MB8-24509

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB8-24509 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 June 11, 2019 Date de la décision Panel Me Zofia Przybytkowski Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Me Nadia Ciale 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. He fears returning to his country because PHTK supporters threatened him since he was a representative of a candidate from another party. He claims that he suffered an attack in a voting office on XXXX XXXX, 2015. [2] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected his refugee protection claim because it found that he was not credible due to inconsistencies and contradictions in his account. [3] The appellant is challenging the RPD's findings. He submits that he adequately explained the inconsistencies raised by the RPD. According to him, the RPD erred in assessing his credibility. [4] I conducted an independent analysis of the evidence by considering the record of the Refugee Appeal Division and that of the RPD, including the recording of the hearing before the RPD. DETERMINATION [5] I dismiss the appeal. I conclude that the RPD did not err in assessing the appellant's credibility. The contradictions between his written account and his testimony on the important elements of his claim are very significant and sufficient to rebut the presumption that his sworn testimony is truthful. ANALYSIS Sequence of events of the attack of XXXX XXXX [6] The RPD found that the appellant's credibility was severely tested because of contradictions related to the sequence of events of the attack of XXXX XXXX, 2015. I am of the opinion that the RPD did not err in its finding. [7] During the hearing, the appellant stated that someone punched him in the face and that he fell unconscious. He woke up at the hospital the next day, on XXXX XXXX, and found out that the police had intervened to have him brought in by ambulance. However, in his written account, the appellant fails to mention that he fell unconscious and indicates that he was threatened on the night of XXXX XXXX, 2015, even though he testified that he was unconscious at the hospital during that time. [8] The appellant explained that the failure to mention that he had fallen unconscious was a mistake by his former lawyer, who had completed his forms. The RPD rejected this explanation, as do I. The appellant signed his forms, stating that the content had been translated for him and that the information provided was complete, true and correct. In this context, I conclude that if his former lawyer had made errors, the appellant had ample opportunity to correct them. [9] With respect to the threats that he allegedly received on the night of XXXX XXXX, 2015, the appellant explained that he had regained consciousness that evening and that there was a commotion outside of the hospital. He reportedly asked the physicians for a pen to write down what had happened to him. This does not resolve the contradiction. In his account, the appellant states that at around 8:15 p.m. on XXXX XXXX, 2015, he was a victim and persecuted again by the same thug who had attacked him in the morning, accompanied by several other criminals. It was therefore during the second incident, separate from the first one, when he was attacked and recognized his attacker. The appellant's explanation contradicts his own testimony at the hearing, during which he clearly stated that he regained consciousness on XXXX XXXX, rather than on the night of XXXX XXXX. [10] The appellant points out that the RPD erred in its decision by referring to a single punch during the attack, even though the appellant testified that he was hit several times. I am of the opinion that this error had no impact on the RPD's assessment of the evidence and that there are still contradictions. [11] This omission and these contradictions on the events of XXXX XXXX XXXX 2015, which apparently caused the appellant's problems, fatally undermine his credibility. Attacker's identity [12] In his forms, the appellant states several times that he knew the identity of his attacker from XXXX XXXX, 2015, and that he was a representative of another party. He also indicates that he recognized this same attacker during the incident that occurred on the same evening. In his testimony at the hearing, he maintained that he was unable to identify his attacker. [13] When the RPD confronted him with this contradiction, the appellant stated that he was unable to identify his attacker because he had lost consciousness. The RPD did not accept this explanation because the allegation that he had fallen unconscious creates inconsistencies in his account. It also found it implausible that no one else at the scene could identify him, particularly since the police were there. [14] The appellant submits that the RPD erred by stating that it is implausible that the appellant could specifically name all the people who were at the voting office and that he could not then identify his attacker. I conclude that the RPD's comment is not erroneous, but it is of lesser importance compared to the glaring contradictions between the appellant's testimony and written account on the attacker's identity. [15] I find that these contradictions further undermine the appellant's credibility. Membership in a political organization [16] The RPD made a negative credibility finding with respect to the appellant because his forms do not indicate any affiliation with a political organization. The appellant does not specifically challenge this finding. During the hearing, he explained that this omission was his former lawyer's mistake. For the same reasons outlined above, I cannot accept that as an explanation because the appellant could have corrected this error with his new lawyer. I therefore agree with the RPD on this finding. Complaint to the police [17] The RPD found that the complaint made to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX police, which was entered into evidence, contradicts the appellant's forms, in which he indicates that he did not file a complaint with the police and provides reasons for why he failed to do so.1 The appellant explains that he did not mention it because it was his lawyer who had filed the complaint. [18] I cannot accept this explanation because, even if it were through his lawyer, the appellant testified that he called on the authorities to obtain justice. In addition, the police complaint is signed by the appellant.2 The appellant's explanation does not resolve the contradiction with his forms. Assessment of the evidence as a whole [19] The appellant criticizes the RPD for failing to consider all the evidence and the evidence that went against its findings. He does not specify which evidence resolves the contradictions or contradicts the RPD's findings. [20] In the circumstances, considering the significant contradictions between the sequence of events and even how the police complaint was obtained, I conclude that the evidence filed by the appellant is insufficient to support his allegations. CONCLUSION [21] For these reasons, I conclude that the appellant failed to establish that he faces a serious possibility of persecution in Haiti or that, on a balance of probabilities, there is a risk to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. [22] Therefore, the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. [23] The appeal is dismissed. Zofia Przybytkowski Me Zofia Przybytkowski June 11, 2019 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Refugee Protection Division (RPD) record, p. 14. 2 RPD record, pp. 76-77. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB8-24509 RAD.25.02 (April 4, 2019) Disponible en français 5 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 (April 4, 2019) Disponible en français