Docket: IMM-5149-14
Citation:
2015 FC 930
Ottawa, Ontario, July 29, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Boswell
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
MUSTAFA SISMAN
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Introduction and Background
[1]
This is an application for judicial review of a
decision made by the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee
Board.
[2]
The Applicant is a 36-year-old citizen of Turkey
who claims to fear that he will be persecuted in that country for being an
Armenian Orthodox Christian. He was a seafarer who left Turkey on a job in July
2013, but he abandoned his employment once his ship arrived in the United
States of America in September, 2013. After spending some time in New York City,
he entered Canada illegally and made an inland claim for refugee protection in October,
2013.
[3]
On February 7, 2014, the Refugee Protection
Division [RPD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board [IRB] determined that the
Applicant was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
The RPD found that much of the Applicant’s story was not credible. It doubted
that the Applicant was a practicing Christian while he lived in Turkey, as his
Turkish identity card stated his religion was Islam. Although the Applicant
said his parents had declared that was his religion to protect him from
discrimination and he was a “hidden Armenian,”
the RPD found this did not make sense since the Applicant also claimed that it
would be obvious from his last name that he was Armenian, and Armenians were
generally presumed to be Christian. Moreover, the Applicant had submitted a
letter from an evangelist at a church in Toronto who said the Applicant “expressed his desire to study about Christianity with a view
to becoming a Christian,” and was only baptized in Canada on November 6,
2013. Other letters submitted to support the Applicant’s claims were
unconvincing. The RPD therefore found that the Applicant “was not a fully practicing Christian before coming to Canada
and pursued officially becoming one in Canada only as a means to bolster his
refugee protection claim.”
[4]
The RPD gave a number of reasons for doubting
other aspects of the Applicant’s claim:
•
The Applicant claimed he never personally
applied for a visa to the United States and was in the United States on
September 6, 2013, but a biometrics report showed he applied for a United
States visa from Istanbul on September 19, 2013, and his application was
denied.
•
The Applicant said he fled his home town in 1998
because he was threatened, yet later said he and his entire family returned to
their home town for half a year, every year.
•
Some of the Applicant’s central allegations were
that he talked to some Christian missionaries who his captain invited aboard
the ship he worked on, that he was beaten up by his fellow shipmates after they
found a bible in his room, and that he was mistreated by the police and charged
with “talking negatively about Turkey.” However,
some details of these incidents were omitted from his narrative and he never
pointed to any particular law that he was accused of violating. The RPD found
it was implausible that the police would apprehend the Applicant for “missionary activities” when the ship’s captain
specifically invited missionaries on board and the maximum number of people he
could influence was 24.
•
The Applicant did not supply corroborating
documents which the RPD expected to see, such as copies of court documents
relating to his alleged arrest or any materials from the ship documenting the incident
that allegedly occurred on board. Other documentary evidence that was supplied
was not convincing.
•
The Applicant never made any asylum claim in the
United States, which undermined his claim of subjective fear.
[5]
The RPD then assessed the likelihood of future
persecution, and it found the Applicant was exaggerating when he claimed that,
as an Armenian Christian, he would never be able to work again. He had
previously worked on his family’s farm, in a mall selling t-shirts, and on a
ship whose captain regularly invited Christian missionaries on board. The RPD
said there was no reason he could not find similar employment, even living
openly as a Christian, in Turkey. The RPD next recited some of the documentary
evidence and concluded that “there is some societal
discrimination against Christians but overall they are able to practice their
religion freely as the claimant alleges he did before he left Turkey – he stated that he attended Church every Sunday.” The RPD therefore
dismissed the Applicant’s claim as he had not established that “he would face harm rising to the level of persecution should
he return to Turkey on account of his ethnicity and or [sic] religion.”
[6]
The Applicant appealed the RPD’s decision, but
the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] of the IRB dismissed the appeal on June 10,
2014, and confirmed that the Applicant was not entitled to protection under
either section 96 or subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [Act]. The Applicant now seeks
judicial review pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Act, asking the
Court to set aside the RAD’s decision and order a different panel of the RAD to
re-determine his appeal.
II.
Issues
[7]
This application raises the following issues:
1.
What standard of review should this Court apply
to the RAD's decision?
2.
Did the RAD apply an appropriate standard of
review to the RPD's decision?
3.
Did the RAD err by upholding the RPD’s decision
that the Applicant was not a practicing Christian in Turkey?
4.
Having found that the RPD erred by expecting documentary
evidence that was not reasonably available, was it an error for the RAD to
still dismiss the appeal?
III.
The RAD Decision
[8]
The RAD began its reasons by rejecting the new
evidence presented by the Applicant: i.e., a freedom of information request he
made in the United States looking for anything relating to his alleged visa
applications, and another letter from an evangelist at his church. Although the
freedom of information request was made after the RPD decision, the RAD noted
that subsection 110(4) was very similar to paragraph 113(a), the provision
which governs the introduction of new evidence for pre-removal risk
assessments. It therefore applied the factors set out in Raza v Canada
(Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385 at paragraph 13, 289 DLR (4th)
675, and decided that the request for information was irrelevant; only the
results of that request could be expected to disturb the RPD’s evaluation of
the evidence, and those had not been presented. As for the letter from his
church, the RAD determined it was not really new evidence; it was identical to
the letter which had been submitted to the RPD and only the date had been
changed.
[9]
The RAD then considered how it should review
decisions of the RPD, basing its analysis on Newton v Criminal Trial
Lawyers’ Association, 2010 ABCA 399, 14 Admin LR (5th) 181 [Newton].
It concluded that the correctness standard should apply for questions of law,
but reasonableness was the appropriate standard of review for questions of fact
and mixed fact and law.
[10]
As for the substance of the appeal, the
Applicant had alleged that the RPD erred in five ways: (1) by applying too high
a test for the likelihood of persecution; (2) by failing to analyze the section
97 claim; (3) by failing to justify its findings about the Applicant’s
religious identity; (4) by expecting the Applicant to supply documents that were
not reasonably available; and (5) by finding that he would not be
perceived as an activist for his faith.
[11]
The first objection was based on the RPD’s
statement that the Applicant had not proven that “he
would face harm rising to the level of persecution should he return to Turkey
on account of his ethnicity and or [sic] religion.” The RAD
agreed with the Applicant that, taken alone, that statement could be an error
since it did not set out a test for the likelihood of persecution. However, the
RAD determined that the RPD had earlier stated the correct test by noting that
the Applicant needed to show a serious possibility of persecution, and it was
clear from the rest of the RPD’s decision that the correct test was applied.
[12]
As for the absence of a full section 97
analysis, the RAD found there was no credible evidence to support a section 97
claim once the RPD had rejected the Applicant’s story, and there was therefore
no need to analyze it separately (citing Fang v Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration), 2008 FC 856 at paragraphs 9-13).
[13]
The RAD then endorsed the RPD’s reasons for
finding that the Applicant, although an Armenian Orthodox Christian, had not “vigorously practiced his faith in Turkey or … suffered
discrimination or persecution because of his religion.” The RAD also
determined it was reasonable for the RPD to draw a negative inference from the
fact that the biometric information from the United States’ authorities was
inconsistent with the Applicant’s story.
[14]
The RAD did find that some of the RPD’s findings
were unreasonable though. Specifically, the RAD said it was unreasonable to
expect to see court documents since the Applicant had allegedly been subject to
extra-judicial treatment, and it was also unreasonable to expect documents from
his former employer since the Applicant allegedly left the ship without notice
and owed the company money. However, the RAD found that these errors were not
fatal because the RPD’s other grounds for not believing the Applicant’s story
were reasonable and sufficient to justify the negative decision. The RAD thus
dismissed the Applicant’s appeal.
IV.
Analysis
A.
What standard of review should this Court apply to
the RAD’s decision?
[15]
The standard by which this Court should review
the RAD's determination about the scope of its review of RPD decisions is not
settled. As noted by Mr. Justice Simon Noël in Yin v Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration), 2014 FC 1209 at paragraph 32 [Yin], the case law diverges
on this subject. Some decisions state that the correctness standard applies,
either because the issue is one of central importance to the legal system and
outside of the RAD's expertise, or because it affects the jurisdictional lines
between the RPD and the RAD (e.g. Huruglica v Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration), 2014 FC 799 at paragraphs 25-34, [2014] 4 FCR 811 [Huruglica];
Spasoja v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 913 at
paragraphs 7-8 [Spasoja]; Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 at
paragraphs 60-61, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 [Dunsmuir]). Other decisions disagree
and state that it is no more than a question of interpreting the RAD's home
statute, which presumptively attracts the reasonableness standard (Akuffo v
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1063 at paragraphs 16-26 [Akuffo];
Djossou v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1080 at
paragraphs 13-37 [Djossou]; Brodrick v Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration), 2015 FC 491 at paragraphs 20-29 [Brodrick]; Dunsmuir
at paragraph 54; McLean v British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2013
SCC 67 at paragraphs 26-33, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 895). Questions on this issue have
been certified in several of these cases, so this division in the case law will
soon be considered by the Federal Court of Appeal.
[16]
In the meantime, I agree with Mr. Justice Luc
Martineau's pragmatic approach to the issue in Alyafi v Canada (Citizenship
and Immigration), 2014 FC 952 at paragraphs 46-52 [Alyafi]. As he
notes and as I summarize below, the case law is also divided on the scope of
review that the RAD should apply. This creates a problem similar to one this
Court once faced with respect to the residency test for citizenship (Huang v
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 576 at paragraphs 1, 24-25, [2014]
4 FCR 436). If the correctness standard is applied by every judge of this
Court, the RAD could diligently follow one line of cases only to see its
decisions set aside whenever they are reviewed by a judge who favours the other
line of cases. The law requires more certainty than that. As the Federal Court
of Appeal observed in Wilson v Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, 2015 FCA
17 at paragraph 52, 467 NR 201 [Wilson], “the
meaning of a law should not differ according to the identity of the
decision-maker.” The Federal Court cannot fix the problem at the RAD
level so long as the judges of this Court disagree on the solution, and
applying the correctness standard in this situation would undermine the rule of
law even more than if the dispute was just at the RAD level (Wilson at
paragraph 52). For similar reasons, Justice Martineau concluded in Alyafi
that decisions of the RAD should be upheld so long as either of the two
approaches currently accepted by the Court is applied by the RAD.
[17]
Adopting such an approach in this case, I find
that the RAD's decision should be reviewed on a standard of reasonableness.
This standard also applies to the RAD's factual findings and its assessment of
the evidence before it is entitled to deference (see: Dunsmuir at
paragraph 53; Siliya v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 120
at paragraph 20 [Siliya]; Yin at paragraph 34; Akuffo at
paragraph 27; Lin v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 1052
at paragraphs 13-14). The RAD's decision should therefore not be disturbed so
long as it is justifiable, intelligible, transparent, and defensible in respect
of the facts and the law (Dunsmuir at paragraph 47). Those criteria are
met if “the reasons allow the reviewing court to
understand why the tribunal made its decision and permit it to determine
whether the conclusion is within the range of acceptable outcomes” (Newfoundland
and Labrador Nurses' Union v Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board),
2011 SCC 62 at paragraph 16, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708).
B.
Did the RAD apply an appropriate standard of
review to the RPD’s decision?
[18]
The Applicant contends that the RAD was wrong to
apply the reasonableness standard when reviewing the RPD’s factual findings,
and that it was at least required to independently reassess the evidence (citing
Iyamuremye v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 494 at
paragraph 3; Huruglica at paragraphs 43, 54-55). In his view, judicial
standards of review are inappropriate because they were developed to negotiate
a relationship between the judicial and executive branches of government, and
no such concerns are engaged here. Rather, the Applicant says the RAD “should just do what the statute tells it to do”
(citing Halifax (Regional Municipality) v Anglican Diocesan Centre
Corporation, 2010 NSCA 38 at paragraph 23, 290 NSR (2d) 361).
[19]
The Applicant further contends that the broad
remedial powers granted to the RAD by subsection 111(1) of the Act
indicate that it should not defer to any findings of the RPD, and that
interpretation is supported by the objectives of saving lives, bringing
finality to the refugee determination system, and discouraging applications to
this Court.
[20]
The Respondent defends the RAD’s decision to
adopt the reasonableness standard of review, since finding the facts is a job for
which the RPD is much better suited to perform than the RAD. Unlike the RAD,
the RPD must hold hearings and has a key role in questioning witnesses and
building the evidentiary record (citing Act, ss 110(3), 110(4), 110(6),
170; Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012-256, s 33). The RPD’s
expertise in this regard cannot be doubted, since there are many claims that
will never even go to the RAD (Act, s 110(2)). The Respondent further
contends that it would be wasteful and inefficient for the RAD to completely
reassess all the evidence, and its function is instead to supply a “true appeal” (citing e.g. Canada (AG) v Bedford,
2013 SCC 72 at paragraphs 49, 51, 55 and 56, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101; Budhai v
Canada (AG), 2002 FCA 298 at paragraph 47, [2003] 2 FCR 57).
[21]
As mentioned above, judges of this Court
disagree about how the RAD should review the RPD's findings of fact and mixed
fact and law. One line of cases concludes that the RAD should review the RPD's
findings of fact for palpable and overriding errors (see e.g.: Eng v Canada
(Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 799 at paragraphs 26-34; Spasoja
at paragraphs 14-46; and Triastcin v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),
2014 FC 975 at paragraphs 27-28 [Triastcin]). Another line of cases
concludes that the RAD must independently come to a decision and is not limited
to intervening on the standard of palpable and overriding error, although it
can “recognize and respect the conclusion of the RPD on
such issues as credibility and/or where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage
in reaching such a conclusion” (Huruglica at paragraph 55; Yetna
v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 858 at paragraphs 16-20 [Yetna];
Akuffo at paragraph 39; and Ozdemir v Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration), 2015 FC 621 at paragraph 3).
[22]
In this case, the RAD applied Newton to
determine that the reasonableness standard applied to the factual findings of
the RPD, and concluded as follows:
[33] The Newton factors are
better authority than those in Dunsmuir for the purpose of determining
the appropriate standard of review in this appeal, as they address a situation
which is more similar to the context of the RAD and the RPD. There remains the
matter of the interpretation of the legislation as a whole, and the conclusion
that intended finality might lead the RAD to consider the refugee claim on its
merits, showing little or no deference to the findings of the RPD. However,
this is outweighed by other factors which favour a more deferential approach on
questions of fact. The RAD is restricted in ways that the RPD is not,
specifically in admitting evidence and holding oral hearings. Some questions
here are ones of fact, and the Courts have consistently held that triers of
fact are better situated to make findings of fact at first instance. The RPD
has the opportunity to see and question the refugee claimant, while the RAD may
not. Failure to defer to the RPD on matters of fact and credibility would be
singularly inefficient, would undermine the integrity of the RPD process, and
would do nothing to limit the length and cost of appeals to the RAD, as the
RPD’s proceedings would be reduced to little more than preliminary inquiries.
[34] For these reasons, the RAD
concludes that, in considering this appeal, it must show deference to the
factual and credibility findings of the RPD. The notion of deference to
administrative tribunal decision-making requires a respectful attention to the
reasons offered or which could be offered in support of the decision made. Even
if the reasons given do not seem wholly adequate to support the decision, the
RAD must first seek to supplement them before it substitutes its own decision.
[35] The appropriate standard of review
for questions of fact raised in this appeal is one of reasonableness.
Reasonableness is concerned mostly with the existence of justification,
transparency, and intelligibility within the RPD’s decision-making process, but
also with whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable
outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and the law. [Footnotes
omitted]
[23]
Both lines of cases noted above have condemned
this approach by the RAD (see e.g. Alyafi at paragraphs 17-18, 39 and
46; Huruglica at paragraphs 45 and 54; Spasoja at
paragraphs 12-13, 19-25 and 32-38; Djossou at paragraph 37;
Brodrick at paragraphs 32-34; Ching v Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration), 2015 FC 725 at paragraphs 48, 50; and Bahta v Canada
(Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1245 at paragraphs 11-16). The RAD
has an appellate function, and it cannot limit its analysis merely to whether
the RPD acted reasonably and reached a decision that fell within the range of
acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and the law.
Applying the reasonableness standard when reviewing RPD decisions, as the RAD
did in this case, is typically an unreasonable error of law (Siliya at
paragraph 23).
[24]
However, that need not always end the matter
(see e.g. Pataraia v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 465
at paragraphs 13-14 [Pataraia]; Ali v Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration), 2015 FC 500 at paragraphs 8-9 [Ali]). Judicial review
is discretionary, and relief can be withheld even in the face of such an error
(see: Lemus v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FCA 114 at
paragraph 38, 372 DLR (4th) 567). The issue thus reduces to this question:
might the RAD have reached a different result had it selected an appropriate
standard of review?
[25]
In this case, the Applicant mainly criticizes
the RAD for deferring to the RPD’s credibility findings. In Huruglica,
however, Mr. Justice Michael Phelan opined (at paragraph 55) that the RAD “can recognize and respect the conclusion of the RPD on such
issues as credibility and/or where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage in
reaching such a conclusion.” Following that approach, this Court has
sometimes declined to set aside deferential decisions of the RAD where the
central issue was whether the Applicant was credible (see e.g. Yin at
paragraph 36; Ali at paragraphs 8-9).
[26]
However, the RAD must still analyze the case
independently, and the level of deference owed to the RPD by the RAD may not be
as high as that which is demanded by the reasonableness standard (see Pataraia
at paragraph 13; and Khachatourian v Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration), 2015 FC 182 at paragraphs 31-33 [Khachatourian]). Not
every judge agrees entirely with that approach (Denbel v Canada (Citizenship
and Immigration), 2015 FC 629 at paragraphs 37-38). But the point is that the
RAD must assume its role as an appellate body. If the RAD instead judicially
reviews the RPD’s decision and, by reason of the reasonableness standard,
unduly defers to the RPD’s findings, it is not assuming its responsibility as
an appellate body.
[27]
In this case, it was neither justifiable nor
reasonable for the RAD not to make its own assessment of the case in clear
terms. It articulated and adopted the reasonableness standard and focused
unduly upon the RPD’s reasons in its analysis at paragraphs 50-62 of its
decision. As in Khachatourian, the RAD here did not make its own
independent analysis of the Applicant’s claim; it simply reviewed the RPD’s
determinations and judged them reasonable. Throughout its decision, the RAD used
judicial review language and stated “the RPD found”,
“it [the RPD] gave little weight”, “the panel concluded”, “the
RPD wrote”, “the RPD reasonably noted”, “the RPD concluded”, “the RPD
considered”, “it was reasonable for the RPD to
make”. As noted in Awet v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),
2015 FC 759 at paragraph 8, “[i]n the face of the RAD’s
unequivocal assertions of deference it would be unsafe to assume that it fully
carried out the kind of independent review of the evidence that is required.”
[28]
Accordingly, the RAD’s decision cannot be
justified as an acceptable outcome defensible in respect of the facts and the
law. The matter must be returned to the RAD for redetermination by another
panel member. The Applicant is entitled to an appeal before the RAD, not just a
recitation of the facts found by the RPD.
[29]
In view of this conclusion, there is no need to
address the other two issues as stated above.
V.
Certified Question
[30]
The Applicant proposes that the following
question should be certified in this case:
What is the scope of the review conducted by
the Refugee Appeal Division when it considers an appeal of a decision of the
Refugee Protection Division?
[31]
The Respondent submits that no question of
general importance should be certified. The issue is already on its way to the
Federal Court of Appeal, and certifying the same question over and over again does
not facilitate timely interventions (citing e.g. Alyafi at paragraph
57).
[32]
Pursuant to paragraph 74(d) of the Act, “an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal may be made only
if, in rendering judgment, the judge certifies that a serious question of general
importance is involved and states the question.” Such a question “must (i) be dispositive of the appeal and (ii) transcend the
interests of the immediate parties to the litigation, as well as contemplate
issues of broad significance or general importance” (Zhang v Canada
(Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FCA 168 at paragraph 9, [2014] 4 FCR
290 [Zhang]).
[33]
The proposed question was dispositive of this
matter. The second criterion in Zhang is also satisfied in this case,
and many cases have already certified the question proposed by the Applicant or
ones similar to it (see e.g. Huruglica at paragraph 62; Spasoja at
paragraph 48; Akuffo at paragraph 53; Triastcin; Yetna; Kurtzmalaj
v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1072 at paragraph 43; Nnah
v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 77 at paragraphs 12-13).
[34]
However, the test in Zhang only sets out
the threshold requirements for certifying a question. Nothing in the statute
obligates the Court to certify a question whenever those criteria are met. In Alyafi,
Justice Martineau declined (at paragraphs 56-57) to certify the same question
because there is already an appeal progressing and it would not facilitate
timely intervention. The same reasoning was followed in Pataraia (at
paragraph 24).
[35]
On the other hand, in Akuffo, Madam
Justice Jocelyne Gagné (at paragraph 51) certified a question because she did
not want the applicant to lose his “right to propose a
question for certification.” Similarly, in Zumaya Sanchez v Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 921 at paragraph 27, 56
Imm LR (3d) 74, duplicative questions were certified on the basis that it would
be unfair for an applicant to lose the benefits of appellate guidance on an
issue solely because the Court failed to preserve his appeal rights.
[36]
I favour the view in Alyafi. Certifying
duplicative questions can be useful in some circumstances, since there is no
guarantee that an appeal will proceed or that the Court of Appeal will even
answer the question certified. However, the appeal in Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration v Huruglica, A-470-14, will likely proceed. The
hearing has been scheduled for later this year, and the Federal Court of Appeal
will address the question.
[37]
In these circumstances, it is contrary to the
purpose of paragraph 74(d) to certify a question. An appeal is denied to most
applicants because Parliament has decided that the need for timely intervention
outweighs the need to have an additional error-correction mechanism (Varela
v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FCA 145 at paragraph 27,
[2010] 1 FCR 129); and that bar is lifted only because the “general importance of the question, that is, its
applicability to numerous future cases, warrants the review by a court of
justice” (Pushpanathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982 at paragraph 43, 160 DLR (4th) 193). Once
that objective is satisfied by allowing a case which raises the issue to
proceed to the Court of Appeal, I see no reason to flood the Court of Appeal
with every case that raises the same issue in the interim. While it may seem
unfair to deny someone the chance to have an alleged error corrected only
because their case was not the first one to raise the question of general
importance, it is no more unfair than denying somebody the chance to have an
alleged error corrected only because the issue is not generally important. In
other words, it is exactly as fair or unfair as Parliament intended paragraph
74(d) to be.
VI.
Conclusion
[38]
In view of the foregoing reasons, the Applicant’s
application for judicial review is granted, the RAD's decision is set aside and
the matter returned to the RAD for a new determination.
[39]
No question of general importance is certified.
Email this Content