TB6-04782

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 : TB6-04782 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 June 28, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Milton Israel Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Robert I. Blanshay 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 Sri Lanka, appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. He has provided proposed new evidence in support of his claim and he has requested an oral hearing. The Appellant further requests that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the decision of the RPD and find that he is a Convention refugee. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. The appeal is dismissed. Background [3] The Appellant alleged that his risk of persecution in Sri Lanka is based on his affiliation with the United National Party (UNP) and his work as a part-time XXXX for the XXXX XXXX, including XXXX XXXX of the government. [4] The Appellant alleged in his Basis of Claim (BOC) Form that his problems began in XXXX 2013 when the was abducted by three men, detained for three days, beaten and questioned about his work as a XXXX. The Appellant further alleged that he knew these men were from Sri Lankan army intelligence. He alleged as well that they told him they knew he was a member of the UNP which worked with the Tamil Diaspora to garner financial and political support. He was accused of taking money to XXXX anti-government XXXX. He was attacked with a bottle and awoke in a hospital where he required 43 stitches in his forehead. The Appellant stated that a policeman questioned him about his injuries, but he said that it was caused by an accident, since the police work with the army, and he thought that the perpetrators might return to the hospital. [5] The Appellant alleged that, in XXXX 2013, he witnessed an army attack on civilians and photographed the incident. Some reporters were beaten, and he XXXX XXXX XXXX. Subsequently, members of army intelligence came to his home, took him away and detained him for two days. He was threatened and warned to stop XXXX XXXX. [6] The Appellant stated that many journalists tried to expose the failings of the Rajapaksa government, and the government used the army and militant groups to attack XXXX and distributors. The Appellant further noted the government corruption concerning major infrastructure projects about which he XXXX XXXX. [7] As a result, the police came to his home on XXXX XXXX, 2014 and took him away for questioning. He was told that they had been informed that he was being funded by the Tamil diaspora. He was beaten and warned to stop XXXX XXXX XXXX. [8] Subsequently the Appellant received threatening telephone calls. He was arrested on XXXX XXXX, 2014 and detained for two days. He was again accused of working for the Tamil diaspora, questioned and beaten. He was aware that other XXXX had been abducted, and some were later killed. As a result, he decided to leave the country. He used the pretext of attending a Lions Club convention in Canada and arrived in this country on July 4, 2014. The Issues [9] The panel indicated that the determinative issues in regard to this claim are credibility and change in political circumstances. [10] The Appellant submits that the issues in this claim are: (a) whether the panel erred in its overall credibility assessment, focused microscopically on certain omissions and discrepancies and further erred in its assessment of re-availment, failure to claim elsewhere and delay in claiming; (b) whether the panel erred in its analysis of the objective basis of the claim, and its finding of improved change of circumstance in Sri Lanka. THE ROLE OF THE RAD [11] While the IRPA sets out grounds for appeal as well as possible remedies, it does not specify the standard by which the RAD is to review the decision of the lower tribunal. [12] The RAD now has the benefit of Federal Court jurisprudence which speaks to the appellate tribunal's role in relation to that of the RPD. [13] In this regard, the Court, in Huruglica,1 considered the appropriate relationship between the RAD and the RPD. In Huruglica, the Court determined that the RAD is to conduct a "hybrid appeal". It is to review all aspects of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of the Appellant's refugee claim, deferring to the RPD only where the lower tribunal enjoys a particular advantage in reaching a conclusion. Where the RAD's assessment departs from that of the RPD, the RAD must substitute its own determination. [14] The Court determined that, in conducting its assessment, the RAD can recognize and respect the conclusion of the RPD on such issues as credibility and/or where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage in reaching such a conclusion. The RAD is, however, not restricted, as an appellate court is, to intervening on the facts only where there is a "palpable and overriding error". [15] A decision of the Federal Court of Appeal2 has confirmed the central elements of Huruglica. The Court held that the RAD should use the correctness standard with respect to questions of fact, law and mixed fact and law. The RAD is to intervene when the RPD is wrong in fact, law and mixed fact and law. The Court further stated that there may be cases where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage over the RAD in making findings of fact and mixed fact and law, because they require an assessment of the credibility or weight to be given to the oral evidence it hears. The Court stated as well that an appeal to the RAD is not a true de novo proceeding. It does not start anew and the original decision is not ignored in all respects. [16] The RAD will review all of the evidence in the RPD's Record and come to its own independent assessment of whether the Appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. [17] The RAD notes that the Appellant provided a brief analysis of the standard of review which should be applied in this case. The RAD has provided above a reference to the Federal Court jurisprudence that guides its review and decision as to the case at bar. Admissibility of Evidence Presented on Appeal [18] Section 110(4) of the IRPA provides that the Appellant may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of his/her claim or that was not reasonably available, or that he/she could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection of the claim. [19] The Appellant submits in his Affidavit3 that he has provided new, updated country condition reports 2016 in Exhibit "E". The Appellant further submits in his Written Statement4 that he submits new evidence pursuant to 110(4), and it is marked as Exhibit "E" and attached to his Affidavit. The Appellant also submits in his Written Statement that there is new evidence related to his current profile as a failed asylum-seeker in Canada, and this is a sur place issue placed before the RAD. [20] The RAD has reviewed the 42 articles5 submitted as proposed new evidence. The RAD notes that none of these articles arose after the RPD's decision on March 22, 2016. The publication dates range from 2004 to 2015. The RAD finds that none of these articles meet the statutory test of publication after the RPD's decision. The RAD further finds that all of these publications were reasonably available to the Appellant before March 22, 2016. Therefore, none of these articles are admitted as new evidence. [21] The RAD has, in any case, reviewed the contents of these articles.6 All of the articles deal with the repressive activities of the Rajapaksa government including threatening and violent actions against XXXX. The RAD notes that the panel acknowledged the repressive nature of the Rajapaksa regime, especially concerning XXXX, and cited country documentary evidence in this regard. The RAD finds, even if the documents proposed as new evidence had been admitted, they would not have made a material impact on the panel's determination or the RAD's review, as the central elements of the content of these documents were already in the RPD's Record. [22] The RAD also notes that seven articles proposed as new evidence by the Appellant are those cited by the panel concerning the changes in government policy toward journalists after the new government came into office in 2015.7 [23] In regard to the sur place issue related to the Appellant's status as a failed asylum seeker, the RAD deals with this matter below. Application for an Oral Hearing [24] The Appellant asks that an oral hearing be held pursuant to subsection 110(6) of the IRPA. Section 110(3) of the IRPA requires that the RAD proceed without a hearing, on the basis of the RPD's Record, while allowing the RAD to accept documentary evidence and submissions from the Minister and the Appellant. According to subsection 110(6), the RAD may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, there is documentary evidence referred to in 110(3) that raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellant, that is central to the RPD's decision, and, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. The RAD notes that no new evidence in support of this claim has been admitted. Therefore, the request for an oral hearing is dismissed. The Appellant's Identity and Work as a XXXX [25] The panel noted that the starting point of its analysis is the Appellant's ethnicity, and that the Appellant is Sinhalese and not Tamil, that he does not speak Tamil and that he has lived and worked in Colombo throughout his life in Sri Lanka. [26] The panel noted that the Appellant stated that he had a part-time job XXXX XXXX and he initially worked as a XXXX and subsequently as a XXXX. The Appellant further stated that a XXXX was not paid, and he had to do this work before qualifying as a XXXX when he would be paid, and his name would appear as the XXXX. The Appellant stated that he was a XXXX from 2009 to 2013, and he had a special interest in the XXXX XXXX XXXX and in the government's XXXX. The Appellant was asked why he did not mention in his BOC the approximate time he started writing articles. The Appellant explained that it was noted in one of the Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) forms submitted to Canadian Immigration officials. [27] The panel noted that, in Schedule "A",8 the Appellant indicated that he worked as a XXXX for XXXX from April 2006 to July 2014 and made no reference to being a XXXX. The panel further noted that it was insufficient to refer to information in another form and that important details should have been included in the BOC. The panel drew a negative inference from this omission in the Appellant's BOC narrative. [28] The panel asked the Appellant how long he worked as a XXXX and how long he worked as a XXXX. The Appellant responded that he worked as a XXXX for about a year, starting in June 2006, and he became a XXXX from 2009 for five years. The Appellant further testified that there was a gap of about two years between 2007 and 2009. The panel noted that this gap was not mentioned in the Appellant's Schedule "A" form. The Appellant testified as well that he stopped XXXX XXXX after September 2013 because of his arrest by Sri Lankan army intelligence on September 18, 2013. [29] The panel noted in the hearing that the Appellant stated in his Schedule "A" form that he worked as a XXXX for XXXX between April 2006 and July 2014. The panel further noted that there was no indication of a two-year gap between 2007 and 2009, which he alleged in oral testimony. The panel noted as well that there was no distinction made between the Appellant's work as a XXXX and as a XXXX, which he stressed in oral testimony. The panel also noted that the Appellant did not indicate that he stopped XXXX after September 2013 as he alleged in testimony. [30] The Appellant explained that he had maintained his membership in a XXXX association until July 2014. The panel found the Appellant provided insufficient explanations for the contrast between the information he provided in Schedule "A" and his oral testimony. The panel drew a negative credibility inference in this regard. [31] The panel noted in the hearing the inconsistent evidence the Appellant provided about how long he had been a XXXX for this XXXX. The panel further noted that the Appellant testified that he had done this work for only one year, starting in June 2006. The panel noted as well that, in the Appellant's original BOC narrative, he indicated that he worked as a XXXX for about two years and that this was subsequently amended to about four years.9 The Appellant responded that he had made a mistake. He further testified that he had been confused and thought it referred to his time as a XXXX. [32] The panel rejected this explanation and noted it was clear, in the context of the BOC narrative, that a differentiation was being drawn between XXXX and XXXX. The panel found the Appellant failed to provide sufficient credible testimony as to when he was XXXX XXXX in Sri Lanka. The panel further found this inconsistency concerns a basic aspect of the claim and undermines the Appellant's assertion that he was involved in XXXX XXXX in Sri Lanka. The panel noted that the Appellant distinguished between the time he was a reporter and when he was a XXXX, and it was reasonable to expect that the Appellant would know whether he was a XXXX for one, two or three years. The panel noted that the indicated in oral and written evidence all three numbers. [33] The panel noted that the Appellant attempted to amend the CIC Schedule "A" form, but there is no provision to correct CIC documents. In the context of the inconsistencies noted above, the panel gave the attempted amendment little or no weight. [34] The Appellant questioned the relevance of the panel's indication that the starting point for its analysis was the Appellant's ethnicity and that he is Sinhalese and not Tamil. The Appellant submits that the claim is not grounded on ethnicity, and it ought not to have played any role in it. The Appellant further submits that the panel was comparing the merits of a Sinhalese claim against that of a Tamil claim. The Appellant submits as well that the panel's finding is odd as a starting point for its analysis and argues that the RAD should dispense with this 'starting point' as the claim is not linked per se to the issue of ethnicity. [35] The Appellant submits that the panel conducted a microscopic examination of his oral evidence versus the written evidence before it. The Appellant further submits that the panel placed undue weight on the CIC information in comparison to the BOC information and testimony. The Appellant argues that this is the wrong approach, and the panel should have recognized the importance of not relying too heavily on the CIC information. [36] The Appellant submits that the panel was fixated on the distinction between being a XXXX and being a XXXX. The Appellant notes that the panel conceded that country documentary evidence indicates that attacks on XXXX in Sri Lanka were important human rights problems. [37] The RAD has reviewed and assessed all of the evidence in the record concerning the issue of XXXX v. XXXX and the significance of the port of entry (POE) evidence. The RAD notes it was the Appellant who introduced the issue of XXXX v. XXXX and then proceeded to provide inconsistent evidence in this regard. [38] The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument concerning the significance of POE evidence. The RAD finds, on the basis of its review of that evidence, that the panel did not err in comparing the oral testimony and the BOC and the POE evidence. The RAD further finds that it is open to the panel to make this comparison and to draw a negative inference on the basis of the inconsistencies noted above. [39] The RAD further finds that, in regard to the panel's reference to the Appellant's ethnicity, there is no evidence as to the issues above that ethnicity was a concern when the panel made its findings. The RAD notes in this regard that much of the country documentation, including that from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) specifically, note that Tamil ethnicity is an important element in their analysis of country conditions in Sri Lanka. In that context, the RAD finds that it is not necessarily prejudicial for the panel to mention the Sinhalese ethnicity of the Appellant. The RAD finds that the panel's reference to the Appellant's Sinhalese ethnicity was not a determinative factor in the panel's findings. Inconsistent Information about the Agents of Persecution in Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) Schedule "A" and Omission of Details regarding Detentions and Arrests [40] The panel noted that the Appellant indicated in his BOC that he was detained in XXXX and XXXX 2013 by army intelligence, and he suffered major injuries requiring hospitalization in XXXX 2013. [41] The panel noted that in response to question 6(j) in Schedule "A", the Appellant stated that he was arrested and detained by the police in Sri Lanka. The panel further noted that the Appellant's response failed to mention army intelligence and failed to provide details. The Appellant was asked for an explanation, and he blamed the person who had prepared the form for the omission of any reference to army intelligence. He further explained that he had not paid too much attention to the content of the form. He also noted that he had given full details in his BOC. [42] The panel noted that counsel suggested it was the fault of the Immigration officer who took the form from the Appellant as the contents of the form were not properly reviewed with the Appellant. Counsel noted other corrections made to the form such as the addition of a date. [43] The panel found no merit in counsel's submissions and noted that the onus was on the Appellant to ensure the form was properly completed. The panel noted that the Appellant signed the solemn declaration indicating that the information given is complete, true and correct, and further noted that the Appellant did not require an interpreter to understand what was written there. [44] The panel drew a negative credibility inference as to the central issue in the claim, specifically whether the Appellant ever had any problems with army intelligence in Sri Lanka. The panel further found the lack of detail in Schedule "A" is not remedied by the content of the BOC. Failure to Mention in his BOC that he Stopped XXXX XXXX in XXXX 2013 [45] The panel noted that the Appellant testified that, after his arrest in XXXX 2013 and the threats if he were to continue XXXX, he stopped XXXX XXXX. The Appellant was asked why this was not mentioned in his BOC and he responded, "it has not been mentioned." He further testified that his narrative notes the incidents that happened to him but did not say he stopped XXXX. [46] The panel indicated that the Appellant's responses appeared to be evasive, and he did not give a proper explanation for what one would consider to be an important omission. The panel drew a negative inference in this regard. [47] The panel concluded that the inconsistency in this area of testimony impugns the Appellant's testimony about the central element in this claim, whether he ever worked as a XXXX XXXX about the Sri Lanka government. Omission of Alleged Contact between the Agents of Persecution and the XXXX XXXX [48] The panel acknowledged that country documentary evidence indicates that attacks on XXXX in Sri Lanka are an important human rights issue. The panel cited the United States Department of State Report on Human Rights Practices for 201410 and provided extensive quotations in this regard. The panel also noted that the situation described in this document was before the significant electoral changes in 2015. [49] The panel noted in the hearing that the articles the Appellant allegedly wrote that offended the government had to be approved by the XXXX before XXXX, and there was no indication that his XXXX had or had not experienced similar problems, as the Appellant indicated happened to him. [50] The panel asked the Appellant if he informed anyone at his XXXX about the alleged XXXX 2013 incident, and he responded that he told the XXXX XXXX of the XXXX. The Appellant testified that the XXXX XXXX told him that members of army intelligence came to the XXXX office and questioned him during the Appellant's detention, and they asked the XXXX if the Appellant was working for the UNP or had connections with the Tamil diaspora. They also questioned the XXXX about the Appellant's travels outside Sri Lanka. [51] The Appellant was asked why there was no mention in his BOC of army intelligence contact with the XXXX. The Appellant explained that he did not mention this because it was a normal happening in Sri Lanka. The panel found this was an important omission since army intelligence contact with the XXXX would further serve to indicate that the authorities had a strong interest in the Appellant. The panel drew a negative credibility inference as it did not believe the contact ever happened but reflected the Appellant's recognition of the legitimacy of the panel's concern in this regard. The panel found the Appellant was embellishing his claim [52] The Appellant acknowledged, "to a degree", that the BOC failed to mention and chronicle the refugee claim in its entirety. The Appellant argues that this is the point of the oral hearing, and the panel should not expect the BOC to contain the entire documentation of each and every detail of the claim. [53] The Appellant submits that omissions between written and oral evidence do not automatically mean that evidence is not credible. The Appellant argues that "a myriad of factors and nuances remain at play within the issue of credibility and the panel is obligated to remain alert to such nuances at all times."11 [54] The Appellant further submits that the panel was fixated on dates and timelines which can be challenging for a witness, and the RAD must revisit the evidence concerning the Appellant's profile as a reporter and journalist. [55] The Appellant submits that the only way the RAD can properly assess this critical evidence profile, given the panel's numerous and sweeping credibility findings, is to convoke and hold its own hearing and provide the Appellant with the opportunity to provide what may be reasonable, rational and plausible responses. [56] The RAD has reviewed and assessed all of the evidence in the record concerning the Appellant's various BOC omissions and the inconsistent evidence between his BOC and the POE form as to the agent of persecution. [57] The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument. The alleged visit of army intelligence officials to the XXXX office and the Appellant's alleged decision to stop XXXX XXXX in XXXX 2013 are significant matters that go to the heart of the claim. The RAD notes that the Appellant referred to a "myriad of factors and nuances" that could explain his failure to include this information in his BOC, but he failed to mention any of them. [58] The RAD further notes that the Appellant's argument that the panel was fixated on dates and timelines, but the two issues noted above do not concern either dates or timelines [59] The RAD agrees with the Appellant that it is not expected that his BOC narrative would include each and every detail. The RAD finds, however, that matters noted above are sufficiently important that it would be expected that they would have been mentioned in the BOC. [60] The RAD disagrees with the Appellant as to the need to hold an oral hearing in order to assess this evidence. A RAD appeal is not meant to be an opportunity for a rehearing of the evidence provided in the RPD hearing. Rather it is, as noted above, an opportunity for the RAD to review and assess all of the evidence in the record, including the RPD's analysis and determination, and for the RAD to come to its own assessment and decision. [61] The RAD finds, on the basis of its review and assessment of the evidence concerning the omissions from the Appellant's BOC and the inconsistency between the Appellant's BOC and the POE evidence that the panel did err in drawing a negative inference. The RAD concurs with the panel's findings in this regard. No information about any harm to the XXXX XXXX [62] The Appellant testified in response to the panel's question that no one had threatened the XXXX because of the Appellant's XXXX. The Appellant further testified that he supposed they could have done that. [63] The panel noted that country documentary evidence indicates that XXXX were at risk as much as XXXX during the time of the Rajapaksa government. The panel further noted that it made no sense that the Appellant would be repeatedly detained and injured, but the responsible XXXX was only asked some questions about the Appellant's background. The panel noted as well that the Appellant alleged in his BOC that his XXXX "had always XXXX a lot of XXXX and XXXX XXXX about the mass killings of Tamils during the last phase of the war" and was notable for its efforts to expose the insincerity of the government of the time.12 [64] The panel found that the Appellant's allegation that he was at grave risk, while his XXXX suffered no repercussions is "nothing short of nonsensical" given the known country conditions at the time. The panel found the Appellant's account not to be credible. [65] The RAD notes that the Appellant makes no specific submission in this regard. The Appellant's Continued Travels outside Sri Lanka and his Re-availment and Failure to Claim Elsewhere [66] The panel noted that the Appellant continued to travel outside Sri Lanka during the height of his troubles. The panel further noted that the Appellant alleged that the authorities accused him of interaction with the Tamil diaspora, and he was the victim of detentions and physical abuse, but he never had difficulties leaving or returning to the country. The panel noted as well that the Appellant left Sri Lanka twice in XXXX 2013, and he left again for a month between XXXX and XXXX 2014. He travelled to the Maldives, Thailand and Vietnam. [67] The panel found that if the Appellant had ever been accused by the authorities of contact with the Tamil Diaspora, his ability to travel outside the country would have been constrained. The panel drew a negative inference in this regard. The panel found it strained credulity that the Appellant was never stopped at the airport for questioning. The panel noted that anyone with suspected links to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) will be arrested and questioned.13 The panel found the ease with which the Appellant travelled undermines any allegation that he was ever wanted by the authorities in Sri Lanka. [68] The panel noted that the Appellant travelled to Thailand in XXXX2013, to the Maldives in the same month and to Vietnam in XXXX and XXXX 2014. The panel further noted that the Appellant voluntarily re-availed after these trips, and this undermined his subjective fear of persecution and also the credibility of his allegations. The panel noted as well that the Appellant was allegedly brutally beaten by the authorities on XXXX XXXX, 2013. In addition, the Appellant alleged being threatened by the authorities at various times, including XXXX2013. [69] The Appellant was asked why he returned to Sri Lanka where he alleged he was persecuted. He explained that he had stopped working as a XXXX, and he did not foresee further problems. He further testified that he had a good job, a family, and he was building a house. [70] The panel found the Appellant's repeated re-availments undermined the credibility of his allegations. The panel noted that the Appellant could have made a claim in the Maldives.14 The panel further noted that the Appellant could have approached UNHCR officials in Thailand for help. The panel asked the Appellant to explain his failure to claim with the UNHCR during these foreign trips and his re-availment. The Appellant explained that, after the XXXX 2013 incident, he had been released, and there was no one chasing after him. [71] The panel noted that, in the Appellant's next response, he indicated that he had been detained in XXXX 2013 and threatened by army intelligence personnel concerning his XXXX, and this occurred about two weeks before his various travels starting in early XXXX 2013. The panel found the Appellant's explanation lacked credibility. [72] The panel asked the Appellant to explain why he delayed leaving Sri Lanka. The Appellant responded that "it is all happening that XXXX are taken." The Appellant added, "They only threatened I should stop XXXX XXXX." [73] The panel noted that the Appellant otherwise contends that it was very dangerous to be a XXXX in Sri Lanka during the Rajapaksa regime. He stated in his BOC that "Some XXXX, XXXX and even distributors were killed by the army and pro-government militant groups."15 "Other XXXX were abducted, beaten even killed or disappeared."16 [74] The panel noted that the Appellant is well-educated and well-travelled. The panel found that the Appellant's repeated failure to claim elsewhere and his re-availment to the alleged country of persecution undermines both his subjective fear of persecution and the credibility of the allegations made in this claim. [75] The Appellant notes that the panel invoked its specialized knowledge regarding persons who went to Thailand from Sri Lanka and registered refugee protection claims. The Appellant further notes that the panel's specialized knowledge apparently emanates only from many persons. The Appellant submits that this does not constitute specialized knowledge, and it must be rejected if failure to claim elsewhere is a live issue in this appeal. [76] The Appellant submits as well that the panel was required to advise the Appellant of the basis of its knowledge and how it led to its expertise, and also allow the Appellant to be heard on this issue. The Appellant submits that the panel did neither and this finding should be rejected. [77] The RAD has reviewed and assessed all of the evidence in the record concerning re-availment and failure of the Appellant to claim elsewhere. The RAD notes that, aside from the Appellant's concern about the panel's specialized knowledge, he has not provided submissions as to the panel's findings concerning his failure to claim in the Maldives or Thailand. [78] The RAD further notes that there is no evidence in the CD recording of the hearing or in counsel's written submissions that the panel's specialized knowledge was challenged. [79] The RAD notes that country documentary evidence in the record indicates that the government of the Maldives "cooperated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to internally displaced persons, refugees, returning refugees, asylum seekers, stateless persons, and other persons of concern."17 [80] The RAD notes that further country documentary evidence18 indicates that the government of Thailand "usually cooperated with the UNHCR and humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to internally displaced persons, refugees, returning refugees, asylum seekers, stateless persons, and other persons of concern, although with restrictions." This document further indicates that protection of certain groups remained uneven, and it noted in particular Rohingyas from Burma. There is no mention of Sri Lankans in this regard. [81] The RAD concurs with the panel's finding that the Appellant's repeated exit from and re-entry to Sri Lanka without constraint by the authorities undermines his alleged subjective fear of persecution in that country. [82] The RAD is guided in this regard by a number of Federal Court decisions that rejected the applicants' explanations for failing to seek asylum in a third country available to them. These decisions note that the applicants' submissions were not valid reasons for negating an adverse inference that the applicants lacked subjective fear.19 [83] The RAD is further guided by the Federal Court's decision in Assadi20 in which the Court stated that the failure to immediately seek protection can impugn a claimant's credibility, including testimony about events in the claimant's country of origin. In addition, the Court, in Ilie,21 stated that the tribunal was entitled to consider an applicant's failure to claim protection in other countries and consider as well how the applicant's evidence was to be weighed in light of that failure. [84] The RAD finds that the Appellant's explanation for not seeking protection in either the Maldives or Thailand when he allegedly was at risk of persecution in Sri Lanka lacks credibility. Lack of a Corroborating Letter from the Appellant's XXXX regarding his Problems [85] The panel asked the Appellant if there were any documents he tried to obtain but had been unable to do so. The Appellant said no. The panel then asked the Appellant if he tried to obtain a letter from his XXXX to corroborate his allegations. The Appellant responded that his wife asked about that, but the owner or XXXX of XXXX refused, as company policy would only allow a general reference letter about his employment,22 and they were concerned that any detailed letter would create problems for the XXXX. [86] The panel asked the Appellant why his earlier answers were not consistent, and he acknowledged that he had said no, but he further testified that he told his wife to get letters, and she got some, but others she could not get. The panel found the Appellant did not provide a reasonable explanation for his inconsistent testimony and drew a negative credibility inference. The panel further found that there was never any effort made to obtain such a letter and drew a negative inference concerning the Appellant's failure to provide appropriate written corroboration to establish his identity and other elements of the claim, and also his failure to provide a reasonable explanation in this regard. [87] The RAD notes that the Appellant makes no specific submission in this regard. The Weight to be Attached to the Appellant's Documents [88] The panel found that the Appellant lacked credibility as to major aspects of his claim and concluded that he never wrote articles that were perceived as anti-government. [89] The panel noted that country documentary evidence indicates that there is widespread availability of fraudulent documents in Sri Lanka.23 The panel further noted that there is evidence that the Appellant personally submitted fraudulent documents as part of his claim. [90] The panel noted that the Appellant submitted a letter, purporting to be from his former XXXX XXXX employer.24 The panel noted that: (a) the justice of the peace did not indicate any date besides the stamp or signature, nor that they witnessed the signature of the writer being affixed to the document; (b) the last words of the document appeared to have been "whited out" with liquid paper or similar substance, which was acknowledged by the Appellant at the hearing; and (c) the letter states that the Appellant's employer at the XXXX XXXX in Sri Lanka received telephone calls about the Appellant and his work as a journalist after the initial problems of XXXX 2013. The panel noted that the Appellant also made this allegation in the second sitting of the hearing. [91] The panel indicated that it was not convinced this document is genuine. The panel noted it was disclosed on January 14, 2016, six days prior to the second sitting. The Appellant explained that he obtained the document from his wife to corroborate his claim. In addition, the panel found it strained credulity that a justice of the peace would affix a stamp to indicate the document was signed in the person's presence when the document was tampered with by deletion of certain words. [92] The panel noted that the Appellant stated in his BOC that the only phone calls made by any agent of persecution regarding the Appellant began after his XXXX 2014 detention. The panel further noted that there is no mention in his BOC that the XXXX XXXX executive was ever contacted by any of the agents of persecution. The Appellant explained that it did not strike his mind to write this in his narrative. He further testified that he had personal knowledge of these alleged telephone calls to the XXXX XXXX when he was in Sri Lanka. [93] The panel did not find the Appellant credible regarding these telephone calls. The panel found that, if the calls had been made, it was reasonable to expect them to be mentioned in the BOC as evidence of the interest in the Appellant by the agents of persecution. The panel further found that, if army intelligence had been interested in the Appellant, it strained credulity that they would not identify themselves when making telephone enquiries. [94] The panel found that there were never any calls from alleged agents of persecution to the XXXX XXXX, and the letter from the XXXX XXXX is a fraudulent document. The panel gave the document no weight. The panel further found that such a fraudulent document detracts from the Appellant's overall credibility. [95] The panel noted that the Appellant provided a letter from his wife in which she alleged that, about six months after he left Sri Lanka, she began receiving anonymous phone calls asking about the Appellant's whereabouts. She further alleged another such call was made to her on XXXX XXXX, 2015, and she changed her number. In oral testimony, the Appellant stated that his wife learned from the manner of the calls that it was the same people who had taken him into custody earlier and they threatened her. The Appellant was asked how she was able to make that determination. The Appellant explained that it was because the persons on the telephone told his wife that she had to give them correct information about the Appellant. The Appellant also stated that his wife did not call the police because it was the police who took him into custody. [96] The panel noted that the Appellant's wife did not state in her letter that she was threatened in these calls. The panel further noted that the letter does not indicate that the calls were from any of the alleged agents of persecution. The panel found that there was an attempt to exaggerate or embellish the contents of the letter and drew a minor negative credibility inference. The panel gave little weight to the Appellant's wife's letter and further found that no such telephone calls were made. [97] The panel acknowledged that the Canadian medical document25 corroborates that the Appellant suffered injuries consistent with his allegations. The panel found, however, that, while recognizing that the Appellant was injured, there was insufficient credible evidence that his injuries were caused by the authorities in Sri Lanka. [98] In the context of numerous credibility inferences and findings noted above, the panel further found that it is more likely than not that all supporting documents provided by the Appellant are fraudulent, including the copies of alleged XXXX XXXX XXXX by the Appellant and the letter from the Appellant's wife alleging that the authorities had been looking for him. The panel gave all of these documents no weight. [99] The Appellant submits that the panel's finding that all the supporting documents provided by the Appellant are fraudulent is seriously flawed and flouts the law and legal principles as to how a credibility assessment is to be conducted. [100] The Appellant notes that the panel did not find all of the supporting documents to be fraudulent as it accepted the credibility of the medical report. The Appellant further notes however that the panel "replaced the physician's opinion with its own speculation that while the Appellant's injuries are consistent with his allegations he may have been injured in any number of other circumstances."26 [101] The Appellant submits that, if such a finding is endorsed, there would rarely, if ever, be a point or benefit to a refugee claimant to tender written material in support of a claim. [102] The RAD has reviewed and assessed all of the corroborating documentation provided by the Appellant. The RAD notes that the panel does not depend on evidence that fraudulent documentation is available in Sri Lanka in its critique of the Appellant's documentation. In regard to the letter from the Appellant's XXXX XXXX employer and also the letter from the Appellant's wife, the RAD finds that the panel's analysis of these documents is sufficient as a basis for giving these documents little weight. The RAD finds, in addition, in regard to the Appellant's wife's letter, that her statement that army intelligence or police had called her to ascertain the whereabouts of the Appellant does not ring true, as it is likely they would know the Appellant had left the country using his own passport. [103] In regard to the medical document, the RAD notes that the panel does not challenge its authenticity. The RAD finds it was open to the panel to find that this letter does not corroborate the circumstances in which the Appellant received his injuries. [104] The RAD has reviewed the three XXXX XXXX in XXXX, two of which the Appellant alleged he XXXX and one that concerned his 2013 abduction. The RAD notes that the first two articles concern government corruption and poor planning in regard to the Hambantota Port project and the Maththala Airport project. The RAD further notes that there is nothing in these articles that suggests that the Appellant is associated in any way with the LTTE or the Tamil Diaspora. The RAD further notes, as indicated by the panel above, that after the change in the presidency in 2015 and subsequently in the Sri Lankan Parliament, there has been substantial publication of attacks on the former government concerning these two projects. The RAD also notes that the responsible Minister in the new government has attacked the former government in this regard. [105] The RAD also notes that the Appellant indicated that, in September 2013, he was an eyewitness to an attack on civilians by the Sri Lankan army, and he took pictures and XXXX about this.27 The RAD notes that the Appellant has not provided this alleged article which would concern a more serious allegation against the government. [106] The RAD notes that the third article concerns the alleged June 2013 kidnapping and detention of the Appellant. No author is mentioned, and there is no date. The article refers to an earlier article published in the paper on June 20, 2013, regarding this incident, but this XXXX was not XXXX by the Appellant. [107] The RAD notes that the Appellant testified that his XXXX would not provide a letter corroborating his allegations because company policy would only allow him to provide a general reference letter, and they were concerned that any detailed letter would create problems for the XXXX.28 [108] The RAD finds, in the context of this testimony, that it strains credulity that the XXXX would XXXX XXXX XXXX detailing the alleged XXXX 2013 incident and XXXX another XXXX reiterating the details of the alleged incident, if the XXXX refused to write a letter in this regard because the company was concerned it would create problems. [109] The RAD finds the inconsistency in the Appellant's testimony and the content of this article raises a serious doubt as to its authenticity and, therefore, as to the authenticity of the other two articles provided by the Appellant. Delay in Making a Claim in Canada [110] The panel noted that the Appellant arrived in Canada on July 4, 2014, and he made a claim for protection on or about November 20, 2014. The panel asked the Appellant why he did not make a claim at the airport. The Appellant explained that there was "no necessity", as he had a valid visitor's visa. The Appellant was asked why he delayed over four months to make a claim. He explained that some Tamil Canadians told him that Sinhalese people would not be accepted as refugee claimants, but eventually another person corrected this misinformation. [111] The panel noted that the Appellant is educated and an experienced traveller. The panel found that, if he truly came to Canada because he feared for his life, he would have made a refugee claim at the first reasonable opportunity. The panel noted that, given the Appellant's demonstrated facility in English, he could have sought advice or researched the matter of refugee protection before he left Sri Lanka. [112] The panel found that the Appellant failed to provide a sufficient credible explanation to explain the four-month delay in making a claim in Canada, and it drew a negative inference as to his subjective fear of persecution and his overall credibility. [113] The Appellant submits that the panel conducted a "curt and flawed analysis"29 of the delay in claiming. The Appellant notes in this regard that the panel omitted any testimony and/or explanation from the Appellant in this issue. [114] The Appellant notes that he arrived in Canada with a legal visitor's visa, had temporary legal status and was not at risk of removal. The Appellant argues the fact that he is intelligent and travelled previously does not permit the panel to find "automatically" that the delay of less than four months translates into a lack of subjective fear. [115] The Appellant submits: The Reasons do not reveal if the appellant was afforded a full and fair opportunity to respond; another credible reason for the RAD to consider the convocation of its own hearing should it determine credibility, delay on claiming, failure to claim elsewhere, producing fraudulent documents, etc... issues within this appeal.30 [116] The Appellant submits that delay in claiming is not automatically indicative of lack of subjective fear. The Appellant further submits that a four-month delay ought not to be considered lengthy, particularly with a Canadian visa in hand. [117] The RAD has reviewed and assessed the evidence in the record concerning the Appellant's delay in making his claim in Canada. The RAD finds that a person who is fleeing persecution, as the Appellant alleges, would seek protection at the earliest possible time. The RAD is guided in this regard by the decision of the Federal Court in Milovic31 in which the Court stated that, while delay in making a claim is not determinative, it may, in the right circumstances, constitute sufficient grounds upon which to reject a claim, such as when the claimant cannot provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. [118] The RAD finds the Appellant's explanation not to be credible and that the circumstances noted in Milovic exist in this case. This is particularly true in the context of other findings noted above regarding the Appellant's credibility and his repeated re-availance to Sri Lanka. [119] The RAD notes that the panel did not omit referring to the Appellant's explanation for the delay in making a claim. The RAD further notes, on the basis of its review of the CD recording of the hearing, that there is no evidence that the Appellant was not given a full and fair opportunity to respond to the issues raised by the panel. Change of Political Circumstances in Sri Lanka [120] The panel noted that the Appellant indicated that his troubles arose as a result of his XXXX XXXX against the Rajapaksa government. The panel further noted that the Appellant acknowledged the winners in the election must likely have accused the outgoing government of corruption and misspending. The Appellant was asked why he thought he was still at risk in Sri Lanka, and he stated that some of the politicians in the old government were in the new government. He acknowledged that he had never named any of these politicians in his XXXX. [121] The panel noted that the new government is from the UNP, the party in which the Appellant testified that he and his father were active. The panel further noted that the Appellant indicated that, during his alleged detention in XXXX 2013, he was told by his captors that he was a member of the UNP and that the party had worked with the Tamil diaspora. [122] The panel cited country documentary evidence32 that Rajapaksa was defeated as president in January 2015, and the new government was based on an alliance between the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and the UNP led by the new Prime Minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe.33 The panel noted that the Economist article cited above also states: The authorities will also deepen investigations into allegations of bribery and corruption against key members of Mr. Rajapaksa's clique. Another of his younger brothers, a former Minister of Economic Development, is already under arrest.34 [123] The panel indicated that, even if he were to accept the Appellant's allegations that he was a XXXX or XXXX in Sri Lanka as being credible, "which I specifically do not", radical change in the political situation in Sri Lanka since the Appellant's departure is apparent. [124] The panel cited an online statement from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which stated that they welcomed the announcement that four Sri Lankan army officers had been arrested and accused of involvement in the January 2010 disappearance of a political cartoonist and columnist. There were also three prior arrests for the same reasons.35 It was further stated that the new government appeared to want to end the cycle of impunity of the Rajapaksa years.36 [125] The panel noted that the Appellant alleged that he XXXX XXXX critical of airport construction under Rajapaksa. It further noted local tour guides in Sri Lanka now use the airport as one of the highlights of the "Rajapaksa white elephant tour".37 [126] The panel cited an article in The Daily News of Sri Lanka published on December 10, 2015, in which the current Ports and Shipping Minister stated in the Sri Lankan Parliament that there had been a high level of corruption in the Ports Authority during the former regime.38 [127] The panel noted that the government has acknowledged human rights abuses perpetrated by the Rajapaksa regime against XXXX, and the Prime Minister has stated that the government will pay compensation to the families of murdered or disappeared XXXX.39 [128] The panel noted that the Appellant contends that nothing had changed, and that he is still wanted for arrest by police and security forces. The panel notes, however, that there is no evidence in the most recent country documentation that those perceived as the enemies of the previous government, continue to be the enemies of the current government. The panel further found it to be absurd that this would be the case for a Sinhalese man, as the Appellant is. [129] The panel noted that the refugee protection system is forward looking, and the issue is whether at the time the claim is being decided there are good grounds to fear persecution in the future. The panel indicated that it gave greater weight to the objective current country documentation than the Appellant's testimony and found that, even if the Appellant had been credible about his allegations, there is less than a mere possibility of persecution for the Appellant in the current circumstances and conditions. [130] The Appellant notes that he has provided new evidence related to current country conditions facing him and those similarly situated. [131] The Appellant submits that change in circumstances is dependent on a factual assessment as to whether the change is meaningful, effective and durable. The Appellant argues that this is a difficult finding merely months into a new central government in which the president was a member of the former government. [132] The RAD notes that the proposed new evidence provided by the Appellant has not been admitted as new evidence. The RAD further notes that these documents concern the situation in Sri Lanka before the new president and new parliament were installed in 2015. Present Day Risk in Sri Lanka [133] The Appellant was asked why he thought anyone in Sri Lanka would still be interested in him given the change in government, which now includes his own party, the UNP. The panel noted in this regard that the new government has repeatedly criticized the activities of the Rajapaksa government. The Appellant responded that, although the government had changed, the same people who were against the LTTE are still there. The Appellant further testified that, now that he is living in Canada where "most LTTE support came from", he would be at risk and suspected as a traitor connected to the LTTE. [134] The panel noted that the Appellant is Sinhalese and not Tamil and further noted that there is little evidence that any more than a handful of Sinhalese persons have ever been linked to the LTTE. The panel found that the Appellant's explanation is not credible, and it lacked support from the objective evidence. [135] The panel found the Appellant would not be at risk of persecution and would not be personally subjected to a risk to his life, a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a risk of torture, if he were to return to Sri Lanka. [136] The Appellant submits that the panel's analysis in this regard is curt, and its findings lack any specific reference to particular objective evidence. [137] The Appellant further submits that the RAD must consider whether his current status as a failed asylum-seeker, having resided in Canada, raises a sur place claim for protection. [138] The Appellant submits as well that the sur place issue was not considered by the panel and that it is now to be considered new evidence, as the Appellant was rejected, and the RAD must now freshly consider the sur place basis of the appeal and the Appellant's current and changed profile. [139] The Appellant further submits that the RAD's consideration of his profile as a XXXX must be independent, and if credibility emerges, as it did with the panel, a hearing convoked. [140] The Appellant argues that the RAD must look to the overall situation and current risks he may face in Sri Lanka in the summer of 2016. The Appellant notes that significant new developments emerged in Sri Lanka, such as: (a) President Sirisena assumed office in January 2015. (b) The UN's top human rights official...travelled to Sri Lanka, including former "war zones", to investigate human rights atrocities and violations in the past as well as credible reports of ongoing human rights violations including ongoing practices of torture against Tamils fitting the very profile of the Appellant. (c) Sri Lanka has now changed course and is subtly rejecting international investigations into war crimes and reverting back to a demand for only domestic investigations. [141] The Appellant submits that the panel did not consider such new evidence and his new profile. [142] The RAD notes that the panel indicated in para. 87 above that, even if it had accepted the Appellant's allegations that he was a XXXX in Sri Lanka, which it did not, there has been radical change in the political situation in the country. [143] The RAD finds, in the context of the cumulative negative inferences and findings noted above, that it is likely the Appellant's allegations concerning his work as a reporter and his mistreatment by the authorities in Sri Lanka are not true. The RAD finds in this regard that there is sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the Appellant's evidence under oath was truthful. [144] In regard to the sur place aspect of this claim, the RAD has reviewed all of the evidence in the record concerning the jeopardy of failed asylum-seekers who return to Sri Lanka. [145] The RAD notes that the Appellant states in his Memorandum of Argument that the sur place issue was not considered by the panel and that it "is now to be considered 'new evidence' as the Appellant is now rejected by the RPD...." The RAD is unsure as to what the Appellant means by equating the Appellant's status as new evidence, but it will deal with this matter. [146] The RAD has reviewed all of the evidence in the record concerning the jeopardy of failed asylum-seekers who are returned to Sri Lanka. It has considered, in this regard, the Appellant's jeopardy if he had been a XXXX in Sri Lanka before leaving the country, as well as the jeopardy of returnees who do not have a XXXX profile. [147] The RAD notes that the Appellant's reference to "credible reports of ongoing human rights violations including torture against Tamils". The RAD further notes that this statement is found in an article published on January 6, 2016.40 The RAD notes as well that the report of continuing human rights violations indicates that all the twenty victims interviewed were Tamil. The article also indicates that the abuse took place in the former war zone in the north of the country and that the victims paid bribes for their release. [148] The RAD finds that, while the continuing human rights abuses cannot be condoned, they do not reflect the circumstances of the Appellant, a Sinhalese man who lived in Colombo. The RAD notes that there is no mention of XXXX in the report. [149] The RAD further notes country documentation cited by the panel concerning the changed circumstances in Sri Lanka as a result of the end of the civil war and the end of the authoritarian and repressive regime of former President Rajapaksa.41 The RAD finds the evidence is mixed as reflected in the article cited above, but it further finds that the change, particularly regarding XXXX, is clear. [150] The RAD notes that no evidence was provided to indicate that the Appellant is wanted by Sri Lankan authorities. This is confirmed by the Appellant's ability to leave and return to Sri Lanka numerous times and his ability to leave Sri Lanka using his own passport in July 2014 on his way to Canada. [151] The RAD notes that no evidence was provided, other than the Appellant's testimony, that Sri Lankan authorities believe the Appellant is associated with the LTTE. The Appellant has indicated that he left Sri Lanka in July 2014 because he was accused and threatened as a person associated with the Tamil diaspora and, therefore, the LTTE. The RAD further notes that the Appellant indicated that this alleged accusation was made a number of times beginning in June 2013, but there was no constraint in his leaving and returning to Sri Lanka on numerous occasions, including his final exit in July 2014. The RAD finds that, if Sri Lankan authorities believed that the Appellant was associated in any way with the LTTE, he would not have been allowed to travel outside the country, and he would not have been allowed to re-enter the country without some action by these authorities. [152] The RAD further finds that, if the Appellant had been a XXXX before leaving Sri Lanka in XXXX 2014, he would not be in jeopardy if he were to return, as the government has made clear it no longer seeks to suppress XXXX. This is clear from the documentary evidence cited above. The RAD notes in particular that the two XXXX provided by the Appellant, which he alleged he had written deal with corruption and poor planning by the former government, and these issues have been widely publicized both by the XXXX and senior officials in the new government. [153] The RAD has considered whether the Appellant's profile as a failed asylum-seeker, if he were to return to Sri Lanka, would attract negative attention from the authorities and whether such attention would likely be the basis of a well-founded fear of persecution. The RAD notes that country documentary evidence indicates that there is a screening process utilized for all persons returning to Sri Lanka regardless of whether they are returning voluntarily or as a result of a failed refugee claim.42 [154] This documentation further indicates that a returnee is interviewed at the airport by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), followed by an interview by the State Intelligence Service (DIS). A criminal background check is conducted which is generally completed within a few hours, but it can take longer.43 The RAD finds that, given the total lack of evidence that the Appellant was a member of or associated with the LTTE, he would be allowed to re-enter the country and would not be subject to a risk of abuse. [155] The RAD notes that further country documentation indicates that there is a computer system that flags those who are "on the wanted or stop list". The RAD finds that, if the Appellant's name were on such a list, he would not have been able to leave Sri Lanka using his own passport.44 [156] The RAD finds as well that the panel's negative credibility findings, in regard to which the RAD concurs, undermines the Appellant's sur place claim. The RAD is guided in this regard by the Federal Court's decision in Dowansingh in which the Court states that the RAD's conclusion that the negative credibility findings made by the RPD extended to s. 97 was reasonable. The Court further stated that credibility findings made under s. 96 may also affect the validity of a claim under s. 97.45 DISPOSITION [157] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. The appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Milton Israel" Milton Israel June 28, 2016 Date 1 Huruglica, Bujar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6362-13), Phelan, August 22, 2014, 2014 FC 799. 2 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 3 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Affidavit, p. 36. 4 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 127. 5 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, Exhibit "E", pp. 98-120. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, pp. 289-422. 7 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Exhibit "E", p. 104. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 70, Exhibit 1, question 8. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 52, Exhibit 4, BOC amendment. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Sri Lanka (17 July 2015), item 2.1. 11 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, p. 140. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 2, BOC narrative, para. 9. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Sri Lanka (17 July 2015), item 14.3, Response to Information Request (RIR) LKA103344.E, 28 January 2010. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 1. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 2, Narrative, para. 9. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 2, Narrative, para. 13. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, pp. 593-594, Exhibit 15, Maldives 2014 Human Rights Report. 18 Ibid., pp.596-597. 19 Ortiz Garzon, Omar Yovani v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-925-10), O'Keefe, March 11, 2011, 2011 FC 299; Gebetas, Ergun v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-11313-12), Shore, December 10, 2013, 2013 FC 1241. 20 Assadi, Nasser-Eddin v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2683-96), Teitelbaum, March 25, 1997. 21 Ilie, Lucian Ioan v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-462-94), MacKay, November 22, 1994. 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 558, Exhibit 10, p. 4. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for Sri Lanka (17 July 2015), item 3.2, RIR LKA103785.E, 22 July 2011. 24 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 627, Exhibit 18, p. 4. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, pp. 563-564, Exhibit 11. 26 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, p. 142. 27 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Reasons, p. 4. 28 See paras. 74 and 75 above. 29 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, p. 143. 30 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, p. 143. 31 Milovic, Sasa v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-7773-14), LeBlanc, August 25, 2015, 2015 FC 1008. 32 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 14. 33 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 14, The Economist, July 2, 2015, p. 1 and p. 4. 34 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 14, The Economist, April 30, 2015, p. 2. 35 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 16, pp. 598-599. 36 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 16, pp. 598-599. 37 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 16, Channel News Asia article, September 2, 2015, pp. 600-602. 38 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 16, Daily News, December 10, 201, pp. 606-610. 39 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 16, ColomboPage.com, December 12, 2015, p. 611. 40 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, pp. 637-639. 41 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, RPD's Reasons, pp. 21-24, "Change of political circumstances in Sri Lanka". 42 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Sri Lanka (17 July 2015), item 14.5, RIR LKA104245.E, 12 February 2013. 43 Ibid., NDP for Sri Lanka (17 July 2015), item 14.5. 44 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Sri Lanka (17 July 2015), item 14.3. 45 Dowansingh, Rajic Cavin v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6581-14), Diner, July 30, 2015, 2015 FC 933. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-04782