TB4-03562

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 : TB4-03562 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 23, 2014 Date de la décision Panel Daniel McSweeney Barrister and Solicitor Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Lani Gozlan 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 (de la) ministre Reasons and Decision [1] XXXX XXXX (the Appellant), a citizen of Pakistan, has appealed a negative determination of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) delivered orally on February 26, 2014. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) confirms the determination of the RPD that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee nor is he a person in need of protection. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant alleges that he fears a risk to his life or harm from the Punjabi Taliban and other extremist groups because of his work for a non-governmental organization (NGO). The Appellant alleges that he has been active in voluntary organizations aimed at helping poor and needy people since approximately 2005. In 2007, the Appellant joined an NGO named XXXX. The Appellant alleges that he became a visible figure in XXXX based on his active role in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [4] The studied in England between 2009 and 2010 and returned to Pakistan in XXXX 2011, at which time he was asked by the chairman of XXXX to return to the organization as a volunteer XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The Appellant alleges that, during the first week of XXXX 2011, he received a phone call from an anonymous person who told him that he was extending a non-Islamic and non-ethical agenda through his volunteer work with XXXX. The Appellant was asked to stop his activities otherwise he would suffer dire consequences. The Appellant informed the local head of XXXX about the call; however, the head insisted that the Appellant continue his activities as the cause was noble, and the activities were not directed against anybody. The Appellant returned to regular activities with the NGO. The Appellant alleges that, on XXXX XXXX, 2011, a person who indicated that he was from the Punjabi Taliban called and said that they would not allow the spread of non-ethical education and foreign culture in Pakistan. The caller threatened the Appellant. The Appellant informed the head of XXXX about the situation, who indicated that reporting to the police would be futile as the identity of the caller was unknown and most police officers were corrupt and would not take action. The Appellant informed his father of the threats, and his father also encouraged him to continue with his work with the NGO. [5] On XXXX XXXX, 2011, the Appellant discovered that his car's windshield had his name written on it and crossed out accompanied by the word infidel. As soon as he entered his car, the Appellant received a call from an unknown person who indicated that the Appellant's days were numbered. The Appellant went to the police station to report the incident; however, the police refused to write a First Incident Report (FIR), as the Appellant did not know the identity of the caller. The Appellant reduced his activities with XXXX after the incident. [6] In the third week of XXXX 2011, the Appellant was asked to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of XXXX. The Appellant's name and position XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was mentioned in a pamphlet. [7] The Appellant alleges that, on XXXX XXXX, 2011, at approximately 7:00 P.M., the Appellant left work for home. The Appellant was chased by bearded men in a white car. The Appellant's car was stopped, and he was pulled out of the car, kicked and punched, and he was called an infidel. The Appellant was threatened with death if he did not stop his anti-Islamic activities. One of the men put a gun to the Appellant's head and indicated that they would blow his head-off if the Appellant continued working with the NGO. The Appellant was injured but managed to drive home; the Appellant was taken to a clinic and treated for his injuries. The Appellant informed the head of his NGO of the incident, who advised the Appellant to report the incident to the police. The police refused to write a FIR, as the Appellant could not identify the assailants. The day after the incident, the Appellant received a call indicating that this was the beginning of his misery and he would face further consequences if he did not stop his work. The Appellant was threatened with death. The Appellant was informed by his family and friends to leave Pakistan. He then applied for a student visa to come to Canada. The Appellant alleges that the Taliban continues to look for him. [8] The Appellant came to Canada on a student visa on XXXX XXXX, 2011 and attended school. The Appellant made his claim for refugee protection on May 24, 2013. [9] The Appellant had a refugee determination hearing on February 26, 2014, at which time, an oral decision rejecting his claim was rendered. In its decision, the RPD found that the Appellant did not establish that there was a serious possibility on a Convention ground or, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant would be a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 97. The RPD made the following findings: 1. The RPD found that the Appellant was not a XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX XXXX with XXXX, given the omission in his IMM-5669 of his membership in XXXX, and his explanations for the omission which were found not to be reasonable. 2. The RPD found that the Taliban was not looking for the Appellant in XXXX 2013, given that the Appellant failed to mention in his Basis of Claim (BoC) narrative amendment that Mr. XXXX, the local head of XXXX, was also threatened by extremists and that the extremists had asked him about the Appellant's whereabouts. The RPD rejected the Appellant's explanation for the omission in his amended BoC narrative. 3. The RPD also found that the Appellant's claim that the Taliban had a continued interest in threatening the Appellant was not credible, given that the Appellant provided inconsistent testimony regarding how the Appellant knew that the Taliban was still interested in looking for him. 4. The RPD found that the Appellant's allegation that he continued to receive threatening calls from the Taliban was not credible as the Appellant failed to include in his narrative the fact that he had canceled his cell phone the day after he was released from the hospital. 5. The RPD found that the Appellant's injuries were not sustained as a result of having been attacked by the Taliban, given the concerns with the Appellant's credibility and the credibility of his allegations. 6. The RPD assigned little weight to the declarations from the Appellant's neighbor and colleagues, the letters from the chairman and local head chief of XXXX, the XXXX business card, and XXXX pamphlet, as the contents of some documents were very brief in nature, as fraudulent documents are easily procured in Pakistan, and given that the Appellant was found to lack credibility overall. 7. Given the omissions and inconsistencies regarding key elements of the claim, and given unsatisfactory explanations for these concerns, the Appellant was found not to be credible overall, and that his allegations were not credible. 8. The RPD found that the Appellant's delay in leaving Pakistan was not consistent with someone who truly feared for his life in Pakistan, and the RPD found the Appellant's explanations for leaving Pakistan in XXXX XXXX XXXX 2011, and his seven-day stay in the United Kingdom were not reasonable. [10] The appeal pleadings were received on XXXX XXXX, 2014. In the appeal, counsel argued that the RPD erred as follows: 1. The new evidence provided from Mr. XXXX, the cell phone company, and the travel agent explain credibility concerns in the Appellant's testimony related to his delay in leaving Pakistan, his cancellation of his cell phone, and threats to Mr. XXXX by the Taliban. 2. The RPD erred in its finding of fact (negative credibility inference) related to the omission in the Appellant's IMM-5669 of any reference to his participation in XXXX, given that the Appellant submitted his BOC narrative at the same time as he submitted his IMM-5669, and his BoC narrative makes specific reference to his involvement in XXXX. 3. The RPD erred in drawing a negative inference from the Appellant's responses regarding why he believed the Taliban were still searching for him, given that the Appellant explained that he did not understand the RPD's question. The negative credibility finding was not an omission; rather it was a misunderstanding of the question. 4. The RPD erred in finding that a seven-day stay in the UK undermined the Appellant's subjective fear, given that the Appellant had planned to remain in Canada on his student visa, and therefore the Appellant did not risk being returned to Pakistan from the UK. 5. The RPD erred in providing no weight to the letters from XXXX, the statements of the Appellant's neighbors, and the medical report, given that it was open to the RPD to send the letters for verification, especially given that they dealt with issues that were central to the claim. The RPD erred in finding that the Appellant's evidence was self-serving. [11] The Appellant provided three new pieces of evidence in support of the appeal. The pleadings did not request an oral hearing on this new evidence. The Appellant requests that the RAD substitute the determination with a finding that the Appellant is a Convention refugee, or to refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination. ADMISSIBILITY OF NEW EVIDENCE [12] The RAD considered the new evidence. Section 110 (4) of IRPA indicates 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. The Appellant provided three pieces of evidence in support of the appeal: an affidavit from MXXXX XXXX XXXX,1 a letter from the cell phone company,2 and a letter from the Appellant's travel agent.3 All three items post-dated the rejection of the claim. [13] The RAD considered the affidavit from Mr. XXXX. The affidavit indicates that Mr. XXXX resigned his position in XXXX at the end of the 2012 and that he has been in hiding since. The RAD finds that this affidavit is not credible because of concerns with its content. Firstly, the affidavit refers to the organization as XXXX, which is inconsistent with the name used by Mr. XXXX in his declaration, and the pamphlet and business card,4 which refer to the NGO as XXXX XXXX XXXX. The RAD is cognizant that spelling errors may be caused by difficulties in a second language; however, the RAD finds that it is implausible that the XXXX XXXX XXXX of the NGO would inconsistently refer to the organization which he worked at for years. The RAD also noted that XXXX was spelled "XXXX" twice within the affidavit and therefore could not be considered a typographical error. Furthermore, the affidavit does not contain other spelling or grammatical errors which would lead the RAD to find that the inconsistency was related to a problem in communicating in written English. The RAD also noted that the Appellant made a similar spelling error with regard to the NGO throughout his narrative, e.g., paragraph 4, 11, 13, 15 and 17. This inconsistency between the Appellant's spelling of the NGO in his narrative and the evidence he provided in support of the claim was not explored at the hearing, and therefore no inference can be drawn concerning the inconsistency without hearing the Appellant's explanation. [14] The RAD noted that the affidavit submitted as new evidence indicated that Mr. XXXX resigned his position at the end of 2012 and was in hiding as a result of threats from the Taliban. The Appellant had submitted a letter from Mr. XXXX5 dated XXXX XXXX, 2013 at the time of his hearing, which refers to Mr. XXXX as the XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX. The XXXX XXXX, 2013 letter does not indicate that the writer was former XXXX XXXX, or that Mr. XXXX had left employment at XXXX some XXXX XXXX before the letter was written, as he alleged in the new affidavit. The letter also does not indicate that Mr. XXXX had been a victim of threats by the Taliban despite commenting on the threats that the Appellant allegedly experienced. The RAD finds that the inconsistency related to Mr. XXXX employment with XXXX was significant. The Appellant cannot be held accountable for, and cannot be asked to explain, inconsistencies in evidence produced by a third party. Nevertheless, the RAD can find that the affidavit is not credible, as it contradicts evidence that was presented at the hearing regarding Mr. XXXX position as XXXX XXXX. The RAD finds that the inconsistency regarding the status of the affiant was sufficient to undermine the source of the affidavit, and therefore it fails the credibility test in Raza,6 as its source in the circumstances in which it came into existence was not established. [15] The RAD considered the certificate regarding the Appellants' cell phone. The certificate was produced on XXXX XXXX, 2014, which was after the rejection of the claim. The RAD found that the certificate had little probative value, given inconsistencies between its content and the Appellant's oral testimony at the hearing. The Appellant testified at the hearing that he turned off his telephone. The Appellant did not indicate that he removed his SIM card or that he discontinued his cell phone service. The certificate indicates that the Appellant's SIM was blocked by the Appellant. The certificate does not indicate how the XXXX XXXX XXXX franchise knew that the Appellant blocked his SIM and discontinued using his telephone on XXXX XXXX, 2011. It could be plausible that the XXXX XXXX XXXX would have billing records which would indicate the last time the telephone was used, or when the Appellant discontinued service; however, it is unclear how the telephone provider would know that the Appellant removed his SIM card and when. Furthermore, the certificate does not indicate how the writer would be able to identify when a telephone was blocked in XXXX 2011, in XXXX 2014 when the letter was provided. [16] Given these concerns, the RAD finds that the certificate from XXXX XXXX XXXX was not credible. In addition, the RAD finds that the certificate was produced expressly in response to the negative findings in the decision regarding the omission of the fact that the Appellant canceled his telephone. The RAD finds that more weight would have been provided to documents which pre-dated the rejection such as a telephone bill or contract cancellation document which could have established that the Appellant had discontinued using his telephone in XXXX of 2013. The RAD finds that the certificate from the telephone franchise was not credible, given that it was evidence that was created to respond to credibility concerns in the Appellant's testimony. [17] The RAD considered the certificate from XXXX XXXX. The certificate indicates that the Appellant could not get a direct flight to Canada and that a stopover in England was required. The certificate's writer does not provide an explanation or evidence to support the fact that airline tickets to Canada were unavailable or that there was difficulty in obtaining tickets. The writer does not indicate how he/she knew the flight numbers, or the fact that there were difficulties booking flights in 2011. For example, the writer does not indicate that reservation records for clients are kept and that the Appellant's reservation record was accessed. In addition, similar to the certificate from the telephone company addressed above, this certificate was produced in response to credibility concerns raised at the hearing and in the decision regarding the Appellant's delay in leaving Pakistan, and therefore it is considered self-serving. Finally, the RAD finds that this certificate is not sufficient to explain why the Appellant was unable to leave Pakistan between when he received his passport in XXXX 2011 and when he left in XXXX 2011. As such, the RAD finds that the letter from XXXX XXXX was not credible and therefore was not admissible as new evidence. [18] Given that all three pieces of new evidence were produced after the RPD's rejection, given that their content was designed to document deficiencies in the testimony and evidence provided by the Appellant at the time of the hearing, and given the concerns with the content of the documents, the RAD finds that the new evidence is not credible and therefore is not admissible as per section 171(a.3), which directs the RAD to consider evidence that is credible or trustworthy in the circumstances. STANDARD OF REVIEW [19] The RAD focused on one issue in assessing this appeal: Did the RPD err in its findings of fact regarding the credibility of the Appellant's allegations that he was persecuted or harmed because of his involvement in the NGO XXXX? [20] In the pleadings, counsel argued that the RPD made several errors of fact in its findings and negative inferences drawn related to the Appellant's omission of any reference to XXXX in his IMM5669, his testimony supporting the fact that he is still wanted, his delay in leaving Pakistan, and the treatment of the evidence provided in support of the claim. [21] The recent Federal Court decision, in Iyamuremye,7 provided guidance to the RAD regarding the proper standard of review to be applied by the RAD in reviewing RPD findings and confirmed that the appropriate standard of review for questions of fact and mixed fact and law is reasonableness, and the appropriate standard of review for questions of law is correctness. The reasonableness standard is concerned with the "existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility in the decision-making process" and with whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law, as per Dunsmuir.8 [22] The correctness standard is applicable to questions of law and issues of general legal importance which fall outside the specialized area of expertise of the RAD.9 Given that counsel has alleged errors in the treatment of the evidence by the RPD, the RAD has applied a reasonableness standard to the assessment of the appeal. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL [23] As outlined above, the RAD has focused on one issue in assessing this appeal: Did the RPD err in its findings of fact regarding the credibility of the Appellant's allegations that he was persecuted or harmed because of his involvement in the NGO XXXX? Appellant's Participation in Noble [24] The RPD found that the Appellant was neither a XXXX XXXX XXXX nor XXXX XXXX XXXX with XXXX, given the omission in his IMM-5669 (Question 9 Membership or Association with Organizations) of his association with XXXX, and given his explanations for the omission which were found not to be reasonable. The RPD rejected the Appellant's explanation for the omission in his amended BoC narrative: he did not understand the forms properly, and he was only focusing on threats against his life, and he forgot to mention it. The RPD rejected the explanation since the omission was material to the claim, as the Appellant alleged a significant profile with XXXX, which was the basis of his claim that he was targeted by the Taliban. The RPD also rejected the explanation that he was only focusing on threats to his life, as the Appellant managed to complete the other sections of the form. The Appellant also signed the form as complete, truthful and correct, and he had the assistance of an interpreter in filling the forms out. [25] Counsel argued that the RPD erred in this finding, given that the Appellant was not represented by counsel, and he did not fully understand the forms and questions. Counsel argued that the role of the interpreter was not to explain the forms but to interpret them. Counsel also argued that the Appellant provided his BoC narrative at the same time as he submitted his IMM-5669, and his BoC narrative makes specific reference to his involvement in XXXX. [26] With respect to the provision of the BoC, the RAD finds that the Appellant or his counsel did not provide evidence that the BoC was provided at the same time as the IMM-5669. The RPD's Record indicates that the Appellant's BoC form10 was submitted to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) on XXXX XXXX, 2013. The IMM-5669 was signed in front of a Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) Officer on XXXX XXXX, 2013.11 Given the lack of evidence to support the fact that the IMM-5669 was submitted at the same time as the BoC, and given the stamps and dates on the documents on the record, the RAD finds that it cannot place weight on the explanation in the appeal that the documents were submitted together. [27] The RAD considered the issue of interpretation. The RAD noted that there was evidence that the content of the IMM-5669 had the opportunity to review and amend the content of his claim documents, as the Appellant made changes to the responses (Question 7, Question 12, attachment dealing with the Appellant's personal history, Question 10B of the IMM-0008). The Appellant was not an unsophisticated man, having completed several years of post-secondary education in the UK and Canada. The Appellant was able to provide responses in English in his claim documents, his BoC, and to produce his narrative. Question 9 in the IMM-5669 is worded very clearly and provides concrete examples: "Membership or association with organizations", and it goes on to define this: "What organizations have you supported, been a member of or been associated with? Include any political, social, youth or student organization, trade unions and professional associations". As the RPD noted, the Appellant was able to complete his claim documents without the assistance of counsel. The RAD noted that the Appellant also reviewed his IMM-5669 after he retained the services of counsel, as he produced a BoC narrative addition,12 which was made to explain the Appellant's failure to indicate in his IMM-5669 that he had been refused a temporary resident visa or ordered to leave Canada. Given the evidence on the record, the RAD finds that it was reasonable for the RPD to reject the Appellant's explanation that the omission of any reference to his involvement in XXXX was due to a misunderstanding with the interpreter. [28] The RAD considered the RPD's negative findings regarding the omission of any reference to his involvement with XXXX in his IMM-5669 or claim documents. The RAD noted that the Federal Court has established that omissions in a claimant's previous statements (e.g., port of entry or inland) can be a basis for a finding of a lack of credibility.13 The RAD finds that the RPD considered the explanations provided for the omissions, as well as considered the fact that the omission was significant, as it went to the heart of the claim and the Appellant's fear of the Taliban. As such, the RAD finds that the RPD's finding was reasonable, as it fell within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes, which are defensible in respect of the facts and law. Ongoing Threats [29] The RPD found that the Taliban was not looking for the Appellant in XXXX 2013 given that the Appellant failed to mention in his BoC narrative amendment that Mr. XXXX, the XXXX XXXX of XXXX, was also threatened by extremists and that the extremists had asked him about the Appellant's whereabouts. In the pleadings, counsel argued that the new evidence provided from Mr. XXXX addressed these concerns. As identified above, the RAD finds that the affidavit from Mr. XXXX was not credible and therefore was not admitted as new evidence. [30] The RAD considered the recording of the hearing, as it related to the interaction between the Punjabi Taliban and Mr. XXXX. The RAD finds that the Appellant provided inconsistent oral testimony regarding the interaction between the Taliban and Mr. XXXX. Upon questioning by the RPD, the Appellant testified that his parents told him that the Taliban had approached Mr. XXXX to request information on the Appellant's whereabouts some five or six months after he arrived in Canada. This would mean approximately in XXXX or XXXX of 2012. Later on, when questioned by his counsel, he indicated that he only learned that Mr. XXXX had been threatened and questions regarding the Appellant's whereabouts in XXXX 2013. This response was not consistent with the response provided when the Appellant was questioned by the RPD. Given the inconsistent responses as to when Mr. XXXX was threatened regarding the Appellant's whereabouts supported the reasonableness of the RPD's finding that the Appellant's allegations that the Taliban had a continued interest in him were not credible. [31] The RPD further found that the Appellant's claim that the Taliban had a continued interest in threatening the Appellant was not credible, given that the Appellant provided inconsistent testimony regarding how the Appellant knew that the Taliban was still interested in looking for the Appellant. [32] Counsel argued that the RPD erred in drawing a negative inference from the Appellant's responses regarding why he believed the Taliban was still searching for him, given that the Appellant explained that he did not understand the RPD's question. The negative credibility finding was not an omission; rather it was a misunderstanding of the question. The RAD considered the arguments as well as reviewed the recording of the hearing. The RAD finds that the Appellant's explanation must be assessed based on the context and the totality of the evidence. [33] The RAD noted that the Appellant was a sophisticated man and had several years of post-secondary education in English. The Appellant was able to produce his claim documents, including his narratives, in English. During the hearing, the Appellant was able to answer some questions in English and, on many occasions, provided responses to questions asked of him before the questions were translated into Urdu. At no time during the initial interchange regarding how the Appellant knew the Taliban were still interested in him did the Appellant indicate that he did not understand the question, or he was having difficulty understanding the interpreter. The Appellant was asked the same question in three different ways by the RPD: Are there people still looking for you? Are people still actively looking for you? How do you know they are looking for you; you have been away from Pakistan since 2011? I am not asking you how they would find you, these people would find you; I am asking you how do you know they are even still interested in you? [34] It was only after the Appellant was confronted with his inability to provide a response to the question that the Appellant indicated that he did not understand the question or what exactly the RPD wanted to know. [35] Given the Appellant's background, given the Appellant's ability in English, and given that the Appellant was asked a similar question three times, the RAD finds that the RPD did not err in finding that the Appellant provided inconsistent testimony regarding the Taliban's ongoing interest in the RPD's decision was reasonable in that it was based on a consideration of the Appellant's testimony, and it fell within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law. [36] The RPD found that the Appellant's allegation that he continued to receive threatening calls from the Taliban was not credible, as the Appellant failed to include in his narrative the fact that he had canceled his cell phone the day after he was released from the hospital. The Appellant explained that he did not realize the importance of mentioning the cancellation of his cell phone when completing his BoC, as he was focused on narrating the incidents of persecution. Counsel argued in the pleadings that the new evidence from XXXX XXXX XXXX addressed the concerns in the Appellant's testimony, and therefore the RPD's finding was not reasonable. As identified above, the RAD did not find the new evidence from XXXX XXXX XXXX to be credible. As such, the RAD considered the evidence that was on the record. [37] The RAD noted that the omission is not a significant one; however, when taken along with the other credibility concerns regarding the Appellant's evidence regarding the ongoing interest of the Taliban in the Appellant, and given that the Appellant provided significant details regarding the incidents he alleged and their aftermath in his BoC (five typed, single-spaced pages), the RAD finds that the RPD's finding regarding the omission was reasonable, clear and justified by the facts before the RPD. Delay in Departure [38] The RPD found that the Appellant's delay in leaving Pakistan was not consistent with someone who truly feared for his life in Pakistan, and the RPD found the Appellant's explanations for leaving Pakistan in XXXX XXXX XXXX 2011 and his seven-day stay in the United Kingdom were not reasonable. The pleadings argued that, due to a busy travel season, the Appellant was not able to get an earlier flight, as summer is a busy travel season and direct flights to Canada are difficult to obtain. Counsel also argued that a seven-day stay in the UK undermined the Appellant's subjective fear given that the Appellant had planned to remain in Canada on his student visa, and therefore the Appellant did not risk being returned to Pakistan from the UK. [39] The RAD considered the evidence and testimony and found that the RPD's negative inference was reasonable. Firstly, the RAD finds that the Appellant did not provide evidence of when he received his passport back from the Canadian High Commission. He was only able to indicate that it was sometime in XXXX. The RAD finds it unreasonable for someone with the Appellant's level of education and sophistication not to be able to state at least an approximate time in XXXX when he received the passport. In addition, the RAD finds that the GMCS documents14 indicate that the Appellant's passport was sent to him by FedEx from XXXX on XXXX XXXX, 2011. No evidence was provided to indicate that it would take an inordinate amount of time for a document to travel the XXXX XXXX XXXX km distance by courier. [40] The RPD found that it was unreasonable that it took XXXX XXXX to find a flight out of Pakistan to come to Canada, and the only flight available involved a stopover of seven days in the UK, where the Appellant had been a student. The issue of the availability of a direct flight to Canada does not adequately explain the delay in departure. The Appellant testified that he feared for his life before he left Pakistan. It is implausible that, if he feared his life, the Appellant would not try to leave the country by the quickest route (other than a direct flight to Canada), especially given that he was in possession of a valid passport and visa, and the Appellant testified that his family was upper middle class and therefore had the means to assist him in leaving Pakistan. [41] Given the evidence before the RPD, the RAD finds that the RPD did not err in finding that the Appellant's delay in leaving Pakistan undermined his subjective fear, and it raises concerns with his credibility. Credibility of Documents in Support of the Claim [42] The RAD finds that the RPD did not base its negative credibility finding solely on the omission of the name of the NGO in the Appellant's claim documents. The RPD found that it could not place weight on the documents provided by the Appellant in support of his association with XXXX since the contents of some documents were very brief in nature, as fraudulent documents are easily procured in Pakistan and given that the Appellant was found to lack credibility overall. Counsel argued that the RPD erred in providing no weight to the letters from XXXX, the statements of the Appellant's neighbors, and the medical report, given that it was open to the RPD to send the letters for verification, especially given that they dealt with issues that were central to the claim. The RPD erred in finding that the Appellant's evidence was self-serving. [43] The RAD noted that nowhere in the RPD's Decision did the RPD indicate that the evidence was self-serving. The RAD notes that there is no general requirement for the RPD to send a document for verification.15 Where there is sufficient evidence to cast doubt on its authenticity, whether because of any regularity on its face or the questionable circumstances in which it was obtained or provided, a document may be assigned little (or no) weight, without expert verification or where verification is inconclusive.16 Given these directions from the Federal Court, the RAD finds that the RPD did not err in failing to send the documents for verification. [44] The RAD considered the letter from Mr. XXXX17 dated XXXX XXXX 2013. The RAD concurs with the RPD that the content of the letter was general in nature. The letter did not indicate how the author knew that the Appellant received threats and a physical attack, despite the fact that the Appellant's narrative indicated that he reported specific threats to the NGO, and that he and representatives from the NGO had reported the threats and the assaults to police. For example, paragraph 16 of the Appellant's BoC narrative indicates that: "later along with XXXX XXXX of XXXX I went to police station to report this incident but please refused to write any FIR because I do not have the identity of the caller". Given that the letter indicates that Mr. XXXX was the XXXX XXXX of the NGO, it would be reasonable for him to include in his letter the fact that he attempted to seek protection with the Appellant. The absence of any mention that Mr. XXXX went to the police with the Appellant undermines the credibility of the letter and its contents. [45] The RAD noted that the second letter from XXXX18 does not specifically mention the Appellant or his work with the organization, and therefore it is of no probative value in support of the Appellant's allegations. [46] The RPD found that the Appellant's injuries were not sustained as a result of having been attacked by the Taliban, given the concerns with the Appellant's credibility and the credibility of his allegations. In addition to this finding, the RAD noted that the medical evidence provided by the Appellant did not make reference to the causality of the injuries, including any reference to an assault. [47] Finally, the RAD noted that the National Documentation Package contained a Response to Information Request (RIR)19 which indicated that both a medical report and a medico-legal report are completed for victims of crime who receive medical treatment in Pakistan. The Appellant did not make reference to being subjected to a medico-legal examination, and the medical documents do not make reference to the fact that the injuries sustained by the Appellant were the result of a suspected crime. Given this, given the failure of the medical documents to link the injuries to a physical assault, given that the documentary evidence indicates that fraudulent documents are widely available in Pakistan,20 and given that the RPD's findings regarding that the Appellant's allegations of membership with XXXX, the RAD finds that the RPD's finding to place little weight on the medical documents was reasonable. [48] The RAD noted that the Appellant's BoC narrative did not mention that the Punjabi Taliban had gone to his house to seek him there. The Appellant's BoC narrative addition indicates that the Appellant's family continues to receive calls demanding the Appellant's whereabouts and threatening his life. This is in contrast to the declaration from the Appellant's neighbour,21 which indicated that some bearded people were pulling down, breaking and destructing the main gate of the Appellant's house some time in 2011. The omission of the fact that the Taliban had gone to the Appellant's home in 2011 and did damage to his gate was significant, as this event occurred well before the Appellant made his claim for protection, and this was evidence that the Taliban had located the Appellant's home and had come there looking for him. It would be reasonable for the Appellant to have mentioned this in his oral testimony or in his BoC. [49] The declaration from the Appellant's friend, XXXX XXXX,22 does not provide an explanation for the claims it made. The document does not indicate that the Appellant feared the Punjabi Taliban. In fact it stated: "he dishearted due to constant intereference of anonymous person, their attacks and manhandling, up roar [sic]". It would be reasonable for someone who describes himself as being a "very much close friend" to have more detailed knowledge of who forced his friend to flee. Given the general nature of the declaration, the RAD finds that the RPD did not err in assigning little weight to it because of a lack of details. [50] Finally, the RAD noted that the Appellant provided two letters from Mr. XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX.23 These letters have different letterheads. While it may be conceivable that the letterhead has changed, the RAD noted that the documents provide different identifiers for the organization (XXXX XXXX XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX). The RAD also noted that the XXXX XXXX, 2013 letter is allegedly written by the CEO; however, the body of the letter does not refer to the CEO in the first person: "When the CEO of the company asked him about the reason...The CEO and his colleagues agreed..." Given the above-noted concerns and the availability of fraudulent documents in Pakistan, the RAD finds that the RPD did not err in assigning little weight to the letters in support of the Appellant's allegations. [51] Given the evidence on the record which undermines the credibility of the documents, given the credibility concerns with the Appellant's testimony regarding his participation in XXXX and the threats he received, and given the documentary evidence regarding the availability of forged and fraudulently obtained documents in Pakistan,24 the RAD finds that the RPD did not err in placing little probative value on the documents provided in support of the claim. General Lack of Credibility [52] The RPD found that the Appellant was not credible overall and that his allegations were not credible based on the omissions and credibility concerns cited above. The RAD finds that these findings are further supported by inconsistencies identified through the RAD review of the file as well as the recording of the hearing. [53] The RAD noted a significant inconsistency between the Appellant's narrative and the documents on file regarding the timing of the issuance of his student visa. Paragraph 21 of the Appellant's narrative indicates that the Appellant made his application for student visa for Canada after getting advice from his family and friends to leave the country. Contextually, this paragraph occurs after the alleged physical attack on XXXX XXXX, 2011. This statement is not consistent with the Appellant's answer to question 7(b) in his BoC form, which indicates that the Appellant applied for his student visa at the Canadian High Commission in XXXX on XXXX XXXX, 2011. This date was found to be accurate, as it conformed to the GCMS as information request,25 which indicated that the Appellant's student visa request was received on XXXX XXXX, 2011. The GCMS document also confirms that the Appellant was engaged in a medical assessment as early as XXXX XXXX, 2011, and the Appellant was found not to have an impairment sufficient to prevent admission for medical reasons. It is interesting to note that the Appellant's allegations appear to parallel his visa application process. The Appellant made his application to come to Canada as a student on XXXX XXXX, 2011, which was within XXXX XXXX of the alleged first threat he received on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 2011. The XXXX XXXX, 2011 attack occurred XXXX XXXX after the Appellant's passport was sent to him through FedEx.26 The RAD finds that the inconsistency in the evidence related to the timing and motivation for the Appellant to seek a visa to come to Canada was a significant issue that should have been assessed, as it went directly to the credibility of the Appellant's allegations and his subjective fear. [54] The RPD questioned the Appellant regarding the various threats that he received. A review of the recording indicated that the Appellant provided testimony that was not consistent with his narrative. The Appellant testified that, during the telephone threat that he received in the XXXX week of XXXX 2011, the Taliban threatened to kill him. Paragraph 13 of the Appellant's narrative indicates that the Appellant was threatened with dire consequences; however, the paragraph makes no mention of a threat to the Appellant's life. During testimony, the Appellant indicated that, on XXXX XXXX, 2011, the Appellant was called an infidel. The Appellant's narrative does not include any reference to the Appellant being called an infidel by the Taliban then except for paragraph 16 where the word infidel was written on the Appellant's windshield. [55] Finally, when questioned by his counsel, the Appellant testified that he complained to police on three occasions. The documents before the RPD and the RAD do not support this statement. The Appellant's BoC narrative makes reference to the Appellant reporting to police following the incidence of XXXX XXXX, 2013 and XXXX XXXX, 2013. [56] These credibility concerns further strengthen the RPD's findings regarding the credibility of the Appellant and his allegations. DISPOSITION [57] Based on a review of the totality of the evidence, the RAD finds that the RPD's determination that the Appellant was not a Convention refugee nor was he a person in need of protection was reasonable. As such, the RAD dismisses the appeal, as per Section 111(1)(a) of IRPA. [58] The appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Daniel McSweeney" Daniel McSweeney July 23, 2014 Date 1 Appeal Pleadings, Affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX, p. 73. 2 Appeal Pleadings, Letter from XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, p. 71. 3 Appeal Pleadings, Certificate from XXXX XXXX XXXX p. 72. 4 Appeal Pleadings, Declaration of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX p. 44, Business card, p. 59, Pamphlet, p. 47. 5 Appeal Pleadings, Letter from Mr. XXXX, XXXX XXXX 2013, p. 36. 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 Iyamuremye, Oscar v. M.C.I. (F.C., No. IMM-5282-13), Shore, May 26, 2014; 2014 FC 494. 8 Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 SCR 190, at para 47. 9 Ibid. 10 RPD's Record, BoC Form, p. 1 of 12, p. 8. 11 RPD's Record, IMM5669, p. 4 of 4, p. 34. 12 RPD's Record, BOC Narrative Addition, XXXX XXXX 2013, pp. 22-1 - 22-5. 13 Dehghani, Abdul Rassoul v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-476-89), Pratte, Heald, Mahoney, June 26, 1990; [1990] 3 F.C. 587 (C.A.). 14 RPD's Record, GMCS Information Report, p. 21 of 22, p. 74. 15 Allouche, Sofiane v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-973-99), Pinard, March 17, 2000. 16 Parvez, Mohammed v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-1341-92), Gibson, October 18, 1996. 17 RPD's Record, Letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX, p. 140. 18 RPD's Record, Letter from XXXX, XXXX XXXX 2013, p. 141. 19 RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Pakistan (31 January 2014), item 3.4, Response to Information Request (RIR), PAK101756.E, 8 November 2006. 20 RPD's Record, NDP for Pakistan (31 January 2014), item 3.6, RIR PAK103917.E, 13 December 2011. 21 RPD's Record, Declaration from XXXX XXXX, p. 150. 22 RPD's Record, Declaration from XXXX XXXX, p. 149. 23 RPD's Record, Letters from XXXX XXXX p. 142, 147. 24 RPD's Record, NDP for Pakistan (31 January 2014), item 2.2, UK Country of Origin Information Report on Pakistan, Section 32; and item 3.6, RIR PAK103917.E, 13 December 2011. 25 RPD's Record, GCMS Information Request, pp. 54 - 75. 26 RPD's Record, GCMS Information Request, p. 74. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (February 7, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB4-03562