TC1-00136

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC1-00136 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision November 23, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Elana Rose Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Micheal Crane Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant), a citizen of Sri Lanka, appeals the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dated December 23, 2020. [2] The Appellant fears the United National Party (UNP) due to his activities supporting the United People's Freedom Alliance / Sri Lanka Freedom Party (UPFA/SLFP) and specific support of XXXX XXXX (XXXX). The Appellant also fears the police and army as they perceive that he is involved with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) diaspora. At the RPD hearing, the Appellant acknowledged that the political party which he supported had firmly taken over power, and he confirmed his only fear now is of the Sri Lankan authorities for perceived involvement with the LTTE and diaspora activities. [3] The RPD concluded that the Appellant lacked credibility around his central allegations and determined that he was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.1 [4] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in the analysis, and he asks that I allow the appeal.2 [5] My role is to look at all of the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.3 After a review of the record, I find that the Appellant provided insufficient credible evidence establishing his appeal, and the appeal is dismissed. NEW EVIDENCE The evidence presented by the Appellant is rejected [6] The Appellant seeks to admit the following documents as new evidence: (a) Affidavit of the Appellant, dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2021;4 (b) Affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX, 2021;5 (c) Affidavit of XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX, 2021;6 (d) Affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX (Appellant's wife), dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2021;7 (e) Affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2021;8 (f) Notice of Criminal Investigation Department (CID) appointments for the Appellant's wife and the Appellant's father, dated XXXX XXXX, 2020, XXXX XXXX, 2020 and XXXX XXXX, 2021;9 (g) Envelope containing original documents sent from Sri Lanka and shipping information;10 (h) Contents of envelope received by Appellant's wife in Sri Lanka in XXXX 2020 and envelope/tracking information;11 and (i) RPD related letters and access to information request.12 [7] According to the Law,13 I can only accept evidence that: (i) arose after the RPD's decision, dated December 23, 2020; or (ii) was not reasonably available at the time of the decision; or (iii) that the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to bring to the RPD before the decision. [8] If the evidence meets one or more of these requirements, I must decide if the evidence is new, credible and relevant before I can accept it.14 [9] The Appellant's Affidavit15 requests the admission of new evidence. The Appellant argues that there is a new ground of risk, due to the unexplained return of his refugee documents to his wife in Sri Lanka which was intercepted by authorities. The Appellant alleges that his father and wife were the subject of CID inquiries and abuse due to this event, giving rise to a heightened risk profile to the Appellant on return. The Appellant argues that the new evidence, if found credible, reflects a risk on return to Sri Lanka for the Appellant, as his refugee allegations in Canada are now known. [10] The Appellant argues that the documents are new as they could not have been obtained prior to the decision being rendered on December 23, 2020. He states that the time frame is too short.16 [11] I note that the Appellant provided documents indicating that the CID interest in the Appellant's father and wife dated back to XXXX XXXX, 2020. Even had the Appellant not been able to get copies of police notices delivered by DHL prior to XXXX XXXX, 2020, it is reasonable that, given the seriousness of the allegation, the RPD could have been alerted to the new evolving events and photographs of the documents provided while originals were in transit. [12] The statement by the Appellant's previous counsel, XXXX XXXX, and his assistant, XXXX XXXX, indicates clearly that the Appellant approached his counsel's office about the return of documents to Sri Lanka in XXXX 2020, prior to the decision of the RPD.17 I find the argument on newness to be weak given the extraordinary allegation of risk to the Appellant and the allegation of torture of family members. [13] The Appellant has also provided documents confirming that, three months after the mysterious appearance of the Appellant's refugee documents in Sri Lanka, and well after the RPD's decision, in XXXX 2021, he wrote to the RPD seeking confirmation that they had inadvertently returned his original documents. As noted by Counsel, this would be very irregular. There was no confirmation that the RPD was responsible for this return of documentation to Sri Lanka contained in the Appeal record or provided as new evidence in a Rule 29 application. [14] I find that there is insufficient credible evidence establishing that the RPD returned the Appellant's documents to him in Sri Lanka, creating a new risk profile for the Appellant. Furthermore, the tracking form provided by the Appellant does not establish the sender, nor does it support an interception of delivery for documentation review by authorities.18 The package landed at the Colombo Delivery Facility on XXXX XXXX, 2020 and was processed and sent to the Delivery Facility on XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX A.M, processed and delivered to the recipient a few hours later. [15] As the Appellant's new allegation is serious, I reviewed and considered the documents in their entirety. I find that the new evidence fails to pass the Singh and Raza19 factors, and it is not sufficiently credible or trustworthy. [16] The Appellant's wife indicates that she received a DHL package with the Appellant's refugee documents which included the Appellant's father's Affidavit provided for the Appellant's RPD hearing. She claims that as a result of an interception of the DHL package by Sri Lankan authorities, she and her father-in-law were called into the CID for interrogation. According to the Sri Lankan police Notices provided, she and her father-in-law were sent Notices on XXXX XXXX, 2020 and XXXX XXXX, 2020, respectively, for presentation in the morning of XXXX XXXX, 2020. Her father-in-law received an additional one for a XXXX 2021 appearance. [17] While the Appellant's father and wife both claim that they received notice to attend the CID investigation on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2020, for an appearance on the same day on XXXX XXXX, 2020, this makes no sense, as the first two notices were received on XXXX XXXX and XXXX, 2020. According to their own evidence, the Notices were received by the local police station. Furthermore, given that Colombo, where the CID office is located, is over XXXX kilometres drive from the town of XXXX in Kandy District, Central Province,20 and if the Appellant's family were summoned to appear first thing in the morning, it is difficult to comprehend how they would receive a message on XXXX XXXX, 2020 for attendance at XXXX XXXX XXXX a.m. on the same day. Additionally, the Notices indicate that a Reply is necessary, yet there is no evidence of a reply let alone how that would work if it was received the same day as the appearance was required. [18] The Appellant's father also indicates that he was provided another Notice for reappearance after release on XXXX XXXX, 2020, and he states that "they" both appeared on XXXX XXXX, 2020 for further questions; however, the return of the Appellant's wife to Colombo is not mentioned in her statement by the Notices. [19] The Notices themselves are not internally consistent in content and form. The one addressed to the Appellant's wife21 was issued on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2020; it does not identify the sender location stating "officer in charge" in contrast to the other Notice,22 which refers to the sender as O.I.C./C.I.D. Colombo. The Affiants both state that the Notices were generated for a CID appearance. [20] The sequential numbers (No.) on the issued Notices do not make sense. The first issued Notice on XXXX XXXX, 2020 is numbered XXXX23 and should be lower in number than the Notices issued after. The second Notice, dated XXXX XXXX, 2020, generated from the same location, has a lower sequential number of XXXX XXXX and the last issued Notice is numbered XXXX XXXX [21] I further note that the Notice generated on XXXX XXXX, 202024 contains English writing in the "From" and "To" boxes, whereas the earlier Notices are uniform in the language contained in the documents and contain no English language. Furthermore, the ink used on the English content is much darker than the ink in the rest of the document and appears to have been added to an already inked Notice. [22] The deviations of the content and style of the Notices and the inconsistency on dates in conjunction with the Appellant's father's rendition of events leads me to find that all of the documents, including the Affidavits, are not genuine and not reliable. [23] These Notices are issued by the Sri Lankan Police to Sri Lankan police, yet they are generated from the CID according to the information. I note that the objective evidence confirms that the CID themselves issue summonses for appearances for questioning, as do the police issue warrants.25 [24] Also notable, the Appellant's wife has provided a sworn statement where she provides details of being questioned and abused by the authorities for assisting her husband, a situation that arose from the unexplained returning of the Appellant's personal documents to Sri Lanka and their interception. [25] In contrast to the alleged fear of authorities and exposure that arose by mailing documents which were intercepted, the Appellant's wife provides a new written statement detailing abusive and extra-judicial interaction with authorities, which was sent to the Appellant in support of his appeal, in another DHL envelope, using her actual Sri Lankan return address.26 The objective evidence confirms that suspected LTTE supporters are subjected to significant scrutiny, surveillance, abuse and monitoring.27 [26] The Appellant's father was to appear again on XXXX XXXX, 2021;28 and while the Appellant writes in his Memorandum that he will provide an update on that meeting,29 nothing has been provided to the RAD, and the appeal was filed after the XXXX 2020 interrogation. There is no accompanying medical evidence supporting physical abuse during interrogations either. [27] I find that the facts, as set out in the Appellant's Affidavit and those provided in the Affidavit of his wife and father, are not supported with credible evidence; therefore, none of the evidence is admissible as credible under the Singh factors. [28] I find the new evidence of a mysterious and unexplained return of documents to Sri Lanka, which has sparked police interest and created a residual risk profile for the Appellant if returned, to be too fortuitous to be believed.30 [29] As none of the evidence has been accepted by me, the requirements of subsection 110(6) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) have not been met, and an oral hearing cannot be convened. ISSUES IN APPEAL [30] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred: (a) by determining that the XXXX 2017 detention was not credible, as the Appellant was able to travel on his genuine passport shortly after his escape from detention; he states that he explained in his Basis of Claim form (BoC) that he engaged a smuggler, and his testimony at the hearing that he had no problem exiting should have been considered in the context of the smuggler's engagement and the direction of the smuggler to a specific agent;31 (b) by determining that the Appellant's use of a smuggler was not identified in the Schedule 12, #7 and differentiates the term referring to identification of anyone who facilitated the journey, as different from an agent helping at the airport to one who arranged the travel; (c) as the objective evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP)32 indicates that, in the absence of a court order, individuals can leave the country; and citizens can choose self exile unless charged with criminal of civil violations;33 furthermore, the Appellant argues that the CID puts individuals on a stop list to prevent departure, not the police;34 and (d) by failing to consider the sworn document of the Appellant's wife.35 ANALYSIS The Appellant offered inconsistent evidence on pivotal events, and I find that he is not credible on the events or his profile. The RPD did not err. [31] Overall, the Appellant offered vague oral evidence around his allegation of being accused of being a Sinhalese Tiger. He alleges that he and his family have close political ties to the ruling party and lead politician, XXXX,36 in Sri Lanka; however, unknown persons have made up a story about him supporting Sinhalese Tigers, and somehow his political connections have not helped him.37 [32] The Appellant speculates that his problems arose due to his long work history outside of Sri Lanka and due to his frequent travel to and from the United States of America (USA). He no longer fears due to political opinion, but he submits that he has a profile as a perceived Sinhalese Tiger.38 [33] In the Appellant's narrative,39 he indicates that, on XXXX XXXX, 2017, he was confronted at gunpoint, accused of supporting a politician, taken to the police station, kept in a cell, beaten and released on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017 after his wife bribed an official. [34] In his sworn narrative, he states that, sometime after his release, while traveling in a taxi, the taxi was intercepted, and he was robbed of his cell phone at gunpoint. The Appellant jumped out of the taxi, ran and hid in the forest until daybreak.40 The Appellant further states that, after he walked home to his wife, he did not leave his home for any reason. [35] He states that, on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, police came to his home and arrested him for suspected LTTE activities and linked them to his US work experience. The officers removed him and squeezed his wife's neck and drove him in a van to an army camp.41 On day five of captivity, the Appellant escaped while working in the camp kitchen, hid in a delivery truck, and was transported out of the compound. After one hour of driving and being unnoticed in the back seat, the Appellant escaped when the van stopped. He hid with relatives. [36] The Appellant also writes in his narrative: "While I was in hiding the Army went to my home looking for me. They threatened my wife to reveal my whereabouts. She told them that I left the country. They ordered my wife to bring me to their camp when I returned home."42 The Appellant left Sri Lanka on XXXX XXXX, 2017, using his genuine passport. [37] In oral testimony, the Appellant speaks about escaping the camp and leaving the country. He is directly asked how he could leave Sri Lanka on his own passport if he had escaped police custody, and he responds: "Okay. They may have searched for me, maybe they did not think that I will escape from the country. They may have looked for me, but I was, as I left the airport, I was myself afraid, but there were no problems for me."43 [emphasis added] [38] I find that the use of the word "maybe", around his evidence on departure and search for him, reflects a lack of certainty on events, or speculation, as opposed to the tone of written evidence that was set as factual, a genuine search. [39] More importantly, the Appellant did not spontaneously refer to the violent event set out in his narrative. While he was asked about the event directly and offered evidence of being labelled a traitor at the XXXX XXXX, 2017 confrontation only, he provided no spontaneous testimony on any incarceration, beating and bribed release as set out in the narrative that occurred on XXXX XXXX, 2017.44 [40] The Appellant's wife's statement refers to an incident in XXXX 2017 where the Appellant was threatened at gunpoint, taken to the police station and released with her bribe the following day.45 The Appellant's narrative indicates that he was walking home from a cricket game when this occurred;46 and, in contrast, the Appellant's father's statement indicates that, in XXXX 2017, the police came to his home and arrested the Appellant.47 He states: "police came to my home and arrested my son as unpatriotic."48 [41] There is no mention of an arrest on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017 that led to an escape on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017 in the supporting Affidavit; and, in fact, the Appellant's father makes a reference to hiding his son at his home,49 whereas the Appellant stated that he was hidden by relatives in XXXX. His father states that he assisted the Appellant in his departure from Sri Lanka on XXXX XXXX, 2017, a month before the actual departure. [42] It is not evidence that the Appellant's father was only mixed up on his dates; the details of the location of the Appellant and location of the police visit differs as well. While the Appellant's wife recounts how the police came to her home and took her husband on XXXX XXXX, 2017, it is notable that the Appellant's father also indicates that the Appellant was taken from his home, and each resides at a different address.50 [43] Additionally, the Appellant's own sworn documentation indicates that he was detained for political involvement on XXXX XXXX, 2016,51 but he makes no mention of any XXXX 2017 arrest and detention forcing him to flee on XXXX XXXX, 2017. Similarly, the Appellant states that he was accused of loitering on XXXX XXXX, 2017,52 with no mention of XXXX events either, specifically, his arrest for being a Sinhalese Tiger. [44] The evidence on police interest in the Appellant after he fled from Sri Lanka on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017 is also inconsistent. In oral testimony, the Appellant stated that no one came looking for him until after his child was born in XXXX 2018, when they came many times.53 According to his wife's Affidavit, the police came in XXXX 2017 looking for the Appellant, and the next mention of police interest is XXXX 2019,54 a year after the Appellant's date of XXXX 2018. [45] There is no consistency on events and dates offered by the Appellant and his family members, and while the Appellant argues that the RPD erred by failing to consider the Appellant's wife's statement, I do not find that the supporting evidence bolsters the Appellant's credibility at all, as all of the statements are rife with internal inconsistency on fact, events and dates. [46] I find the inconsistent accounts of pivotal events support the adverse credibility finding by the RPD. There is simply insufficient credible evidence of the events as relayed contained in the record. Evidence on departure [47] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred when it considered the Appellant's failure to provide details of agent involvement in his originating documents,55 and he submits that the disclosure in the narrative and his oral testimony are sufficient to account for his ability to exit from Sri Lanka on his genuine passport on XXXX XXXX, 2017. [48] After my independent review of the transcript and the evidence on the record, I conclude that the Appellant provided vague evidence on his exit from Sri Lanka, and the RPD was correct to consider his failure to disclose details in his originating documents, in conjunction with all of the evidence. [49] The Appellant testified at his hearing that he had used an "agent" to exit the airport on many occasions. For most of his adult life, he had been working outside of Sri Lanka, in the Maldives and USA.56 [50] He provided vague evidence around the events and exit on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, and when his Counsel tried to clarify details, the Appellant provided general information about forms until he was directly prompted to indicate that there was one specific agent at the exit that he was to use. COUNSEL: Okay, don't care that you paid money to the agent, well we can assume that. I want to know what he did to help you leave?57 APPELLANT: Okay, so the agent has people in the airport who are working in the airport, who will fill the forms and what necessary documents and I was able to pass through without any delay and then quickly through the airport.58 COUNSEL: So how did your last departure compare with previous departures? APPELLANT: This time the agency told me to go to such and such accountant, go through that. So actually this was much easier process than the previous times. COUNSEL: So he directed you to a specific officer, is that the case? APPELLANT: Yes, they had their own people.59 COUNSEL: Yeah, really it's just a simple question, without the detail. Did he direct you to a specific officer? APPELLANT: Yes -- [51] I note that the objective evidence indicates that there are in fact six identity passenger checks as you transition from entry to the airport to boarding the plane. There is not one individual that can facilitate the illegal exit.60 Furthermore, if on a LTTE watch list and the Appellant alleges arrest and detention due to suspected involvement in LTTE activities, it is reasonable that having escaped from custody, 11 days later on exit, his name would have circulated onto a watch list,61 especially given the pervasive documentation regarding the harsh treatment afforded those that are suspected of subversive activity.62 [52] Given the failure of the Appellant to provide sufficient evidence of pivotal events or to establish a profile of being a perceived Sinhalese Tiger, his exit from Sri Lanka is not a determinative issue. The evidence supports that he was able to exit from Sri Lanka, as he had no profile that put him at risk. [53] I have not addressed the Appellant's arguments around objective evidence supporting an ability to exit where just the police or military are involved, as the failure to establish the events and a profile is determinative. The Appellant has not provided sufficient credible evidence of any profile giving rise to a forward-looking risk. [54] As a returning failed refugee claimant, the Appellant may be questioned at the airport by immigration officials, and he may be subjected to criminal checks by the CID with the local police.63 Once passed their checks, they would be released. It is further stated that claiming asylum abroad is not an offense in Sri Lanka;64 therefore, the Appellant does not have a forward-looking risk as a failed refugee claimant. CONCLUSION [55] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) Elana Rose Elana Rose November 23, 2021 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 8. 2 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at p. 66. 3 M.C.I. v. Huruglica (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas Del Solar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2645-17), Diner, November 14, 2018, 2018 FC 1145. 4 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 1. 5 Ibid., at p. 3. 6 Ibid., at p. 4. 7 Ibid., at p. 5. 8 Ibid., at p. 16. 9 Ibid., at pp. 21-28. 10 Ibid., at p. 29. 11 Ibid., at pp. 31-49. 12 Ibid., at pp. 50-53. 13 IRPA, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, subsection 110(4). 14 M.C.I. v. Singh (F.C.A., no. A-512-14), Nadon, Gauthier, de Montigny, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 96; Raza v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-11-07), Linden, Sharlow, Ryer, December 6, 2007, 2007 FCA 385. 15 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 1. 16 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Affidavit, at p. 1, para 4. 17 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 3. 18 Ibid., at pp. 48-49. 19 M.C.I. v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96; Raza v. M.C.I., 2007 FCA 385. 20 NDP for Sri Lanka (May 31, 2021), item 1.1, United Nations, Cartographic Section, Sri Lanka, March 2008. 21 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 21. 22 Ibid, at p. 25. 23 Ibid, at p. 23. 24 Ibid., at p. 28. 25 NDP for Sri Lanka for (May 31, 2021), item 13.7, United Kingdom (UK) Home Office, Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Sri Lanka conducted between 28 September and 5 October 2019, January 20, 2020; item 7.2, United States (US) Department of State (DOS), Sri Lanka: Country Reports on Terrorism 2019, June 24, 2020; and item 10.5 10.5, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), Response to Information Request (RIR) LKA200594.E, April 30, 2021. 26 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 29. 27 NDP for Sri Lanka (May 31, 2021) and (September 1, 2020), item 1.5, UK Home Office, Report of a Home Office Fact-Finding Mission. Sri Lanka: treatment of Tamils and people who have real or perceived association with the former Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam (LTTE), July 2016, section 13.1.3; item 1.8, Austrian Red Cross, Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation, Sri Lanka: COI Compilation, December 2016, section 2.1.2; item 1.9, Australia: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report: Sri Lanka, November 4, 2019, sections 2.49, 3.12, 4.11, 5.32. 28 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 27. 29 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at p. 59, para 35. 30 Idugboe v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5916-18), McHaffie, March 4, 2020, 2020 FC 334. 31 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at pp. 60-61. 32 NDP for Sri Lanka (September 1, 2020) and (May 31, 2021), item 14.6, IRB, RIR LKA200301.E, August 4, 2020. 33 NDP for Sri Lanka (September 1, 2020) and (May 31, 2021), item 14.1, IRB, RIR LKA106007.E, November 10, 2017. 34 NDP for Sri Lanka (September 1, 2020) and (May 31, 2021), item 4.11, UK Home Office, Country Policy and Information Note - Sri Lanka: Tamil Separatism, Version 6.0, May 2020, section 8.2.1. 35 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at p. 62. 36 Transcript of the RPD Hearing on November 24, 2020, at p. 16 37 Transcript of the RPD Hearing on November 24, 2020, at pp. 13-14. 38 Transcript of the RPD Hearing on November 24, 2020, at p. 13. 39 Exhibit RPD-2, Supplementary RPD Record, at p. 13. 40 Ibid., at p. 13. 41 Ibid., at p. 14. 42 Ibid., at p. 15, para 11. 43 Transcript of the RPD Hearing on November 24, 2020, at p. 12. 44 Ibid., at p. 10. 45 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 101. 46 Exhibit RPD-2, Supplementary RPD Record, at p. 13. 47 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 303, para 7. 48 Ibid., at p. 303. 49 Ibid., at p. 304, para 11. 50 Ibid., at pp. 100 and 302. 51 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Background Schedule, at p. 30. 52 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 27, #9c. 53 Transcript of the RPD Hearing on November 24, 2020, at p. 17. 54 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 101. 55 Ibid., at p. 27, #7. 56 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record., Background Schedule, at p. 33. 57 Transcript of the RPD Hearing on November 24, 2020, at p. 19. 58 Ibid., at p. 19. 59 Ibid., at p. 20. 60 NDP for Sri Lanka (September 1, 2020) and (May 31, 2021), item 14.1, IRB, RIR LKA106007.E, at p. 3. 61 Ibid., item 14.1, IRB, RIR LKA106007.E, November 10, 2017, at p. 4. 62 NDP for Sri Lanka (September 1, 2020) and (May 31, 2021), item 1.8, Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation, Sri Lanka: COI Compilation, December 2016, at pp. 89-91. 63 NDP for Sri Lanka (September 1, 2020) and (May 31, 2021), item 13.7, UK Home Office, Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Sri Lanka conducted between 28 September and 5 October 2019, January 20, 2020, para 4.1.1. 64 Ibid., item 13.7, para 4.1.4. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC1-00136 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français 2 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français