TB8-24242

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-24242 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Ottawa, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision July 29, 2019 Date de la décision Panel Susan Brown Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Gurinder D.S. Bhangoo Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister Barry Curtis Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] The Appellant, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and Minister of Public Safety, appeals the July 10, 2018 decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) granting refugee status to the Respondent, XXXX XXXX XXXX, citizen of Cameroon. The Appellant submitted documentary evidence pursuant to section 171(a.5) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and the Respondent presented evidence in response. The Appellant argues that the RPD based its decision on unreliable corroborative evidence. I agree and allow the appeal. The determination of the RPD is set aside and I find that the Respondent is not a Convention refugee. BACKGROUND [2] According to his Basis of Claim Form (BOC)1 the Respondent was born in 1978. He worked as a full-time XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX located in the XXXX province of Cameroon and is a member of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [3] An XXXX XXXX strike and sit in, led by XXXX, started in XXXX 2016 to protest the elimination of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in Cameroon. In XXXX 2017 the government banned XXXX. The Respondent was arrested while participating in a XXXX meeting in XXXX. He was tortured, arrested and detained for XXXX days without food. When he was released, the Respondent was forced to give a written undertaking that he would not participate in any strike actions. The Respondent continued to speak out. [4] On XXXX XXXX, 2017, the gendarmes visited the Respondent's house in XXXX XXXX XXXX. The Respondent was not home and, when his wife hesitated to disclose his whereabouts to them, they started brutalizing her even though she was XXXX XXXX. The gendarmes ransacked the compound, tortured the Respondent's children and threatened to hunt down and kill the Respondent. The Respondent's wife called him to say that his life was in danger and that he should go into hiding. [5] On XXXX XXXX, 2017, the gendarmes visited the Respondent's parents in XXXX and tortured his elderly parents-leaving his father with a XXXX XXXX-to find out where the Respondent was hiding. Their house in XXXX was under police survey and patrol. [6] The Respondent hid out in a remote locality called XXXX and was only able to secure an escape route to Canada by the help of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a non-governmental human rights organization. [7] The Respondent obtained a visitor's visa for Canada and left from XXXX Airport on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017. The Respondent's claim for refugee protection was signed on July 21, 2017, and heard on July 10, 2018. ANALYSIS [8] The determinative issue in this appeal is the credibility of the Respondent, specifically the authenticity of corroborative documents presented to establish his allegations. [9] The RPD identified concerns about a warrant2 presented by the Respondent but concluded that concerns about one piece of evidence did not outweigh the credibility of the claimant's testimony and the other corroborative evidence presented. The RPD noted that the Respondent's children's birth certificates, his marriage certificate and his passport all identify his XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The RPD also cited a letter of support from the XXXX XXXX XXXX and evidence of the Respondent's membership in XXXX. The RPD also considered an article in The XXXX XXXX from XXXX 2017, which details the Respondent's participation in the XXXX strike, in XXXX, and says he is wanted by the police. On this basis, the RPD found, on a balance of probabilities, the Respondent's allegations are credible. [10] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred when it found the affidavit of support from XXXX XXXX XXXX3 and the newspaper article from XXXX XXXX XXXX4 were reliable corroborative evidence. The Appellant argues that the evidence5 it presented pursuant to section 171(a.5) of the IRPA establishes that XXXX XXXX XXXX is: a fake non-governmental organization; a front for an international human smuggling operation with whom the Respondent contracted; in the practice of producing false documents; and not a credible or impartial source. [11] The Appellant argues that the evidence also demonstrates that XXXX XXXX XXXX article was fabricated for the purpose of deceiving the RPD and XXXX XXXX XXXX is not a genuine media instrument. The Appellant argues that these are significant credibility issues that were not considered by the RPD and they further augment credibility concerns identified by the RPD in relation to the authenticity of the warrant. [12] The Appellant also presented evidence that the Respondent was promoted on XXXX XXXX, 2017, by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,6 contrary to his claims that a repressive government is actively searching for him and interfering with his life in Cameroon. [13] On August 30, 2018, the Respondent filed a record containing: a notice to intend to respond;7 a memorandum;8 his affidavit;9 and an application of extension of time to respond to an appeal.10 Pursuant to section 110(5) of the IRPA, because the Respondent's affidavit responds to evidence presented by the Appellant, the requirements of section 110(4) of the IRPA to present new evidence do not apply. In his application of extension of time, the Respondent states that he is working to obtain additional documents and may file supplementary documents. The Respondent has not presented any supplementary documents since filing his record. [14] The Respondent submits that the decision of the RPD was correct. In his Memorandum of Argument, the Respondent submits the following: The XXXX XXXX was sent to him by his wife from Cameroon and he explains more about it in his affidavit; he has clarified many issues raised by the Appellant in his affidavit; his visa application was prepared by a third party and he relied on their judgment; XXXX XXXX XXXX is a valid non-governmental organization who assisted him; and he explains his working with XXXX XXXX XXXX in his affidavit. [15] I have reviewed the record including the Respondent's testimony, the documentary evidence including the appeal evidence submitted by the Appellant11 and the Respondent,12 as well as the objective evidence. I have considered the arguments of both the Appellant and the Respondent and undertaken my own analysis to find that the RPD erred when it found that the Respondent's allegations were credible. I find, on a balance of probabilities, key corroborative evidence is not authentic, specifically: the affidavit of support presented by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX article and the warrant. I also find that the 2017 XXXX XXXX XXXX is additional evidence that the Respondent is not being sought by the authorities in Cameroon. XXXX XXXX XXXX [16] The Appellant submits that the supporting documents provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX for the Respondent's visa application are inconsistent with his refugee claim. [17] The visa application13 presents the Respondent as a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who has worked there full time since XXXX 2012. XXXX XXXX XXXX provides numerous supporting documents: attestation of service; acceptance of sponsorship and undertaking to return to Cameroon; mission order; special leave of absence from duty; contract of employment; letter of employment; attestation of financial support; and salary disbursement voucher. [18] In his BOC and immigration forms, the Respondent states he is a full-time XXXX and does not identify any employment history with XXXX XXXX XXXX.14 The affidavit of support provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX and presented by the Respondent says that he "was a known human rights activist who served as a part time worker with XXXX."15 When the RPD asked the Respondent if he worked or volunteered with XXXX XXXX XXXX, the Respondent testified that he volunteered with them for the past five years.16 [19] Following an investigation the Appellant concluded that the XXXX XXXX XXXX association was not a legitimate non-governmental organization based on: the absence of any credible objective presented by the Respondent; several unsuccessful attempts to establish contact with the association by telephone including unreturned messages;17 inoperative websites;18 the use of a residential address in XXXX, Massachusetts as the association's official address;19 and presentation of falsified documents in the Respondent's visa application.20 Following my own review I note that the Appellant's conclusion is supported by the presentation of inconsistent information in the association's affidavit of support21 and the Respondent's inconsistent testimony about being a volunteer with the association.22 [20] The Appellant also based its conclusion that XXXX XXXX XXXX is not a legitimate non-governmental organization on the evidence that the Respondent paid the association $1400 to help him secure a visa. 23 The Appellant cited objective evidence that "many fake or 'suitcase NGOs' are found in Cameroon and the South as a whole...In the recent past, human rights NGOs have joined the bandwagon of fake NGOs by issuing out false letters of political vindication to those who want to seek residence abroad with a refugee status."24 [21] I note that in his BOC the Respondent only references XXXX XXXX XXXX in the context of the association's facilitation of his escape to Canada. In his immigration forms the Respondent states that XXXX XXXX XXXX "help me secure a visa" and that he paid them $1400. At the RPD hearing the Respondent testified that the $1400 was paid to the association to bribe officials at XXXX airport.25 [22] The Respondent argues that it his belief that XXXX XXXX XXXX is a valid non-governmental association and he relied on a third party and their judgment in completing the visa application forms and applications.26 In his affidavit presented in response to the Appellant's evidence, the Respondent says that he worked with XXXX XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX 2012, until XXXX 2017 and that he made a mistake during the RPD hearing and in the documents by not mentioning his employment with the XXXX XXXX XXXX.27 [23] Considering the arguments and evidence of both the Appellant and the Respondent, I find that the Respondent's evidence and testimony about his involvement with XXXX XXXX XXXX is inconsistent and contradictory. I also find that, on a balance of probabilities, XXXX XXXX XXXX is not a legitimate non-governmental organization and the documents it produced in support of the Respondent's visa application and refugee claim are fraudulent. As a result, I find that the Respondent is not credible on a central element of his claim relating to his employment history and circumstances of his leaving Cameroon. The Weekly Mirror [24] The Appellant submits that the article in The XXXX XXXX28 entitled "XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX presented by the Respondent as evidence of the allegations in his claim, is fabricated. The Appellant presents the following analysis and evidence to support the submission: * The cover page of XXXX XXXX XXXX29 reports on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, on the NW SDP Regional Executive Re-election, while The Eye Newspaper reports the same election result using the same photograph seven months earlier on October 28, 2016;30 * The article entitled "XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX"31 substantially copies an article published in The Median five months earlier on December 13, 2016,32 but changes the references to dates in the article from December to April; * The article entitled "Use condoms if you must have sex youths told" is an excerpt from an article released by the Center for Advocacy in Gender Equality and Action for Development (CAGEAD) released on September 5, 2016;33 * The aforementioned articles are falsified to frame the fabricated article entitled "As Anglophone crisis degenerates, more teachers on the run"34 which echoes the Respondents allegations in his refugee claim; * None of the four articles presented are attributed to an author; * The Respondent did not present an original of XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017 edition of XXXX XXXX XXXX; and * The Appellant conducted an internet search for XXXX XXXX XXXX and did not find any open record for XXXX XXXX XXXX as a newspaper, magazine or other type of publication for any period of time.35 [25] The Respondent's only argument in response is that XXXX XXXX XXXX was sent to him by his wife from Cameroon when he was already in Canada.36 In his affidavit presented in response to the Appellant's evidence, the Respondent says that to his knowledge: ...this is a local magazine that is run by unemployed graduates just to make a living. Cameroon is a very poor country and most graduates are unemployed. They create these papers and sell it for 200FCFA far below the price of the mainstream newspapers. It is normal and customary practice for them to report issues which have already been reported by the main news papers [sic], most probably to increase the size of their papers given that they lack the resources to employed [sic] skilled journalist [sic]. My wife got the paper from a local news kiosk and sent to me in Canada.37 [26] I note that the Respondent does provide any objective evidence to support his evidence about XXXX XXXX XXXX, nor does he offer any explanation for not providing the original newspaper in light of his evidence that his wife bought the newspaper from a local news kiosk and sent it to him in Canada. [27] Considering the arguments and evidence of both the Appellant and the Respondent, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that XXXX XXXX XXXX is not an authentic newspaper and that the article about the Respondent is fabricated to support his refugee claim. I find that this fraudulent document negatively affects the credibility of the Respondent with respect to all the allegations in his claim for protection. Warrant of arrest [28] The RPD identified credibility issues on the face of the warrant of arrest in its reasons. The document appears to be a template which is filled in by hand, but the boilerplate includes a misspelling of Cameroon as "Caneroon" in large font in the title of the document. The RPD found it unlikely that a template would have such a misspelling. Also the warrant is not bilingual. Unlike all of the other government documents presented as evidence by the Respondent, it is only in English. The RPD did not accept the Respondent's explanation that the warrant was issued in English as a result of protests that began in late 2016. I note that the objective evidence references a constitutional rule that official notices must be bilingual.38 [29] In addition to the credibility issues identified by the RPD, I find that there are procedural irregularities with the warrant. There is objective evidence that normally an arrest or warrant is not issued until a third notice to appear or summon is ignored.39 The Respondent did not present evidence of receiving any notices to appear. The warrant is dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, but does not reference the Respondent's alleged earlier arrest in XXXX in XXXX 2017, the undertaking given at the time of his release or the breach thereof. The Respondent's BOC says that the gendarmes attended at this house on XXXX XXXX, 2017, which is two days after the issue of the warrant. When the RPD asked the Respondent when he got the warrant, he said he received it by email in XXXX 2017 from his wife. He said that his wife received the document from a messenger from the State Counsel's office and that the first time he heard about the warrant was when he was already in Canada in XXXX 2017.40 [30] The RPD found that the problems with the warrant did not overcome the other credibility evidence provided by the Respondent including both the affidavit of support from XXXX XXXX XXXX and the article in XXXX XXXX XXXX. In light of my findings about the credibility of the corroborative evidence from XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX and the credibility issues with the warrant, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the warrant is not an authentic document. The Respondent's claim that he is wanted by the authorities in Cameroon is not credible. Ministry of Secondary Education Promotions List [31] The Appellant submits a copy of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX41 dated XXXX XXXX, 2017, which lists the Respondent as receiving a promotion on XXXX XXXX, 2017. The Appellant argues that this is further evidence that the Respondent is not wanted by authorities in Cameroon. [32] In his affidavit the Respondent says that it is not a promotion but a statutory wage increase which is automatic after every two years of service and "[t]he XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in not well-developed, and it is even possible for persons who have died more than ten years to receive such advancement decisions or salary increase."42 [33] In the absence of any objective evidence to support the affidavit evidence of the Respondent, I find the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to be an authentic document which, on a balance of probabilities, is additional evidence that the Respondent is not being sought by authorities in Cameroon. CONCLUSION [34] The appeal is allowed. Pursuant to section 111(1) (b) of the IRPA, the RAD sets aside the determination of the RPD and substitutes its own determination that the Respondent is not a Convention refugee. (signed) "Susan Brown" Susan Brown July 29, 2019 Date 1 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, pages 12-22. 2 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, page 103. 3 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, pages 72 and 73. 4 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, page 75. 5 P-3, Appellant's Evidence. 6 P-3, Appellant's Evidence, page 54. 7 R-1, Respondent's Record, page 2. 8 Ibid., pages 3 and 4. 9 Ibid., page 5-7. 10 Ibid., pages 8-10. 11 P-2, Appellant's Record, pages 31-48. 12 R-1, Respondent's Record, pages 5-7. 13 P-3, Appellant's Evidence, pages 3-29. 14 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, page 33, Schedule A. 15 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, page 72. 16 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Hearing of July 4, 2018, Audio Recording, 0:38:25-0:38:55. 17 P-3, Appellant's Evidence, pages 30-35. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid., pages 3-29. 21 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, page 72. 22 Supra, note 16. 23 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, page 37, Schedule 12. 24 P-3, Appellant's Evidence, page 37. 25 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Hearing of July 4, 2018, Audio Recording, 0:36:20-0:37:05. 26 R-1, Respondent's Record, page 4, Respondent's Memorandum. 27 R-1, Respondent's Record, pages 6 and 7, Respondent's Affidavit, paragraphs 3 and 4. 28 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, pages 74-77. 29 Ibid., page 74. 30 P-3, Appellant's Evidence, page 42 31 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, page 76. 32 P-3, Appellant's Evidence, page 45. 33 Ibid., pages 48 and 49. 34 Ibid., page 75. 35 Ibid., page 40. 36 R-1, Respondent's Record, Respondent's Memorandum. 37 R-1, Respondent's Record, page 7, Respondent's Affidavit, paragraph 5. 38 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Cameroon 30 April 2018, document 10.1, CMR 104623.FE, Notices to appear issued by the General Delegation for National Security..., IRB, 23 October 2013, page 4, section 3. 39 Ibid., page 3, section 2. 40 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Hearing of July 4, 2018, Audio Recording, 0:31:00-0:33:20. 41 P-3, Appellant's Evidence, pages 53 and 54. 42 R-1, Respondent's Record, page 7, Respondent's Affidavit, paragraph 6. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-24242 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français 10 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français