MC0-09861

RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MC0-09861 MC0-09862 / MC0-09863 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision - Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montréal, QC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision February 12, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Me Agnès Connat Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Laurent Gryner Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the male appellant) and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the female appellant) are citizens of Haiti. Their minor daughter, XXXX XXXX XXXX (American child), is a citizen of the United States (U.S.). [2] The male appellant fears armed male supporters of a Haitian political party. The female appellant's claim and her daughter's claim are based on that of the male appellant. [3] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) concluded that the Haitian appellants failed to establish that there is a serious possibility of persecution by reason of the male appellant's imputed political opinion, or because he is a human rights advocate. It concluded that they also failed to establish the risk of harm under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The RPD concluded that the American appellant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or a risk under section 97. [4] The appellants argue that the RPD rendered a decision based on erroneous findings of fact made in a capricious manner and without regard for the evidence. They consider that the RPD erred by finding that they failed to demonstrate a credible and serious possibility of persecution if they had to return to Haiti, and by concluding that they failed to demonstrate that they faced the prospective risk of being subjected to a danger of torture or a risk to their lives. [5] For the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), the determinative issue is whether the RPD erred in its analysis of the prospective risk under a Convention ground and of the generalized risk under section 97, and in the analysis of the American child's claim. DETERMINATION [6] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD correctly determined that the appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection. ANALYSIS [7] My role consists of reviewing all of the evidence, including reading the transcript and listening to the hearing, and establishing whether the RPD's decision is correct.1 [8] In response to the appellants' submissions, I considered all of the documentary evidence submitted by the appellants, particularly the following documents: [9] A complaint form prepared by a justice of the peace dated the early afternoon of XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019 (complaint). The male appellant states in that document that he works for XXXXdeXXXX XXXX and that that created problems for him, that he received [translation] "anonymous threats," and that he noted the "constant presence" of a white Jeep Nissan Patrol with no licence plate, which worried him. [10] A certificate for the filing of a complaint or report with the Haitian national police dated the morning of XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019 (certificate). The male appellant states in that document that, following the launch of the third phase of the XXXXdeXXXX XXXX project, armed individuals who claimed to be supporters of the member of XXXX, XXXX XXXX, threatened to kill the male appellant and his family and accused him of working toward the re-election of former senator XXXX XXXX. The male appellant also states that people living in the area informed him that the criminals could kill the female appellant and their child. Furthermore, on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, following the male appellant's participating in the demonstrations demanding legal action in relation to the Petro-Caribe situation, a white Jeep Nissan Patrol with tinted windows was seen driving around his house. [11] An extract from the minutes of the registry dated the night of XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019 (Extract). That document indicates that government commissioner XXXX XXXX. of the court of first instance of Cap-Haïtien asked deputy XXXX XXXX XXXX. to travel to XXXX XXXX to the male appellant's home. He explains that he met the male appellant, who stated that, in the early evening, he and his wife went to run an errand, that they turned around after noticing three hooded individuals on a motorcycle, that the individuals followed them and shot at them, but did not hit them, and that following that event, they left their home. The justice of the peace notes two broken windows and found two casings on the ground. [12] The appellants' allegations can be summarized as follows: [13] In his Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form), which was amended on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2020, the male appellant states that on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, after launching the third phase of their project, he and his collaborators were in a meeting with farming organizations when a group of armed men who identified themselves as supporters of the member of XXXX, entered the meeting room, threatened to kill him and his family, physically assaulted him and accused him of working for former senator XXXX XXXX against member XXXX XXXX. A few days later, people who lived in the city informed him that armed criminals were planning to murder his wife and daughter. On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, he participated in the demonstration demanding legal action in relation to the Petro-Caribe situation and the resignation of President Jovenel Moïse. Following the demonstration, he noticed a white Jeep Nissan Patrol with tinted windows in his neighbourhood. On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, he was attacked by unknown individuals who asked him, [translation] "why are you demanding that the president resign? You are very comfortable in this country." He also received anonymous threats by telephone. On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, he went to see Judge XXXX XXXX who told him to go to the police. On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, he went to see the police, who provided him with a report, but would not conduct any patrols. On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, he and his wife were running errands together and saw three hooded individuals on a motorcycle. They turned around and once they were inside the house, they heard gunshots and realized that two windows in the house had been struck. He explains that, the same night, he called the government commissioner who sent a justice of the peace to his home on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, to make a report. He explains that, on the night of XXXX XXXX XXXX they left the house to spend the night at the home of a friend in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and that after meeting the justice of the peace, they moved permanently to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [14] At the hearing, the male appellant testified about his participating in the demonstration on XXXX XXXX. He explained that, the following day, he was physically and verbally attacked in the street, received anonymous calls, and saw the white Jeep.2 Later at the hearing, he stated that he was actually mistreated, that he received verbal death threats, but was not physically attacked.3 When the member asked him to explain the contradiction regarding the fact that he first testified that he had been physically attacked, and then stated the opposite, the male appellant explained that he had been in his car and that people had stopped his car, and that the following day, he received anonymous calls and that the people told him to lower his car window.4 He stated that he filed a complaint on XXXX XXXX after some acquaintances told him to take the threats seriously,5 and that member XXXX XXXX sent a gang to attack him on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019.6 The male appellant is a XXXX member of XXXXdeXXXX XXXX [15] The appellants are not disputing the RPD's conclusion that the male appellant's identity as a XXXXmember, the XXXX XXXX and the XXXX XXXX of XXXX de XXXX has been established. The RPD set out that it had some concerns that were reasonably explained with the male appellant's testimony and his counsel's submissions. [16] The male appellant established that he is a XXXX member of the XXXX de XXXX organization. The male appellant's testimony pertaining to his involvement at XXXX de XXXX was clear. He submitted a number of documents corroborating his membership in the group: A membership card (P-13); the 2016 constitution statement (P-14); a recognition document from the government dated 2010 (P-15); 2009 internal rules for procedure (P-16); a tax registration card for 2014 (P-17); correspondence between the Haitian authorities and XXXX de XXXX from 2009 and 2011 (P-18); and an authorization from XXXX XXXX XXXX city hall dated 2009 (P-19). Some of these documents contain the male appellant's name. The appellants failed to establish a prospective risk of persecution under a Convention ground [17] The appellants submit that the RPD erred by concluding that the male appellant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution in Haiti by reason of his imputed political opinion. Analysis of the prospective risk by reason of the male appellant's real or imputed political opinion [18] The male appellant failed to establish that he would be at risk if he returned to Haiti by reason of his political opinion. Attack on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019 [19] The RPD considered that the male appellant's testimony was confusing, and that he failed to demonstrate that the alleged event occurred. It accepts that the male appellant participated in a demonstration on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, attended by thousands of people, but does not consider that the male appellant was verbally and physically attacked the following day and that a white Jeep was circling his house. The RPD based its conclusion on the fact that the attack on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, is not mentioned in the police report or in the complaint the male appellant submitted on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, and that he waited two weeks following the alleged attack. It also did not accept the male appellant's explanation that he waited because he is naïve. The RPD was of the opinion that he attempted to embellish his testimony, which undermines his credibility. It also considered that his allegations of fearing the government because of the attack following his participation in the march on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, are unfounded. [20] The appellants submit that the male appellant explained why the police report dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, does not mention the attack on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, that he answered that one must be careful with the police. They add that the male appellant gave detailed testimony when he stated that his life was jeopardized the day after the large demonstration on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, and that a white Jeep was circling his house. [21] The RPD's conclusion is correct. There are not many events associated with the male appellant's fear. I noted the attack on XXXX XXXX, the anonymous threats, the white Jeep, the attack on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, and the shooting on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019. However, when the male appellant saw the justice of the peace, he merely mentioned the anonymous threats and the Jeep that was constantly circling. When he went to the police, he discussed the attack on XXXX XXXX and the Jeep that was prowling around following his participation in the large demonstration on XXXX XXXX. Thus, he failed to mention the attack on XXXX XXXX to the justice of the peace (complaint) or to the police (certificate). He linked his decision to file a complaint directly to the attack involving the people who struck his car:7 [translation] "Member: But were you attacked or not? Male appellant: Yes, they struck my car. They told me to lower the window. And it was after everything that I told you, the two people whom I mentioned to you told me: Do not take any chances-file a complaint." The male appellant stated that he did not mention the attack on XXXX XXXX in his statement to the police because he was giving simple answers to the police officers' questions. I do not accept that, if that attack occurred, the male appellant would have forgotten to mention it to both the justice of the peace and the police. This omission undermines the male appellant's credibility in relation to the attack on XXXX XXXX. Mere participation in a demonstration is not enough to establish that the male appellant would face a risk by reason of his imputed political opinion. [22] The male appellant failed to establish that, on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, he was attacked by supporters of President Moïse or anyone else. Fear of local leaders [23] The RPD was of the opinion that the male appellant failed to reasonably explain why he feared the police commissioner of XXXX, the government commissioner of Cap-Haïtien and the first delegate of the department of the north. [24] The appellants submit that the male appellant cited members of the government who cause him to fear for his life, including member XXXX XXXX. [25] The RPD's conclusion is correct. The male appellant identified the police commissioner of XXXX, the commissioner of the government of Cap-Haïtien and the first delegate of the department of the north at the hearing.8 When the RPD asked him why he fears these people specifically, he answered that it was because the commissioner of XXXX was appointed by XXXX XXXX and because the government commissioner and the first delegate were both appointed by the president. In short, he fears them because they work for the government.9 The male appellant failed to explain in detail the motivations of these people, why they would target him, why they would look for him if he returned to Haiti. The fact that the male appellant participated in a demonstration, the fact that he knew male politicians given his years of involvement with XXXX de XXXX, the fact that he was known or that people could impute a political opinion to him is insufficient to conclude they would target him or his family. The fact that he received anonymous threats is also insufficient to establish a serious possibility of persecution by these people. [26] The appellants failed to establish that the local leaders targeted him or that they would do so if he returned to Haiti. Fear of member XXXX XXXX [27] The RPD considered that the male appellant failed to establish the risk associated with member XXXX XXXX, whom he does not know personally and who is no longer in that position. The RPD added that even though the Vérité [truth] party was part of the coalition government, the male appellant failed to establish that the government would target him. [28] The appellants submit that the male appellant credibly stated that XXXX XXXX works with criminal gangs, and that even though he is no longer in that position, other members in power who share the same political beliefs would certainly target the male appellant. [29] The RPD's conclusion is correct, even though it failed to state that the documentary evidence corroborates the male appellant's allegations concerning profile of XXXX XXXX, a member of the Vérité party. The latter was involved in electoral fraud and intimidating voters, and was backed by armed supporters during the 2015 elections.10 However, as the male appellant acknowledged, he is no longer in that position and therefore has no reason to attack the male appellant, especially since the male appellant explained that XXXX XXXX does not know him personally. He also failed to explain why other members who share the same political beliefs would target him. [30] The appellants failed to establish that XXXX XXXX would target him if he returned to Haiti. [31] The appellants failed to establish that the male appellant was attacked on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2010, by reason of his participation in the demonstration. They also failed to establish that local leaders, including XXXX XXXX, would target him if he returned to Haiti. Analysis of the prospective risk of persecution by reason of the fact that the male appellant is a human rights advocate [32] The male appellant failed to establish that he would be at risk if he returned to Haiti by reason of his profile as a human rights advocate. [33] The RPD pointed out that exhibits P-14 and P-16 do not mention assisting orphan and underprivileged children, and does not accept the male appellant's explanations that, [translation] "when referring to nutrition, the first group that we see is disadvantaged children in orphanages." The RPD was of the opinion that the male appellant tried to embellish his testimony when describing his philanthropic activities. [34] The appellants submit that the male appellant did not try to embellish his testimony. They submit that the RPD erred when it stated that the male appellant mentioned that XXXX de XXXX mission was to help underprivileged and orphaned children, which was [translation] "not stated in the documentation provided as evidence," and that the fact that he cites the objective of helping the most disadvantaged is "objectively" linked to the nutrition issues faced by children in Haiti. [35] XXXXdeXXXX XXXX mission is central to the male appellant's refugee protection claim because, according to the documentary evidence, there is a fear of judicial persecution and threats to human rights defenders by the incoming government.11 [36] The male appellant submitted a number of documents providing information on XXXXdeXXXX XXXX objective. None of these documents mention, as the male appellant states in his written account, that the organization's mission is to help underprivileged children and orphans, or to assist Haitians repatriated from the Dominican Republic, the Bahamas or Turks and Caicos. According to the 2016 constitution statement (P-14): [Translation] The Organization's objective is to work in the agricultural sector through the intensive culture of Moringa Oleifera Lam, better known in Haiti as Benzolive or Toli-the nutritional benefits of which have long been ignored in Haiti-and by extension, through the planting of bamboo and banana trees, goat and cattle breeding, and all other agricultural, agri-food, agri-industrial, social, and health-related activities that may be useful to the communities in which the project is located. [37] On March 23, 2012, the government recognized the organization as a development assistance NGO that is authorized to [translation] "conduct development activities across the country." Internal rules for procedure P-16 states that the NGO includes members working in the agricultural sector who contribute to integrated development to improve the living conditions and quality of life of the Haitian population (article 1). It also indicates that the mission is to create a farm school to combat malnutrition in Haiti, through intensive culture of Moringa Oleifera, better known as Benzolive or Toli, as well as other cultures and their derivatives (article 2). The letter from the minister of agriculture dated January 19, 2011, indicates his authorization to move forward with the demarcation of a parcel of land to implement large-scale Benzolive production in the ministry's agricultural production policy line (P-18). The letters from January 2011, April 2011 and May 2011 refer to the Benzolive production project or to the lands to develop it. The 2009 investigation report analyzing the NGO's request states that, in the long term, the objective is to help improve the living conditions of the Haitian population, in the medium term to establish a farm school and, in the short term, acquire the land, train farmers on Benzolive and reduce the Haitian migration rate toward the country's big cities and to the Dominican Republic. [38] Even if I accepted that the organization's mission evolved over time and supports orphans by offering them food or repatriated persons by helping them integrate into society, the male appellant failed to explain how the organization's activities fall under human rights advocacy, which can be shown by organizations working with women or sexual minorities, for example. He failed to explain the components of their mission or the actions that could irritate the government or other individuals to the point of wanting to kill the male appellant and his family for his involvement in that organization. [39] The male appellant failed to establish how his activities at XXXXde XXXX could motivate agents of persecution to target him or how these activities fall under human rights advocacy. This conclusion is not determinative in itself, but adds to my conclusion that no members of the organization were harmed, and that the male appellant failed to establish the attack on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019. [40] The RPD accepted that the male appellant was the XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX of the XXXXdeXXXX XXXX association, but did not consider that he has the alleged personality profile, mainly because he is not the XXXX and is absent from the country for one-third of the year. It did not accept that the association is as active as the male appellant states, because it can only have six permanent employees and twelve contract employees with contracts for one-third of the year, and because the male appellant states that he volunteers 80 hours a week at the association, even though he works on a XXXX XXXX seven to eight months of the year. It also did not believe the male appellant when he explains that the association was able to hire these people thanks to donors. [41] The appellants submit that the RPD erred by concluding that there was no possibility that the male appellant would be persecuted if he returned to Haiti. They repeat that the male appellant was the XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX of an NGO in Haiti, that he never stopped working at XXXXdeXXXX XXXX and dedicated a lot of his time to philanthropic activities, and that the organization's mission is to combat malnutrition in Haiti. [42] Whether the male appellant was the XXXX XXXX of the organization does not change the fact that he failed to explain how his philanthropic activities could have incited people to target him or his family. Moreover, the fact that the president of the organization was less involved than the male appellant does not change the fact that none of the other volunteers or permanent or contract employees had any issues with the alleged agents of persecution. The other members of XXXXdeXXXX XXXX did not have any issues [43] The RPD pointed out that the male appellant was the only person targeted and that neither the president of the association, nor the permanent employees, twelve contract employees or the two other founding members had any issues. It added that no members of OCHA, an organization under the United Nations, had any problems either. [44] The appellants submit that just because other members of the same organization did not have any issues in Haiti does not mean that the male appellant could not have had any. [45] The RPD's conclusion is correct. The fact that the other members of XXXXdeXXXX XXXX, including the president, but also the permanent and temporary employees, were not targeted is an indicator that it is not the association as such that is being targeted. If that were the case, the other members or permanent or contract employees would probably have been targeted. The fact that the male appellant was very involved, more so than the president, does not change my conclusion because no other person tied to the association was targeted. [46] This conclusion is not determinative on its own. However, it does add to my other conclusions regarding the activities of XXXX de XXXX. Attack on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019 [47] The RPD was of the opinion that the male appellant's testimony relating to the events on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, is contradictory because in his BOC Form, the male appellant writes that he was physically attacked while, at the hearing, he never mentioned being physically attacked. [48] The appellants are not specifically disputing that conclusion. [49] The RPD's conclusion is correct. The male appellant contradicted himself in relation to the attack on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019. [50] That attack is central to the refugee protection claim because it is the only attack that is directly linked to the association's activities. The male appellant was allegedly attacked because he attended a meeting. He testified at the hearing that, on XXXX XXXX, he was not physically attacked, but that the individuals shoved the desks, tables and chairs.12 However, in his BOC Form, he writes, [translation] "they physically attacked me." In light of the importance of the attack in the male appellant's story, I expect that his testimony at the hearing when he recounts it to be consistent with his BOC Form, which is not the case. Being physically attacked or having individuals overturning tables and chairs are two very different things. This contradiction undermines the male appellant's credibility in relation to the attack on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019. [51] The appellants failed to establish that the male appellant was physically attacked or that the attack on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, actually occurred. Shooting on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019 [52] The appellants are not disputing the RPD's conclusion that there is no evidence that the event on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, is related to the attack on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, or that the presence of a white Jeep is tied to anything. It pointed out that the male appellant stated that he had received death threats that stopped when he moved to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [53] I agree with the RPD. The male appellant's testimony does not allow for a link between the attack on XXXX XXXX and the alleged attack on XXXX XXXX XXXX or with the presence of a white Jeep. The fact that the threats stopped after the move to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX only strengthens this conclusion. [54] The RPD shared its concerns regarding the date of the report pertaining to the event on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, without calling it into question. The appellants are not disputing this. [55] I note, similar to the RPD, that when it asked the male appellant why the report is dated XXXX XXXX when the justice of the peace allegedly came on XXXX XXXX XXXX he did not really respond.13 That observation is neutral in my analysis. Other RPD conclusions [56] The RPD considered that the male appellant failed to establish that he or his family could be the victims of an act of vengeance because member XXXX XXXX is no longer in that position. Furthermore, it does not accept that the male appellant was attacked on XXXX XXXX XXXX after participating in the demonstration on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019. The male appellant also testified that he was away from the country for seven to eight months of the year and that no members of XXXXde XXXX or his family had had any issues in Haiti. [57] The appellants are not disputing this conclusion relating to the possibility of being a victim of an act of vengeance. I agree with the RPD. The appellants failed to establish a risk under a Convention ground or under section 97, regardless of whether it is tied to vengeance. [58] The RPD pointed out that the male appellant testified that he was in regular contact with his three brothers and his mother; that they still live in Cap-Haïtien, XXXX and Port-au-Prince; that they are doing well and that they had not had any issues in Haiti; and that, based on the documentary evidence, those close to an individual could become targets of an act of vengeance. [59] The appellants are not disputing that conclusion. I agree with the RPD. The fact that none of the male appellant's family members who stayed in Haiti had been bothered since the appellants left strengthens my conclusion that they would not face a risk if they returned to Haiti. [60] The RPD's conclusion is correct. The appellants failed to establish that they would face a serious possibility of persecution by reason of the male appellant's political opinion. They failed to establish the attack on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, or that the local political leaders or other people would have an interest in targeting him. [61] The RPD's conclusion is correct. The appellants failed to establish that they would face a serious possibility of persecution by reason of the male appellant's membership in a group of human rights advocates. They failed to establish that the male appellant's activities as the XXXX XXXXofXXXX XXXXdeXXXX XXXX would put him at risk, or that, on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, the male appellant was attacked because he attended a meeting held by the organization. The appellants failed to establish a link between the attack on XXXX XXXX and the alleged attack on XXXX XXXX and the white Jeep noted by the appellants. The appellants failed to establish the risk under section 97 [62] The appellants are not specifically disputing the RPD's conclusion that the male appellant failed to demonstrate that he would be subjected to a greater risk than other Haitians given the documentary evidence that the country is floundering in increasing insecurity, that hegemonic struggles are reported in populated neighbourhoods, and that the social and economic rights of the Haitian population are being flouted on a daily basis. The RPD acknowledged that the situation in Haiti is concerning, but concluded that the male appellant failed to establish that he is at risk of being subjected to a danger of torture, a risk to his life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if he returned to Haiti. [63] I share the RPD's opinion. Since coming into power, President Jovenel Moïse has been slandered by the political opposition. His alleged involvement in the misappropriation of the Petro-Caribe funds has given his opponents even more reason to demand his departure, and has resulted in a number of demonstrations. The population's living conditions are concerning, particularly because of the high number of people who are the victims of violent death, killed by gunfire. Insecurity is growing and armed gangs are widespread.14 [64] Haitian citizens, including the appellants, are unfortunately subjected to the same risk of generalized violence, such as being the victim of a shooting by armed gangs, the same type of attack that the appellants experienced on XXXX XXXX. [65] The RPD's conclusion is correct. The appellants failed to establish that, on a balance of probabilities, they would face a risk to their lives, a danger of torture or a risk of cruel and unusual punishment if they had to return to Haiti. American child's refugee protection claim [66] The appellants are not disputing the RPD's conclusion that it has no evidence allowing it to determine that there is a serious possibility of persecution if she had to return to the U.S., or that, on a balance of probabilities, she would risk being subjected to the risks set out in subsection 97(1) of the Act. [67] I share the RPD's opinion that the appellants failed to make any allegations regarding the American child against the U.S. They failed to establish that she would face a serious possibility of persecution or that, on a balance of probabilities, she would face a risk to her life, a danger of torture, or a risk of cruel and unusual punishment if she had to return to the U.S. CONCLUSION [68] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the RPD's determination that the appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection. (signed) Agnès CONNAT Me Agnès Connat February 12, 2021 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 2 SAR-1, Transcript of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) hearing, held on August 17, 2020, p 18. 3 Ibid., p 37. 4 Ibid., p 38. 5 Ibid., p 19. 6 Ibid., p 21. 7 Ibid., p 38. 8 Ibid., p 23. 9 Ibid., p 23. 10 SAR-2, National Documentation Package (NDP), Haiti, 1 September 2020, Tab 4.17: ?Haiti's Unrepresentative Democracy: Exclusion and Discouragement in the November 20, 2016, Elections. National Lawyers Guild; International Association of Democratic Lawyers. February 2017, page 15/23. 11 SAR-2, NDP, Haiti, 1 September 2020, Tab 4.18: ?The Fanmi Lavalas political party, including its leaders, political platform, geographic reach and activities; its relationship with the government; whether the party has ties to criminal gangs. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. February 10, 2017. HTI105745.FE, p 7/15. 12 SAR-1, Transcript of the RPD hearing, held on August 17, 2020, p. 42. 13 Ibid., p. 42. 14 SAR-2, NDP, Haiti, 1 September 2020, Tab 1.6: ?Manifestations de rue et Opération de verrouillage : Le RNDDH présente son bilan des événements de février 2019 [demonstrations in the street and lockdown: the national human rights network presents its summary of the events of February 2019]. Réseau National de Défense des Droits Humains [national human rights network]. March 19, 2019, pages 4 and 5/28. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MC0-09861 MC0-09862 / MC0-09863 RAD.25.02 (January 2020) 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 (January 2020) Disponible en français