MC0-05699

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-05699 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, QC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision June 1, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Me Richard Sheitoyan Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Me François Dostaler 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] I dismiss the appeal. XXXX XXXX is a citizen of Haiti. An employee of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (XXXX), he alleges that he was threatened beginning in 2008 for hiring only 30 people out of more than 1,500 applicants. He was reassigned in XXXX 2015 to Artibonite, a three-hour drive from his home in XXXX, and returned there to visit his family on weekends every 15 days until his contract ended on XXXX XXXX, 2017. He was recognized a week later; he received death threats and rocks were thrown at his home. He left for the United States on XXXX XXXX, 2017, and came to Canada the next day. Additional facts were added on XXXX XXXX, 2020: five armed individuals attacked his home on XXXX XXXX, 2019, throwing rocks, damaging the gate, firing shots in the air and yelling to his wife that she would be killed because of her husband's incompetence. [2] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) determined that the appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection because of numerous credibility problems, including contradictions regarding the following: - his behaviour after selecting the 30 candidates; - the legal action he undertook; - the number and identity of his agents of harm; - the addresses where he allegedly lived between 2015 and 2017; - the dates indicated regarding when he allegedly filed his police complaint. [3] The appellant argues that the RPD erred in its decision because it did not allow him to provide specific and exhaustive explanations for the contradictions identified. [4] The determinative issue for the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) is credibility. DETERMINATION [5] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was right to determine that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. ANALYSIS [6] My role is to review all of the evidence and determine whether the RPD's decision is correct.1 Contradiction regarding the appellant's behaviour after selecting the 30 candidates [7] The appellant was threatened after he selected 30 candidates. According to his written account in his Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form), he stayed at the base for two days and then secretly returned to visit his family, escorted by soldiers. At the hearing, he testified that he advised his wife that he would stay on the base for two days as a precaution. He testified that after the two days, he went home without fear because his neighbourhood was secured by military troops. Confronted about whether he went home with or without a military escort, he stated that he had a military escort during the two days following the incident, that is, when he allegedly stayed on the base. [8] There are numerous contradictions in a simple element, namely, whether he stayed on the base for two days and whether he had a military escort when he left. Based on his answers, he either left the base before the two days with a military escort, or he left after two days with a military escort, or he left after two days without a military escort. There is no reason to ask for additional explanations for a simple situation that gets more complicated with each response. The RPD was correct to find that the appellant's credibility was undermined by this factual element. Contradictions regarding the legal action undertaken by the appellant and the identity of his agents of harm [9] The appellant testified that he filed a complaint against two people, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, at the police station a week after the incident in 2008. The complaint and the identity of the two people are not mentioned in the written account or in the amendment filed 10 days before the hearing. Moreover, in response to question 2(c) of the BOC Form on requests to the authorities for protection, the appellant wrote that he did not make a request because he did not trust the Haitian authorities. [10] When confronted, he stated that he did not receive any documents after filing the complaint and that he had omitted details about the identity of his agents of harm due to being stressed when he arrived in Canada. However, the RPD rightly noted that the appellant benefited from experienced counsel and had ample time after he arrived to calm his mind and correct anything that might have been omitted earlier, as is clear from the amendment. [11] There is nothing in the BOC Form about his agents of harm; he mentions instead that many people-approximately 1,500 according to the appellant-want revenge against him.2 [12] According to the appellant's memorandum, the RPD should have further examined the answers given during the hearing and allowed the appellant to give more exhaustive responses. However, testimony helps to supplement written documents. There is a major difference between indicating thousands of agents of harm and then identifying two of them. In addition, the answers given cannot be further examined when the appellant's own explanations are based on personal circumstances that changed over time. Thus, the initial stress cited as an explanation cannot apply later when the stressful situation has somewhat dissipated. This is even more true when the appellant demonstrated that he was able to make certain corrections to the detriment of those he should have added. The RPD's credibility finding drawn from observations concerning the identity of the agents and the actions undertaken with the police is correct. Contradictions regarding the addresses where he allegedly lived between 2015 and 2017 [13] The appellant filed a police complaint dated XXXX XXXX, 2017. In it, he gives an address in XXXX where he claims he lived peacefully for 24 months, between 2015 and 2017. However, the list of addresses in the Schedule A form includes an address in Port-au-Prince for that same period. Furthermore, his written account indicates an assignment in Artibonite in XXXX 2015, which is a three-hour drive from his home in XXXX, where he returned on weekends every 15 days to visit his family. When confronted, the appellant stated that he lived in one location but stayed in the other. There is a contradiction in the information provided. On one hand, he stated that he lived peacefully in one location. On the other, that location is not included in the list of addresses where he lived during that period. Differentiating between living and staying to explain the distinction does not add any clarification, and there is no reason to further explore the appellant's thinking. The RPD was correct to find that the omission of the address and the explanations provided for the omission undermined the appellant's credibility. Contradiction regarding the date he allegedly filed the complaint [14] The appellant filed Exhibit P-2, dated XXXX XXXX, 2019, certifying the filing of a complaint on XXXX XXXX, 2018, whereas Exhibit P-1, the complaint itself, is dated XXXX XXXX, 2017. [15] While the police might be to blame for the error, this evidence needs to be considered in the context of the record as a whole. The complaint mentions 24 months of residence in a location omitted from section 12 of Schedule A, listing addresses where a person has lived. It identifies two individuals as agents of harm, who are not mentioned in the written account even though they were allegedly identified as early as 2008. [16] Considered together, the numerous contradictions in Exhibit P-2, referring to Exhibit P-1, enabled the RPD to correctly conclude that they had no probative value. [17] Similarly, the appellant was unable to properly explain why he identified his two agents of harm in a police complaint but was unable to identify them in his written account or in a subsequent amendment. Contrary to the appellant's argument in his memorandum, the explanations for the contradictions cannot be reviewed exhaustively when, on their face, they contain inconsistencies that relate to the facts as a whole. [18] The RPD correctly found that the appellant is not credible. CONCLUSION [19] 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) Me Richard Sheitoyan Richard Sheitoyan June 1, 2021 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 Response to question 2(b) of the Basis of Claim Form. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-05699 RAD.25.02 (May 19, 2021) Disponible en français 2 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 (May 19, 2021) Disponible en français