MB7-05169

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 File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB7-05169 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Appellant Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Appelant Respondent XXXX XXXX XXXX, a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX Intimée Appeal considered at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of decision March 19, 2019 Date de la décision Panel Me Alain Bissonnette Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Me Suzanne Taffot Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister Me Gabriele Spina Conseil du ministre REASONS AND DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is appealing against the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) concerning the respondent1 and is submitting that the RPD should have ruled and found that there was no credible basis for the refugee protection claim.2 The Refugee Appeal Division dismisses the appeal. ANALYSIS OF THE APPEAL [2] The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) reviews RPD decisions by applying the correctness standard of review after conducting its own analysis of the record. The exception to this rule is where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in assessing credibility.3 That said, the RAD's role is not to carry out a de novo consideration of refugee protection claims, but rather, to determine whether, as the appellant claims, the RPD erred.4 [3] Subsection 107(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) applies to the RPD, not the RAD. When the RPD rejects a refugee protection claim, it must state in its reasons for decision that there is no credible basis if it is of the opinion that there was no credible or trustworthy evidence on which it could have made a favourable decision. In its decision, the RPD rejected the refugee protection claim but did not rule on the issue of no credible basis. The Minister submitted that it should have done so because he asked it to and because, based on the evidence on the record, there was no credible or trustworthy evidence on which the RPD could base itself to grant the respondent refugee status. In my opinion, this argument is without merit. [4] It is well established that, if there is any credible or trustworthy evidence that could support a refugee protection claim, the RPD cannot find that the claim has no credible basis.5 A distinction must be made between a refugee protection claimant's lack of credibility and the lack of a credible basis for the claim, as the threshold for a no credible basis finding is high.6 [5] In this case, although the Minister asked the RPD to find that there was no credible basis for the refugee protection claim, the RPD did not rule on this issue. The Minister faults it for not having done so. In my opinion, the lack of such grounds is not sufficient to set aside the determination of the RPD. In this refugee protection claim, there was other evidence in addition to the respondent's testimony alone.7 The RPD is presumed to have considered all of the evidence. Having assessed all of the evidence, the RPD was able to simply find that the threshold for finding that there was no credible basis for the refugee protection claim had not been reached. I do not see how this constitutes an error on its part. CONCLUSION [6] For these reasons, I determine that the RPD did not err in not ruling on the issue of a lack of credible basis for the respondent's refugee protection claim. [7] The appeal is dismissed. Alain Bissonnette Me Alain Bissonnette March 19, 2019 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 RPD Reasons and Decision, March 22, 2017, pages 3 to 17 of the Appeal Book. 2 Appellant's memorandum, May 26, 2017, pages 19 to 22 of the Appeal Book. 3 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, No. A-470-14, Gauthier, Webb and Near, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 93. Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-2645-17, Diner, November 14, 2018; 2018 FC 1145. 4 Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Gebrewold, No. IMM-4058-17, LeBlanc, April 6, 2018; 2018 FC 374, paragraph 25. Dahal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-330-17, Crampton, December 4, 2017; 2017 FC 1102, paragraphs 30 and 31. 5 Mohamed v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-2178-16, LeBlanc, June 15, 2017; 2017 FC 598, paragraph 1. 6 Moïse v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-3192-18, LeBlanc, January 22, 2019; 2019 FC 93, paragraphs 12 and 13. 7 Chen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-7999-14, Zinn, October 5, 2015; 2015 FC 1133, paragraph 17. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB4-02904 RAD.28.07 (2015.06.02) Disponible en français RAD File No. / No de dossier e la SAR : MB7-05169 2