TB6-10177

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 : TB6-10177 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 Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision November 30, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Lesley Mason Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Richard A. Odeleye 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 FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant), a citizen of Nigeria, is appealing the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying her claim for refugee protection. The Appellant is requesting that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside and substitute the negative determination with a positive determination. The Appellant submits no new evidence in support of her appeal nor does she request an oral hearing under section 110(6) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee nor is she a person in need of protection. The RAD dismisses the appeal. Background [3] The Appellant alleges that she is bisexual. [4] The Appellant had her first same-sex relationship while she was in secondary school with a classmate named XXXX. They continued their relationship until XXXX moved to XXXX. [5] From 1989 to 1990 the Appellant attended the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX where she had a same-sex relationship with a fellow student named XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The Appellant lost contact with XXXX shortly after they completed college. [6] The Appellant married XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX when she became pregnant. Her husband was a well-known politician in the XXXX XXXX Government. The Appellant thought she could correct her sexual orientation by marrying. [7] The Appellant met XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in a XXXX XXXX in 2000 around the time she gave birth to her second child. The Appellant and XXXX entered a same-sex relationship which lasted until 2004 when the Appellant went to work in Dubai. The Appellant returned to Nigeria in 2009. [8] XXXX began to face political problems in XXXX 2014. XXXX lost the 2015 general election. Party infighting began XXXX XXXX refused to step down to allow another politician, XXXX XXXX, to win a position within the party. At around the same time, XXXX, the Appellant's former same-sex partner, surprised the Appellant with a visit. During their conversation XXXX made sexual advances towards the Appellant. XXXX indicated to the Appellant that she could introduce her to other women. [9] The day before the Appellant and her husband were to leave on a vacation to Canada, her husband received a telephone call advising him that there was proof that the Appellant was involved in same-sex relationships. When her husband presented her with this information, the Appellant denied it; he then threatened the caller. [10] The Appellant arrived in Canada with her husband on XXXX XXXX, 2015. Shortly after their arrival, the Appellant's husband received a call from XXXX. The Appellant learned that XXXX had recorded their conversation and she also learned that XXXX was married to the politician XXXX XXXX XXXX the rival of the Appellant's husband. The Appellant admitted her same-sex relationships to her husband. The Appellant's husband returned to Nigeria. [11] The Appellant made a claim for refugee protection on February 17, 2016. [12] The Appellant had refugee determination hearings on April 19, 2016, May 17, 2016 (postponed as a result of no interpreter available), and June 9, 2016. In a written decision issued on June 24, 2016, the RPD rejected the claim. The RPD member found that the Appellant had not established her personal and national identity. The RPD found that the Appellant was not a credible witness and is not a bisexual. [13] Appeal pleadings were received on August 24, 2016. In her appeal, the Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its findings regarding her personal and national identity. The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in its credibility findings by basing its findings on an incorrect assessment of the evidence. The Appellant argues that the RPD failed to conduct a section 97 analysis. ROLE OF THE RAD [14] The RAD finds that the recent Federal Court of Appeal decision, in Huruglica,1 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. [15] The RAD concludes from its statutory analysis that, with respect to findings of fact (and mixed fact and law), the RAD is to review RPD decisions applying the correctness standard. Thus, after carefully considering the RPD's decision, the RAD is to carry out its own analysis of the record to determine whether, as submitted by the Appellant, the RPD erred. ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE Identity [16] The RPD found that the Appellant failed to establish her identity on a balance of probabilities, principally because the Appellant's biometric information resulted in a disclosure of conflicting evidence regarding her identity, particularly in relation to her date of birth. The RPD did not find the Appellant's explanations for the Nigerian authorities having issued, on two separate occasions, two incorrect dates of birth to be credible. The RPD noted that the independent documentary evidence indicates that extensive checks are required in the Nigerian passport application and, unfortunately, passport fraud is known to be an issue in Nigeria. The RPD also found that the Appellant confused her age throughout her testimony related to significant events in her life which compounded the issue of her identity. The RPD found that the inconsistencies in the passports were a result of fraud. [17] The RPD considered the Appellant's other documentary evidence, such as a birth certificate issued in 1986 and a marriage certificate which did not contain the Appellant's date of birth. The RPD found that there was nothing on the face of the documents to make it doubt their genuineness but found that they were insufficient to reconcile the discrepancies in the Appellant's three passports. [18] The Appellant submits that the RPD looked away when it came to considering the medical diagnoses of a highly experienced and qualified psychologist who clearly stated that the Appellant would have difficulty giving clear and consistent testimony because of her diminished mental capacity. The Appellant submits that the RPD's overzealousness and myopic reasoning led the RPD to reject her identity when she travelled to Canada on her country's passport with a Canadian visa. The Appellant argues that she provided her marriage certificate and other documents to buttress her identity. The Appellant submits further that the RPD rejected her identity because it found deficiency in her oral testimony. The Appellant argues that it defies credulity that the RPD would use the testimony of a mentally deficient person to defeat identity documents issued by the authority of Nigeria. [19] The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's submissions. The Psychological Report2 [20] The Appellant provided an assessment from XXXX XXXX, Registered Psychotherapist, dated XXXX XXXX, 2016, as evidence for her claim. The RAD will first consider the RPD's finding regarding the "psychological" report. [21] The RPD stated in its decision that it considered the psychological report from Ms. XXXX XXXX. The RPD found it possible that the Appellant may have some diminished cognitive capacity, as stated by Ms. XXXX. The RPD found, however, that it gave the report limited weight due to the limitations in the report. The RPD noted that while Ms. XXXX indicated that the Appellant displayed poor comprehension during their interview, it was unclear whether this was due to the Appellant's lack of English or due to some as yet undiagnosed emotional or mental condition. The RPD also noted that Ms. XXXX stated that the Appellant was unable to provide sufficient information such that not even a rudimentary determination could be made. [22] The RPD found that although the Appellant's testimony suffered from inconsistencies and omissions, the Appellant understood the questions put to her and that her explanations were fluid and detailed. The RPD found that the factors outlined by Ms. XXXX were not sufficient to reasonably explain the numerous inconsistencies and omissions in the Appellant's evidence. [23] For the following reasons, the RAD agrees with the weight assigned by the RPD to the report written by Ms. XXXX. [24] The report's author, XXXX XXXX, is not "a highly experienced and qualified psychologist" as submitted by the Appellant. Ms. XXXX is a registered psychotherapist "specializing in the assessment and treatment of serious disorders of thought, cognition, mood, emotional regulation, perception, and memory." Her assessments are based on "in-depth interviews, which typically last between 60-90 minutes." 3 [25] While Ms. XXXX is not a medical doctor, psychiatrist, or psychologist, she appears to communicate a diagnosis: "...it is my clinical impression that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant) is showing signs of severely diminished cognitive capacities."4 [26] Section 27 of the Regulated Health Professionals Act, S.O. 1991, Chapter 18 describes the communication of a diagnosis as a "controlled act," not to be performed unless the communicator is so authorized by a health profession Act, or unless the action has been delegated by a person who is so authorized. It does not appear that Ms. XXXX meets either qualification. The controlled act of diagnosis, at S.27(2)(1), is communicating to the individual or his personal representative a diagnosis identifying a disease or disorder as the cause of symptoms of the individual in circumstances in which it is reasonably foreseeable that the individual or his personal representative will rely on the diagnosis. [27] Ms. XXXX letter clearly sets out to communicate a diagnosis, to be relied upon in the proceedings before the RPD. The RAD notes that contravention of the Regulated Health Professionals Act by a psychotherapist is considered professional misconduct.5 This assessment deserves little weight, as its author is neither a doctor nor a psychologist and therefore not qualified to make or communicate a diagnosis.6 [28] Further, Ms. XXXX went well beyond the scope of even a psychological or psychiatric report when she apparently made her own finding with respect to the Appellant's allegations of past persecution. She wrote that the Appellant's functioning "could be understood as psychological responses to a number of past and present factors, including but not limited to the prolonged concealment of her sexual orientation."7 Ms. XXXX subsequently wrote that "If under threat of imprisonment for homosexual acts in Nigeria, Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX would have no opportunity to obtain adequate treatment, and her condition would likely deteriorate."8 Ms. XXXX went on to advocate for the Appellant to remain in Canada. [29] It is the role of the RPD and the RAD to determine the credibility of the Appellant's allegations and to determine the risk faced upon return to Nigeria. Here the psychotherapist's report appears to have first strayed beyond her scope of practice to provide a diagnosis, and then even further to conduct a credibility analysis and risk assessment. The author of the report has inappropriately mixed opinion with advocacy, and for this reason too, her report warrants little, if any, weight.9 [30] The RAD, having listened to the almost five hours of the recording of hearings, agrees with the RPD that the Appellant understood the questions put to her and that her explanations were fluid and detailed. The Appellant's passports [31] Three Nigerian passports issued in her name were entered as evidence for the Appellant's hearing before the RPD. i) A passport issued on XXXX XXXX, 2015 in the Appellant's name indicates that her birthdate is XXXX XXXX, 1966.10 (the passport used by Appellant to travel to Canada) ii) A passport issued on XXXX XXXX, 2010 in the Appellant's name indicates that her birthdate is XXXX XXXX, 1978.11 (A report from the United Kingdom (UK) indicates that the Appellant used the passport to apply for a visa to the UK on XXXX XXXX, 2010. The visa was refused.)12 iii) A passport issued on XXXX XXXX, 2013 in the Appellant's name indicates that her birthdate is XXXX XXXX, 1966.13 (A report from the United Kingdom (UK) indicates that the Appellant used the passport to apply for a visa to the UK on XXXX XXXX, 2013. The visa was refused.)14 [emphasis added] [32] According to the recording of the first hearing, the RPD pointed out the discrepancies in the date of birth in the passports. When the Appellant was questioned about the passport issued on XXXX XXXX, 2010, she testified that she obtained the passport in order to apply for a visa to the UK. She testified that when she applied for this passport she attached to the visa application a previously issued passport with her correct date of birth, XXXX XXXX, 1966. Upon being asked, she testified that the error in the birth date on that particular passport was a mistake made by the Nigerian authorities. She testified further that the date error was one reason why the visa was denied. The Appellant testified that she noticed the mistake in her birth date but she did not attempt to have it corrected because she was concerned that she would be too late for the scheduled trip to the UK. The RAD finds it possible that an error on a passport could be made by an issuing authority. However, the RAD finds the Appellant's explanation for submitting a document to the UK authorities with a critical error unsatisfactory. [33] According to the recording of the hearing, the Appellant was then asked about item iii) above, the passport issued on XXXX XXXX, 2013. The Appellant testified that through the Nigerian immigration authorities she applied for a new passport with her correct date of birth. She testified that this passport, issued on XXXX XXXX, 2013, also had an incorrect date of birth. She testified further that when she saw the error she was advised that she would have to go to Abuja, the capital, to obtain an e-passport. The Appellant testified that when she attempted to do this, she was advised to obtain an affidavit which explained the birth date discrepancy and to attach the affidavit to her visa application to the UK. The RPD then asked the Appellant why she obtained an affidavit rather than simply having her passport corrected. The Appellant responded that she had been told that a new passport was unnecessary and that an affidavit would suffice. The RAD finds this explanation unsatisfactory. The RAD finds it unreasonable that any person would be expected to attach an affidavit to a passport with incorrect date rather than simply having a new passport issued with the correct information. The RAD finds this particularly so when considering that a person might wish to apply for another visa with the same passport at a later date. The RAD also finds it particularly so when considering that the biographical data might, on some occasion, be compared to other identity documents the Appellant was holding. [34] In any case, the RAD finds the Appellant's various explanations unsatisfactory. While possible, the RAD finds it not probable that the Nigerian authorities would twice issue a passport to the Appellant with an incorrect date of birth or that the Appellant was advised that an affidavit would suffice to explain incorrect data on a passport. The RAD is guided by the words of Mr. Justice Mahoney in Orelien,15 wherein he stated: It seems to me one cannot be satisfied the evidence is credible or trustworthy unless satisfied that it is probably so, not just possibly so. [35] In addition, the RAD notes the RPD's reference to information concerning the issuance of passports in the National Documentation Package (NDP). A Response to Information Request (RIR) 16 indicates that the Nigerian Immigration Service (NIS) is the government department responsible for the issuance of all Nigerian travel documents. The documentary requirements for obtaining a Nigerian e-passport in Nigeria includes a guarantor's form signed by a commissioner of oaths, a photocopy of the data page of the guarantor's passport, photocopy of the guarantor's national identity card and driver's licence, the applicant's marriage certificate, applicant's birth certificate, letter of identification from the local government, a passport photograph, and an acknowledgement slip with receipt of payment. The RIR indicates that the Nigerian newspaper, The Leadership, has reported that the Comptroller-General of the NIS has expressed concern over the alleged irregularities in the issuance of international passports and that the NIS has dismissed officers at its headquarters for engaging in the fraudulent issuance of travel documents. Other identity documents [36] The Appellant provided a Certificate of Registration of Birth, issued on XXXX XXXX, 1986,17 as evidence of her identity. The RAD gives this document little weight for the following reasons. The certificate has no security features. If, as the Appellant alleges, she was born on XXXX XXXX, 1966, she would have been over 19 years of age when this document was issued. However, according to an RIR in the independent documentary evidence,18 the Deputy Director of the Vital Registration Department of the National Population Commission indicated that birth certificates are only issued to children born in Nigeria under the age of 18 years old whose births are registered; people over 18 who were not registered at the time of their births are issued attestation letters. [37] The Appellant provided a Certificate of Marriage as evidence at her hearing before the RPD.19 The RAD finds nothing on the face of the document to make it doubt its genuineness. However, the Appellant's date of birth is not found on the document and the RAD notes that there are no security features on the certificate. In addition, given the discrepancies in the Appellant's passport and the Appellant's overall credibility, discussed below, the RAD is unable to assign any significant weight to the document as regards the Appellant's personal or national identity. Credibility [38] The RPD found that the Appellant overall was not a credible witness. In coming to this finding, the RPD indicated that it had considered the Gender Guidelines.20 As discussed above, the RPD considered the "psychological" report provided by the Appellant for her claim. [39] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in its credibility findings because it turned her refugee hearing into an exercise in memory testing by developing a zeal for finding her not credible for not being able to recall the specifics even though many events occurred many years ago. The Appellant submits further that the RPD erred in not properly applying the Gender Guidelines and the diagnosis of the "Psychologist". [40] For the following reasons, the RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's submissions. [41] The RAD has, above, given detailed reasons for giving very little weight to the report21 issued by the psychotherapist. [42] The RAD has also considered the decision of the Federal Court in Rokni, where the Court held that "[a psychiatric report] cannot possibly serve as a cure-all for any and all deficiencies in the claimant's testimony."22 [43] The RAD can see no error in the RPD's treatment of the Gender Guidelines. Having listened to the recording of the two hearings, the RAD finds that the RPD took into account the Appellant's cultural background and treated her with sensitivity during the two hearings, and relieved her from having to provide precise details of her sexual experiences with any of her alleged same-sex partners. The Appellant did not allege she experienced any harm in Nigeria as a result of her sexual orientation. Therefore, there were no experiences in that regard which the Appellant might otherwise have had to discuss. The RAD does not find that the RPD engaged in a process of memory testing. Rather, the RPD questioned the Appellant about the alleged three same-sex relationships she had in Nigeria and found that her testimony was simply inconsistent in a number of areas. [44] The RAD provides four examples. [45] The Appellant provided inconsistent evidence about the circumstances surrounding her first meeting with XXXX, her alleged third same-sex partner. According to the recording of the hearing, the Appellant was asked about her relationship with a woman named XXXX. The Appellant testified that they met at a XXXX XXXX when they were both there to have their hair done. The RPD referred the Appellant to a letter from XXXX entered as evidence in which XXXX states that she did the Appellant's hair.23 The Appellant said that this was not true; she could provide no explanation for this inconsistency. The RAD, thus, finds the Appellant's credibility compromised. [46] According to the recording of the hearing, the Appellant was asked about her first same-sex relationship with XXXX. She testified that they met in 1982 and in 1987 their relationship became intimate. When the Appellant was asked how old she was when the relationship became intimate, the Appellant testified that she was 13 or 14 years of age. The RPD pointed out to the Appellant that according to information in her BOC in 1987 she would have been 20 years old. The Appellant then provided considerable testimony about starting school at an age older than most students and being older than XXXX. The RAD finds the Appellant's explanations unsatisfactory. The RAD finds it unreasonable that the Appellant would not recall that she was 20 years of age when she was in high school, particularly if, presumably, she was much older than the average student. The RAD, therefore, finds the Appellant's credibility impugned. [47] According to the recording of the hearing, the Appellant was questioned about meeting her same-sex partner, XXXX, again in 2015 at her place of business. The RPD asked the Appellant if there had been anyone else at her business on the day XXXX appeared. The Appellant testified that no one was there and that none of her staff were there. The Appellant then began to change her testimony. She eventually settled on testifying that two of her staff members were at the business and maybe one or two customers. The RPD then referred the Appellant to information contained in her BOC narrative which alleges that when XXXX arrived at her business she kept XXXX with her until no one, including staff, was there. The Appellant testified that from where she had been standing she could see no one but there were other people around. The RAD finds the Appellant's explanation unsatisfactory. The RAD finds the Appellant's initial testimony contradictory and manufactured. The occasion on which the Appellant allegedly met her former same-sex lover in XXXX 2015, shortly before she came to Canada, is critical to her claim. The RAD, thus, finds the Appellant's credibility undermined. [48] According to the recording of the hearing, it was necessary for the RPD to prompt the Appellant in order to obtain any detail about what occurred during the visit with XXXX in XXXX 2015. The Appellant testified that when XXXX called for her she did not recognize XXXX. She testified that they discussed their mutual friend XXXX. The Appellant testified that XXXX offered to introduce her to other women and XXXX spoke about the number of wives her husband has. With further prompting by the RPD, the Appellant repeated her testimony and then stated that she and XXXX discussed their previous relationship and XXXX husband. The RPD referred the Appellant to information in her BOC narrative which states that during that meeting she was "weak for her (XXXX)". The RPD then asked the Appellant why she had not provided this information. The Appellant testified that she had provided this information. She testified that she had already testified that XXXX informed her that she continued to be in same-sex relationships. The RPD again referred the Appellant to information in her written narrative which indicates that XXXX made advances towards her while at her place of business that day. The Appellant testified that she had been trying to say that. The RAD finds that the Appellant could provide no satisfactory explanation for omitting these allegations from her testimony. The meeting between the Appellant and XXXX is critical to the Appellant's claim. The Appellant's sexual feelings towards XXXX and XXXX advances toward the Appellant when others were present is an important allegation in the Appellant's story, particularly when the Appellant alleges that this meeting was recorded by XXXX. This alleged incident occurred approximately two months before the Appellant's hearing before the RPD. The RAD does not find it reasonable that the Appellant could not recall this significant information. The RAD finds that the Appellant's credibility is further undermined. [49] The Gender Guidelines do not oblige the RPD to overlook inconsistent evidence. [50] The Appellant does not challenge any of the particular and numerous credibility findings which the RAD finds amply support the RPD's decision. The jurisprudence is clear that the RPD is entitled to make findings based on implausibilities, common sense and rationality. A heavy burden lies on the Appellant to rebut the Board's finding that she lacks credibility.24 [51] The RAD, thus, finds that the Appellant's is not a trustworthy witness. Other documentary evidence [52] Although the RPD noted irregularities in some of the documentary evidence provided by the Appellant such as the misspelling of the word "commissioner" on a number of affidavits issued in Nigeria and photographs which appeared altered, the RPD did not draw a negative inference. [53] The RPD found that it was unable to find that the Appellant's documentary evidence was sufficient to overcome all of the serious identity and credibility concerns. With regard to documents from the Canadian organizations which provide support sexual minorities, the RPD did not doubt that the Appellant attended these organizations. However, the RPD found it more likely than not that the Appellant did not attend these organizations out of a genuine desire to seek support for her sexual orientation but rather to bolster a fraudulent refugee claim. [54] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in law by wrongly and unduly disregarding the supporting evidence provided such as affidavits and support letters from organizations in Canada that cater to the interests of sexual minorities. [55] The RAD accordingly considered the documentary evidence. Affidavits [56] For the following reasons, the RAD gives little weight to the affidavit from XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX, 2016,25 the affidavit from XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX, 2016.26 Both affidavits, issued from the High Court of XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, have the typographical error "COMMISIONER FOR OATHS". [ emphasis added] The RAD does not accept the Appellant's explanation during her oral testimony that such spelling errors are common in Nigeria. English is the official language of Nigeria.27 The RAD finds it very unlikely that a high court in the largest city in Nigeria would have the same obvious spelling error of the word commissioner on two documents issued on two separate dates. The RAD assigns no weight to these documents. [57] For the same reason, the RAD gives little weight to the affidavit from the Appellant's husband, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX, 2016.28 The RAD finds it highly unlikely that an affidavit issued by the High Court of Justice, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, would have the same obvious spelling error of the word "commissioner". [58] The RAD notes that the independent documentary evidence indicates that fraudulent documents are easily obtained in Nigeria.29 In particular, a NBA (Nigerian Bar Association) representative stated that fraudulent affidavits are "widely available".30 The RAD finds that on a balance of probability these affidavits are fraudulent. As a result, the Appellant's credibility is further undermined. The RAD finds that documents found to be counterfeit cast doubt on the allegations themselves. Photographs [59] The Appellant provided four photographs of herself with a same-sex partner.31 The RAD gives little weight to these photographs for the following reason. The photographs have obviously all been altered to place the Appellant with another woman. In three photographs, the background behind each person in the photograph is distinctly different. In the fourth photograph, the figures appear to have been cut and pasted together. According to the recording of the hearing, upon being asked about the photographs, the Appellant testified that they had not been altered. The RAD finds this explanation unsatisfactory when the alterations are very obvious. The Appellant's credibility is further impugned for having provided documents altered to support her allegations that she was involved in same-sex relationships. Letters [60] The Appellant provided a letter from XXXX XXXX, Toronto, dated XXXX XXXX, 2016, as evidence of her sexual identity.32 The letter indicates that the Appellant attended four of the weekly newcomer LGBTQ Resettlement Support Workshops. The letter states that the Appellant provided the author of the letter with information regarding her refugee claim. [61] The Appellant provided a letter from XXXX, Toronto, dated XXXX XXXX, 2016, as evidence of her sexual identity.33 The letter states that the Appellant is an active member of the XXXX Community Centre Among Friends LGBTQ Refugee Support Group. [62] The Appellant provided a letter from XXXX XXXX Church of Toronto, dated XXXX XXXX, 2016, as evidence of her sexual identity.34 The letter indicates that the Appellant began attending the church on XXXX XXXX, 2016 and has attended two monthly Refugee Peer Support meetings. [63] The letters establish that the Appellant has attended activities at these organizations. However, these three letters have little value in determining sexual orientation. Although the three organizations have special programs for sexual minorities, including those seeking refugee status in Canada, it has not been established that the Appellant's affiliation with these organizations, whether for counselling or other purposes, stems from any vulnerable sexual orientation on her part. These organizations are not restricted to LGBT individuals and the letters do not overtly identify the Appellant as bisexual. Therefore, the RAD gives the letters little weight. Summary [64] Based on a review of the totality of the evidence, the Appellant has not provided sufficient credible or trustworthy evidence in support of her claim. The RAD, therefore, finds that the Appellant has not established her personal or national identity. The RAD also finds that the Appellant is not bisexual. [65] Given findings in the previous paragraph, the RAD finds it unnecessary to complete a section 97 analysis. DISPOSITION [66] Based on the analysis above, the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee nor is she a person in need of protection, as per section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. [67] The appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Lesley Mason" Lesley Mason November 30, 2016 Date 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, pp. 155-158. 3 Ibid., p. 155. 4 Ibid. 5 Ontario Regulation 317/12, under the Psychotherapy Act, 2007, S.O. 2007, c. 10, sched. R. The RAD has previously commented on psychotherapist reports such as this one in X (Re), 2014 CanLII 96038 (CA IRB), X (Re), 2013 CanLII 99308 (CA IRB), and X (Re), 2014 CanLII 95954 (CA IRB). 6 See Boros, Andras Erno v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3915-00), Lemieux, June 12, 2002, para. 13. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 155. 8 Ibid., p. 157. 9 See Egbesola, Moriyike v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-3058-15), Zinn, February 16, 2016,2016 FC 204, para. 13. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, pp. 60-63. 11 Ibid., p. 137. 12 Ibid., pp. 134-136, 139. 13 Ibid., p. 138. 14 Ibid., pp. 134-136, 139. 15 Orelien, Joseph v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-993-90), Heald, Mahoney, Stone, November 22, 1991. Reported: Orelien v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1992] 1 F.C. 592 (C.A.); (1991), 15 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1 (F.C.A.), at 11. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for Nigeria (April 29, 2016), item 3.2. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 188. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for Nigeria (April 29, 2016), item 3.11. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 165. 20 Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Update, Guideline Issued by the Chairperson Pursuant to Section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 25, 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002, under the authority found in section 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, pp. 155-158. 22 Rokni, Mohammad Mehdi v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-6068-93), Muldoon, January 27, 1995. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 189. 24Aguebor, Clement v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-1116-91), Marceau, Desjardins, Décary, July 16, 1993. Reported: Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.) 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 162. 26 Ibid., pp. 163-164. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for Nigeria (April 29, 2016), item 1.6. 28 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, pp. 193-195. 29 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for Nigeria (April 29, 2016), item 3.10. 30 Ibid., item 9.2. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 179. 32 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 159. 33 Ibid., p. 160. 34 Ibid., p. 161. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-10177