TB7-17265

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 / Dossier de la SAR : TB7-17265 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 Ottawa, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision September 7, 2018 Date de la décision Panel Paula Thompson Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal Richard M Addinall 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, a citizen of Georgia, appealed a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated August 23, 2017, rejecting his claim for refugee protection. DETERMINATION [2] The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). APPEAL SUMMARY [3] The Appellant is a Georgian citizen of Kist ethnicity. He comes from the Pankisi Gorge area. He fears persecution at the hands of the XXXX family, who have declared a blood feud due to a sexual relationship his cousin had with a woman in their family. The cousin fled Georgia for Russia and the family targeted the Appellant. The Appellant fears he will be killed by the family and he fears the family will force him to facilitate the recruitment of potential ISIS soldiers to fight in Syria. [4] The RPD found the Appellant not to be a credible witness and further found that the Appellant had not rebutted the presumption of state protection. [5] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its credibility findings by ignoring evidence and making unreasonable inferences and by failing to give appropriate weight to corroborating documents. The Appellant also argues that the RPD erred in its evaluation of state protection. [6] The determinative issue in this appeal is credibility. I have completed an independent assessment of the record and transcript, and have considered the Appellant's arguments. I agree with the RPD findings and decision, for the same reasons as those provided by the RPD. ANALYSIS Is the new evidence submitted pursuant to Rule 29 admissible? [7] The Appellant has submitted two documents as new evidence, arguing that these documents should be admitted because they establish that blood feuds still occur in Georgia. The Appellant states that he did not obtain the documents prior to the RPD decision because he did not know they would be useful. The first document is a letter from the Kakheti Regional Development Foundation, the second a letter from the Pankisi Council of Elders. Both documents are dated October 10, 2017. [8] Both documents recount general information about blood feuds and customary law among the Kist. Both documents mention the Appellant's circumstances, although not in detail. Neither document contains information that post-dates the RPD decision date of August 23, 2017. I find that the Appellant could have obtained and submitted these documents prior to perfecting their appeal and prior to the RPD decision date. As a result I cannot accept either document into evidence in this appeal. The Appellant is expected to put their best case forward at the RPD. Did the RPD err in its credibility findings? [9] Apart from two specific issues raised by the Appellant, which I address below, all the remaining issues are fully and correctly addressed by the RPD reasons. I find no error with those reasons and I concur with them. [10] The Appellant argues that the RPD relied exclusively on a 2015 Response to Information Request (RIR), ignoring an earlier 2011 RIR that observes that blood feuds have taken place in the Pankisi gorge. I agree with the Appellant that the RPD did not explicitly reference this RIR, but the RPD did acknowledge that some evidence states that "contrary evidence indicating that the tradition is still being practiced in northern Georgia."1 The RPD should have referenced this direct contrary evidence in the 2011 RIR, but this is a minor omission that in my view does not impugn the RPD's specific and overall credibility findings. [11] Related to this, I find that the RPD findings related to blood feuds were clearly grounded and informed by the objective documentary evidence. According to two IRB RIRs, including the older 2011 RIR referenced by the Appellant, blood feuds in Georgia are "uncommon," "rare," and "have virtually disappeared," and reports indicate that there have been "no new cases between 2010 and 2015."2 The 2015 RIR states that "a representative of the Human Rights Centre ..., a Georgia-based NGO dedicated to the protection and promotion of human rights indicated that the organization has not heard of the existence of blood feuds in 'modern times'."3 The 2011 IRB RIR quoted by the Appellant also states that blood feuds are "very unusual and rarely ever occur." This of course does not mean that blood feuds cannot happen. The RPD appropriately canvassed the objective risk and then assessed the Appellant's credibility and made several negative credibility findings relating to various aspects of his claim. [12] Second, the Appellant argues that the RPD erred by not giving weight to the medical reports and to the statement by the Appellant's father because of the numerous credibility findings. I disagree. The RPD correctly stated that medical reports did not provide any insight into what caused his injuries and are of little probative value. I also agree that the statement from the father in and of itself is insufficient to displace the numerous credibility problems found by the RPD and the documentary evidence related to the objective basis of the Appellant's claim and the potential availability of state protection. CONCLUSION [13] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). (signed) "Paula Thompson" Name of Member September 7, 2018 Date 1 RPD-1, RPD Record. p. 6, RPD reasons, para. 16. 2 RPD-1, RPD Record. National Documentation Package, March 2017. RIR GEO105168.E, dated 3 June 2015 3 Ibid. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB7-17265 5 RAD.25.02 (April 24, 2018) Disponible en français