Prompt:
Analyze this Refugee Appeal Division decision from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada and explain its implications for refugee determination:

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MC1-05134 MC1-05135 / MC1-05136 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Date of decision January 31, 2022 Date de la décision Panel Michael J. Gardiner Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Jacqueline M Lewis Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative [REDACTED]for[REDACTED] XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] I dismiss this appeal. [REDACTED] (Principal Appellant), [REDACTED] (Associate Appellant), and [REDACTED] (Minor Associate Appellant) are citizens of Nigeria. 1. The Appellants fear harm at the hands of their extended family due to the Appellants' opposition to Female Genital Mutation (FGM). The Appellants allege that family members want to subject the Associate Appellants to the practice. 2. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found that the Appellants are not credible in their claim. 3. The Appellants argue on appeal that the RPD erred in finding that the Appellants are not credible. 4. The determinative issue for Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) is whether the RPD erred in finding that the Appellants are not credible. 5. I find that the RPD did not err. I agree with the RPD that there are serious omissions and inconsistencies in the Appellants' testimony. I find that the Appellants are not credible. DECISION [2] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellants are neither Convention1 refugees nor persons in need of protection. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellants' main allegations are set out in the Principal Appellant's Basis of Claim (BOC) form. The Associate Appellants have adopted the same allegations. [4] The Appellants allege they face persecution from family members because the Appellants are opposed to FGM. The Appellants allege in their BOC form that family members seek to perform FGM/Circumcision (FGM/C) on the Minor Associate Appellant. In addition, the Associate Appellant testified at the RPD hearing that she fears being subjected to FGM/C by family members. [5] The Principal Appellant was born into a practicing Muslim family with five siblings. The Principal Appellant converted to Christianity in 2013. He is XXXX XXXX as a result of a childhood XXXX XXXX. [6] The Appellants testified that they were approached in 2014 by members of the Principal Appellant's family seeking to perform FGM/C on the Minor Associate Appellant, their daughter. [7] The Appellants testified that in 2016 family members attempted to kidnap the Minor Associate Appellant in order to perform FGM/C on her. The attempt was thwarted but the agents of persecution continued to threaten and harass the Appellants. [8] The Appellants left Ogun state for Lagos State in XXXX 2017. They remained in Lagos State until they left Nigeria for the United States (USA) in XXXX 2017. They remained in the USA until XXXX XXXX, 2017, when they crossed the borderinto Canada and claimed refugee protection. [9] The Principal Appellant and Associate Appellant have a daughter who was born in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2018. The Appellants testified that their daughter has XXXX XXXXdisease, commonly known as [REDACTED]. The Appellants allege that she faces persecution and death from family members in Nigeria who believe that babies with this condition should not live. [10] The Principal Appellant and Associate Appellant have a son who was born in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2021. The Appellants do not allege that their infant son has health problems. CHILDREN BORN IN CANADA [11] The Appellants' two children who were born in Canada are Canadian citizens by birth. [12] Canadian citizens cannot claim refugee protection in Canada, they enjoy the full protection of the Canadian state by virtue of their Canadian citizenship. As citizens of Canada, they enjoy the right to remain in Canada and the right to leave and re-enter Canada. [13] The RPD found that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the Appellants would face a serious possibility of persecution or a likelihood of section 97 harm2 if they were to return to Nigeria with a child with [REDACTED]. The Appellants do not challenge this finding on appeal. [14] I agree with the RPD Panel. I find there is insufficient evidence in the record before me to support a finding that the Appellants would face a serious possibility of persecution, or a likelihood of section 97 harm were they to return to Nigeria with a daughter with XXXX XXXX disease. ANALYSIS [15] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.3 As part of my analysis, I have conducted an independent assessment of the evidence and the arguments.4 The Appellants are not credible in their claim [16] The Appellants argue on appeal that the RPD Panel erred in finding that the Appellants are not credible in their claim. I find that the RPD did not err for the reasons that follow. [17] When a person swears to the truth of certain allegations before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, there is a presumption that those allegations are true unless there is a reason to doubt their truthfulness. This presumption of truthfulness does not apply to inferences or conclusions a witness may draw from facts, or to speculation for which there is no evidentiary basis.5 [18] The presumption that a person's sworn testimony is true may be rebutted where problems are identified with the testimony. These problems can include contradictions, inconsistencies, and omissions; incoherent or vague testimony; limited knowledge of key elements of the case; or a reliance on false documents. [19] The RPD identified problems with the Appellants' testimony and found that these problems are sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Appellants' testimony is true. The RPD identified omissions in the Appellants' BOC form narratives regarding persecution in Nigeria in 2014 and failure to include police reports in their BOC form narrative. The RPD took a negative inference from the Associate Appellants claim in her testimony at the RPD that she fears the agents of persecution will perform FGM on her where she has not mentioned this fear in her BOC form narrative. The RPD took a negative inference from the Appellants testimony regarding their stay in Lagos. The Associate Appellant's fear of FGM [20] The RPD drew a negative credibility inference from the Associate Appellant's allegations regarding her fears of FGM/C being performed on her by the agents of persecution. The Appellants do not challenge the RPD's negative credibility inference with respect to the Associate Appellant's fear of FGM/C, however the Appellants challenge the RPD's overall finding that the Appellants are not credible in their claim. [21] The RPD found: [24] During the hearing, the co-claimant testified about her fear of becoming a victim of FGM/C herself as the extended family members, Mr. XXXX and Mr. XXXX started demanding the performance of the ritual on her also. She was asked on the reason behind the omission in her BOC form narrative that in addition to minor claimant's FGM/C, she fears for her own FGM/C also. She stated, 'we came to this place, we were scared, and it skipped our mind'.6 [22] The RPD noted that: [26] ...While the co-claimant was first approached for her own FGM/C after the birth of the minor claimant in XXXX 2014, nonetheless, she failed to mention it in her story that was written three years after this incident (in 2017) and the hearing was further held four years (XXXX 2021) after the story was written and submitted. She had ample opportunities and time to make this material addition to her story.7 [23] Based on the record before me, I agree with the RPD. I note that the Appellants were represented by Counsel at the RPD hearing in January 2021 and the RPD hearing in June 2021. The Appellants affirmed that their BOC form narratives were complete and correct. The Associate Appellants rely on the narrative in the Principal Appellant's BOC form. [24] The Principal Appellant submitted an updated BOC form narrative on XXXX XXXX, 2021 through the Appellants' Counsel. The updated BOC form narrative describes the circumstances of the Appellants' Canadian-born children.8 The updated narrative does not include any mention that the Associate Appellant fears FGM/C herself. [25] Based on the record before me, I agree with the RPD Panel. I take a negative credibility inference. I do not accept the Associate Appellant's explanation that she omitted to mention her own fear FGM/C until the RPD hearing June 4, 2021, because the Appellants were scared and her own fear of FGM skipped her mind. The Appellants have not advanced any additional reason for this omission. Omissions in the Appellants BOC form [26] The Appellants argue on appeal that the RPD erred in considering omissions in their BOC form narrative. The Appellants cite Feradov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 101, at paragraphs 18-19. [27] I do not agree that the RPD erred. In paragraph 18 of the jurisprudence cited by the Appellants, the Federal Court held: "While the failure to mention material or key allegations of persecution in one's PIF is a reasonable basis for concern, the omission of peripheral detail is not."9 [28] The RPD found that the Appellants omitted mention of the first incidence of harassment from the family in 2014 including that the Appellants sought assistance from the police. The RPD found that the Appellants omitted from their BOC form that they went to the police following the 2016 incident. The RPD found that the Appellants omitted from their BOC form narrative that the Associate Appellant also feared being subjected to FGM/C. The RPD did not accept the Appellants' explanation for the omissions. [29] I find that these omissions are not omissions of "peripheral detail" but rather are material or key allegations of the Appellants claim. I note that the Appellant testified that they completed their initial BOC form documents with assistance from counsel. I note that the Appellants submitted a revised BOC form narrative to the RPD in XXXX 2021 before the second RPD hearing. The RPD was represented by the same Counsel at both RPD hearings. I do not accept the Appellants' explanation for these omissions. The Minor Associate Appellant's fear of FGM [30] With respect to the Appellants' fear regarding the Minor Associate Appellant and FGM, the Appellants argue on appeal: [12] It is submitted that the RPD did not dispute the Appellants' narrative nor testimony per se. The member did not draw any adverse inference, nor make any implausibility finding. Instead, the member focused only on the "omission" of facts that, in its opinion, should have been present in the Appellant's narrative. [...] [21] It is submitted that the Appellants' narrative and testimony alone are sufficient to substantiate the claim. They are presumed true, have not been disputed, and provide enough basis and information to support their fear that was generated after the principal Appellant and the co-Appellant's refusal to allow this practice/family tradition to be perpetrated on the minor claimant.10 [31] The Appellants further argue on appeal: [24] It is submitted that the Appellants have met the evidentiary burden of proof. The narrative and testimony, which are presumed true and undisputed by the RPD, in conjunction with the documentary evidence, are more than sufficient to meet the balance of probability standard.11 [32] I do not agree with the Appellants' argument on appeal. Contrary to the Appellants' assertions, the RPD drew an adverse inference with respect to the Appellants' fears regarding the Minor Associate Appellant. The RPD concluded: "Given the foregoing, the panel makes a negative inference of the claimants' credibility as it relates to their fear of their persecutors due to their refusal to allow them to perform FGM/C on the minor claimant."12 2014 Threats not included in BOC form [33] The Principal Appellant testified at the RPD hearing that the agent of persecution first approached the Appellants in XXXX 2014 seeking to perform FGM/C on the Minor Associate Appellant. The Principal Appellant testified that when the Appellants refused, they started to receive threatening phone calls from Mr. XXXXand Mr. XXXX. The Principal Appellant testified that he approached the police to report the threats, but the police declined to take his report because Mr. XXXX is a powerful man and the police viewed the situation as a family matter. [34] The 2014 threats are not included in the Appellants' BOC form narrative. The Appellants' BOC form narrative states that the agents of persecution approached the Appellants in 2016:13 Initially, we did not take the issue seriously when we were approached by relatives on XXXX XXXX,2016 to bring XXXX for circumcision. Two elders from the village came to my house asking that we bring her to the village as soon as possible. [35] The RPD asked the Principal Appellant why the details of the 2014 threats are not included in the Appellants' BOC form narrative or amended BOC form narrative. The Principal Appellant testified that he did not include details of 2014 incidents in his BOC form because "...when we came here we were scared...[and] we could not think straight, so we did not know what to do."14 [36] The RPD noted that the Appellants were asked for any new information at the outset of the RPD hearing. The Appellants did not indicate that they had any new information. The RPD concluded that: [20] Though the claimants may have been scared or disoriented when they first arrived in Canada, they had three years after submitting their BOC until the day of the hearing to include this information. Furthermore, they provided an amendment to their BOC prior to the second sitting, still they made no mention of these material allegations.15 [37] I agree with the RPD. I also note that the Principal Appellant testified that the Appellants completed their BOC form narrative with the assistance of Counsel. When the RPD Panel asked the Principal Appellant why he had not indicated on his BOC form at question 2(c) that he had visited police, the Principal Appellant testified that: The lawyer we were using when we first arrived before we changed to this new lawyer, she is the one that told us that because when, because we don't have any evidences, so she said we didn't need to write anything because according to the police it is a family matter and they were not going to get involved. So according to her because we did not have any evidence concerning that, that is why she said we didn't need to write it.16 [38] I do not accept the Appellants explanation that the omissions in the Appellants' BOC form narrative are attributable to the legal advice they received in Canada. 2016 report to police omitted from BOC form Narrative. [39] The Principal Appellant's BOC form narrative states: The worst came when on XXXX XXXX, 2016 individuals claiming to have been sent by us tried to pick up our daughter from the day care/ school. The school authorities refused to let our daughter go as my wife was always the one taking her from and back to the day care/ school. Shortly after, my wife arrived, and those men fled.17 [40] The Associate Appellant testified at the RPD hearing that she went immediately to the police to file a report but that the police told her it was a family matter.18 When the RPD asked why the Appellants had not included in their BOC form that they went to the police, the Associate Appellant testified: "The main reason why we did not put it in our story was the same reason we give earlier, that we were not settled, our mind was not at rest then we came in."19 [41] I do not accept the accept the Appellants' explanation. I take a negative credibility inference. Hiding in Lagos [42] The Appellants argue on appeal that the RPD erred in finding that Appellants have failed to establish that the main impetus behind relocating to Lagos in XXXX 2017 was to keep their persecutors at bay. [43] The Principal Appellant's BOC form narrative states: ...We couldn't stand all that pressure and all the threats so in early XXXX 2017, I left my job and we moved to Lagos state to avoid any direct contact with my relatives and be free of threats and of the constant harassment. We stayed with a friend with the hope that we have been able to overcome the battle. We were traced to our new location and the threats continued. We met someone at the church we were attending who promised to assist us in securing an America visa.20 [44] The RPD identified two concerns with the Appellants' testimony regarding their move to Lagos. The RPD's first concern was that that the Appellants continued to live with XXXX XXXX (Mr. XXXX) after the Appellants say they were located by the agents of persecution in Lagos. I will consider the Appellants' movements and lodging in Lagos when I consider the affidavit from Mr. XXXX in the analysis that follows. [45] The RPD's second concern was that the Appellants continued to attend church once the agents of persecution had identified their location and church affiliation. [46] The Appellants argue on appeal that: [27] ...As per the Church, the Appellants testified that they are devoted Christians and as such, they have to attend the Church regularly. As their lives were in danger, they could not stop going to Church and pray for God to help them and rescue them from this unfortunate situation.21 [47] The RPD noted that "the claimants knew that their agents of persecution inquired about them from the pastor of their church in Lagos on XXXX XXXX, 2017, nevertheless, they continued to go to church but 'after some time they stopped going.'"22 [48] The RPD found that the Appellants' behaviour was not consistent with persons in hiding. I agree with the RPD. I do not accept the Appellants' arguments on appeal that they had to go to church because they were Christian. When the RPD canvassed the matter, the Principal Appellant did not identify a religious duty to attend church and testified that they stopped going to church after some time.23 The Principal Appellant did not provide an explanation for this change in behaviour. When the RPD asked the Principal Appellant when they stopped going to church, he testified: "That is where we still were, we didn't go anywhere, we didn't leave the place, that is where we still were."24 Affidavit from XXXX XXXX and Appellants' Movements in Lagos [49] The Appellants argue on appeal that the RPD erred by not accepting Mr. XXXX affidavit. I find that the RPD did not err for the reasons that follow. [50] The Appellants adduced an affidavit from XXXX XXXX in which Mr. XXXX states: "That the entire family [the Appellants] stayed with me in Lagos State for some weeks only going out on occasions for fear of not being noticed by the adversaries and perhaps people in connivance with them."25 [51] The Principal Appellant testified that the family stayed at the home of his friend Mr. XXXX for about three months.26 When the RPD asked what measures they took to hide after they were located by the agents of persecution, the Principal Appellant testified that the Appellants moved from house to house. [52] The Appellants cite jurisprudence that letters or affidavits need to be considered for what they do say, not for what they do not.27 [53] I find that the RPD accepted Mr. XXXX affidavit and I find that the RPD considered the affidavit in accordance with jurisprudence. I find that Mr. XXXX affidavit contradicts the Principal Appellant's testimony. The Principal Appellant testified that the Appellants moved from house to house in Lagos to avoid detection; Mr XXXX writes in his affidavit that the Appellants stayed with him and only went out on occasion. When the RPD canvassed the inconsistency with the Principal Appellant, the Principal Appellant explained that the Appellants stayed with Mr. XXXX but moved from house to house within Mr. XXXX compound. The RPD did not accept the Principal Appellant's explanation. I do not accept the Principal Appellant's explanation. I find that the Principal Appellant's testimony evolved when questioned by the RPD Panel. I take a negative credibility inference. [54] I note that the affidavit from the Principal Appellant' sister states "that the constant threat by the family culminated in their decision to relocate at the expense of the employments to seek safety, from where they were able to move out of the country."28 The affidavit does not provide any details of the move nor does it set out how the Appellants sought safety in Lagos beyond moving there. [55] The RPD concluded that: [40] The panel finds that the claimants have failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the main impetus behind relocating to Lagos in XXXX 2017 was 'to hide' and keep their persecutors at bay. Given this conclusion, the panel finds that XXXX XXXX affidavit is not capable, in and of itself, to overcome this significant credibility concern.29 [56] I agree with the RPD. I find that the Appellants have failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that they moved to Lagos in 2017 to hide and keep the agents of persecution at bay. The RPD did not err in dismissing the Appellants' evidence based on credibility concerns [57] The Appellants cite jurisprudence that the RPD cannot dismiss the Appellant's evidence based on credibility concerns the RPD Panel had with the Appellants' oral testimony.30 I find that the RPD Panel did not err. [58] The Appellants argue that: [32] It is submitted that foreign documents are presumed to be authentic and credible on their face, unless there is valid reason to reject the documents. It is submitted that the RAD failed to apply this presumption. The Appellants' provided evidence from numerous sources to collaborate their claim. They provided an affidavit from XXXX XXXX and a letter from the XXXX XXXX church of God. The Board cannot simply dismiss the Appellant's evidence, justifying its treatment based on the credibility concerns it had with the Appellant's oral testimony.31 [59] Based on my independent analysis of the record before me, I find that the RPD did not err. There is no evidence that the RPD Panel rejected the authenticity of any of the documents that the Appellants submitted. The RPD considered the affidavit from XXXX XXXX and a letter from the XXXX XXXX Church of God. The RPD found that the affidavit and letter contradict the Principal Appellant's testimony at the RPD hearing. The RPD noted that both the affidavit and the letter both state that the authors first met the Principal Appellant in Lagos on XXXX XXXX, 2016. The Principal Appellant testified at the RPD that he had not met XXXX XXXX nor had he been to the church prior to his arrival in Lagos in XXXX 2017. The affidavit from XXXX XXXX states that the affiant met the Appellants on XXXX XXXX, 2016 when they came to the XXXX [sic] XXXX Church of God, Lagos State, with XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX, 2016. The letter on the letterhead of the XXXX XXXX Church of God signed by XXXX XXXX states that the family came to the church to seek protection on XXXX XXXX, 2016. The Principal Appellant was unable to explain why both of the documents that the Appellants adduced in evidence state that the authors met the Principal Appellant in 2016. When the RPD Panel canvassed the contradiction with the Principal Appellant, he stated he did not know anything about 2016. [60] I agree the RPD's assessment that the chronology of the Appellants' relocation to Lagos is important to their claim. The RPD found: [44] Considering that principal claimant's testimony that they moved to Lagos in XXXX 2017 is directly in contradiction with these two documents which states that the claimants first saw/met them in XXXX 2016, the panel does not give these documents any probative value in terms of substantiating claimants' key allegations as it relates to their fear of FGM/C being performed on the minor claimant and relocating to Lagos to protect themselves.32 [61] I find that the affidavit and letter have no probative value given that they contradict the Principal Appellant's testimony on an important element of the Appellants' claim. The RPD Panel did not engage in microscopic analysis [62] The Appellants argue on appeal that the RPD erred by displaying a zeal to discredit the Appellant's testimony and by microscopic analysis. The Appellants cite Sheikh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 CanLII 15200 (FC). The Appellants do not set out which parts of the RPD's analysis they allege contravene jurisprudence set out in Sheikh. [63] Based on my independent analysis of the record before me, I find that the RPD Panel did not err. The facts in the present case are significantly different from the facts in Sheikh. In Sheikh, the court found that the panel identified discrepancies that were exaggerated or peripheral to the claim for protection. In the present case, find that the RPD identified inconsistencies and omissions that are central to the Appellants' claim for refugee protection. The RPD considered evidence regarding FGM in the Appellants' family [64] The Appellants argue on appeal that the RPD Panel failed to acknowledge the subjective evidence in regard to the practice of FGM in the Appellant's family. The Appellants argue that: [34] ...The Appellants' testimony, together with their supporting documents and evidence, should on a balance of probabilities show that the Appellants have demonstrated their fear of persecution by the hands of their family members.33 [65] I find that the RPD did not err. The RPD considered the affidavit that the Appellants submitted from the Principal Appellant's sister confirming the occurrence of FGM/C in the tradition of the Appellants' family.34 [66] I have considered the evidence that the Appellants provided to the RPD. I find that the sister's affidavit establishes that the Appellants' family favours FGM for female members of the family. I find that the evidence from the sister is not sufficient to support a finding that the Appellants face a serious possibility of persecution or, on a balance of probabilities, a likelihood of section 97 harm. The Principal Appellant's sister writes that he has been the subject of ridicule and bullying by the family due to his disability and his conversion to Christianity in 2013. The sister writes of threats to the Associate Appellant but provides no details. The sister writes: "That the constant attack and threat to the family culminated in their decision to relocate to Lagos State at the expense of their employments to seek for safety from where they were able to move out of the country."35 Objective Evidence regarding FGM in Nigeria [67] The RPD cites objective documentary evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP) that parents can chose not to subject their daughters to FGM. The RPD found that objective evidence establishes that parents who reject FGM may in some instances be subjected to social ostracism and criticism, but that this does not rise to the level of persecution.36 The Appellants do not challenge this finding on appeal. [68] The RPD cites documentary evidence in the NDP that indicates that if husbands support their wives in rejecting FGM, "there is little or nothing the society can do" with regards to forcing a woman to undergo FGM.37 The Appellants do not challenge this finding on appeal. CONCLUSION [69] I find that the Appellants have failed to establish through sufficient credible evidence that they face a serious possibility of persecution in Nigeria or, on a balance of probabilities, a risk to their lives or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger of torture. [70] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. (signed) Michael J. Gardiner Michael J. Gardiner January 31, 2022 Date 1 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, "Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status", under the 1951 Convention. 2 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, section 97. 3 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, [2016] 4 FCR 157; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145, [2019] 2 FCR 597. 4 Tekle v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2017 FC 1040. 5 Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.) at 305. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision, at p. 8, para. 24. 7 Ibid., para. 26. 8 Ibid., at p. 19. 9 Feradov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 101. 10 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, at p. 29, para. 21. 11 Ibid., para. 24. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision, at p. 8, para. 23. 13 Ibid., Basis of Claim (BOC) form narrative, at p. 22. 14 RPD Hearing Transcript (January 28, 2021), at p. 21, lines 4-7. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision, at p. 7, para. 20. 16 Audio of June 4, 2021 hearing at 11:30; or RPD Hearing Transcript (June 4, 2021), at p. 4. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, BOC form narrative, at p. 22. 18 Audio of January 28, 2021 at 55:40. 19 Ibid., at 01:00:14; or RPD Hearing Transcript (January 28, 2021), at p. 25. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, BOC form narrative, at p. 23. 21 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, at p. 30, para. 27 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision, at p. 10, para. 36. 23 Audio of June 4, 2021 at 25:59. 24 Ibid., at 26:20. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 175. 26 Audio of June 4, 2021 at 21:40. 27 Mahmud v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 8019 (FC), [1999] FCJ No 729 (QL), paras. 11-12. 28 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 173. 29 Ibid., RPD Decision, at p. 11, para. 40. 30 Ramalingam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1998 CanLII 7241 (FC). 31 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, at 32, para. 32. 32 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision, at p. 12, para. 44. 33 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, at 32, para. 34. 34 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision, at p. 6, para. 14. 35 Ibid., at p. 173, para. 9. 36 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Document 3: National Documentation Package for Nigeria (April 16, 2021), item 1.4: EASO Country of Origin Information Report: Nigeria. Country Focus, European Union. European Asylum Support Office, June 2017; item 5.12: Whether parents can refuse female genital mutilation (FGM) of their daughter; state protection available (2016-October 2018), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 29 October 2018, NGA106183.FE. 37 Ibid., item 5.17: Prevalence of female genital mutilation (FGM) among the Urhobo, including the consequences for refusing to undergo this procedure, particularly pregnant women; state protection available (2014- March 2015), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 19 March 2015, NGA105120. E. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MC1-05134 MC1-05135 / MC1-05136 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français 2 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 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français

Response:
## Analysis of Refugee Decision: MC1-05134

### Key Issues
indicated on his BOC form at question 2(c) that he had visited police, the Principal Appellant testified that: The lawyer we were using when we first arrived before we changed to

### Legal Analysis
The decision analyzes refugee protection criteria by examining: ghter with XXXX XXXX disease. ANALYSIS [15] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.3 As part of my analysis, I have conducted an independent assessment of the evidence and the arguments.4 The Appellants are not credible in their claim [16] The Appellants argue on appeal that the RP

### Implications for Immigration Practice
This decision provides guidance for refugee claimants on evidentiary requirements and credibility assessments. Legal practitioners should carefully document client narratives and address potential inconsistencies proactively. The case demonstrates the importance of thorough country conditions research and proper preparation of witnesses.


Prompt:
Explain how this Refugee Appeal Division decision from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada interprets refugee law:

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB9-25596 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal [REDACTED] Personne en cause Date of decision May 6, 2022 Date de la décision Panel Bianca Eleonora Suciu Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Mark Gruszczynski Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] This is an appeal de novo conducted in accordance with the judgment on consent rendered by the Federal Court on June 1, 2021 (IMM-2244-21). [2] [REDACTED] (the appellant), a citizen of Nigeria, is appealing the decision rendered by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) on October 15, 2019, rejecting his claim for refugee protection filed under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). [3] The RPD found the appellant to be generally credible, but concluded that internal flight alternatives were available to him in Abuja and Benin City. The appellant is appealing the RPD's decision and asks that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) allow the appeal or refer the matter to the RPD for re-determination. OVERVIEW [4] The appellant fears harm at the hands of the members of the O'odua Peoples Congress (OPC), an extremist group, who are demanding [REDACTED] XXXX his father purchased from the former king. The appellant alleges in his Basis of Claim Form that the group's members have been persecuting his family since 1989 and that they killed two of his sisters, in 1992 and 1998, as well as his older brother in 2003. [5] The appellant testified that he left Nigeria in XXXX 2005. In 2012, he moved to the United States. He arrived in Canada to claim refugee protection in 2019. [6] He fears that the OPC will kill him if he returns to Nigeria, because he allegedly still holds the title to the property they are demanding. DETERMINATION [7] Based on my own analysis of all the evidence on the record, including the recording of the hearing, I am of the opinion that the RPD erred in its credibility assessment. However, I cannot either confirm the RPD's determination or substitute my own without rehearing the evidence that was presented to the RPD. Because I do not have jurisdiction to hold a new hearing, I must refer the matter to the RPD for re-determination. [8] The appeal is allowed. ROLE OF THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION [9] The RAD is required to conduct its own analysis to determine whether the RPD made any of the errors the appellant cites in his arguments. While the RAD can show deference to the RPD's assessment in certain exceptional cases,1 the applicable standard of review in this case is the correctness standard. ANALYSIS Credibility [10] In my opinion, the RPD's credibility analysis is incorrect. The evidence on the record reveals a number of major contradictions that could be determinative of the claim, and the RPD did not address these at the hearing. [11] In particular, the reasons the appellant gave at his entry interview in Canada are completely different from those described in his claim for refugee protection. Moreover, I note that the appellant lived in Italy for seven years and in the US for seven years without claiming asylum. That has a direct impact on his alleged risk in Nigeria, but the RPD did not address this at the hearing. [12] I further note that, in the letter the appellant's mother sent to the head of the OPC, she claims that her daughter XXXX was killed by OPC members before XXXX 1995. However, the record also contains a police complaint filed by XXXX in 1998, that is, three years after her alleged death. The RPD did not question the appellant about this contradiction, which pertains to a key aspect of his refugee protection claim. [13] I am of the opinion that the RPD must also consider what steps the appellant took to protect himself from the alleged risk while he was still in Nigeria. [14] Given that the above elements raise serious doubts concerning the credibility of the claim, which the RPD did not consider, I am required to refer the matter to a different RPD member for re-determination, in accordance with paragraph 111(2)(b) of the IRPA. [15] Consequently, I am unable to analyze the issue of "compelling reasons" under subsection 108(4) of the IRPA, in accordance with the judgment on consent rendered by the Federal Court on June 1, 2021 (IMM-2244-21). CONCLUSION [16] In accordance with paragraph 111(1)(c) of the IRPA, I am setting aside the RPD's determination and referring the matter to a different RPD member for re-determination. [17] The appeal is allowed. (Signed) Bianca E Suciu Bianca Eleonora Suciu May 6, 2022 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145, at paras. 90-91; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, at paras. 70-74. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB9-25596 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français 2 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 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français

Response:
## Analysis of Refugee Decision: MB9-25596

### Key Issues
lleged death. The RPD did not question the appellant about this contradiction, which pertains to a key aspect of his refugee protection claim. [13] I am of the opinion that the RPD

### Legal Analysis
The decision analyzes refugee protection criteria by examining: RMINATION [7] Based on my own analysis of all the evidence on the record, including the recording of the hearing, I am of the opinion that the RPD erred in its credibility assessment. However, I cannot either confirm the RPD's determination or substitute my own without rehearing the evidence that was presented to the RPD. Becaus

### Implications for Immigration Practice
This decision provides guidance for refugee claimants on evidentiary requirements and credibility assessments. Legal practitioners should carefully document client narratives and address potential inconsistencies proactively. The case demonstrates the importance of thorough country conditions research and proper preparation of witnesses.


Prompt:
What rights and responsibilities are established by this Federal legislation from the Canadian government?

# Annulment of Marriages Act (Ontario) RSC 1970, c A-14 An Act to provide in the Province of Ontario for the annulment of marriage ### Short title 1 This Act may be cited as the Annulment of Marriages Act (Ontario). ### Part of law of England, on 15th July 1870 continued as law of Ontario 2 The law of England as to the annulment of marriage, as that law existed on the 15th day of July 1870, in so far as it can be made to apply in the Province of Ontario, and in so far as it has not been repealed, as to the Province, by any Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by any Act of the Parliament of Canada or by this Act, and as altered, varied, modified or affected, as to the Province, by any such Act, is in force in the Province of Ontario. ### Jurisdiction 3 The Supreme Court of Ontario has jurisdiction for all purposes of this Act.

Response:
## Analysis of LEGISLATION-FED: Annulment of Marriages Act (Ontario)

### Purpose and Context
This legislation establishes legal requirements relevant to immigration and refugee matters. It creates obligations for government officials, applicants, and other stakeholders in the immigration system. Understanding these provisions is essential for ensuring compliance with Canadian law in immigration contexts.

### Key Provisions
The document contains provisions related to immigration procedures, requirements, and enforcement mechanisms.

### Application to Immigration Cases
When applying this legislation to immigration cases, practitioners should consider both the explicit requirements and the underlying policy objectives. The provisions must be interpreted in light of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, international obligations, and relevant jurisprudence. Particular attention should be paid to procedural fairness requirements and the proper exercise of discretionary authority.


Prompt:
What are the implications of this Refugee Protection Division decision from the Refugee Law Lab Reporter for similar cases?

2023 RLLR 100 Citation: 2023 RLLR 100 Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division Date of Decision: December 4, 2023 Panel: Radostina Pavlova Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A Country: Haiti RPD Number: TC2-27957 Associated RPD Number(s): N/A ATIP Number: A-2024-00593 ATIP Pages: N/A DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX (hereafter, the “claimant”) is a citizen Haiti who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”, the “Act”).[1] ALLEGATIONS [2] In summary, the claimant alleges that he fears persecution in Haiti on the part of members of the ruling party Haitian Tet Kale Party (PHTK) on the basis of his anti-government political activity and membership in the opposition party [REDACTED] XXXX XXXX. He claims that he joined the party in 2011, because it reflected his views on the direction the country should take and was introduced to it by a mentor of his in university, who is one of the party’s XXXX and was later the claimant’s boss when he worked for the non-governmental organization “[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] XXXX”. The claimant alleges that, while still in Haiti, he participated in manifestations protesting the government’s policies and politics, which manifestations were violently cracked down upon by the government forces. He claims that he was personally targeted and threatened by members of the PHTK. The claimant came to Canada in XXXX 2019, to attend a conference on behalf of XXXX, and prolonged his stay waiting for the situation in Haiti to calm down. In that period, he was receiving information of repressions on the part of the government of many of his fellow party members. In XXXX 2019, he claims, a press statement that was critical of the government was published by his party, and the persecution increased, where the party’s headquarters were vandalised. The claimant’s residence in the Delmas zone in Port-au-Prince was attacked by unknown armed persons, who terrorized his younger sister, who was living there; she was helped to escape by a neighbour and ultimately left the country to settle in the Dominican Republic. The claimant alleges that he continues his political activity from abroad and participates in online meetings and other activities as a member of the opposition party [REDACTED] XXXX XXXX. DETERMINATION [3] For the reasons that follow, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee under s. 96 of the IRPA on the basis of his political opinion. ANALYSIS The claimant’s identity is established [4] The claimant’s identity was established on balance of probabilities through his oral testimony and the certified true copy of his Haitian passport,[2] containing a Canadian visitor visa, which is on file. Nexus to a Convention ground is established [5] The claimant alleges that he fears persecution in Haiti on the basis of his membership in an opposition pollical party and political activities opposing the government in place in Haiti and the ruling party. Since political opinion is one of the five grounds enumerated in the Convention, I find that a connection to a Convention ground has been established and have, accordingly, assessed the claim under s. 96 of the IRPA. The claimant’s allegations are credible [6] I found that the claimant has established on a balance of probability his key allegations regarding his political engagement and his subjective fear. His testimony at the hearing, which benefits from a presumption of truth,[3] was direct, spontaneous, and consistent with his Basis of Claim (BOC)[4] narrative. The claimant, who represented himself, was a sophisticated witness and delivered a testimony that demonstrated a level knowledge and understanding commensurate with his alleged political involvement and activity. He was able to explain in detail the reasons for which he became a member of the [REDACTED] XXXX XXXX party, its ideology and positioning on the political landscape in Haiti; he knew the names and roles of its executives and testified spontaneously and in detail on his relationship specifically with the current XXXX of the party, who was also his director at XXXX; he also named fellow members who had been subjected to repressions on the part of the authorities since the claimant’s departure from the country, and was convincing in his testimony on the events that unfolded which led him to decide to apply for protection in Canada. [7] The claimant supported his allegations with documentary evidence[5] that I found to be probative and reliable, including letters from his employer, showing that, as alleged, he worked for the organization XXXX from 2014 to the moment he left Haiti; evidence that he came to Canada to attend a conference on behalf of this organization; a copy of the press release from the party [REDACTED] XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX, 2019, in which the regime in place in Haiti and the ruling party PHTK are criticized; photographs of the claimant participating in anti-government manifestations. There was nothing on the face of the documents or the manner they were obtained to lead me to doubt their authenticity, and I have accorded to them significant evidentiary weight. The claimant also explained at the hearing that, when it comes to establishing his membership in the [REDACTED] XXXX XXXX party, he did not have a membership card, as the party did not issue such cards; he also stated that he had tried to obtain documentary evidence to corroborate the attack on his home in XXXX 2019, but had been unable to do so, since his sister had left the country and his mother had passed away since he left the country, thus limiting his ability to have family members assist in collecting documentary evidence. I find that these explanations are reasonable, and that the documents he did provide, along with his testimony that I found to be credible on a balance of probabilities, are sufficient to establish his key allegations and his subjective fear of persecution in Haiti. Objective basis [8] The available objective evidence contained in the National Documentation Package (NDP)[6] for Haiti supports the claimant’s allegations and establishes that his subjective fear has an objective basis and is well-founded. [9] According to documents found in the NDP, political parties in Haiti, particularly dominant ones such as the PHTK, the current party in power, are reportedly in collusion with armed criminal gangs. Reports at Items 1.41 and 10.8 indicate that politicians do not hesitate to use gangs against their political rivals. According to Items 10.7 and 2.1, politically motivated killings are widespread in the country. Political demonstrations against the government have been violently suppressed in recent years, according to Items 4.23, 4.32 and 4.33. Freedom House in its report found at Item 2.6 of the NDP classifies Haiti as “not free” and states that pervasive insecurity and criminal violence impair political activity in Haiti; political opposition leaders are subjected to threats and abductions, and protests organized by opposition parties are met with repressive force on the part of the government, according to this source. The same report further indicates that organized crime and corrupt patronage networks limit Haitians’ political choice, with politicians often relying on money from drug trafficking and other illicit activity to finance their campaigns. Political rivalries, according to Item 7.6, are a common motive for revenge, which may take various forms, including threats, kidnapping and murder. [10] Based on the above-mentioned sources, I find that the objective evidence supports the claimant’s subjective fear of persecution in Haiti. State Protection [11] While states are presumed able to offer protection to their citizens, unless the state is in a complete breakdown, this presumption can be refuted with clear and convincing evidence. In the case of present-day Haiti, the objective evidence is unequivocal that the Haitian state has lost control to pervasive violence committed by criminal gangs, who have proven to be more powerful and better resourced by the police, according, for instance, to Items 7.1 and 10.2 of the NDP. The judiciary is practically non-functioning and is susceptible to corruption and political influences, according to the objective sources. [12] For these reasons, I find that the presumption of state protection has been refuted with clear and convincing evidence and that the claimant cannot rely on such protection in Haiti. Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) [13] Considering that the agents of persecution in the present claim are state actors, that, according to the objective evidence, targets of revenge on the part of armed gangs based on political rivalries can be easily found through word-of-mouth as well other formal and informal networks, that Haiti is a small country and freedom of circulation is obstructed by the pervasiveness of armed gang violence, I find that, on balance of probabilities, the claimant does not have a viable IFA in Haiti. CONCLUSION [14] For the above-stated reasons, I find that the claimant meets the definition of Convention refugee under s. 96 of the IRPA. [15] The claim is accepted. ——— REASONS CONCLUDED ——— [1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1). [2] Exhibit 1. [3] Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1979] F.C.J. No. 248 (FCA)(QL), [1980] 2 FC 302 (CA). [4] Exhibit 2. [5] Exhibit 7. [6] Exhibit 3.

Response:
## Analysis of Refugee Decision: 2023 RLLR 100

### Key Issues
2023 RLLR 100 Citation: 2023 RLLR 100 Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division Date of Decision: December 4, 2023 Panel: Radostina Pavlova Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A Country: Haiti RPD Number: TC2-27957 Associated RPD Number(s): N/A ATIP Number: A-2024-00593 ATIP Pages: N/A DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX (hereafter, the “claimant”) is a citizen Haiti who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”, the “Act”).[1] ALLEGATIONS [2] In summary, the claimant alleges that he fears persecution in Haiti on the part of members of the ruling party Haitian Tet Kale Party (PHTK) on the basis of his anti-government political activity and membership in the opposition party [REDACTED] XXXX XXXX. He claims that he joined the party in 2011, because it reflected his views on the direction the country should take and was introduced to it by a mentor of his in university, who is one of the party’s XXXX and was later the claimant’s boss when he worked for the non-governmental organization “[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] XXXX”. The claimant alleges that, while still in Haiti, he participated in manifestations protesting the government’s policies and politics, which manifestations were violently cracked down upon by the government forces. He claims that he was personally targeted and threatened by members of the PHTK. The claimant came to Canada in XXXX 2019, to attend a conference on behalf of XXXX, and prolonged his stay waiting for the situation in Haiti to calm down. In that period, he was receiving information of repressions on the part of the government of many of his fellow party members. In XXXX 2019, he claims, a press statement that was critical of the government was published by his party, and the persecution increased, where the party’s headquarters were vandalised. The claimant’s residence in the Delmas zone in Port-au-Prince was attacked by unknown armed persons, who terrorized his younger sister, who was living there; she was helped to escape by a neighbour and ultimately left the country to settle in the Dominican Republic. The claimant alleges that he continues his political activity from abroad and participates in online meetings and other activities as a member of the opposition party [REDACTED] XXXX XXXX. DETERMINATION [3] For the reasons that follow, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee under s. 96 of the IRPA on the basis of his political opinion. ANALYSIS The claimant’s identity is established [4] The claimant’s identity was established on balance of probabilities through his oral testimony and the certified true copy of his Haitian passport,[2] containing a Canadian visitor visa, which is on file. Nexus to a Convention ground is established [5] The claimant alleges that he fears persecution in Haiti on the basis of his membership in an opposition pollical party and political activities opposing the government in place in Haiti and the ruling party. Since political opinion is one of the five grounds enumerated in the Convention, I find that a connection to a Convention ground has been established and have, accordingly, assessed the claim under s. 96 of the IRPA. The claimant’s allegations are credible [6] I found that the claimant has established on a balance of probability his key allegations regarding his political engagement and his subjective fear. His testimony at the hearing, which benefits from a presumption of truth,[3] was direct, spontaneous, and consistent with his Basis of Claim (BOC)[4] narrative. The claimant, who represented himself, was a sophisticated witness and delivered a testimony that demonstrated a level knowledge and understanding commensurate with his alleged political involvement and activity. He was able to explain in detail the reasons for which he became a member of the [REDACTED] XXXX XXXX party, its ideology and positioning on the political landscape in Haiti; he knew the names and roles of its executives and testified spontaneously and in detail on his relationship specifically with the current XXXX of the party, who was also his director at XXXX; he also named fellow members who had been subjected to repressions on the part of the authorities since the claimant’s departure from the country, and was convincing in his testimony on the events that unfolded which led him to decide to apply for protection in Canada. [7] The claimant supported his allegations with documentary evidence[5] that I found to be probative and reliable, including letters from his employer, showing that, as alleged, he worked for the organization XXXX from 2014 to the moment he left Haiti; evidence that he came to Canada to attend a conference on behalf of this organization; a copy of the press release from the party [REDACTED] XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX, 2019, in which the regime in place in Haiti and the ruling party PHTK are criticized; photographs of the claimant participating in anti-government manifestations. There was nothing on the face of the documents or the manner they were obtained to lead me to doubt their authenticity, and I have accorded to them significant evidentiary weight. The claimant also explained at the hearing that, when it comes to establishing his membership in the [REDACTED] XXXX XXXX party, he did not have a membership card, as the party did not issue such cards; he also stated that he had tried to obtain documentary evidence to corroborate the attack on his home in XXXX 2019, but had been unable to do so, since his sister had left the country and his mother had passed away since he left the country, thus limiting his ability to have family members assist in collecting documentary evidence. I find that these explanations are reasonable, and that the documents he did provide, along with his testimony that I found to be credible on a balance of probabilities, are sufficient to establish his key allegations and his subjective fear of persecution in Haiti. Objective basis [8] The available objective evidence contained in the National Documentation Package (NDP)[6] for Haiti supports the claimant’s allegations and establishes that his subjective fear has an objective basis and is well-founded. [9] According to documents found in the NDP, political parties in Haiti, particularly dominant ones such as the PHTK, the current party in power, are reportedly in collusion with armed criminal gangs. Reports at Items 1.41 and 10.8 indicate that politicians do not hesitate to use gangs against their political rivals. According to Items 10.7 and 2.1, politically motivated killings are widespread in the country. Political demonstrations against the government have been violently suppressed in recent years, according to Items 4.23, 4.32 and 4.33. Freedom House in its report found at Item 2.6 of the NDP classifies Haiti as “not free” and states that pervasive insecurity and criminal violence impair political activity in Haiti; political opposition leaders are subjected to threats and abductions, and protests organized by opposition parties are met with repressive force on the part of the government, according to this source. The same report further indicates that organized crime and corrupt patronage networks limit Haitians’ political choice, with politicians often relying on money from drug trafficking and other illicit activity to finance their campaigns. Political rivalries, according to Item 7.6, are a common motive for revenge, which may take various forms, including threats, kidnapping and murder. [10] Based on the above-mentioned sources, I find that the objective evidence supports the claimant’s subjective fear of persecution in Haiti. State Protection [11] While states are presumed able to offer protection to their citizens, unless the state is in a complete breakdown, this presumption can be refuted with clear and convincing evidence. In the case of present-day Haiti, the objective evidence is unequivocal that the Haitian state has lost control to pervasive violence committed by criminal gangs, who have proven to be more powerful and better resourced by the police, according, for instance, to Items 7.1 and 10.2 of the NDP. The judiciary is practically non-functioning and is susceptible to corruption and political influences, according to the objective sources. [12] For these reasons, I find that the presumption of state protection has been refuted with clear and convincing evidence and that the claimant cannot rely on such protection in Haiti. Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) [13] Considering that the agents of persecution in the present claim are state actors, that, according to the objective evidence, targets of revenge on the part of armed gangs based on political rivalries can be easily found through word-of-mouth as well other formal and informal networks, that Haiti is a small country and freedom of circulation is obstructed by the pervasiveness of armed gang violence, I find that, on balance of probabilities, the claimant does not have a viable IFA in Haiti. CONCLUSION [14] For the above-stated reasons, I find that the claimant meets the definition of Convention refugee under s. 96 of the IRPA. [15] The claim is accepted. ——— REASONS CONCLUDED ——— [1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1). [2] Exhibit 1. [3] Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1979] F.C.J. No. 248 (FCA)(QL), [1980] 2 FC 302 (CA). [4] Exhibit 2. [5] Exhibit 7. [6] Exhibit 3.

### Legal Analysis
The decision analyzes refugee protection criteria by examining: sis of his political opinion. ANALYSIS The claimant’s identity is established [4] The claimant’s identity was established on balance of probabilities through his oral testimony and the certified true copy of his Haitian passport,[2] containing a Canadian visitor visa, which is on file. Nexus to a Convention ground is established

### Implications for Immigration Practice
This decision provides guidance for refugee claimants on evidentiary requirements and credibility assessments. Legal practitioners should carefully document client narratives and address potential inconsistencies proactively. The case demonstrates the importance of thorough country conditions research and proper preparation of witnesses.


Prompt:
What compliance obligations are created by this Federal regulations from the Canadian government?

# Lieutenant Governors Superannuation Regulations CRC, c 1022 Regulations Made Pursuant to the Lieutenant Governors Superannuation Act Enabling authority: LIEUTENANT GOVERNORS SUPERANNUATION ACT ## Short Title 1 These Regulations may be cited as the Lieutenant Governors Superannuation Regulations. ## Interpretation 2 In these Regulations, *Act* means the Lieutenant Governors Superannuation Act; (Loi) *Minister* means the President of the Treasury Board; (ministre) *prior service* means service as the Lieutenant Governor of a province prior to December 2, 1975. (service antérieur) ## Payments for Elective Service 3 (1) Where a contributor has elected to pay in instalments in respect of a period of prior service, the first instalment shall be due and payable at the end of the month in which the election made by the contributor has been received by the Minister and succeeding instalments shall be payable monthly thereafter during the life of the contributor in equal amounts, except with respect to the last instalment which may be less in amount than the preceding instalments. (2) The total amount required to be paid by a contributor described in subsection (1) shall be fully paid within a period of 20 years computed in accordance with the Canadian Life Tables 1970-72, with interest at the rate of four per cent per annum. (3) A contributor referred to in subsection (1) may from time to time amend his payment plan to provide for payment of any instalments still to be paid (a) in a lump sum; (b) by larger monthly instalments on a basis similar to that described in subsection (1) calculated as of the date of the amendment; or (c) in a lump sum and by monthly instalments on a basis similar to that described in subsection (1) calculated as of the date of the amendment and payable within the same or a lesser period than that previously arranged under that subsection. (4) Where the amount of each instalment paid by a contributor described in subsection (1) is greater than the minimum amount required to be paid to comply with subsection (2), the contributor may, from time to time, amend his payment plan to provide for payment of instalments still to be paid in any amount if (a) the total amount required to be paid by that contributor is fully paid within a period of 20 years computed in accordance with the Canadian Life Tables 1970-72, with interest at the rate of four per cent per annum; and (b) he passes a medical examination within such time as the Minister prescribes. 4 (1) Where a contributor referred to in section 3 defaults in respect of an instalment payable by him, payment of the amount in default with interest at the rate of four per cent per annum shall be payable (a) in a lump sum immediately on demand, or (b) in monthly instalments for the lesser of (i) the life of the contributor, or (ii) the remainder of the period during which instalments under subsection (1) are to be paid, as the contributor elects, computed in accordance with Canadian Life Tables 1970-72 on the amount that is in default to the date of the demand, with interest at the rate of four per cent per annum. (2) Where a contributor referred to in subsection (1) does not make an election within 30 days from the date of a demand made under paragraph (1)(a), the method of payment of the amount in default shall be in accordance with paragraph (1)(b). ## Unpaid Instalments 5 Subject to section 4, where a contributor who has elected to pay in instalments in respect of a period of prior service becomes entitled to any benefit under the Act before the amount payable by him by way of instalments has been paid, the unpaid instalments may be reserved out of the benefit payable to the contributor (a) in the case of a lump sum benefit, by a lump sum immediately, or (b) in the case of any benefit other than a lump sum benefit (i) by a lump sum immediately, or (ii) by monthly instalments for the lesser of (A) the life of the contributor, or (B) the remainder of the period during which instalments under this section are to be paid, as the contributor elects. 6 Where any amount payable by a contributor under these Regulations has become due but remains unpaid at the time of his death, the Minister shall, if the amount with interest is not paid forthwith by the personal representative of the contributor, demand payment from the surviving spouse of the contributor to whom a pension is payable under the Act and if the amount with interest to the date of demand is not paid, it may be recovered at any time and, without prejudice to any other recourse available to Her Majesty with respect to the recovery thereof, by retention, by way of deduction or set-off out of the pension payable to the spouse, (a) in a lump sum immediately, or (b) in instalments for a term specified by the Minister, as the recipient elects, with interest at the rate of four per cent per annum. 7 (1) Where an amount that is payable by a contributor is paid after the day on which it is due, there shall, in addition, be payable interest on that amount at the rate of four per cent per annum from the due date until the day on which it is paid. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), (a) where a contributor or his personal representative pays in full an amount that is due before the day on which a demand is made under sections 4 to 6 for payment of the amount due, interest is not payable thereon; (b) where a demand is made by or on behalf of the Minister under sections 4 to 6 for payment of an amount including interest and that amount is paid in full before the expiration of 30 days from the date of demand, interest is not payable thereon; and (c) where a contributor has authorized or directed that the amount payable by him under this section be deducted from moneys payable to him by or on behalf of Her Majesty and the contributor is in default because those deductions have not been made, interest is not payable under sections 4 to 6 on an amount equal to the deductions that have not been so made. 8 For the purposes of sections 4 to 6, a demand by the Minister for payment of an amount is deemed to have been made on the day on which a letter, demanding payment, signed by or on behalf of the Minister, and addressed to the contributor or recipient, as the case may be, is placed in the mail. 9 Nothing in these Regulations prohibits a person from paying at any time before it is due any amount payable by him, or that is deductible from his benefit. ## Medical Examinations 10 A contributor, before becoming entitled to a pension under the Act in respect of a disability, shall undergo a thorough physical examination. ## Forms 11 A form to elect to contribute pursuant to subsection 5(1) of the Act in respect of prior service is set out in Schedule I. 12 A form to elect not to contribute pursuant to section 4 of the Act is set out in Schedule II.

Response:
## Analysis of REGULATIONS-FED: Lieutenant Governors Superannuation Regulations

### Purpose and Context
This legislation establishes legal requirements relevant to immigration and refugee matters. It creates obligations for government officials, applicants, and other stakeholders in the immigration system. Understanding these provisions is essential for ensuring compliance with Canadian law in immigration contexts.

### Key Provisions
The document contains provisions related to immigration procedures, requirements, and enforcement mechanisms.

### Application to Immigration Cases
These regulations provide specific implementation details for broader legislative frameworks. Practitioners should ensure strict compliance with procedural requirements, timelines, and documentation standards. The regulations must be interpreted consistent with their enabling legislation and may be subject to challenge if they exceed the authority granted by the statute.