TB5-12211

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 : TB5-12211 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXa.k.a.XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision June 14, 2016 Date de la décision Panel S.S. Kular Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal N/A Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX is a citizen of Jamaica. She appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying her claim for refugee protection. [2] The Appellant asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to allow the appeal, and submits that either the Appellant be found a Convention refugee, or in the alternative, the matter be referred back to a different panel of the RPD for redetermination. [3] The Appellant has submitted a statement in which she provides explanation to rebut some of the RPD's findings.1 The Appellant has not submitted new evidence pursuant to section 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA or Act).2 Thus, the Appellant is not relying on new evidence pursuant to section 110(4) of the IRPA. The Appellant is not requesting an oral hearing pursuant to section 110(6) of the IRPA. [4] The Minister is not intervening in the appeal. DETERMINATION [5] Pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD and dismisses the appeal. Background/Allegations [6] The Appellant fears returning to Jamaica due to her sexual orientation as a lesbian. The Appellant was molested by her father's friend XXXX from the age of XXXX onwards. Due to the rape and sexual molestation, the Appellant did not like men. At the age of XXXX, the Appellant went to attend an all-girls school in XXXX XXXX. In grade 9, the Appellant's friend XXXX became her best friend. One day after school, the Appellant told XXXX that she had feelings for her. XXXX got very angry, and physically attacked the Appellant. Thereafter, the Appellant was mistreated at large at school, and was called all kinds of derogatory names. On one occasion, the Appellant was suspended from school for something she did not do; the principal did not even hear her side of the story. Upon her return to school, the Appellant was continually humiliated for being a lesbian. The Appellant was also fired from a job that she held during summers since she was XXXX years of age because of her sexual orientation. [7] Despite all these problems, the Appellant settled in by not caring and found a girlfriend. On XXXX XXXX, 2013, the Appellant and her girlfriend were spotted showing affection toward each other by a member of the community of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Subsequently, several members of the Appellant's community started to harass the Appellant and her family; the Appellant and her parents received threats. On XXXX XXXX, 2013, the Appellant received threats that she would be beaten because she was a lesbian. [8] In XXXX 2013, the Appellant came to Canada for a holiday. The Appellant did not want to return to Jamaica; however, her host wanted to protect his name with the Canadian immigration. Therefore, the Appellant returned to Jamaica. Upon return, the Appellant experienced continued problems, and also became aware of the widespread discrimination against and mistreatment of the gays in Jamaica. [9] On XXXX XXXX, 2013, the Appellant was held at gunpoint and threatened to be harmed. The Appellant reported the incident to the police. She received no protection from the authorities; instead, she was ridiculed. The Appellant realized that going to the police had given her sexual orientation more exposure than before; the following day, she was threatened with a knife. [10] The Appellant moved to XXXX. Shortly, thereafter, the Appellant's sexual orientation was discovered there, and the abuse continued. Due to the Appellant's continued problems, the Appellant's parents arranged for her to leave Jamaica and come to Canada to study. [11] The Appellant left Jamaica on XXXX XXXX, 2014. In July 2015, the Appellant filed her claim for refugee protection at an inland office of Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Her refugee claim was heard on October 15, 2015. In the decision of October 22, 2015, the RPD rejected her refugee claim. The RPD found the Appellant to be not a credible witness. The Appellant submits that the RPD's decision is unreasonable. ROLE OF THE RAD [12] The Canadian jurisprudence provides the RAD with guidance in relation to the appropriate standard that must be applied by a specialized tribunal such as the RAD to decisions of the RPD, a first-level administrative tribunal. [13] 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. The Court held that the task of the RAD is to determine whether or not the RPD was wrong in law, fact or in mixed fact and law, and in the context of the legislation. "Wrong" means "not true", "incorrect" or "mistaken", all of which "definitively points to the standard of correctness." [14] In closing, Justice Gauthier wrote: I conclude from my statutory analysis that with respect to findings of fact (and mixed fact and law) such as the one involved here, which raised no issue of credibility of oral evidence, the RAD is to review RPD decisions applying the correctness standard. Thus, after carefully considering the RPD decision, the RAD carries out its own analysis of the record to determine whether, as submitted by the appellant, the RPD erred. Having done this, the RAD is to provide a final determination, either by confirming the RPD decision or setting it aside and substituting its own determination of the merits of the refugee claim. It is only when the RAD is of the opinion that it cannot provide such a final determination without hearing the oral evidence presented to the RPD that the matter can be referred back to the RPD for redetermination. No other interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions is reasonable.4 [15] Justice Gauthier rejected the high level of deference (measured by "palpable and overriding error") found in the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision in Housen v. Nikolaisen 2002 SCC 33. Regarding the credibility of the oral evidence heard by the RPD. Justice Gauthier stated that the provisions of the IRPA, particularly with respect to paragraph 111(2)(b) concerning the question of when the RAD may refer a matter back to the RPD for redetermination, does acknowledge the fact that: "...in some cases where oral testimony is critical or determinative in the opinion of the RAD, the RAD may not be in a position to confirm or substitute its own determination to that of the RPD."5 [16] Further, in a conclusion that may be obiter in the circumstances of Huruglica where the credibility of oral evidence was not in issue, the FCA found: This also recognizes that there may be cases where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage over the RAD in making findings of fact or mixed fact and law, because they require an assessment of the credibility or weight to be given to the oral evidence it hears. It further indicates that although the RAD should sometimes exercise a degree of restraint before substituting its own determination, the issue of whether the circumstances warrant such restraint ought to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. In each case, the RAD ought to determine whether the RPD truly benefited from an advantageous position, and if so, whether the RAD can nevertheless make a final decision in respect of the refugee claim.6 [17] Accordingly, the RAD will come to an independent assessment of whether the RPD erred in its determination; and thereafter, make a determination of the appeal. The RAD will determine the appeal either by confirming the RPD's decision or setting it aside and substituting its own determination of the merits of the refugee claim. It is only when the RAD is of the opinion that it cannot provide such a final determination without hearing the oral evidence presented to the RPD, the matter will be referred back to the RPD for redetermination. The RAD will afford deference to the credibility findings of the RPD or to other findings only where the RPD has a particular advantage in reaching its conclusions. The extent of this deference will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and that being dependent upon the particular circumstances of the matter and in conjunction with the RAD's own analysis of the record as a whole. [18] The RAD notes and considers that the Appellant has no counsel representation. The RAD also notes that the RPD did not specify in its reasons if it has considered/applied the Chairperson's Gender Guidelines7 in assessing the evidence and the credibility of the Appellant's allegations. A review of the recording of the RPD proceedings does not reveal that the Appellant had any difficulty testifying or providing evidence concerning her sexual orientation or the alleged abuse. The Appellant has also not provided any medical documents, such as psychological or psychiatric assessment, showing that she would have difficulty providing testimony at the RPD. The RAD finds the Appellant readily provided evidence at the RPD hearing about her sexual orientation as well as details of the abuse she experienced. [19] In making the determination in this appeal, the RAD considers the Appellant's particular situation and circumstances; and duly considers and applies the Chairperson's Gender Guidelines in assessing the totality of the evidence submitted/adduced in this case and the veracity of the Appellant's allegations. MERITS OF THE APPEAL Appellant's application for extension of time to file the Appeal at the RAD [20] This issue was dealt with by the RAD and the Appellant was granted additional time to perfect her appeal. Appellant's submissions [21] The Appellant submits that the RPD's decision is unreasonable. The Appellant submits that the RPD made erroneous negative credibility findings based on misstatement/misinterpretation of the evidence. The Appellant submits that the RPD erred by failing to properly apply the Chairperson's Gender Guidelines. [22] The RAD finds the Appellant's submissions lack clarity and specificity. The RAD finds the Appellant's arguments to be inconsistent, confusing and erroneous at times. A few examples are provided next. [23] The Appellant submits that the RPD "...erred in making a transparently "unreasonable" decision, which is the minimum standard of review in this case, if not "correctness" under Pushpanathan,[sic] contrary to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Baker [sic] ...."8 [emphasis added by Appellant] [24] The Appellant's reliance on Baker in making the above argument shows that the Appellant means to argue that the RPD erred "in making a transparently "unreasonable" decision," [emphasis added by Appellant] and that reasonableness is concerned with the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision making-process. The Appellant argues that justification requires that a decision be made with regards to the evidence before the decision-maker; and that a decision cannot be reasonable if it is made without regard to the evidence submitted. [25] The Appellant submits that the RPD was "...neither justified, transparent nor intelligible based on the evidence that the RPD Panel the responsibility to weigh [sic], given the relevant Federal Court jurisprudence and the Gender Guidelines, which were NOT applied in a meaningful way."9 [emphasis added by Appellant] [26] In respect to the above, the Appellant wrote: More specifically, it is submitted that the Panel failed to properly examine the specific evidence, relating to the Appellant's re-availement [sic] and delay in advancing her refugee claims [sic], in its particularities, taking into consideration both the Gender Guidelines and the. [sic] [emphasis added by Appellant] The Appellant left her home and went to stay in XXXX XXXX with XXXX and returned to Canada on the XXXX XXXX 2014, which would mean the chances of people carrying out his threat was minimized. The Panel could never give credence to this as the Panel ruled that her credibility was shattered based on the Panel misinterpreting and misunderstanding her Oral Evidence. [emphasis added by Appellant] Also to note that the Appellant returned to Jamaica because her reception was concern [sic] about protecting his image with immigration.10 [27] The Appellant wrote: "Accordingly, on balance, the RPD Panel's analysis leave much to be desired as its findings were unacceptable, unreasonable and unsupported within the decision - making process."11 [emphasis added by Appellant] [28] In respect to the above, the RAD finds the Appellant does not provide any examples to show that the RPD's findings were not justifiable, transparent or intelligible, or where they are found within the RPD's reasons, as per RAD Rule 3(3)(g). The Appellant does not provide any examples to show where the RPD misinterpreted and/or misunderstood the Appellant's oral evidence. The Appellant also does not provide any examples to show in what way/context the RPD failed to consider and apply the Gender Guidelines in conducting the hearing, assessing the evidence, and making the findings. The RAD finds -the Appellant's arguments are not specific. They do not indicate where and how the RPD erred and are, therefore, found by the RAD to have no merit. [29] The Appellant further wrote: It is respectfully submitted that the RPD Panel specifically incorrectly disputed the Appellants [sic] story and past plight which formed the basis for her claim for refugee protection. Which was due directly to the Panel misinterpretation of the Appellants [sic] oral testimony and Information contained in her B.O.C. The member Andrews consistently asked the same questions over and over in order to attain an answer that is in line with her making a negative decision [sic]12 [30] In her statement, the Appellant wrote that the RPD asked her the same question over and over again.13 In reviewing the transcript of the RPD proceedings, the RAD finds the RPD on occasion did ask the Appellant the same question(s) a few times over; however, the RAD finds the Appellant's submissions that the RPD "consistently asked the same questions over and over in order to attain an answer that is in line with her making a negative decision"14 are speculative. In this regard, the RAD finds the Appellant's argument has no merit. [31] The Appellant submits, More specifically, in its reasons, the panel erred by clearly misstating or misconstruing the appellant's evidence when it noted the following:15 [emphasis added by Appellant] The First inconsistency cited by the panel are [sic] as follows: "when the panel questioned the claimant about her sexual orientation, she stated emphatically that she was a lesbian. [emphasis added by Appellant] However, the claimant had based her claim on being a lesbian, when asked why I did not have any evidence from my girl friends [sic], a [sic] I answer I had expected a letter. I am of the opinion even if I had ten letters the members [sic] decision would have been the same, the moment I entered the room I saw it coming.16 [32] The RAD finds the RPD's questions relating to the letter from the Appellant's girlfriend were reasonable. The RAD finds the Appellant's submissions that even if she had ten letters the RPD member's decision would have been the same, and that the moment she entered the room she saw it coming are pure speculation. Thus, the RAD finds this argument also has no merit. [33] The Appellant submits that, "...the RPD panel erred in its determination that the appellant did not have a subjective fear to return to Jamaica, on account [sic] my failing to tell her about my entire love life."17 [emphasis added by Appellant] [34] In this respect, the Appellant submits: Obviously, the tribunal made several glaring errors. First, declaring the Appellant is not credible due to unfounded comparison of the evidence. Secondly delay in making a claim, while relevant, is not a decisive factor in itself... in finding the applicant lacked subjective fear on the basis of delay, the tribunal neglected to give sufficient weight to real purpose of seeking protection in Canada and the persecution and constant harassment of her mother who still resides in Jamaica.18 [emphasis added by Appellant] [35] The Appellant adds: All in all, given the particular circumstances of the appellant, it is submitted that it was unreasonable for the RPD Panel to reject her multiple reasonable explanations relating to her re-availment and delay in claiming and to draw any negative inference against her, regarding her credibility. [emphasis added by Appellant] Finally, in light of the appellant's explanations and circumstances, her delay should not have been dispositive of the claim and the RPD should have properly examined the claim on its merits.19 [emphasis added by Appellant] [36] In this respect, the Appellant submits: ... [W]hile the RPD Panel acknowledged the I.R.B. Gender Guidelines [sic] its reasons, beyond their simple mention, it failed to properly apply and/or demonstrate how they were properly applied and, as a result, proceeded to make unreasonable, perverse and capricious non-credibility findings without regard to the totality of the evidence before it, concerning the appellant and her delay in claiming, without any sensitivity to my circumstances. [emphasis added by Appellant] and [sic] abuse in Jamaica, which it never specifically disputed. In the matter od [sic] the appellant, the panel's assessment of her over-all [sic] credibility evidently turned on its understanding about what is considered not to be reasonable behavior (delay) for a seriously abused or ill-treated woman. [emphasis added by Appellant] As a result, the panel proceeded to form unreasonable conclusions as to the appellant's story or supporting narrative in the B.O.C. form, absent ant [sic] proper analysis of credibility or of her plight, itself.20 [emphasis added by Appellant] [37] The Appellant adds: It is submitted that, in the Reasons, the spirit of the Gender Guidelines should have led the panel to properly consider the actions or inactions (delay in claiming) of the appellant when contemplated in her unique female gender related circumstances which included both her on going [sic] debilitating and constant harassment humiliation verbal abuse [sic] As an aside, these particular considerations are much different than an analysis through the prism of a male claimant's perspective and framework.21 [emphasis added by Appellant] [38] Further, the Appellant submits: Clearly, where the only evidence linking the claimant to the persecution emanated from her testimony, rejecting the testimony means there is no longer a link to the persecution. It becomes impossible to establish a link between the person's claim and the documentary evidence.22 [39] In reviewing the Appellant's Record, the RAD is unclear regarding the Appellant's bases for submissions specifically regarding the RPD having erred in applying the Chairperson's Gender Guidelines in making its findings relating to delay in claiming or re-availment. The RAD notes the delay in claiming and re-availment were not addressed/considered in the RPD's reasons. Further, as the RAD previously noted the RPD did not specify in its reasons if it has considered/applied the Chairperson's Gender Guidelines in assessing the evidence and the credibility of the Appellant's allegations. [40] Regardless of the above, in making the determination in this appeal, the RAD considers the Appellant's particular situation and circumstances. The RAD also duly considers and applies the Chairperson's Gender Guidelines in assessing the totality of the evidence submitted/adduced in this case and the veracity of the Appellant's allegations. [41] The RAD considers the Appellant's alleged reaction to the RPD's questions at the hearing.23 In reviewing the recording of the RPD's proceedings, the RAD is unclear as to which of the questions asked by the RPD made the Appellant feel humiliated and which of her own responses to the RPD's questions made her feel like she was wrong to be who she is. Therefore, the RAD finds the Appellant's arguments to be not meritorious as it is not at all clear where and how the RPD erred in this context. [42] The Appellant also submits that the RPD "...never reviewed and considered the Appellant's profile as a member of the [Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer] LGBTQ Community."24 The RAD does not accept the Appellant's submissions in this regard. The RAD finds it is clear from the Appellant's testimony, and the RPD's 'Reasons for Decision' that the RPD duly addressed the core issues in this case, including the Appellant's sexual identity, and assessed the totality of the evidence in making the determination regarding whether the Appellant, in her particular situation and circumstances, would face persecution or risk of harm pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA upon return to Jamaica as alleged. The RAD finds the Appellant's argument that the RPD never [emphasis added by RAD] reviewed and considered the Appellant's profile as a member of the LGBTQ Community has no merit. [43] The RAD finds the Appellant's above-mentioned submissions have no merit. [44] Regardless, the RAD conducts its own independent assessment of the totality of the evidence in this case, including the Appellant's testimony, and makes the determination in this appeal. RPD's findings and the RAD's analysis Relationship with XXXX [45] The Appellant provided detailed testimony regarding her longstanding serious relationship with XXXX, and added that she hopes to marry XXXX one day. Many of the details she provided at the hearing were not included in her Basis of Claim (BoC) form narrative. The RPD drew a negative inference from these omissions. The Appellant explains that she never wrote everything in her BoC form because to recall everything was traumatizing.25 The RAD considered the Appellant's particular situation and circumstances, and considers the Chairperson's Gender Guidelines. Given that the Appellant had a longstanding relationship with XXXX and hopes to marry her one day and never had a relationship with anyone prior to XXXX, and moreover because her problems started after the policeman saw them together in a restaurant, thus exposing that they were lesbians, the RAD finds it reasonable for the Appellant to have mentioned details about her, one and only significant, relationship with XXXX in her BoC form narrative. Therefore, the RAD concurs with the RPD in drawing a negative inference from these omissions from the Appellant's BoC form narrative. [46] The Appellant alleged that she was in a serious longstanding relationship with XXXX. The Appellant did not provide any corroborating evidence showing that she and XXXX were in a longstanding serious relationship as alleged. The RPD drew a negative inference from the Appellant's failure to provide corroborating evidence to show that she was in a serious longstanding lesbian relationship with XXXX. She testified and wrote in her narrative that she hopes to marry XXXX one day. In consideration of all this, the RAD finds it reasonable for the Appellant to have provided some reliable and probative documentary evidence showing that the relationship existed; for example, letters, phone records, photographs, corroboration of the relationship from third parties, etc. The RAD finds the Appellant's failure to corroborate the existence of such a relationship, which is core to the Appellant's refugee claim, distracts from the Appellant's credibility. Therefore, based on the totality of the evidence submitted/adduced in this case, the RAD concurs with the RPD's negative credibility findings. Police Visits [47] The Appellant testified that she went to the police when she was threatened with a knife in XXXX 2013, and then later on when she was held at gunpoint in XXXX 2013. The Appellant did not write in her BoC form narrative that she went to the police when she was held at gunpoint in XXXX 2013. The Appellant was asked about this omission from the BoC form narrative; she testified that she thought she had written about it and then stated that she should have written about it. The RPD rejected her explanation. The RAD finds the Appellant also wrote many details regarding her interaction with the officials at the police station. The RPD asked why she had not included those details in her testimony. The Appellant replied that she told the panel about the outcome but did not include that the officials ridiculed her. The RPD rejected her explanation because the RPD found it reasonable to expect her to describe what transpired at the police station during her testimony. [48] In reviewing the totality of the evidence in this case, the RAD finds the Appellant's evidence to be internally inconsistent. In consideration of the totality of the evidence submitted/adduced in this case and the Appellant's particular situation and circumstances and the Chairperson's Gender Guidelines, the RAD finds it reasonable to expect the Appellant to have provided consistent details in her narrative and testimony as these are central to her allegations that the Police in Jamaica would not protect her. The RAD finds the Appellant is not an uneducated person; she has completed high school, and has attended college in Jamaica and in Canada. Further, the Appellant has traveled internationally; for example, twice to Canada. She had also obtained a class B1/B2 10-year visa for the U.S., issued on XXXX XXXX, 2013. In consideration of the totality of the evidence submitted/adduced in this case and the Appellant's particular situation and circumstances and the Chairperson's Gender Guidelines, the RAD finds the Appellant's explanation for the omissions and the inconsistencies not satisfactory. Therefore, the RAD finds these further distract from her credibility. In this respect, the RAD concurs with the RPD's negative credibility inference. Parents' problems [49] The Appellant was also unable to mention on her own about the threats that her parents had allegedly received due to the Appellant's sexual orientation. The Appellant's explanation for her failure to forward this information on her own was that she did not think of it at the moment. The RPD did not accept the Appellant's explanation. In reviewing the evidence, the RAD finds the alleged threats to cause physical harm to her parents are significant, and the Appellant's failure to mention those threats without being prompted further distracts from her credibility. In this respect, the RAD concurs with the RPD's negative credibility finding. The RAD acknowledges the Appellant's explanation for omissions and inconsistencies provided in her statement.26 The RAD, however, finds that the Appellant was able to provide many details in her BoC form narrative and at the hearing about several other aspects of her alleged problems in Jamaica; the omissions and inconsistencies identified in the foregoing are significant. Therefore, the RAD concurs with the RPD in that these distract from her credibility. Appellant's attendance at the Toronto Pride Parade [50] The Appellant testified that she had attended the Toronto Pride Parade in 2015, and that it was the happiest day of her life. The evidence shows that the Appellant was unable to recall the date, or even the month when the Toronto Pride Parade was held. The RPD drew a negative inference from the Appellant's failure to specify the day or even the month when the Toronto Pride Parade was held. The Appellant wrote, "...I could not remember the exact date because I began to get nervous due to the settings and the ridiculing way I was questioned."27 In reviewing the recording of the RPD proceedings, the RAD finds no persuasive evidence to show that the communication interchange at the RPD was hostile or ridiculing among the parties present. The RAD finds the Appellant was unable to provide specifics regarding when the Toronto Pride Parade in 2015 was held, not even the month when the Parade was held. The RAD finds the Appellant's failure to specify when the Toronto pride Parade was held distracts from her credibility because the event was recent and of particular importance and significance to the Appellant, in her alleged particular situation and circumstances. The RAD concurs with the RPD's negative credibility inference in this respect. Corroborating evidence/documents [51] The Appellant submitted a photograph and a card from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Centre in Toronto.28 The RPD did not give these documents any weight because of their low probative value in establishing the Appellant's identity as a lesbian. In reviewing the same documents, the RAD too finds that these documents do not provide reliable and satisfactory probative evidence to establish the Appellant's identity as a lesbian. The RAD finds mere membership of and attendance at activities held at the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Centre in Toronto does not establish the member's/attendee's sexual orientation/identity. In this respect, the RAD concurs with the RPD in giving these documents little weight in support of the Appellant's alleged identity as a lesbian. [52] The Appellant also provided a letter from a friend XXXX XXXX,29 in which the writer of the letter makes some general remarks regarding the Appellant having had problems in Jamaica due to her being either perceived or known as a gay/lesbian. The RAD finds the letter in itself is generic in nature, and general in content as it provides no specific examples. Therefore, the RAD gives the letter little weight in establishing the Appellant's sexual identity as a lesbian. [53] In respect to the findings relating to the corroborating evidence/documents, the RAD concurs with the RPD's findings. Conclusion [54] The RAD, in reviewing all of the evidence and documentation in this case and in consideration of this Appellant's particular situation and circumstances and the Chairperson's Gender Guidelines, finds the Appellant, on a balance of probabilities, has not provided sufficient reliable and satisfactory probative evidence to establish her allegations that she a lesbian, and thus would fear persecution upon return to Jamaica. Therefore, the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection under both sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA. DISPOSITION [55] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. [56] This appeal is dismissed. (signed) "S.S. Kular" S.S. Kular June 14, 2016 Date 1 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 92. 2 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, last amended on February 6, 2014. 3 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93 [Huruglica]. 4 Ibid., at para. 103. 5 Huruglica, supra, footnote 1, at para. 69. 6 Huruglica, supra, footnote 1, at para. 70. 7 Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Update, Guideline Issued by the Chairperson Pursuant to Section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 25, 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002, under the authority found in section 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, item 13, Appellant's Memorandum of Argument, at para. 11, p. 98. 9 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, item 13, Appellant's Memorandum of Argument, at para. 12, p. 98. 10 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Item 13, Appellant's Memorandum of Argument, at para. 13, pp. 98-99. 11 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Item 13, Appellant's Memorandum of Argument, at para. 15, p. 99. 12 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Item 13, Appellant's Memorandum of Argument, at para. 16, p. 100. 13 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 92. 14 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Item 13, Appellant's Memorandum of Argument, at para. 16, p. 100. 15 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Item 13, Appellant's Memorandum of Argument, at para. 19, p. 100 16 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Item 13, Appellant's Memorandum of Argument, at para. 19, pp. 100-101. 17 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Item 13, Appellant's Memorandum of Argument, at para. 21, p. 101 18 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Item 13, Appellant's Memorandum of Argument, at para. 22, p. 102. 19 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Item 13, Appellant's Memorandum of Argument, at para. 27, p. 104. 20 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Item 13, Appellant's Memorandum of Argument, at para. 28, p. 104. 21 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Item 13, Appellant's Memorandum of Argument, at para. 32, p. 105. 22 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Item 13, Appellant's Memorandum of Argument, at para. 36, p. 106. 23 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 92. 24 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Item 13, Appellant's Memorandum of Argument, at para. 38, p. 107. 25 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 92. 26 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 92. 27 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 92. 28 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, RPD Exhibit 6, at p. 114. 29 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, RPD Exhibit 5, at p. 113. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-12211