VB8-04009

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VB8-04009 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Ottawa, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision January 28, 2019 Date de la décision Panel Susan Brown Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal Roger S. Bhatti Conseil(s) (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister Kamal Gill Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the Minister of Public Safety appeals the June 25, 2018 decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) granting refugee status to XXXX XXXX XXXX. The Minister asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to set aside the positive determination of the RPD. The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Respondent is a Convention refugee. BACKGROUND [2] According to his Basis of Claim Form (BOC),1 the Respondent was born in 1994. The Respondent alleges that his problems in Cameroon arise from his political activities and those of his family members. The Respondent's father was involved with the Social Democratic Front (SDF) but later he became a strong supporter of the Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC). [3] The Respondent's sister, XXXX, has been active in the SCNC since 2001. The Respondent was heavily influenced by XXXX philosophy and actions in forming his own political opinion. XXXX was arrested in May 2003 and asked to cease her political activities. She continued to be involved with the SCNC and was targeted again in December 2006 but was warned by women in the village. XXXX was detained again in March 2007. She was interrogated, threatened, and beaten. Finally, she was detained again at the end of September 2010 and managed to escape. She fled to the United States in XXXX 2010 where she made a successful asylum claim. [4] The Respondent became active in the SCNC in 2011. He was detained by the police in January 2014 and asked to refrain from any political activities with the SCNC. He was questioned about his sister's whereabouts and her political activities. After his release, the respondent made plans to leave Cameroon. He applied to study at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in Surrey, British Columbia on March 30, 2014. During this time he continued his political activities. He was detained again in April 2014. The Respondent applied for a visa to study in Canada on May 19, 2014 and it was issued in July 2014. During this time the Respondent hid at a friend's home in Ekona. In July the authorities came to his father's home asking for him. His father told him he was visiting relatives in another city. [5] Since he left Cameroon, the authorities have continued to look for the Respondent. The Respondent arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2014 and made a claim for refugee protection on March 16, 2015. The Minister intervened before the RPD, the claim was heard on May 15, 2015 and the RPD made a positive determination on July 14, 2015. The Minister appealed and on January 21, 2016 the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) allowed the appeal and referred the matter to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel. On May 1 and June 25, 2018 the RPD reheard the claim and made a positive determination on July 9, 2018. SCOPE OF THE RAD REVIEW [6] The RAD reviews decisions of the RPD on a standard of correctness after conducting an independent assessment of the evidence before it. The exception to this rule is where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in assessing and weighing the oral testimony heard, which in particular cases attracts deference. 2 Unless specifically stated below, I have applied the correctness standard. ANALYSIS [7] The RPD found that the evidence demonstrated that the Respondent has a well-founded fear of harm if he were to return to Cameroon due to his political opinion and as a member of particular social group, being that of a family who are known to be political activists. The RPD found that the Respondent had already been targeted and will be targeted again for his ongoing support for the secession of Southern Cameroon and as the state is the persecutor, there can be no state protection or internal flight alternative.3 [8] The Minister submits that the RPD's credibility findings were made without regard to the evidence before it and demonstrated an eagerness to find the Respondent credible notwithstanding the contradictions, inconsistencies and omissions in the evidence. Specifically, Minister argues that the RPD: * Failed to reconcile the testimony of the Respondent and the SCNC Chairman and the documentary evidence relating the authenticity of his SCNC membership card; * Did not take account of inconsistent evidence about the year the Respondent became a member of the SCNC, details of his alleged detentions in January and April 2014, and of visits by the authorities to the Respondent's father's home; * Misconstrued the evidence about the Respondent's failure to state the goals of the SCNC in his BOC; * Made excuses for the Respondent's incoherent testimony about his participation in a January 2, 2017 demonstration in front of the US Consulate in Vancouver; and * Erred in concluding that the Respondent is a member of a particular social group-family who are known to be political activists-in the absence of evidence of that the Respondent was targeted or has been targeted in Cameroon based on his family status. [9] I have reviewed the record including the Respondent's testimony, the testimony of his two witnesses, the documentary evidence including the new evidence submitted by the Appellant,4 and the objective evidence. I have considered the arguments of both the Appellant and the Respondent and undertaken my own analysis to find that, while the RPD made some errors, they are not determinative. The RPD correctly found that the Respondent has established, on a balance of probabilities, that he is a member of the SCNC and there is a serious possibility that he would be persecuted if he were to return to Cameroon. SCNC Membership Card [10] The RPD found that the authenticity of the Appellant's SCNC membership card is not an issue because there is so much evidence "from the [SCNC] Chair and from the [Respondent] and from his sister XXXX and the father's evidence which all indicate the [Respondent] has been a member of the SCNC for years now."5 [11] The Appellant argues that in reaching its conclusion on the SCNC membership card, the RPD erred by failing to reconcile and assess the conflicting evidence related to the membership card, including forensic evidence, and its implications on the credibility of the Respondent and the SCNC Chair. There was conflicting testimony relating to whether or not the SCNC Chair and the Respondent signed the SCNC membership card. The forensic report concluded that the SCNC Chair probably did not sign the membership card. [12] I agree with the Appellant about the conclusions of the forensic report and that both the Respondent and the SCNC Chair gave conflicting evidence about signing the SCNC membership card. They both said that they signed the card when the Respondent joined the SCNC in 2012 and subsequently changed their testimony. The Respondent said that he forgot to sign his card and that the SCNC Chair told him that sometimes the secretary signed the cards and that the secretary was with him the day he issued the membership card to the Respondent. [13] The determinative issue is whether the Appellant's legitimate concerns about the testimony and forensic evidence relating to the signing of the SCNC membership card are sufficient to undermine the credibility of the testimony of the SCNC Chair, the Respondent, and that of his sister XXXX about the Respondent's membership in the SCNC. I find that the RDP canvassed this issue at length, clearly addressed the Appellant's concerns and concluded that the Respondent was a member of the SCNC. Following my own assessment of the evidence, I agree with the RPD that, on a balance of probabilities, the Respondent is a member of the SCNC. Inconsistent evidence [14] The Appellant also argues that inconsistent evidence was given by the Respondent, the SCNC Chair, and the Respondent's father about when the Respondent joined the SCNC and the details of his detentions in 2012. The Appellant submits that this inconsistent evidence affects the credibility of the Respondent and the SCNC Chair. BOC Schedule A6 SCNC Chair Affidavit7 Father's affidavit8 Resp. testimony9 SCNC Chair testimony10 Date of joining SCNC Soon after enrolling at XXXX XXXX XXXX September 2011 October 4, 2012 through XXXX XXXX structure While at the XXXX XXXX XXXX 2012, I became a full member at the XXXX XXXX XXXX October 2012 Date of starting XXXX XXXX XXXX September 2013 amended to 2012 September 2013 (2012/07-2013/08 unemployed in Bamenda also living in Buea from 2012/10) Not stated Not stated September 2012, amended BOC at July 14, 2015 hearing Not stated Detention XXXX 2014, XXXX, 2 days XXXX 2014, XXXX, 5 days XXXX 15-17, 2014, XXXX XXXX 7-12, 2014, XXXX Arrested in XXXX 2014 and XXXX 2014 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, 2 days XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 5 days Detained on XXXX 15, 2014 for 2 days and on XXXX 7, 2014 for 5 days Date of detention not discussed [15] Following my review of the evidence, as summarized above, I find that the only material inconsistency relates to the date that the Respondent started at the XXXX XXXX XXXX. I note that at the outset of the July 14, 2015 RPD hearing the Respondent amended the date he started at the XXXX XXXX XXXX from September 2013 to September 2012 in his BOC narrative saying that it had been a typographical error. The Respondent's counsel is identified as having assisted in the preparation of the BOC and the other application forms, which explains why the error also shows up in the Schedule A. [16] With respect to the Respondent's first detention, the Appellant submits that the Respondent testified that he was taken to the police station in Buea while his father's affidavit says he was taken to Batibo. As noted above the Respondent said he was taken to Batibo in both his BOC and his Schedule A. I have reviewed the transcript of the Respondent's testimony at his hearing on July 14, 2015 and note that, while the Respondent referenced SCNC meetings in Buea, he did not say that he was arrested in Buea and taken to the police station there. The evidence is not clear11 and the Respondent was not asked to clarify his evidence. The Appellant also notes that the Respondent's BOC and his father's affidavit omit to mention that the SCNC Chair tried to assist in the release. Again, the Respondent was not asked to explain the omission. [17] The Appellant also argues that the father's affidavit did not corroborate the Respondent's BOC evidence about visits to his father's house by authorities. The Appellant appears to have missed the statement in the Respondent's father's affidavit where he says: "Security forces of La Republic De Cameroon [sic] have appeared at my home in August, September, November, 2014 and in January and April 2015."12 [18] For the reasons outlined above, I am satisfied that the one material inconsistency relating to the date the Respondent started at the XXXX XXXX XXXX was corrected at an early opportunity and reasonably explained. I am not satisfied that the other issues raised by the Appellant are inconsistencies. In some cases, the Respondent was not afforded the opportunity to explain or clarify his evidence. Goal of the SCNC [19] The Appellant argues that the RPD misconstrued the Respondent's explanation why he failed to state the goal of the SCNC in his BOC when it found that that failure was an oversight. The Appellant argues that the Respondent's evidence was that he did not know why this was not in his BOC; it was not an oversight and it should have resulted in a negative credibility finding. [20] I have carefully reviewed the Respondent's evidence on this question 13 and find that when asked about the major goal of the SCNC he answered "the major goal of the SCNC is to create independence for Southern Cameroon."14 When asked why he did not talk about that goal in his BOC, the Respondent seemed confused and said "I guess that was part of my story. I say it in my story...Because I always say that in my story that SCNC is an organization that advocates for the separation of Southern Cameroon."15 When the RPD pointed out again that it was not in his BOC, the Respondent said "I just explain my position in the SCNC and the reasons why I believe in in the SCNC, so I didn't...put it inside, I don't know why, but I didn't put it inside."16 [21] The Respondent's evidence is that he was under the impression that the independence goal of the SCNC was in his story, his BOC. It was when the RPD pointed out again that it was not, in fact, part of his BOC that the Respondent said that it he did not know why he did not include it. The Appellant is right when it argues that the Respondent said he did not know why it was not in his BOC. However, the Respondent's evidence which preceded this statement suggests that he thought it was included so the RPD was not wrong when it characterized the omission as an oversight. [22] I am not sure that the distinction is material as the issue can only relate to the credibility of the Respondent's claim to be a member of the SCNC and is not sufficient to undermine the credibility of the testimony of the SCNC Chair, the Respondent, and that of his sister about the Respondent's membership in the SCNC. As detailed above, I agree with the RPD that, on a balance of probabilities, the Respondent is a member of the SCNC. January 2, 2017 protest [23] The Appellant argues that the Respondent submitted evidence of his participation in a protest on January 2, 2017 in front of the US Consulate in Vancouver, which protest was contrived for the sole purpose of bolstering the Respondent's refugee claim. To support this argument the Appellant submitted evidence17 that: January 2, 2017 was a statutory holiday and the US Consulate was not open; there was no media coverage of the protest; there was no warning issued by the US Consulate relating to the protest; the media did report anti-Trump protests in front of or close to the Vancouver consulate on January 30, 2017 and February 5, 2017; the Southern Cameroonian community held demonstrations in the cities of Toronto, Ottawa, Quebec City, and Montreal on February 10, 2017 visiting the French and British Embassies. [24] The Respondent argues that the Appellant's evidence does not contradict the Respondent's testimony, and the fact there was not any media coverage of a small protest does not refute the Respondent's testimony that he participated in the demonstration on January 2, 2017.18 I note that the Respondent testified that protests took place in Calgary and Toronto but not on the same date.19 [25] The Appellant is correct that the Respondent did testify that the January 2, 2017 protest was in response to "what was happening back in Cameroon. There was a mass killing after the 1st day of October of 2017 (Indiscernible) National Day of the Southern Cameroon."20 [26] The RPD addressed this point directly and found that the Respondent misstated the date as October 2017 because it did not make sense in the context of the January 2, 2017 demonstration which "was in protest to action that had taken place several months earlier in October 2016."21 I note that the objective evidence is clear that the crisis faced by Anglophones in Cameroon began in October, 2016 resulting in violence, arrests and at least six deaths before the end of the year.22 [27] Based on the foregoing I find that, on balance of probabilities, the Respondent participated in a demonstration in Vancouver on January 2, 2017 to protest the evolving crisis in Anglophone Cameroon, which started in October 2016. Membership in a social group [28] Following a detailed review of the evidence, the RPD concluded that the Respondent has "a well-founded fear of harm if he were to return to Cameroon due to his political opinion and as a member of a particular social group, being that of a family who are known to be political activists. Because he's already been targeted, he will be targeted again for his ongoing support for the secession of South Cameroon from Cameroon itself."23 [29] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in mixed fact and law when it concluded that the Respondent is a member of a particular social group-family who are known to be political activists. The Appellant argues that there was no evidence before the RPD that the Respondent was targeted in Cameroon on the basis of his family status. [30] The Respondent argues that his evidence, and that of his father and sister XXXX, of numerous visits by the Cameroon authorities to his father's home demonstrates that their family has been targeted. I agree with the Appellant that there is no evidence that the Respondent's siblings or his mother have been targeted by the authorities based on their family status and that the family members are targeted because of their SCNC membership and activism and not because of their status as members of the XXXX family. The RPD may have erred in finding that the Respondent has a nexus to membership in a particular social group. [31] As detailed above, however, I agree with the RPD that the Respondent is a member of the SCNC. Based the testimony of the Respondent, the SCNC Chair and the Respondent's sister XXXX, supported by the documentary evidence from the Respondent's father and the objective evidence cited by the RPD in its reasons, I find that, on a balance of probabilities, the Respondent has established his claim that he has a well-founded fear of persecution if he were to return to Cameroon due to his political opinion as an Anglophone secessionist and SCNC member. CONCLUSION [32] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is a Convention refugee. (signed) "Susan Brown" Susan Brown January 28, 2019 1 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 16, Exhibit 2. 2 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93 (CanLII). 3 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 13, RPD Reasons, lines 9-16. 4 P-2, Appellant's Record, pages 31-48. 5 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, pages 9 line 34 and page 10 lines 1-7. 6 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 40-45, Exhibit 1. 7 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 253-254, Exhibit 7. 8 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 287-293, Exhibit 9. 9 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 433-550, Exhibit 16, RPD Hearing Transcript, July 14, 2015. 10 Ibid. 11 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 451, Exhibit 16, RPD Hearing Transcript, July 14, 2015. 12 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 287, Exhibit 9. 13 R-1, Respondent's Record, pages 15-17, RPD Hearing Transcript, May 1, 2018. 14 Ibid., page 11, lines 3 and 4. 15 Ibid., lines 11-35. 16 Ibid. , page 12, lines 20-22. 17 P-2, Appellant's Record, pages 31-48. 18 R-1, Respondent's Record, pages 19, 20 and 47, RPD Hearing Transcript, May 1, 2018. 19 Ibid., page 22. 20 Ibid., page 20. 21 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 7, RPD Reasons, lines 23-26. 22 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3.3, National Documentation Package for Cameroon, April 30, 2018, document 4.4, International Crisis Group, Cameeroon's Anglophone Crisis at the Crossroads, Africa Report No 250, 2 August 2017, pages 9-10. 23 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 13, RPD Reasons, lines 9-16. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VB8-04009 RAD.25.02 (September 18, 2018) Disponible en français 12 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 (September 18, 2018) Disponible en français