TB6-10709

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-10709 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision November 30, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Anthony da Silva Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Marc J Herman Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant), a citizen of Ghana, is appealing the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying her claim for refugee protection. She requests that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the determination of the RPD and refer the matter back to a differently constituted panel of the RPD. In the alternative, the Appellant asks the RAD to substitute a positive determination that she is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to Section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. This appeal is dismissed. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant alleged before the RPD that she has fled Ghana because her husband's family has falsely labelled her as a witch and want to force her to go to a "witch-camp" where she would undergo "spiritual-cleansing."1 [4] The Appellant alleged that, upon return to Ghana, she will be at risk of serious and personalized mistreatment and/or exile from both members of her husband's family and the general community due to her perceived profile as a witch. [5] Her claim for protection was heard on June 27, 2016 and in a decision of July 18, 2016, the RPD rejected the claim, finding that the Appellant was not a credible witness and that her fear of persecution in Ghana has no objective basis. ISSUES [6] The Appellant submits the following issues as grounds for appealing: Whether the RPD erred by making adverse findings of credibility. In an overly insensitive, aggressive, harsh, microscopic, zealous, arbitrary, perverse and capricious manner? Whether the Panel erred by failing to properly consider and apply the I.R.B Gender Guidelines (Guideline #4)? Whether the Panel erred by failing to consider the impact of the findings in the Appellant's Psychological Report on her over-all credibility - a central issue? Whether the Panel improperly applied and failed to properly take into account both the IRB Gender Guidelines and the Appellant's Psychological Report, where it was required to do so, as same related to the Appellant's overall credibility and her brief delay in claiming refugee protection? Whether the Panel erred by making improper and unreasonable negative credibility findings against the Appellant and as a result failed to conduct any assessment concerning the risk of returning a perceived 'witch' to Ghana. Whether the Panel erred in making findings on the documentary evidence based on what the documents "didn't say" or contain rather than on what they "did say", contrary to the Federal Court's rulings in inter alia Mahmud v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] F.C.J. No. 729 and Bagri v. Canada (1999), 168 F.T.R. 283. Whether the Panel erred in law by both ignoring and misconstruing relevant evidence in its entirety before it, and accordingly made erroneous findings of fact or drew inferences that were patently unreasonable, speculative, selective, unsupported by evidence, in disregard to the evidence in its entirety, or perverse, capricious and based on irrelevant considerations. Whether the Panel erred in law by ignoring the general principles of credibility and plausibility when it assessed the Appellant and imposed too high a standard in support of its findings? Whether the Panel's Decision is invalid on its face in that it failed to properly consider all the evidence in the required fair, judicious, and sensible manner. 2 ROLE OF THE RAD [7] On March 29, 2016, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) in Huruglica3 provided guidance on how the RAD is to properly approach its review of the RPD's findings of fact or of mixed fact and law. Justice Gauthier found that in Huruglica, where the credibility of the oral evidence before the RPD was not a determinative issue, a standard of correctness should be applied by the RAD when assessing RPD findings of fact or of mixed fact and law. [8] In light of the Court's ruling, when conducting an appeal of a determination by the RPD the RAD will carry out its own analysis of the record to determine whether, as submitted by the Appellant, the RPD erred. Where the credibility of the oral evidence before the RPD was not a determinative issue, the RAD will apply a standard of correctness when assessing RPD findings of fact or of mixed fact and law. Where the credibility of the oral evidence before the RPD was a determinative issue, the RAD will defer to certain findings of the RPD where the RPD enjoyed an advantage over the RAD in assessing the oral evidence of witnesses who appeared before it. The extent of this deference will be assessed on a case-by-case basis dependent upon the particular circumstances of the matter and in conjunction with an analysis of the record as a whole. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL [9] The RAD has reviewed the RPD's Reasons and Decisions, the Appellant's evidence, including her testimony at the RPD hearing, and her Appeal to the RAD. It finds that the Appellant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution or that she is a person in need of protection. Well-foundedness fear or persecution [10] The RAD finds that the Appellant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution. It bases its finding on available documentary evidence regarding the situation of individuals in Ghana accused of being a witch or performing witchcraft. It also has concerns with the credibility of her evidence - namely the two letters4 threatening the Appellant with "spiritual cleansing" because of her witchcraft. [11] The RAD has reviewed the documentary evidence5 regarding the situation of individuals in Ghana accused of being a witch or performing witchcraft. The RAD notes that the various articles provided by the Appellant6 indicate that the witch camps and areas where individuals are accused of witchcraft are confined to the Northern Region of Ghana. The United Kingdom's Home Office in its Operational Guidance Note: Ghana (November 2013) states: In the Northern, Upper East, and Upper West regions, where belief in witchcraft remained strong, rural women and men suspected of witchcraft were banished to "witch camps" (villages in the north populated by suspected witches, some of whom were accompanied by their families) by their families or traditional village authorities.7 [12] The RAD notes that the Appellant is from the city of XXXX in the southeast area of the country in the XXXX XXXX Region - an urban area approximately XXXX kilometres from the capital of Ghana, Accra8- hardly the rural villages where the belief in witchcraft and witches appears to persist. As stated in one of the Appellant's pieces of evidence: "Most cases of witchcraft accusation take place in remote villages where local chiefs and elders, chief priests and soothsayers wield a lot of influence."9 The Appellant's home area, an urban centre, is distinctly different from the remote villages of the north to where accusations of witchcraft appear confined. The Appellant has provided no evidence that accusations of witchcraft occur in the larger metropolitan areas. The RAD notes that the husband's family alleges to be from XXXX in the Eastern Region, which is located next to the XXXX XXXX Area and not in the Northern, Upper East, and Upper West region where witchcraft accusations take place, as indicated in the documentary evidence.10 [13] The RAD also notes that the Appellant is educated, including some post-secondary education, and has identified her profession as a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX11 Her husband is an IT professional in Ghana.12 Her profile clearly does not fit that of the profiles of individuals accused of being witches, highlighted in the documentary evidence. One of the Appellant's pieces of evidence provides a description of the profile of individuals who have been accused of being witches and wizards: "The witches and wizards come from very poor backgrounds in rural part of northern Ghana. The alleged witches and wizards are mostly un educated [sic]."13 [14] In reviewing the documentary evidence, the RAD finds that the Appellant does not fit the profile of individuals who have been accused of being a witch: she is educated, married to an XXXX professional, and lived in an urban centre that is part of the XXXX XXXX Area - the nation's capital and the economic and political centre of the country. Given the Appellant's profile and the documentary evidence on witches in Ghana, the RAD finds the Appellant's alleged fear of persecution is not objectively well-founded and casts doubt on the Appellant's credibility that she has been accused of being a witch by her husband's family. The Threat Letters [15] The Appellant alleges that her husband's family accused her being a witch, following the death of her twin children, shortly after birth. She has provided two letters,14 as referenced earlier, which she alleges were sent to her husband by a member of his family. The letters purport to have been sent from XXXX in the XXXX Region of Ghana by an individual named XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who, according to the Appellant, is her husband's uncle, family elder and head of the family. She testified that she has never met this individual. [16] The RPD had several concerns with the letters. First, there was no supporting evidence as to the identity of the author of the letters, although later the Appellant testified that she might be able to obtain a letter or affidavit from her husband to assist in identifying the letters' author, if required. Secondly, the RPD noted that the letters have two different signatures. It further noted that the second letter, which the Appellant alleged was faxed to her from Ghana and is dated XXXX XXXX, 2016, has no markings on it (such as a Ghanaian fax number) that would indicate that it was faxed to her. The RPD found that the letters were not genuine and were fabricated to bolster the Appellant's refugee claim. [17] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred by disregarding the threatening letters and unreasonably determining that they were not genuine. She submits that the error was especially noteworthy since it was central to the RPD's overall negative credibility findings relating to her. She submits that, despite the alleged signature irregularities, there was no evidence to reasonably cast doubt on the authenticity of the letters. She submits that the RPD's findings ignore that there commonly exist variations in one's signature samples. She further submits that if the RPD had concerns with the signatures, it should have submitted them to a forensic analysis by an authority on signature authentication or signature analysis - an area that is outside the knowledge and expertise of the RPD. [18] The RAD does not concur with the Appellant. In reviewing the "signatures" in both letters, the RAD finds that there is such a significant difference with the signatures on the two letters that it does not require an expert to determine that the signatures are clearly different, and not just a variation of each other. The first letter contains what would be commonly accepted as a signature, utilizing cursive writing, while the second letter, instead of having a similar signature in cursive writing, contains only three initials (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX) that resemble printing. The RAD notes that the Appellant's counsel, in his oral submissions at the hearing, did not challenge the RPD's finding that there were two different signatures, and instead speculated that someone could have signed "on behalf of" the uncle - which would suggest that he too noted that there were two different signatures. The Appellant, herself could offer no explanation as to the differences in the signatures on the two letters. The RAD finds therefore that the presence of two different "signatures," in the absence of a reasonable and persuasive explanation, casts doubt on the authenticity and authorship of the letters and undermines the credibility of the Appellant's claim. [19] The RAD has also examined the content of each letter. The first letter,15 dated XXXX XXXX, 2016 is entitled, XXXX XXXX, and reads: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [20] The RAD finds the tone of the letter curious which, except for the content, sounds more like a business notice from a supplier that has not been paid, than a death threat letter. As well, the RAD questions why the husband's uncle has allegedly gone to the trouble of writing a death threat letter, rather than simply contacting his nephew in person or by telephone. The RAD also questions how this is a "XXXX XXXX." Have there been previous notices? If so, why are they not part of the evidence? It clearly notes the "XXXX XXXX," as there was a subsequent letter, dated XXXX XXXX, 2016,16 just five days before the RPD hearing. [21] The second letter, dated XXXX XXXX, 2016 was alleged to have been faxed to the Appellant. The RPD questioned why there was no indication on the letter, such as the Ghanaian fax number, that it had been faxed to. The RAD notes that there is a marking at the top of the letter which reads: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The RAD determines that letter was likely scanned and sent by the Appellant's husband (XXXX) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - a typical format of images sent as e-mail attachments. The RAD, however, does not find the format by which the letter was sent to the Appellant, to be significant or helpful in confirming its authenticity. [22] The second letter17 is again addressed to the Appellant's husband and "signed" by his uncle. It reads: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [23] The RAD notes that the second letter is no longer threatening death as in the first which stated: "If she refuse and there is any death again in the family because of her witch craft we will kill her our self." The second letter simply states: "Anytime she comes back she will perform the necessary rites...." Even though there has been a "death again in the family," the family seems to have reconsidered killing the Appellant if "she will perform the necessary rites." [24] The RAD questions again why the family has written the Appellant's husband to inform him of their intentions regarding his wife, rather than simply contacting him in person or by telephone. Indeed, the RAD questions why have they would have contacted the Appellant's husband at all. The RAD concludes that the letters have been constructed to support the Appellant's claim that she fears persecution from her husband's family and that the persecution will continue were she to return to Ghana: "Anytime she comes back she will perform the necessary rites...." The Husband's Statutory Declaration [25] The RPD found that the absence, in the husband's Statutory Declaration,18 of any mention of the threats made against the Appellant raised "...a serious disbelief in the panel's mind as to whether the claimant was ever threatened by her husband's uncle or by anyone in Ghana."19 At the hearing, the RPD pointed out to the Appellant that her husband made no mention of the threats she had received. She replied that she had only asked him to focus on the death of the twins. The RPD did not find her explanation reasonable since the hospital reports already address the deaths of the twins and since the husband's declaration was written nearly a year after her flight from Ghana. It would be reasonable to expect a court declaration to contain information as the reason for escape from Ghana. [26] The RAD accepts the Appellant's explanation, but also finds that it would be reasonable to expect some other declaration or affidavit from the husband in support of her allegations of persecution. He is the one who has apparently received the threatening letters and it is his family who the Appellant alleges are the agents of persecution. The Appellant's Re-availment [27] The Appellant has testified that she was first accused of being a witch "when the babies died" which would indicate that the accusations started in 2009. She was then asked if she had been threatened and replied: "They said they were going to kill me before I killed others in the family." The Appellant subsequently came to Canada in 2012 on a 6 month, multiple entry visitor's visa and returned to Ghana, five months later. When asked why she had not applied for protection during her visit in 2012, she replied: "At the time, things seemed to have settled down." She was again later in the hearing asked why she had not applied for refugee protection in Canada and replied: "Things had calmed down. I didn't think they carry out the threats." [28] The RPD noted that the Appellant provided no evidence that indeed things had "calmed down" in Ghana. The RPD found that her failure to make a claim during her visit to Canada in 2012 is indicative of a lack of subjective fear. [29] The RAD also questions why, if she had been threatened and accused, she would not claim protection during her five month stay in Canada during 2012-2013. The documentary evidence also suggests that when someone is accused of being a witch, they typically leave soon after fearing harm from their accusers and often seek shelter in protection in the so-called witch camps. Alternatively, they may be taken to a witch camp to protect others who fear the accused "witch."20 [30] The RAD is not sure what the Appellant meant when she testified that things had "calmed down" or "settled down," allowing her to return to Ghana, despite having testified that she had been threatened with death and accused of being a witch. As the RPD indicated she provided no evidence to support her allegation that things had "calmed down" sufficiently to indicate that it was safe for her to return. The RAD concurs with the RPD and finds that the Appellant's failure to seek protection in Canada in 2012-2013 and her subsequent re-availment to Ghana are indicative of a lack of subjective fear and further erodes her allegation that she faces persecution in Ghana. The Chairperson's Guideline Four and the Psychological Report [31] The Appellant has made extensive submissions on the RPD's failure to consider the Chairperson's Guideline 4: Women Refugee claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution21 as well as her psychological-emotional state, as described in her psychological report.22 As such, the Appellant's submits that the RPD erred in its various negative credibility findings and inferences. [32] The RAD has reviewed the recording of the hearing, and does not find any significant violations of the Chairperson's Guideline Four. The Appellant did not appear to experience any difficulties throughout the hearing, and no special accommodations appear to have been required. With respect to the psychological report, the RPD was not persuaded that the psychological conditions described in the report are the result of the mistreatment and threats she received in Ghana since it found her allegations of persecution not to be credible. The RPD therefore gave the psychological report little weight. [33] The RAD has reviewed the psychological report in light of the Appellant's evidence. The Appellant was initially assessed on XXXX XXXX, 2014 by Dr. XXXX XXXX and diagnosed with Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Depression. The Appellant was subsequently re-assessed on XXXX XXXX, 2016. The psychological report referenced both assessments. Under the heading, Opinion and Diagnosis, Dr. XXXX has written: MsXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX presents with characteristic symptoms of depression including profound sadness, crying bouts, and loss of pleasure in activities.23 Later in the report, under the heading, Clinical Opinion, Dr. XXXX has written: "...Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX continues to suffer from Chronic Symptoms of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder and Depression secondary to her experiences of persecution in Ghana."24 [34] The RAD has considered Molefe25 in its assessment of the psychological report. In Molefe, the Court has warned that: "...decision-makers should be wary of reliance upon forensic expert evidence obtained for the purpose of litigation, unless it is subject to some form of validation."26 In his decision, Justice Mosley stated: "...the courts have developed what I would describe as a guarded and cautionary view on conclusions of forensic experts which have not undergone a rigorous validation process under court procedures."27 Justice Mosley goes on to state that: "...unless there is some means to corroborate either the neutrality or lack of self-interest of the expert in relation to the litigation process, they [experts' assessments] generally should be accorded little weight."28 [35] In addition to Justice Mosley's cautionary statements in Molefe, the RAD also relies on the Court's ruling in Danailov, with respect to the assessment of a physician's evidence and the question of the assessment of credibility, where it was stated: "that opinion evidence in only as valid as the truth of the facts on which it is based."29 The RAD finds that, although the Appellant may be suffering from "symptoms of depression including profound sadness, crying bouts, and loss of pleasure in activities," this may or may not be related to the causes described by the Appellant in her evidence. Accordingly, the RAD gives the psychological report no weight as documentary evidence in support of her alleged persecution in Ghana. [36] The RAD is also concerned that the report, as Justice Mosley has expressed in the Molefe decision: "crosses the line separating expert opinion from advocacy."30 Dr. XXXX report states: "...if Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX were able to remain in Canada with her son, I believe that she would ultimately be able to heal from her traumatic past, and she could at last focus on enjoying the rewards of motherhood."31 The report goes on to state: "Moreover, with the assurance that she can remain safely in Canada with her son, she could gradually return to enjoying aspects of her daily life without having to grapple with anxiety, guilt, helplessness and profound sadness.32 The RAD finds that Dr. XXXX has indeed crossed the line and wandered into the area of advocacy. [37] Dr. XXXX also cautioned in her report that given the Appellant's "fragile clinical presentation during her assessment..., it is likely that she will experience some difficulty testifying at her hearing while keeping her emotions composed."33 Dr. XXXX further states that her "Elevated anxiety and mistrust of others may also hinder her ability to provide a detailed and elaborate account" and that she "...may very well rush through her testimony as a means of minimizing her anxiety...." 34 The report concludes by stating that "...any inconsistencies or tendencies to be brief in her account should be attributed to these factors, and should not be considered as a form of deceit on the part of Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX On reviewing the Appellant's testimony at the hearing, she did not appear to demonstrate the potential problems identified by Dr. XXXX, although the RAD notes that the Appellant, though able to speak and understand English, chose to testify through an interpreter, which likely helped her - especially since the interpreter was also a woman. [38] Dr. XXXX stated in her report: "The current assessment revealed that MsXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX continues to grapple with the dire effects of losing her twin newborns and the subsequent persecution at the hands of her husband's family."35 While the RAD does not find the Appellant's allegations of persecution in Ghana credible, it is persuaded that indeed she lost her twin newborns in 2009. Given Dr. XXXX observations, it finds that the "fragile clinical presentation" exhibited by the Appellant during her psychological assessment in Dr. XXXX office is quite likely the result of her efforts to "grapple with the dire effects of losing twin newborns" which in and of themselves are quite sufficient as the cause of her psychological and emotional state. [39] The Appellant has provided several documents, including a statutory declaration from her husband supporting her allegation that in 2009 she gave birth to twins, who died shortly after as a result of complications. The Appellant also testified at length regarding the tragic loss of her children. The RAD is persuaded that indeed she suffered a tragic loss of twin newborns in 2009. CONCLUSION [40] On the basis of the findings noted above and after its own assessment of all the evidence in the record, the RAD finds that the Appellant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution and that her allegations of being accused a witch are not credible. [41] Pursuant to Section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection and dismisses the appeal. (signed) "Anthony da Silva" Anthony da Silva November 30, 2016 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Basis of Claim narrative, at p. 22. 2 P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 135-136. 3 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 4 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 31, 40. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Ghana (30 September 2015), item 1.5, section 3.12.2; Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 43-94; at pp. 99-126. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 43-94; pp. 99-126. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for Ghana (30 September 2015), item 1.5, section 3.12.2. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for Ghana (30 September 2015), item 1.1. 9 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 64, last paragraph. 10 Supra, footnote 6. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 26, 33, 44. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 27. 13 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 103, last paragraph. 14 Supra, footnote.4 15 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 31. 16 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 40. 17 Ibid. 18 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 37-38. 19 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Reasons and Decision, at p. 8, para. 19. 20 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 45-46, 58, 62, 64, 68. 21 Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Update, Guideline Issued by the Chairperson Pursuant to Section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 25, 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002, under the authority found in section 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. 22 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 25-28. 23 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 26. 24 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 27. 25 Molefe v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 317. 26 Ibid. at para. 31. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 Danailov (Danailoff), Vasco (Vassil) Valdimirov v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. T-273-93), Reed, October 6, 1993. 30 Molefe v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 317 at para. 32. 31 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 27-28. 32 Ibid. 33 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 28. 34 Ibid. 35 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 26. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-10709