MB8-04252

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. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB8-04252 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision - Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject(s) of the appeal XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montreal, Quebec Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision November 28, 2018 Date de la décision Panel Me Zofia Przybytkowski Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal Me Brigitte Objois Conseil(s) (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX (the appellant), a citizen of Haiti, is appealing from the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dated January 17, 2018. [2] The appellant is submitting no new evidence in support of the appeal and is not requesting that a hearing be held. OVERVIEW [3] The appellant alleges that he fears persecution by reason of his support for a political candidate. The RPD rejected his claim for refugee protection on the ground that it was not credible. The appellant maintains that he established the essential facts of his claim in a credible manner and that the documentary evidence corroborates his allegations. Having listened to all of the hearing and completed my own analysis of the case, I determine that the RPD did not err and that the appellant is not credible. I am dismissing the appeal. DETERMINATION [4] Pursuant to subsection 111(1) of the IRPA, the RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the RPD's determination that the appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. BACKGROUND [5] The appellant alleges that he was a XXXX XXXX at a polling station for three days in XXXX or XXXX 2017, during a local election in XXXX. The candidate he supported won the election against a candidate from the Lavalas party. The appellant alleges that he was blamed for the latter's defeat, and that a group of thugs associated with the Lavalas party beat and threatened him. The appellant claims to have left Haiti on XXXX XXXX, 2017, for the United States and to have arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2017, where he claimed refugee protection. [6] After hearing the appellant's testimony, the RPD rendered its decision orally. The RPD found the appellant's testimony generally laboured, vague and inconsistent, despite having given him the chance to clarify his responses. The RPD found the testimony imprecise as to the reason for the appellant's fears in Haiti, the nature of his political involvement and the chronology of events. The RPD identified a contradiction between the appellant's Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form) and his testimony in connection with the allegation that he had been beaten. Role of the RAD [7] Regarding questions of fact, questions of mixed fact and law, and questions of law, the RAD applies the standard of correctness.1 The RAD may owe deference to the RPD's findings in certain circumstances.2 Absent an indication to the contrary in my reasons, I am applying the standard of correctness to all of the findings, and I will review the overall decision concerning the claim for refugee protection according to the standard of correctness. ANALYSIS Credibility [8] The appellant alleges that, considering that he is a XXXX and uneducated, he still established, via his testimony, the essential elements of his claim for refugee protection. I cannot accept this argument. While listening to the hearing, I noted that the RPD made several attempts to enable the appellant to provide details on his claim. The appellant's testimony was generally inconsistent, vague and laboured, and his tendency to constantly repeat the same responses to different questions leads me to conclude that he testified evasively. [9] The RPD did not err in finding that the appellant is not credible. When testimony is so vague and inconsistent that it is impossible to re-establish the chronology of alleged events, as is the case in this matter, the RPD is correct in finding an absence of credibility: When a narrative in its entirety lacks inherent logic and is not consistent, unravelling the crux of such an account leads to a finding of lack of credibility; and, the hopes of reassembling the account becomes a mere illusion of the applicant accompanied by a cacophony of the applicant's refrains. Furthermore, the applicant, by his own non-credible account, becomes the author of the incoherent account at the very heart of the decision rendered in his case. 3 [10] From the outset, the appellant was able to provide his date of birth and the date on which he entered Canada, and to make clarifications when asked to do so by the RPD. However, when the RPD asked him for clarifications about where the alleged events took place, the appellant would repeat "in XXXX," despite the RPD having asked him to specify, for example, the location of the polling station where he worked. [11] When asked about the sequence of events that led to his decision to leave the country, the appellant simply repeated that he had been blamed for the defeat of the Lavalas party candidate and that he left for Miami on XXXX XXXX, 2017. What is more, apart from the date of his departure for the United States, the appellant was unable to situate in time any of his allegations. He was even unable to specify the exact date of the election in question. [12] When the appellant finally indicated that he had received threats, he was unable to state when or in what circumstances. He then confirmed that he had not encountered any problems aside from the threats, thereby contradicting his BOC Form, which indicates that he was beaten. He explained that he did not understand the question. Considering that the RPD had given him clear instructions at the beginning of and during the hearing on how to respond to the questions, and that he confirmed under oath the veracity of his BOC Form, this is not a reasonable explanation. [13] Considering that the appellant's testimony was so vague and disjointed that it was impossible to understand and situate the allegations at the heart of his claim for refugee protection, I find that he did not establish the merits of his claim for refugee protection. I conclude that the RPD did not err in finding that he is not credible. Documentary evidence [14] The appellant maintains that the documentary evidence corroborates his allegations. While there is independent evidence of the existence of the Lavalas party and of the elections held in XXXX 2017, this cannot serve as evidence of the appellant's involvement in these events. Apart from his testimony at the hearing, the appellant submitted no evidence that concerned him personally. Since his testimony was not credible, the objective documentary evidence on Haiti is of no help to him. CONCLUSION [15] Pursuant to subsection 111(1) of the IRPA, the RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the RPD's determination that the appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Zofia Przybytkowski Me Zofia Przybytkowski November 28, 2018 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, paras. 70 and 103. 2 Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 3 Villanueva v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 52, para. 1. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB8-04252 RAD.25.02 (April 24, 2018) Disponible en français 5 RAD.25.02 (April 24, 2018) Disponible en français