TB6-18741

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 : TB6-18741 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et decision 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 April 19, 2017 Date de la décision Panel Milton Israel Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Richard Wazana Barrister and Solicitor 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 (the Appellant), a citizen of Turkey, appeals a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. He has not provided new evidence in support of his appeal, and he has not requested an oral hearing. The Appellant requests that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the determination of the RPD and find that he is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Alternatively, the Appellant requests that the matter be remitted to the RPD for reconsideration by a differently constituted panel. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. The appeal is dismissed. Background [3] The Appellant alleged in his Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative that he was connected to Hizmet (the Service) or the Gülen Movement. He attended meetings and his wife subscribed to newspapers and magazines associated with the Movement. He also made financial contributions to a Gülen school. [4] In 2013, the government had a disagreement with the Gülen Movement and its institutions were shut down. On XXXX XXXX, 2015, the Appellant was called to a police station, and he was told to end his connection to the Movement, and he did so. On XXXX XXXX, 2016, members of the Gülen Movement came to his shop and asked why he had stopped his association. [5] On XXXX XXXX, 2016, police came to his home and he was taken to the police station. They noted that he met Gülen people in his shop, and they beat and threatened him. His wife gave him pain medication, and he had an allergic reaction. He was taken to the hospital for treatment of this reaction. [6] On XXXX XXXX, 2016, the Appellant's wife attended a demonstration in support of a Gülen publication, and she was detained by the police. The police also came to their home and confiscated copies of Gülen publications. The police demanded 30,000 Lira for the Appellant's wife's release. He could afford only 5,000 Lira and told the police he needed time for the rest. His wife was released. [7] On May 15, 2016, he applied for a Canadian visa. He was told by a tourism company that it would be difficult to obtain visas for the whole family. He borrowed money from a friend in Belarus who gave him cash to help with his travel expenses when the Appellant travelled there. [8] He and his family moved to his mother-in-law's village home in XXXX. He left Turkey on XXXX XXXX, 2016 and came to Canada. His family remained in the village with his mother-in-law. The Appellant alleged the attempted coup which the Turkish government blamed on the Gülen Movement has enhanced his jeopardy if he were to return to Turkey. The Issues [9] The panel indicated that the determinative issues in regard to this claim are the following: (a) Has the Appellant established his previous connection with the Gülen Movement? (b) Is the Appellant's story credible? (c) Does the Appellant have a well-founded fear of persecution in Turkey? [10] The Appellant submits that the issues in this appeal are the following: (a) Did the panel err by undermining the Appellant's credibility due to lack of corroborating evidence? (b) Did the panel err by making a finding on credibility prior to assessing the corroborative evidence? (c) Did the panel misconstrue the findings of the psychological report? (d) Did the panel err in its assessment of the Appellant's corroborative evidence? The Role of the RAD [11] The RAD notes that the Federal Court of Appeal's decision, in Huruglica,1 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. [12] The RAD concludes from its statutory analysis, with respect to findings of fact and mixed fact and law, that the RAD is to review RPD decisions applying the correctness standard, and that there may be deference to the RPD where the findings of fact involve the assessment of oral evidence. [13] The RAD must carefully consider the RPD's decision and, after doing so, must carry out its own analysis of the record to determine whether, as submitted by the Appellant, the RPD erred. Has the Appellant established his previous connection with the Gülen Movement? [14] The panel found the Appellant had not provided sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence to establish his alleged connection with the Gülen Movement. [15] The panel questioned the Appellant as to any record of his financial contributions to Gülen institutions. The Appellant stated that he gave the money to a journalist who distributed the XXXX newspapers, and he was a subscriber to the XXXX newspaper. He further stated that he could not obtain a record from the newspaper since it was now banned. The Appellant was asked if there were any bank records in this regard, and he responded that he gave cash and did not receive a receipt. [16] The panel asked the Appellant about the omission of his XXXX subscription from his BOC, given he had mentioned his wife's subscription. The Appellant stated that he did not have a subscription. The panel noted his earlier testimony that he subscribed to the newspaper, but in his BOC, he stated that only his wife subscribed. The Appellant confirmed that it was his wife's subscription and stated that there might have been a misunderstanding. [17] Subsequently, the Appellant explained in response to counsel's question that it was his wife's subscription that was delivered to his shop. The panel noted that the Appellant did not provide this explanation in the first sitting of the hearing, and the Appellant had weeks between the two sittings of the hearing to prepare an explanation. The panel rejected the explanation and drew a negative inference in this regard. The panel also found it reasonable to expect some evidence as to the Appellant's donations, given this is one of the allegations central to the claim. [18] The panel noted the covers of the Gülen magazines provided by the Appellant are from 2000-2012, a period in which Gülen was connected to the government. The Appellant was questioned as to why more recent issues were not provided. The Appellant explained that they were taken in a police raid on XXXX XXXX, 2016, and some of the journals were left. The panel drew a negative inference from the Appellant's "shifting testimony" as to the seizure and found it is an embellishment to explain the absence of more recent receipt of magazines. The panel noted that the magazines were addressed to the Appellant's wife and found them to be of little probative value to establish the Appellant's involvement with the Gülen Movement. [19] The panel noted that the Appellant provided family letters supporting his claim. The panel further noted that the letters make no reference to any connection of the Appellant to the Gülen Movement, and found they had little probative value. [20] The panel noted that the Appellant provided photographs of Gülen books and testified that they are his books which have been disposed of by his brother. The panel found that there was little to establish when and where the photographs were taken, who took the photographs and whose books they were. The panel gave the photographs little weight in establishing the Appellant's involvement with the Gülen Movement. [21] The panel noted that the Appellant had testified that the books had been in storage in XXXX 2015, after the police told him to sever his relationship with Gülenists. The panel asked why he had not mentioned this in his BOC. The Appellant stated that he may not have thought of it. The panel noted that the Appellant testified that these books were the only evidence he has to support his case, and found if they were considered that important, the books should have been mentioned in his BOC. The panel drew a negative inference in regard to this omission. [22] The panel found the Appellant had not established that he is or would be perceived to be a supporter of the Gülen Movement. The panel noted that it was the Appellant's wife's subscription and found that there is nothing to suggest such an indirect past connection from a period of cooperation between the government and Gülen would give the Appellant an imputed opinion as a supporter of the group today. Is the Appellant's story credible? [23] The panel found the Appellant's allegations that he has been threatened and detained because of his support for Gülenist institutions, and his wife was detained for participating in a demonstration are not credible. [24] The panel indicated that it was mindful of the Appellant's minimal formal education, the stress inherent in a hearing and the report of the psychotherapist.2 The panel noted that, while the psychotherapist was within her field of expertise in noting that the Appellant exhibited symptoms consistent with anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), she cannot conclude the symptoms are a result of the Appellant's alleged experiences in Turkey and not caused by something else in his personal life. The panel further noted that determining whether the Appellant experienced the events he alleged is not the job of the psychotherapist, but rather the responsibility of the panel. [25] The panel noted that the psychotherapist's report noted concerns about the Appellant's ability to testify in the hearing. The panel further noted that the Appellant did not indicate that he experienced any difficulties in this regard during the hearing. The panel noted as well that it responded to the psychotherapist's recommendations and offered to take a break whenever the Appellant required one and to rephrase any questions with which the Appellant had difficulty. [26] The panel reiterated that the Appellant had not provided corroborating evidence as to his Gülen connections and, therefore, did not find it likely that he would be questioned by the Turkish police in this regard. The panel found that this did not occur. [27] The panel noted that the Appellant stated that, in XXXX 2016, he was taken, abused and detained by the police because he kept contact with Gülenists. The panel found that, given the Appellant had not established his connection to the group, it does not find it likely that he was detained in this regard and that this did not occur. [28] The panel notes that the medical document provided by the Appellant3 is related to an allergic reaction and makes no mention of injuries requiring medication. The panel found that the document to be insufficient probative evidence to support his alleged detention and abuse by the police. [29] The panel noted that the Appellant alleged that he is being pursued by the police since he left Turkey. The panel further noted that, when he was asked how he first learned about police visits, he provided few details and did not directly answer the question the few times he was asked. It was not until after a short break that a detailed answer was provided. [30] The panel cited country documentation4 which indicates that passport control in Turkey is administered by the police, and passenger lists are required for all outgoing flights prior to departure. Given that the Appellant left Turkey using his own passport, the panel found it made no sense that the police would be looking for him in Turkey, as their records would indicate he had left Turkey. [31] The panel further found that it was more unreasonable that the police would be looking for the Appellant and not his wife, given that her release in XXXX was allegedly contingent on the Appellant's making payments to the police not made before he left the country. The panel noted as well that it was the Appellant's wife who had the subscription to the Gülenist publication, and she was allegedly arrested in XXXX for protesting against the takeover of the Gülenist newspaper. [32] The panel noted that the Appellant provided letters from his mother, sister and wife.5 The panel further noted that the letters were handwritten, not sworn and not accompanied by any identity documentation. In addition, they lacked the details one would reasonably expect such as mention of previous incidents with the police. The panel also noted that there was little evidence as to the letters' provenance. The Appellant explained that the letters were scanned and sent by email by his aunt's husband to the interpreter, who confirmed receiving the emails. The panel noted that there was no evidence from the sender as to who he was and how he obtained the documents. The panel also noted that the sender used a Gmail account, which can be created by anyone with internet access almost anywhere. [33] In the context of the analysis above, the panel gave little weight to the letters. The panel also found, on a balance of probabilities, the police interest in the Appellant has not been established. [34] The panel noted that the Appellant alleged his wife had been arrested by the police, and she was released after he paid 5000 Lira, but he provided no documentation in this regard. The Appellant explained that he did not receive a receipt from the police, and he paid in cash from his own money and from a loan from a friend. The panel asked whether he had asked this friend to provide a statement confirming the borrowed money, as he had in regard to money borrowed for his travel.6 The Appellant explained he had not thought of that. [35] The panel rejected the explanation, as this concerned a central allegation in the claim and given he had obtained corroboration for other borrowed money. The panel drew a negative inference from the absence of documentation related to his wife's detention and release. The panel also noted that the Appellant's wife's letter7 makes no reference to her detention. [36] The panel found that the Appellant had not established that his wife was detained by the police in XXXX 2016. The panel noted that this finding was consistent with his wife's ability to remain in Turkey and not being sought by authorities in the post-coup crackdown on Gülenists. [37] The panel further found, in the context of the findings and analysis above, that the Appellant has not established the factual basis of his claim, and his story as a whole lacked the ring of truth. Does the Appellant have a well-founded fear of persecution in Turkey? [38] Given that he has not established his connection to the Gülen Movement or his related problems, the panel found that there is no risk to him on this basis if he were to return to Turkey. The panel acknowledged the human rights concerns associated with the general country conditions in Turkey but found this situation does not present the Appellant with personal risk under section 96 or subsection 97(1) of the IRPA. The Appellant's Submissions and Argument Credibility [39] The Appellant notes that the panel took issue with the Appellant's failure to mention in his BOC that he hid Gülenist books, but submits that he provided other details in his BOC related to severing ties with the Gülenists. [40] As to the subscription to the Gülenist magazine being in his wife's name, the Appellant submits there is nothing to suggest that they both did not read the magazines and support the publication. The Appellant argues that the panel's analysis was microscopic in this regard, and there is no evidence that Turkish authorities would care whether it was the Appellant or his wife who subscribed to the magazine. [41] The Appellant submits that the panel erred by making a negative credibility finding despite never challenging key incidents of persecution described in his BOC and confirmed in his testimony. [42] The Appellant further submits that minor inconsistencies should not form the basis of a credibility determination and cites Federal Court jurisprudence in this regard. [43] The Appellant submits as well that the fact the subscription is under his wife's name does not diminish his claim as it is well established that men are the main targets of political persecution. [44] The Appellant submits that the panel's credibility assessment failed to consider the findings of the psychotherapist's report, and, therefore, they were wrong. The Appellant further submits that the panel is speculating by concluding that the authorities would be less likely to target him because his wife's subscription was active while the Gülenists were in a coalition with the government and that a past connection with the Gülenists is insufficient to raise any present concerns with the authorities. Lack of Corroborative Evidence [45] The Appellant submits that the panel erred by undermining his testimony solely due to his inability to obtain some corroborative evidence. The Appellant argues that the Appellant's testimony and narrative are presumed to be true and that corroborative evidence is only required if there are credibility concerns with the Appellant's testimony. [46] The Appellant further submits that the panel raised no concerns with respect to his BOC, which is considered to be truthful, and the panel erred in discrediting his testimony on the basis of lack of corroborative evidence. [47] The Appellant submits that he explained in the hearing the lack of receipts for his newspaper subscription and monthly donations, and it was an error for the panel to find that he was not a Gülenist because he was unable to provide such corroborative evidence. [48] The Appellant submits that he provided copies of Gülenist magazine covers and explained in the hearing the lack of recent copies of the magazine, which had been taken by the police, but the panel undermined his credibility in this regard. Psychotherapist's Report [49] The Appellant submits that the panel misconstrued the findings of the psychotherapist's report. The Appellant argues the panel's negative credibility findings despite the fact that the report predicted that he would have problems with retention and recall of information. The Appellant further submits that the report is meant to provide proof of mental and emotional state and not to confirm or deny any other facts. The Appellant provided substantial citations to Federal Court jurisprudence in this regard. [50] The Appellant submits as well that, despite the report, the panel made negative credibility findings based solely on slight inconsistencies such as who subscribed to the magazine and whether all copies had been taken by the police. [51] The Appellant submits that the panel erred in concluding that his anxiety, depression and PTSD may have resulted from other events unrelated to his alleged experiences in Turkey, and he argues there is nothing to suggest that his psychological problems are the result of anything but his affiliation with the Gülen Movement and subsequent detention. Corroborative Evidence [52] The Appellant submits that the panel's approach to the evidence was capricious and microscopic. [53] The Appellant submits that the panel erred by concluding, before assessing the medical and psychotherapist reports and before assessing the support letters, that he was not wanted by the authorities, was not a member of the Gülenist party and therefore he was not credible. The Appellant argues that the panel erred in its treatment of the corroborative evidence because it had already concluded that he was not credible. This is the inverse of the process prescribed by law. The Appellant cites substantial Federal Court jurisprudence in this regard. [54] The Appellant argues that the letters from his relatives and the medical document are the most important pieces of corroborative evidence and should have been assessed prior to the panel's conclusive credibility finding. The Appellant submits that the panel relied on its credibility findings to dismiss the corroborative evidence. [55] The Appellant further submits that the panel erred in dismissing the supporting letters because of what was not included in them. The Appellant also submits that the letters were dismissed because they were unsworn and not accompanied by identity documentation. The Appellant argues that this is an error and provides citations to Federal Court jurisprudence in this regard. [56] In regard to the panel's dismissal of the photographs, as they did not prove a connection to him, the Appellant submits that it was unclear how the Appellant would be expected to provide proof. [57] The Appellant submits that he provided three letters that attest to the Turkish police's continuing interest in him and that it would be dangerous for him to return. [58] As to the medical document, the Appellant submits that it is clear that the document is proof of his allergic reaction to pain medication provided by his wife following his injuries, as he stated in his BOC. The RAD's Analysis and Decision [59] The RAD has reviewed and assessed all of the evidence in the record concerning the Appellant's credibility and the panel's credibility findings. The RAD notes that the panel raised a number of credibility concerns as to the Appellant's connection with the Gülen Movement and his pursuit by the Turkish police. The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument that, although he failed to mention his Gülenist books in his BOC, he provided other information as to severing his ties with the Gülenists. The RAD notes that the Appellant stated that the books were the only evidence he had to support his case and agrees with the panel that the books should have been mentioned in his BOC. The RAD finds that it was open to the panel to draw a negative inference as to this omission. [60] The RAD notes that the Appellant stated in his BOC that his wife subscribed to a Gülenist newspaper and magazines for many years, but he testified in the hearing that he subscribed to the Gülenist newspaper. The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument that there is no evidence that they both did not read the paper or that Turkish authorities would care who subscribed. [61] The RAD notes, as did the panel, that in addition to the Appellant's wife subscribing to Gülenist publications, she was allegedly arrested for participating in a protest demonstration concerning a Gülenist paper, and she was allegedly released from detention when the Appellant made a partial payment to the police with a promise to find the balance. However, the Appellant alleged that he is being pursued by the police while his wife is able to live with her mother in Turkey with no evidence that the police have any interest in her. The RAD finds that it was open to the panel, in the context of the analysis above, to draw a negative inference as to the inconsistency in the Appellant's testimony concerning the subscriber to the Gülenist publications. [62] The RAD notes, as did the panel, in regard to the Appellant's allegation that he is being pursued by police for his Gülenist connections, that the police control exit and entry security in the airport8 and that the Appellant was able to leave Turkey using his own passport. [63] The RAD has reviewed the country documentary evidence in this regard and concurs with the panel's finding that, if the police were aware that the Appellant had left Turkey, they would not have visited the homes of his family in their alleged pursuit of the Appellant in Turkey. In addition, the RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, if the police were in fact pursuing the Appellant, it is not likely that he would have been allowed to pass through police security at the airport without constraint and to leave the country. [64] The RAD notes, in this regard, that the Appellant provided letters from his wife, brother and mother,9 which indicate that the police came to their homes looking for the Appellant. The RAD notes that these letters are perfunctory and lack any substantive information as to the reason for the police visits or whether a warrant was left. [65] The RAD notes the panel's concern that the letters are handwritten, unsworn and lacking in identity documentation. While the RAD finds these concerns are not sufficient in themselves to deny the letters' probative value, the RAD further finds the perfunctory nature of the information in the letters, in the context of the evidence cited above, is a sufficient basis to give them no weight as to the Appellant's alleged pursuit by the police. [66] The RAD notes, as did the panel, that no evidence was provided, nor was it alleged, that the police had any interest in the Appellant's wife. The RAD finds that, given that the Gülenist subscriptions were in the Appellant's wife's name and given that the Appellant alleged that his wife was arrested because she participated in a demonstration on behalf of a Gülenist newspaper, it strains credulity that the police would be pursuing the Appellant and not his wife, who continues to live with her mother in Turkey. [67] The RAD has reviewed all of the documentation in the record concerning the crackdown in Turkey on the Gülen Movement and its followers.10 The RAD notes that thousands of civil servants, journalists, judges, teachers and members of the military have been arrested or removed from their jobs. There is, however, no evidence that a XXXX, who had a subscription to a Gülen newspaper and supported a Gülen school during a period when Gülen was an ally of the government, has the profile of someone of interest to the government. The RAD further notes that the Appellant stated that he withdrew his support for the Gülen School and cancelled subscriptions to Gülen publications when allegedly he was told to do so by the police. [68] The RAD finds, in the context of its review of the evidence in the record concerning the crackdown on the Gülen Movement, that the Appellant does not have the profile of someone of interest to the government in this regard, and it further finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the police would likely have no interest in him as a Gülenist in opposition to the government. [69] The RAD has reviewed and assessed all of the evidence in the record concerning the lack of corroborative evidence. The RAD acknowledges that the Appellant's testimony and BOC evidence are presumed to be true. The RAD further acknowledges Federal Court jurisprudence cited by the Appellant indicates that a lack of corroborative evidence, in and of itself, is insufficient to rebut the Maldonado11 principle of truthfulness. [70] The RAD finds, however, that there are sufficient credibility concerns with the Appellant's evidence to rebut the presumption of truthfulness. In addition, the RAD finds that the panel's concern about the lack of corroborative evidence was clear in the hearing, and the Appellant had adequate opportunity to obtain corroborative evidence in the two weeks between the two sittings of the hearing and in the almost month and a half between the second sitting and the panel's decision. The RAD has reviewed the evidence in this regard and concurs with the panel's finding that corroborative evidence could have reasonably been expected. [71] The RAD cites further Federal Court jurisprudence regarding the lack of corroborating evidence and rebutting Maldonado. In this regard, the Court in Owoussou stated: It would be grossly unfair to allow safe haven for a refugee simply on that person's say so. Often the core of the claim cannot be verified, but other elements can, which is why the rules call upon the claimant to provide acceptable documentation.12 [72] As well, the Federal Court of Appeal in Adu held: The presumption that a claimant's sworn testimony is true is always rebuttable, and in appropriate circumstances, may be rebutted by the failure of the documentary evidence to mention what one would normally expect it to mention.13 [73] The RAD notes that the Appellant provides no corroborating evidence as to the central issue in his claim, his association with the Gülen Movement which resulted in his pursuit by Turkish police. The three letters from his wife, brother and mother were found to be perfunctory, and they were given no weight as to the Appellant's alleged pursuit by Turkish authorities. The letters also make no mention of the Appellant's alleged Gülenist connection. [74] The Appellant alleged that he had a collection of Gülen books that were hidden away and being destroyed by his brother, but there was no corroboration from his brother that this was the case. The Appellant testified that he borrowed money to gain the release of his wife, but he did not provide any evidence in this regard, although he did provide corroboration as to the money he borrowed to facilitate his travel to Canada. The Appellant alleged that he was arrested and abused by the police, and his wife was also arrested but no corroborative evidence was provided in this regard although clearly friends and family were likely able to do so, if in fact his allegations were true. [75] The Appellant provided a hospital report14 concerning an allergic reaction which he testified was the result of pain medication provided by his wife after he was beaten by police. However, the medical report includes no information as to the medication that caused the reaction or the treatment and medication provided to deal with the problem. There is as well no mention of the alleged beating or its physical results that caused the pain. The only evidence provided is the Appellant's statement in this regard, and the RAD finds, as did the panel, that this was an insufficient basis on which to confirm the Appellant's allegation of arrest and abuse. [76] The RAD notes that there is extensive Federal Court jurisprudence concerning the lack of corroborative evidence. In addition to Owoussou cited above, the Court in Ortiz stated that the RPD did not err in drawing an adverse conclusion from the absence of corroborative evidence. The Court in Joseph stated that, in key areas where one would have expected corroborative documentation, none was offered.15 The Court concluded that the RPD is entitled to make an adverse credibility finding in those circumstances.16 [77] The Appellant provided a psychotherapist's report,17 and the Appellant submits that the panel misconstrued the findings in the report. The Appellant further submits that the report stated that he could have problems with retention and recall of information. The Appellant argues that, despite the report, the panel made negative credibility findings based solely on slight inconsistencies. The Appellant submits as well that the panel erred in concluding that his anxiety, depression and PTSD may have resulted from other events unrelated to his alleged experiences in Turkey. The Appellant argues that there is nothing to suggest that his psychological problems are the result of anything but his affiliation with the Gülen Movement and subsequent detention. [78] The RAD has reviewed the psychotherapist's report and also the panel's response to the report. The RAD notes that the panel stated in its Reasons that it was mindful of the Appellant's minimal formal education, the stress inherent in a hearing and the report of the psychotherapist. The panel acknowledged that the psychotherapist was within her field of expertise in noting that the Appellant exhibited symptoms consistent with anxiety, depression and PTSD. The panel further noted that the psychotherapist could not conclude that the Appellant's symptoms were the result of the experiences in Turkey alleged by the Appellant, and that was the responsibility of the panel. [79] The panel noted as well that it responded to the concerns indicated in the report about the Appellant's ability to testify in the hearing. The panel further noted that the Appellant did not indicate in the hearing that he experienced any difficulties in this regard. In addition, the panel noted that it responded to the psychotherapist's recommendations and offered a break whenever the Appellant required one and to rephrase any questions with which the Appellant had difficulty. [80] The RAD finds that there is no evidence in the record that the Appellant's psychological problems constrained his full participation in the hearing. As to the Appellant's anxiety and depression, the RAD notes the stress of an impending refugee claim hearing and the hearing itself are often sufficient to cause or exacerbate such symptoms. As to the PTSD, the RAD notes that the psychotherapist indicated that the Appellant exhibited symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but she did not explain what those symptoms are other than the anxiety and depression. The RAD further notes that the psychotherapist does not state that the Appellant suffers from PTSD, and it is the RAD's understanding that such a diagnosis could only be made by a psychiatrist with much more advanced training and expertise, and in a far more extensive interaction with the Appellant than the 60-minute psychotherapist interview. [81] The RAD notes the panel's concern that a determination that the Appellant's psychological problems were the result of his alleged experience in Turkey was not within her field of expertise. The RAD notes the psychotherapist states in her report that she found the Appellant's information in this regard to be "valid and reliable". The report further states that the Appellant is not able to work through the past trauma he experienced as long as there is an imminent threat of being returned to Turkey. [82] The RAD finds the psychotherapist crossed the line between diagnosing the Appellant's psychological problems and advocating a positive response to Appellant's allegations. The RAD finds the panel's concern in this regard is well founded. [83] The RAD acknowledges the difficulty in making a judgement as to the impact of the Appellant's psychological problems on his participation in the hearing. The RAD finds, however, that the panel did not err in its response to the psychotherapist's report. The RAD further finds that there is insufficient evidence that the Appellant's psychological problems constrained the full presentation and consideration of his claim. [84] The RAD finds, in the context of its review and assessment of all of the evidence in the record that the Appellant has failed to provide sufficient credible evidence to establish his pursuit by the Turkish police and that, as a result of a connection to the Gülen Movement, he is at risk of persecution or the harms pursuant to subsection 97(1) of the IRPA, if he were to return to Turkey. DISPOSITION [85] Pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. The appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Milton Israel" Milton Israel April 19, 2017 Date 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 2 RPD's Record, pp. 239-242. 3 RPD's Record, p. 218, Report from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 4 RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Turkey (30 June 2016), item 14.3, Response to Information Request (RIR) TUR105394.E, 8 January 2016. 5 RPD's Record, pp. 224-229. 6 RPD's Record, pp. 220-221. 7 RPD's Record, pp. 228-229. 8 RPD's Record, NDP for Turkey (30 June 2016), item 14.2, RIR TUR43471.E, 29 April 2005; and item 14.3, RIR TUR105394.E, 8 January 2016. 9 RPD's Record, pp. 224-229. 10 RPD's Record, pp. 150-187 and pp. 243-271; see also NDP for Turkey (30 June 2016), item 2.3, Freedom House, Turkey, Freedom in the World 2016; and item 2.6, Human Rights Watch, Turkey, World Report 2016: Events of 2015, January 2016. 11 Maldonado, Pedro Enrique Juarez v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-450-79), Heald, Ryan, MacKay, November 19, 1979; Reported: Maldonado v. M.E.I., [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.); 31 N.R. 34 (F.C.A.). 12 Owoussou, Paul Kojo v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1251-03), Harrington, May 5, 2004, 2004 FC 661. 13 Adu, Peter v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-194-92), Hugessen, Strayer, Robertson, January 24, 1995; F.C.J., no. 114 (QL). 14 RPD's Record, p. 218. 15 Ortiz Juarez, Jose de Jesus v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2410-05), Phelan, March 6, 2006, 2006 FC 288. 16 Joseph, Rasamalar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5389-10), O'Reilly, May 16, 2011, 2011 FC 548. 17 RPD's Record, pp. 239-242. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-18741