2024 RLLR 143

Citation: 2024 RLLR 143
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 18, 2024
Panel: Stefan Martens
Counsel for the Claimant(s): D. Blake Hobson
Country: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda
RPD Number: VC3-00168
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2025-00724
ATIP Pages: N/A

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).[1]

DETERMINATION

[2] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA.

ALLEGATIONS

[3] The claimant’s Basis of Claim form[2] narrative and testimony contain his allegations. In short, the claimant fears returning to the DRC because he is a Banyamulenge and fears returning to Rwanda because he has resisted pressure to gather intelligence for Kigali in the eastern DRC.

[4] The claimant is a 43-year-old man originally from South Kivu. His wife and three children continue to live in Kigali.

[5] In the wake of the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Hutu forces that were expelled from Rwanda streamed into what was then eastern Zaire and began targeting ostensible Tutsis, including the Banyamulenge. Fearful for their safety, the claimant’s family fled from Zaire to Rwanda.

[6] Following his education, the claimant joined XXXX XXXX XXXX, which is part of the state’s XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. From 2009 until 2015, he worked as a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to Rwanda and XXXX XXXX.

[7] In mid-XXXX 2013, the claimant was asked to join two colleagues in travelling to the XXXX to XXXX XXXX to support an attack by M23, a Rwanda-backed rebel group in the eastern DRC.

[8] The claimant, however, refused, stating that he had no wish to return to the DRC. As such, authorities detained and beat him for one week in late November 2013.

[9] In July 2014, the claimant was seriously injured in a car accident. When he looked into the details of the accident, he realized that the information for the driver of the other car was fictitious and that they had suspiciously escaped. The mystery over the identity of the other driver led the claimant to believe that XXXX had been seeking to kill him.

[10] After many months of convalescence, the claimant requested a reappointment. Officials at XXXX granted his request, transferring him to the XXXX department.

[11] At the same time, officials also asked the claimant regularly to undertake missions in the eastern DRC to XXXX XXXX. Each time, the claimant refused their requests, saying he had no wish to return to the country after fleeing there in 1994.

[12] In March 2021, officials called him into the office and said they would no longer request that the claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX, telling him that he had no choice but to cooperate. When the claimant refused, they seized his phone and detained him for three days.

[13] In XXXX 2021, the claimant went to Cameroon to assist Rwandan citizens with new XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, but upon his return to Rwanda, he was detained for a week because he had contributed to a group raising funds for Banyamulenge victims in the eastern DRC.

[14] In May 2022, a XXXX XXXX again asked the claimant to go to the DRC to support the M23. The claimant again refused, resulting in eight days of detention. A month later, they again detained him for three days.

[15] In XXXX 2022, the claimant came to Canada to attend a three-day conference regarding XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Rather than return after the event, the claimant filed for refugee protection.

[16] Since then, the claimant’s family has been regularly harassed by Rwandan officials wondering about his location in Canada and his plans to return to Rwanda.

ANALYSIS

Identity and Countries of Reference

[17] I find that the claimant has established his identity.

[18] The claimant submitted a Rwandan passport.[3] I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of his passport, so I accept that it establishes his Rwandan citizenship.

[19] The claimant also submitted a Congolese voter card and a Congolese birth certificate.[4] Asked how he obtained the documents given that he had not been to the DRC since 1994, the claimant said he obtained them by requesting them from Kinshasa’s mission in Kigali.

[20] As I found the claimant to be consistent and credible throughout his testimony, I accept that he managed to obtain the documents without going to the DRC. I, furthermore, have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the Congolese documents. As a result, I accept that they also establish that the claimant holds Congolese citizenship.

[21] Based on these findings, I find that the DRC and Rwanda are countries of reference for the claimant.

No Exclusion Under Article 1F(a) Despite Past Employment in XXXX

[22] I do not find that the claimant is excluded from refugee protection despite working under the auspices of XXXX XXXX XXXX from 2009 until 2022.

[23] At the outset of the hearing, I raised the question of exclusion given the claimant’s past employment in light of reports that XXXX has been linked to disappearances, illegal detention and torture.[5]

[24] In Ezokola, the Supreme Court provided a framework for determining if a claimant should be excluded from refugee protection because of their complicity in a war crime or crimes against humanity. To find that a claimant was complicit in such crimes, Ezokola states, the Board must find that there are serious reasons for considering that they have voluntarily made a significant and knowing contribution to the identified group’s criminal purpose or to a crime against humanity or war crime.[6] All three factors of the test must be present to exclude a claimant. The standard of proof is higher than a mere suspicion, but lower than the civil standard of proof on a balance of evidence.[7]

[25] Based on the claimant’s testimony, however, I do not find that there are serious reasons for considering that the claimant was complicit in any crimes against humanity.

[26] The claimant testified that he applied for work at XXXX XXXX XXXX, whose remit includes XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. When he was hired in 2009, he was assigned to the XXXX XXXX XXXX. At the time, the XXXX XXXX was relatively independent and was only later (2012) placed more directly under the control of XXXX.

[27] The claimant testified that, during his employment from 2009 until 2022, there were four directorate generals within XXXX: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and another regarding XXXX. Since then, he stated that he understands that another department – XXXX – is set to become its own directorate general under XXXX auspices.

[28] The claimant also testified credibly regarding his activities for the XXXX XXXX. From 2009 until 2015, he was a XXXX XXXX XXXX at Rwanda’s frontier with Uganda at Gicumbi. In addition to the relatively mundane task of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the claimant said XXXX XXXX had “a hidden agenda”: XXXX XXXX.

[29] Asked about the nature of such XXXX, the claimant explained that, as Rwanda has often had a tense relationship with Uganda (due to factors such as Kampala’s efforts to control elements in Rwanda’s post-1994 government who were based in Uganda during Hutu rule), he was tasked with trying to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. To obtain such information, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX about Uganda’s intentions towards Rwanda or to learn about Uganda’s treatment of Rwandans in the country.

[30] I asked whether the claimant’s “XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ever became more aggressive. The claimant answered that they did not, noting that, because they were mere XXXX XXXX XXXX, they could not demonstrate that they had any hidden agenda by roughly questioning anyone for XXXX. Instead, he said, XXXX XXXX XXXX like himself had to keep the conversations friendly and informal so that XXXX XXXX would not realize that XXXX XXXX were trying to glean XXXX from the chats.

[31] I find such testimony to be reasonable, accepting that XXXX XXXX XXXX could hardly collect XXXX surreptitiously if they detained XXXX XXXX and subjected them to aggressive questioning.

[32] Later, the claimant stated that he was transferred to the XXXX XXXX, where his tasks consisted of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.

[33] In light of this testimony, I find that there are not serious reasons to conclude that the claimant was complicit in any crimes against humanity of other abuses. Given his detailed testimony, I accept that the claimant was part of the XXXX XXXX for his 13-year career and that there was a clear division between his department and other XXXX services under the XXXX umbrella. I also accept that the claimant, as a XXXX XXXX on the XXXX with Uganda, had a “hidden agenda” to XXXX XXXX about Kampala’s plans, but I find that there is no evidence to establish that the claimant ever used force or intimidation to gather information; rather, I accept that he attempted to glean such intelligence surreptitiously. More importantly, I also find that the Rwandan government, for all its authoritarian impulses,[8] has a legitimate purpose in gaining intelligence about its neighbours’ plans towards Rwanda.

[34] Accordingly, I do not find that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the claimant made a significant, knowing and voluntary contribution to any of the Rwandan XXXX XXXX criminal purposes.

[35] Accordingly, I do not find that he is excluded from refugee protection under Article 1F(a).

Nexus

[36] I find the claimant has established a nexus to the Convention.

[37] To satisfy the definition of a “Convention refugee” found in section 96 of the IRPA, a claimant must establish that they face a serious possibility of persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion in their country of nationality.

[38] In the DRC, the claimant alleged that he faced persecution because he is a Banyamulenge, a community that has been targeted because they are perceived as interlopers from Rwanda who are not true Congolese. I find his allegations against the DRC have a nexus to the Convention ground of ethnicity.

[39] In Rwanda, the claimant alleged that he faced persecution from state authorities because he refused XXXX officials’ repeated demands that he go to the DRC to XXXX XXXX for XXXX. I find such allegations have a nexus to the Convention ground of imputed political opinion.

[40] Because there is a nexus to the Convention in the claimant’s allegations against both the DRC and Rwanda, I have assessed his claims against both countries according to section 96 of the IRPA.

Credibility

[41] I found the claimant to be a credible witness.

[42] In line with the Federal Court’s decision in Maldonado v. Canada, a claimant’s sworn testimony creates a presumption that the individual’s allegations are true unless there is a reason to doubt their truthfulness.[9] In this case, I found the claimant to be credible and consistent in his testimony.

Claimant Testified Credibly Regarding Fears in the DRC

[43] The claimant provided sincere and candid testimony regarding his identity as a Banyamulenge. The claimant, for instance, provided detailed testimony on the linguistic difference between Kinyamulenge, the native language of the Banyamulenge of the eastern DRC, and Kinyarwanda in Rwanda. The claimant testified that a Kinyamulenge speaker can understand about 95% of Kinyarwanda but that Kinyamulenge has evolved in the DRC because it has been influenced by some of the languages of the eastern DRC and Burundi in the past decades. The claimant also testified that, deep similarities between the two languages aside, people in Rwanda can immediately understand that a person is Banyamulenge because of their Kinyamulenge-influenced accent in Kinyarwanda.

[44] The claimant also testified candidly about the cultural differences that separate the Banyamulenge from others in the eastern DRC, noting that the Banyamulenge were traditionally very patriarchal. For instance, before many in the community fled to Rwanda, women never shared the table with men; outside, too, women would trail behind their husbands when walking. And at home, when the man of the house was talking, women and children would not talk. Since coming to Rwanda, however, he stated many Banyamulenge have abandoned such strict gender divisions, resulting in greater equality between men and women.

[45] The objective evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP) does not discuss traditional gender boundaries among the Banyamulenge, so I have no means of verifying the veracity of the claimant’s testimony. But given that the claimant testified credibly and consistently throughout the hearing, I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of his comments about previous gender divisions among the Banyamulenge. More importantly, I find the comments help corroborate his allegations that he is Banyamulenge, since he was able to provide them candidly and without hesitation. Put another way, if a claimant were fraudulently claiming to be Banyamulenge, I do not find, on a balance of probabilities, that they would be able to testify on the spur of the moment about traditional gender roles in the community.

[46] The claimant also provided a thoughtful evaluation of the reasons for the persecution of the Banyamulenge in the eastern DRC – and, indeed, the discrimination against them in Rwanda. The claimant stated that the Banyamulenge had been in what is now the eastern DRC for decades, or at least since the 1800s. At that time, they maintained close links with the peoples in what is now Rwanda, but after the Berlin Conference of 1885 drew colonial boundaries between peoples in Africa, the Banyamulenge found themselves in the Belgian Congo. Ultimately, because of the Banyamulenge’s origins as Tutsis, he said many other groups in the eastern DRC view them as Rwandans.

[47] “We are in a dilemma,” the claimant testified succinctly: “Rwandans see us as Congolese, and in the Congo, they see us Rwandans, so we run to Canada.”

Claimant Testified Credibly Regarding Fears in Rwanda

[48] Regarding his fears in Rwanda, the claimant also testified credibly regarding his fears of his ultimate employers at XXXX.

[49] At first, I had some concerns about the credibility of the claimant’s allegations that XXXX had periodically pressured him to join a mission to XXXX XXXX in the eastern DRC, only to allow him to continue with his job. In short, I wondered, why would an authoritarian state’s security service allow an employee to reject its requests so many times without punishing him more severely?

[50] I find that the claimant sufficiently allayed any credibility concerns on the matter. The claimant testified that, until XXXX demands became more insistent in June 2022, it was willing to just make requests – albeit with some reminders of XXXX power when authorities detained and mistreated him after each refusal. Ultimately, the claimant likened the situation to giving a sweet or carrot: Given XXXX ultimatum in June 2022 that he go to XXXX XXXX in the eastern DRC, he understood that authorities’ permission for him to go to the conference in Canada in XXXX 2022 was meant to be a sweetener so that he would have no grounds to continue refusing the agency’s demand that he go to the DRC to assist XXXX.

[51] I accept as reasonable this explanation as to why XXXX gave the claimant so many second chances to accept its demand to join a mission to the eastern DRC.

[52] The claimant also submitted a service card from XXXX.[10] I find the card to be authentic and probative in establishing, on a balance of probabilities, the credibility of the claimant’s allegations that he was ultimately employed at the agency.

[53] Ultimately, I found the claimant’s testimony to be devoid of major inconsistencies, while I have also given significant weight to the XXXX ID card. As a result, I accept the central tenets of the claimant’s application, namely, that he is a Banyamulenge originally from the DRC and that Rwanda’s XXXX became steadily angrier with him because he refused to participate in missions to gather intelligence for the country in the eastern DRC. Moreover, I accept that Rwandan authorities have repeatedly subjected his family members to questioning since his departure for Canada and even seized their passports to prevent them from fleeing.

[54] Because of these findings of fact, I find that the claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, that he has a genuine subjective fear of persecution in the DRC and Rwanda.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

Democratic Republic of the Congo

[55] I find that the claimant has adduced sufficient credible evidence to establish that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in the DRC.

[56] I also find that the NDP provides an objective basis for the claimant’s subjective fears of persecution in the DRC as a Banyamulenge.

[57] According to Minority Rights Group International, the Kinyarwanda-speaking Tutsi living in South Kivu in the eastern DRC started to speak of themselves as “Banyamulenge” from the 1970s onwards: “One sub-group of the Banyarwanda today in DRC are for the most part descendants of Tutsi pastoralists who migrated to the area around Mulenge in what is now the province of South Kivu from Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania mainly in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but some of them perhaps earlier.”[11]

[58] According to the objective evidence, the Banyamulenge are viewed not viewed as authentic Congolese and are seen as an “aggressive minority.” In fact, in 1995, the Zairean parliament even declared that Banyamulenge had acquired their Zairean citizenship in “a fraudulent manner.”[12] A Response to Information Request (RIR) also states that many Banyamulenge are viewed as “recent immigrants with no rightful claim to Congolese citizenship” and that some Congolese call for the “return home” of all ostensibly Rwandan groups like the Banyamulenge.[13]

[59] Indeed, one report states that recognition of the Banyamulenge “as Congolese has been on and off, putting them in regular confrontations with other indigenous communities who never accepted them as Congolese” and that Congolese authorities stripped the Congolese citizenship of some of the Banyamulenge who did not join their fellow community members in moving to Rwanda after the genocide in 1994.[14]

[60] In addition to questions about whether the Banyamulenge are true Congolese, I note the community is frequently the target of attacks in the eastern DRC, close to Rwanda, with one report noting that violence between Banyamulenge and Bafuliiru continued throughout 2019 in South Kivu.

Ethnically motivated violence against civilians on the high and middle plateaus of Fizi and Uvira territories remains a major source of concern, in particular in the Minembwe area. Since March 2019, Ngumino, Twigwaneho and Mai-Mai groups have killed at least 44 civilians and destroyed 89 villages. Worryingly, these attacks have targeted civilians on the basis of their perceived community affiliation, with the Banyamulenge particularly affected on one hand, and the Bafuliro, Babembe and Banyindu, on the other.[15]

[61] And according to the latest U.S. Department of State report, “hate speech and calls for violence against Congolese ethnic Tutsi and Rwandaphones, including the Banyamulenge community, increased since mid-2021 and was exacerbated by the resurgence of the M23 armed group, supported by the government of Rwanda.”[16]

[62] Based on the information before me, I find that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution if he returned to the DRC.

Rwanda

[63] I find that the documentary evidence indicates that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Rwanda.

[64] The claimant is an ethnic Banyamulenge whom Rwandan authorities repeatedly tried to send to the eastern DRC to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Because the claimant repeatedly refused their requests and demands, he began to face ever increasing pressure. To escape the cycle of mistreatment, the claimant remained in Canada after coming here for a conference in XXXX 2022. Since then, however, authorities have repeatedly questioned his family about his whereabouts and activities in Canada.

[65] I also find that the Rwanda NDP provides an objective basis for his subjective fears of returning to Rwanda.

[66] The U.S. DOS report on Rwanda notes that security forces are known for arbitrarily arresting people and without due process. As well, people who are in detention are often subject to torture to extract confessions. Individuals belonging to or viewed to be supporters of unofficial political parties were targeted by government for detention and harassment. The report notes the government has failed to investigate disappearances of opponents. The government is known for monitoring homes, entering homes without due process, checking telephone calls and internet usage, and utilizes a network of informants who work within NGOs, telephone companies, and internet companies. While Rwanda has an Office of the Ombudsman to investigate abuses by the state, the DOS report notes that it did not conduct any investigations and is known for siding with the government.[17]

[67] Human Rights Watch reports corroborate information in the DOS report while adding that President Paul Kagame’s government continues to wage a campaign against real and perceived opponents. The government has even extended its reach beyond Rwanda, killing and disappearing opponents in Uganda and as far away as Mozambique.[18]

[68] Freedom House also confirms information found in previous reports concerning government suppression of opposition voices. It says that the Rwandan government uses intimidation to control the political sphere in the country and continues to suppress dissent through surveillance and arbitrary detention and torture.[19]

[69] An RIR further notes that Kagame’s administration targets political dissidents, journalists and human rights activists. It also states that the passage of time does not diminish the risk faced by political opponents of the government.[20]

[70] The claimant raised the ire of XXXX for refusing to join a mission to the eastern DRC. And because he fled to Canada in XXXX 2022, Rwandan authorities have continued to question his family in Rwanda, as well as seized his wife and children’s passports so that they cannot leave the country. The objective evidence also establishes that Rwandan authorities crack down hard on any perceived dissent. Based on the totality of this evidence, I find that the claimant has established that there is a serious possibility that he faces persecution if she returns to Rwanda.

State Protection

Democratic Republic of the Congo

[71] I find that the claimant cannot avail himself of adequate state protection in the DRC.

[72] The U.S. DOS report states that authorities often did not investigate, prosecute, or punish those who were responsible for abuses, particularly at higher levels. Furthermore, there were there were numerous reports the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings.[21]

[73] Given such evidence, I find that the DRC is not able to provide adequate state protection, especially – in light of the aforementioned evidence that Congolese officials have even questioned the rightful citizenship of Banyamulenge over the years – in the circumstances pertaining to the claimant. As such, I find it would not be reasonable for the claimant to seek the protection of the state in the DRC.

Rwanda

[74] I find that the claimant cannot obtain protection from the Rwandan state because it is the agent of persecution.

Internal Flight Alternative

Democratic Republic of the Congo

[75] I also find that the claimant does not have a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in the DRC.

[76] In Rasaratnam,[22] the Federal Court of Appeal developed a two-prong test to assess whether an IFA is viable. The test entails the consideration of two matters: (1) Whether the claimant would be at risk in the IFA, and (2) whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for him to relocate there.

[77] In this case, I proposed Kinshasa as a potential IFA at the outset of the hearing.

[78] Asked whether he could relocate to Kinshasa, the claimant stated that all the Banyamulenge he has heard of have fled Kinshasa because of the dangers, noting that Banyamulenge have been summarily killed, even if they are Congolese police officers or soldiers. Ultimately, he stated, it is the DRC’s leaders who have provided the impetus for the attacks on Banyamulenge in the country, meaning that members of the community are no safer in Kinshasa than they are in the eastern DRC, where they are viewed as interlopers.

[79] I find that the NDP provides an objective basis for such fears, noting that “the situation is relatively tense for the Banyamulenge” in Kinshasa.[23]

[80] As such, I find that there is no evidence of a viable internal flight alternative available to the claimant in the DRC.

Rwanda

[81] I also find that the claimant does not have a viable IFA in Rwanda because the state is the agent of persecution and has control of its entire territory.

CONCLUSION

[82] For the forgoing reasons, I determine that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA; as such, the Board accepts his claim.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.

[2] Exhibit 2.

[3] Exhibit 1.

[4] Exhibit 4.

[5] Exhibit 3.1, National Documentation Package, Rwanda, 31 October 2023, tab 9.1: ​Country Report on Human Rights and Justice in Rwanda. Netherlands. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 18 August 2016.

[6] Ezokola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2013] 2 S.C.R. 678.

[7] Farkas v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-2128-06, Snider, March 9, 2007; 2007 FC 277, paragraph 8. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Maan, No. IMM-2003-05, Martineau, December 9, 2005; 2005 FC 1682, paragraph 14. Sing v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), Federal Court of Appeal, No. A-191-04, Richard, Sharlow and Malone, April 22, 2005; 2005 FCA 125, at paragraph 25.

[8] Exhibit 3.2, National Documentation Package, Rwanda, 31 October 2023, tab 2.1: ​Rwanda. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2022.​. United States. Department of State. 20 March 2023.

[9] Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.).

[10] Exhibit 4.

[11] Exhibit 3.1, National Documentation Package, Congo, Democratic Republic of the, 28 April 2023, tab 13.9: ​Democratic Republic of the Congo: The Situation of the Banyamulenge (2020 to March 2022). Austrian Red Cross. Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation. April 2022.

[12] Exhibit 3.1, National Documentation Package, Congo, Democratic Republic of the, 28 April 2023, tab 1.2: ​Congo-Kinshasa (République démocratique du Congo). L’aménagement linguistique dans le monde. L’aménagement linguistique dans le monde. Jacques Leclerc. 25 October 2021.

[13] Exhibit 3.1, National Documentation Package, Congo, Democratic Republic of the, 28 April 2023, tab 13.1: ​The treatment of the Banyamulenge living in the provinces of North Kivu and South Kivu, as well as in Kinshasa (2014-August 2015). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 17 August 2015. COD105270.FE.

[14] Exhibit 3.2, National Documentation Package, Rwanda, 31 October 2023, tab 3.12: Report on Citizenship Law: Rwanda. European University Institute. Global Citizenship Observatory. Francis Dusabe. April 2020. RSCAS/GLOBALCIT-CR 2020/10.

[15] Exhibit 3.1, National Documentation Package, Congo, Democratic Republic of the, 28 April 2023, tab 1.15: ​Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC): The situation in North Kivu, South Kivu, and Ituri – Update. Asylum Research Centre. 26 July 2021.

[16] Exhibit 3.1, National Documentation Package, Congo, Democratic Republic of the, 28 April 2023, tab 2.1: ​Democratic Republic of the Congo. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2022. United States. Department of State. 20 March 2023.

[17] Exhibit 3.2, National Documentation Package, Rwanda, 31 October 2023, tab 2.1.

[18] Exhibit 3.2, National Documentation Package, Rwanda, 31 October 2023, tab 2.11: ​Rwanda. World Report 2023: Events of 2022. Human Rights Watch. January 2023.

[19] Exhibit 3.2, National Documentation Package, Rwanda, 31 October 2023, tab 2.3: ​Rwanda. Freedom in the World 2023. Freedom House. 2023.

[20] Exhibit 3.2, National Documentation Package, Rwanda, 31 October 2023, tab 4.16: ​Treatment of people who have opposed the Rwandan government in the past, including their family members (2000–July 2021). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 26 August 2021. RWA200729.E.

[21] Exhibit 3.1, National Documentation Package, Congo, Democratic Republic of the, 28 April 2023, tab 2.1.

[22] Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.).

[23] Exhibit 3.1, National Documentation Package, Congo, Democratic Republic of the, 28 April 2023, tab 13.1.