TB9-02351

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-02351 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision June 22, 2020 Date de la décision Panel David Morris Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Bahar Karbakhsh-Ravari 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 XXXX (the Appellant) appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated December 17, 2018, rejecting his claim for refugee protection. DETERMINATION [2] The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) allows this appeal and substitutes its determination for that of the RPD. The Appellant is a Convention refugee. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant is a citizen of Iraq and a member of the Shia Islamic faith. He fears Sunni and Shia extremists and militia groups due to his moderate religious beliefs, the time he has spent outside of Iraq and because he has worked for foreign companies. [4] The Appellant has primarily lived and worked outside of Iraq since 2003. On XXXX XXXX 2017, while living in the XXXX XXXX XXXX (XXXX), the Appellant returned to Iraq to visit his mother while she had surgery. On XXXX XXXX 2019, the Appellant received an anonymous letter demanding he and his family leave the mother's home, pay a ransom of XXXX XXXX XXXX dollars or face "punishment." [5] The Appellant went into hiding with his cousin until fleeing back to XXXX on XXXX XXXX 2017. Shortly after, the Appellant came to Canada with his family to claim refugee status. [6] The Appellant's claim was heard together with the claims of his wife and their three daughters. The RPD accepted the daughters' claims. The claims of the Appellant and his wife were rejected. [7] The RPD found the Appellant's actions inconsistent with the alleged threat. It also found the documents he provided were unreliable. The RPD found this undermined the Appellant's credibility and that, on a balance of probabilities, the threat against him and his family did not occur. The RPD held that the objective evidence did not show the Appellant and his spouse face more than a mere possibility of persecution. The Appellant and his wife appealed this decision to the RAD. [8] The Appellant's wife's appeal was dismissed by the RAD for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to paragraph 110(2)(d) of the amended Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1 SCOPE OF THIS APPEAL [9] I have analyzed the entire record to determine whether the RPD erred. I have considered whether the RPD's decision is correct on questions of law, fact or mixed law and fact.2 [10] I have reviewed the Appellant's testimony in light of the documents filed in support of his appeal as well as the objective documentation. Having done so, I find that the RPD had no meaningful advantage over the RAD in evaluating this evidence. I have therefore not deferred to the RPD's findings. ISSUES ON APPEAL [11] The Appellant's arguments may be summarized as follows. 1. The RPD did not understand the Iraqi cultural and religious importance of taking care of family members; 2. The Appellant's previous counsel "mismanaged" the Appellant's case. The interpreter used by previous counsel failed to translate two critical court documents which had been provided by the Appellant. Because previous counsel did not provide the Appellant with a copy of the documents that had been filed with the RPD for review prior to the hearing, the Appellant did not realize the documents had not been submitted. These documents would have answered the RPD's credibility concerns; 3. Considering the National Documentation Package (NDP), it is unclear how the RPD reached the decision that the Appellant would be able to return to Iraq without facing more than a mere possibility of persecution. NEW EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPELLANT'S RECORD [12] My jurisdiction to admit new evidence is limited. I may only admit new evidence if: 1) the evidence arose after the rejection of the claim; 2) the evidence was not reasonably available before the rejection; or 3) the appellant could not have reasonably been expected to present the evidence before the rejection. If one of these criteria is met, I must then determine whether the evidence is new, credible and relevant. [13] The Appellant has submitted numerous documents which either "...arose after his rejection, [or] were not available beforehand, either because he did not have access to them or because the content of the new evidence is a response to what the Board Member has stated in her decision and therefore became relevant and available after the hearing."3 [14] I would first note that, contrary to the Appellant's submission, I have no jurisdiction to admit new evidence as a response to the RPD's negative findings. Simply because the Appellant disagrees with or did not anticipate a negative determination or credibility finding is not a basis for the admission of new evidence. The RAD appeal process is not an opportunity to remedy evidentiary deficiencies or present better evidence that was always in existence. [15] Second, I find that the Appellant's submissions with regard to the admissibility of this new evidence generally lacks particularity. Simply asserting that it either "arose after rejection, [or] was not available beforehand" does not demonstrate a particular piece of evidence is admissible. It is for the Appellant to demonstrate how this evidence meets the above criteria. It is not for the RAD to do so on behalf of the Appellant or his counsel. Counsel is advised to inform herself of the statutory requirements and Rules applicable for the admission of new evidence so that she may represent her clients effectively. Affidavit of the Appellant (Appellant's Record, at pp. 37-54) [16] Included in the Appellant's Record is the Affidavit of the Appellant, dated 7 February 2019. I find this affidavit to be an elaboration of what the Appellant views to be errors in the RPD decision or a reiteration of evidence he provided at the RPD hearing. As such, I find the affidavit is essentially part of the Appellant's Memorandum. I therefore need not consider its admissibility but will consider the affidavit as part of the Appellant's submissions. Affidavit of the Appellant's wife, dated 7 February 2017(Appellant's Record, at pp. 56-62) [17] As the Appellant's wife is not an appellant in this appeal, the elaborations she provides on the reasons for refusing her claim are not relevant. However, as with the Appellant's affidavit, I have considered his wife's affidavit as a part of the Appellant's submissions where her statements pertain to the merits of the Appellant's appeal. Letter from interpreter with attached court documents and translations (Appellant's Record, at pp. 64-70) [18] I will admit these documents. [19] The interpreter's letter supports the Appellant's allegation that certain court documents he provided for translation and submission to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) were overlooked by the interpreter and not provided to the Appellant's lawyer. Although the interpreter's letter is not dated, as it should have been, it is clear from the content of the letter that it was written, and therefore arose, after the rejection of the claim. I accept the letter for what it says. The documents in question were not translated or provided to the RPD as the Appellant clearly intended. They therefore meet the requirements of section 110(4). [20] Counsel makes no submission with regard to the credibility, relevance and newness of these documents and therefore risks not having them admitted. However, to avoid prejudice to the Appellant, I have considered these issues of my own accord. [21] I accept the documents as credible with regard to their source to the extent that I have no reason to doubt the interpreter's statement that she received them from the Appellant for translation and submission to previous counsel approximately one year prior to the RPD hearing. This does not mean that I find the documents to be genuine documents issued from the Iraqi authorities, merely that I accept they were genuinely intended to have been provided prior to the RPD hearing. I will examine the issue of their general reliability and whether they support the Appellant's allegations in my analysis below. [22] I find these documents provide new information which may contradict the RPD's finding that the alleged threat against the Appellant did not happen. They are therefore relevant to the claim for protection and will be admitted. Email from the Appellant to the Interpreter (Appellant's Record, at pp. 72-79) [23] This document will not be admitted. I have already admitted the interpreter's letter in which she admits to having received the attached documents from the Appellant but failed to translate them. I accept the interpreter's admission. This evidence is therefore not required. Death certificate of the Appellant's mother in law with translation (Appellant's Record, at pp. 81-83) [24] This document was apparently submitted for purposes of the wife's appeal.4 As the wife is not an appellant in these proceedings, I find the document is not relevant and will not be admitted. Medical report for the Appellant's mother with translation (Appellant's Record, at pp. 85-87) [25] The medical report cannot be admitted. [26] The document was issued by the Ministry of Health on XXXX XXXX 2017 - while the Appellant was still in Iraq - and therefore clearly arose and was reasonably available prior to the rejection on 17 December 2018. The Appellant originally alleged in his affidavit5 and in his Memorandum that his previous lawyer had not requested the document and therefore the Appellant did not know it would be important for his case.6 [27] I do not accept the Appellant's contention that he did not know these documents could have been important to his case for the following reasons. [28] One of the Appellant's main assertions in this appeal is that previous counsel mishandled his case. [29] Current counsel was directed7 to comply with the RAD's Practice Notice Regarding Allegations Against Former Counsel - a practice with which she appeared to be unaware.8 This required the Appellant to give notice to previous counsel and provide details of the allegations being made against him by the Appellant.9 [30] Previous counsel was provided an opportunity to respond. His response included a list given to the Appellant setting out the documents the Appellant was to collect for the RPD hearing. 10 The list asked the Appellant to collect "Medical documents confirming your mother's health condition (cancer) and particular illness around XXXX 2017." This list was provided to the Appellant on 19 September 2017, well over a year prior to the RPD hearing. [31] After receiving previous counsel's response, Appellant's current counsel requested the Appellant's affidavit and memorandum be amended to withdraw this allegation against previous counsel.11 [32] I find previous counsel specifically requested this document from the Appellant for submission at the RPD hearing. I therefore find the Appellant could reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented his mother's medical report at the time of rejection. The report does not meet the requirements of section 110(4) of IRPA and will not be admitted. Termination letter from HME Hilarion (Appellant's Record, at p. 89) [33] This document was admitted into evidence at the RPD hearing and forms a part of the RPD Record in these proceedings. Counsel need not have submitted this document as new evidence. Appellant's Canadian educational documents (Appellant's Record, at pp. 91-100) [34] These documents will not be entered. While I understand and appreciate the Appellant's desire to become employed in Canada, this documentation is not relevant in the sense of being able to prove or disprove a fact that relates to the Appellant's claim. [35] Further, this evidence is not new. I accept the Appellant has lived and worked for extended periods outside of Iraq - including here in Canada. Training certificate from XXXX XXXX XXXX and 2 news articles (Appellant's Record, at pp. 102-107) [36] The training certificate dates from XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX 2012. The two articles are dated XXXX and XXXX XXXX 2018. All therefore arose prior to the rejection of the Appellant's claim. The Appellant has provided no evidence or arguments to show that these documents were not reasonably available or could not reasonably have been expected at the time of rejection. Nor has it been shown how these documents are relevant to any fact that is at issue in this case. As I have already indicated, the RAD is not required to make arguments on behalf of the Appellant and I decline to do so here. This evidence will not be admitted. ESL certificate and web and Instagram pages relating to the Appellant's wife's work in Canada (Appellant's Record, at pp. 109-126) [37] The Appellant's wife's study in English and work in Canada are not relevant to any issue in this appeal since she is not an appellant in this matter. These documents will not be admitted. Letter from Appellant's friend, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (Appellant's Record, at pp. 128-130) [38] This letter is not admissible. Although dated after the rejection of the claim, I must look to its content to determine whether the evidence contained in the letter arose before the rejection, was reasonably available or could reasonably be expected to have been presented. The letter's author indicates he has known the Appellant since university. The basic thrust of the letter is that the Appellant would be in danger in Iraq because he stands out as having not lived in Iraq for a long time. [39] I find all of the information contained in this letter was available at the time the claim was rejected. I also note that several months prior to the hearing, previous counsel specifically requested the Appellant provide documents from friends and acquaintances to support the Appellant's claim. I therefore also find that this evidence could reasonably have been expected to be presented at the time of rejection. [40] Accordingly, this letter will not be admitted. News articles post-dating the rejection of the Appellant's claim (Appellant's Record, at pp. 132-139) [41] These articles post-date the rejection of the claim and provide information that did not arise or was not available at the time of rejection. They therefore meet the criteria of section 110(4) of IRPA. [42] There is some question as to the direct relevance of these articles to the Appellant's case. This is because the articles deal with the assassination of a well-known author and threats against civilian activists while the Appellant himself is neither an author nor an activist. However, the articles are from credible sources such as PEN America and provide information with regard to current country conditions that could be relevant to a proper assessment of the objective basis of the Appellant's claim. I will therefore admit these articles. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED AFTER PERFECTION OF THE APPEAL [43] Subsequent to the filing of his Record, the Appellant made three separate applications for the admission of further evidence pursuant to Rule 29. [44] In deciding whether to admit late evidence, I must first consider the document's relevance and probative value, any new evidence it brings to the appeal and whether the documents could have been provided with the Appellant's Record. Then I must apply the criteria applicable to all new evidence as detailed above: the provisions of section 110(4) of IRPA followed by a determination of whether the evidence is new, credible and relevant. News articles post-dating the perfection of this Appeal [45] The two most recent applications request the admission of recent news articles.12 [46] I find these articles are relevant to current country conditions and may have some probative value in assessing the objective basis of the Appellant's claim. I find they could not have been presented at the hearing since they were published after the rejection. They therefore meet the requirements of Rule 29. [47] They provide details of events in Iraq that have occurred a year or more since the rejection of the claim. They therefore meet the requirements of section 110(4). They are from credible news sources, are new in the sense that they detail the current state of affairs in Iraq and, as I have already determined, may be relevant to the issue of objective basis. [48] The articles are therefore admissible. Revised (dated) letter from the interpreter which was previously submitted as new evidence with the Appellant's Record13 [49] It would have been preferable if this dated version of this letter had originally been presented. This version of the interpreter's letter will not be considered as I have already admitted the original, undated, version. "Expert Report", dated XXXX XXXX 2019 [50] I am prepared to accept the Appellant's assertion that this document was requested at the beginning of the appeal process but only received after the appeal was perfected. The document is relevant in that it provides some evidence of the danger the Appellant could face upon return to Iraq. However, I find the document's probative value limited and I do not accept it as an expert report. [51] The reporter is a XXXX XXXX in the field of XXXX XXXX. While I accept that he is learned in his field, this does not indicate any particular expertise as to whether the Appellant's claim is well-founded. [52] While the author may have worked for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in his capacity as an XXXX, I also do not find that this is indicative of a "career in politics" as the author suggests. I do not find he has any particular insight into the Appellant's situation above and beyond that of any other Iraqi citizen. [53] Given this, I find the probative value of this report is limited and certainly less then that which would be afforded to expert opinion. [54] Even if I were to find this evidence met the requirements of Rule 29, I note that the reporter first met the Appellant in university, has kept in contact ever since, and that they were neighbours in Erbil in 2013. The substance of the letter as it relates to the Appellant deals with issues that arose prior to the rejection of the claim such as the Appellant's work history, the way his wife dresses, and so on. I find this evidence was reasonably available and could reasonably be expected to have been presented at the time of rejection; particularly since the Appellant was specifically asked by his previous lawyer to collect such evidence. [55] This document therefore does not meet the requirements of section 110(4) of IRPA and cannot be admitted. REQUEST FOR ORAL HEARING [56] Pursuant to section 110(6) of IRPA, the RAD may hold a hearing only where new evidence has been admitted. The new evidence must raise a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellant which is both central to, and, if accepted, would justify allowing or denying, the Appellant's claim. [57] The new evidence admitted consists of a number of news articles and the interpreter's letter, along with two court documents from Iraq with the interpreter's translations. Counsel for the Appellant makes no arguments as to how the requirements of section 110(6) are met. [58] I find the articles, while relevant, do not in themselves justify allowing or rejecting the Appellant's claim. This is because they are not capable of independently corroborating or proving the truth of the Appellant's specific allegations. [59] I find the court documents do raise a serious issue with respect to the Appellant's credibility that is both central to and would justify allowing or rejecting the claim. However, the Appellant has already testified as to how and why these documents were obtained. At the time he testified, the Appellant asserts he believed that these documents were in evidence. I have listened to audio of the RPD hearing and find I am able to assess these documents in light of the Appellant's testimony as well as the objective documentation without the necessity of a hearing. [60] The Appellant's request for an oral hearing is therefore denied. ANALYSIS [61] While the RPD's reasons are detailed and well-written, I am required to conduct my own independent analysis of the evidence on appeal. Having considered the court documents which have now been admitted as new evidence, as well as the current country conditions in Iraq, I find there is a serious possibility that the Appellant would face persecution because of his moderate views. I also find he would be easily identifiable as someone who has lived and worked for long periods outside of Iraq. I find there is more than a mere possibility he would be targeted as a result. [62] I therefore find that the RPD erred in determining the Appellant would face less than a mere possibility of harm as a result of his moderate views or other factors. This is because the evidence now shows, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant was threatened during his last visit to Iraq. I also find the objective evidence supports the Appellant's assertion that he could be targeted if his views or personal background were known. While I acknowledge the possibility of persecution may not reach the level of "more likely than not", I find that the evidence nonetheless does show a serious possibility the Appellant would be persecuted. Court documents submitted as new evidence [63] At his hearing, the Appellant produced a "threat letter",14 and several court documents including a court Opening Report,15 a Report of Acquisition (of the threat letter)16 as well as a receipt for what appears to be a fee for filing of the complaint.17 The RPD found that the court documents presented by the Appellant were likely produced for purposes of the Appellant's claim since they lacked security features such as a letterhead or stamps. The RPD did not comment on the threat letter. [64] The Appellant now submits two additional documents which appear to have been issued by the Court at the same time. These include the Report of the Judicial Investigator18 as well as the Appellant's written complaint.19 [65] All of the Court documents are dated XXXX XXXX 2017. The Judicial Investigator's name and signature appears on each of the Court documents with the exception of the receipt. The Report of the Judicial Investigator appears on the letterhead of the Court. The Appellant's written complaint appears to bear the stamp of the Judicial Council and the Judge's seal. The stamp refers to receipt number XXXX which is consistent with the number of the receipt entered at the hearing. The documents purport to have been issued by the Investigation Court in Al Karkh. [66] These documents appear to be consistent with objective evidence which shows that Al Karkh is one of two jurisdictions of the Investigation Court in Baghdad. The Investigation Court has jurisdiction to investigate all crimes. Article 47 of the Iraqi Criminal Procedure Code 23 of 1971 provides that any person against whom an offence has been committed may inform a Judicial Investigator. Although obtaining court documents can be difficult, it appears complainants are usually able to obtain copies of documents including reports and witness statements. Witness statements do not have a consistent form, but are said to contain information such as the date, name of witness and summary of the statement.20 [67] A sample Investigation Court Report from Basra, while not identical to the one presented here from Al Karkh, bears the same logo on its letterheard and similarly lacks other security features.21 [68] One of the RPD's concerns with the Court documents presented at the hearing was that none of them contained the file number which was included on the Court receipt. The Complaint which has now been submitted does in fact bear the same file number as the receipt. [69] Considering all of these documents, including the threat letter, in light of the objective documentation, I find that the RPD was not correct when it found that the court documents were, in essence, fraudulent. I find that the Appellant has extablished, on a balance of probabilities, that he received a threat and that he reported the threat to the Investigation Court in Al Karkh. [70] The RPD identified other issues with regards to the credibility of the threat. First, it determined that the Appellant was unable to provide clear and consistent testimony about his mother's surgery. The RPD does not identify what was unclear or inconsistent in the Appellant's testimony on this point. I have reviewed the Appellant's testimony and I find no such inconsistencies. [71] The RPD had before it medical records indicating the Appellant's mother had malignant non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Even though these medical records were from the year previous to the threat against the Appellant, I find, on a balance, they establish the mother's illness. I find nothing inherently incredible with the Appellant returning to Iraq, prior to receiving the alleged threat, to visit his ill mother. [72] The RPD further notes that, having received the threat on XXXX XXXX 2017, the Appellant did not leave Iraq until XXXX XXXX 2017 - a period of XXXX days. The RPD found this to be inconsistent with having received the alleged threat. I disagree. I find this brief period insufficient to support the conclusion that the Appellant lacked a subjective fear under all of the circumstances. The Appellant's claim is objectively well-founded [73] The threat the Appellant received purports to be from the Ahl Al-Haq Group (AAH).22 AAH is a Shia, Iranian backed, Popular Mobilization Force (PMF) which has been implicated in numerous terrorist attacks including the killing of anti-government protestors.23 [74] According to several souces, Shia militias such as the AAH have been kidnapping civilians on a near daily basis in Iraq since at least 2016 in order to extort money from their families.24 "Individuals, militias, and organized criminal groups carried out abductions and kidnappings for personal gain or for political or sectarian reasons."25 Civilian authorities did not exercise control over Iranian backed PMFs.26 These militias are "untouchable" and "'operate as mafia-style organizations that engage in criminal activities, extortion and human rights abuses'".27 [75] I find this information to be consistent with the Appellant's allegation that he was threatened with extortion and kidnapping by a pro-Shia militia. I find that the Appellant would be particularly vulnerable to such threats both because of his moderate views and because, as someone who has lived and worked ouside of Iraq for extended periods, he would possibly be perceived as somone who not only held more liberal beliefs, but would likely be able to pay a ransom. I therefore find he would face a serious possibility of persecution because of his imputed polituical opinion or moderate views. State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative [76] I find the documentation establishes that Shia militias operate basically as a law unto themselves in Iraq. I find the state authorities would be unwilling and unable to offer effective protection from any of these groups, including the AAH. I find that adequate state protection does not exist for the Appellant if he were to return to Iraq. [77] There is no indication that PMFs such as the AAH are limited to any specific geographical area in Iraq. I also find it likely the Appellant would face persecution from any of the numerous militias that operate throughout the country. I find that the Appellant has no internal flight alternative reasonably available to him. CONCLUSION [78] The appeal is allowed. Pursuant to section 111(1)(b) of the IRPA, the RAD sets aside the determination of the RPD and substitutes its own determination that the Appellant is a Convention refugee. (signed) David Morris David Morris 22 June 2020 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), Reasons and Decision, RAD TB9-02352, Member R. Bebbington, 6 February 2019. 2 Sections 110 & 111, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, [2016] 4 FCR 157, at para. 103. 3 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 157, para. 30. 4 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 158, para. 35. 5 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, at p. 40, para. 10. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, at p. 159, para. 36. 7 Exhibit RAD-1, Member's Directions, Directions to Appellant's Counsel Re: Allegations Against Former Counsel, 19 December 2019. 8 Immigration and Refugee Board, Practice Notice - Allegations Against Former Counsel, effective 10 September 2018. 9 Exhibit P-6, Response to Member's Directions, 13 January 2020. 10 Exhibit I-1, Former Counsel's Response to Allegations, 16 January 2020. 11 Exhibit P-7, Counsel Response to Former Counsel, January 20, 2020, ; Exhibit P-5, Request to Amend Appellant's Affidavit, 13 January 2020. 12 Exhibit P-4, Rule 29 Application, dated 4 November 2019; Exhibit P-8, Rule 29 Application, dated 3 February 2020. 13 Exhibit P-3, Rule 29 Application, dated 17 April 2019. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 17, at pp. 644-646. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 17, at pp. 647-649. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 17, at pp. 650-652. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 17, at pp. 653-655. 18 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 65-67. 19 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 68-70. 20 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Iraq (31 October 2019), Item 9.4, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Response to Immigration Request (RIR) IRQ106242.E, 8 February 2019, "Iraq: Investigation courts, including role, activities and locations, particularly in Baghdad; requirements and procedures to report a crime to an investigation court; requirements and procedures to obtain court reports, including their appearance (2016-January 2019)". 21 Ibid, Attachment 3. 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 17, at pp. 644-646. 23 NDP for Iraq (31 October 2019), Item 2.1, United States Department of State, 13 March 2019, "Iraq. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018", at pp. 1, 2 and 11. 24 NDP for Iraq (31 October 2019), Item 1.7, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), HCR/PC/IRQ/2019/05, May 2019, "International Protection Considerations with Regard to People Fleeing the Republic of Iraq," at p. 20; Item 1.11, European Union. European Asylum Support Office, March 2019, "EASO Country of Information Report: Iraq. Targetting of individuals", at p. 23; Item 2.10, France, Office français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides, 10 November 2017, "The Security Situation in the Baghdad Governate", at p. 6. 25 NDP for Iraq (31 October 2019), Item 2.1, at p. 5. 26 Ibid, at p. 12. 27 NDP for Iraq (31 October 2019), Item 1.11, at p. 129. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-02351 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) 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 (January, 2020) Disponible en français