MC2-07817

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MC2-07817 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 Date of decision December 12, 2022 Date de la décision Panel Me Alain Bissonnette Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Me Aristide Koudiatou Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS AND DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] Ms. XXXX XXXX, you are a citizen of the Republic of the Congo (Congo-Brazzaville) and you have stated that you fear arrest, arbitrary detention, violence and death because of your former relationship with a XXXX XXXX you met in Senegal in 2008.1 [2] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) stated that the determinative issue is the internal flight alternative (IFA). It found that you were generally credible regarding the events you experienced in your country. However, it raised credibility issues about your allegations regarding the motivation of the agents of persecution to locate you in Dolisie, Nkayi or Brazzaville. In the end, it then concluded that an IFA is available to you if you move to any of these cities.2 [3] You submitted on appeal that the RPD breached the principle of natural justice and procedural fairness and erred in its analysis of your credibility and the IFA.3 [4] According to my own analysis of your case, the RPD did not err as you allege. Your appeal is dismissed. ANALYSIS OF THE APPEAL [5] The role of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) is to determine whether the RPD erred as alleged.4 That said, the RAD is entitled to substitute its own opinion for that of the RPD if the RPD erred.5 Except in the limited circumstances described in subsection 111(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD makes the final decision, subject to judicial review, in order to promote the finality of the refugee protection claim determination process.6 [6] I have analyzed your case7 and responded to the central issues involved in your appeal,8 primarily by listening to the recording of the hearing held before the RPD,9 by reading the documentary evidence, and by considering Chairperson's Guideline 4.10 I ensured that my decision is justified in light of the facts and law while considering the consequences that may result for your life, liberty and dignity.11 With regard to the RPD's decision, I concluded that the standard of correctness must be applied.12 A. Errors that, according you, the Refugee Protection Division committed [7] The Refugee Appeal Division Rules (RAD Rules) provide that an appellant must state: i) the errors that are the grounds of the appeal, and ii) where the errors are located in the RPD's decision or in the transcript or in any recording of the hearing.13 [8] You did not include in your appeal record the full or partial transcript of the hearing held before the RPD. The RAD Rules require you to do so if you intend to rely on it in your appeal.14 [9] In your memorandum, you submitted that the RPD breached the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in that it acted contrary to the IRPA. While it stated its consideration for Guideline 4, it failed to assess your ability to travel to another part of the country that offers you an IFA and an opportunity to live there without undue hardship, nor did it assess religious, economic, social and cultural factors when assessing the reasonableness of the IFA. You also submitted that Guideline 4 does not say to assess the lack of motivation of the agents of persecution, which is what the RPD did.15 [10] You also submitted that the RPD cannot find you credible on the one hand and find you not credible on the other. In your view, credibility should not be subject to a shifting assessment, and it is unreasonable for the RPD to assess credibility in a hybrid manner. In other words, credibility applies to the refugee protection claim in general, hence the benefit of the doubt principle. Thus, the RPD cannot split its assessment of your credibility. The RPD's conclusion that an IFA exists has nothing to do with its assessment of your credibility.16 [11] In the RPD's view, an IFA is available to you if you move to Dolisie, Nkayi, or Brazzaville, since you failed to establish that your agents of persecution are currently looking for you, and that they have the motivation to locate you and cause you trouble in one these cities.17 [12] You refute the viability of this IFA. [13] With regard to the first prong of the analysis, you submitted that the RPD must consider women's overall situation. You also submitted that there is evidence that demonstrates the desire of your agents of persecution to persecute you. Finally, you submitted that, in order to be satisfied that your agents of persecution are currently looking for you, the RPD would have preferred it if they had attempted to contact you directly or through your family. It seems to be suggesting that the passage of time has annihilated their desire to come after you. The assessment of your fear, however, is prospective. They threatened you in the past, they attacked you, and they arrested and detained your brother. For all these reasons, one can imagine what will happen if you return to your country.18 [14] Regarding the second prong of the analysis, you submitted that the reasonableness of the IFA is not essentially limited to finding employment and integrating into society, but that the analysis must also consider the serious possibility that you will face persecution in the community where you will settle. However, the possibility that your agents of persecution will be in the same location as you is more than serious. With regard to employment, you may also be subjected to the discriminatory treatment reserved for members of your ethnic group.19 [15] Furthermore, you submitted that, as an unmarried woman and a member of the Lari ethnic group, and because of the systemic discrimination against members of this group, you will not receive the necessary protection and you will be at the mercy of your agents of persecution.20 B. Refugee Protection Division's decision [16] In its decision, the RPD summarized your allegations and the steps you took when travelling to the United States.21 The RPD stated that it had considered Guideline 422 and had examined your claim under section 96 of the IRPA, taking into account your membership in the particular social group of women in your country,23 and that that the determinative issue was the IFA.24 In the end, it concluded that such an IFA was available to you if you went and settled in Dolisie, Nkayi or Brazzaville.25 [17] In my view, it is useful to reproduce the paragraphs in which the RPD clarifies its analysis regarding your credibility: [Translation] 22. Unless otherwise indicated in the analysis below, the panel finds that the claimant's testimony regarding the events she experienced in the Republic of the Congo (Brazzaville) is generally credible. However, the panel raised credibility issues regarding the claimant's allegations about the agents of persecution's motivation to locate her in the proposed IFA cities, as described in the next section. ... 25. When asked if, to her knowledge, A.N. was currently looking for her, the claimant testified orally that she did not know. When asked if, to her knowledge, A.N.'s wife was currently looking for her, the claimant answered in the negative. When asked if, to her knowledge, the father of A.N.'s wife was currently looking for her, the claimant answered in the negative. With no indication that the agents of harm are looking for the claimant, who has had no contact with them since XXXX 2017, the panel is of the opinion that this establishes the agents of persecution's lack of motivation to locate and come after her. 26. According to the claimant's written and oral testimony, the last time she spoke to A.N., in XXXX 2017, she told him that she was in a relationship with someone else, and that she refused to move in with him. He later apologized to his wife and abandoned the divorce. The claimant testified that she received threats from A.N. in XXXX 2017, and nothing since then, or since her departure from the Congo. The claimant testified that this was the last time she had spoken to this man, the last time he had threatened her, and that he had made no attempt to contact her or her family after this discussion. 27. The panel is of the opinion that, if the agents of persecution wanted to locate and persecute the claimant, they would have attempted to contact her directly, or through her family. When asked if her family experienced any problems after her departure from the Congo, the claimant testified that her parents, who live in Brazzaville, had not been contacted by individuals looking for her since her problems began, or since her departure from the Congo, but that her brother had been arrested and detained by the Division de la Surveillance du Territoire (DST) [territory surveillance division] between XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, 2018, because he helped her leave the territory. 28. In the panel's view, the link made by the claimant between the arrest of her brother and his assistance in helping her leave the Congo is speculative. According to the claimant's oral testimony, the only step her brother took was to visit city hall to obtain her birth certificate and, according to her written testimony, XXXX XXXX is the person who truly helped her obtain her visa and helped her through the formalities at the Pointe-Noire airport upon her departure. Moreover, and according to F.M.D.'s testimony, he also helped her through every step required in obtaining a US visa. Other individuals therefore provided the claimant with more assistance than her brother in her efforts to leave the country without problems, according to the claimant's oral testimony. Thus, the panel is of the opinion that the claimant failed to discharge her burden of establishing that, on a balance of probabilities, her brother was arrested by the DST specifically due to the assistance he provided the claimant. 29. Therefore, the panel is of the opinion that the claimant failed to discharge her burden of establishing that, on a balance of probabilities, A.N. has an interest in looking for the claimant throughout the Republic of the Congo to compel her to have a relationship with him, despite knowing the claimant is not interested, and he made no attempt to contact the claimant or her family members since XXXX 2017.26 [18] Relying on your testimony, the RPD also concluded that you failed to establish that A.N.'s wife and her father currently have the interest and motivation to go after you.27 [19] With regard to your fear as an unmarried woman and a member of the Lari ethnic group, the RPD considered the documentary evidence but concluded that violence against women is concentrated in domestic settings toward young women and widows, and in the conflict zones. This does not correspond to your situation, since you are 38 years old, not a widow, and able to move to a city outside the conflict zones.28 [20] As for the reasonableness of the IFA, the RPD concluded that the documentary evidence does not establish that you would be unable to find one or more jobs in Brazzaville, since it is a major city, you hold a degree in XXXX XXXX, and you held a XXXX position in Pointe-Noire for more than eight years, from 2009 to 2017.29 [21] The RPD's overall conclusion is that you failed to establish that you would face a serious possibility of persecution or that you would be subjected, on a balance of probabilities, to a danger of torture, a risk to your life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment everywhere in the Congo, or that it would be unreasonable for you to relocate to Dolisie, Nkayi, or Brazzaville.30 C. Refugee Protection Division did not err as you allege [22] In my view, the RPD did not err as you allege. Refugee Protection Division complied with principles of natural justice and procedural fairness [23] According to my own analysis of your record, the RPD complied with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. [24] Where procedural fairness is at issue, the specific circumstances of the case must be considered.31 In a claim for refugee protection, procedural fairness ensures that the person claiming refugee protection understands the procedure, has a reasonable opportunity to tender any evidence to support their claim and has the opportunity to persuade the RPD that their claim is well founded.32 The issues related to a refugee protection claim are very important. Therefore, there is reason to ensure that the proceedings allow the person claiming refugee protection to put forward their views and evidence fully and have them considered by the decision-maker.33 [25] In my view, it is clear that you were able to put forward your views and your evidence during the proceeding before the RPD. The arguments you raise regarding Guideline 4 are not based on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Guideline 4 explicitly states that, while it helps members fulfil their duty to conduct fair hearings and make informed decisions, it does not alter the legislative requirements or the principles established by case law.34 [26] Your arguments focus more on the RPD's assessment of your credibility and the IFA. Which I will now analyze. Analysis of your credibility and internal flight alternative [27] With regard to your appeal, I am of the opinion that the real issue is whether the RPD erred in its findings of fact. According to my own analysis, the RPD did rely on your testimony to conclude that you failed to establish that your agents of persecution are currently looking for you and that they have the motivation to locate and cause trouble for you, particularly in Brazzaville. The RPD did not err. The reasons are as follows. [28] To conclude that an IFA is available, the RPD or RAD must be satisfied that, on the one hand, the refugee protection claimant is not at risk of being persecuted or having their life threatened in that part of their country and, on the other hand, that conditions in that part of the country are such that it would not be unreasonable for the refugee protection claimant to seek refuge there. The availability of an IFA is a determinative factor. The onus is on the person claiming refugee protection to establish that they are at risk of being persecuted or face a risk to their life in the part of the country identified as an IFA, or that it would be unreasonable for them to relocate to that part of their country.35 [29] It is important for the RPD, as it is for the RAD, to remain alert and sensitive when hearing refugee protection claims involving the allegation that a woman is a victim of violence.36 Guideline 4 specifically states that women refugee protection claimants who have suffered sexual violence may exhibit a pattern of symptoms referred to as Rape Trauma Syndrome, and may require extremely sensitive handling.37 The RPD, like the RAD, must avoid relying on stereotypes when rendering a decision on such a refugee protection claim.38 That said, Guideline 4 cannot be used to set aside findings that are reasonable and based upon the evidence provided.39 [30] The most recent version of Guideline 4 includes sections that address IFAs. I consider it useful to reproduce them here: 11.6.1 The burden rests with the claimant to demonstrate that an internal flight alternative (IFA) does not exist. An IFA is viable if the claimant would not face a serious possibility of persecution or be subjected on a balance of probabilities to a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger of torture, and relocation would not be unreasonable upon consideration of all the circumstances. The threshold for demonstrating that relocation to an IFA is unreasonable is very high. 11.6.2 A claimant is not obligated to go into hiding to be safe in the IFA. If the agent of harm could locate the claimant through a family member, the claimant is not expected to cease communication with that family member. 11.6.3 The safety of an IFA is dependent on the claimant's personal profile. For example, a claimant may face a greater risk as a single woman, divorced woman, widow, or single parent. Members should also consider the cycle of violence and coercive control when assessing whether an agent of harm may have the motivation and means to locate a claimant. 11.6.4 Members should take an intersectional approach when considering the reasonableness of the proposed IFA.40 [31] Section 11.6.1 clearly states that the burden rests with you to demonstrate that an IFA does not exist. From another angle, it states that an IFA in Brazzaville, for example, is viable if you are not subjected to a serious possibility of persecution or, on a balance of probabilities, to a risk to your life, and if it is not unreasonable for you to settle there. [32] To discharge your burden of proving that you satisfy the definition of refugee, you must subjectively fear persecution and establish that this fear is objectively well founded, with the understanding that a refugee protection claim cannot rely solely on the evidence found in the National Documentation Package of the country in question.41 [33] The legal test at issue here whether there is the reasonable chance of persecution. To meet this test, there need not be more than a 50% chance, but there must be more than a minimal possibility of facing persecution if the refugee protection claimant were to return to their country of origin.42 While the tests for sections 96 and 97 are different, what is common to these two sections is the standard of proof, meaning that, in each case, the person must provide evidence that establishes, on a balance of probabilities, the factual basis for the claim.43 [34] In analyzing the first prong of the IFA, case law teaches us that there is a difference between a persecutor's ability to pursue an individual throughout a country and their desire to do so or interest in doing so. The fact that a persecutor is able to pursue an individual is not decisive evidence that they are motivated to pursue, persecute or threaten that individual. Furthermore, it is well established that, if the persecutor has no desire to find, pursue and/or persecute an individual, or interest in doing so, it is reasonable to conclude that, looking forward, there will be no serious possibility of persecution or a risk to the life of the persons concerned.44 [35] At the hearing, however, when the RPD asked you if, to your knowledge, the man with whom you had a past relationship, his wife and her father were still looking for you, you replied that the last two were not; as for the man himself, you did not know.45 Later, the RPD asked you when you last spoke to this man. You responded that it was in 2017, when he threatened to kill you because you refused to get back together with him. The RPD asked you if you had heard from him afterwards through other people. You answered no. The RPD asked you if he was currently angry with you. You initially replied, maybe not him, but his wife, then replied that, maybe, he was still angry with you, while adding that you really did not know.46 [36] With regard to your brother's arrest and detention by the DST from XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX, 2018, first, I note that this information is not included in your Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form), which you signed on June 19, 2018, and you stated that the information contained in that form is complete, true, and correct.47 In any case, the RPD asked you to explain the connection between this event and the man with whom you had a relationship and his wife's father, since XXXX XXXX and XXXX are two different institutions. You answered that they have friends everywhere and that it is easy for them to involve the police.48 However, none of the documents you submitted in evidence49 support your testimony that a connection exists between the event involving your brother and the individuals you state fearing in your country. [37] Later at your hearing, the RPD asked if, aside from your brother's problems, any of your family members had been contacted by the man with whom you had a past relationship, or by his wife. You answered no. It also asked if, aside from your brother's problems, any of your family members had been contacted by individuals who have been looking for you since your departure. You answered no.50 [38] In light of your overall testimony, I am of the opinion that you failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the XXXX XXXX with whom you had a past relationship, his wife and her father were still looking for you, and that they have the desire, motivation, or interest in locating and coming after you, particularly in Brazzaville. In my view, the issue here goes beyond credibility; above all, it involves your own burden of proof, which you have not met.51 In other words, your testimony failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, the relevant facts regarding the desire, motivation or interest of these three individuals to look for you and come after you if you return to live in your country by settling in Brazzaville. [39] With regard to your appeal, the real issue is whether the RPD erred in its findings of fact regarding this specific issue. According to my own analysis, the RPD did indeed rely on your testimony to conclude that you failed to establish that your agents of persecution are currently looking for you and that they have the motivation to locate and cause trouble for you, particularly in Brazzaville. I am of the opinion that the RPD did not err. [40] That said, I find that the issue of credibility also arises with regard to the statements and documentary evidence aimed at establishing that an agent of harm not only has the ability, but also the desire, motivation, and interest to locate and come after the refugee protection claimant in a part of their country. Your argument, according to which credibility issues should not arise in the IFA analysis, seems too bold, excessive, and untenable. If this were the case, it would be sufficient for the refugee protection claimant to state that another person has the ability, desire and interest to pursue them anywhere in their country for the claim to be allowed, despite the fact that this statement is not trustworthy or credible, or is contradicted by other evidence.52 [41] As for the second prong of the IFA analysis, the RPD asked if, beyond your fear of the three individuals mentioned above, there were other considerations that would make it difficult for you to move to Dolisie, Nkayi or Brazzaville. You answered that you no longer have work in the Congo, and that it is not easy to get a start and find employment in the Congo. The RPD asked if you could return to work as a XXXX. You responded no, because finding employment is not easy, you need connections, and many people are unemployed. The RPD asked what other considerations would make it difficult for you to move to these locations. You answered that it will be very difficult, that there will be stress, fear, and no work.53 [42] At the hearing, counsel asked you about the situation between the Congolese authorities and members of the Lari group. You answered that there was a war and that this population had been bombed and massacred by people from the north. He also asked you about the employment situation, when there are two applicants, one from the north and the other from the south. You answered that people from the north are favoured, whether or not they are educated.54 [43] The documentary evidence indicates that the Lari are part of the Bakongo group, which accounts for 41% of the population in the Congo. Along the Congo River, the Lari are the most numerous Bakongo sub-group and the one historically most advantaged by schooling.55 That said, it is true that there have been civil wars in the Congo and that they have left their mark and deeply divided the country, with the north of the country remaining close to the current president. The Pool region, for its part, has remained close to the former mayor of the capital, Bernard Kolela.56 Even recently, hostilities resumed in the southern department of Pool for just over a year, from April 2016 to December 2017, resulting in a significant humanitarian crisis.57 The documentary evidence also indicates that the government considers members of the Lari ethnic group to be opponents. They face blatant and widespread economic and political discrimination. They face a risk of rape, extortion, harassment and incarceration.58 [44] In your BOC Form, you state that you are a member of the Lari ethnic group and speak French and Lingala, which does not appear to be the language traditionally spoken by members of your group. You also stated that your father, mother, sister and half-brother live in Brazzaville.59 In the past, you studied XXXX XXXX for three years in Dakar, Senegal, and worked as a XXXX and a XXXX in your country.60 Among those who fled the hostilities in the department of Pool, some sought refuge in the capital, Brazzaville.61 [45] In its decision, the RPD relied on the documentary evidence, which does not establish that you could not find employment in Brazzaville, since it is a major city, you hold a degree in XXXX XXXX, and you have been employed as a XXXX in Pointe-Noire for more than eight years, from 2009 to 2017. [46] The issue is whether it is unduly harsh to expect you to settle in Brazzaville. In terms of the IFA's reasonableness, the threshold is very high, and the burden rests upon you to establish the existence of conditions which would jeopardize your life and safety when relocating to Brazzaville to live there.62 The IFA must be a realistic, attainable option. The risk of not finding the right job is not sufficient to conclude that it is unreasonable to expect you to move to Brazzaville. [47] According to my own analysis of your record, the RPD's decision reviews your personal circumstances, including your membership in an ethnic group, the fact that you have family living in the capital of your country, and the fact that you previously worked as a XXXX in your country, among other things. According to my own analysis of your record, the RPD committed no error. Analysis of your fear as a woman [48] In your memorandum, you submit that, as an unmarried woman and a member of the Lari ethnic group, you will receive no protection because of systemic discrimination against members of this group, and you will be at the mercy of your agents of persecution. However, you failed to establish that your agents of persecution have the desire, motivation or interest to locate and come after you, particularly in Brazzaville. [49] Regarding the fact that you are an unmarried woman and a member of the Lari ethnic group, your BOC Form does not state that this would cause you to fear persecution, or that this situation would create a risk for you within the meaning of subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.63 You testified very clearly that, apart from the XXXX XXXX with whom you had a relationship, his wife and her father, you fear no other person.64 [50] Guideline 4 states that a refugee protection claimant does not need to establish past persecution to establish the existence of a risk of persecution under section 96 of the IRPA, because the assessment of risk is prospective. However, the claimant must demonstrate a link between their personal circumstances and the country conditions to establish the risk. Evidence of persecution in respect of similarly situated persons may be adduced when the claimant has not personally experienced persecution.65 [51] In refugee law, the refugee protection claimant must demonstrate that there is more than a mere possibility of persecution in the country where they would settle. Usually, this can only be established by indirect evidence. It is impossible to note in advance how much evidence is required in this regard. As the case law states, "deciding whether the evidence is sufficient is a practical judgment made on a case-by-case basis".66 [52] In its decision, the RPD considered the documentary evidence and concluded that violence against women is concentrated in domestic settings, toward young women and widows, and in the conflict zones. This does not correspond to your situation, since you are now 39 years old, are not a widow and can move to Brazzaville, which is not located within the conflict zones. According to my own analysis of your record, the RPD committed no error. CONCLUSION [53] For these reasons, I confirm the RPD's determination, namely, that you failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of section 96, or a risk within the meaning of subsection 97(1) of the IRPA, if you were to return to your country and live in Brazzaville. [54] Your appeal is dismissed. (signed) Alain Bissonnette Alain Bissonnette December 12, 2022 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Your Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form) is reproduced at pages 14 to 26, the documents you submitted in evidence are reproduced at pages 70 to 95, and the Consolidated List of Documents is reproduced at page 27 of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) record. 2 RPD reasons and decision, April 19, 2022, pages 3 to 13. 3 Your memorandum, June 13, 2022, pages 18 to 39 of your appeal record. 4 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, No. A-470-14, Gauthier, Webb and Near, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 93, paragraph 103: " ... the RAD carries out its own analysis of the record to determine whether the RPD erred". 5 Alvarenga Torres v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-7835-19, Little, June 4, 2021; 2021 FC 549, paragraphs 34 to 41, citations omitted. 6 Ogbonna v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-3336-19, Strickland, January 31, 2020; 2020 FC 180, paragraph 37. 7 Harerimana v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-3728-21, Diner, March 16, 2022; 2022 FC 7, paragraphs 19 and 20. 8 Hundal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-441-20, Diner, January 21, 2021; 2021 FC 72, paragraph 17. 9 Recording of the hearing held before the RPD on March 24, 2022, from 00:01 to 02:25:00, or from 1 second to 2 hours and 25 minutes. Since there is no transcript of this hearing, I wrote down the relevant passages myself, a task that requires much attention to detail and time but is necessary in order to refer to them in my decision. 10 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), Chairperson's Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board, effective November 13, 1996, and updated July 18, 2022. 11 Quele v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-5887-20, Gascon, February 4, 2022; 2022 FC 108, paragraph 31, citing paragraphs 133 and 135 in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. 12 Huruglica, supra, footnote 4, paragraphs 78, 98 and 106. Note to reader: The word "supra" comes from Latin but is included in the vocabulary recorded in Le Grand Robert de la langue française in particular. It refers the reader to the passage or source located above in the text. 13 Refugee Appeal Division Rules, SOR/2012-257, subparagraphs 3(3)(g)(i) and (ii). 14 Ibid., paragraph 3(3)(b). Note to reader: The word "ibid." is an abbreviation of "ibidem," which comes from Latin but is included in the vocabulary recorded in Le Grand Robert de la langue française in particular. It means in the same place, in the same text or in the same passage of a cited text. 15 Your memorandum, supra, footnote 3, paragraphs 5 to 13. 16 Ibid., paragraphs 14 to 31. 17 Ibid., paragraphs 32, 33 and 34. 18 Ibid., paragraphs 35 to 65. 19 Ibid., paragraphs 66 to 77. 20 Ibid., paragraphs 78 to 82. 21 RPD Reasons and Decision, supra, footnote 2, paragraphs 4 to 17. 22 Ibid., paragraph 9. 23 Ibid., paragraph 20. 24 Ibid., paragraph 21. 25 Ibid., paragraphs 23 to 46. 26 Ibid., paragraphs 22 and 25 to 29, citations omitted. 27 Ibid., paragraphs 30 to 36. 28 Ibid., paragraphs 37 to 43. 29 Ibid., paragraphs 44 and 45. 30 Ibid., paragraph 46. 31 Wai Kheong Ching v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-1272-14, Kane, June 9, 2015; 2015 FC 725, paragraph 75. 32 Nemeth v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-2522-02, O'Reilly, May 14, 2003; 2003 FCT 590, paragraph 10. 33 Dalirandi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-3269-19, Roy, February 17, 2020; 2020 FC 725, paragraph 30, citing the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Baker [1999] 2 SCR 817. 34 Guideline 4, supra, footnote 10, section 1.2. 35 Castillo Garcia v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-599-18, Boswell, March 21, 2019; 2019 FC 347, paragraphs 25 and 26, citing the Federal Court of Appeal in Thirunavukkarasu and Rasaratnam. 36 Odia v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-1180-13, Gagné, July 8, 2014; 2014 FC 663, paragraph 9. Arachchilage v. Canada Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-1179-18, Gleeson, October 4, 2018; 2018 FC 994, paragraph 29. 37 Guideline 4, supra, footnote 10, point 3 under D. Special Problems at Determination Hearings. 38 Velasco Chavarro v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-3453-19, Brown, February 26, 2020; 2020 FC 310, paragraphs 18 to 26. 39 Liang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-3335-19, Russell, January 23, 2020; 2020 FC 116, paragraph 33. 40 Guideline 4, supra, footnote 10, sections 11.6.1 to 11.6.4, citations omitted. 41 Jean v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-2478-18, Gagné, February 27, 2019; 2019 FC 242, paragraphs 16 and 19. 42 El Achkar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-5768-12, Strickland, May 6, 2013; 2013 FC 472, paragraph 25. 43 Ibid., paragraph 28. 44 Leon v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-2218-19, McHaffie, March 26, 2020; 2020 FC 428, paragraph 13. Traoré v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-8231-21, Pentney, September 26, 2022; 2022 FC 1334, paragraph 27. 45 Recording of the hearing, supra, footnote 9, 12:30 to 13:10. 46 Ibid., 34:45 to 37:30. 47 Your BOC Form, pages 23 to 26 of the RPD record. 48 Recording of the hearing, supra, footnote 9, 59:00 to 01:03:30. 49 Documents D-1 to D-5 are reproduced at pages 72 to 92 of the RPD record. 50 Recording of the hearing, supra, footnote 9, 01:27:20 to 01:27:40. 51 Serikova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-43-16, Southcott, July 18, 2016; 2016 FC 814, paragraph 22. 52 Dakpokpo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-4559-16, Zinn, June 13, 2017; 2017 FC 580, paragraphs 7 to 10. Taqadess v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-5681-15, Southcott, September 21, 2016; 2016 FC 1012, paragraphs 18, 19 and 20. 53 Recording of the hearing, supra, footnote 9, 54:50 to 58:00. 54 Ibid., 01:37:40 to 01:38:45. 55 IRB, National Documentation Package (NDP) on Congo, Republic of the, April 29, 2022, Tab 13.6, Minority Rights Group International, Republic of Congo. World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples, July 2020, 16 pages, page 1. 56 Ibid., Tab 1.4, Jacques Leclerc, ?Congo-Brazzaville : République du Congo. L'aménagement linguistique dans le monde [Congo-Brazzaville: Republic of the Congo. Linguistic development in the world], November 28, 2016, 9 pages, pages 2 and 4. 57 Ibid., Tab 1.6, Humanitarian Response, Department of Pool: Humanitarian response plan and early recovery, February 2018, 16 pages, page 6. 58 Ibid., Tab 4.6, Research Directorate, IRB, Republic of the Congo: The Congolese Movement for Democracy and Integral Development (Mouvement congolais pour la démocratie et le développement intégral, MCDDI), including its objectives, activities, leaders, participation in government, role as part of the opposition, and treatment of its members by authorities, November 25, 2015, 16 pages, page 9. 59 Your BOC Form, pages 15 and 20 of the RPD record. 60 Your IMM 5669 form, in response to questions 7, 8 and 10, page 45 of the RPD record. 61 IRB, NDP on Congo, Republic of the, April 29, 2022, Tab 1.6, supra, footnote 57, page 7. 62 Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. A-348-99, Létourneau, Sexton and Malone, December 21, 2000; 2001 2 FC 164 (CA). 63 Your BOC Form, pages 24, 25 and 26 of the RPD record. 64 Recording of the hearing, supra, footnote 9, 10:00 to 12:30. 65 IRB, Guideline 4, supra, footnote 10, section 11.3.4. 66 Magonza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-1506-18, Grammond, January 7, 2019; 2019 FC 14, paragraph 34. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MC2-07817 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français 3 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