VC0-00250

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VC0-00250 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX) Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision October 9, 2020 Date de la décision Panel T. Card Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Michael Embaie Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX (the "Appellant") is a citizen of Ethiopia. He is appealing a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection on the basis he was not credible. DETERMINATION [2] The Appeal is dismissed. BACKGROUND AND ALLEGATIONS [3] The Appellant is a citizen of Ethiopia. The Appellant left Ethiopia in 1999 after he and his family faced deportation because of his family's connection to Eritrea. The Appellant fled to the United States (US) where he made a refugee claim. His US claim was rejected in 2003, but the Appellant continued to stay in the US. [4] In 2019, the Appellant travelled to Canada and made a refugee claim. The Appellant was not represented at the RPD Hearing. The RPD rejected the Appellant's claim on the basis he was found not to be credible, and there is insufficient objective evidence to show that someone with the Appellant's profile, as someone with Eritrean heritage, would face a serious possibility of persecution if he was returned to Ethiopia. ADMISSIBILITY OF APPELLANT'S EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ON APPEAL [5] In support of this appeal, the Appellant proposed the admission of the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Ethiopia version 31 January 2020. Specific reference was made to the Austrian Red Cross Report on Ethiopia dated November 2019, which is Item 1.8 in that NDP. [6] I am required to consider the latest NDP, which is now version 30 June 2020, and includes this same item. As a result, the proposed document already forms part of the record which I need to consider, and a formal application is not required. [7] No other proposed new evidence was submitted. NO ORAL HEARING [8] As an oral hearing can only be held where there is new evidence that has been admitted under s.110(4) Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)1, and since there is no new evidence in this case, no oral hearing is required. ISSUES IN APPEAL [9] The Appellant argued the following issues in his appeal: (a) The Appellant was not represented at the RPD hearing. He "found the process of the hearing cumbersome and overwhelming"2 and did not know how to present his case properly. (b) The Appellant believed that his mother had died but did not know how to explain or present this situation. (c) The Appellant argues that XXXX XXXX is his Facebook friend and not his brother as found by the RPD. [10] I find the following issues to be determinative: (a) Credibility. (b) Whether there was a breach in procedural fairness or natural justice, as a result of the Appellant being unrepresented at the RPD hearing. (c) Whether the Appellant would face a serious possibility of persecution in Ethiopia due to his Eritrean heritage. ANALYSIS [11] I have conducted an independent analysis of the evidence concerned, including reviewing the RPD hearing, as well as considering the Appellant's Memorandum,3 the RPD Decision,4 and the Appellant's Basis of Claim (BOC) form5 amongst other documents. Lack of representation does not excuse or explain credibility problems [12] Much of the Appellant's appeal argues that his credibility issues were due to him not being represented at the RPD. I do not concur. While claimants and appellants have a right to seek representation, it is not a requirement that they be represented. [13] In reviewing the evidence and the RPD hearing audio, I could find no error in how the RPD conducted the hearing bearing in mind the Appellant was unrepresented. The Appellant signed and confirmed his application forms, including the BOC, and orally confirmed they were complete, true, and correct. The RPD Member explained the process and gave the Appellant ample opportunity to explain his case. An interpreter was present and interpreted. There was no indication that the Appellant and interpreter did not understand each other, and I heard nothing to indicate a lack of understanding. The Appellant was also given an opportunity to provide submissions at the end. [14] After reviewing the evidence and the hearing record, I can find no evidence of a breach in procedural fairness or natural justice as a result of the Appellant being unrepresented at the RPD stage. [15] In respect of the credibility problems, I note that the Appellant's testimony frequently evolved, such as whether or not he had any family in Canada. This changed from no, to yes, he had a half-sister. The relationship of whether or not this half-sister was on the Appellant's mother's or father's side also changed. [16] The omissions of these relationships from the Appellant's BOC6 is also troubling, and making mention of them in the narrative is not enough, especially given the explicit instructions on where to name each relative, including half siblings. The BOC is meant to be a true and complete account. If it is not complete, it then throws into doubt, as mentioned by the RPD Member, about what other defects exist in the BOC. This renders its reliability, along with the Appellant's evidence, as questionable. [17] The main point of the Appellant's story is that his family members were allegedly deported from Ethiopia and never seen again. If the establishment on who his family members were cannot be made due to these contradictions and credibility issues, it throws the entire account into doubt. [18] I find the RPD did not err in its analysis of the Appellant's evidence and its adverse credibility findings on these issues, and uphold these findings accordingly. Appellant does not face a serious possibility of persecution for his Eritrean ethnicity [19] The other central issue is whether the Appellant has a residual risk profile as someone with Eritrean ethnicity if he is returned to Ethiopia. The RPD had found that he did not, on the basis that since 2003, Ethiopia introduced laws "...regularizing the status and position of Ethiopians with Eritrean heritage and subsequent to these laws, harassment and discrimination diminished. (CITATION OMITTED)."7 The Appellant has not addressed these findings in his memorandum. [20] Reference has been made by the Appellant to an excerpt from the Austrian Red Cross Report8 in which ethnic conflicts exist in Ethiopia. However, I note that the conflicts refer to other ethnic groups including the Oromo, Amhara and Somalis in Ethiopia. Eritreans are not mentioned. [21] I also note the Appellant's testimony about the risk to him because of his race: RPD MEMBER (RPD): And so, what do you think would happen to you personally? APPELLANT (A): Because everybody in Ethiopia now is divided along ethnic lines. I don't know where to put myself. RPD: And so, what would that mean for you in...in Ethiopia? A: It is a very dangerous situation and there is no guarantee of law and security and there is nobody who can stand for human protection. RPD: And so why would your situation be different from other people's situation in Ethiopia? A: Because the people Oromo is with Oromo, Tigray is with Tigray, Amhara is with Amhara, and I don't know where to put myself.9 [22] Twice, the Appellant states that his problems would arise from not belonging to any of the major ethnic groups in Ethiopia. However, this would seem to indicate that the Appellant would not be a target of any of these ethnic groups, as they would be more interested in each other than any smaller groups like those with the Appellant's background. [23] The Appellant has alleged that he fears deportation from Ethiopia and other persecution because of his Eritrean background. However, I find there is insufficient evidence either from the Appellant himself or in the NDP to show this to be the case. It is for the Appellant to establish his case and he has not done so. [24] I therefore find that the RPD did not err in finding, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant would face a serious possibility of persecution if he was returned to Ethiopia. I uphold the RPD's findings. CONCLUSION [25] Overall, I find on a balance of probabilities that there was no breach of procedural fairness or natural justice. I also find that the RPD did not err in finding the Appellant not credible, and that he would not face a serious possibility of persecution if he were returned to Ethiopia. [26] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, I confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a refugee nor a person in need of protection. [27] The appeal is dismissed. (signed) T. Card T. Card 9 October 2020 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. 2 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, Page 11. 3 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, Pages 5-13. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, Pages 3-8. 5 Ibid., Exhibit 2, Pages 10-20. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, Page 16, Question 5. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision, Page 7, Paragraph 9. 8 National Documentation Package, Ethiopia, 30 June 2020, Item 1.8: ?Ethiopia: COI Compilation. Austrian Red Cross. Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation. November 2019. Also Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Pages 19-21. 9 RPD Hearing Audio, 27 December 2019 at 0:25:43 - 0:28:01. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VC0-00250 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