Is a member's finding that the applicant’s mental health is not unreasonable when assessed against the evidence of his designated representative?

Similarly, the member’s finding that the applicant “…is fairly high functioning” and that he is able “to function and deal with others” is not unreasonable when assessed against the evidence of the applicant’s designated representative. The member was sensitive to the applicant’s ability to do certain things in the context of his compromised mental health situation. Unlike the facts in Rigg v. Canada (Solicitor General), 2007 FC 1079 at paragraph 11, in this case the member did take into consideration the applicant’s personal circumstances in his state protection analysis.