TB4-08043

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 : TB4-08043 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) Personne(s) en cause (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision January 28, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Luis F. Agostinho Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Johnson Babalola Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Barrister and Solicitor Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant), who claims to be a citizen of Nigeria, appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying her claim for refugee protection. She has submitted new evidence in support of her appeal. The Appellant asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to set aside the decision of the RPD and substitute its own positive decision, or to refer her claim to the RPD for redetermination by a differently-constituted panel. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to Section 111(1)(a) of IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. Background [3] The Appellant alleged before the RPD that she is a bisexual from Nigeria. The Appellant further alleges that in XXXX 2013 or XXXX 2014 (there are two different dates for the same occurrence), she was discovered in a sexual act, with her same sex partner, by her father who had convinced the apartment manager to grant him access to his daughter's apartment to surprise his daughter. Her same sex partner's father began to shout and commenced physically assaulting the Appellant, who managed to escape when a crowd gathered outside the building. The Appellant fled to Abuja to stay with a trusted friend and, with the assistance of her friend, made arrangements with an agent to flee to Canada. The Appellant, with fraudulent documents that were provided by the agent, travelled to Canada, where she applied for refugee protection at the airport upon arrival. [4] The Appellant's refugee claim was heard on August 19, 2014. By decision and reasons dated August 27, 2014, the RPD rejected the claim, finding that the Appellant had not established her personal identity. The RPD rejected the Appellant's Declaration of Age,1 the Attestation of Birth2 and the two-part enrollment slip, National Identity Management System,3 finding them to be unreliable documents, and gave them little weight. [5] The Appellant asks the RAD to admit and consider new evidence, including her own affidavit, a copy of the bio-data page of her Nigerian Passport,4 copy of front and rear of Nigerian Driver's Licence, and a voter's card,5 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,6 a letter from the XXXX XXXX XXXX,7 two illegible pages stamped by XXXX XXXX XXXX,8 affidavit of XXXX XXXX9, treasury receipt,10 copy of FedEx envelope.11 ROLE OF THE RAD [6] The Appellant argues that the RPD made numerous errors of fact in rejecting her refugee claim. The Appellant further argues that the RPD made numerous errors in its credibility findings. As such, this appeal raises questions of fact in respect to those errors. [7] Counsel made no submissions in regard to the role that the RAD plays in the review of an RPD decision. The Appellant was invited to make submissions regarding the cases of Eng and Alvarez.12 However, the RAD finds that the recent Federal Court decision, in Huruglica,13 provides the RAD with guidance in relation to the appropriate standard that must be applied by a specialized tribunal such as the RAD to decisions of a first-level administrative tribunal. Justice Phelan states, in paragraphs 54 and 55, of the foregoing decision: [54] Having concluded that the RAD erred in reviewing the RPD's decision on the standard of reasonableness, I have further concluded that for the reasons above, the RAD is required to conduct a hybrid appeal. It must review all aspects of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the claimant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Where its assessment departs from that of the RPD, the RAD must substitute its own decision. [55] In conducting its assessment, it 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 an "overriding and palpable error." [8] Accordingly, the RAD will conduct its own assessment of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the Appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. The RAD will recognize and respect the credibility findings of the RPD or other findings where the RPD has a particular advantage in reaching its conclusions. [9] The RPD's decision focuses on the issue of identity and credibility. A claim for refugee protection must be denied as soon as the RPD determines that a claimant's identity has not been established;14 however, in this case, the RPD therefore did proceed to consider the merits of the claim, including the Appellant's alleged identity as a bisexual woman, the credibility of her allegations, and her fear of future persecution in Nigeria. [10] The new evidence provided by the Appellant establishes that the decision of the RPD on personal identity is, in retrospect, not necessarily wrong. It is not necessary for the RAD to engage in any further review of the findings of the RPD, and therefore it is also unnecessary to undertake an analysis of the appropriate standard of review. ANALYSIS Admissibility of Evidence Submitted on Appeal [11] Section 110(4) of IRPA provides that the Appellant may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of his claim or that was not reasonably available, or that he could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. [12] The following evidence was submitted by the Appellant to the RAD and must meet the test described above in order to be admissible: * (a) a copy of the bio-data page of her Nigerian Passport;15 * (b) Nigerian Driver's Licence; 16 * (c) a voter's card ;17 * (d) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX;18 * (e) a letter from the XXXX XXXX XXXX;19 * (f) two illegible pages stamped by XXXX XXXX XXXX;20 * (g) affidavit of XXXX XXXX;21 * (h) treasury receipt;22 and, * (i) copy of FedEx envelope.23 [13] The document in (a) is a copy of what purports to be a bio-data page from a passport which bears the name of the Appellant and photo with the likeness of the Appellant, however the photo is very distorted and poor, making the likeness of the person in the photo unidentifiable. It was issued on XXXX XXXX 2011, expiring on XXXX XXXX 2016 in Abuja. The Appellant does not provide a reasonable explanation why this document was not available before her hearing, only that maybe it was at her uncle's house; the Appellant further does not indicate what steps she took to obtain it. Portions of her memorandum set out the basis of the Appellant's refugee claim, information which predates the rejection of those claims, which was before the RPD and which is already before the RAD as part of the RPD record. However, the affidavit does not contain the Appellant's full explanation for the provision of all new evidence, and the RAD requires that explanation in order to assess the new evidence submitted to the RAD. [14] The other document, which is document (b), is a Nigerian Driver's Licence, which has an issue date of March 16, 2011. The RAD is able to determine that this document arose before the rejection of the claim and should have been available prior to the RPD hearing. The issue is if it was reasonably available at the time of the rejection of the Appellant's claim, but there is no reasonable explanation why it was not available prior to the hearing. The RAD also has some concerns about its authenticity and if it is credible. In reviewing the documentary evidence, the RAD found the driver's licence, on a balance of probabilities, not to be genuine. The evidence states that no first time driver's licences were issued between 01 March 2011 and 01 June 2011.24 The RAD notes that the driver's licence, which has been submitted, does not state that it is a re-issue, only that it was first issued on XXXX XXXX, 2011 clearly indicating it's a first-time issue. Although he said the system was implemented in March 2011, the Corps Marshal and Chief Executive acknowledged that "first time applicants were not issued licenses" between 1 March and 1 June (ibid. 3 Feb. 2012a). The public information section of the FRSC website similarly indicates that first-time applications to obtain a driver's licence would "only be processed from June 1, 2011" (ibid. n.d.d). The website also says that all licences set to expire between February and June 2011 would be extended until 30 June 2011 (ibid. n.d.e). However, the Corps Marshal and Chief Executive said that, once licences began to be issued to first-time drivers, all states "complied" with "the date of commencement of issuance" (ibid. 3 Feb. 2012a). [15] There are discrepancies on the licence, which can be seen visually; the actual licence which is protected by a coating of some sort, which is visible to the naked eye, shows the heading, "Federal Republic of Nigeria" is badly faded, when it hasn't been exposed to everyday wear as it's protected. [16] The other document, which is document (c), a voter's card, is dated XXXX XXXX, 2011. The RAD finds that this document did not arise after the rejection of the claim. The issue is if it was reasonably available at the time of the rejection of the Appellant's claim, but there is no reasonable explanation why it was not available prior to the hearing. The RAD also notes that, when you look at the picture on the card, and compare it to the other photos provided by the Appellant, on a balance of probabilities, the likeness of the person on the voter's card and the other photos are not alike. It appears to be two different persons. [17] The next document (d), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX report, the date is illegible, and the RAD has some concerns about its authenticity. The documentary evidence indicates as follows: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [18] The RAD notes that there are only seven subjects graded, as opposed to the minimum eight. The RAD also notes the name on the certificate is different, as is the date of birth showing the Appellant as being born on XXXX XXXX, 1987. [19] The next document (e) is a letter from the XXXX XXXX XXXX, undated and the ink stamp is illegible. [20] The next document (f) is two illegible pages stamped by XXXX XXXX XXXX, with unknown content in the body of pages, therefore I am not accepting if for the content is illegible and the RAD is unable to determine what it is, how it is relevant or material to the Appellant. [21] The next document (g) is an affidavit of XXXX XXXX dated 12 September 2014. The RAD has some concerns about the coincidence of its arrival and the RAD has some concerns regarding the credibility of the document and its contents. The affiant did not provide a copy of the page in the passport that she alleges prohibits the transportation of a Nigerian passport via courier service.25 The affiant further states in the body of her affidavit that the documents were found on July 28, 2014 and she e-mailed copies of her international passport, driver's licence, and voters' card to the Appellant. The affiant also states, at paragraph 3 of her affidavit, which the documents were found on July 27, 2014, by the same person. However, this affidavit is not sworn to until September 12, 2014 after the RPD rejection and by coincidence addresses the submission of the evidence. The RAD also notes that the affiant does not state that she forwarded the physical documents to the Appellant. This affidavit clearly shows that the evidence was available well before the RPD hearing. The affiant swears that the documents were found on July 28, 2014 which pre-dates the rejection by the RPD of the Appellant's claim. There is no reasonable explanation to why these could not have been reasonably available prior to the RPD's rejection. As such, the RAD determines that they could have well been submitted prior to the hearing. [22] The next document (h) is a treasury receipt dated XXXX XXXX, 2014 made out to XXXX XXXX in the amount of XXXX Niara; the RAD notes that the date is after the rejection of the hearing; however, there is no explanation of how this document is relevant to the Appellant. [23] The next document (i) is a Fed EX envelope addressed to the Appellant with a delivery date of October 01, 2014. Again, there is no explanation of its relevancy to the RAD. The envelope does not meet the criteria I section 110 (4). However, the RAD does note that the sender's name is XXXX XXXX XXXX, residing at XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, Lagos, Nigeria. The Appellant claims that her cousin, XXXX, sent her the documents; if that is the case, the address of XXXX XXXX is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Lagos State. There is no explanation as to why these addresses do not match, which only leads the RAD to have some credibility concerns about the relevancy of the document. [24] The principal Appellant's affidavit: Portions of this affidavit set out the basis of the Appellant's refugee claim, information which predates the rejection of those claims, which was before the RPD and which is already before the RAD as part of the RPD record. However, Paragraph 6 of the affidavit contains the principal Appellant's explanation for the provision of new evidence, and the RAD requires that explanation in order to assess the other new evidence submitted to the RAD. [25] Could the Appellant reasonably have been expected, in his circumstance, to have presented these documents to the RPD before her claim was rejected? Refugee claimants have an obligation to establish their identity, on a balance of probabilities.26 Section 106 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states that: The Refugee Protection Division must take into account, with respect to the credibility of a claimant, whether the claimant possesses acceptable documentation establishing identity, and if not, whether they have provided a reasonable explanation for the lack of documentation or have taken reasonable steps to obtain the documentation.27 [26] Similarly, Rule 11 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules requires that: The claimant must provide acceptable documents establishing their identity and other elements of the claim. A claimant who does not provide acceptable documents must explain why they did not provide the documents and what steps they took to obtain them.28 [27] The Basis of Claim form (BoC) advises that the refugee claimant is "responsible for obtaining and providing to the IRB any documents that may support your claim."29 [28] The Appellant was represented by competent counsel before the RPD. She could reasonably have been expected to know that identity was an issue, given the references to the issue in the Act, the Rules, and the BoC form. Despite this, the only identity documents she provided were three impugned documents, her Letter of Attestation and a Declaration of Age, and two-part enrollment slip, National Identity Management System. In contrast, the new evidence submitted by the Appellant to the RAD is a copy of a copy of a passport bio-data page of a female that the Appellant purports to be, a voter's card, a Nigerian driver's licence, and some other documents. As such, the RAD does find these documents persuasive and, as a result, does not accept these documents as proof of her identity. [29] The Appellant provide an explanation that her uncle locked them up - and the RAD did not find that it was a reasonable explanation for the lack of documents, however the documents were found on July 28 and the RPD decision was not made until almost three weeks later on August 20 and the Appellant has not provided an explanation as to why the photocopies could not be sent earlier and prior to the rejection (they were only sent by FedEx on September 27th. [30] The RAD finds that the new identity documents presented by the Appellant did not arise after the rejection of her refugee claim, were reasonably available for presentation to the RPD, and that the Appellant reasonably could have been expected, in the circumstances, to have presented them at the time her claim was rejected. Documents (a) thru (i) do not meet the test in Section 110(4) of IRPA and therefore are not admitted as new evidence in this appeal. [31] For these reasons, the RAD finds that none of the Appellant's proposed new evidence is admissible under Section 110(4) of IRPA. As such, the new evidence proposed is not admitted into the record. Application for an Oral Hearing [32] The Appellant asks that an oral hearing be held, pursuant to Section 110(6) of IRPA. [33] Section 110(3) of IRPA requires that the RAD proceed without a hearing, on the basis of the RPD record, while allowing the RAD to accept documentary evidence and submissions from the Minister and the person who is the subject of the appeal. The person, who is the subject of the appeal, may, pursuant to Section 110(4), present "only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or that was not reasonably available, or that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection." [34] According to Section 110(6), upon which the Appellant relies, the RAD may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, there is documentary evidence referred to in Section 110(3) that raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellant, that is central to the RPD's decision, and that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. In this appeal, where there is no evidence from or in response to the Minister, the documentary evidence referred to in Section 110(3) must be understood in relation to Section 110(4). [35] When read together, Sections 110(3), (4), and (6) establish that the RAD must not hold a hearing in an appeal such as this unless there is new evidence,30 in which case the RAD may hold a hearing if that new evidence raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellant, is central to the RPD decision, and that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. [36] The RAD has not admitted any new evidence submitted by the Appellant in support of his appeal. As such, the RAD must proceed without a hearing, and the Appellant's request for an oral hearing is denied. RAD's Assessment of the Evidence [37] The RAD, after a careful review of the RPD's reasons, notes that the RPD found the Appellant to be generally lacking in credibility. The RPD made a finding that the Appellant was not credible overall and that the lack of credibility extended to all aspects of the claim. A review of the reasons and the audio recording of the hearing reveal that the RPD found several credibility concerns which went to the heart of the Appellant's allegations. [38] The Appellant argues that the RPD made a number of errors in finding that she had not established her identity and that she was not credible. Specifically: Whether the panel erred in law by rejecting the Appellant's identity documents, and/ or erred in fact in its analysis of those documents? The Appellant alleges that the panel erred in its assessment of the three documents she had presented. The Declaration of Age (Appellant refers to this document as her birth certificate), the Attestation of Birth and the two-part enrollment slip issued by the National Identity Management System (NIMS), which is used to register for a national identity number. [39] The RAD, in reviewing the audio of the hearing and the Appeal record, noted the following in regards to the documents submitted by the Appellant. In the hearing, when questioned, the Appellant testified that she had only applied for one government document in 2014, and no other.31 The Appellant testified that she only applied for the Declaration of Age in 2014 but could not remember when exactly or where she went to apply for the document.32 The Appellant was asked what was the process that one went through to obtain this letter, however there were long pauses in the response, and finally she responded that you just go to the office and apply.33 The Appellant made no effort to explain the process was required to obtain one. The Appellant could not provide any persuasive evidence that she obtained the Declaration of Age, and testified that she was the one that applied for it, not anyone else. [40] The RAD notes, in the documentary evidence,34 as follows; 7. Requirements and Procedures to Obtain an Attestation Letter in Nigeria The Deputy Director provided the following information regarding the requirements and procedures to obtain an attestation letter in Nigeria: * attestation letters can be obtained at NPC state offices and headquarters; * at the NPC state office or headquarters, the applicant's sworn age declaration affidavit is photocopied and the applicant is asked to fill in a form and pay a fee to the accountant in charge of processing the payments. The fee charged for an attestation letter is N2,000 [C$13 (XE 25 Oct. 2013)], but the fee is "subject to review at any time." A receipt of the payment is issued and photocopied; * the photocopied sworn affidavit, the receipt, the completed form, and two passport photographs are submitted to the "Chief Registrar (state director) at the state level," which he endorses and then gives to the head of the vital registration department to prepare the "Letter of Attestation." The Chief Registrar signs and stamps the attestation letter on behalf of the Chairman of the NPC; * at headquarters, after the payment has been made and the receipt has been issued, the applicant gathers the completed form given at the Deputy Registrar General's office, photocopies of the affidavit, the receipt of payment, and two passport photographs, and the application is forwarded to the office of the Registrar General "who endorses it to the Deputy Chief Registrar General for the issuance of the [attestation] letter to be signed by a designated officer on behalf of the Chairman." (Nigeria 25 October 2013a) The Deputy Director added that attestation letters are signed either by the Chief Registrar at the state level, or by a designated officer at headquarters who signs on behalf of the Registrar General (ibid.). He said that "no Deputy Chief Registrar or Registrar is empowered to issue an attestation letter" (ibid.). [41] Further questioning by the panel in regards to the Declaration of Age (Appellant identified as her birth certificate), as per conversation in the audio of the hearing, the panel showed the Appellant the Declaration of Age, which she identified as the document that she referred to as her birth certificate.35 The Appellant testified that the Declaration of Age was issued a long time ago. She testified that she had it for a long time. If she had any other identity documents, she replied she did not.36 The Appellant was asked again if she had applied for any other identity documents other than the Declaration of Age, and she replied in the negative.37 [42] The RAD finds that the conclusions by the RPD are supportable, and the RAD concurs with the RPD, on the part of the RPD in its reference to or treatment of this evidence. The RAD is aware of the documentary evidence that clearly states that the availability of fraudulent documents is readily available.38 [43] The RAD, after a careful review of the RPD's reasons, notes that the RPD found the Appellant to be generally lacking in credibility. The RPD made a finding that the Appellant was not credible overall and that the lack of credibility extended to all aspects of the claim. A review of the reasons and the audio recording of the hearing reveal that the RPD found several credibility concerns which went to the heart of the Appellant's allegations. [44] The RPD had first-hand access to the documents and to the testimony of the Appellant, and has a degree of expertise in this area.39 The RPD is not required to have a document verified as long as there is enough evidence to cast doubt on its authenticity.40 In this instance, there was sufficient evidence to doubt the veracity of Declaration of Age, the Attestation of Birth and the two-part enrollment slip issued by the National Identity Management System (NIMS). [45] The RAD finds the RPD's adverse credibility finding on the basis of the lack of knowledge by the Appellant in the acquisition of these documents, and not being able to provide identification documents which were credible and trustworthy are supportable. [46] The RPD's finding that the Appellant has not established her identity based on the documentary evidence along with her testimony presented before it, is supportable. Given that the Appellant has not established her personal and national identity, it is not necessary for the RAD to assess the other issues that the Appellant submits to the RAD. [47] Given the totality of the evidence, including the serious concerns with the credibility of the Appellant's allegations, the RAD recognizes and respects the RPD's findings that the Appellant has not established her personal and national identity. SUMMARY AND DETERMINATION [48] The RAD reviewed the evidence on the record and finds that it is sufficient evidence to find that the Appellant does not face a well-founded fear of persecution, or a risk to life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a risk of danger of torture by any authority in Nigeria. [49] The RAD has assessed the entirety of the evidence and I have reached the same conclusion the RPD did in its decision regarding the identity findings. CONCLUSION [50] Pursuant to Section 111(1)(a) of IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. [51] This appeal is therefore dismissed. (signed) 'Luis F. Agostinho' Luis F. Agostinho January 28, 2015 Date 1 Record of Appeal, p. 58 2 Record of Appeal, p. 59 3 Record of Appeal, pp. 60-62 4 Appellant's Record, p. 110 5 Appellant's Record, p. 111 6 Appellant's Record, p. 112 7 Appellant's Record, p. 113 8 Appellant's Record, pages 114-115 9 Appellant's Record, p. 116 10 Appellant's Record, p. 117 11 Appellant's Record, p. 118 12 Eng v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2014 FC 711 - 2014-07-17; Alvarez, Ismael Garcia v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-7218-13), Shore, July 17, 2014; 2014 CF 702. 13 Huruglica, Bujar v. M.C.I. (F.C. no. IMM-6362-13), Phelan, August 22, 2014; 2014 FC 799. 14 Ipala, Nkum-Ilub v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-3932-04), Blanchard, April 8, 2005; 2005 FC 472. 15 Appellant's Record, p. 110 16 Appellant's Record, p. 111 17 Appellant's Record, p. 111 18 Appellant's Record, p. 112 19 Appellant's Record, p. 113 20 Appellant's Record, pages 114-115 21 Appellant's Record, p. 116 22 Appellant's Record, p. 117 23 Appellant's Record, p. 118 24 National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 14 March 2014, item 3.3, 25 RAD Exhibit P-3, page 4, paragraph 5 26 Yip, Fu On v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no-A921-92), Nadon, October 27, 1993. 27 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Section 106. 28 Refugee Protection Division (RPD) Rules, SOR/2012-256. 29 Appellant's Record, p. 13, Basis of Claim Form, p. 1 of 12. 30 Section 110(4) 31 Audio recording, August 19, 2014 at 00:24:16 - 00:24:20 32 Audio recording, August 19, 2014 at 00:25:57 - 00:26:23 33 Audio recording, August 19, 2014 at 00:27:50 34 National Documentation Package, Nigeria March 14, 2014, Item 3.11- Requirements and procedures an adult must fulfill to obtain a birth certificate, including for those who apply from within the country and abroad- Response to Information Request NGA104601.E 35 Audio recording, August 19, 2014 at 00:27:55 7 & again at 00:35:11 36 Audio recording, August 19, 2014 at 00:30:22 - 00:31:02 37 Audio recording, August 19, 2014 at 00:31:37 38 National Documentation Package, Nigeria, March 14, 2014, items 3.9 and 3.19 39 Gasparyan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 863, IMM-3496-02, para. 6. 40 Hossain v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 160 at para. 4 (T.D.). --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB4-08043