TB9-00839

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-00839 TB9-00840 / TB9-00841 / TB9-00842 TB9-00843 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision September 20, 2019 Date de la décision Panel D. Goff Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Sunny Vincent Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] The appellants, XXXX XXXX (the principal appellant, "PA") his wife, XXXX XXXX and their minor children, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, citizens of Guyana, appeal a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of December 10, 2018 rejecting their claim. [2] In XXXX 2017, the appellants entered Canada at an irregular border crossing in Lacolle, Quebec via the United States (US). They did not seek asylum in the US. The appellants did not have valid visas to enter Canada. Upon questioning by Canadian border officials, the appellants initiated a claim for refugee protection alleging a fear of persecution in Guyana on political grounds. In particular, they alleged the PA was a supporter of the People's Progressive Party (PPP), who was thus targeted by the opposing People's National Congress (PNC or APNU) party. The RPD dismissed the appellants' claim finding it not to be credible. [3] The appellants ask the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to set aside the negative determination of the RPD and either grant their claim for protection or, refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination. They argue the RPD made unreasonable findings and misconstrued the evidence. They have not submitted new evidence in support of their appeal. They have not asked for an oral hearing. [4] The RAD is not persuaded the RPD erred. The RPD correctly concluded that the appellants failed to credibly establish their claim. DETERMINATION [5] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the "Act"),1 the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. This appeal is dismissed. ANALYSIS Onus is on the Appellants [6] The Court has been very clear that the responsibility rests with the appellants to raise any potential grounds of appeal that arise from the RPD's decision. The RAD has no responsibility to consider other grounds.2 Role of the RAD [7] The RAD is to review raised issues with the RPD's findings of law, fact (and mixed fact and law), which raised no issue of credibility of oral evidence, applying the correctness standard.3 In assessing the credibility of oral evidence, the RPD may have a meaningful advantage. In this regard, the Court has reiterated that "significant deference is due to the findings of a tribunal"4 having recognized that "the role of this Court is a very limited one because the tribunal had the advantage of hearing the witnesses testify, observed their demeanor and is alive to all the factual nuances and contradictions in the evidence"5. The RPD's Findings [8] The onus is on refugee claimants/appellants to establish their claim for protection. The RPD determined the appellants had not met their burden to do so. The RPD had a number of credibility concerns with the appellants and their allegations of persecution, including with the PA's alleged political profile and targeting by an opposing political party. [9] The onus is also on the appellants to provide full and complete submissions on how the RPD erred. The appellants have not done so. Instead, they have provided very brief and vague submissions in response to the RPD's findings. For example, they argue the RPD failed to consider there are incidents of prejudice and violence in Guyana divided on ethno-centric and racial lines. They further submit "in response" to the RPD's credibility findings that "only someone who is closely involved with the PPP" would have provided as much testimony as the PA and that "it was obvious" that the gunshots were directed at XXXX.6 [10] The appellants are thus essentially asking the RAD to reweigh the evidence in their favour. This is not the role of the RAD. The Court has been clear that an appeal before the RAD is not a second chance to present a claim. The RPD (already) tested the appellants' credibility and that of their documents at their hearing. [11] The RAD has nevertheless independently assessed the evidence and addressed the appellants' arguments, as outlined below. Credibility Concerns [12] The RPD determined the appellants failed to provide sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence of their allegations, including the PA's political profile. [13] The appellants vaguely argue that the RPD failed to consider the country conditions documents and the PA's testimony. [14] Having independently reviewed the evidence, the RAD does not agree with the appellants' arguments. It is trite to note the RPD is presumed to have considered all of the evidence before it. There is no evidence to indicate otherwise. Indeed, the RPD demonstrated that it did consider the evidence before it (including a detailed analysis of the objective evidence on the political situation in Guyana7) and also clearly gave the appellants multiple opportunities to elaborate upon their allegations with their testimony and also to explain the apparent problems in their claim i.e., no corroborating documentary evidence of the PA's political activities; no corroborating documentary evidence of the PA's attack at his workplace with a chopping weapon and of gun shots fired near his workplace; and the reason for the PA's multiple re-availments back to Guyana after travelling to the US etc. The appellants' counsel similarly asked questions of the PA, who is fluent in English and well-travelled. Having reviewed the questions asked of the appellants and their answers, as well as the RPD's reasons for decision, it is clear that the RPD assessed the evidence and weighed the evidence accordingly. The appellants have failed to demonstrate how the RPD erred in doing so. [15] The RAD accordingly sees no reason to interfere with the RPD's detailed analysis and findings related to the appellants' claim, including the PA's alleged political profile as a "supporter" of the PPP. In this regard, the RAD notes the PA is not (and was never) a member of the PPP. He is furthermore not a financial supporter of the PPP. As the PA also acknowledged, the PPP is the largest political party in Guyana. Accordingly, based upon its own review of the evidence in its entirety, the RAD does not find on a balance of probabilities that the appellants provided sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence to establish their allegations of persecution, including due to the PA's perceived or actual political profile. [16] Finally, the appellants also argue the RPD failed to consider removal would subject them to risk "as a result of his sexual orientation".8 The RAD does not agree, as no allegations were made before the RPD (nor RAD) based upon sexual orientation. CONCLUSION [17] The RPD found the appellants and their allegations to be generally lacking in credibility; having independently reviewed the evidence, the RAD has reached the same conclusion. [18] The RAD therefore finds that there is not a serious possibility the appellants would be persecuted if returned to Guyana pursuant to section 96 of the Act. The panel similarly finds that, on a balance of probabilities, the appellants would not be personally subjected to a danger of torture, or face a risk to life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in Guyana pursuant to section 97 of the Act. DISPOSITION [19] On the basis of the findings noted above and after its own assessment of all the evidence in the record, the RAD finds that the RPD's refugee determination is correct. [20] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Act, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. The appeal is dismissed. (signed) "D. Goff" D. Goff September 20, 2019 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, last amended on December 12, 2017. 2 Ilias, Mohammed Kamal Deen v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5152-17), Bell, June 27, 2018, 2018 FC 661, at para. 39. 3 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 4 Rahal, Sandeep Kaur v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4818-11), Gleason, March 16, 2012, 2012 FC 319 at para. 22. 5 Ibid., at para. 42, as highly cited, including in Hadi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 590, at para. 12. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Memorandum, at pp. 68-82. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, RPD Reasons, at pp. 6-13. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Memorandum, at p. 80. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-00839 TB9-00840 / TB9-00841 / TB9-00842 TB9-00843 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français 2 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français