MC0-05722

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-05722 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 Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision April 26, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Mokhtar Lamani Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Odette Desjardins 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] XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Benin, is appealing the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision dated February 10, 2020, rejecting his refugee protection claim on the ground of credibility. [2] The appellant alleges that the RPD's decision contains significant errors regarding his credibility.1 [3] The appellant is requesting that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the RPD's determination and grant him refugee status, or order a de novo hearing before a differently constituted panel.2 [4] The RAD is of the opinion that the determinative issue is the appellant's credibility. DETERMINATION [5] After conducting an independent analysis of the evidence, including listening to the recording of the hearing before the RPD, the RAD agrees with the RPD's finding regarding the appellant's credibility, confirms the RPD's negative determination and dismisses the appeal. BACKGROUND [6] According to his Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form), the appellant's grandfather was a XXXX XXXX in the village of Dogba until his death in 1998. [7] After his grandfather's death, the village oracle appointed the appellant's father as his successor. [8] The appellant's father refused this appointment and was attacked by his family and by villagers. [9] On XXXX XXXX, 1999, the appellant's father died in a motor vehicle accident. [10] The appellant alleges that his father's death was caused by villagers, who were angry with him for refusing to become their XXXX XXXX. [11] After his father's death, the oracle appointed the appellant's brother (XXXX) as the new XXXX XXXX. Just like his father, the appellant's brother refused this appointment. [12] On November 2, 2014, his brother XXXX was attacked by villagers, who reproached him for refusing to become their XXXX XXXX. [13] Two days later, on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2014, his brother XXXX died after confiding in the appellant that his attackers were members of his father's family. [14] On January 10, 2016, the oracle decided to appoint the appellant as their XXXX XXXX. He refused this position. [15] Fearing that he would be killed, the appellant left his country for Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2017, and claimed protection in Canada. STANDARD OF REVIEW [16] The RAD reviews RPD decisions by applying the correctness standard of review after conducting its own analysis of the record. The exception to this rule is when the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in assessing credibility.3 That being said, the RAD's role is to determine whether the RPD did indeed commit errors, as the appellant submits. [17] The RAD applied the correctness standard of review in this case. ANALYSIS Did the Refugee Protection Division err in its findings regarding the credibility of the appellant's fear of returning to Benin? [18] The RPD stated that the appellant did not discharge his burden of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, a reasonable fear of persecution should he return to Benin and determined that he is not a Convention refugee.4 The RAD comes to the same conclusion. [19] The RPD had many concerns regarding the appellant's allegations in determining the merits of his fear of persecution. It conducted its questioning properly and drew numerous adverse credibility findings based on major inconsistencies, contradictions and omissions, confusing testimony and evasive answers. The RAD noted that the appellant often avoided answering questions, which meant that the RPD had to repeat its questions and never received precise and satisfactory answers. Lack of evidence corroborating the appellant's father's cause of death [20] According to the RPD, the appellant did not provide any corroborative evidence that his father was killed in 1999. His father's death certificate that he submitted confirms the date and time of death but is silent on the cause of death. The RPD also did not believe the appellant's unreasonable explanation that, in his view, his father's accident was caused by members of his father's family; that he does not know whether a police investigation took place; that he did not take any steps in that regard; and that his mother is aware, but neither she nor anyone else can help him.5 [21] In his memorandum, the appellant submits that the RPD's finding is unreasonable because he testified that his mother is aware of such an investigation, but that she cannot help him obtain a police report to be submitted in evidence because she is elderly and because she fears persecution by the appellant's father's family.6 [22] The RAD considers that the RPD did not err in doubting the appellant's credibility. [23] At the hearing, the appellant's testimony was inconsistent with respect to his father's cause of death. In addition, he made no effort to corroborate that his father's family orchestrated his father's [translation] "murder." His answers were vague and unsatisfactory. [24] Even if the RAD were to consider his argument that his mother is aware of a police investigation and could not pick it up because she is elderly and fears her in-laws' reaction, he should have at least tried to obtain an affidavit to that effect from his mother to submit in evidence, especially since he had plenty of time between the day he left Benin for Canada (XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017) and the day the RPD rendered its decision (February 10, 2020). [25] In addition, the appellant's immigration document (Schedule A) concerning his background reveals that he is not destitute, that he worked for several years as a XXXX XXXX and then as an XXXX, and that he must have a network of contacts who could have picked up the police investigation report attesting to the cause of death, if indeed this report really exists. [26] The RAD draws a negative inference from the appellant's failure to make reasonable efforts to obtain this corroborative evidence. [27] Therefore, like the RPD, the RAD finds that the appellant's credibility is seriously undermined. Implausibility of the circumstances in which the appellant's brother lived [28] The RPD questioned the appellant about the events surrounding the appointment of his brother XXXX as the village's new XXXX XXXX by the oracle in July 1999 (when he was 14 years old), and the fact that he lived in hiding for 13 years and was not found by his father's family until 2012. [29] The appellant explained that his brother moved constantly during those years. The RPD found it implausible that his brother XXXX could have lived in hiding for so long without being found by members of his father's family, if they really wanted to find him. The RPD found that this implausibility undermines the appellant's credibility and casts serious doubt on the appellant's alleged fears.7 [30] The appellant argues that he answered the RPD's questions about this aspect of his written account to the best of his knowledge; that is, that his brother moved constantly between 1999 and 2012.8 [31] The RAD disagrees. [32] The appellant's argument does not explain how a 14-year-old child could move constantly for 13 years to avoid his father's family. This argument does not amount to a full and detailed submission on a potential error in the RPD's finding. [33] The RAD agrees with the RPD that the appellant's credibility is undermined. Lack of evidence corroborating the appellant's brother's cause of death [34] The RPD questioned the appellant about the attack on his brother by his family in November 2014 that resulted in his hospitalization and his death two days later. [35] The RPD noted that, as in his father's case, the appellant submitted only a death certificate that is silent on the cause of death, and it questioned the appellant about his injuries and the treatment provided. The appellant replied that he does not have any evidence of his brother's hospitalization and that only his mother could have such evidence, but she is too old to help him. [36] As in the case of the appellant's father, the RPD questioned the lack of corroborative evidence, a document from the hospital confirming the appellant's statements about his brother's death, or at least the injuries and the treatment provided. The RPD was unsatisfied with the appellant's answers, as other means or other individuals most certainly could have provided help or support to obtain those documents from the hospital, if those documents do indeed exist. This undermined the appellant's credibility.9 [37] In his memorandum, the appellant argues that, once again, he testified that his mother is aware of such documentary evidence but cannot help him obtain it because of her advanced age and her fear of his father's family.10 [38] The RAD cannot accept this unfounded argument. [39] As in the case of the police investigation report on the appellant's father's cause of death (paragraphs 22 to 25 of this decision, above), the RAD would expect the appellant to make an effort to obtain the document from the hospital. He had more than enough time to request it and otherwise submit it in evidence, given its relevance. The reasons for his failure to submit such documents and his lack of reasonable efforts to rectify the situation seriously undermine his credibility. [40] The RAD agrees with the RPD that the appellant's credibility is undermined. Lack of evidence that the appellant was chosen as a XXXX XXXX [41] At the end of its decision, the RPD concluded that although the appellant stated that he himself was chosen to become a XXXX XXXX after his father's and brother's deaths and refused this appointment, he was unable to provide evidence of this appointment. The RPD did not believe the appellant with regard to his alleged fears or that he is at risk of being attacked, threatened or persecuted by members of his father's family or the villagers of Dogbo, and he was unable to provide evidence establishing those facts on a balance of probabilities.11 [42] In his memorandum, the appellant states that the RPD relied exclusively on his testimony when he stated that he was met by an emissary in January 2016, and argues that the RPD erred in law. It did not specify why it found his answer to be unreasonable. [43] The RAD disagrees with these arguments, which it considers unfounded. [44] First, with respect to this RPD finding, it did not characterize the appellant's answer as unreasonable. [45] Also, the appellant does not provide any explanation as to how the RPD erred in law in this finding. [46] Lastly, the RAD is of the opinion that the RPD's numerous findings regarding the appellant's credibility relate to important aspects of the appellant's refugee protection claim. These findings are based on the evidence submitted in this case, and the RPD's reasons are clear and easy to understand, they are detailed and complete, and they accurately reflect the appellant's testimony at the hearing. They are not erroneous. [47] Ultimately, the RAD finds that the reasons outlined above are sufficient to question the appellant's credibility about the occurrence of the incident at the core of his refugee protection claim and the risk of persecution that he could face if he were to return to Benin. [48] The RAD concludes that the RPD's decision is correct. CONCLUSION [49] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the RPD's determination that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) Mokhtar Lamani Mokhtar Lamani April 26, 2021 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Appellant's memorandum, at para. 6. 2 Ibid., at para. 25. 3 Canada (MCI) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (MCI), 2018 FC 1145. 4 Refugee Protection Division (RPD) reasons, at para. 15. 5 Ibid., at para. 19. 6 Appellant's memorandum, at paras. 10 to 13. 7 RPD reasons, at para. 21. 8 Appellant's memorandum, at para. 16. 9 RPD reasons, at para. 22. 10 Appellant's memorandum, at para. 20. 11 RPD reasons, at para. 23. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-05722 RAD.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français 3 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