept the appellant's arguments that he does not understand the RPD's rationale when reading the decision, that it does not explain the process of acceptance or rejection, that it lists contradictions or omissions without explaining the impact in relation to the essential elements that must be proven. [24] The appellant does not point to any specific passage where the RPD allegedly failed to articulate its rationale. After reading the reasons, I consider that they are clear and explicit and allow me to understand why it rendered this decision. The RPD provided reasons for each point and explained its rationale. The fact that it found that the appellant has not established the credibility of his allegations is not sufficient to conclude that the decision is incomplete. It explained its rationale with respect to the omission of the XXXX XXXX job from the immigration forms,11 the contradiction regarding the start date of the XXXX XXXX job,12 the contradiction regarding the attackers' vehicle,13 the date on which the appellant changed jobs as a result of the attacks,14 the date of the last incident,15 and its conclusions regarding the documentary evidence.16 It summarizes its conclusions in paragraph 42 of its reasons. The circumstances surrounding the new job as a XXXX XXXX at XXXX The appellant did not mention the job central to his allegations in the immigration forms [25] The appellant submits that the RPD erred in giving more weight to the forms for entry into Canada than to his own testimony. [26] The appellant's work as a XXXX XXXX for XXXX is not a minor point, since it was while performing this new job that he was attacked three times. He himself considers this job important in his story since it is the first information he includes in his BOC Form: [translation] "I was working as a XXXX XXXX for XXXX. It all started on XXXX XXXX, 2018, while I was at work doing my safety routines." He follows up with the second attack: [translation] "A week later, ...while I was doing my safety routines."17 [27] When he completed his IMM 5669 form at the port-of-entry on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, the appellant included only one job that he allegedly held consistently between XXXX2012 and XXXX 2019, that of XXXX. He did not include the job he apparently held for a month and a half, which is closely linked to the three attacks. [28] A contradiction between the testimony at the hearing and the forms filled out at the port-of-entry is generally not determinative. In this particular case, the fact that the appellant omits the job he held when it all started, the job he held when he was attacked three times to the point of having to leave his country, raises doubt regarding the credibility of his allegations. Considering the importance of this job in his story, the stress of a claimant answering questions upon arrival in Canada does not alone explain the omission since this job is the very reason for his hasty flight from Mexico. [29] The RPD added that it drew this conclusion in the context that the appellant filed no documentary evidence of his employment and made no effort to obtain any, which the appellant does not specifically challenge. I agree with the RPD's conclusion. Although it cannot demand corroborating evidence, such evidence would have dispelled the doubt regarding the credibility that the appellant had held that job. The appellant did not produce any. The appellant contradicted himself on the start date of the job central to his allegations [30] I do not accept the appellant's argument that the RPD preferred to give more weight to the Minister's intervention than to his testimony, or that by using the phrase [translation] "under normal circumstances," the RPD admitted that it assessed his case differently from others. [31] The role of the RPD is to assess the evidence, including the testimony at the hearing, in light of various elements including the port-of-entry statements, the BOC Form, interviews with ministerial officers or the documentary evidence. This is what the RPD did by analyzing the appellant's testimony in light of his statements to CBSA officers in XXXX 2019. [32] As I point out in my analysis of procedural fairness, the appellant did not summon the officers to testify. I have no reason to believe that the statutory declarations of state officers do not reflect the statements of the appellant before them. [33] The RPD correctly concluded that the appellant's testimony at the hearing about the date he started the job contradicts not only his statements to the officers, but also his BOC Form. Contrary to the appellant's argument, his testimony did diverge. [34] I note that, in this case, the appellant's statements to the officers were not made in the context of the stress of his arrival, but after one year in Canada, after completing his BOC Form with the help of counsel. The level of stress that might be expected from a claimant answering questions at the port of entry is likely to be less in this case. [35] The appellant testified at the hearing that he did not remember his date of hire and that it was in late XXXX 2018, and then-when the RPD pointed out to him that according to his interview it was more like XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018-he explained that he did not remember the date anymore. I note that in his BOC Form, the appellant states that he started his new job on XXXX XXXX, 2018. [36] I do not accept the appellant's argument that the member often did not specify the precise time or place of the question, thereby creating confusion. He illustrates his submission by stating that the member did not want his response because for him it was only XXXX XXXX, 2018, not late XXXX, early XXXX. The RPD explained in detail why this contradiction raised doubt about his allegations. [37] The RPD explained why, in refugee protection claims, when it analyzes a contradiction on a date, a difference between late XXXX and early XXXX is usually not significant. It explained why, in the appellant's particular case, it considered the difference to be significant. The RPD considered the particular facts of the case, specifically that the date is important because it is the start date of the job in the course of which the appellant was assaulted three times. It added that the closeness between the start of the job and the first attack makes this date important. [38] At the hearing, the appellant testified that he did not remember how long after he had started his new job the first attack occurred.18 Although it is possible that he may not remember the start date of his job, it is unlikely that he could have forgotten that the first attack occurred the day after he was hired at a new job. [39] The RPD's conclusion is correct. The contradiction between the appellant's testimony at the hearing, his BOC Form, and his interview by CBSA officers in XXXX 2019 about the date he was hired and the fact that it was the day before the first attack raises doubt about the credibility of his allegations and adds to previous credibility issues. The appellant contradicted himself about the attackers' vehicle [40] The appellant submits that the vehicle is not an essential element of his claim and that the RPD absolutely did try to find contradictions or plays on words to undermine his credibility. [41] The RPD correctly concluded that the appellant's testimony about the attackers' vehicle is contradictory. [42] The appellant mentioned in his BOC Form that [translation] "the same vehicle with the same individuals came back."19 He writes that he had identified the same vehicle and the same individuals in both attacks in XXXX 2018. In doing so, the appellant emphasizes the importance of the vehicle in his story. [43] The matter of the vehicle is not a detail of the allegations. Two attacks by the same individuals with the same vehicle within one week are important for the analysis of the personal factor of fear. If the appellant recognized the individuals and could see that it was the same vehicle, this leads to the conclusion that, on a balance of probabilities, the attacks were personal and not two different attacks motivated by the widespread violence in Mexico. The fact that he recognized the vehicle indicates that the agents of harm are the same in both attacks. [44] At the hearing, the appellant testified that the vehicle was black20 and that he does not know whether it was a car or a van.21 When the RPD told him that, according to interviews with officers, it was a van, the appellant responded that he does not know what he told the officers.22 Later, he stated that the vehicle was black but was not a normal vehicle and that he was not sure if it had been the same vehicle in both attacks.23 He is therefore unable to explain why he wrote in his BOC Form that it was the same vehicle.24 [45] The appellant experienced three attacks within a short time span in 2018, which led to his decision to leave his country and seek refuge in Canada. In his BOC Form, he provides important information about his story. He chose to include in his BOC Form a piece of information directly related to the attacks-the fact that the attackers' vehicle was the same in the first two attacks. It is logical to expect him to remember this when he testified at the hearing, even though almost three years have passed since then. About one year after writing his account, when he was interviewed by CBSA officers, he stated that the vehicle was a black van. However, at the hearing in XXXX 2022, he did not remember whether it was the same vehicle, whether it was a van or not. [46] The contradiction between the BOC Form, the interview with the officers, and the testimony at the hearing that the vehicle was the same, or regarding the type of vehicle, is not determinative on its own. However, it adds to the appellant's other credibility issues and raises doubt about the attacks. The appellant contradicted himself regarding the date he changed his work location [47] The appellant submits that it is difficult to answer questions about dates three to four years later, when he had no notes, forms or documents before him, and that the RPD preferred to give more weight to the Minister's intervention. [48] The RPD's conclusion that the appellant's testimony regarding the date on which he changed work location is contradictory is correct. [49] In his BOC Form,25 the appellant explains that, after the attacks of XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX 2018, after realizing that one of the agents of harm was a police officer, he panicked. He then allegedly asked his boss on XXXX XXXX, 2018, to change his work location and to transfer him to the XXXX XXXX residence. [50] During his interview with CBSA officer CP on XXXX XXXX, 2019,26 he testified that he worked at the XXXX XXXX residence between XXXX XXXX and XXXX, 2018, and then at the XXXX XXXX residence from XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX, 2018. When the officer submitted that it contradicts his BOC Form that he changed work location on XXXX XXXX XXXX he explained that he gave his lawyer the correct information, but that the lawyer made a mistake. During the interview of XXXX XXXX, 2019, with officer VAJ,27 who had also been present at the previous interview, he stated that he worked at the XXXX XXXX residence from XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018. I have no reason not to believe the government officers' report on the appellant's assertions and the appellant did not summon the agents to testify at the hearing. [51] At the hearing, the appellant testified that he stayed in XXXX XXXX for only one day on XXXX XXXX.28 [52] The timing of the change of work location is important since the change was requested by the appellant after the second attack and the agents of harm showed up at the new work location for the third attack. This information is relevant in the analysis of the personal factor of risk, but also of the desire of the agents of harm to go as far as attacking him at his new work location. [53] In his BOC Form and at the hearing, the appellant testified that he changed work location on XXXX XXXX XXXX namely 51 days (between XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX) after the second attack. [54] The inconsistency is significant because, in one case, the appellant allegedly changed work location the day after the second attack, while in the other, he apparently did so almost six weeks later. It is then logical to expect him to remember whether he had been reassigned immediately or after a long time. To the officers, he responded that his lawyer apparently made a mistake by stating XXXX XXXX instead of XXXX XXXX, 2018. Yet, in his BOC Form and at the hearing, he stated that he had been reassigned on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018. [55] The inconsistency between the BOC Form and the testimony that the appellant had been allegedly reassigned on XXXX XXXX, 2018, and his assertion before the CBSA officers that this change occurred on XXXX XXXX XXXX the day after the second attack, raises doubt about the credibility of the appellant's allegations. This doubt is reinforced by the fact that he told the officers that it was his lawyer who had made the date error. If, according to this statement, he had been reassigned on XXXX XXXX, 2018, why did he testify at the hearing that he had been reassigned on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018? [56] This important contradiction adds to other credibility issues and raises doubt about the credibility of the allegations. The appellant contradicted himself on the date of the last attack [57] The appellant submits that the member prefers to give more weight to the Minister's intervention than to his own testimony. [58] The RPD correctly concluded that the appellant's testimony contradicted his interview with the CBSA. [59] The third attack is an important event in the context of this refugee protection claim as it is the incident that triggered his flight from Mexico. It was also more violent than the others since the appellant was forcibly confined. [60] In his BOC Form, after describing the attack, the appellant writes: [translation] "I went home without knowing what to do and then I left my home. I looked for a solution; I was sure that I had to leave Aguascalientes. Finally, I found, on the internet, the possibility to ask for the protection of the government in Canada." I understand that it was the incident that prompted his decision to leave. He does not specify the date of this incident, but after explaining that he asked his boss to change his work location on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, he continues his account as follows: "...XXXX XXXX, 2018. However, the same vehicle arrived with several individuals inside." From the written account, I understand that it all happened in succession, the change in work location and then the attack, probably on the same day, on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018. [61] During his interview with the CBSA officers on XXXX XXXX, 2019, the appellant testified that he stopped working at the XXXX XXXX residence on XXXX XXXX after having worked there since XXXX XXXX, 2018.29 [62] At the hearing, the appellant's testimony was different. He placed the last attack on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019.30 When questioned by his counsel, he stated that he worked only one day in XXXX XXXX, on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, but continued on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019.31 [63] At the CBSA interview, the appellant stated that his last day of work was XXXX XXXX XXXX which is consistent with his BOC Form. Yet, at the hearing, he stated that the attack occurred on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019. His explanation to his counsel that he worked one day on XXXX XXXX, 2018, and then returned on XXXX XXXX, 2019, is an attempt to justify the inconsistency in his testimony. I do not believe him. [64] The inconsistency of his testimony with his BOC Form and interview statements raises further doubt about the appellant's credibility. The difference is only a matter of a few days. However, he suffered a third violent attack and was forcibly confined, which led him to leave his country to protect himself. It is logical to expect him to remember, even three years later, whether he was attacked on the day of his transfer to the new work location or two days after. The inconsistency is a matter of dates, but mostly a matter of context. [65] The contradiction regarding the date of the attack, the incident that triggered his flight, in addition to the contradiction regarding the end of his employment and the contradiction regarding the reassignment, leads me to conclude that the appellant has not established that he suffered a third attack. The documentary evidence does not establish the allegations or offset the appellant's credibility issues [66] The appellant submits that the documentary evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP) does a good job of explaining the problem of a young Mexican man persecuted by organized crime in Mexico. [67] The documentary evidence about the current general situation in Mexico does not by itself establish that the refugee claim is well founded.32 The appellant must demonstrate a credible link between that documentary evidence and his personal situation, which he failed to do.33 [68] The appellant criticizes the RPD for giving no weight to the documentary evidence. He argues that his wife died in connection with his refugee protection claim, that the RPD did not believe him, and that it forgot that what matters is that his persecutors are powerful or have the means to carry out their threats. [69] The credibility issues concerning the attacks on the appellant-central elements of the claim-extend to and undermine other elements of the claim.34 Given that the RPD found that the appellant is not credible, it correctly concluded that his ex-wife's death certificate and his father's letter have no weight.35 Given the importance of the credibility elements, the RPD did not have to analyze the claim further. CONCLUSION [70] The RPD's decision is correct. The appellant omitted the job during which he was attacked from his immigration form, his testimony about his date of hire was inconsistent with his statements to the CBSA officers and his BOC Form, and his testimony about the attackers' vehicle as well as his testimony about the date he changed work location and his testimony about the date of the third attack contained inconsistencies. These cumulative contradictions, inconsistencies and omissions concerning the circumstances surrounding the attacks and concerning the attacks themselves lead me to conclude that, on a balance of probabilities, the appellant has not established the allegations in support of his claim. The documentary evidence in the NDP and the evidence submitted by the appellant fail to establish that he would face a serious possibility of persecution or, on a balance of probabilities, he would be subjected to a risk to his life, to a danger of torture or to a risk of cruel and unusual punishment if he were to return to Mexico. DECISION [71] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the RPD's determination that the appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) Me Agnès Connat Me Agnès Connat July 27, 2022 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Hearing on February 7, 2022, which lasted 2 hours and 39 minutes. 2 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 3 Refugee Appeal Division Rules, SOR/2012-257, paragraph 3(3)(g). 4 Dundar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 1026. 5 Zaloshnja v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 206, at para. 8; Refugee Protection Division Rules, subrules 45(1) and (3). 6 Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, [1978] 1 SCR 369. 7 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), SC 2001, c. 27, section 152.1 and Oath or Solemn Affirmation of Office Rules, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), SOR/2012-255. 8 IRPA, SC 2001, c. 27, section 162. 9 IRPA, SC 2001, c. 27, section 165. 10 IRB, Code of Conduct for Members of the IRB, effective date: April 9, 2019. 11 Exhibit SPR-1, Refugee Protection Division (RPD) reasons, paragraphs 10 to 14. 12 Exhibit SPR-1, RPD reasons, paragraphs 15 to 21. 13 Exhibit SPR-1, RPD reasons, paragraphs 22 to 27. 14 Exhibit SPR-1, RPD reasons, paragraphs 28 to 32. 15 Exhibit SPR-1, RPD reasons, paragraphs 33 to 38. 16 Exhibit SPR-1, RPD reasons, paragraphs 39 to 41. 17 Exhibit SPR-1, RPD record, Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form), page 27. 18 Hearing, starting at 45 minutes 25 seconds. 19 Exhibit SPR-1, RPD record, BOC Form, page 27. 20 Hearing, 0:52:42 21 Hearing. 0:54. 22 Hearing. 0:54. 23 Hearing. 1:18:8. 24 Hearing. 1:22:22. 25 Exhibit SPR-1, RPD record, BOC Form, page 27. 26 Exhibit SPR-1, RPD record, Statutory declaration, page 156. 27 Exhibit SPR-1, RPD record, Statutory declaration, page 154. 28 Hearing, 2:15:41. 29 Exhibit SPR-1, RPD record, Interview of December 13, 2019, page 156. 30 Hearing, 1:30:35. 31 Hearing, 2:15:41. 32 Hissein v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 698; Alexibich v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 53; Joseph Ithibu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 288; Morales Alba v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 1116. 33 Rahaman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCA 89 (CanLII), [2002] 3 FC 537. 34 Sheikh v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1990 CanLII 8017 (FCA), [1990] 3 FC 238. 35 Brahim v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1215. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC2-03197 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) 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 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français