MB7-07509

RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR : MB7-07509 Client ID No. / N° ID client : XXXX XXXX XXXX Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Claimant(s) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Date(s) of hearing October 4, 2017 Date(s) de l'audience Place of hearing Montréal, Quebec Lieu de l'audience Date of decision and reasons October 5, 2017 Date de la décision et des motifs Panel Jacqueline Schoepfer Tribunal Counsel for the claimant(s) Me Joseph-Alphonse André Conseil(s) du (de la/des) demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du (de la) ministre REASONS FOR DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the claimant) is a citizen of Haiti who is claiming refugee protection under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS [2] According to his Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form),1 the claimant is alleging a fear of persecution in his country by members of the Fanmi Lavalas (Lavalas) party. [3] The claimant states that he is from the city of Cap-Haïtien. In 2015, he supported the candidates of the Parti haïtien T?t Kale (PHTK) [Haitian Tèt Kale party] against the Lavalas party candidates. He attended several PHTK candidate campaign rallies, which earned him threats from some Lavalas supporters. [4] On April 21, 2015, three individuals assaulted him as he was on his way home at night. He was beaten, but was able to escape when a car arrived. He went to hide at the home of one of his sisters, where he looked after his injuries. [5] Two days later, the claimant left for the Dominican Republic. He spent a week there before heading to Brazil, where he stayed until June 2016. He then left for the United States, before crossing the Canadian border on XXXX XXXX, 2017. [6] His refugee protection claim was filed on July 12, 2017. DETERMINATION [7] Having reviewed all the testimonial and documentary evidence, the panel determines that the claimant is not a "Convention refugee" or a "person in need of protection." ANALYSIS Identity [8] The claimant's identity was established to the panel's satisfaction by means of his birth certificate, a copy of which is on the record.2 During the hearing, the claimant also presented his old Haitian passport, which expired in October 2011. Analysis - exclusion under Article 1E [9] The claimant stated that he stayed in Brazil from May 2015 to June 2016. He testified that he obtained temporary protection there, but was unable to specify clearly whether it was temporary or permanent residence. In response to the panel's question about whether he had been issued a permanent residence card, the claimant replied that he had not, stating that he had left Brazil before he had time to obtain his permanent residence card. The claimant added that, while he was on his way from Brazil to the United States, he lost his passport and an identity card obtained in Brazil. [10] The evidence on the record is insufficient to establish what type of status the claimant obtained in Brazil. According to the documentary evidence,3 foreigners are tied to their employers for an initial period of five years before they can apply for an indefinite residence permit. Therefore, it is possible that the claimant, who alleges that he lived in Brazil for only a year, did not have time to obtain a permanent residence permit without employment conditions. [11] For these reasons, the panel concludes that the principal claimant is not excluded under Article 1E of the Convention. Credibility [12] The determinative issue in this case is credibility. [13] Given that his testimony often lacked spontaneity and contained discrepancies and significant omissions, the panel finds that the claimant is not credible. [14] First, when asked about his political involvement, the claimant stated that he had started to be a PHTK sympathizer in January 2015 when his friend, XXXX XXXX XXXX, invited him to attend a party meeting. When asked what his friend, XXXX, did for the party, the claimant hesitated before responding that he was an administrator. [15] When asked to clarify how many meetings he had attended, the claimant answered three, though he was initially unable to specify at what time of the year those meetings took place. However, upon reflection, he recalled that the last PHTK meeting in his riding was held on April 5, 2015. He testified that he had supported Dieudonné Luma Etienne's candidacy in the senate election. When asked to specify when the senate election was to take place, the claimant was initially unable to respond, then stated that it had to be around August 27, 2015. [16] When asked to explain why he had stated in his written account that he had supported [translation] "senate candidates"4 rather than Dieudonné Luma Etienne specifically, the claimant stated that it was an oversight. [17] When he was asked why he had failed to indicate that he was a PHTK sympathizer in his response to question 95 of his Schedule A form, the claimant stated that he did not speak French. When the panel pointed out that he had given precise answers to the other questions in the same form, the claimant replied that it was an oversight. [18] The panel is of the opinion that the claimant did not testify in a spontaneous or detailed manner with respect to his political involvement from January to April 2015. He had difficulty defining the role of his friend, XXXX, in the party and gave only general information about his candidate's campaign platforms. He was able to provide the name of only one opponent, even though the PHTK candidate in his North riding was competing against at least four other major candidates.6 Moreover, the senate election was not held on August 27, 2015, as the claimant alleged, but rather on August 9, 2015, and the second round on October 25, 2015.7 [19] When the claimant's lawyer then asked him whether he knew the parties opposing President Martelly, the founder of the PHTK, he was initially able to name only the Fanmi Lavalas and Pitit Dessalines parties. He also stated that Jude Célestin was a member of the Espoir [hope] party, when in fact he is the leader of the Ligue alternative pour le progrès et l'émancipation haïtienne (LAPEH) [alternative league for Haitian progress and emancipation], one of the PHTK's main opponents.8 [20] Furthermore, the claimant was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to mention in his BOC Form that he supported Ms. Dieudonné Luma Etienne. If he was actually active in this person's candidacy in the PHTK, as he alleged, it is reasonable to expect that her name would be mentioned in his written account. He also did not provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to mention that he was a PHTK sympathizer in his form concerning his personal history.9 These omissions undermine his credibility with respect to his involvement in the PKHT. [21] In addition, the claimant's testimony lacked spontaneity and was contradictory regarding the threats and assault he was subjected to in his country. He does not specify in his BOC Form when he became involved in politics, stating simply that he supported the PHTK candidates for the senate in 2015. He also gave no date for the threats he received and did not name his persecutors. [22] When the panel asked when he started having problems as a result of his political involvement, the claimant did not answer the question. The panel had to repeat the question three times before the claimant stated that he started receiving threats in February 2015. He stated that three individuals from his neighborhood named XXXX, XXXX and XXXX were responsible for the threats and for assaulting him on April 21, 2015. When asked to explain why he had not mentioned the names of his persecutors in his BOC Form, the claimant replied that it was an error. [23] In the panel's opinion, this response does not justify this significant omission, which further undermines his credibility with respect to his alleged persecution. [24] Moreover, when asked to describe the assault on April 21, 2015, the claimant stated that the three individuals, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX, had assaulted him near his home. They told him: [translation] "Today, it is over. We have lost a lot of people," referring to voters. The claimant alleged that they beat him with a bat and brass knuckles and that his chest and left hand were injured. He stated that the assault lasted between five and ten minutes. [25] The claimant could not provide any explanation for why he did not name his attackers in his BOC Form, even though he knew them. Moreover, the threats made against him during the assault by these three individuals differ from those in his written account.10 When asked to explain these discrepancies, the claimant could not give a satisfactory explanation. [26] When the panel pointed out that a beating of five to ten minutes by three individuals usually results in severe injuries, the claimant adjusted his testimony and stated that the assault did not start right away. His attackers allegedly accosted him first and verbally abused him, before beating him for two or three minutes. However, in his written account, he stated that, as he was on his way home, [translation] "three individuals came after me. They started beating me up as they told me that they had warned me."11 [27] These discrepancies and significant omissions also undermine the claimant's credibility with regard to this assault. [28] The panel also noted other significant omissions. In particular, the claimant stated that on the day of the assault, April 21, 2015, his attackers followed him to his sister's home, approximately 30 minutes from Cap-Haïtien. The Lavalas supporters then allegedly asked her about the claimant. When asked to explain why this important information was not included in his BOC Form, the claimant blamed the interpreter. [29] In the panel's opinion, this explanation is not satisfactory because the claimant confirmed at the beginning of the hearing that the entire content of his BOC Form had been interpreted to him, and he did not make any amendments to his narrative. This omission further undermines the claimant's credibility with respect to the alleged assault. [30] Finally, after living in Brazil for a year, the claimant left to go to the United States, where he also stayed for a year, from June 2016 to June 2017. When asked to explain why he did not seek asylum in that country, which is a signatory to the Convention, the claimant stated that Haitians are sent back to Haiti. He further testified that he did not have a lawyer, that he does not speak English and that he did not have a Haitian community around him to help him. [31] In the panel's opinion, the claimant's explanations are not reasonable because, in the space of a year, he had time to find out about the procedure for claiming asylum. Moreover, the evidence on the record does not establish that people who seek asylum in the United States are sent back to their country before a decision is rendered on their asylum application. The panel is of the opinion that the claimant's behaviour is not consistent with that of a person fearing for his life. Although this is not a determinative factor, it is nevertheless an additional factor that undermines the claimant's credibility. [32] For all the foregoing reasons, the panel does not accept the claimant's political involvement in the PHTK or that he was threatened and assaulted in his country because of this. Given that the panel does not believe his story, it gives no probative value to exhibits D-1 to D-6, which are not sufficient to offset all the credibility problems that were raised. The panel adds that the testimonial letter from his friend, XXXX XXXX XXXX,12 does not provide any details regarding the claimant's political involvement. It merely echoes allegations that the panel found to be not credible. With respect to the photographs of the claimant,13 they are colour photocopies, which can easily be manipulated. CONCLUSION [33] In light of the foregoing and having reviewed the evidence as a whole, the panel determines that the claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, failed to discharge his burden of establishing that he faces a "serious possibility" of persecution on a Convention ground. He also failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that if he returned to Haiti, he would be personally subjected to a danger of torture, to a risk to his life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. [34] For these reasons, his claim for refugee protection is rejected. Jacqueline Schoepfer Jacqueline Schoepfer October 5, 2017 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Document 1 - Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form). 2 Document 2 - Information package provided by the Canada Border Services Agency and/or Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, formerly Citizenship and Immigration Canada. 3 Document 4 - Exhibit D-7: Response to Information Request, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 4 Document 1 - BOC Form. 5 Document 2 - Schedule A, question 9: "Membership of association with organizations." 6 Document 3 - National Documentation Package on Haiti (July 31, 2017), Tab 4.9: Republic of Haiti. Legislative Election of August and October 2015. Senate, Psephos - Adam Carr's Election Archive, June 16, 2016. 7 Idem. 8 Document 3 - Tab 4.7: Response to Information Request HTI105317.FE, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, October 9, 2015. 9 Document 2 - Schedule A, question 9: "Membership of association with organizations." 10 Document 1 - BOC Form, paragraph 4 of the claimant's narrative. 11 Idem. 12 Document 4 - Exhibit D-3: Letter from XXXXXX, active member. 13 Document 4 - Exhibit D-1: Photograph of the claimant with his candidate; Exhibit D-2: Another photograph of the claimant with another T-shirt. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 5 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Protection Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section de la protection des réfugiés RPD.29.01 (May 12, 2017) RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR : MB7-07509