TB7-04448

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 : TB7-04448 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX) Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision November 17, 2017 Date de la décision Panel Robert Bebbington Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Jean Marie Vecina 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.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX, the Appellant), a citizen of the Philippines, appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting her claim for refugee protection. The Appellant asks that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the decision of the RPD and substitute a decision with its own determination that the Appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. In the alternative, the Appellant requests that the RAD refer the matter back to the RPD with a differently constituted panel. The Appellant has submitted new evidence with the appeal as referred to in subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)1 and requests an oral hearing be held pursuant to subsection 110(6) of the IRPA. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the RPD decision for reasons other than the reasons given by the RPD and dismisses the appeal. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant alleged before the RPD that she has a long history as an activist in various indigenous persons' issues over the years in the Philippines. The Appellant alleges that she is being targeted by the XXXX XXXX that act under the instruction of the Philippine President, Roberto Duterte. She reports that she has received threats and has seen people in various locations within the Philippines who she believes have been sent to kill her. She believes this is because of a XXXX who is a friend of the president, who has had disputes in the past with indigenous people and whom she has spoken out against. The Appellant, in fear for her life, left the Philippines and came to Canada to make a refugee claim. The Appellant's hearing for refugee protection was held on February 7, 2017 and an oral decision was rendered the same day. The RPD rejected the Appellant's claim finding that the Appellant had not rebutted the presumption of state protection. The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in drawing its credibility findings and in its treatment of the documentary evidence. ROLE OF THE RAD [4] The RAD finds that the Federal Court of Appeal's (FCA) decision in Huruglica,2 provides the RAD with guidance in relation to the appropriate standard that must be applied by a specialized tribunal, such as the RAD, to decisions of a first-level administrative tribunal. [5] The RAD concludes from its statutory analysis that, with respect to findings of fact (and mixed fact and law), the RAD is to review RPD decisions applying the correctness standard. Thus, after carefully considering the RPD's decision, the RAD carries out its own analysis of the record to determine whether, as submitted by the Appellant, the RPD erred. [6] The standard of intervention to be applied by the RAD in considering decisions has been further clarified with the decision of a three-member panel.3 The RAD notes that the decision of a three-member panel is binding on a single-member panel such as in the present case.4 [7] In accordance with that three-member panel the following standard of review will be applied: a. The RAD will normally apply a standard of correctness to all findings of the RPD. b. Where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in making a particular finding, the RAD may assess that finding using a standard of reasonableness, modified to apply to the RAD context. c. Where the RAD finds that deference is warranted, it is obligated to explain how the RPD enjoyed a meaningful advantage with respect to the finding in question. d. Where the RAD shows deference to a finding, it will nevertheless consider both the process and the outcome. The finding must be the result of a comprehensible reasoning process - the RAD must be able to read the RPD's decision and understand how the RPD's conclusion was reached. In considering the outcome, the RAD must assess whether the finding is based on the evidence in the record; in order to do so, the RAD must undertake an independent assessment of that evidence, which may include re-weighing the evidence as necessary. e. The RAD will consider the refugee determination on a standard of correctness, even where it has deferred to some or all of the findings upon which that determination is based. ADMISSIBILITY OF NEW EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON APPEAL [8] As provided for in subsection 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 refugee claimant. Subsection 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. [9] The Appellant has submitted ten items5 as proposed new evidence with the Appellant's Record. The Appellant submits that the proposed new evidence meets the test of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA because it arose after the refugee claims. [10] The RAD's analysis of the admissibility of the proposed new evidence must begin first with the test set out in subsection 110(4). While the RAD agrees with the Appellants that further analysis of the evidence is required before the RAD can accept the proposed new evidence, the analysis as set out in Raza6 is not entirely appropriate for the purpose of assessing evidence submitted to the RAD. In this regard, the RAD is guided by the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Singh.7 [11] In assessing whether the proposed new evidence meets the statutory provisions of subsection 110(4), the RAD considered the following: (a) First, did the evidence arise after the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim? Here, the RAD may consider whether the evidence is capable of proving the current state of affairs in the country of feared persecution, or an event that occurred or a circumstance that arose after the rejection of the refugee claim.8 i) The RAD will consider not only the date on which the document came into existence, but the timing of the event or circumstance which the document seeks to prove.9 For example, an affidavit or newspaper article may have been created after the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim, but the information in the document may be several years old, and the RAD may therefore find that the evidence did not arise after the rejection of the claim, despite the date of the document. ii) It is important to note here that subsection 110(4) does not contemplate whether the evidence arose after the RPD hearing, but rather after the rejection of the Appellant's claim. Where a document arose after the hearing but before the rejection of the refugee claim, it is necessary for the RAD to consider whether the Appellant could have presented the document to the RPD by way of a post-hearing submission. iii) If the evidence is capable of proving an event that occurred or circumstances that arose after the RPD hearing, then the evidence must be considered, and the RAD will proceed to assess the credibility and relevance of the document.10 (b) Second, if the RAD finds that the evidence did not arise after the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim, it must consider the next factor in subsection 110(4). If the evidence is capable of proving only an event that occurred or circumstances that arose prior to the rejection, has the Appellant established that the evidence was not reasonably available for presentation to the RPD before it rejected the claim,11 or that it proves a fact that was unknown to him at the time of the hearing?12 If so, the RAD will proceed to assess the newness, credibility and relevance of the evidence. (c) Third, if the RAD finds that the evidence did not arise after the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim, and that it was reasonably available at the time of the rejection, it must consider the final part of the subsection 110(4) test: could the Appellant reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented the evidence prior to the rejection of the refugee claim? If so, the evidence need not be considered.13 If the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected to present the evidence to the RPD, the RAD will proceed to assess the newness, credibility, and relevance of the evidence. [12] 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 appeal. The relevance of the evidence will be considered in the context of the assessment made under subsection 110(6) of the IRPA. [13] In respect to the Affidavit of XXXX XXXX and the five accompanying news articles relating to his affidavit,14 the RAD notes in its review of the new evidence that they arose following the rejection of the Appellant's claim by the RPD. The RAD finds that the affidavit and the articles are credible, relevant, and new, meeting the statutory requirements of subsection 110(4) and Raza. They will be admitted as new evidence in this appeal. [14] In respect to the article, "A Politician and an Ex-Hitman Take on Philippine Leader," published February 27, 2017,15 the RAD in its review of the new evidence notes that it arose following the rejection of the Appellant's claim by the RPD. The RAD finds the article is credible, relevant, and new, meeting the statutory requirements of subsection 110(4) and Raza. It will be admitted as new evidence in this appeal. [15] In respect to the Affidavit of XXXX XXXX,16 the RAD notes that the document was sworn on April 1, 2017. The RAD finds the document is credible, relevant, and new, meeting the statutory requirements of subsection 110(4) and Raza. It will be admitted as new evidence in this appeal. [16] In respect to the document, "Summary and Extrajudicial Killings in the Philippines,"17 the RAD notes that there is no publication date on the document. The RAD is unable to ascertain whether this document was published prior to the rejection of the Appellant's claim for refugee protection and it will not be admitted as new evidence in this appeal. [17] In respect to the HRD Memorial document, published March 13, 2017,18 the RAD in its review of the new evidence notes that it arose following the rejection of the Appellant's claim by the RPD. The RAD finds the article is credible, relevant, and new, meeting the statutory requirements of subsection 110(4) and Raza. It will be admitted as new evidence in this appeal. REQUEST FOR AN ORAL HEARING [18] According to subsection 110(6), upon which the Appellant relies, the RAD may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, there is documentary evidence referred to in subsection 110(3) that raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellant, that is central to the RPD's decision, and that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. In this appeal, where there is no evidence from or in response to the Minister, the documentary evidence referred to in subsection 110(3) must be understood in relation to subsection 110(4). [19] When read together, subsections 110(3), (4), and (6) establish that the RAD must not hold a hearing in an appeal such as this unless there is new (subsection 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. [20] The RAD in its review of the Affidavit of XXXX XXXX and the accompanying news articles,19 finds that the affidavit discusses the origins of the XXXX XXXX XXXX as well as its activities and ties to Roberto Duterte, previously the Mayor of Davao and now the President of the Philippines. The RAD notes that the Appellant alleges that the affidavit describes that the XXXX XXXX was also instructed to go after Duterte's political enemies. [21] The RAD has reviewed the affidavit as well as the accompanying articles on the same topic. The RAD was only able to find information that corroborated the death of a well-known radio personality, Jun Pala, who was openly critical of the actions of Duterte when he was the mayor, but no others. The RAD finds that as much as these documents confirm the existence of the XXXX XXXX, there was evidence relating to these activities before the RPD. The RAD finds that these documents do not provide any additional credible evidence to support the Appellant's allegations of harm. The RAD further finds that none of these documents provide any persuasive evidence to tie the President to the Appellant, nor does it identify XXXX XXXX as being associated with the XXXX XXXX. [22] The RAD notes that although this new evidence has been admitted in this appeal, it must proceed without a hearing. The RAD finds the article provides insufficient persuasive evidence to support or confirm the Appellant's risk of harm. Accordingly, the evidence lacks the materiality to justify either allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim, and, as such, it does not meet the requirements of 110(6). Each of the requirements in 110(6)(a) through (c) have to be met, and in this case the requirement in 110(6)(a, b and c) are not met. As such, the RAD has no discretion to hold a hearing based on this evidence. [23] The RAD in its review of the article, "A Politician and an Ex-Hitman Take on Philippine Leader,"20 notes that the article describes the issues confronting a former member of the XXXX XXXX XXXX during the time that Rodrigo Duterte was the mayor. The individual, XXXX XXXX, provided evidence at a senate inquiry into the activities of the XXXX XXXX and how it was directly controlled by the man who is now the President of the Philippines. The RAD finds that the article provides confirmation of evidence that was already before the RPD in reference to the activities of the XXXX XXXX. The RAD does find Mr. XXXX comments, that he finds it difficult to believe that the authorities are not investigating and coming after him, of interest. [24] The RAD notes that although this new evidence has been admitted in this appeal, it must proceed without a hearing. The RAD finds that the article provides insufficient persuasive evidence to support the Appellant's argument. The RAD finds that this evidence does not confirm the Appellant's risk of harm. Accordingly, the evidence lacks the materiality to justify either allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim, and, as such, it does not meet the requirements of 110(6). Each of the requirements in 110(6)(a) through (c) have to be met, and in this case the requirement in 110(6)(a, b and c) are not met. As such, the RAD has no discretion to hold a hearing based on this evidence. [25] The RAD in its review of the HRD Memorial document,21 notes that the article discusses a decision to involve the Armed Forces in the war on drugs in the Philippines and some of its implications for Human Rights Defenders and indigenous people in the Philippines. The article does not state when this decision was made, noting only that it was recent. The RAD finds that the article advances a number of opinions about the conflicts in the Mindanao area and the relationship between the New Peoples Army (NPA), an insurgent group, and the Philippine Armed Forces. The document states that the Armed Forces and others are using the current anti-crime climate in the Philippines as an excuse to carry out indiscriminate extrajudicial killing. The article further notes that these problems have existed for many years, but they had begun to decrease under the previous President. The article carries on to state that since the election of President Duterte, the killings are on the increase. The RAD notes that the article indicates that this increase is not a direct result of orders from the President, but has become the unfortunate result of the President's so called "war on drugs." The implication of the President's actions has led to a belief that murder is an acceptable way of dealing with certain social problems. The RAD further notes that the article does not provide persuasive evidence that the activities in this article are associated with the "XXXX XXXX" that the Appellant allegedly fears. [26] The RAD notes that the central element in the Appellant's claim is that she is unable to approach the authorities in the Philippines because she fears XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. The RAD finds that this article does not provide persuasive evidence to support the Appellant's allegations that she is unable to approach the authorities in the Philippines. [27] The RAD notes that although this new evidence has been admitted in this appeal, it must proceed without a hearing. The RAD finds the article provides insufficient persuasive evidence to support the Appellant's argument. Accordingly, the evidence lacks the materiality to justify either allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim, and, as such, it does not meet the requirements of 110(6). Each of the requirements in 110(6)(a) through (c) have to be met, and in this case the requirement in 110(6)(a, b and c) are not met. As such, the RAD has no discretion to hold a hearing based on this evidence. [28] In reviewing the affidavit from XXXX XXXX,22 the RAD notes that he states that four men on motorcycles inquired about the Appellant. He further stated that he did not report the incident to the police because he heard about the connection between the police and the XXXX XXXX through the news. He additionally noted that he is aware that the Appellant helped some victims from a rally in Kidapawan City where farmers were shot by policemen. [29] The RAD finds the affiant's statement is vague and simply indicates that men on motorcycles were asking whether the Appellant still frequented the area. He speculates that these men fit the description of XXXX XXXX members. The RAD finds that four men on motorcycles with handguns tucked in their waists could be any local group of thugs. The RAD finds that the affiant's subsequent statements are unclear as to what information he is attempting to relate. The RAD finds the affidavit is deserving of little evidentiary weight as support for the Appellant's allegations of harm in the Philippines. The RAD notes that although this new evidence has been admitted in this appeal, it must proceed without a hearing. The RAD finds the affidavit provides insufficient persuasive evidence to support the Appellant's allegations of harm. Accordingly, the evidence lacks the materiality to justify either allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim, and, as such, it does not meet the requirements of 110(6). Each of the requirements in 110(6)(a) through (c) have to be met, and in this case the requirement in 110(6)(b and c) are not met. As such, the RAD has no discretion to hold a hearing based on this evidence. [30] The Appellant has submitted admissible new evidence in support of her appeal. However, the RAD finds these documents lack the materiality to justify either allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. In addition, none of the documents submitted as new evidence in this appeal raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellant that is central to the RPD's decision, and that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. As such, they do not meet the requirements of 110(6). The RAD must proceed without a hearing on the basis of the RPD's record, and her application for an oral hearing is denied. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL [31] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in its assessment of: * the documentary evidence; * the credibility of the Appellant's fear of the agent of persecution; and, * the Appellant's ability to seek state protection in the Philippines. Background on the Philippines Indigenous People [32] As stated by Minority Rights Group International in their 2015 report: During 2014 the Philippines made significant progress towards concluding a 45-year Muslim minority struggle for self-determination that has claimed over 120,000 lives. In March, the Philippine government finalized a historic peace deal with the largest Muslim armed group, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), paving the way for the creation of an autonomous Mindanao region - also known as Bangsamoro - by 2016. [...] The Philippine Congress is currently considering a new law, known as the Bangsamoro Basic Law, which would formalize the terms of the peace agreement, including mechanisms for natural resource revenue-sharing and political devolution. However, indigenous peoples in Mindanao, known collectively as Lumads, have expressed concerns about the future of their ancestral domains. Some fear the new legislation could aggravate land conflicts and erode the rights of indigenous peoples. There are some 100,000 Lumads in the proposed Bangsamoro region, and they consider almost 300,000 hectares of land to be their ancestral domains.23 [33] The United States Department of State report notes: Although no specific laws discriminate against indigenous people, the geographical remoteness of the areas that many inhabit and cultural bias prevented their full integration into society. Indigenous children often suffered from lack of healthcare, education, and other basic services. NGOs estimated that up to 70 percent of indigenous youth either never attended school or left school because of discrimination. According to the NGO National Alliance of Indigenous Peoples Organizations in the Philippines, only a few of the country's government units complied with the long-standing legal requirement that indigenous persons be represented in policy-making bodies and local legislative councils. The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples [NCIP], a government agency staffed by tribal members, was responsible for implementing constitutional provisions to protect indigenous people. It has authority to award certificates identifying "ancestral domain lands" based on communal ownership, thereby stopping tribal leaders from selling the land. [34] The report goes on to state, "Indigenous persons suffered disproportionately from armed conflict, including by displacement from their homes, because they often inhabited mountainous areas favored by insurgents and other militants. Armed groups frequently recruited from indigenous populations." There were reports of forced recruitment of Lumads into the paramilitary group known as "Alamara," which is reportedly linked to the AFP, and harassment in the context of the continuing conflict between the AFP and the NPA. Indigenous peoples' lands were also often sites of armed encounters related to resource extraction or inter-tribal disputes.24 State Protection [35] The RPD found that the determinative issue in this claim was the availability of state protection for the Appellant. The Appellant submits that the RPD acknowledged that the XXXX XXXX exist in the Philippines; hence, the state is the alleged agent of persecution and she cannot be expected to approach the state for protection. The RAD has reviewed the record and finds that the Appellant's argument has merit. The RAD finds that it is unreasonable to expect that the Appellant, if she alleges the state is the agent of persecution, could approach the state for protection. [36] The RAD has considered whether this finding is sufficient to justify setting aside the decision. Notwithstanding this error made by the RPD, the RAD finds after its review and assessment of all of the evidence in the record that there are a number credibility findings made by the RPD which are sufficient to confirm the RPD's overall determination. The RAD finds that in accordance with the jurisprudence, it is open to the RAD to conduct its own analysis and consider the impact of her return to the Philippines and her risk should she return and continue to participate in activism associated with the Indigenous population. Are the Appellant's Allegations of Harm Credible? [37] The Appellant submits that she clearly identified her agents of persecution as XXXX XXXX (a friend of the Philippine president) and the XXXX XXXX(associated with the Philippine President) who kill political opponents of the Philippine president. Hence, it is impossible for her to approach the authorities for assistance. The Appellant further argues that her fear is supported by the documentary evidence. The RAD is not persuaded by the argument of the Appellant. [38] The Appellant alleges that her problems with being threatened in association with her work began as far back as 2008. She states in her Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative that these threats have escalated in the past few years and they became particularly noticeable in December 2014. The RAD notes that the Appellant in her testimony states that the individual she fears is XXXX XXXX. He is active in her native area of Mindanao. She alleges that her awareness of XXXX XXXX began while she was assisting indigenous people because the Pastor was allegedly perpetrating land grabs from the Indigenous groups. The Appellant has further alleged that the Pastor is close friends with Philippine President Duterte and that this places her at risk because the XXXX XXXX operate on his instructions. [39] The RAD notes that the Appellant's sole reason for not being able to access protection from any authorities throughout the Philippines is that she fears the "XXXX XXXX" run by the Philippine president. The RAD additionally notes that the president was elected to his post in May 2016 under a pledge to rid the country of organized crime, drugs and corruption.25 Prior to that time, Duterte was the mayor of Davao City in the Mindanao region. The RAD notes that the documentary evidence confirms that the Davao area is where the XXXX XXXX concept took its origins due to the following: * A legacy of violence linked to Mindanao's (the region where Davao is located) long history as a focal point for insurgencies and conflict; * The operations in Mindanao of local and international drug syndicates producing, marketing, and trans-shipping methamphetamine, which contribute to corruption and low morale among police and prosecutors in the area; and, * The influence of Davao City's long-time mayor, Rodrigo Duterte, who has been a vocal proponent of the use of violence to rid areas of common crime.26 [40] The RAD notes that the Appellant has provided evidence that she travelled extensively in the Philippines. The RPD noted for the Appellant that her statements and testimony indicated that the XXXX XXXX follow her everywhere and that according to her testimony they know where she is and they are seeking to kill her. The RPD subsequently asked the Appellant to explain, if her statements were correct, what additional risk she would face if she made a report to the authorities about her situation. The RAD finds that the Appellant was evasive in her response and did not address the question put to her. [41] The RAD, having reviewed the audio recording of the hearing, finds her response was an attempt to deflect the inquiry of the RPD. She subsequently stated that she left the island (Mindanao) and went to Manilla where they (XXXX XXXX XXXX) found her at a safe house. The RAD finds that a similar statement was made in her BOC narrative where she describes being found at the home of her niece.27 The Appellant described that beginning at 10:00pm a group of armed men on motorcycles began circling the home and continued to do so until midnight. The RAD notes that the Appellant's evidence clearly identifies the individuals as XXXX XXXX members. She further testified that they can and have found her wherever she goes. The RAD finds that if the Appellant's statements are to be believed, it is reasonable to expect, based on the Appellant's evidence as well as the documentary evidence, that the XXXX XXXX would have killed the Appellant during at least one of the instances. In considering that the Appellant has confirmed that this has occurred in multiple situations without harm, the RAD finds that if individuals are indeed following the Appellant, her allegations of harm are not credible. The RAD finds the Appellant's evidence, at best, indicates that their purpose would appear to be for harassment or intimidation. The RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant's testimony that the agents of persecution are seeking to kill her is not credible. The RAD finds that this aspect of the Appellant's argument fails. The Appellant's Activism [42] The RAD finds in reviewing the Appellant's evidence associated with her human rights activism that: * She has worked for many years (over 30, as stated by her sister, who is the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX) as a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX28 * She has been a XXXX and a XXXX at a number of forums and events on peace initiatives in respect to the XXXX XXXX of the Mindanao region.29 * She describes in her narrative that she worked to XXXX XXXX during times of conflict in her native region between the New People's Army (NPA - a rebel group) and the military, who were allegedly supported by XXXX XXXX private militia. The fighting isolated and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX during the fighting. * As described in one of her supporting letters,30 the Appellant was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that sought to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that had long been forgotten. The author comments on how the Appellant's efforts led to persuading the government to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. * The RAD notes that her statements to the media31 reflect her role in making people more aware of the problems facing the XXXX XXXX and protecting their rights, but they do not reflect an aggressive or inflammatory approach. The RAD has reviewed the documentary evidence submitted by the Appellant and notes that there is little direct evidence of the Appellant speaking out against the President or XXXX XXXX. * In her XXXX, she has touched the hearts and enlightened the minds of XXXX and other XXXX. * She has lobbied for the XXXX XXXX with others, including congressmen and senators for the revision of bills on the XXXX XXXX. She is described as a dedicated XXXX, XXXX and XXXX.32 [43] The RAD finds that the Appellant's evidence confirms that she has been active as an advocate for XXXX XXXX, but it indicates that she is a low key individual who goes about her XXXX activities in a non-confrontational manner. The RAD finds the evidence indicates that the Appellant works much of the time in the background alongside others. No persuasive evidence was adduced to confirm that she holds a formal, high-visibility, leadership role associated with XXXX XXXX in a similar manner to her sister, who heads up a XXXX XXXX seeking to implement laws and provide assistance to protect the XXXX XXXX. [44] The Appellant submits that her personal documentary evidence supports her association with her allegations of harm. The RAD has reviewed the evidence in the record. The RAD notes that a number of the support letters the Appellant has submitted in evidence make mention of events or occurrences identified by the Appellant in her BOC narrative or her testimony. For example, the letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX a XXXX from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,33 describes some of the problems or experiences the Appellant alleges, such as "strangers visiting" the temporary shelters the Appellant used, strangers visiting her sister's home, and strangers inquiring about her in Manilla. The author carries on to speculate about the Appellant's problems with "a local religious leader." The author does not identify how he is aware of these facts and the RAD can only assume it is through self-reporting from the Appellant. The RAD finds the author's conclusion, "Indeed, some people are in active pursuit of Beting [the Appellant], and probably for some unkind reason," confirms that no one knows the identity of the Appellant's agents of fear and that they can only speculate as to their identity. The RAD finds in its review of these documents, that the statements are based on second-hand evidence or self-reporting by the Appellant. The RAD further finds that there is no persuasive documentary evidence which confirms she has a significant profile that may be of concern to her alleged agents of persecution. In addition, the RAD finds that there is no persuasive documentary evidence which confirms the Appellant has had any confrontation with the individuals she has alleged are her agents of persecution. The Appellant's Sister [45] The Appellant's sister, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, an individual with a government position of high profile in respect to the problems faced by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, provided a support letter.34 The RPD found that the support letter did not identify any of the problems allegedly faced by the Appellant and that this detracted from the allegations of harm. The Appellant submits that her explanation, that her sister was unwilling to state this in a letter because of her position within the government and her sister's fear for her own life, was sufficient. The RAD is not persuaded by the argument of the Appellant. [46] The RAD has reviewed the record as well as the Appellant's testimony. The RAD notes that the record indicates: * The Appellant's sister is centrally involved in similar issues faced by the Appellant. * The Appellant's evidence does not provide any indication that the Appellant's sister, in her high profile position, faces any of the problems described by the Appellant. * There are statements in the record that the Appellant's sister's home has been visited by "unfriendly personalities."35 [47] The RAD has considered the Appellant's argument that the documentary evidence she has submitted supports her allegations. The RAD has addressed some of this evidence previously. The RAD finds in its review that the support letters from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,36 the letter from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX),37 the letter from XXXX,38 the letter from XXXX XXXX39 and the letter from XXXX XXXX,40 do identify some of the issues the Appellant has faced. The RAD further finds that these letters indicate that they have "heard" or they "know" about these issues, but the authors do not confirm how they became aware of the information or the source of the information. The RAD finds that the letters are grounded in a recitation of hearsay evidence or evidence that has been related by the Appellant. The RAD finds this aspect of the Appellant's argument must fail. [48] The RAD finds it makes little sense that the Appellant's sister's letter does not mention the Appellant's allegations or any other problems that she and the Appellant have allegedly encountered. The RAD finds that the Appellant's explanation, that her sister fears for her job over the Appellant's alleged life threatening problems, does not address the inconsistencies between the letter and other evidence in the record. The RAD finds the support letter from the Appellant's sister detracts from the credibility of the Appellant's allegations of harm. The RAD supports the finding of the RPD and the Appellant's argument must fail. The Documentary Evidence [49] The RPD found that the majority of the documentary evidence presented in support of the claim regarding the XXXX XXXX and the recent increase in their activity, are grounded in the Philippine President's war on drugs, and that the documents had little relevance to the Appellant's claim. The Appellant submits that the RPD misapprehended the documentary evidence and that it supports the Appellant's fear of her agents of persecution. The RAD is not persuaded by the arguments of the Appellant. [50] The RAD finds, as did the RPD, in its review of the documentation in respect of the so called XXXX XXXX, that the majority of their actions are focused on activities surrounding the drug trade, organized crime and criminality in general. The Appellant's new evidence clearly reiterates this statement.41 The RAD finds that as much as there is some limited evidence in the record that the Philippine president, while he was the Mayor of Davao, targeted one of his detractors, these types of action are not the dominant ones when compared to the remaining evidence in respect to the XXXX XXXX. [51] The RAD finds in its review of the documentary evidence that statements indicate that the "XXXX XXXX" followed President Duterte and spread nation-wide following his election.42 The RAD finds that the Appellant's testimony and statements in her BOC narrative confirm that her problems pre-date the President's election. The RAD finds that the documentary evidence43 provides support for the claim that President Duterte has been involved in ordering extrajudicial killings of one of his political opponents. The RAD finds that beyond the Appellant's allegation that the Philippine President and XXXX XXXX are friends, there is no persuasive evidence in the record that President Duterte and the Appellant have had any contact, let alone a confrontation or that he is aware that she exists. The RAD finds the Appellant's allegation that she fears the "XXXX XXXX" working for the President is based on speculation. [52] The RAD additionally notes that its review of the documentary evidence which addresses the XXXX XXXX, provides no persuasive evidence of extrajudicial killings being performed on behalf of friends of the President such as XXXX XXXX XXXX The RAD further finds that the documentary evidence provides no persuasive linkage between the Appellant and XXXX XXXX beyond the commonality that they may have opposing viewpoints on issues concerning the indigenous peoples of Mindanao. The RAD finds that the Appellant's fear of her alleged agents of persecution is based solely on speculation. [53] The RAD further notes that when it reviews the Appellant's evidence in respect to two individuals who have spoken out about the XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX44 and XXXX XXXX,45 it is evident that these two individuals have approached the authorities with condemning information against the President and his role in the XXXX XXXX on separate occasions, which has led to ongoing investigations. The RAD notes that the Appellant's own evidence confirms that these individuals have faced hardship, but that they are being protected and telling their story to the authorities as well as the public. The Appellant alleges that she is unable to go to the authorities in the Philippines because she believes they will turn information about her over to the XXXX XXXX. The RAD finds it reasonable to believe that if two individuals who were active participants in the XXXX XXXX can come forward with evidence of interest to the authorities in the Philippines, then the Appellant's allegations of risk in bringing her concerns to the authorities is not supported by the evidence. [54] The RAD finds the Appellant's argument, that the RPD misapprehended the documentary evidence and that the evidence supports the Appellant's fear of her agents of persecution, is not supported by the evidence in the record. The RAD finds the Appellant's argument must fail. Summary [55] The RAD in considering the Appellant's allegations of harm finds: * The Appellant's profile does not align itself with that of those who are sought out by the XXXX XXXX. * There is insufficient persuasive documentary evidence to support the Appellant's allegations of risk of harm associated with President Duterte and XXXX XXXX. * The Appellant's allegations of pursuit by the XXXX XXXX in the Philippines are not credible. [56] Accordingly, the RAD finds that the Appellant has not satisfied her burden of establishing that there is a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or that, on a balance of probabilities, she would be personally subjected to a risk to life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture. CONCLUSION [57] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD for reasons other than the reasons given by the RPD and dismisses the appeal. (signed) "Robert Bebbington" Robert Bebbington November 17, 2017 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c. 27. 2 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 3 X (Re), 2017 CanLII 33034 (CA IRB). 4 Subsection 171(c), Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c. 27. 5 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 390-449. 6 Raza, Syed Masood v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-11-07), Linden, Sharlow, Ryer, December 6, 2007, 2007 FCA 385. 7 M.C.I v. Singh, Parminder. (F.C.A., no. A-512-14), Nadon, Gauthier, de Montigny, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 96. 8 Raza, 2007 FCA 385, para. 13.3(a). 9 Raza, 2007 FCA 385, para. 16. 10 Raza, 2007 FCA 385, para. 13.5(b). 11 Raza, 2007 FCA 385, para. 13.5(a). 12 Raza, 2007 FCA 385, para. 13.3(b). 13 Raza, 2007 FCA 385, para. 13.5(a). 14 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 390-423. 15 Ibid, at pp. 440-443. 16 Ibid. at pp. 447-449. 17 Ibid, at pp. 425-434. 18 Ibid, at pp. 435-439. 19 Ibid, at pp. 390-423. 20 Ibid, at pp. 440-443. 21 Ibid, at pp. 435-439. 22 Ibid, at pp. 447-449. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for the Philippines, April 29, 2016, Item 13.1, Philippines. State of the World's Minorities and Indigenous Peoples 2015: Events of 2014, Minority Rights Group International (2 July 2015), at p. 159. 24 Ibid, Item 2.1, Philippines. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2015, United States. Department of State (13 April 2016). 25 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 441. 26 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for the Philippines, April 29, 2016, Item 10.2, "One Shot to the Head": XXXXX XXXXX Killings in Tagum City, Philippines, Human Rights Watch (21 May 2014). 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 30. 28 Ibid, at p. 149. 29 Ibid, at pp. 182-190, 191-192, 193-195, 196-197, 212. 30 Ibid, at pp. 150-151. 31 Ibid, at pp. 180-181, 185. 32 Ibid, at p. 213. 33 Ibid, at pp. 212-214. 34 Ibid, at p. 149. 35 Ibid, at pp. 212-214. 36 Ibid, at p. 207. 37 Ibid, at p. 209-210. 38 Ibid, at p. 211. 39 Ibid, at pp. 212-214. 40 Ibid, at pp. 215-217. 41 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 442. 42 Ibid, pp. 390-423. 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid, at pp. 390-423. 45 Ibid, at pp. 440-443. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB7-04448