VB9-08372

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VB9-08372 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 Montreal, QC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision December 17, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Jo-Anne Pickel Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal N/A Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister Clayton Corbierre Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] I grant this appeal for the reasons that follow. [2] The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness as well as the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (together referred to as "Minister") appealed a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) which granted the claim for refugee protection made by XXXX XXXX XXXX. [3] XXXX XXXX XXXX is a citizen of Cameroon who sought refugee protection because of his political opinion and involvement as a member of the Southern Cameroon National Council (SCNC). The SCNC is an anglophone self-determination group seeking independence for South Cameroon. XXXX XXXX XXXX alleged that he joined the SCNC in 2016 after he was admitted as a student at the University of XXXX. He testified that he became involved in the SCNC after he met another student from the University who got him involved in the organization. According to XXXX XXXX XXXX, he took part in the sensitization of students at the University and attended meetings and rallies organized by the SCNC including a protest on campus in XXXX 2016 which led to his imprisonment and mistreatment by the police. XXXX XXXX XXXX also alleged that he took part in a protest in XXXX 2017 at which he was again arrested and mistreated by police. He alleges that the police left a notice to appear at the police station at his house in XXXX 2017 and issued a warrant for his arrest when he did not attend. Around this time, he moved to a different town to live with his uncle until he left Cameroon on a study permit for Canada. He claimed refugee protection in XXXX 2018. [4] By oral decision on the day of the hearing, the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) granted XXXX XXXX XXXX claim for refugee protection, finding that he established a well-founded fear of persecution based on his political opinion. The RPD found XXXX XXXX XXXX evidence to be credible despite several irregularities in the documentary evidence he filed. The member accepted his explanations for certain irregularities in his documents and was prepared to overlook the irregularities in other documents because of XXXX XXXX XXXX age (he was XXXX at the time of the RPD hearing). The Minister contested the RPD's credibility finding on appeal. DECISION [5] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.1 Based on the new evidence submitted on appeal, I find that it was an error for the RPD to find that XXXX XXXX XXXX account of the events that led him to leave Cameroon was credible. Based on the new evidence submitted by the Minister and the rest of the evidence in this case, I find that XXXX XXXX XXXX has failed to credibly establish that, if he returns to Cameroon, he would face a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or the likelihood of any of the kinds of harm that would make him a person in need of protection. NEW EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE MINISTER The evidence presented by the Minister [6] The following evidence was presented by the Minister and marked as Exhibits on appeal:2 a) An excerpt of the admissions list for the law program at the University of XXXX for the 2016/17 academic year; b) The admissions list for the XXXX. In XXXX program at the University of XXXX for the 2016/17 academic year; c) A document indicating the address at which XXXX XXXX XXXX lived when he arrived in Canada; and d) A statutory declaration sworn by a Hearings Advisor for Canada Border Services Agency setting out the steps followed to access the admissions lists referred to above.3 DECISION TO HOLD IN-PERSON HEARING [7] Section 110(6) of the IRPA allows for an oral hearing when the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) admits documentary evidence that raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the person who is the subject of the appeal; that is central to the decision with respect to the refugee protection claim; and that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the claim. I found that the new evidence submitted by the Minister met all these conditions and therefore I directed a hearing in this matter. [8] In accordance with Rule 57 of the RAD Rules, the testimony and submissions at the hearing were restricted to the following issues: a) What impact, if any, the Minister's new evidence has on the RPD's findings in this case; and b) If XXXX XXXX XXXX were to be found not credible, whether he nevertheless would face a serious possibility of persecution because of his profile as an anglophone and/or a returning member of the anglophone diaspora. ANALYSIS XXXX XXXX XXXX self-representation at the RAD hearing [9] Although XXXX XXXX XXXX was represented by counsel before the RPD, he represented himself on appeal. I advised him at the outset of the RAD hearing that he had the right to be represented by counsel and that he could request an adjournment in order to retain counsel. He confirmed that it was his intention to represent himself on appeal. I took care to explain the hearing procedures to XXXX XXXX XXXX and allowed him to make oral submissions at the end of the hearing in the same way that a counsel, or representative would have done. Credibility of allegations of persecution [10] Based on the new evidence submitted by the Minister and the evidence from the RAD hearing, I find on a balance of probabilities that XXXX XXXX XXXX was not a student at the University of XXXX as he alleged. XXXX XXXX XXXX had submitted to the RPD an Offer of Provisional Admission and a copy of a tuition fee receipt to corroborate his allegation of having been a student at the University of XXXX which was the context in which he alleged that he took part in the student protests at the University that occurred in 2016. [11] The excerpt of the admissions list for the law program submitted by the Minister showed that the identification number that appears on the Offer of Provisional Admission submitted by XXXX XXXX XXXX was assigned to a different student at the University in the 2016/17 academic year. In addition, the admissions list for the Accounting program in which XXXX XXXX XXXX said he was enrolled did not include his name as a student during the 2016/17 academic year. When asked at the RAD hearing whether he had an explanation for why this would be the case, XXXX XXXX XXXX provided two possible explanations which I do not find satisfactory or credible. [12] First, XXXX XXXX XXXX testified that the University extended provisional offers to students and required students to pay an extra tuition fee in order to actually enroll as students. According to XXXX XXXX XXXX, he did not pay an extra registration fee that was required to be fully enrolled as a student and his name was likely taken off the admissions list because he did not pay the extra fee. He said that he guessed that the identification number might have been assigned to the other student who appears on the admissions list after he failed to pay the extra fee. When I asked XXXX XXXX XXXX to explain why then the admissions list would indicate that the other student was admitted a month before him in XXXX 2016 whereas his Offer of Provisional Admission was dated in XXXX 2016, he replied that he did not know how that would happen and said that the extra registration fee was the whole reason for the protest they had in XXXX 2016. I do not find this reply satisfactorily explains the discrepancy between the admissions list and the copy of the Offer of Provisional Admission that XXXX XXXX XXXX submitted into evidence since the identification number appears to have been assigned to the other student before it appeared on the Offer of Provisional Admission presented by XXXX XXXX XXXX. [13] Second, XXXX XXXX XXXX testified that the University is a government institution and the government considers the SCNC to be a terrorist organization. Therefore, the University would not want to be associated with him after he became a member of the SCNC and likely removed him from the admissions list. I find that this answer also does not satisfactorily explain the inconsistency between the admissions lists and XXXX XXXX XXXX evidence for two reasons. First, it does not satisfactorily explain the discrepancy noted above. That is, it does not explain the fact that the admissions list indicates that the identification number that appears on XXXX XXXX XXXX Offer of Provisional Admission was assigned to a different student a month before the date on XXXX XXXX XXXX Offer of Provisional Admission. Second, there was no evidence to corroborate XXXX XXXX XXXX explanation that the University would have removed him from its admissions lists due to his involvement with the SCNC. [14] When the Minister's counsel asked XXXX XXXX XXXX whether he had attempted to obtain any other evidence to corroborate his allegation that he was a student at the University of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX replied that he had wanted to call some of his classmates as witnesses for the RAD hearing. He said that he had twice called the Case Management Officer at the RAD who had set up the hearing to ask how he would arrange for the witnesses to testify and she did not call him back. He testified that he had taken the option of keying his phone number in rather than leaving a voice mail when he called the Case Management Officer. When asked whether he had contacted the Case Management Officer by e-mail since she had communicated with the parties by e-mail to confirm the hearing, XXXX XXXX XXXX said he had not. When I asked XXXX XXXX XXXX when he had called the Case Management Officer, he said he had called her on the Monday of the week of the RAD hearing and the Friday the week before that. XXXX XXXX XXXX then added that he has classes in the morning and that he did not have the whole day to stay on the phone trying to contact the RAD. [15] I do not find XXXX XXXX XXXX testimony about contacting the RAD credible for several reasons. First, I checked with the Case Management Officer who set up the hearing and whose number XXXX XXXX XXXX said he called and she confirmed that she did not receive any messages from XXXX XXXX XXXX or messages with his phone number. Second, I find it more than a little surprising that XXXX XXXX XXXX would prioritize his classes over ensuring that he was able to properly defend this appeal given the very serious consequences he claims he would face if the Minister's appeal is granted. Third, if XXXX XXXX XXXX had been truly intent on reaching the RAD, he simply would have replied to the Case Management Officer by e-mail at the address to which he replied to confirm his availability for the hearing. Finally, the virtual hearing confirmation e-mail that was sent to the parties two weeks before the hearing states that, if either party, wished to have a witness testify by video at the hearing, they could simply forward them the link that had been sent to the parties or, alternatively, they could send their phone numbers to the RAD by replying to the e-mail. XXXX XXXX XXXX did neither. [16] When the Minister's counsel asked XXXX XXXX XXXX whether he had attempted to obtain other evidence to demonstrate that he attended the University of XXXX such as course work or hand books, XXXX XXXX XXXX replied that the first year of his program involved only general studies and did not involve a concentration in accounting. I do not see how this explains why XXXX XXXX XXXX could not have obtained additional evidence to establish his attendance at the University of XXXX after having received the Minister's new evidence in this appeal. I note that XXXX XXXX XXXX parents continue to live in Cameroon, and they had provided him with the documentary evidence he submitted to the RPD. He also testified before the RPD that he continues to have friends in Cameroon. [17] While claimants are generally not required to submit evidence to corroborate their allegations, the RPD or RAD may draw an adverse inference as to credibility where there is a valid reason to doubt the claimant's credibility and the claimant has failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their failure to seek corroborative evidence that would have been available to them.4 In this case, the Minister's new evidence raised valid concerns about the credibility of XXXX XXXX XXXX allegation that he had attended the University of XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for his failure to obtain additional documentary evidence to corroborate his attendance at the University. [18] Based on all of the above, I find that XXXX XXXX XXXX has not established by credible and trustworthy evidence that he attended the University of XXXX, as he has alleged. XXXX XXXX XXXX allegation that he was a student at the University of XXXX is not a peripheral detail but, rather, it forms a central part of his account of the events that led him to leave Cameroon. As noted above, XXXX XXXX XXXX alleged that he became involved in the SCNC through a friend he met at the University. He also alleges that the first of two times he was arrested was during a protest at the University over tuition fees and better sanitation. XXXX XXXX XXXX attendance at the University was a key part of his account of his participation in the SCNC and his alleged persecution would have begun as a result of his attendance at the University of XXXX protests. I agree with the Minister that. If XXXX XXXX XXXX attendance at the University of XXXX is a fabrication, then it is more likely than not that the allegations of persecution that followed were also fabricated. [19] In light of the above, I find it more likely than not that the Offer of Provisional Admission submitted by XXXX XXXX XXXX was fraudulent. I note that XXXX XXXX XXXX had admitted to the RPD that he submitted a fraudulent educational certificate as part of the Canadian Temporary Resident Visa application that an agent helped him file. Therefore, he has shown a willingness to submitting false information to Canadian authorities in the past. I find that XXXX XXXX XXXX willingness to submit false documents with his visa application and his submission of what I find is likely a false Offer of Provisional Admission call into question the credibility of the explanations he provided for the irregularities in other documents he submitted, most notably in the police's notice to appear that he submitted. RPD erred with respect to its credibility findings XXXX XXXX XXXX other documentation Notice to appear [20] I agree with the Minister that the police notice to appear submitted by XXXX XXXX XXXX was also likely a forged document. The notice to appear submitted by XXXX XXXX XXXX contained a number of irregularities. To begin, the notice to appear is written only in English whereas, under the Cameroon constitution such documents must be bilingual. The RPD was prepared to overlook this irregularity, stating that a research report contained at Tab 10.1 of the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Cameroon states that some police units waive the bilingualism rule. In fact, the research report contains mixed evidence. A lawyer interviewed for the report stated that notices to appear are prepared in French and English to take into account the two national languages of Cameroon, whereas the executive director of a non-profit organization stated that they must be bilingual but that some units waive the bilingualism requirement. In my view, it is a concern that the notice to appear submitted by XXXX XXXX XXXX is prepared in English only except for the heading on the form. However, even if I were to set aside this particular irregularity, there are further irregularities in the document. [21] As noted by the Minister on appeal, the wet seal on the notice to appear contains a spelling error in the name of the agency. Instead of spelling the agency name as "DÉLÉGATION GÉNÉRALE À LA SURETÉ NATIONALE," it is spelled "DELEGATION GENERAL LA SURETE NATIONALE." In addition to this spelling error, instead of spelling the regional police delegation as "Police Centrale du Sud-Ouest," it is spelled "Police Central du Sud-Ouest." XXXX XXXX XXXX did not have any arguments in response to the Minister's arguments on this point on appeal. I agree with the Minister that one would expect that, on a balance of probabilities, a national security organization would properly spell its own name in its wet seals, especially in the version of their name written in French, which is the primary language of the country. [22] I note that the RPD appeared to rely on a statement in the research report at Tab 10.1 that fraudulent notices to appear are "insignificant" to support its finding that the notice to appear was likely not fraudulent. I disagree with this analysis. The research report quotes a lawyer who stated that "cases of fraudulent notices to appear are insignificant: when a notice to appear is fraudulent, an actual criminal procedure would never occur." The RPD appears to have read the word "insignificant" as meaning that fraudulent notices to appear are rare. In fact, when read in the context of the sentence, I find that the lawyer was instead saying that a proceeding that involves a fraudulent notice cannot occur. In other words, it is a nullity as the notice was not authentic. Indeed, the rest of the research report makes clear that citizens do produce fraudulent notices to appear for various purposes. [23] I find that the notice to appear submitted by XXXX XXXX XXXX was likely forged due to the irregularities in the document, when considered in the context of the information contained in the NDP for Cameroon. I find that XXXX XXXX XXXX submission of other fraudulent documents both in this proceeding and in support of his visa application only reinforces my conclusion that the notice to appear is also fraudulent. Omissions of sisters from list of family members [24] I agree with the Minister that the RPD erred in finding that XXXX XXXX XXXX had provided a satisfactory explanation for his failure to list his two sisters on his Basis of Claim form and his failure to indicate that one of his sisters had successfully applied for refugee protection in Canada. [25] The Minister filed evidence with the RPD indicating that XXXX XXXX XXXX had two sisters, one of whom had been accorded refugee protection in Canada based on a narrative that was similar to the one contained in XXXX XXXX XXXX Basis of Claim form. The other sister was living in the United States. When asked by the RPD why he omitted to mention his sisters on his Basis of Claim form, XXXX XXXX XXXX said that he did not understand the question on the form. He said he thought the question was asking only about family members who were involved in his story. He also said that his sister did not want him to name her on his form. XXXX XXXX XXXX also testified that he did not know about his sister's involvement in the SCNC before he arrived in Canada since he had been in boarding school. [26] I find that the RPD erred in accepting these explanations as reasonable. To begin, it is not a satisfactory or credible explanation to say that XXXX XXXX XXXX thought the question was only asking about family members who were involved in his story since he listed both of his parents on the form and the latter played little to no role in relation to the allegations of persecution made by XXXX XXXX XXXX. Second, I do not find it a satisfactory explanation for XXXX XXXX XXXX to say that one of his sisters did not want to be named as he was swearing to the truth of the contents of his form and did so again at the outset of the RPD hearing. This explanation also would not explain why he failed to mention the sister who is in the United States. Finally, even if it were true that XXXX XXXX XXXX did not know about his sister's involvement SCNC before he arrived in Canada, he had reunited with his sister in Canada for a full month by the time he submitted his Basis of Claim form in XXXX 2018.5 Further, even if he had not known her story before filling out his form (which I do not find credible), it does not satisfactorily explain his omission of his two sisters' names on his form. [27] I agree with the Minister that this omission negatively affects XXXX XXXX XXXX credibility. I note that the RPD member was prepared to overlook this omission on the basis of her view that it could only have assisted XXXX XXXX XXXX case that his sister successfully obtained refugee protection in Canada. This is not necessarily the case. For example, in this case, the Minister had raised concerns that XXXX XXXX XXXX sister had claimed refugee protection with an account of having been a member of the SCNC very similar to his. In my view, the omission by XXXX XXXX XXXX of his two sisters on his Basis of Claim form and especially his failure to indicate that one of his sisters had been accorded refugee protection in response to the question that specifically asks about this is significant and gives rise to a negative inference as to credibility in the circumstances of this case. Summary on credibility [28] For all of the above reasons, I find that the RPD erred in finding XXXX XXXX XXXX credible. I find that the above-mentioned credibility concerns are sufficient to rebut the presumption of truthfulness that applies in refugee cases. As a result, I find that XXXX XXXX XXXX has failed to credibly establish that, if he returns to Cameroon, he would face a serious possibility of persecution or the likelihood of serious harm for the reasons set out in his Basis of Claim form. Residual profile as an anglophone [29] Despite the fact that it was not argued by XXXX XXXX XXXX or his previous counsel, I have considered whether XXXX XXXX XXXX would face a serious possibility of persecution if he returns to Cameroon simply on the basis of his profile as an anglophone and/or as a member of the anglophone diaspora returning to Cameroon. I asked both counsel for the Minister and XXXX XXXX XXXX to address this issue at the RAD hearing. The Minister's counsel argued that XXXX XXXX XXXX being an anglophone and/or an anglophone member of the diaspora returning to Cameroon is insufficient to establish a serious possibility of persecution if he returns to that country. XXXX XXXX XXXX argued that he would likely be detained at the airport simply for being anglophone. [30] According to the objective evidence the population of Cameroon is approximately 27.7 million6 of which 22%, or roughly 6 million, are anglophones.7 The English-speaking regions in Cameroon "have long expressed a deep sense of linguistic and cultural discrimination that dates back to the abolition of federalism in 1972."8 In 2016, strikes, boycotts and closure of schools were initiated by the anglophone population as a form of protest. [31] In addition, the country condition evidence in the NDP for Cameroon indicates that the situation in Cameroon is volatile and deteriorating and that anglophones face discrimination and incidents of violence and their freedom of expression and assembly has been curtailed, as has their ability to access education.9 Overall, I do not find that the evidence establishes that the discrimination against anglophones in Cameroon by its nature or repetition amounts to the persecution of all of the over 6 million anglophones in Cameroon. [32] In my view, in each case, it is necessary to examine the particular profile of an anglophone claimant to determine whether they would face a serious possibility of persecution if they returned to Cameroon. Given that I did not find XXXX XXXX XXXX account of events credible, I do not find that he has established the kind of profile as an anglophone that would cause him a serious possibility of harm, mistreatment or arrest by the authorities who for the most part are targeting politically active anglophones who support the separatist movement. [33] As for the situation of anglophone members of the diaspora returning to Cameroon, there is mixed evidence in the NDP for Cameroon regarding the risk faced by such persons. A researcher quoted in the research report found at Tab 13.2 of the NDP for Cameroon stated that anglophones returning to Cameroon including failed asylum seekers, are not safe and may be imprisoned or fined unless they pay a bribe.10 However, various sources state that it is persons who are known supporters of separatism who are at risk upon returning to the country. For example, an International Crisis Group representative stated that those who are not known supporters of separatism can move in and out of Cameroon without any problems.11 Likewise, a report from the United Kingdom Home Office states that the available information does not indicate that the government has an adverse interest in all returning anglophones, but may have such an interest in those it perceives to support or to be linked to secessionist activities.12 [34] In this case, there was no evidence that XXXX XXXX XXXX had any problems leaving Cameroon. His family remains there and there was no evidence that they have encountered any problems amounting to persecution. In these circumstances, I find that there is insufficient evidence to establish a serious possibility that XXXX XXXX XXXX would be persecuted upon arrival in Cameroon on the basis that he is an anglophone member of the diaspora returning to the country. [35] Based on the foregoing, I find that there is insufficient objective evidence to establish that XXXX XXXX XXXX faces a serious possibility of persecution in Cameroon simply by virtue of that fact that he is an anglophone and/or a member of the anglophone diaspora returning to Cameroon. CONCLUSION [36] For the above reasons, I must grant the Minister's appeal and substitute a decision that XXXX XXXX XXXX is neither Convention refugee nor person in need of protection. (signed) Jo-Anne Pickel Jo-Anne Pickel December 17, 2020 Date JP/tm 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145 2 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), ss. 110(3) and 171(a.5). 3 The first three documents were included with the Minister's Appeal Memorandum (Exhibit M-1) and the final document was sent separately by fax on December 4, 2020 (Exhibit M-2). 4 Guven v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 38 at para. 38. 5 He testified that he saw his sister the day after arriving in August, 2018: audio-recording of RPD hearing 28:00. 6 Tab 1.3 of the NDP for Cameroon (September 30, 2020) at p. 2. 7 Tab 1.6 of the NDP for Cameroon (September 30, 2020) at p. 1. 8 Tab 1.8 of the NDP for Cameroon (September 30, 2020) at p. 6. 9 Tab 13.2 and 2.8 of the NDP for Cameroon (September 30, 2020). 10 Tab 13.2 of the NDP for Cameroon (September 30, 2020) at p. 12. 11 Tab 13.2 of the NDP for Cameroon (September 30, 2020) at p. 11. 12 Tab 13.7 of the NDP for Cameroon (September 30, 2020) at p. 9. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VB9-08372 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français 2 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 (January, 2020) Disponible en français