TB6-12303

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 : TB6-12303 TB6-12304 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision February 3, 2017 Date de la décision Panel Anthony Da Silva Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Joel Sandaluk Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant), a citizen of Nigeria, appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting her claim for refugee protection. Joined to the Appeal is the Appellant's daughter and minor Appellant XXXX XXXX XXXX (the minor Appellant). The Appellants ask the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to set aside the decision of the RPD and substitute a decision with its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection. In the alternative, the Appellants request that the RAD hold a hearing to consider new evidence in support of their claim, pursuant to Section 110(6) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1 Should the previous options not be available, they ask that the RAD refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to Section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. This appeal is dismissed. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant alleges that she is a bisexual woman and that her sexual orientation has been discovered by the authorities and her community in Nigeria. She believes she will face persecution because of her sexual orientation were she to be returned to Nigeria. [4] The Appellant's application for refugee protection was heard on August 17, 2016. In a decision of August 22, 2016, the RPD rejected the claim. The RPD found the Appellant to be not credible and the documentary evidence provided by the Appellants not trustworthy or of sufficient weight to support the claim. THE ISSUES [5] The Appellant submits the following issues2 as grounds for appealing: i. The RPD erred in law by discounting the Appellant's psychological reports. ii. The RPD erred in its assessment of the Appellant's credibility. iii. The RPD misapprehended the evidence relating to the Appellant's relationship with her husband. iv. The RPD erred in its finding of implausibility regarding the printing of intimate photographs. ROLE OF THE RAD [6] 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 Huruglica4 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. [7] 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. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ON APPEAL [8] Section 110(4) of the IRPA provides that the Appellants may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claims or that was not reasonably available, or that they could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. [9] It is for the Appellants to make full and detailed submissions in their Memorandum about how any proposed new evidence meets the requirements of Section 110(4) and how that evidence relates to the Appellants. [10] The Appellant has submitted the following as new evidence:5 * XXXX XXXX Newspaper Article * Text Messages with XXXX XXXX * Affidavits from Appellant's Neighbours * Additional Affidavits from Appellant's Husband and Sister * Photographs of Photo-Printing Machine in Nigeria [11] The RAD has considered the Appellant's submissions6 on her new evidence and finds the new evidence to be admissible under Section 110(4). ANALYSIS The Police Visit to the Appellant's Home [12] The RPD drew a negative inference with respect to the inconsistency regarding the date of the police visit to the Appellant's home in Nigeria. The Appellant provided a number of "screenshots" purporting to show text messages between her husband and herself.7 In one of the messages, dated XXXX XXXX, 2016 at 6:26 pm,8 the husband informed the Appellant that he had discovered her same-sex relationship with XXXX, that XXXX husband and some police officers came to their house asking to the Appellant, and that XXXX was in detention as result of their "abominable act."9 In a sworn affidavit,10 dated July 21, 2016, the husband stated that he became aware of his wife's sexual orientation when police and XXXX family members came to their house on XXXX XXXX, 2016 demanding to see the Appellant. Further, the Appellant's sister, in a sworn affidavit11 dated July 20, 2016, stated that the Appellant's husband informed her that the police and XXXX family members came to their house on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016. The Appellant was asked how it was possible that the affidavits from both her husband and her sister give XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016 as the date that police came to the house, when the husband's text message indicates that the police had come on XXXX XXXX, 2016. She replied that she didn't know why both her husband and her sister had made a mistake in the date. [13] The Appellant submits that her failure to catch the errors in the affidavits of her husband and her sister was a result of the stress and trauma she experienced after having been discovered as a bisexual woman. She further submits that the psychological report by XXXX XXXX12 supports her short-term memory loss and explains some of the gaps in her evidence before the RPD. The Appellant has also provided new evidence: additional affidavits13 from her husband and sister as well as two neighbours, which confirm that the police visited the Appellant's home on XXXX XXXX, 2016. Additional Affidavits [14] The RAD has reviewed the additional affidavits and has some concerns with the affidavits. First of all, in his latest affidavit, the husband has stated that he had made a mistake in his first affidavit and that the police had actually come to the house on XXXX XXXX, 2016 and not on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016 as he had indicated in his first sworn affidavit. His only explanation is that he "mixed up the date."14 The RAD notes that the Appellant's husband is a lawyer and finds it improbable that as a person who more than most recognizes the importance of accuracy with respect to dates in legal proceedings would not check to ensure that the dates he has included in a sworn affidavit to be used in his wife's refugee determination proceedings are accurate. The RAD draws a negative inference from the inconsistency in the dates in the evidence and the Appellant's testimony. [15] The husband's original affidavit of July 21, 2016 also states that a family meeting was held on XXXX XXXX, 2016 and that the Appellant's uncle and head of the family, XXXX XXXX XXXX, declared that once the Appellant returns "...she will be made to swear an oath to cleanse her of the evil of homosexuality."15 At the RPD hearing, the Appellant was asked about the date of family meeting as her husband's text message of XXXX XXXX, 2016 which seemed to suggest that the meeting had just taken place, rather than on XXXX XXXX as indicated in her husband's affidavit of July 21, 2016. In his affidavit of September 29, 2016, the husband states that he did not inform the Appellant of the XXXX XXXX family meeting at Uncle XXXX house "until some days after the said meeting."16 [16] The RAD notes the following text messages17 between the Appellant and her husband on XXXX XXXX and XXXX, 2016: HUSBAND: Hey love, hope you guys are holding on. Forgot to inform you that your Uncle XXXX called for a family meeting on this issue. Will brief you later on the outcome. Cheers. XXXX XXXX 5:06 PM APPELLANT: OK then XXXX XXXX 5:08 PM HUSBAND: Everything is fine, just this same issue which I'm trying to sort out here. Hopefully, it will end well. XXXX XXXX 7:01 PM APPELLANT: What happened at the meeting at my uncle's house? XXXX XXXX 10:25 PM HUSBAND: He was furious, shouting and ranting that you have to come home. He even accused me of covering up for you. XXXX XXXX2 2:22 PM [17] In reviewing the text messages between the Appellant and her husband, it would appear that the family meeting had not yet taken place. The husband's text message of XXXX XXXX at 5:06 PM that "...Uncle XXXX called for a family meeting on this issue" and that he will brief the Appellant "on the outcome" suggests that the meeting had not yet taken place. Two hours later, the husband sent another text message which ends: "Hopefully it will end well," further suggesting that the meeting had not yet transpired. The Appellant then texted back: "What happened at the meeting at my uncle's house." which suggests that the meeting had taken place the evening of XXXX XXXX, 2016. The RAD finds that had the family meeting taken place on XXXX XXXX, 2016 as the husband insists in both of his affidavits. It would be reasonable to expect that he would have provided the Appellant with the outcome of the meeting in his text message on XXXX XXXX, 2016 at 5:06 PM rather than simply telling her that her uncle had "called for a family meeting." The RAD finds the inconsistencies in dates problematic. [18] The Appellant's sister has also provided a second affidavit18 to address the inconsistency in the dates on which the police came to the Appellant's home. The sister states in her affidavit that the actual date of the police visit was XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016 and not XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016. She indicates, however, that she relied on information provided to her by the husband. The RAD therefore gives no weight to the sister's affidavit as it is based entirely on information provided by the husband. [19] The RAD has also considered the two affidavits by the Appellant's neighbour. One is from XXXX XXXX19 who resides at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Mr. XXXX indicates that his house is "adjacent" to the Appellant's house, whose address is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The other affidavit20 is from XXXX XXXX who resides at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Mr. XXXX indicates that he lives "two houses from" the Appellant's house. The RAD finds the information regarding the addresses and location of the neighbours' houses relative to the Appellant's house, curious. [20] Mr. XXXX house, which he describes as "adjacent" to the Appellant's house is at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He does not indicate that his house is close by or across the street from the Appellant's house, which would seem logical, given that his is an odd number XXXX XXXX XXXX and the Appellant's is an even number XXXX XXXX XXXX. Mr. XXXX affidavit specifically states that his house is "adjacent" to the Appellant's house, which suggests that it is adjoining or next door to the Appellant's house. Mr. XXXX house (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX) on the other hand, is described in the affidavit as "two houses from" the Appellant's, which follows the more conventional format of house numbers with even numbers on one side of the street and odd numbers or the other side. [21] Mr. XXXX indicates that he "witnessed the whole scene" and "saw some policemen" at the Appellant's home and "later confirmed that they came to arrest" the Appellant. He also states that he "saw when the policemen left." The RAD notes that although Mr. XXXX indicates that he "witnessed the whole scene" he makes no mention of anyone else coming to the Appellant's home, even though the husband's affidavit of July 21, 2016 states that "some law enforcement officials and XXXX XXXX family members came to our house."21 It would be reasonable to expect that Mr. XXXX would have mentioned that there was a group of people who accompanied the police. The RAD also questions how Mr. XXXX was able to confirm that the police "came to arrest" the Appellant since he provides no explanation. [22] Mr. XXXX affidavit states that "a team of policemen" came to the Appellant's house on XXXX XXXX, 2016 and that he "can attest that they came to arrest" the Appellant. Like Mr. XXXX, he makes no mention of having seen anyone accompanying the police when they allegedly came to arrest the Appellant and also provides no explanation as to how he was able to confirm that the Appellant "...was out of the country on the said date and the arrest could not be effected."22 [23] The RAD has concerns with the authenticity of the affidavits, noting that the deponents do not even have to appear before a commissioner of oaths and that fraudulent affidavits are easily obtained in Nigeria.23 Aside from the specific concerns cited with the affidavits, the RAD finds that concerns with the Appellant's credibility can give rise to concerns with all other documents originating in Nigeria where fraudulent documentation is rampant. As indicated in Gebatas: As stated by this Court numerous times, general findings of lack of credibility can affect all relevant evidence submitted by an applicant, including documentary evidence and ultimately cause the rejection of a claim.24 [24] When asked at the hearing why the deponents would swear about her homosexuality before a government official in court, given the laws in Nigeria against homosexuality, the Appellant testified that her husband "did not go directly" but "went through a friend" and that "he just needed the signature on the document" because the friend had "procured the documents in secrecy."25 The RAD finds that the Appellant's own testimony casts doubt on the integrity of the documents. [25] As well, the RAD has considered the reliability of documentary evidence emanating from family members and friends. Justice Annis has cautioned in El Bouni: ... I find that confirmatory evidence of family members and friends, which is not subject to cross-examination, is not highly probative or credible evidence. Highly probative evidence is intrinsically well-presented evidence from independent sources confirming a material fact in the matter.26 [26] The RAD determines that the second set of affidavits, following the negative decision by the RPD, are "damage control" in effort to undo the inconsistencies in the evidence and testimony. The RAD finds, however, that the affidavits raise additional questions that undermine the genuineness and trustworthiness of the documents and as such gives them no weight. The Appellant's Sexual Orientation [27] The RPD found the Appellant not to be a credible witness and rejected all her allegations regarding her sexual orientation and the events that allegedly arose from it. The Newspaper Story [28] The Appellant alleged that news of her same-sex relationship with XXXX XXXX has been published in a local XXXX newspaper, the XXXX XXXX. She testified that her husband had tried to obtain a copy of the newspaper, but was unable to do so. She further stated that her husband had been in possession of the newspaper, but could not keep it in the house because people were coming to the house. The RPD did not find the Appellant's testimony concerning the publication to be credible. It questioned why the husband would be concerned about people seeing the newspaper in the house when they were already aware of the story regarding the Appellant's same-sex relationship. It also questioned the husband's inability to obtain a copy of the newspaper during the approximately two-week period between the publication of the story and the Appellant's filing of her claim. The RPD further drew a negative inference from the Appellant's failure to check online to see if the story had appeared in an online version of the newspaper. [29] The Appellant has provided a copy of the story in the XXXX XXXX27 about her same-sex relationship as part of new evidence in her appeal. The story confirms the events as described by both the Appellant and her husband. [30] The RAD too has concerns with the late appearance of the newspaper story. The one page copy of the newspaper story submitted as new evidence clearly provides a web address for the newspaper, and as the RPD has noted, the Appellant is quite conversant with internet, having maintained an online presence on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. One would reasonably have expected the Appellant to check for the story online before her hearing. Intimate Pictures of Appellant and Same-sex Partner [31] The RPD asked the Appellant how her same-sex partner's husband had discovered his wife's relationship with the Appellant. She testified that he had found some intimate pictures of his wife and the Appellant. The Appellant and her partner had taken the pictures using the partner's cellphone camera and then the Appellant printed the pictures at a self-service machine in a store. The RPD noted that the Appellant had omitted the existence and subsequent discovery of the pictures in her Basis of Claim (BoC) narrative.28 It also questioned the significant risk taken by the Appellant in printing the pictures in a public place given the severe consequences of having them fall into the wrong hands. [32] The Appellant explained that she was able to block the view of the pictures from other customers, and has provided several photographs of machines that are used in Nigeria to print pictures or photographs. She submits that it would be easy to block anyone from seeing the pictures while they were printing, especially given the machine's location in the corner of the store. [33] The RAD has noted the photographs of the machines or photo printers.29 The Appellant alleges the photographs of the printer are similar to the one she used in printing the incriminating pictures. Despite her protests she was able to effectively block or shield the pictures from other customers in the store, her explanation does not adequately address the concomitant potential risks when printing the pictures. She was well aware of the risks. She indicated in her BoC that a woman with whom she had previously had an affair, had been caught with another woman and then lynched by an angry mob.30 The RAD draws a negative inference with respect to the Appellant's credibility from her failure to make any mention in her BoC of the pictures and their discovery by her same-sex partner's husband. The Psychological Reports [34] The RPD has given the psychological report by XXXX XXXX31 and the letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,32 little weight. It found the psychological report from Ms. XXXX to be severely diminished by Ms. XXXX departure from her area of practice by her advocacy for the Appellant. It noted that Ms. XXXX is neither a psychologist nor a psychiatrist and questioned whether her training as a psychotherapist is sufficient expertise to allow her to make diagnostic conclusions about the Appellant's psychological condition after only one visit. [35] The RPD has referenced a number of Court rulings on expert opinions and reports where the Courts have cautioned on reliance by decision-makers on expert evidence when it has not undergone some form of validation or some means of determining the neutrality of the expert. As well, the RPD notes that the Courts have been critical of experts who advocate on the Appellant's behalf in the guise of an opinion. Finally, the RPD found that the conditions with which the Appellant has been diagnosed do not explain the deficiencies in her evidence.33 [36] The Appellants submit that the RPD erred in assigning little weight to both the reports of XXXX XXXX, a psychotherapist and XXXX XXXX, a counsellor from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. She has referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Kanthasamy34which speaks to the potential psychological effects of removal from Canada. She submits that the information provided in the two psychological reports provide relevant information on the probable psychological effect of her removal to Nigeria, rather than simply being advocacy for her to remain in Canada. She further submits that the RPD's failure to assign appropriate weight to the reports because of its misapprehension of their purpose has resulted in an unreasonable decision with respect to her claim. [37] The RAD has reviewed the Appellant's psychological report prepared by Ms. XXXX and the letter from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The psychological report by Ms. XXXX XXXX is based on an hour interview with the Appellant and the Appellant's BoC form narrative. As part of her assessment, Ms. XXXX also administered two "self-report psychological tests used to measure the severity of anxiety and depression."35 She concluded that the Appellant "is exhibiting symptoms consistent with generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder."36 The RAD notes that while Ms. XXXX interviewed the claimant, her report does not establish satisfactorily or persuasively that the Appellant's experiences are a result of what she is alleging in respect of her refugee claim. As stated in Rokni, a psychiatric report submitted as evidence "cannot possibly serve as a cure-all for any and all deficiencies in a claimant's testimony."37 The court reiterated its position in Danailov, with respect to the assessment of a physician's evidence and the question of the assessment of credibility, when it was stated that "opinion evidence in only as valid as the truth of the facts on which it is based." 38 The RAD finds that, although the claimant may be experiencing anxiety or depressive symptoms, this may or may not be related to the causes described by the Appellant in her evidence. Accordingly and in light of the credibility concerns, the RAD gives the psychological report no weight. [38] The RAD found the letter from XXXX XXXX, a counsellor at the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, to be essentially "a record of self-report" by the Appellant. For the same reasons, as stated in its analysis of the psychological report, the RAD finds that the letter does not establish satisfactorily or persuasively that the Appellant's experiences are a result of what she is alleging in respect of her refugee claim. As Justice Kane stated in Demberel: "The jurisprudence has cautioned that the recounting of events to a psychologist or psychiatrist does not make these events more credible...."39 [39] With respect to documentary evidence emanating from family members and friends, The RPD found it less reliable and referenced Justice Annis in El Bouni: However, I find that confirmatory evidence of family members and friends, which is not subject to cross-examination, is not highly probative or credible evidence. Highly probative evidence is intrinsically well-presented evidence from independent sources confirming a material fact in the matter.40 The Minor Appellant [40] The minor Appellant is the Appellant's now three year old daughter who accompanied the Appellant to Canada in XXXX 2016. She is dual citizen of Nigeria and the United States of America (USA). In the August 5, 2016 psychological report from Ms. XXXX XXXX, there a number of statements regarding the minor Appellant. Given the minor Appellant's young age, Ms. XXXX understandably did not interview or assess the minor Appellant. Nonetheless, she made a number of conclusions based on unreferenced studies.41 Ms. XXXX conclusions regarding the negative effects of returning to Nigeria on the minor Appellant are based on the assumption that the Appellant's allegations are credible. Since the RAD does not find the Appellant to be credible, it finds the conclusions made in the psychological report regarding the minor Appellant to be irrelevant and gives the psychological report no weight as it applies to the minor Appellant. [41] As noted earlier, the minor Appellant is a US citizen by virtue of her birth in the US. The RAD finds that the presumption of state protection with respect to the minor claimant has not been rebutted. No evidence was presented against the US. The US is objectively speaking, a well-developed democratic country, which has well-developed social service programs including child welfare and child protection programs at the federal state and municipal levels as well as an independent judiciary and police forces. [42] Consequently, I find that the minor Appellant would not face a serious possibility of persecution in the United States. CONCLUSION [43] On the basis of the findings noted above and after its own assessment of all the evidence in the record, including the recording of the hearing, the RAD finds that the RPD's findings regarding the Appellant's credibility are correct and sustainable. [44] Pursuant to Section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and dismisses the appeal. (signed) "Anthony da Silva" Anthony da Silva February 3, 2017 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, last amended on February 6, 2014. 2 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 301. 3 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 4 Ibid. 5 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 264-298. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 317-320. 7 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 142-197. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 149-153. 9 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 210. 10 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 130-131. 11 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 133-134. 12 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 179-182. 13 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 292-295. 14 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 294 at para. 5. 15 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 131 at para. 13. 16 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 294 at para. 6. 17 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 252-254. 18 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 295. 19 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 292. 20 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 293. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record at p. 130, para. 4. 22 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 293. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 107, Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria, 29 April, 2016, item 9.2, Responses to Information Request (RIR), NGA104978.E. 24 Gebetas v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 1241, at para. 29. 25 Appellant's testimony at RPD hearing. 26 El Bouni v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 700, at para. 25. 27 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 264. 28 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Basis of Claim (BoC), at pp. 44-47. 29 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 296-298 30 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, BoC, at p. 45 (last paragraph). 31 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 179-182. 32 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 143. 33 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Reasons and Decision, at pp. 12-14 at para. 22-27. 34 Kanthasamy v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61. 35 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record at p.181, para. 4. 36 Ibid. at para.5. 37 Rokni, Mohamed Mehdi v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-6068-93), Muldoon, January 27, 1995, at 10-11. 38 Danailov (Danailoff), Vasco (Vassil) Valdimirov v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. T-273-93), Reed, October 6, 1993, at 2. 39 Demberel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 731, at para. 47. 40 El Bouni v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 700, at para. 25. 41 Supra, footnote 31 at pp.181-182. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-12303 TB6-12304