TB8-33841

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-33841 TB8-33842 / TB8-33843 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision February 24, 2020 Date de la décision Panel G. Cohen Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Adetayo G. Akinyemi Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the "Principal Appellant"), his wife XXXX XXXX Akinpelu, and their son, XXXX XXXX XXXX (altogether the "Appellants") are citizens of Nigeria. [2] The Appellants claim to fear persecution and/or a risk of harm in Nigeria with respect to the Principal Appellant's previous role on the "XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX" (the "XXXX") and related threats to their lives. The Appellants appeal a decision of the Refugee Protection Division ("RPD") rejecting their claims for refugee protection. The Appellants argue that the RPD erred in its assessment of the evidence and their related risk of persecution and/or harm. DECISION [3] The appeal is dismissed, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the "IRPA").1 The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. BACKGROUND [4] The Principal Appellant alleges that he is "seeking protection from persecution in Nigeria, based on threats to my life and the lives of my wife and son from senior members of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, including Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX2, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX."3 [5] The Principal Appellant stated that the "XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in Nigeria. Furthermore, the Principal Appellant alleges that he was invited by XXXX to "XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX" and XXXX XXXX XXXX.4 [6] In the above capacity, the Principal Appellant alleges that he "discovered that some staff of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX were operating a syndicate through which they collect monies from students XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX." The Principal Appellant further describes how XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX" and a staff member of XXXX, Mr. XXXX XXXX, had told the Principal Appellant to "be on the lookout for students...XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX".5 [7] The Principal Appellant alleges to have been "very disappointed at this discovery and on the XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, I wrote a petition to the XXXX XXXXof Police, asking his office to investigate allegations of corruption at XXXX office, involving Mr. XXXX and XXXX officials."6 [8] The Principal Appellant further alleges that on XXXX XXXX, 2017 he called the XXXX XXXXof Police to enquire about the status of his complaint and the role they wished him to play to "apprehend the culprits". In response, the Principal Appellant alleges that he was told by "Officer XXXX that my complaints have been dismissed and that the police are considering arresting me for scandalizing the name of Mr. XXXX."7 [9] The Principal Appellant alleges that the following day "I received a call from Mr. XXXX XXXX informing me that I am a dead man for trying to implicate him and others and that my life and the lives of my children are on the line." The Principal Appellant further alleges that on, "the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018 [approximately seven weeks later], I fled from Nigeria with my wife and children for my safety and the safety of member of my family." (Given that the Principal Appellant is alleging to have only one child, multiple references to "my children" in the plural form is confusing and irregular.) [10] The Principal Appellant alleges that he has "become the target of unscrupulous and corrupt government workers in Nigeria who are determined to eliminate me" and that the police are unwilling to protect him. The Principal Appellant further alleges that given the national status of XXXX, "I do not believe that I have a viable internal flight alternative in Nigeria." [11] The RPD heard the Appellants' refugee claims on November 26, 2018 and rejected them in a written decision dated December 17, 2018. The RPD found that the Appellants allegations were not credible and that the Appellants have an internal flight alternative in Lagos, Nigeria ("IFA"). The Role of the Refugee Appeal Division (the "RAD") [12] The RAD is required to undertake an independent assessment of the evidence and reach its own determination, including as to whether the RPD made the correct decision. Deference is owed to the RPD only where the RPD held a meaningful advantage in assessing evidence.8 [13] In the current case, I see no reason to show deference to any of the RPD's findings. As such, I have applied a correctness standard and arrived at independent findings and conclusions based upon the evidence before me.9 No New Evidence has been Submitted to the RAD in this Case [14] The Appellants have neither submitted nor are they relying on new evidence in this appeal and they are not requesting an oral hearing.10 As such, analysis regarding the admissibility of new evidence or whether to hold an oral hearing is not required. ANALYSIS Determinative Issues [15] The determinative issues in this case at the RPD were credibility and the availability of an IFA. The same issues are being considered at the RAD. [16] Overall, this appeal examines whether the RPD erred in determining that the Appellants' risk of persecution and/or harm had not been established and therefore that the Appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection. In doing so, I examine the credibility and IFA analysis conducted by the RPD which ultimately found that the Appellants had an IFA in Lagos, Nigeria and that the Appellants' evidence was not credible given material discrepancies between oral and documentary evidence that were not reasonably explained. [17] According to the Appellants' formulation of the issues, they argue that the RPD: (1) misapprehended the facts; (2) failed to take relevant evidence into consideration; (3) proceeded on improper principles; and/or (4) based its decision on erroneous findings of fact, without regard for the totality of the evidence. However, I do not agree, for the reasons provided herein. [18] Moreover, I found the RPD's overall analysis to be correct in rejecting the Appellants' refugee claims, and I dismiss the appeal. Credibility Concerns Regarding the Appellants' Evidence and the Core of their Claims [19] With respect to the credibility of refugee claimants overall, there is a presumption that alleged facts are true unless there is valid reason to doubt this. The presumption of truthfulness is rebuttable and claimants bear the burden of establishing their claims. The determination of whether a refugee claimant's evidence is credible is made on a balance of probabilities.11 [20] While the Appellants appear to be arguing that the RPD applied a standard of proof from criminal proceedings, i.e. proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I find that the RPD applied the correct standard and that this argument is without merit.12 Moreover, the RPD found that the presumption of truthfulness had been rebutted in rejecting the Appellants' core allegations and in providing reasons for the findings it made. [21] Overall, upon an independent review, I found that there are significant credibility concerns with the Appellants' evidence and a lack thereof. As such, I find that the presumption of truth has been rebutted and I do not accept the Appellants' core allegations as true. As such, I have similarly rejected the Appellants' arguments in this regard.13 In reaching this conclusion, I have considered the relevant Guideline14, the stress of the hearing room, the subject matter in question, cultural differences, and the Appellants' anxiety, education, and level of sophistication. [22] That said, the RPD noted at paragraph 5 of its decision that it had considered the Chairperson's Guidelines relating to: (1) Child refugee claimants; (2) Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression; and (3) Proceedings involving female refugee claimants fearing gender- based persecution. The Appellants argue that in this case the latter two Guidelines do not relate to the facts before the RPD.15 [23] While I agree that the Chairperson's Guideline relating to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression is not relevant in this case, and was mistakenly listed for consideration, I find that this is not fatal to the RPD decision and that nothing turns on the Appellants' arguments in this regard. Furthermore, the RPD referred to the Gender Guidelines in focusing on female refugee claimants and internal flight alternative at paragraphs 29-31 and 33 of its decision. Therein, the RPD conducted a comparative analysis to illustrate the advantages, opportunities, and circumstances applicable to the Appellants. Although it may not have been necessary to conduct the RPD analysis in this manner, I find that the RPD did not err in doing so. [24] Ultimately, the Appellants' key evidence was neither reliable nor trustworthy. Credibility concerns emerged within and between oral and documentary evidence regarding material aspects of these refugee claims. Furthermore, the Appellants failed to provide persuasive evidence to establish key elements of their claims. Similarly, the RPD found material aspects of the Appellants' evidence to not be credible and found material discrepancies between oral and documentary evidence that were not reasonably explained. I agree. [25] In particular, the RPD raised concerns with important details being omitted from the Principal Appellant's BOC that led to him fearing for his life in Nigeria, including about his interactions with the XXXX organization and related students (e.g. a phone call from Mr. XXXX in XXXX 2017 and approaching students XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX).16 Furthermore, the RPD correctly noted that the Principal Appellant had signed a declaration confirming that the information in his BOC was complete, true, and correct. [26] In response, the Principal Appellant testified that his BOC merely summarized events and does not contain everything. However, the BOC clearly states in bold capitalized letters, "INCLUDE EVERYTHING THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR YOUR CLAIM. INCLUDE DATES, NAMES AND PLACES WHEREVER POSSIBLE." Moreover, as mentioned, the Principal Appellant signed his BOC confirming that: I declare that the information I have provided in this form is complete, true and correct...that I have fully read and fully understood the entire content of this form and all attached documents. My declaration has the same force and effect as if made under oath.17 As such, it is reasonable to expect that the Principal Appellant would have included significant details and events that led to him fearing for his life and that of his family in his BOC, and the RPD was correct to raise credibility concerns in this regard. [27] The Appellants argue that at paragraphs 10 and 11 of its decision the RPD stated that the Principal Appellant failed to mention in his BOC that he: (1) got a phone call from XXXX XXXX (the "agent of harm") telling him that some students who XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; and (2) approached XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The Appellants argue that this is a misstatement of the facts. However, I do not agree with the Appellants' argument in this regard, as discussed below. [28] Furthermore, the Appellants maintain that "the entire narrative and documentary evidence before the panel relate to encounters the principal appellant had with Mr. XXXX XXXX". However, this is not an accurate characterization of the Appellants' BOC narrative or the documentary evidence before the RPD. Moreover, the Appellants maintain that while they did not specify that one of these communications was over the phone this omission does not constitute a failure to provide complete, true, and correct information.18 I do not agree. [29] Ultimately, I cannot accept the Appellants' related arguments and find them meritless. Moreover, the RPD was correct in noting that the Appellants had omitted important information from their BOCs that they provided in testimony. Furthermore, the Appellants' attempt to maintain that the communications with the agent of harm in question were included in the BOC without specifying that one such conversation was over the phone is also an inaccurate characterization of the credibility concerns the RPD raised. Quite simply, the Appellants omitted significant information from their BOCs and failed to provide an acceptable explanation for doing so, which undermines their credibility and the basis for their refugee claims. [30] The RPD raised additional concerns with important details being omitted from the Principal Appellant's BOC and a letter written by his mother. These related to him fearing for his life in Nigeria, including about continued calls to his cellphone in Nigeria, which is allegedly with his mother. The RPD correctly noted that amendments to the Appellants' BOCs could have been made and that the continued calls to his cellphone allegedly occurred before the Principal Appellant's mother wrote her supporting letter. [31] Moreover, the RPD concluded that the Principal Appellant failed to provide a credible explanation for significant information and allegations being omitted from his BOC, which was not corroborated by his mother in her letter, and the RPD drew a negative inference in this regard. [32] Overall, it is reasonable to expect the Principal Appellant to include significant relevant details and information in his BOC that relate directly to allegations of fear and harm in Nigeria, including with respect to the alleged agent(s) of harm and threatening behavior, upon which these refugee claims are based. Moreover, these matters pertain to the core of the refugee claims and are by no means trifling or peripheral, which the Appellants argue. As such, I reject the Appellants arguments in this regard and find the related credibility concerns highlighted by the RPD to be correct.19 [33] Additionally, I find the argument that an inference can be drawn that the Principal Appellant believed the agent of harm made subsequent calls to his cellphone that was in Nigeria and not being answered is confusing and unsupportable. I do not accept, on a balance of probabilities, that such an inference can be drawn, nor do I find it incorrect to expect the inclusion of related information in the Appellants' BOCs. Quite the contrary, given the significance of this information with respect to the fear of harm the Appellants are alleging, this ought to have been included.20 [34] Furthermore, the RPD found that the Principal Appellant failed to provide persuasive supporting documentary evidence to establish that: (1) he was involved with XXXX; (2) he was involved with fraudulent practices of XXXX; (3) he made a police report with allegations against XXXX; and/or (4) he is under suspicion of slander, in Nigeria. And, the RPD found that the Principal Appellant failed to make efforts to obtain such reasonably available documentary evidence. [35] The Appellants argue that obtaining such evidence is not possible and puts them at further risk of harm. However, there is insufficient persuasive evidence to establish that this is the case. Furthermore, the Response to Information Request (the "RIR") referenced by the Appellants (i.e. NGA106208.E) provides that: ...during a criminal investigation, the police issues police investigation reports...[and] a public relations officer with the Nigeria Police Special Fraud Unit explained...that investigation reports are issued at the end of investigations into criminal cases either for administrative purposes, or at the request of the complainant or the complainant's lawyer, by means of a letter...[and] a report of complaint can also be issued by the police when a complaint is made about an incident documented in the crime diary, but that was not investigated by the police...[and] police investigation reports, the police reports and the reports of complaint can be issued if requested by the complainant or by another person on their behalf... 21 [36] Conversely, the Appellants have selectively included excerpts from the RIR that provide a limited and inaccurate portrayal of the availability of police related documents. Moreover, they seek to reference the inability of the Appellants to obtain a police report in absentia or that an affidavit is required, however, these excerpted portions are taken out of context and are inapplicable. [37] As noted above, a police report can be requested in Nigeria by another person on the Appellants' behalf (e.g. the Principal Appellant's mother as the RPD suggested). Moreover, the Appellants' references to affidavits in the RIR pertain to "a police report for an investigation into stolen goods or missing properties" and not for the investigation in question. As such, I reject the Appellant's related arguments and find them untenable and inappropriate. Furthermore, I agree with the RPD as to the availability of supporting documentation that the Appellants have failed to provide. [38] Additionally, the Appellants have not provided sufficient persuasive evidence to establish that, on a balance of probabilities, the Principal Appellant was involved with XXXX, that he made allegations against XXXX and/or submitted an alleged petition to the police, or that he is wanted or under suspicion for slander. It is also worth noting that the alleged petition that the Appellants provided is merely a typewritten document without more. I do not find this to be persuasive evidence that, on a balance of probabilities, the Principal Appellant has made a complaint or report to the police as alleged. [39] Furthermore, the Appellants argue that by accepting the Principal Appellant is a XXXX, the RPD should have accepted that "XXXX XXXX" are incidental to the Principal Appellant's occupation. However, I cannot accept this argument and find that this logic does not follow. In the Appellants' BOCs, they stated that the Principal Appellant "was amongst the XXXX invited by XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX". That the Principal Appellant was allegedly amongst teachers invited by XXXX to invigilate at examinations signifies that not all teachers receive such an invitation or are among those invited to work with XXXX. Therefore, merely being a schoolteacher does not automatically signify involvement with XXXX, as the RPD correctly recognized.22 [40] It is also necessary to note that the Appellants' arguments fail to adequately address the RPD's concern that the Appellants did not provide sufficient persuasive evidence to establish that the Principal Appellant was involved with XXXX or its fraudulent practices, which is a significant and material evidentiary shortfall. A failure to establish this core allegation is a critical flaw in the Appellants' case, among others, and undermines the basis for their refugee claims and appeal. [41] Additionally, I find insufficient persuasive evidence to establish that, on a balance of probabilities: (1) the agent(s) of harm knew about the Principal Appellant having filed a petition with the police; (2) the only way the agent(s) of harm could have known about the police complaint was through the police; and/or (3) the police had "tipped off" the agent(s) of harm. Moreover, these allegations are largely speculative assumptions that are not supported by the evidence and are therefore without merit. To this I would also add that there is insufficient persuasive evidence to establish that the police rejected the Principal Appellant's petition or that they are "poised to persecute him" and this information should also have been included in the Appellants' BOCs. I Agree with the RPD in Finding that the Appellants have an IFA in Lagos, Nigeria [42] Additionally, the RPD analyzed whether the Appellants have an IFA in Nigeria, specifically in Lagos, to determine whether they could live there without a serious possibility of persecution or risk of harm. In this regard, the RPD applied the RAD jurisprudential guide, which addresses IFA in major cities in Nigeria for claimants fleeing non-state actors, and the RPD correctly stated and applied the requisite two-pronged legal test.23 [43] For added specificity, the test for assessing an IFA has been established by the Federal Court of Appeal.24 First, a decision maker must be satisfied that there is no serious possibility of the Appellants being persecuted in the IFA location and/or that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellants would not personally be subjected to a risk to life, a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger of torture in the IFA. Secondly, the conditions in the IFA location must be such that it would not be unreasonable in all the circumstances, including those particular to the Appellants, for them to seek refuge there.25 [44] Both prongs of the test must be satisfied to find that the Appellants have an IFA. Nonetheless, once the issue of an IFA has been raised and the potential IFAs have been identified, the burden of proof rests with the Appellants to show that they do not have an IFA. Ultimately, I find that the analysis provided by the RPD is correct that the Appellants have a viable IFA in Lagos, Nigeria. [45] Furthermore, I find that the Appellants have not met their burden to establish that they do not have a viable IFA in Nigeria. Moreover, I do not find the Appellants' arguments pertaining to the suggested IFA persuasive, including that they are being sought by both state and non-state actors, such as the police and/or XXXX, who the Appellants allege have connections to both the police and politicians.26 [46] In this regard, the RPD noted that the Appellants did not provide any further details regarding "bare allegations" of XXXX connections with police or politicians, or about "any mechanisms through which XXXX or Mr. XXXX could search for the family." Moreover, the RPD concluded that the Appellants provided insufficient persuasive evidence to establish that the alleged agents of harm could locate the Appellants in Lagos or to satisfy their onus of proof. I agree with the RPD's conclusions. 27 [47] Additionally, the Appellants argue that the RPD discounted the Principal Appellant's testimony that the agent of harm "was acting in concert with the police" and that the police "took sides with Mr. XXXX".28 However, the Appellants failed to provide sufficient persuasive evidence to establish these allegations on a balance of probabilities. In other words, I find insufficient persuasive evidence to establish that the agent of harm in this case is acting "in concert" with the police in Nigeria or that the police "took sides" with any such agent.29 [48] Furthermore, the RPD highlighted that members of the XXXX were under investigation in Nigeria by the economic and financial crimes agency and that the Appellants had not had any contact with the agent of harm since XXXX 2017, prior to the commencement of the investigation."30 As such, I agree with the RPD in its conclusion that the activities and members of XXXX are being pursued by authorities, which undermines allegations that they are well connected or above the law. [49] Ultimately, I agree with the RPD findings that the Appellants failed to establish that they would face a serious possibility of persecution or a risk of harm in Lagos; and that the alleged risk of harm presented by the Appellants is speculative based on the evidence provided or a lack thereof. Furthermore, I agree with the RPD findings that it is not objectively unreasonable for the Appellants to relocate to Lagos, and find that that the Appellants' assertions as to why this would not be possible fail to establish otherwise (e.g. higher rental expenses, not knowing anyone there, exposure to different unusual languages).31 [50] Moreover, the RPD conducted a detailed analysis into IFA concerns such as employment, accommodation, religion, language, the presence of family and friends, and other social or cultural constraints, before concluding that the Appellants failed to establish that it would be unreasonable for them to relocate to Lagos. As noted, I agree with the RPD conclusions in this regard and find that the Appellants have failed to provide persuasive evidence establishing otherwise.32 [51] Ultimately, the determinative issues in this appeal are credibility and IFA, which examine whether the RPD erred in determining that the Appellants' risk of persecution and/or harm were not established and therefore that the Appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection. I have found that the RPD did not err in this regard and agree with its conclusions. [52] Overall, the Appellants' key evidence was neither reliable nor trustworthy. Credibility concerns emerged within and between oral and documentary evidence with respect to material aspects of the Appellants' refugee claims that were not reasonably explained. Furthermore, the Appellants failed to provide persuasive evidence to establish key elements of their claims. Moreover, the Appellants' arguments are not persuasive with respect to overcoming these concerns or establishing that the RPD erred in its related analysis, including with respect to the finding that the Appellants have an IFA in Lagos, Nigeria. Therefore, as explained above, this appeal cannot be allowed. CONCLUSION [53] I dismiss the appeal pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of IRPA and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. (Signed) "G. Cohen" G. Cohen February 24, 2020 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. 2 Note that reference is made to Mr. XXXX, Mr. XXXX, and Mr. XXXX. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, Principal Appellant's Basis of Claim Form ("BOC") Narrative, Page 27. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid., Page 28. 6 Ibid. Note that reference is made to Mr. XXXX, Mr. XXXX, and Mr. XXXX. 7 Ibid. Note that reference is made to Mr. XXXX, Mr. XXXX, and Mr. XXXX, 8 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145 9 Ibid. 10 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum of Argument, "Written Statement Regarding Subsections 110(4) and (6) IRPA" at pages 85-86. 11 Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.); 31 N.R. 34 (F.C.A.); Gill v. Canada (MCI), 2004 FC 1498; Orelien v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1992] 1 F.C. 592 (C.A.); (1991), 15 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1 (F.C.A.). 12 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum of Argument at paragraph 40. 13 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum of Argument at paragraph 41. 14 Chairperson's Guideline 3: Child and Refugee Claimants: Procedural and Evidentiary Issues, issued by the Chairperson pursuant to Section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, September 30, 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002 pursuant to section 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. 15 Ibid.; Chairperson 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, March 9, 1993; Update: November 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002, pursuant section 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.; Chairperson's Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression, Guidelines issued by the Chairperson pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRB, Ottawa, May 1, 2017 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, page 6, at Paragraphs 10-11 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, Principal Appellant's BOC, Page 39. 18 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum of Argument at paragraphs 9-11. 19 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum of Argument at paragraphs 15-16. 20 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum of Argument at paragraphs 17-19. 21 National Documentation Package for Nigeria, 30 November 2018, Item 10.3, RIR - NGA106208.E. 22 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum of Argument at paragraph 27. 23 Jurisprudential Guide - Decision TB7-19851, Guide identified by the Chairperson pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Effective date July 6, 2018. 24 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.). 25 Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.). 26 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum of Argument at paragraphs 27-29. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, page 10-11, at paragraphs 25-26, 31. 28 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum of Argument at paragraphs 28-29. 29 Moreover, I find that RIR-NGA106208.E referenced by the Appellants in this regard does not overcome my concerns with the inadequacy of these arguments. 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, page 10, paragraphs 24-25; Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 151-155 Exhibit 8. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, pages 11-12, 13-15, paragraphs 32, 34-35, 37-44. 32 Ibid. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-33841 TB8-33842 / TB8-33843 RAD.25.02 (January 14, 2020) Disponible en français 15 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 14, 2020) Disponible en français