VB7-01821

RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR : VB7-01821 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Claimant(s) XXXX XXXX XXXX Demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Date(s) of Hearing April 5, 2018 Date(s) de l'audience Place of Hearing Lieu de l'audience Date of Decision May 8, 2018 Date de la décision and reasons et des motifs Panel Ron Yamauchi Tribunal Counsel for the Claimant(s) Odaro Omonuwa Conseil(s) du (de la/des) demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Designated Representative(s) Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du (de la) ministre REASONS FOR DECISION INTRODUCTION AND ALLEGATIONS [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX is a citizen of Djibouti who claims refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act ("the Act").1 [2] The claimant alleges that she cannot return safely her country of nationality because she fears political repression. [3] The claimant states that she was born in Ethiopia and moved as a child to Djibouti where she grew up in a rural area without receiving formal education. She and her late husband operated a market. [4] The government opposes the claimant because she and her sons have joined the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (XXXX), an umbrella coalition of political opposition parties. She gave the XXXX her full support in June 2013. The family was motivated to join the XXXX to advocate for change and also because their tribal group, the XXXX clan of XXXX XXXX, is presumed by the government to be an opposition faction. [5] In December 2015, government forces forcefully attacked a tribal event, creating many victims including her eldest son XXXX XXXX, who was taken away and remains in custody. The claimant was harassed many times thereafter. The police came to the house to arrest her other son, XXXX XXXX and broke the claimant's wrist. She then went into hiding, living with different friends to avoid the authorities. [6] After the forced closure of her store in April 2016, the claimant fled to Ethiopia to be with relatives in XXXX. In October 2016, the claimant was approached by Ethiopian officials and could not produce a stay permit. To avoid arrest, the claimant walked back to Djibouti and arranged for air travel to the USA. [7] She flew to the USA on XXXX XXXX, 2017. Shortly thereafter, she went north to make a claim for refugee protection that was referred to the Refugee Protection Division on April 5, 2017. [8] The hearing into this claim took place on April 5, 2018. DETERMINATION [9] I find that the claimant is not a Convention refugee in that she does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention ground in Djibouti. [10] I also find that the claimant is not a person in need of protection in that her removal to Djibouti would not subject her personally to a risk to her life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, and in that there are no substantial grounds to believe that her removal to Djibouti would subject her personally to a danger of torture. ANALYSIS [11] The identity of the claimant as a citizen of Djibouti is established by the copy of her passport in the evidence.2 [12] The determinative issue is credibility. [13] All claimants begin with the presumption that their sworn testimony is true, but this presumption is rebuttable if there is sufficient reason.3 [14] In this case, the claimant testified under affirmation and provided oral evidence that broadly conformed to her Basis of Claim narrative.4 Her story does not raise any plausibility concerns with respect to country conditions. [15] However, I found that serious credibility concerns arise from the claimant's evidence in a number of areas. [16] To begin with, the claimant's travels as shown by her passport stamps are highly damaging to her credibility. [17] The stamps indicate that the claimant left Djibouti on XXXX XXXX, 2015, returned to Djibouti on XXXX XXXX, 2016, left Djibouti again on XXXX XXXX, 2016, returned again on XXXX XXXX, 2016, and left again on XXXX XXXX, 2017. [18] If these travel dates are accurate, then the claimant was going in and out of the country in 2016 during a time that she was allegedly in hiding. [19] Moreover, it appears that the claimant was actually out of Djibouti in late 2015 and early 2016, the period of time that includes her alleged arrest and injury by government authorities. Therefore, the events could not have happened as described. Consequently, the passport stamp evidence, by itself, is fatal to the claimant's credibility. [20] The claimant did not deny that the stamps read as indicated, but disputed that they fully depicted her travels, stating that the Djibouti authorities inconsistently stamped her passport and that she was indeed in Djibouti during the periods of her alleged hardships. [21] There is nothing in the documentary evidence that speaks directly to the stamping of passports by Djibouti border officers. I find that it is common sense to stamp the passport in a consistent manner. The claimant's explanation is highly dubious. [22] Another serious concern is that the claimant's American visa5 indicates that her clan/tribe is "XXXX," a material issue in that the claim has an ethnic dimension. The claimant stated that the lady who helped prepare the visa material must have misrepresented her true clan identity. [23] I find this explanation to be speculative in that there is no apparent reason for the lady to have made this misrepresentation. Given that the claimant was required to report to the American visa office for an interview, the introduction of false material unknown to the claimant does not make any business sense for someone who is preparing an application. Furthermore, the visa asks "Did anyone assist you in the preparation of this application?" to which the applicant has replied "No." Therefore, I do not accept the claimant's explanation and am left with the impression that she misrepresented her actual tribal affiliation on her claim. [24] Yet another concern is that the claimant did not know who was running for president as the UNC candidate and did not know what the initials UNC actually mean. Given the claimant's alleged difficulties as a result of UNC support, and the length of her alleged support, the claimant's lack of knowledge of these basic facts is highly damaging to her credibility. [25] These are not the only concerns that arose from the claimant's testimony - I found some of her replies to be off-topic and to omit at least two specific harassments and incidents that were found in her narrative - but I find them to be so significant that it is clear that the presumption of credibility has been overcome. [26] I find that the claimant is an unreliable witness and I place no weight on any of her unverified statements. Accordingly, her evidence provides no basis for a positive protection finding under either section 96 or 97(1) of the Act. [27] I also find that there is no credible and trustworthy personal documentation that makes her in need of protection under the Act. [28] Therefore, the provisions of s.107(2) of the Act apply: If the Refugee Protection Division is of the opinion, in rejecting a claim, that there was no credible or trustworthy evidence on which it could have made a favourable decision, it shall state in its reasons for the decision that there is no credible basis for the claim. CONCLUSION [29] On the evidence, and for the foregoing reasons, I find that XXXX XXXX XXXX is neither a Convention Refugee nor person in need of protection, and that there is no credible basis for her claim. (signed) "Ron Yamauchi" Ron Yamauchi May 8, 2018 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. 2 Exhibit 1. 3 Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302, 31 N.R. 34 (C.A.). 4 Exhibit 2. 5 Exhibit 5. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR : VB7-01821 RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR : VB7-01821