MC1-11775

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC1-11775 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 April 4, 2022 Date de la décision Panel Isabelle Parizeau Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Brice Haziel Samba 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), a citizen of Côte d'Ivoire, is appealing the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting her refugee protection claim. [2] The appellant states that she fears being killed by a former classmate, a supporter of President Alassane Ouattara, by reason of her membership in the same ethnic group as ex-President Laurent Gbagbo. [3] The RPD found that the appellant was credible. The RPD considered that the appellant had an internal flight alternative (IFA) in the cities of Yamoussoukro, San Pedro and Daloa. It concluded that the appellant had not established that the agent of persecution had the ability and motivation to find her or that it would not be objectively reasonable for her to settle in these cities. The RPD concluded that the evidence also did not establish the appellant's reasonable fear of persecution by reason of her ethnicity, political opinion and membership in the particular social group of women. [4] The appellant argues that the RPD erred in concluding that the agent of persecution did not have the ability or motivation to find her in the proposed IFAs and in rejecting her argument that there is a good chance that she could encounter him there. The appellant alleges that the RPD erred in concluding that the persecution she faced was not due to her ethnic group. [5] The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) is of the opinion that the determinative issues are the IFAs in the cities of Yamoussoukro, San Pedro and Daloa, Côte d'Ivoire, and fear as a member of the particular social group of women. It is of the view that the evidence did not establish that the agent of persecution would have an interest in finding the appellant in the proposed IFAs or that it would be unreasonable for her to settle there, and it concludes that there is an IFA in these cities. According to the RAD, the appellant did not establish a reasonable fear of persecution as a member of the particular social group of women. [6] The RAD confirms the RPD's determination and dismisses the appeal. BACKGROUND [7] According to the appellant's written account1 in her Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form), the agent of persecution, who was a former classmate and belonged to the same ethic group as President Alassane Ouattara, took up arms in 2011. Knowing that the appellant belonged to the same ethnic group as ex-President Laurent Gbagbo, he looted and set fire to her home on XXXX XXXX, 2011. On XXXX XXXX, 2018, the agent of persecution broke into the family home with three other individuals. The appellant and her husband were beaten, the appellant was raped, and her husband was abducted. The appellant took refuge at a friend's house. On XXXX XXXX, 2018, her husband managed to escape. In XXXX 2019, the appellant and her husband filed visa applications to come to Canada, which were approved in late XXXX 2019. The couple could only afford to purchase one airline ticket. [8] The appellant left Côte d'Ivoire on XXXX XXXX, 2019, and arrived in Canada, where she claimed refugee protection. ADMISSIBILITY OF NEW EVIDENCE [9] The appellant alleges that she wants to submit evidence that she was unable to obtain at the time of the RPD hearing, when the issue of an IFA had not yet been raised. [10] The admissibility of new evidence before the RAD falls under subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and the Raza2 criteria, as adapted in Singh.3 [11] To be admissible under subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, the appellant may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of the claim or that was not reasonably available, or that the appellant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. If evidence is admissible within the meaning of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, it must meet the criteria of credibility, relevance and newness within the meaning of Singh. [12] The RPD hearing was held on November 9, 2021, and the decision was rendered on December 8, 2021. [13] The following documents are included as new evidence in the appellant's appeal record: A-1: Statement from the appellant's mother, dated XXXX XXXX, 2022;4 A-2: Statement from the appellant's brother, dated XXXX XXXX, 2022;5 A-3: Newspaper article entitled "GAGNOA : des 'microbes' attaquent en pleine journée" [GAGNOA: "microbes" attack in broad daylight], dated January 27, 2017;6 A-4: Newspaper article entitled "Côte d'Ivoire : Quand les attaques répétées des microbes font fermer le lycée de San Pedro" [Côte d'Ivoire: repeated microbe attacks close San Pedro high school], dated December 6, 2018;7 A-5: Newspaper article entitled "Les microbes sèment la terreur à Yamoussoukro, des attaques à la machette font plusieurs blessés" [microbes spread terror in Yamoussoukro, many injured in machete attacks], dated January 11, 2021;8 A-6: Newspaper article entitled "Insécurité : Des enfants " microbes " sévissent à Grand-Bassam" [insecurity: "microbe" children in Grand-Bassam], undated;9 A-7: Newspaper article entitled "Après Abidjan, Les microbes se déportent sur Bouaké : voici leurs cibles" [after Abidjan, the microbes move toward Bouaké: here are their targets], undated.10 [14] In her appeal record,11 the appellant argues that this evidence meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA in that it was obtained after the hearing. She alleges that, despite her efforts, she was unable to obtain it at the time of the hearing because her family had reservations about testifying and the issue of an IFA had not yet been raised. The appellant claims that this evidence helps give an understanding of and explain why she cannot live in the proposed IFAs. [15] The RAD is of the opinion that documents A-1 to A-7 are not admissible. [16] It has been established that refugee protection claimants must present all information and documentation pertaining to their refugee protection claim in a timely manner.12 The burden of establishing the admissibility of new evidence lies on the claimant, necessitating full and detailed submissions on its admissibility and relevance. The claimant must demonstrate, for each piece of evidence, that it arose after the rejection of the refugee protection claim, that it was not reasonably available, or that they could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented it at the time of the rejection. [17] The RAD is of the opinion that the appellant has not discharged this burden. [18] While documents A-1 and A-2 are dated after the rejection of the refugee protection claim, they report on events that allegedly occurred before the rejection. According to the RAD, the appellant's allegation that her mother and brother were reluctant to testify, which served as justification for not having presented their statements before the claim was rejected, does not discharge her burden of demonstrating that the statement was not reasonably available, especially since there was no explanation as to why her mother and brother agreed to testify after the claim was rejected and were reluctant to testify before the claim was rejected, and no description of the efforts the appellant made to obtain their testimony. [19] Furthermore, the RAD is of the opinion that the statements from the appellant's mother and brother are not evidence that the appellant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented at the time of the rejection since they could have confirmed the assaults against her and her husband by the agent of persecution. The statement from the appellant's mother reads as follows: [translation] ...that since 2011, my daughter and her young family have been subjected to assaults from a member of an association she was part of. House burned down, her husband returning from service violently beaten up and left for dead, requiring surgery on his collar bone, and another extremely violent assault in their new home in 2018.13 The statement from the appellant's brother mentions the following: [translation] As a member of the current party in power (pro-Ouatara), he [the agent of persecution] criticizes my sister for opposing the rebellion and armed takeover. He therefore did everything he could to ruin her life. Home vandalized and burned down in 2011 after Alassane Ouatara came to power. After moving to another neighbourhood to protect herself, one night in 2018 she received a visit from XXXX [the agent of persecution], who had shown up to assault them and abduct her powerless husband. We could not do anything to protect them.14 [20] Articles A-3 to A-7 refer to acts that were reportedly committed by the "microbes." Articles A-3 to A-5 contain evidence that allegedly arose before the refugee protection claim was rejected and are dated before the rejection. Article A-6 is undated, but it reports on an incident that took place in May 2018 and incidents that occurred at that time. Article A-7 is undated, but includes the note "Posted about 7 years ago." In the RAD's opinion, the appellant does not seem to claim that the articles were not available at the time of the rejection, but rather that she could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented them since they pertained to the IFA, and this issue had not yet been raised. The RAD does not accept this argument because, after listening to the recording of the hearing, it noted that the appellant had testified15 that she feared the agent of persecution, who was leading a division of the "microbes" criminal organization that was operating throughout Côte d'Ivoire. The RAD considers that the articles constitute evidence that the appellant could have reasonably been expected in the circumstances to have presented to establish that an IFA was not available. Furthermore, it is of the opinion that, after the RPD identified the IFA as one of the issues, the appellant could have requested more time at the hearing to submit evidence on the microbes' presence throughout Côte d'Ivoire. [21] The RAD does not admit documents A-1 to A-7 as new evidence. REQUEST FOR AN ORAL HEARING [22] The appellant is requesting that an oral hearing be held16 under subsection 110(6) of the IRPA. She argues that the new evidence raises a serious issue with respect to her credibility in that it helps understand and explain the reasons preventing her from settling in the proposed IFAs. The new evidence is central to establishing that the microbes are present not only in Abidjan, but throughout Côte d'Ivoire, and that the appellant would be persecuted in the proposed IFAs. [23] In order for the RAD to hold an oral hearing, the conditions set out in subsection 110(6) of the IRPA must be met, including the existence of new evidence. [24] There is no new evidence. [25] As a result, the RAD cannot hold an oral hearing. ANALYSIS [26] The RAD conducted an independent analysis of all the evidence, including listening to the recording of the RPD hearing, considered the Chairperson's Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution17 (Guideline 4) and applied the correctness standard.18 [27] The RPD found that the appellant's testimony was credible overall with respect to the events she experienced in Côte d'Ivoire, unless otherwise noted in its analysis of the IFA. The RAD listened to the recording of the RPD hearing and reviewed the evidence, including the appellant's BOC Form, her written account and the exhibits she submitted, and it reaches the same conclusion. Internal flight alternative [28] In Rasaratnam19 and Thirunavukkarasu,20 the Federal Court of Appeal defines the test to be applied when assessing an IFA. The test is two-pronged: 1. The Board must be satisfied that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted or, on a balance of probabilities, that she would not be personally subjected to a risk of harm in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exists.21 2. Conditions in the part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable, in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for her to seek refuge there.22 [29] Both prongs must be satisfied to find that an IFA exists. First prong [30] The onus was on the appellant to establish that in the IFAs proposed by the RPD, Yamoussoukro, San Pedro and Daloa, she would face a serious possibility of persecution within the meaning of section 96 of the IRPA or that, within the meaning of subsection 97(1) of the IRPA, on a balance of probabilities, she would be personally subjected to a danger of torture, to a risk to her life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. The RAD is of the opinion that the appellant did not do so. [31] After listening to the recording of the hearing, the RAD notes that the appellant testified that the agent of persecution would still have an interest in persecuting her because of comments she made about what is or is not acceptable when a political party comes to power. The RAD is of the view that this is an opinion that can be qualified as a political opinion as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ward,23 that is, "any opinion on any matter in which the machinery of state, government, and policy may be engaged." The RAD therefore analyzed the refugee protection claim within the meaning of section 96 of the IRPA since, in its opinion, the evidence establishes a nexus to one of the five Convention grounds, namely imputed political opinion. The agent of persecution's ability and motivation to find the appellant [32] The RPD concluded that the agent of persecution did not have the ability or motivation to find the appellant in the proposed IFAs in Yamoussoukro, San Pedro and Daloa. The RAD shares the RPD's view. Ability [33] After stating that it had considered the appellant's allegations and the objective documentary evidence, the RPD was of the view that, on a balance of probabilities, the groups referred to as the "microbes" do not operate in the proposed IFAs. [34] The RPD noted the appellant's testimony that the agent of persecution was the leader of a division of the "microbes" who had established his stronghold in Abidjan, that he carried out his criminal activities from this city, but that he could still commit crimes from anywhere in the country. The appellant argued that at any given time, he could be called upon to carry out a mission in any city across the country, that he has an army and that he is very powerful. [35] Referring to Tab 7.3 (not 7.4 as mentioned in the footnote of the RPD reasons) of the National Documentation Package (NDP) on Côte d'Ivoire, the RPD stated that: [translation] ...the groups called "microbes" are made up of young and very young children who have been spreading terror in the neighbourhoods of Abidjan since the days following post-election crisis in April 2011. This movement took root in Abodo, north of Abidjan, an area of the city where many rebels who support President Alassane Ouattara were from. The various "microbe" groups are reportedly protected by former rebel groups and they will attack anyone. These groups engage in drug trafficking and in the racketeering of shared taxi drivers. [36] The RPD mentioned that Tab 7.3 describes the operating methods of the microbes, which is characterized by violence and quick action, states that they operate in Abidjan and that they have no presence in the country's other major cities, and mentions that some Ivorian and French journalists state that there is a certain complicity with former rebels in the Forces républicaines de Côte d'Ivoire (FRCI) [republican forces of Côte d'Ivoire]. [37] The RPD noted that the appellant explained that her husband did not encounter the agent of persecution as he avoided exposure and lived in a remote village near the border with Guinea, but that he could encounter the agent of persecution at any time since he operates throughout Côte d'Ivoire. The RPD noted the appellant's testimony that the agent of persecution had not contacted her family members because he did not know them and this is why he did not have the ability to target them, and that she was the only one who was a member of the student association. [38] According to the RPD, if the agent of persecution was the leader of a criminal organization that operated throughout the country and enjoyed protection from the authorities, he would have, on a balance of probabilities, been able to find the appellant's family members, namely her mother, siblings, husband and children. The RPD was also of the opinion that the appellant's allegation that she could encounter the agent of harm again at any time is based on an extremely slim probability because, since 2018, neither her family members nor her husband have been contacted or approached by the agent of persecution, even though they still live in Côte d'Ivoire. [39] In her memorandum, the appellant argues that contrary to the RPD's statement, several newspapers have reported on the mobility of the microbes phenomenon in Côte d'Ivoire and, as she stated at the hearing, they operate in a number of cities and are not concentrated only in the capital of Abidjan. She claims that there is a good chance that she could encounter the agent of persecution again in any city of the country and questions the necessity of taking such a risk. The appellant argues, in the form of a question, that the agent of persecution cannot look for her family members because he does not know them. [40] The RAD does not accept the appellant's arguments. [41] The appellant does not cite the newspapers referring to the mobility of the microbes. According to the RAD, it is possible that she was alluding to the articles submitted as new evidence, but the RAD did not admit them as such. [42] Like the RPD, the RAD consulted the objective documentary evidence. The RAD noted a report from 2019 reproduced at Tab 1.7 of the NDP on Côte d'Ivoire, which had been disclosed to the appellant, that is more recent than the report referred to by the RPD. It mentions that the microbes phenomenon exists essentially in Abidjan, although it has occasionally affected other cities:24 The phenomenon of 'minors in conflict with the law', often called by the pejorative term 'microbes' was born in the Abobo district (Abidjan) in 2012 after the post-electoral crisis. These juvenile criminal groups operate essentially in Abidjan, although this phenomenon seems to have occasionally affected other cities of the country as well.460 [emphasis added] [43] The footnote associated with this excerpt includes a list of articles referring to the microbes' presence in the cities of Daloa, Bouaké and Biankouma in 2017 and 2018: [translation] France 24, Côté d'Ivoire : des milices pour contrer la violence des "microbes" [Côté d'Ivoire: militias to counter violence from the "microbes"], September 15, 2017, url; La Dépêche d'Abidjan, CÔTE D'IVOIRE - Lutte contre la criminalité : lancement de l'opération Epervier III à Yopougon [fight against crime: launch of operation Epervier III in Yopougon], September 22, 2017, url; Koaci.com, Côte d'Ivoire: Daloa, la police sévit après les attaques répétées d'une horde de "microbes" [Daloa, police crack down following repeated attacks from a horde of "microbes"], March 19, 2017, url; Abdijantv, Après Abidjan, Les microbes se déportent sur Bouaké: voici leurs cibles [after Abidjan, the microbes move toward Bouaké: here are their targets], n.d. [2014?], url; Akody.com, Côte d'Ivoire : Biankouma, les microbes auteurs d'attaque à Biankouma condamnés [Biankouma, the microbes behind the attacks in Biankouma convicted], May 17, 2018, url. [44] A report published in late 2019, and reproduced at Tab 1.11 of the NDP on Côte d'Ivoire, addresses urban crime in Abidjan and notes a decrease in the microbes phenomenon:25 [translation] Highly publicized in recent years, the "microbes" issue has caused much concern among the population. Yet the phenomenon has been "handled well" over the last few years. There have also been a number of raids, particularly as part of Operation Epervier, and criminal cases involving the microbes are currently decreasing. [45] The RAD understands, as the appellant alleges, that the microbes can carry out activities in cities other than Abidjan. However, in its opinion, they are definitely concentrated in this city, according to the aforementioned objective documentary evidence, and it considers that this evidence does not establish a serious possibility that they would have the ability to find the appellant in the proposed IFAs. [46] The RAD does not accept the appellant's argument that the agent of persecution, who does not know her family members, would be able to find people he does not know. According to the RAD, this argument contradicts the appellant's own argument that the agent of harm is the leader of a very powerful criminal organization that operates throughout the country. The RAD is of the opinion that if this were the case, which it concludes has not been established, he would have the ability to identify and locate the appellant's family members. The RAD is of the view that the appellant's claim that there is a good chance that she could encounter the agent of harm again is based on speculation, not on facts, and it does not accept this claim. [47] The RAD finds that the RPD correctly concluded that it has not been established that the agent of persecution would have the ability to locate the appellant in the proposed IFA. Motivation [48] The RPD noted that the appellant's husband and children have not been contacted or located by the agent of persecution since XXXX 2018, nearly three years, despite the fact that they are still in Côte d'Ivoire. The RPD mentioned that the appellant had reported that shortly after she arrived in Canada, one of her friends came across the agent of persecution in 2019, and he told the friend that he believed she had claimed asylum in France. The RPD noted the appellant's testimony that, since then, the agent of persecution has not been in contact with any of her friends or family members. [49] The RPD noted that when it asked the appellant to explain why she believed the agent of persecution still had an interest in persecuting her today, the appellant answered that it would be because of their disagreement during a debate organized by the student association that took place between 2007 and 2010, where she argued that it was unacceptable to take power through arms and that it had to be done through the ballot, while the agent of persecution argued otherwise. [50] After listening to the recording of the hearing, the RAD is of the opinion that the RPD correctly reported the appellant's testimony. The appellant alleges in her memorandum that the question is why the agent of persecution would have tried to find her family if he had been told that she was outside the country. The RAD does not accept this argument. In its opinion, it is inconsistent with the appellant's testimony at the hearing26 that her husband, out of fear, was hiding in a small encampment near the border with Guinea as of XXXX 2019, and that their children, who were with him, could not attend school in this location. [51] Considering that the agent of persecution has not contacted any of the appellant's friends or family members for nearly three years, the RAD concludes that the appellant did not establish that there is more than a mere possibility that the agent of persecution has the motivation to find her today in the proposed IFAs due to her comments during a debate organized by the student associate more than a decade ago. [52] The RAD finds that the RPD correctly concluded that the appellant did not establish that the agent of harm has the motivation to find her in the proposed IFAs. Fear in connection with ex-President Laurent Gbagbo's ethnic group [53] The RPD found that the appellant did not face more than a mere possibility of persecution by reason of her membership in the "bété" ethnic group. It reported her testimony to the effect that, when asked about the safety of the proposed IFAs, the appellant answered that she feared the agent of persecution, but made no mention of the fact that she would be persecuted by reason of her ethnicity. The RPD mentioned that it would have expected the appellant to refer to this fear when it asked her if she would be able to resettle in the proposed IFAs. The RPD noted that the NDP on Côte d'Ivoire27 does not mention systematic arrests or attacks based solely on ethnic or religious affiliation, and that it states that ex-President Laurent Gbagbo is a member of the "Bété" ethnic group, which is politically most relevant, and part of the "Krou" group. The RPD concluded that the evidence did not establish that the appellant faced a serious possibility of persecution by reason of her membership in the same ethnic group as ex-President Laurent Gbagbo. [54] In her memorandum, the appellant argues that if she were persecuted, it is because she is part of the same ethnic group as ex-President Gbagbo and the comments made during her discussion with the agent of persecution. The RAD previously analyzed the argument regarding the appellant's comments. [55] The RAD notes that the appellant does not state in her memorandum how the RPD erred with regard to her allegation that she belongs to the same ethic group as ex-President Gbagbo. After listening to the recording of the RPD hearing and the appellant's testimony, which the RPD correctly reported, the RAD does not see this and shares the RPD's view that the documentary evidence does not support an allegation of persecution by reason of membership in the "Bété" ethnic group. The RAD notes that the NDP mentions28 difficulties with interactions among the various ethnicities that make up Ivorian society: "The population of Côte d'Ivoire is multi-ethnic; there are over sixty ethnic groups with different linguistic and cultural identities and complex interrelationships." It also states that the "Krou" are among the five main ethnic groups, representing 11.3% of the population, and their political positions contrast with those of different ethnicities: Since the beginning of the 21st century, Ivorian politicians have used the regional, ethnic, and religious divisions in Côte d'Ivoire to gather political support. During the years of political turmoil, members of the Bambara, Malinké, and Northern Manding (Mandé or Dioula) groups originating from the northern and central areas of the country were generally considered to be pro-Ouattara, while groups in the western and central-western areas, including Krou, and some southern subgroups of the Akan, were thought to be mostly pro-Gbagbo. Akan subgroups in the central part of the country were considered more pro-former President Bedié, whose party allied with the Ouattara coalition. [56] The RAD is of the opinion that the RPD correctly concluded that the appellant did not establish that she faces a serious possibility of persecution by reason of her membership in the same ethnic group as ex-President Laurent Gbagbo. Fear in connection with a political opinion in support of ex-President Laurent Gbagbo [57] The RAD did not note any errors in the RPD's uncontested conclusion that the appellant does not face a serious possibility of persecution by reason of her activism for the Front populaire ivoirien (FPI) [Ivorian popular front], and it agrees with the conclusion. Fear by reason of membership in the particular social group of women [58] The RAD did not note any errors in the RPD's uncontested conclusion that the appellant does not face a serious possibility of persecution by reason of her membership in the particular social group of women, and it agrees with this conclusion. [59] The RAD is of the opinion that the appellant did not demonstrate that she faces a serious possibility of persecution within the meaning of section 96 of the IRPA or that she would be personally subjected to a risk of harm within the meaning of subsection 97(1) of the IRPA in the cities of Yamoussoukro, San Pedro and Daloa if she returned to Côte d'Ivoire. [60] The RAD considers the RPD's conclusion regarding the first prong of the IFA to be correct. Second prong [61] The threshold set by the Federal Court of Appeal for establishing whether an IFA is unreasonable is very high: "It requires nothing less than the existence of conditions which would jeopardize the life and safety of a claimant in travelling or temporarily relocating to a safe area. In addition, it requires actual and concrete evidence of such conditions."29 [62] The RAD did not note any errors in the RPD's uncontested conclusion that it would be objectively reasonable for the appellant to settle in the proposed IFAs of Yamoussoukro, San Pedro and Daloa, and it agrees with this conclusion. [63] The RAD is of the opinion that the RPD's conclusion regarding the second prong is correct. [64] The RAD considers that the RPD correctly concluded that there is an IFA in the cities of Yamoussoukro, San Pedro and Daloa, Côte d'Ivoire. [65] The RAD finds that the RPD correctly concluded that the appellant failed to establish that she faces a serious possibility of persecution under section 96 of the IRPA or that, on a balance of probabilities, she would be personally subjected to a danger of torture, to a risk to her life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA if she returned to Côte d'Ivoire. [66] The RAD considers the RPD's decision to be correct. CONCLUSION [67] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the RPD's determination that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) Isabelle Parizeau Isabelle Parizeau April 4, 2022 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 SPR-1, Refugee Protection Division (RPD) record, pp. 26 to 30. 2 Raza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385. 3 Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Parminder Singh, 2016 FCA 96. 4 P-2, Appellant's record, p. 13. 5 Ibid., p. 15. 6 Ibid., pp. 17 and 18. 7 Ibid., pp. 19 and 20. 8 Ibid., p. 21. 9 Ibid., p. 22. 10 Ibid., p. 23. 11 P-2, Appellant's record, p. 10. 12 Marin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 847, para. 27. 13 P-2, Appellant's record, p. 13. 14 Ibid., p. 15. 15 SPR-1, Recording of the RPD hearing on November 9, 2021, see approximately 0:12:00 to 0:12:30, and 1:04:42 to 1:05:47. 16 P-2, Appellant's record, p. 11. 17 Chairperson's Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Ottawa, November 13, 1996. 18 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93. 19 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 FC 706 (CA). 20 Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 FC 589 (CA). 21 Supra, endnote 19, p. 710. 22 Supra, endnote 19, pp. 709 and 711. 23 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 SCR 689. 24 SPR-1, National Documentation Package (NDP) on Côte d'Ivoire, October 29, 2021, Tab 1.7: EASO Country of Origin Information Report. Côte d'Ivoire: Country Focus. European Union. European Asylum Support Office. June 2019, p. 55. 25 Ibid., Tab 1.11: Côte d'Ivoire : Rapport de mission en République de Côte d'Ivoire du 25 novembre au 7 décembre 2019 [report on a mission to the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire from November 25 to December 7, 2019]. France. Office français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides [French office for the protection of refugees and stateless persons], December 7, 2019, p. 28. 26 SPR-1, Recording of the RPD hearing on November 9, 2021, see approximately 2:00:40 to 2:10:11. 27 SPR-1, NDP on Côte d'Ivoire, October 29, 2021, Tab 1.9: BTI 2020 Country Report - Côte d'Ivoire. Bertelsmann Stiftung. 2020; and Tab 1.5: Côte d'Ivoire: COI Compilation. Austrian Red Cross. Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation. September 2021. 28 Ibid., Tab 1.7: EASO Country of Origin Information Report. Côte d'Ivoire: Country Focus. European Union. European Asylum Support Office. June 2019, p. 15. 29 Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 CanLII 16789 (FCA), para. 15. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC1-11775 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