MB7-06924

RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR : MB7-06924 Client ID No. / N° ID client : XXXX XXXX XXXX Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Claimant(s) XXXX XXXX XXXX Demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Date(s) of hearing January 11, 2017 Date(s) de l'audience Place of hearing Montréal, Quebec Lieu de l'audience Date of decision and reasons September 14, 2017 Date de la décision et des motifs Panel Linda Doutre Tribunal Counsel for the claimant(s) Francis Chaput Conseil(s) du (de la/des) demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister Angela Papadakis [submission of documents] Conseil du (de la) ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The refugee protection claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, is a citizen of Djibouti. She is claiming protection under section 96 and paragraphs 97(1)(a) and (b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (hereafter the IRPA). DETERMINATION [2] Having assessed all the evidence, including the claimant's testimony, the panel determines that she is not a "Convention refugee" under section 96 of the IRPA, or a "person in need of protection" within the meaning of subsection 97(1) of the IRPA. ALLEGATIONS [3] The claimant fears being a victim of domestic violence at the hands of her husband, whom her parents forced her to marry without her consent. [4] Before she got married, she worked as an XXXX XXXX at a XXXX XXXX, namely the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [savings and credit union]. She had already been in a relationship with another man, XXXX XXXX, for three years. They were hoping to marry one day. She did not tell her parents that she had a boyfriend because it was taboo. [5] One evening, near the end of XXXX 2015, she saw her uncles and father deep in discussion. It was not until a few days later her father told her she had to marry a man named XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX When she heard the news, she was in shock. The wedding was to take place on XXXX XXXX, 2015. She explained to her father that she was already in a relationship. Her father threatened to disown her if she did not marry the man he had chosen. [6] At the end of XXXX, one week before she was supposed to meet her future husband's family, the refugee protection claimant fled to friend's house. One week later, she learned that her father had been hospitalized. She went to visit him. He told her that if he died, it would be her fault. She agreed to be married out of fear of losing her father. [7] The marriage went well at the beginning. The relationship began to deteriorate after three or four months. The claimant's husband began mistreating her. They fought about the claimant's salary and he beat her. He also attacked her sister's son, whom they had adopted. The claimant's husband is the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [8] In XXXX 2016, when she was speaking with her sister who was living in Montréal, her sister told to her flee. She took the steps to obtain a visa, which she obtained on XXXX XXXX, 2016. She went to the United States on XXXX XXXX, 2016. She crossed the Canadian border on November 12, 2016, and she claimed refugee protection. MINISTER'S INTERVENTION [9] The Minister intervened on the issue of credibility in this case, submitting document M-11 into evidence. ANALYSIS [10] In its decision on this refugee protection claim, the panel took into consideration the Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution.2 Identity [11] The panel is satisfied as to the claimant's identity as a citizen of Djibouti, as established through a photocopy of her passport, her identity card3 and her testimony. Credibility [12] The claimant's testimony was often vague and it contained several inconsistencies and omissions. For one, the claimant's written account does not mention the key dates in her story. For example, to establish a timeline for an event, she writes, [translation] "two months after the wedding," and she does that throughout her written account, with the exception of her wedding date. When the panel attempted to obtain more specific dates or the month of the incident, the claimant had great difficulty responding. She repeated the information in the Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form) but was unable to provide an exact month. For example, when she was asked to specify the month in which her husband's behaviour changed and he hit her for the first time, she stated, [translation] "three months after the wedding and two months after the wedding." With respect to when her husband's behaviour changed, after several questions from the panel she eventually stated that it was in XXXX. Then, she recanted and stated it was August. She explained her error, stating that months are difficult for her. [13] Even if the panel were to give the claimant the benefit of the doubt concerning the issues with dates, and considering the difficulties that female victims of domestic violence may have in testifying, the significant inconsistencies and omissions previously noted between her testimony and the documents submitted into evidence do not lead the panel to find that the claimant was credible. [14] Furthermore, the panel questioned the claimant about life with her husband in order to obtain details about his everyday behaviour towards her. So the panel asked her to describe how a day with her husband would unfold. Again, it was very difficult to obtain details. It was not until four questions had been asked differently that the panel obtained an answer. She first gave vague answers such as [translation] "he insulted me, beat me, called me names," but she did not explain the context in which it happened. The panel is of the opinion that all of that undermines the probative value to be given to that part of her testimony. [15] Moreover, the panel noted a major inconsistency that goes to the very heart of her refugee protection claim. Correspondence with American authorities,4 a document submitted by the Minister, contains information about the refugee protection claimant in her application for an American visa. It indicates that her husband's name is XXXX XXXX XXXX, born on XXXX XXXX, 1984. However, her BOC Form indicates that her husband's name is XXXX XXXX XXXX, born in 1987. As well, the marriage certificate5 indicates that his name is XXXX XXXX XXXX, born in 1991. [16] At the beginning of the hearing, the claimant made several corrections to her BOC Form, including a correction to her husband's birth date at question 5a). It first stated 1987, which she changed to XXXX XXXX, 1991. [17] The panel asked the claimant about that last-minute correction. She explained that she had made a mistake and had written her own birth date instead of that of her husband. The panel is not satisfied with the claimant's explanations. The panel notes that the claimant's date of birth is XXXX XXXX, 1987, and that it appears in full on all of the forms; she never wrote just the year. The panel is of the opinion that if the claimant had truly made a mistake and wrote her date of birth, as opposed to that of her husband, she would have written her full date of birth. [18] The panel then questioned the claimant about inconsistent information regarding her husband's name and date of birth contained in Exhibit M-1. She explained that a third party had filled out the American visa application form for her. It was someone she had paid at an Internet cafe. She stated that she was in a hurry when she applied for the visa because there was a deadline approaching. She was in a rush to verify the information, which is why she did not notice the error. [19] The panel is completely unsatisfied with the claimant's explanations. For one, the panel notes that this claim was made with the aim of fleeing Djibouti because she fears for her life. Therefore, it is crucial that this claim be accepted. The panel is of the opinion that in this context, the claimant should have taken the time to verify the information and ensure it was accurate and complete. In addition, the panel notes that another piece of information in this correspondence is incorrect. [20] Given the significant credibility issues raised with respect to the identity of the claimant's husband, which the panel considers to be central to her refugee protection claim, the panel does not believe the claimant's allegations that form the basis of her claim. [21] In addition, another contradiction and an omission were noted. In paragraph 17 of her written account, the claimant states the following [translation] "From that day on, I was so afraid that I didn't dare tell anyone about what happened to me." However, in one of the corrections,6 she states that the following should be added to paragraph 17 [translation] "I did, however, go see the Union des femmes de Djibouti...." [22] When the panel confronted her with that contradiction, her explanations were explications were incomprehensible. To begin, she stated that her husband had threatened her if she spoke to anyone of what had happened. Then, she stated that she was telling the truth here. She was questioned about the fact that, in her BOC Form, she indicated the opposite of what she was stating during her testimony. She answered that her problems had made her forget. [23] The panel is unsatisfied with the claimant's explanations. All of that undermines her credibility, to the point where the panel does not believe her allegations. [24] Considering the preceding, the panel concludes that there is an overall lack of credibility with respect to the claimant's story and key allegations. Because of that lack of credibility, the panel attaches no probative value to the other documents submitted into evidence, including the marriage certificate.7 CONCLUSION [25] Having assessed all of the evidence, the panel concludes that the claimant did not establish that there is a "serious possibility" that she will face persecution on one of the Convention grounds. She also failed to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that she would be subjected to a danger of torture, a risk to her life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if she were to return to Djibouti. DECISION [26] The refugee protection claim filed by XXXX XXXX XXXX is rejected. Linda Doutre Linda Doutre September 14, 2017 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Document 6 - Exhibit M-1: Correspondence with American consular authorities. 2 IRB Chairperson's Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, effective November 13, 1996. 3 Document 2 - Information package provided by the Canada Border Services Agency or Citizenship and Immigration Canada . 4 Supra, footnote 1. 5 Document 4 - Exhibit C-2: Marriage certificate. 6 Document 5 - Exhibit C-5: Corrections made at the hearing. 7 Document 4 - Exhibit C-2: Marriage certificate. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 6 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 (December 15, 2012) RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR : MB6-06924