TB7-07215

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 : TB7-07215 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision July 28, 2017 Date de la décision Panel Robert Bebbington Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Ram Sankaran 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 (Appellant), a citizen of Ethiopia, appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting his 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 Section 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)1 and requests an oral hearing be held pursuant to Section 110(6) of the IRPA. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to Section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD and dismisses the appeal. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant alleged before the RPD that he will face continued political persecution if he is returned to Ethiopia for his anti-government opinion and activities. The Appellant alleges that he finished high-school in 2010, following he attended XXXX XXXX University completing a degree in computer sciences. The Appellant then started work for the Oromia Region, as their website administrator. The Appellant alleges that he does not support the current government's policies towards the Oromo people. [4] He was approached on XXXX XXXX, 2015 by government security agents, where he was allegedly taken and interrogated regarding his politics and was released. Later, he attended an Oromo people protest in XXXX town organized by the Oromo Federalist Congress (OFC) party. He was jailed in XXXX XXXX, 2016 after the violent dispersal of the protest by the Ethiopian authorities. He was detained in XXXX Prison until XXXX XXXX, 2016. [5] The Appellant alleges that he was tortured to confess to crimes. He was forced to sign a statement, agreeing that he was involved in the protests and politics and was released from prison. He was to report to the police station in Addis Ababa. He then travelled to XXXX in southern Ethiopia in order to make his way illegally to Kenya. Through a smuggler he was able to obtain a Canadian passport which was not genuine. He submits that he flew on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016 from Nairobi, via London, before arriving in Calgary on XXXX XXXX, 2016. The Appellant made his claim for refugee protection on March 22, 2016. [6] The Appellant's hearing for refugee protection was held on November 3, 2016. In a decision of November 8, 2016, the RPD rejected the Appellant's claim finding that the Appellant was not credible and he had not established his identity. ROLE OF THE RAD [7] The RAD finds that the Federal Court of Appeal's 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. [8] 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. [9] 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 [10] 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 [11] 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 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. [12] The Appellant has submitted a letter from XXXX XXXX University5 as proposed new evidence with the Appellant's Record. [13] The Appellant submits that the proposed new evidence meets the test of Section 110(4) of the IRPA because it arose after the refugee claim. [14] The RAD's analysis of the admissibility of the proposed new evidence must begin first with the test set out in Section 110(4). While the RAD agrees with the Appellant 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 [15] In assessing whether the proposed new evidence meets the statutory provisions of Section 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 Section 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 Section 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 Section 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. [16] If the proposed new evidence meets the tests set out in the statutory requirements and in Raza,14 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 Section 110(6) of the IRPA. [17] The RAD notes in its review of the new evidence that it arose following the rejection of the Appellant's claim by the RPD. The Appellant submits this evidence is capable of proving his identity as a national of Ethiopia. The Appellant further submits the evidence was not available to him until after the rejection of his claim because he needed to grant his sister a limited power of attorney and he did not complete this process until March 2017. The Appellant further states that he owed the university money and he needed time to gather some money to begin payment of his debt and he was unable to do this until after is decision was made by the RPD. The RAD finds the letter is credible, relevant, and new and meets the statutory requirements of Section 110(4) and Raza.15. It will be admitted as new evidence in this appeal. REQUEST FOR AN ORAL HEARING [18] According to Section 110(6), upon which the Appellant relies, the RAD may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, there is documentary evidence referred to in 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 Section 110(3) must be understood in relation to Section 110(4). [19] When read together, Sections 110(3), (4), and (6) establish that the RAD must not hold a hearing in an appeal such as this 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. [20] The RAD has reviewed the letter dated July 24, 2014,16 submitted as new evidence and notes it confirms that an individual with the Appellant's name attended the university and graduated with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Computer Science. The RAD notes the letter does not provide persuasive information to confirm: * The national identity of the individual named in the document; * Residency in Ethiopia; * The dates of attendance for his studies; * The date of his graduation; * Where his study took place. [21] The RAD finds the document submitted as new evidence can be given little weight as support for the Appellant's identity as a national of Ethiopia. The RAD notes that although new evidence has been admitted in this appeal it must proceed without a hearing. The RAD finds the document provides insufficient persuasive evidence to support the Appellant's national identity. 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. RULE 29 Application to Submit Documents Not Previously Provided [22] On June 23, 2017 the Appellant filed an application to tender documents not previously tendered. In the application, the Appellant submitted a document which he argues establishes his identity. The Appellant has submitted the following documents with his application: a) An affidavit of the Appellant;17 b) An original Ethiopian ID card and a letter from an interpreter regarding the Appellant's ID card.18 [23] The Appellant's argument for the submission of all of these documents rests largely on its submission that the Identity Card was unavailable to him at the time of the RPD hearing. The RAD has considered these documents, pursuant to the factors in Rule 29(4). Section 29(4) of the RAD Rules states that: (4) In deciding whether to allow an application, the Division must consider any relevant factors, including (a) the document's relevance and probative value; (b) any new evidence the document brings to the appeal; and (c) whether the person who is the subject of the appeal, with reasonable effort, could have provided the document or written submissions with the appellant's record, respondent's record or reply record. [24] The RAD has considered the Identity card submitted in evidence. The RAD finds the explanation that the card was not available to him is an acceptable explanation of why the document was not available for submission with his Appellant Record. The RAD finds that it addresses identity findings made by the RPD. The RAD finds the document meets the basic requirements of Rule 29 and notes it must go on to consider the factors in 110 (4) of the IRPA. [25] The RAD's further analysis of the admissibility of the proposed new evidence must begin first with the test set out in Section 110(4). The RAD finds that the analysis as set out in Raza19 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.20 [26] Accordingly, the RAD has adapted the analysis in Raza21 to the assessment of evidence submitted to the RAD as described previously in this decision [27] The RAD has reviewed the record as well as the audio recording of the hearing. It has considered that the lack of an Ethiopian Identity card was addressed during the RPD hearing. The RAD notes the Appellant has submitted that upon the issuing of the RPD decision in his claim, he sought to obtain additional identity documents to establish his identity as a national of Ethiopia. The RAD finds the Appellant's explanation is reasonable and concludes date of issue of the Ethiopian Identity card indicates it did arise following the issuing of the RPD reasons. [28] The RAD finds the document meets the requirements of both Rule 29(4) of the RAD rules and Section 110(4) of the IRPA. The RAD will proceed to assess the newness, credibility, and relevance of the evidence. [29] The RAD notes the Appellant submits in his affidavit22 accompanying the Rule 29 evidence that he grew up in XXXX and moved to Addis Ababa at a young age. He further states that he did not apply for the card when he was eighteen because it was not mandatory and he lived in rented accommodation. The RAD notes this explanation differs from his testimony provided before the RPD where he stated he was too young to obtain the card when he resided in Ethiopia. [30] The RAD notes that the documentary evidence states: Information posted on the website of the government of Ethiopia indicates that there are nine national regional states in Ethiopia and two administrative states (or chartered cities); Addis Ababa City administration is one of the two administrative states. The same source indicates that the national regional states and administrative states are further divided into approximately 800 woredas [districts] and 15,000 kebeles [neighbourhoods]23 The evidence carries on to note: [i]dentity cards are issued by 'kebeles' ["neighbourhoods or wards"] to those eighteen and older, and by schools to students. [emphasis added]24 ... Similarly, according to information last updated on its website on 22 July 2011, the Addis Ababa Government Acts and Civil Status Document Registration Office is responsible for registering residents of the city and issuing them resident ID cards, which are provided to residents at the woreda level.25 "All residents of Addis Ababa over the age of 18 must carry a "resident ID card" that "describes the owner of the card in terms of name, gender, domicile, ethnicity, date of birth, identification number and the like".26 [31] The RAD notes the Appellant has submitted new evidence27 that indicates he attended university in XXXX XXXX. The RAD finds that the documentary evidence clearly states that the resident identity card is required for students.28 The RAD notes that the Appellant testified that he did not have a resident identity card when he was in Ethiopia because he was too young when he lived there. The RAD notes the record confirms the Appellant last resided in Addis Ababa and worked in a government occupation when he was 23 years old. The RAD finds the statements by the Appellant are inconsistent with the documentary evidence and are not credible. Further, the RAD finds his statements undermine the credibility of his evidence submitted under Rule 29. [32] In reference to the document submitted as new evidence for consideration under Rule 29, the RAD notes: 1) The card submitted in evidence does not contain any identification indicating it is a "Kebele or as the newer designation states "Woreda" card, as described in the documentary evidence.29 The document submitted simply indicates it is a "Residence Identification Card". 2) The card is issued on April 2017 in XXXX and allegedly received by the Appellant in late April 2017. Despite the recent issuing of the document, it does not appear with features of a new document as it has a number of small folds and abrasions. 3) The Appellant has not listed XXXX as a residence in his Basis of Claim (BOC) document or in his Schedule A document30 completed when he made his application for refugee protection. The RAD notes that the Appellant submitted a Birth Certificate31 in his evidence presented before the RPD. The RAD notes the birth certificate shows, "Addis Ababa" as his place of birth. It does not make mention of XXXX. 4) The Appellant's BOC narrative makes reference to an aunt in XXXX, but he does not describe having resided there personally. [33] The RAD finds it makes little sense that he would be issued a residency card in 2017 at a location that he has not established that he resided in, when the documentary evidence confirms the Appellant should have been issued a Kebele or Woreda card at age eighteen and if not then he would certainly have been issued one when he attended university if he was indeed an Ethiopian national. [34] Upon review of the Residence Identification Card,32 the RAD notes the following structural issues: 1) The document is not complete. The sections in respect to his "address", "occupation" and "house number" have been left blank; 2) The "back or second side" of the document is blank at the location of the signature of the "signing authority" as well as the signature of the holder of the card. The document clearly states, "This identification card is not valid if it does not bear the legal seal and the signature of the authority" [emphasis added]; 3) The RAD further notes the photograph overlies information that is entered on the card in three locations the National Identity, the last number of the date of birth, and an unknown (and untranslated) entry behind the photograph; 4) The RAD notes on the enlarged copy of the document submitted by the Appellant33 - the ink stamp is offset in the area bordering the photograph. The RAD finds this could indicate the photograph has been removed or replaced or the stamp was applied to the photograph and the document at different times; 5) The seal on the document is incomplete (bottom 1/3 is missing). The RAD notes the purpose of a stamp is to "seal" the document to attest to its genuineness and as a means to demonstrate that it has not been altered or tampered with. The multiple inconsistencies in the structure of the stamp on the document submitted by the Appellant undermines the integrity of the stamp and as a result, the credibility of the document itself; 6) The Photograph on the document is affixed with a piece of "rolled tape" tape, whereas in samples of documents in the country documentation it appears they are affixed to the document with staples. The RAD has addressed the inconsistencies associated with the "stamp" on the document above. The RAD further finds the securing of a photograph to a government issued document in this manner is not credible as it opens the document up to fraudulent manipulation of the photograph; 7) The document is hand filled, the information contained in the document could have been entered by anyone. [35] The RAD notes this is a straightforward document that could be copied and reproduced on a personal computer by an individual with basic word processing skills. The RAD finds it reasonable to believe that a document that serves as a primary identity document issued by a government office would not contain the structural inconsistencies described above. The RAD finds these inconsistencies further detract from the credibility of the document. The RAD additionally notes the Appellant has previously submitted fraudulent documents in his quest for refugee protection. The Federal Court has stated that submitting a false or irregular document may have an impact on the weight assigned to other documents provided by the claimant, especially when they are interrelated,34 and on the overall credibility of a claimant.35 [36] The RAD finds the Appellant through his oral testimony and actions has indicated he is not averse to obtaining and utilizing fraudulent documents. The RAD has assessed the document and finds in considering the previous concerns surrounding the genuineness of the Appellant's Birth Certificate, the RAD finds that the credibility of this document is also undermined. The RAD finds in its consideration of the credibility concerns surrounding this document as well as the multiple structural inconsistencies in the document on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant has submitted a fraudulent document as evidence in his Rule 29 Application. [37] The RAD finds that as much the document meets the requirements of Rule 29 and Section 110(4) of the IRPA, the document is lacking in credibility as set out in Raza36 and it will not be admitted as new evidence in this appeal. REQUEST FOR AN ORAL HEARING [38] According to Section 110(6), upon which the Appellant relies, the RAD may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, there is documentary evidence referred to in Section 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 Section 110(3) must be understood in relation to Section 110(4). [39] When read together, Sections 110(3), (4), and (6) establish that the RAD must not hold a hearing in an appeal such as this 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. [40] The RAD has found that the Appellant's new evidence submitted in his Rule 29 application is not admissible. As such, the RAD must proceed without a hearing on the basis of the RPD's record, and his application for an oral hearing is denied. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL Uncontested Findings [41] In addition to the foregoing the RPD drew adverse credibility findings which the Appellant has not contested. The RPD drew an adverse credibility finding which arose from: 1) The finding that the copy of the Appellant's Birth Certificate was not a genuine document. The document was analyzed by the Canada Border Service Agency (CBSA) Regional Document Examiner. In the examination of the document, the characteristics of the birth certificate submitted by the claimant were not associated with genuine document of a similar type. The Appellant in his submissions in this appeal confirmed that the document may very well be an irregularly issued or even a fraudulent card. [42] The RAD has reviewed this finding and finds that it is absent of any error and that they are supported by the evidence in the record. The RAD further finds that the submission of a fraudulent document, especially a primary identity document significantly undermines the credibility of the Appellant's other documents submitted in evidence. The RAD is supported in this finding by the Federal Court where they state: Submitting a false or irregular document may have an impact on the weight assigned to other documents provided by the claimant, especially when they are interrelated37, and on the overall credibility of a claimant.38 [43] After considering the evidence, relevant documents and statutory provisions and case law, the RAD finds that the Appellant has knowingly submitted a false identity document. Accordingly the RAD finds that the Appellant is not a credible witness. Given the magnitude of the misrepresentation regarding the Appellant's birth certificate, the central identity document in his claim, the credibility of the claimant's entire account is cast into serious doubt. In Ibnmogdad39 Justice Tremblay-Lamer commented that: The matter of foreign documents is not an area where the tribunal could claim particular knowledge40 However, there is no duty on the tribunal to obtain an expert report where there is sufficient evidence to cast doubt on their authenticity.41 In this case, the documents speak for themselves. The tribunal concluded that by submitting identity documents that were clearly not authentic the applicant demonstrated that he was not a witness to be trusted.42 Contested Findings [44] The Appellant submits the RPD erred in its findings in respect to: 1) The new evidence undermines a series of credibility findings made by the RPD; 2) The lack of a Regional Identity (Kebele) Card; 3) The RPD conclusion in respect to the Appellant's mother's TRV Application; 4) The RPD finding that the Appellant may be the individual listed as his brother XXXX XXXX XXXX; 5) No evidence was adduced to prove that he had knowledge of the English language. The New Evidence [45] The Appellant submits the new evidence (the letter from the University) is important because it undermines the RPD's findings regarding identity. As well he submits it impacts other credibility findings. The RAD is not persuaded by the argument of the Appellant. [46] The RAD has previously addressed that it assigned the new evidence little evidentiary weight. The RAD in further review of this document finds it is it is not a primary identity document. The RAD finds the letter is not an identity document, nor does it confirm residency or national identity. It simply indicates the Appellant was present at some undesignated time in a program at that particular institution. [47] The Appellant argues that this document offsets the RPD's credibility finding in respect of: * The findings in relation to the Facebook findings; * The RPD finding that he submitted fraudulent documents to support his identity with respect to the support letters from his friends; * The RPD finding in respect to the Appellant's statement and letter43 before the RPD that he was going to submit additional evidence; * The RPD finding that the Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to support his allegation that he is of Oromo ethnicity, had participated in any political activity, was arrested and detained. [48] The RAD has reviewed these findings and weighed them against the information contained in the letter submitted as new evidence. The RAD finds the document provides insufficient evidence to offset any of the above noted findings. The RAD finds the Appellant's argument fails. National Identity Card [49] The RPD found that the Appellant's explanation that he was too young to have an Ethiopian Identity Card (Kebele or Woreda card)44 was not credible. The Appellant submits the documentary evidence which indicates there is no uniform identity document in Ethiopia. The RAD is not persuaded by the argument of the Appellant. [50] The RAD has reviewed the audio recording of the hearing as well as the record. The RAD notes that the documentary evidence states: An official at the Embassy of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia in Ottawa indicated that there is no identity card issued at the national level, except for passports. The Ethiopian official explained that instead, all the regional governments, which use different languages such as Oromifa, Amharic, Somali, Tigregna and English, have their own identification cards, including Kebele cards. According to the US Department of State's Country Reciprocity Schedule, identity cards in Ethiopia are issued by kebeles to people 18 years and older but there is "no uniform identification document".45 [51] Additional documentary evidence states: All residents of Addis Ababa over the age of 18 must carry a "resident ID card" that "describes the owner of the card in terms of name, gender, domicile, ethnicity, date of birth, identification number and the like". A news article published on 25 October 2012 by Addis Fortune, a weekly English-language business newspaper based in Addis Ababa, states that Ethiopia "is in the process of launching an ultramodern national identification card issuance system" to replace the "manual identification cards issued at Kebeles - and mo[re] recently Woredas" [districts, each comprising a varying number of kebeles.46 [52] The RAD finds that the documentary evidence clearly explains that Kebele or Woreda cards are issued in a uniform basis by all regional governments. The document further notes that the Ethiopian government is working towards a national identity document but at this time no national identity document exists except for passports. The RAD notes that the RPD finding is supported by the documentary evidence and it is reasonable to expect that the Appellant would have been issued a regional government Kebele or Woreda card. The Appellant further argues that the documentary evidence indicates that it is very possible that not all Ethiopians are issued these cards. The RAD finds that the Appellant is misconstruing the documentary evidence in that the documents on the record make no such statement. The RAD further finds that the Appellant is alleging that he is a sophisticated, university educated, IT professional, who was working for an Ethiopian government agency. The RAD finds it is reasonable to believe that having properly issued government Identity documents would be a necessary requirement for university attendance and government employment. The RAD finds the Appellant's testimony in respect of not having a regional Kebele or Woreda card is not credible. The RAD agrees with the finding of the RPD and the Appellant's argument fails. [53] The RAD further notes the Appellant subsequently submitted an Ethiopian Resident Identity card47 with a Rule 29 Application to the RAD. The RAD has previously addressed its examination of the document and found it was fraudulent. The RAD finds the Appellant's action in submitting an additional fraudulent document in his quest for refugee protection severely undermines his credibility. The Basis of Claim Narrative Dates vs Facebook Dates [54] The RPD noted for the Appellant that there were discrepancies between the dates he alleges being incarcerated in Ethiopia as stated in his BOC narrative48 and IMM5569 forms, Schedule A49 and dates on his personal Facebook site50. The RPD found the explanation provided by the Appellant that he does not understand English and an individual he met in a Calgary MacDonald's restaurant filled out the BOC document, was not credible. The Appellant stated that this individual utilized dates from the Ethiopian calendar, which differs from the traditional Gregorian calendar utilized in much of the rest of the world. [55] The Appellant argues that he did not review the form before submitting it to the IRB. The Appellant submits the Facebook postings were his own, but he was not aware of any problem with the dates in his allegations until the Minister had submitted the Facebook evidence to the IRB. He further argues that his explanation that another individual filled out the BOC form is reasonable. The RAD is not persuaded by the argument of the Appellant. [56] The RAD has reviewed the record as well as the audio recording of the hearing. The RAD notes the following evidence was adduced in the record. The Appellant alleged he does not have more than a basic understanding of the English language yet he was able to: * Utilize a personal Facebook site and repeatedly post information in English; * Acknowledge before the RPD that he had corresponded in "handwritten" English with the IRB in reference to facts relating that he was awaiting additional documentation in his claim; * Testify that he realized that the individual who was filling the BOC form was not asking him for all the details; * Signed the declaration in his BOC document, which states that he understood that the information in the form is complete, true and correct. The RAD further notes the Appellant's signature confirms he did not utilize an interpreter to complete the form; * Testify that he was assisted by an interpreter at his refugee intake appointment when he completed and signed his IMM5569 and Schedule A forms, yet the dates of his alleged activities in Ethiopia are consistent with the Gregorian dates in his BOC narrative. It is reasonable to expect that the interpreter would confirm whether the dates being referred to are those from the Ethiopian or Gregorian calendar; * Testified to confirm his identification as an IT professional who utilizes programming languages that are based in the use of the English language; * Submitted a letter from a relative51, composed in English, in support of his identity as an Ethiopian national that is consistent with the dates cited in the Appellant's BOC narrative. The Appellant testified that perhaps this individual also used the Ethiopian calendar when composing his letter. [57] The RAD having reviewed the evidence before it, finds the Appellant's explanation that he does not understand the English language is lacking in credibility. The RAD further notes that the Appellant has been assisted by an experienced counsel during the preparation and hearing process before the RPD. The RAD finds that if one is to believe the Appellant's testimony that he did not review his BOC document until the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration submitted his notice to intervene in the claim, this demonstrates a lack of due diligence and an indifference in preparing for his claim for protection. The RAD finds on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant's allegation that an individual assisted him in completing the BOC document is not true. The RAD finds the Appellant's testimony that he was not aware of the problems in respect to dates that he was allegedly persecuted in Ethiopia, yet he was residing in Calgary, Canada and actively posting on Facebook are not credible. [58] The RAD further finds on a balance of probabilities that the evidence on the record is sufficient to confirm that the Appellant would be well aware of the differences in the Ethiopian and Gregorian calendar when submitting his documents relating to his claim for refugee protection. The RAD finds the Appellant's testimony in this issue was not credible. The RAD further finds that the Appellant was not present in Ethiopia when he alleges that his persecution occurred. [59] The RAD agrees with the finding of the RPD in these issues and the Appellant's argument fails. The Appellant's Mother's TRV Application [60] The RPD found that based on information contained in his mother's Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) application that the Appellant was not being truthful or credible in respect to his testimony as to his personal identity. The RPD further found his identity as XXXX XXXX was significantly impugned. The Appellant submits that he has no control over what his mother writes in her TRV application and perhaps because she is not close to him she omitted him from her form. The RAD is not persuaded by the argument of the Appellant. [61] The RAD notes that the Appellant only included one step sister as a sibling and his mother and father in his BOC document. When confronted with evidence from Facebook52 and a TRV application53 from his mother showing evidence contrary to what was given in that BOC form, the Appellant confirmed it was his mother's TRV application and that his name was not included on that application as her son. He was asked to explain why his name would not be included on that application, if this was his mother. He testified that they were not that close. [62] The Appellant was subsequently asked who XXXX XXXX XXXX was as he was listed on his mother's TRV application as her son and whose birthday was very similar to his own. He said that he was not XXXX, that he is his younger brother but that they are not close. The Appellant was asked why his mother would include step sons and adoptive sons in her TRV, but had not included the Appellant. Again, he testified that he was not seen as her son. Further to this the Appellant was asked to explain why he did not list any of his siblings listed in his mother's application in his BOC form. He explained that they do not see him as a sibling. The RAD finds the Appellant's testimony did not address the question as put to him. The RPD explained to the Appellant that his testimony seemed unusual as his Facebook site had information about his sister and brother's relationship with him. [63] The RAD further finds that the instructions in the BOC document specifically requests that a claimant: "List your relatives living or dead". i. Your spouse(s) ... ii. Your children ... iii. Your parents iv. Your brothers and sisters, including half-brothers and half-sisters [emphasis added] [64] The RAD finds that his mother's Canadian TRV application is a credible independent document, submitted to the Canadian government in support of a Canadian Visa application. The RAD finds the TRV application undermines the credibility of the Appellant's assertions as to his personal identity. The RAD finds the Appellant's testimony in this issue is simply not credible and is not supported by any persuasive evidence in the record. The RAD finds the Appellant's argument must fail. The Support Letters [65] The RPD found that the reference letters54 from a friend and a relative in Ethiopia had little probative value in supporting the Appellant's identity. The Appellant submits the RPD simply dismissed the letters because they are similar and he argues this is not correct. The RAD is not persuaded by the argument of the Appellant. [66] The RAD notes the RPD based its conclusion on the Appellant's testimony as to how the letters were requested, transported to Canada as well as the timing of their receipt in Canada. The RAD notes the Appellant initially testified that the letters were sent by regular mail. When being questioned by his counsel, the Appellant modified his testimony and stated they were sent by express courier. The RAD further notes the Appellant's testimony about whether the letters were initially sent in the Ethiopian language or English was also modified from his initial statements. The RAD notes the Appellant's modified testimony confirmed that the letters were written by their authors in English. The RAD finds the Appellant's evolving testimony is not credible and it further detracts from his credibility as well as the genuineness of the documents. [67] The RAD finds that the RPD's conclusion is somewhat awkward in its statements and perhaps does not sufficiently relate its findings in this area. Notwithstanding, the RAD notes that even if the RPD conclusion was found to be in error there remains sufficient evidence on the record to assign these documents little evidentiary weight. [68] The RAD has reviewed the documents submitted in evidence. The RAD notes the letter55 from the Appellant's friend XXXX XXXX simply states that he knows the Appellant from work. He provides no timeframe as to when he met the Appellant or how long he has known him. He indicates that the Appellant was detained and imprisoned for a month. He does not provide any reference as to how he came to be aware of this information or when this event occurred. The RAD further finds the letter does not provide any evidentiary support for the Appellant's identity as an Ethiopian national. The RAD places little weight on the letter as proof of the Appellant's identity as a national of Ethiopia or his allegations of persecution by the state. [69] The RAD notes the letter56 from XXXX XXXX XXXX, describes himself simply as a relative, but he does not indicate what the family relationship is. The RAD notes the letter is vague and provides very little specific detail or time references beyond indicating in XXXX 2015 that he was detained for 30 days. The RAD notes that this particular statement aligns with the dates provided in the Appellant's BOC narrative. [70] It does not provide any specific details as to where, why or by who he was detained. The author does not confirm how he came to be aware of the information he related in the letter. The RAD finds the letter does not assist in confirming the Appellant's national identity, place of residence or how long he resided in that location. The RAD places little weight on the relative's letter as proof of the Appellant's identity as a national of Ethiopia or his allegations of persecution by the state. [71] The RAD notes the letter from XXXX XXXX,57 states that he lived in the same neighbourhood as the Appellant, but he does not identify the geographic location where this was, nor the specific time frame. The author appears to reside in Canada, although he makes a number of statements about the Appellant's alleged activities in Ethiopia, but he does not confirm how he came to know this information. The RAD can only surmise that this information was related to the author by the Appellant when they met at a coffee shop in April 2016. [72] He further states that he came to know from family and friends that the Appellant was arrested and tortured by the government police. The RAD notes the author does not provide any information as to how his family and friends came to be aware of this information. The RAD further notes that the author does not provide a reference time frame to indicate when these events occurred. The RAD finds the content of the letter is vague and generalized. The RAD places little weight on the letter as proof of the Appellant's identity as a national of Ethiopia or his allegations of persecution by the state. [73] The RAD has considered the evidence provided in the reference or support letters submitted by the Appellant and finds they do not provide persuasive support for the Appellant's identity as a national of Ethiopia or his allegations of persecution by the state. [74] The RAD finds there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding of the RPD and the Appellant's argument must fail. Is the Appellant XXXX XXXX XXXX? [75] The RPD found the evidence in the Appellant's mother's TRV application, the Facebook information and the inconsistencies with the information contained in his BOC document impugned the Appellant's identity and in fact he may be XXXX XXXX XXXX, the individual listed as a son in the mother's TRV application. The Appellant argues that there is no evidence to support this statement by the RPD. The RAD finds the Appellant's argument has merit. [76] The RAD notes, having reviewed all of the evidence in this issue, that there are a large number of credibility concerns that severely undermine the Appellant's allegations as to his identity. The RAD does find that the RPD's statement about the identity of the Appellant is not supported by the evidence in the record and amounts to a conclusion grounded in speculation. 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 the cumulative sustained adverse credibility findings of the RPD are sufficient to confirm the RPD's overall determination. Summary [77] The RAD notes the Appellant: 1) Has submitted two fraudulent identity documents. The first document, a Birth Certificate was found fraudulent by the RPD and the finding has not been contested by the Appellant. The second document, a Resident Identity card was submitted as new evidence in this appeal. The RAD finds this action by the Appellant undermines the credibility of all of the documents submitted in his claim for refugee protection as well as his overall credibility. The RAD further finds a corollary of 106 of the IRPA and Rule 11 (of the Refugee Protection Division Rules)58 is the requirement that a refugee claimant provide acceptable documents to establish residency at the material time. The RAD notes that the Appellant has tendered no persuasive documentation to corroborate his residency in Ethiopia in order to corroborate his residency at the time he alleges facing persecution. 2) Has failed to act as a credible witness in respect to his testimony about: * His regional Kebele or Wordea card; * His ability to communicate in the English language; * His allegations of persecution in Ethiopia; and * His family composition. [78] The RAD notes that the Federal Court held in Sheikh59 that: ... even without disbelieving every word [a claimant] has uttered, a ... panel may reasonably find him so lacking in credibility that it concludes there is no credible evidence relevant to his claim.... In other words, a general finding of a lack of credibility on the part of the [claimant] may conceivably extend to all relevant evidence emanating from his testimony. [79] The RAD agrees with the RPD and finds that, in light of the cumulative adverse credibility findings, the Appellant is not credible and that overall his allegations lack veracity. [80] The RAD finds the Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence to support his identity as a national of Ethiopia. When considering the facts and evidence of this case in totality, the RAD finds that there is not a serious possibility of persecution for the Appellant, nor would he be subjected personally, on a balance of probabilities, to a risk to life, a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture, should he return to Ethiopia. Accordingly, the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. CONCLUSION [81] Pursuant to Section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD and dismisses the appeals. (signed) "Robert Bebbington" Robert Bebbington July 28, 2017 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 2. 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 IRPA, Section 171(c). 5 P-2, Appellant Record, p.232 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 Singh, Parminder v. M.C.I. (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 Raza, 2007 FCA 385. 15 Ibid. 16 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 231. 17 Exhibit P-3, Affidavit sworned June 22, 2017. 18 Exhibit P-3, Ethiopian ID card and Interpreter declaration. 19 Raza, Syed Masood v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-11-07), Linden, Sharlow, Ryer, December 6, 2007, 2007 FCA 385. 20 Singh, Parminder v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-512-14), Nadon, Gauthier, de Montigny, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 96. 21 Raza, 2007 FCA 385. 22 Exhibit P-3, Affidavit sworned June 22, 2017. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Ethiopia (April 29, 2016), item 3.7, Appearance of identity cards and birth certificates issued in Addis Ababa, including description of features, variation in appearance, and issuing authorities (2012-2014). ETH104950.E, 1 October 2014. 24 Ibid, item 3.5. 25 Ibid, item 3.7. 26 Ibid, item 3.5, Description of the Ethiopian Kebele/citizenship card; whether Saudi Arabia issues identity cards for Ethiopian nationals, including description. ZZZ104428.E. 14 May 2013 27 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, at p.232. 28 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, NDP for Ethiopia (April 29, 2016), item 3.5, Description of the Ethiopian Kebele/citizenship card; whether Saudi Arabia issues identity cards for Ethiopian nationals, including description. ZZZ104428.E. 14 May 2013 29 Ibid, Item 3.7, Appearance of identity cards and birth certificates issued in Addis Ababa, including description of features, variation in appearance, and issuing authorities (2012-2014). ETH104950.E, 1 October 2014 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pp. 37-40. 31 Ibid, at p.106. 32 Exhibit P-3, Ethiopian ID card. 33 Ibid. 34 Uddin, Nizam v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-895-01), Gibson, April 26, 2002. 35 Gochez, Julio Cesar v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3545-99), Dubé, September 7, 2000. 36 Raza, 2007 FCA 385, para. 13.5(b). 37 Uddin, Nizam v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-895-01), Gibson, April 26, 2002. 38 Gochez, Julio Cesar v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3545-99), Dubé, September 7, 2000. 39 Ibnmogdad Moustapha Ould Ould v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-332-03), Tremblay-Lamer, February 25, 2004; 2004 FC 321. 40 Ramalingam Govindasamy Sellathuari v. MCI (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1298-97), Dube, January 8,1998. 41 Kashif, Zakria Mohammed v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-760-02), Pinard, February 18, 2003. 42 Husein, Anab Ali v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2044-97), Joyal, May 27, 1998. 43 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, p.90. 44 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (April 29, 2016), item 3.7, Appearance of identity cards and birth certificates issued in Addis Ababa, including description of features, variation in appearance, and issuing authorities (2012-2014). ETH104950.E, 1 October 2014. 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid, Item 3.5, Description of the Ethiopian Kebele/citizenship card; whether Saudi Arabia issues identity cards for Ethiopian nationals, including description. ZZZ104428.E. 14 May 2013. 47 Exhibit P-3, Ethiopian Resident Identity card. 48 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pp.17-29 (Basis of Claim Form). 49 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pp. 37-40. 50 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pp.131-138. 51 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, p.108. 52 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pp.17-29. 53 Ibid, pp.131-138. 54 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pp.107-109. 55 Ibid, p.107. 56 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, p.108. 57 Ibid p.109. 58 Rule 11, IRB, RPD Rules 59 Sheikh, Abdulhakim Ali v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-521-89), MacGuigan, Iacobucci, Desjardins, July 4, 1990. Reported: Sheikh v. M.E.I., [1990] 3 F.C. 238 (C.A.); 11 Imm. L.R. (2d) 81 (F.C.A.). --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB7-07215