TB5-02066

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. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-02066 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Redetermination of the Appeal Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision February 9, 2017 Date de la décision Panel S.S. Kular Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Solomon Orjiwuru Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Cameroon, appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. [2] The Appellant asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to grant the appeal and find him to be a Convention refugee and a person in need of protection. In the alternative, the Appellant asks the RAD to refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel. This is a de novo appeal. [3] The Appellant has submitted new evidence pursuant to section 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA or Act);1 the Appellant is also requesting an oral hearing pursuant to section 110(6) of the IRPA. [4] The Minister is not intervening in the appeal. DETERMINATION [5] Pursuant to section 111(1)(b) of the IRPA, the RAD substitutes its decision for that of the RPD and determines that the Appellant is a Convention refugee. This appeal is allowed. BACKGROUND/ALLEGATIONS [6] The Appellant alleged that due to his membership in the Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC) and his activities in support of the SCNC and thus his political opinion, he would be persecuted upon return to Cameroon. The Appellant's Basis of Claim (BoC) Form narrative2 sets out the details regarding his allegations. The Appellant provided additional details at the RPD hearing. [7] The Appellant came to Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2014, and filed his claim for refugee protection at an inland office of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. The Appellant's claim was heard at the RPD on December 30, 2014. In a decision of February 16, 2015, the RPD rejected his claim. [8] The RPD rejected the Appellant's claim on credibility and a lack of subjective fear. The RPD determined that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee, nor a person in need of protection. [9] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in its assessment of his credibility. ADMISSIBILITY OF NEW EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON APPEAL [10] As provided for in section 110(3) of the IRPA, with certain exceptions, the RAD must proceed without a hearing, on the basis of the record of the proceedings of the RPD, and may accept documentary evidence and written submissions from the Minister and the refugee claimant. Section 110(4) of the IRPA provides that the person who is the subject of the appeal may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or that was not reasonably available, or that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. [11] The Appellant submitted following documents as his new evidence pursuant to section 110(4) of the IRPA: a) Letter from the SCNC dated March 9, 2015;3 b) Affidavit of Appellant's father, XXXX XXXX XXXX dated March 5, 2015;4 c) Police reporting undertaking for XXXX XXXX XXXX dated January 22, 2015;5 d) Criminal Summons for XXXX XXXX XXXX dated January 20, 2015;6 and e) Criminal Summons for XXXX XXXX XXXX dated January 5, 2015.7 [12] The RAD Rule 3(3)(g)(iii) directs applicants to include an explanation of how the documentary evidence submitted to the RAD meets the requirements of section 110(4) of the IRPA and how that evidence relates to the them. The Appellant has provided an explanation as to why his new evidence should be admitted at the RAD.8 [13] The RAD's analysis of the admissibility of the proposed new evidence must begin first with the test set out in section 110(4) of the IRPA. If the requirements of section 110(4) are met, further analysis of the evidence is required before the RAD can accept the proposed new evidence. In that regard, the RAD is guided by the analysis as set out in Raza. Although Raza is not entirely appropriate for the purpose of assessing evidence submitted to the RAD, the RAD is guided by the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Singh. Accordingly, the RAD has adopted the analysis in Raza to the assessment of evidence submitted to the RAD. [14] If the proposed new evidence meets the tests set out in the statutory requirements and in Raza, the evidence will be admitted as evidence in the RAD appeal. The materiality of the evidence will be considered in the context of the assessment of the evidence made under section 110(6) of the IRPA. [15] The RAD finds that the Appellant's proposed new evidence meets the statutory requirements and the tests set out in Raza. All of the Appellant's new evidence is dated past the Appellant's RPD hearing. Two of the five documents are dated past the rejection of his claim, the other three documents are dated prior to the rejection of his claim. These documents describe some events that took place after the Appellant's hearing and/or the rejection of his claim. The RAD finds that the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented this evidence at the RPD prior to his hearing, or at the rejection of his claim. The RAD finds these documents to be relevant to the Appellant's allegations; moreover, the RAD finds no apparent reason to question the integrity of the documents. Based on the above, the RAD accepts the Appellant's new evidence. ORAL HEARING AT THE RAD [16] The Appellant requests that the RAD hold a hearing pursuant to section 110(6) of the Act. Section 110(3) of the IRPA requires that the RAD proceed without a hearing, on the basis of the RPD's record, while allowing the RAD to accept documentary evidence and submissions from the Minister and the Appellant. The person who is the subject of the appeal may, pursuant to section 110(4), "present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or that was not reasonably available, or that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection." [17] When read together, sections 110(3), 110(4), and 110(6) of the IRPA establish that the RAD must not hold a hearing in an appeal unless there is new (section 110(4)) evidence, in which case the RAD may hold a hearing if that new evidence raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellant, is central to the RPD's decision, and that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. [18] The Appellant has submitted new evidence to the RAD, and the RAD has accepted the Appellant's new evidence. The RAD finds that the Appellant's new evidence accepted at the RAD does not raise a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellant, and is not central to the RPD's decision such that this new evidence, in and of itself, would justify allowing or rejecting the Appellant's refugee protection claim. Therefore, the RAD proceeds without a hearing. ROLE OF THE RAD [19] The Canadian jurisprudence provides guidance in relation to the appropriate standard that must be applied by a specialized tribunal such as the RAD to decisions of the RPD, a first-level administrative tribunal. [20] On March 29, 2016, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) in Huruglica9 provided guidance on how the RAD is to properly approach its review of the RPD's findings of fact or of mixed fact and law which involve no issue of credibility of oral evidence. The Court held that the task of the RAD is to determine whether or not the RPD was wrong in law, fact or in mixed fact and law, in the context of the legislation. "Wrong" means "not true", "incorrect" or "mistaken", all of which "definitively points to the standard of correctness." [21] In closing, Justice Gauthier wrote: I conclude from my statutory analysis that with respect to findings of fact (and mixed fact and law) such as the one involved here, which raised no issue of credibility of oral evidence, the RAD is to review RPD decisions applying the correctness standard. Thus, after carefully considering the RPD decision, the RAD carries out its own analysis of the record to determine whether, as submitted by the appellants, the RPD erred. Having done this, the RAD is to provide a final determination, either by confirming the RPD decision or setting it aside and substituting its own determination of the merits of the refugee claim. It is only when the RAD is of the opinion that it cannot provide such a final determination without hearing the oral evidence presented to the RPD that the matter can be referred back to the RPD for redetermination. No other interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions is reasonable.10 [22] Regarding the credibility of the oral evidence heard by the RPD, Justice Gauthier stated that the provisions of the IRPA, particularly with respect to paragraph 111(2)(b) concerning the question of when the RAD may refer a matter back to the RPD for redetermination, do acknowledge the fact that: "...[In] some cases where oral testimony is critical or determinative in the opinion of the RAD, the RAD may not be in a position to confirm or substitute its own determination to that of the RPD."11 [23] Further, in a conclusion that may be obiter in the circumstances of Huruglica where the credibility of oral evidence was not an issue, the FCA found: This also recognizes that there may be cases where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage over the RAD in making findings of fact or mixed fact and law, because they require an assessment of the credibility or weight to be given to the oral evidence it hears. It further indicates that although the RAD should sometimes exercise a degree of restraint before substituting its own determination, the issue of whether the circumstances warrant such restraint ought to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. In each case, the RAD ought to determine whether the RPD truly benefited from an advantageous position, and if so, whether the RAD can nevertheless make a final decision in respect of the refugee claim.12 [24] Accordingly, the RAD will conduct its own assessment of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the RPD erred in its determination. The RAD will determine the appeal either by confirming the RPD's decision or setting it aside and substituting its own determination of the merits of the refugee claim. It is only when the RAD is of the opinion that it cannot provide such a final determination without hearing the oral evidence presented to the RPD, that the matter will be referred back to the RPD for redetermination. The RAD will afford deference to the credibility findings of the RPD or to other findings only where the RPD has a particular advantage in reaching its conclusions. The extent of this deference will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and that being dependent upon the particular circumstances of the matter and in conjunction with the RAD's own analysis of the record as a whole. [25] In conducting its own independent assessment and making the determination in this appeal, the RAD considered the entirety of the evidence submitted/adduced in this case, including the recording of the RPD's proceedings, and the Appellant's Appeal Record. ANALYSIS [26] Based on the totality of the evidence submitted/adduced in this case, the RAD accepts that the Appellant is a citizen of Cameroon. [27] The Appellant alleged that he would be persecuted upon return to Cameroon because of his identity as a Southern Cameroonian and political activist in support of the SCNC. The RPD found the Appellant not to be a credible witness because of discrepancies in his evidence and a lack of subjective fear. [28] In its own independent assessment of the totality of the evidence in this case, the RAD finds that the Appellant provided satisfactory explanation for the apparent discrepancies in his evidence. The RAD finds the Appellant to be a credible witness for the following reasons. Appellant's departure from the airport [29] The RPD asked the Appellant how he was able to leave from the airport, having been previously arrested by the authorities. The Appellant testified that he was assisted by a police officer. The Appellant's evidence13 is that his uncle had arranged for the police officer to assist the Appellant to flee Cameroon. The police officer came with the Appellant's uncle to pick up the Appellant; thereafter, all of them went to the airport together. The police officer accompanied the Appellant through the airport check points up until the Appellant was aboard the plane. The RPD asked the Appellant if he knew the police officer's name, the Appellant testified that he did not know the police officer's name, and that he did not ask the police officer for his name. The RPD found the Appellant not credible in that the Appellant "would not even know the name of the police officer who would have saved him by assisting his departure from Cameroon, especially considering that that they had spent several hours together."14 The RPD also did not find it credible that the Appellant would have been accompanied by a police officer from another town into the airport in order to facilitate his departure.15 In reviewing the RPD's "Reasons for Decision", the RAD finds that the RPD provided no reasons why it made this finding. Moreover, the RPD concluded that the Appellant's "credibility is undermined by these implausibilities."16 [30] The RAD finds that the RPD is entitled to make reasonable findings based on implausibility, common sense and rationality, and it may reject evidence if it is not consistent with the probabilities affecting the case as a whole.17 Where the RPD finds a lack of credibility based on inferences concerning the plausibility of evidence, there must be a basis in the evidence to support such inferences.18 In this case, the RAD finds there is no significant evidentiary foundation for the RPD's plausibility findings. [31] In its own independent review and assessment of the evidence in this case, the RAD finds it reasonable to expect the Appellant not to have known the police officer's name. The Appellant's evidence shows that the Appellant was in hiding at the time, he was on his way to fleeing the country of persecution, the police officer was arranged by his uncle, and the Appellant was picked up by his uncle with the police officer already in the car at time. In the circumstances, the RAD finds it reasonable that the Appellant did not ask the police officer for his name, and thus did not know the name of the police officer. Therefore, the RAD does not concur with the RPD in its above-mentioned implausibility findings. Appellant's employment letter [32] The RPD found that the discrepancy in the Appellant's evidence relating to the date when he started his employment seriously undermined his credibility.19 The employment letter20 submitted at the RPD at the time of the hearing stated that the Appellant started his employment in 2013; however, he testified that he started his employment in November 2011. The Appellant testified that he did notice the wrong date on the document when he first received it, and had thereafter requested the same document with the correct date. He testified that he received the letter21 with the correct date; however, did not realize that he had given his lawyer the letter with the wrong date on it. The Appellant later submitted the document with the correct date after the hearing. [33] The RPD did not find the Appellant's explanation for the discrepancy satisfactory. The RPD found that the Appellant did not provide explanation at the time he was confronted with the discrepancy, and that it was only after the mid-hearing break that the Appellant came up with an explanation.22 Further, the RPD's "Reasons for Decision" state, "..., the panel does not understand how the 'correct version' could have been sent to him on the same day, in his inbox, as the document he presented is an original, printed with blank ink and the logo in colour, and bears a red stamp and a signature in blue ink."23 The RPD concluded that the explanation given by the Appellant and "sudden apparition of an original document, post-hearing, seriously undermines his credibility. The Panel believes, on the balance of probabilities, that the document presented was forged."24 [34] The Appellant submits that the RPD "misstated and or misapprehended" the Appellant's evidence.25 [35] In reviewing the recording of the RPD's proceedings, the RAD finds the Appellant's evidence is that he noticed the error the same day he received the document and requested that it be corrected. The RAD is not clear whether the Appellant's reference to "the same day" is to him having realized the error and/or as to when he requested the error to be corrected. Regardless, the Appellant's testimony does not show that the Appellant testified that he received the corrected version of the letter the same day he requested it. Therefore, the RAD does not concur with the RPD in its adverse credibility finding relating to the Appellant's employment letter for the reasons given, which the RAD find to be in error. Letter from the lawyer [36] Due to discrepancies within the Appellant's evidence relating to him having or not having a lawyer represent him in Cameroon, and the errors in the lawyer's letter itself, the RPD gave the lawyer's letter26 very little weight. [37] The Appellant submits that the information in the lawyer's letter is consistent with the Appellant's evidence that he personally did not hire the lawyer. Further, the Appellant submits that the errors in the lawyer's letter that the RPD cited are typographical errors.27 In this respect, the Appellant submits that "the RPD was merely microscopic in its analysis of the Appellant's evidence."28 [38] In reviewing the evidence in this case, the RAD concurs with the Appellant that the errors in the lawyer's letter are typographical and that the RPD is being microscopic in its analysis in this regard. Moreover, the RAD finds that the information in the lawyer's letter is consistent with the Appellant's other evidence. Therefore, the RAD finds the RPD's findings in this respect to be not meritorious, and thus these do not detract from the Appellant's credibility. Appellant's profile, including his membership in the SCNC [39] The Appellant submitted a membership card29 and a reference letter from the SCNC.30 The RPD gave the membership card no weight because of various discrepancies pertaining to the information on the card.31 For example, the RPD found that the card has black and white picture of Appellant stapled to it with no further security features. The RPD also found that the red stamp was of poor quality, and the symbol in the middle, i.e., the bird, was missing details. Further, the RPD found that the red stamp bears traces of black ink on the sides. In this respect, the RAD finds that the RPD is microscopic in its analysis, and is being speculative since it makes no reference to any documentary evidence showing what the actual, i.e., the authentic SCNC stamp, would look like. The RPD takes further issue with the SCNC card because it mentions that the members pledge to fight, if need be, and that the Appellant testified at the RPD that SCNC was non-violent. The Appellant submits that "[pledge] to fight" in any organization does not necessarily mean violence or use of force. The Appellant further adds that SCNC motto clearly confirms this when it says "force of argument, not argument of force". Relating to the above, the RAD agrees with the Appellant.32 [40] In this respect, the RAD refers to the documentary evidence which states: The SCNC describes itself as a non-violent movement (27 June 2012). Freedom House and Amnesty International also state that the SCNC is "non-violent" (Freedom House 2013, AI 2010). The US Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2012 indicates that the SCNC has organized protests (US 19 Apr. 2013, 19). Media sources state that the SCNC has created petitions (Africa Review 25 Nov. 2012; The Punch 26 Nov. 2012). Media sources also state that the SCNC has started introducing identity cards in the Northwest and Southwest Regions, of which 10,000 have already been distributed (ibid.; Africa Review 25 Nov. 2012).33 [41] The RPD also found the Appellant's signature on the SCNC card to be slightly different from how they appeared on his BoC Form.34 The RAD reviews the Appellant's signatures on other documents on the record. For example, the Appellant's signatures in some of the other documents35 look more like his signature on his SCNC card than in his BoC Form; and the Appellant's signature on his passport36 looks different from those on his SCNC card and the BoC Form. In this respect, the RAD finds the RPD to be overzealous and microscopic in its analysis. The RAD does not concur with the RPD's analysis and finding relating to the Appellant's signature on his SCNC card. [42] Relating to the SCNC card, the RPD stated that the objective documentary evidence shows that the SCNC cards are issued by the Secretariat, and that the original card presented by the Appellant made no reference to the Secretariat.37 The Appellant submits that there is no such reference in the documentary evidence relating to the SCNC card.38 In reviewing the documentary evidence on the record, the RAD agrees with the Appellant. The RAD finds that the RPD misquoted the reference, and thus made an error of fact. [43] The RAD finds that the RPD was microscopic and analyzed individual components of the content of the SCNC card out of context, and without citing reference to any objective documentary evidence showing how the authentic SCNC card ought to look like and/or what information ought to be on an authentic SCNC card. Relating to the above, the RAD finds the RPD's findings to be untenable. [44] Based on the above, the RAD finds that the RPD erred in its analysis relating to the SCNC card. The RAD accepts the Appellant's SCNC card in support of him being a member of the SCNC since 2011. [45] The RPD gave the reference letter from the SCNC minimal weight because the RPD found the Appellant's other documents to be fraudulent,39 which the RAD does not accept. The RAD finds no significant reasons to find the Appellant's above-mentioned documents to be fraudulent. The RAD finds that the Appellant's above documents corroborate his allegations forwarded in support of his claim. Appellant's medical certificate [46] The RPD also found issues with the Appellant's medical certificate40 from Cameroon, mainly in the French parts of the document.41 In reviewing the RPD's "Reasons for Decision", the RAD finds the RPD to be microscopic in its analysis once again. Therefore, the RAD does not agree with the RPD's findings in this respect either. Appellant's delay in leaving Cameroon and delay in claiming after arrival in Canada [47] The RPD also found that the Appellant showed a lack of subjective fear due to his one-month delay in leaving his country of persecution after having obtained a visa to Canada, and his delay in claiming refugee protection after his arrival in Canada.42 [48] The Appellant was released from detention on XXXX XXXX, 2014. The Appellant received his visa to come to Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2014.43 The Appellant arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2014.44 He testified that he approached the authorities to file his claim on October 3, 2014. [49] Delay in leaving the country if a claimant alleges he or she had reason to fear persecution there normally calls into question the credibility of the fear. When a claim is based on a number of discriminatory or harassing incidents which culminate in an event which forces a person to leave his country, the Federal Court has warned that it is problematic to consider delay to be indicative of an absence of subjective fear. The delay in making a claim to refugee status is not a decisive factor in itself. It is, however, a relevant element which the tribunal may take into account in assessing both the statements and the actions and deeds of a claimant. Case law has been consistent in saying that delay in making a claim to refugee status is not in itself determinative. The delay is, nonetheless, a relevant, and potentially important consideration. Therefore, the RAD finds that it was open to the RPD to consider the Appellant's delay in leaving Cameroon, and delay in claiming after arriving in Canada. [50] In consideration of the totality of the evidence in this case, including the Appellant's explanations, the RAD finds that the Appellant's delay in leaving Cameroon after having obtained a visa to Canada and delay in claiming after arriving in Canada is not egregious. The RAD finds that it does not outweigh the Appellant's overwhelming evidence in support of his allegations that he would be persecuted upon return to Cameroon, in his particular situation and circumstances. [51] Based on the above analysis, the RAD finds the Appellant to be credible in that he was a registered member of the SCNC, and relating to his allegations of persecution upon return to Cameroon. The Appellant became a formal member of the SCNP in December 20, 2011. In reviewing the Appellant's new evidence, the RAD finds that his new evidence further supports his allegations of persecution upon return to Cameroon. The RAD finds that the evidence admitted at the RAD shows the authorities' continued interest in the Appellant and therefore supports the Appellant's fear of persecution upon return to Cameroon as alleged. The RAD finds the Appellant to be credible overall. [52] The RAD also reviews the country conditions in Cameroon in the context of the Appellant's particular situation and circumstances. [53] The documentary evidence shows: SCNC is a secessionist movement established in the 1990s. Specifically, it is said to have grown out of a 1993 movement known as the All Anglophone Conference (ACC). SCNC is not a registered political party, nor is it a militant organization advocating for a military solution to the Southern Cameroon problem. It is considered an illegal organization in Cameroon. Membership in this organization is limited to Southern Cameroonians.45 [54] The documentary evidence adds: A review of the limited literature available on SCNC and the other organizations leads to three mutually inclusive points: First, the groups and their members, particularly people in leadership positions, have been subjected to persecution by government authorities including mass detentions and killings. Second, the persecutions that they suffered at the hands of the Cameroon government authorities early on drove many leaders of SCNC and other similar organizations into exile. Third, the groups, particularly SCNC, have been marred by increasing internal divisions and a lack of vision, which have caused internal fragmentation. The most notable example is the split of SCYL from SCNC. As a result, it appears from the information available that the groups have lost momentum and are becoming less of a concern to the Cameroon government, giving the government fewer reasons to target their members.... Reports indicate that Cameroon authorities have a history of persecuting members of SCNC. For instance in 1997, the Cameroon government blamed the group for attacks made on government installations that claimed the lives of government officials in parts of Southern Cameroons. The government instituted a crackdown in which it arrested over fifty people, many of whom were subjected to torture, starvation, rape, and lengthy detentions. Many died. This forced most of the leaders of the organization to flee the country to avoid persecution. The confrontation with the government is said to have reached its peak in the late 1990s and early 2000s. At the end of 1999, some alleged members of SCNC took control of a radio station and broadcast a declaration of independence of Southern Cameroons. In April 2000, some of the members of the group raised the stakes by naming Frederick Ebong Alobwede the first president of the Federal Republic of Southern Cameroons. These actions increased the risk of a government crackdown. Police began indiscriminately rounding up and detaining people on suspicion of their membership in SCNC. Members of SCNC reported various forms of harassment and institutional discrimination they suffered at the hands of the government, ranging from denial of access to schools and jobs, to detention and criminal trials in military courts, to killings-most notably an incident in December 2002 in which the government authorities are said to have killed six Southern Cameroonians who were celebrating their self-declared "Independence Day." More recently, harassment of SCNC and SCYL members by government authorities appears to have dramatically decreased both in scale and frequency. Harassment, although it exists, appears to be geared more towards disrupting meetings and group activities than being punitive in nature; the government typically conducts raids and temporarily detains members of the group around the time it celebrates its "Independence Day." Other than these types of disruptions, the groups are reported as being largely tolerated in Cameroon. In addition, government actions appear to be limited to individuals in leadership positions and "mere membership, involvement with, or perceived involvement in the SCNC or the SCYL" no longer appears to be cause for being targeted by government authorities. One United Nations source indicated that activists from these groups have not served jail terms since 2001. This decrease in government harassment could be attributed to the diminishing influence of the various groups, including SCNC, in large part due to crippling internal divisions. The increasing militancy of certain factions within SCNC caused a rift among the leaders of SCNC in the late 1990s and early 2000s. An illustrative example is the public feud between two top SCNC executives-Henry Fossung, the group's leader, and a fellow member, Esuka Ndoki Mukete-following the above-mentioned independence proclamation and demonstrations that followed in which Fossung publicly admonished Mukete for provoking violence for an illegal campaign. The internal divisions eventually led to the fragmentation of SCNC into at least four factions under the leadership of [Frederick Alobwede] Ebong, who was the chairman of the High Command Council of SCNC in 1999; Nfor Ngala Nfor and Ayamba [Ette Otun]; [Henry] Fossung; and Ebenezer Akwanga, the leader of the Southern Cameroons Youth League (SCYL). There continues to be infighting and a constant power struggle among various personalities within the organization aspiring to lead the different factions. The questions that divide the movements (and the factions within them) advocating for self-determination of the Southern Cameroons go much deeper than tactical issues and individual power struggles. The two parts of Southern Cameroons, Southwest Province and Northwest Province, mistrust one another and hold animosities that go back to the colonial era. The various active groups apparently also have differing views on what their goals should be and how to achieve them, including whether they should be pushing for total independence from Cameroon or for the restoration of the federal arrangement that existed before 1972 and whether they should pursue their goals through a peaceful means or armed struggle. There are divisions even within the camp advocating for the reinstatement of the federal arrangement on questions of whether to go back to the two-state system of the pre-1972 structure or whether there should be further decentralization. All of these divisions have contributed towards weakening the unity and effectiveness of these groups. Geographic distance is another challenge. Many leaders of the organizations, including SCNC's leaders, left the country in self-imposed exile in the 1990s at the height of the groups' confrontations with the government. As discussed below, the leader of SCYL and many SCNC leaders continue to live abroad. Their involvement with Cameroon is by and large limited to the Internet through the various websites they run from abroad. Nonetheless, they do strive to make the best of their situation by taking their case to regional and international forums in an attempt to gain visibility. For instance, SCNC in 2002 instituted a case before the Nigerian Federal High Court in Abuja to, among others things, compel the Nigerian government to bring the Southern Cameroons case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as well as the United Nations General Assembly. Another example is the group's case before the Banjul based African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. Yet another notable example is the admission of the group into the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization in 2005.46 [55] The documentary evidence also states: AI reports the "harassment" of SCNC members and indicates that they are denied the right to "freedom of association" (Jan. 2013, 1). The US Country Reports for the years 2010 to 2013 indicate that "[a]uthorities refused to grant the SCNC permission to hold rallies and meetings" (US 27 Feb. 2014, 16; ibid. 19 Apr. 2013, 18; ibid. 24 May 2012, 18; ibid. 8 Apr. 2011, 20). AI indicates that meetings in both public and private properties are prohibited (Jan. 2013, 23). Sources report the disruption of SCNC meetings by authorities (SCNC 8 Aug. 2013; US 27 Feb. 2014, 17). Country Reports 2013 reports that such disruptions are a result of a law prohibiting secessionist organizations and deeming meetings of such organizations "illegal" (ibid.). According to AI, "[d]uring discussions with Amnesty International in August 2010, various government officials, including government ministers, claimed that SCNC members were not persecuted or denied the right to express their views. However, when the organization pressed them on complaints by SCNC that they were constantly harassed, arrested, detained and prosecuted for holding meetings, the authorities responded that this was because the party was not legally constituted or recognized. During the discussions, the officials said that the existence of the SCNC was a violation of Cameroon's Constitution which prohibits any organization that espoused secessionist views and that there was no prospect of such views ever being accepted or the party ever attaining legal recognition in Cameroon. (Jan. 2013, 22)."47 [56] Based on the review and independent assessment of the totality of the evidence submitted/adduced in this case, including the totality of the Appellant's documentary evidence at the RPD and the new evidence admitted at the RAD, the RAD finds that the determinative issue in this case is whether the Appellant's allegations of persecution and risk of harm upon return to Cameroon are credible in the context of country conditions in Cameroon, in his particular situation and circumstances and those of similarly-situated persons. [57] In reviewing the totality of the evidence in this case, including the recording of the RPD proceedings, the Appellant's Record, and all of the evidence that was admitted at the RAD, the RAD finds that the Appellant has provided sufficient reliable and satisfactory evidence to show that he, in his particular situation and circumstances, would face persecution at the hands of Cameroonian authorities because of his political opinion. [58] The RAD finds that the specific documentary evidence quoted above is still part of the Board's current national Documentation Package (April 29, 2016) and thus valid even today. The RAD concludes that the preponderance of the documentary evidence in this case shows that Southern Cameroonians in general and SCNC members and supporters in particular face discrimination, harassment and violence in Cameroon, and that the Cameroonian authorities have detained Southern Cameroonians political leaders, journalists and activists as part of its operations against the SCNC members. [59] Based on the above analysis and reasons, and in consideration of the Appellant's cumulative situation and circumstances, i.e., his Southern Cameroonian ethnicity and his political opinion, the RAD finds that there is a serious possibility that the Appellant would be persecuted upon return to Cameroon. [60] Given that the RAD finds the Appellant to be credible and accepts his identity as a Southern Cameroonian and political activist in support of the SCNC, and moreover, in consideration of the country documentation which clearly demonstrates ill treatment of SCNC political activists by the authorities in Cameroon, the RAD finds that the Appellant has established a well-founded fear of persecution upon return to Cameroon. DISPOSITION [61] Pursuant to section 111(1)(b) of the IRPA, the RAD substitutes its decision for that of the RPD and determines that the Appellant is a Convention refugee as per section 96 of the IRPA. [62] This appeal is allowed. (signed) "S.S. Kular" S.S. Kular February 9, 2017 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, last amended on February 6, 2014. [the "Act" or "IRPA"] 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 2, at pp. 12-26. 3 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 58-59. 4 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 60-62. 5 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 63. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 64. 7 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 65. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 80-84, paras. 54-67. 9 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 10 Huruglica, supra, footnote 9, at para. 103. 11 Huruglica, supra, footnote 9, at para. 69. 12 Huruglica, supra, footnote 9, at para. 70. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 106-109, and the Appellant's testimony at the RPD. 14 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 4, paras. 7-8. 15 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 4, para. 8. 16 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 4, para. 8. 17 Numbi, Gaston Kipa v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-92-12), Boivin, August 30, 2012, 2012 FC 1037, at 19. 18 Miral, Stefnie Dinisha v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3392-97), Muldoon, February 12, 1999. 19 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 4-5, paras. 9-11. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 110. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 113, submitted post-hearing. 22 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 5, para. 11. 23 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 5, para. 11. 24 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 5, para. 11. 25 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 71, para. 17. 26 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 108-109. 27 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 72, paras. 21-24. 28 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 72, para. 24. 29 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 95-96. 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 103. 31 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 6-7, paras. 13-14. 32 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 74, para. 32. 33 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Cameroon (April 30, 2014), item 4.10, p.3. 34 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 6-7, para. 14. 35 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 28, 35, 38, 39, 43, and 45. 36 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 49. 37 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 6-7, para. 14. 38 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 73-74, paras. 27-31. 39 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 7, paras. 15. 40 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 104. 41 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 7-8, para. 17. 42 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 8-10, paras. 20-24. 43 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 51. 44 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 51. 45 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Cameroon (April 30, 2014), item NDP item 4.9, at p. 5. 46 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Cameroon (April 30, 2014), item 4.9, at pp. 2-8. 47 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Cameroon (April 30, 2014), item 4.10, at pp. 4-5. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.28. 07 (June, 2015) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-02066