MB9-16429

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB9-16429 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision - Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Ottawa, Ontario Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision August 6, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Jillan Sadek Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal François Jean Denis Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] The appellant, XXXX XXXX, is a citizen of Haiti. His parents, wife and three children live in Haiti. [2] The appellant alleges that he cannot return to Haiti because in 2007 and 2008, he was threatened and harassed by criminals with ties to a politician named XXXX XXXX. The appellant alleges that these threats were connected to his job as a XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX at a XXXX XXXX and the fact that he had money. He claims that these criminals are still interested in going after him despite the fact that XXXX XXXX was arrested in XXXX 2017. [3] According to his immigration forms, the appellant entered the United States on XXXX XXXX, 2011, and lived there for six years without status. He entered Canada from the United States on XXXX XXXX, 2017, to claim refugee protection. [4] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected his refugee protection claim because of a lack of credibility. As I will explain below, I agree with the RPD that his allegations are not credible. [5] The appellant submits that the RPD was overly vigilant, conducted a microscopic assessment of the evidence and failed to consider all the evidence. [6] My role is to examine all the evidence and determine whether the RPD's decision is correct.1 DETERMINATION [7] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct to determine that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. ANALYSIS [8] Having carefully listened to the recording of the hearing and assessed the record, I am of the opinion that the RPD properly analyzed the appellant's claim and that the determinative issue is the lack of credibility of his allegations. Appellant's level of stress [9] In his memorandum, the appellant states: [translation] "It was clear that the appellant was very stressed. Instead of giving him the benefit of the doubt on certain aspects, it [the panel] chose to draw negative inferences. It was wrong for the panel to find that he lacked credibility for that reason. In its analysis, it focused on insignificant details rather than considering all the evidence."2 [10] I do not agree with the appellant. The RPD went to great lengths to ensure that the appellant fully understood its questions and that he waited for the interpretation before answering. The RPD talked in a calm voice and was patient and non-confrontational throughout the hearing. The RPD had to repeat and reformulate its questions several times to obtain clear answers from the appellant. However, when it seemed he wanted to avoid a question, the appellant often gave nonsensical answers. For example, during the hearing, it took the RPD nearly half an hour to obtain clear answers to its question about who wrote the addendum to the appellant's written account and when it was prepared. These were not complicated questions. [11] It goes without saying that a hearing can cause a certain amount of stress in claimants, but that neither excuses nor explains nonsensical testimony that is riddled with contradictions, as in this case. Omissions in his IMM5669 form [12] According to both his written account and his testimony, the appellant worked as a [translation] "XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX" at a XXXX XXXX called XXXX 2000 from 2003 to XXXX 2008.3 The appellant also testified that he took XXXX months of training at a school called "XXXX" to become a XXXX.4 However, in his IMM5669 form, which was completed before he submitted his refugee protection claim forms, the appellant states only that he worked as a XXXX in Haiti. There is no mention of a period of training at XXXX.5 The appellant explained that he only provided essential information when he completed the forms. [13] In his memorandum, the appellant makes the following argument: [translation] "He explained that he received assistance to complete the form when he arrived. Inadvertently, this was not noted. He described the facts in his account and spoke spontaneously about his XXXX experience. The fact that he inadvertently failed to include this information is insufficient to undermine his credibility. The panel did not take the necessary time to ask the appellant how his program invoked the ire of XXXX XXXX supporters."6 [14] I do not agree with the appellant. The RPD was right not to be satisfied that the appellant worked as a XXXX XXXX-a key part of his story of persecution. The fact that he failed to mention this job in his IMM5669 form is important, but the RPD also noted the lack of evidence of his training and his job at the XXXX XXXX, such as certificates, an identity card or a letter of employment. The appellant explained that he had lost these documents because his wife had to move several times. The RPD rejected that explanation because, at the beginning of the hearing, the appellant testified that his wife still lives in the same house in Cap-Haïtien where the entire family lived before he left Haiti.7 [15] I agree with the RPD's reasoning. Moreover, I note that the appellant wrote the following in his written account: [translation] "I was forced to leave the country quickly. In 2018, I applied for a visa for the Bahamas, and I was successful because I was a carpenter for several years. I left without telling anyone. In 2009, I applied for a US visa and I was accepted. In 2011, I moved to the United States."8 However, in his IMM5669 form, the appellant wrote that he lived in Haiti until XXXX 2011 and there is no mention of a stay in the Bahamas.9 [16] Lastly, I note that when the RPD asked the appellant what type of duties he performed as an XXXX at the XXXX XXXX, the appellant answered that he greeted guests at the station.10 This seems like a task that a receptionist would perform, not an archivist. In addition, his answer suggests that the appellant does not really understand what an archivist typically would do. [17] For all these reasons, I agree with the RPD's conclusion that the omissions in his IMM5660 form are significant and that they undermine the credibility of his allegations. Specifically, the allegation that he worked as a XXXX XXXX XXXX at a XXXX XXXX is not credible. Inconsistency concerning when the appellant decided to quit his job [18] The appellant testified that on XXXX XXXX, 2007, XXXX XXXX armed thugs showed up at the XXXX XXXX while he was there and threatened to kill him.11 The appellant then stated that he nonetheless returned to work after that incident.12 The appellant explained to the RPD that he decided on XXXX XXXX, 2007, not to return to the XXXX XXXX again. When the RPD asked him why he made that decision on XXXX XXXX XXXX the appellant could not give a coherent answer. When the RPD asked him if he had received any other threats between XXXX XXXX XXXX2007 and XXXX XXXX XXXX 2007, the appellant answered that he was threatened again in XXXX.13 The RPD had to remind him that in his account, he describes an incident in XXXX 2007, when he was threatened while on a bus. The appellant could not explain why he did not mention that incident when the RPD asked him why he had decided to never return to the XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX, 2007. [19] In his memorandum, the appellant challenges the RPD's finding that this memory gap demonstrates a lack of credibility. The appellant argues: [translation] "In paragraphs 20 to 25, the panel states that it noted that the appellant returned to XXXX XXXX XXXX despite the threats. He decided on XXXX XXXX that he would not return again. The appellant also referred to threats received after that date, which he did not mention in his written account. He also stated that he and his wife were threatened while on a bus in XXXX 2007. In its attempt to discredit the appellant, the panel did not take the necessary time to understand his allegations. The appellant stated that he left the program after he realized the threats were serious. Regarding the threats received following the incident on XXXX XXXX, 2007, there was a lack of precision with respect to what happened in XXXX 2007. This cannot cast doubt on the merits of the threats he received."14 [20] I do not agree with the appellant. The fact remains that the appellant was unable to explain to the RPD why, despite receiving death threats in person on XXXX XXXX, he continued to go to the XXXX XXXX, where the threats were made, and did not decide to stop going there until XXXX XXXX later. [21] It is clear from listening to the recording of the hearing that the appellant forgot a part of his story-the threats he received on a bus in XXXX-when he testified and that the RPD had to remind him. In my view, it would be normal to expect someone who truly received such threats to remember the sequence of events and the impact these events had on his decisions-like quitting his job. Like the RPD, I find that the appellant's testimony on this subject adds to the lack of credibility of his allegations. CONCLUSION [22] In conclusion, given the appellant's tremendous difficulty providing a coherent story, I find, as the RPD did, that the appellant's allegations are not credible. For these reasons, I conclude that the appellant did not establish that he faces a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or that, on a balance of probabilities, he would be personally subjected to a danger of torture, to a risk to his life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment should he return to Haiti. [23] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the RPD's determination that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) Jillan Sadek Jillan Sadek August 6, 2020 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 2 Appellant's memorandum, appellant's record, p. 1. 3 Around 0:59:00 of the recording of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) hearing on May 29, 2019. 4 At 0:54:00 of the recording of the RPD hearing on May 29, 2019. 5 IMM5669, RPD record, p. 72. 6 Appellant's memorandum, appellant's record, p. 2. 7 Around 0:38:00 of the recording of the RPD hearing on May 29, 2019. 8 Written account, RPD record, p. 26. 9 IMM-5669, RPD record, p. 73. 10 Around 1:01:00 of the recording of the RPD hearing on May 29, 2019. 11 Around 1:11:00 to 1:17:00 of the recording of the RPD hearing on May 29, 2019. 12 Around 1:20:00 of the recording of the RPD hearing on May 29, 2019. 13 Around 1:20:00 of the recording of the RPD hearing RPD on May 29, 2019. 14 Appellant's memorandum, appellant's record, p. 3. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB9-16429 RAD.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français 7 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 (January 2020) Disponible en français