MC0-04796

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-04796 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 April 6, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Me Agnès Connat Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Souad Al-Ali 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 (the appellant) is a citizen of Algeria. He fears persecution by his family, friends and the general public because of his conversion to Christianity. [2] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found that the appellant is not credible because of contradictions, inconsistencies and the vagueness of his testimony on the circumstances of his conversion and baptism, his poor knowledge of the Catholic church he attended in Algeria and his virtual ignorance of his new religion. It found that the appellant is not credible with respect to his conversion to the Protestant denomination in Canada or the sincerity of his religious beliefs. [3] The appellant argues that the RPD erred in the analysis of his credibility and in the assessment of the evidence associated with its conclusions. [4] For the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), the determinative issue is whether the appellant established that he is a Christian convert. DETERMINATION [5] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD correctly determined that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. NEW EVIDENCE The evidence presented by the appellant is rejected [6] The appellant presented new evidence before the RAD: a medical certificate from a doctor explaining his condition and memory problems, the original copies of his baptism certificate and his attestation of conversion. [7] The RAD may allow new evidence that arose after the rejection of a claim or (i) that was not reasonably available before the RPD rendered its decision, or (ii) that the appellant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection (iii).1 If the evidence meets at least one of these requirements, the appellant must also establish that it meets the three criteria of credibility, newness, and relevance.2 [8] The RAD rejects the medical certificate (certificate) dated March 5, 2020. The appellant explains that this medical evidence attests that he has a XXXX XXXX that, according to his submissions, accounts for his confusion with the dates and his inability to describe how the masses he attended were run, to give testimony on the content of certain Bible verses, to name important celebrations or to explain the names of the churches and provide their addresses. [9] Although dated after the rejection of the claim on February 12, 2020, (i) the certificate reports on a situation that existed at the time of the hearing, as the appellant argues that by his immigration consultant noted his memory problems prior to the hearing during meetings with him, as well as during the hearing.3 He argues that this evidence was not accessible on the day of the hearing (ii), but does not explain why. If the appellant and his counsel had noted memory problems prior to the hearing, he should have produced a medical certificate at the hearing or even asked to be identified as a vulnerable person, which he did not do. He did not explain why he did not file a medical certificate before the RPD rendered its decision. I consider that he could have done so by taking reasonable measures. The RPD rendered its decision more than 20 days after the hearing. He argues that his counsel asked him to go see a doctor after the hearing. Therefore, he had 20 days to go see a doctor or apply to the RPD for the time to do so, which he did not do. The appellant does not explain why he did not produce such a certificate at the time of the rejection (iii). The certificate does not meet at least one of the requirements under 110(4) and is rejected. [10] The RAD rejected the original copies of documents presented at the hearing, a baptism certificate (baptism certificate) and an attestation of conversion (attestation). [11] The appellant argues that the baptism certificate and the attestation are key evidence for determining his credibility and that the RAD must take them into consideration. [12] The documents are dated before the hearing (i). Moreover, the appellant produced a copy at the hearing. They do not meet the first criterion. If the original copies were not available before the RPD rendered its decision, the appellant has not explained why he did not produce them before the RPD (ii) and I do not see how this can be explained. If they were available (iii), the appellant has not explained why he could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented them. I see no reason. The appellant must demonstrate the admissibility of any new evidence presented to the RAD, which he did not do. He has not explained how this new evidence meets at least one of the criteria under subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). [13] The RPD rendered its decision more than 20 days after the hearing. The appellant could have filed his original copies before the RPD rendered its decision, as he had the time to do so. The role of the RAD is not to give the appellant more time or to provide the opportunity to complete a deficient record before the RPD, but to correct errors of fact, errors in law or mixed errors of fact and law.4 The original copies do not meet any of the 110(4) criteria and are therefore rejected. The Refugee Appeal Division denies the request for an oral hearing [14] The appellant is asking the RAD to hold an oral hearing, which I cannot grant. I may hear an appellant if new evidence raises a serious issue with respect to their credibility, is central to the decision with respect to the refugee protection claim, and would justify allowing the refugee protection claim. As no new evidence has been presented, the criteria under subsection 110(6) of the IRPA are not met, and I cannot grant the request for an oral hearing. ANALYSIS [15] My role is to examine all of the evidence, which includes listening to the hearing, and to establish whether the RPD's decision is correct.5 [16] In my analysis, I considered the appellant's alleged religious profile, that of a practising Christian. He reportedly converted in Algeria in June 2016, four years before the hearing. During that period, he attended church, hiding it from his family and friends. Once in Canada, in XXXX 2018, his religious practice became more intense. He was attending several Catholic churches every Sunday,6 until August 2019. He then joined an Evangelical church, went to mass every Sunday, and was baptized by immersion on XXXX XXXX, 2019. The appellant did not establish that he converted and was baptized in Algeria Refugee Protection Division conclusions [17] The RPD found that the appellant is not credible regarding his conversion to Christianity by reason of his testimony at the hearing, which it considered to be contradictory with respect to the dates of his conversion; vague and incomplete in several places regarding the reasons and circumstances surrounding his conversion; vague and lacking in spontaneity regarding his attending the Annaba church and its followers; and brief regarding his baptism. [18] The RPD considers that the appellant does not have basic knowledge of his new religion despite the fact that converting to Christianity is not a trivial matter for an adult, especially in a Muslim country. The appellant's submissions [19] The appellant explains in his appeal memorandum that he made a mistake in the dates because of a memory problem, and that it was [translation] "noticed" by his counsel and confirmed at the hearing. He argues that the medical certificate indicates that he has a XXXX XXXX and has been referred for a neurological assessment (filed as new evidence and rejected by the RAD). He explains that he even made a mistake in the date of Christmas, that instead of stating December 24, he said January 24, that this date is universal and unforgettable to everyone, regardless of religion, which confirms a neurological problem. [20] The appellant argues that he felt Christian even before officially converting, and that is why no one knew, and that this feeling pushed him to research Christianity. He confirms that he was attending a Catholic church in Annaba between March 2014 and January 2015, and that his official conversion took place in 2016, because he had to make an appointment with the [translation] "Spaniards" to perform his conversion. [21] The appellant argues that the UNHCR states that claims based on religion may involve the following elements: religion as belief (including non-belief), religion as identity, and religion as a way of life. He states that identity is less a matter of theological beliefs than of membership in a community that respects or shares beliefs, rituals, traditions, an ethnicity, a nationality or common ancestors, and that a refugee protection claimant may identify with or feel they belong to a particular group or community or be perceived by others as belonging to them, and that in many cases, persecutors target different religious groups because they perceive them to be a threat to their own identity or legitimacy. [22] The appellant argues that the RPD erred in finding that he was not credible with respect to the persecution and violence he was subjected to by his family because of his conversion to Christianity. He argues that the RPD erred by focusing on the verbs [translation] "discover" and "tell" when "tell" is a synonym of the verb "discover." The appellant explains that he is the one who informed or [translation] "told" his family about his conversion to Christianity and this is how his parents found out about his conversion. The appellant contradicted himself as to the dates of his baptism and conversion [23] The RPD's conclusion is correct. The appellant contradicted himself at the hearing regarding the date of conversion indicated in his Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form), which undermines his credibility regarding his conversion in Algeria. [24] The appellant did not provide the date of conversion in his May 2018 BOC Form, but he did provide a date in his amendments of May 17, 2018,7 and May 28, 2018.8 He alleges: [translation] "My friends and family started to suspect my religious affiliation, which did not stop me from converting in secret. After that, I remained anonymous, until the day the threat became part of my daily life." In his amended BOC Form of January 2020,9 he explains that he decided to convert in June 2016 with missionaries from Spain. He does not indicate the date of baptism. [25] At the hearing, the appellant testified that he became a Christian in March 2016,10 that he was going to the Annaba church in 2014,11 and that he was first a Christian to himself before converting in 2016.12 I understand from this part of his testimony that he had been going to church since 2014 and that he considered himself to have converted in 2016, by baptism. [26] However, he contradicted himself later in the hearing when he stated that he had been baptized in 201513 after attending that church from March 2014 to January 2015.14 He explained that January 2015 was when his family started to suspect something.15 I note a contradiction between his BOC Form (alleged conversion in 2016) and his testimony at the hearing (converted in 2016 and baptized in 2015). [27] When the RPD asked him why he testified that he had been baptized in 2015, when he indicates 2016 in his BOC Form, his explanation is confusing.16 [Translation] Q: Sir, a little earlier in the hearing you told me that you were converted in Algeria in 2015. A: That was just for me, no one else knew about it. Q: No, sir, we discussed, you told me when you converted, when you were baptized, you told me in 2015. A: Yes Q: Alright. So, in 2015, you were baptized at the Annaba church. In your amended BOC Form, you state June 2016, I decided to convert. I would like you to help me understand this difference. A: Okay, in 2015, that was just for me, in 2016, I announced the conversion. Q: Sir, in your form, it clearly states: I decided to convert. It does not say that you announced your conversion, it says: I decided to convert; that is different. A: Yes, I had converted but I did not tell anyone that I had. Q: I understood that, but that still does not explain the difference in the dates you told me. You told me: I was baptized in 2015; then you said you converted in June 2016. A: I was a Christian for myself. When an event occurred, they wanted to marry me off to a veiled woman, then I announced that I was not Muslim to marry a woman like that. So, in 2016, I announced the news. Q: When did you announce that in 2016? A: I have a memory problem, I cannot remember dates. Q: Was it around the beginning, middle or end of the year? A: The end of the year. [28] The appellant contradicted himself between his testimony at the hearing and his amended BOC Form regarding the date of conversion. However, I do not note any contradiction between the BOC Form and the appellant's testimony regarding having secretly converted [translation] "just for himself." [29] The appellant's explanation that he allegedly confused the date of his conversion with the date of his announcement to his family is not acceptable. Nor is the fact that he has a memory problem. Before the RPD pointed out this contradiction to him, the appellant had not mentioned a memory problem. For example, he gave the dates of his XXXX studies or of different jobs without any problem. Furthermore, the date of his baptism in Algeria is important not only to his refugee protection claim, but also to his life as a believer. Choosing a new religion, converting, baptism as an adult, especially in a minority situation, in a predominantly Muslim country, against the opinion of his family and community, is a significant event. I would expect a person making this choice to be able to remember the date of his baptism, which is not the appellant's case. [30] The appellant's contradiction on a significant aspect of his claim, namely, the date of his baptism, undermines his credibility regarding his conversion. The appellant's testimony regarding his conversion was vague and imprecise. [31] The RPD was able to examine his reasons for practising his religion17 and assess the extent to which the appellant knew some of the fundamental precepts of this religion.18 In a recent decision, the Federal Court19 stated the following: "In my view, he who says that he is persecuted because of his religious beliefs to the point of having to go into exile must be familiar with the basic information relating to this religious belief. This is only common sense to me." [emphasis added] [32] The RPD's conclusion is correct. The testimony concerning the reasons and circumstances surrounding his conversion in Algeria was vague and imprecise. This undermines his credibility with respect to his conversion and compounds the previous credibility issue. [33] First of all, the appellant was very vague about his motivations and journey toward Christianity. When the RPD asked him why he became a Christian, he explained that he had first seen films about Christianity at the movies, but he could not name any example of a film.20 He also testified that he dreamt about someone showing him the right path, and that he then did some research and found freedom. However, when the RPD asked him what kind of research he had done, he answered that he searched on the Internet about how Jesus came, but was unable to give an example of a site where he had done this research. He simply said on Google.21 The appellant's journey toward Christianity, namely, how he was able to embrace his new religion, is important not only for his refugee protection claim, but also for himself and his spiritual journey. Nevertheless, he cannot provide any clarification on what led him to discover and choose Christianity, nor can he give an example of any of the films he allegedly saw or websites he visited. [34] He continued to be vague when talking about the clergy who converted him and about the circumstances under which this happened. He explained that he used to attend church in Annaba (four or five times) secretly when he would go to the city to sell cars. He reportedly became a Christian after some [translation] "Spanish Catholics" gave him an appointment. He testified that these people organized parties, that he told them how he had seen Jesus Christ in a dream and that Jesus Christ told him that he was on the wrong path and how to get on the right path. He explained that to become a Christian, you have to carry Jesus in your heart and have faith in Him. He did not talk about concrete discussions he may have had with these Spaniards and did not really explain who these people are. [35] The Federal Court case law cautions against the temptation to blow trivial matters out of proportion to establish the authenticity of a person's convictions.22 However, this is not what the RPD did in assessing the appellant's claim. It asked him general questions to give him the flexibility to present the genuineness of his faith. [36] When the RPD asked him to explain his baptism, he explained that they welcomed him, organized a ritual, put a hand on his forehead, read some things, prayed to Jesus Christ and then splashed water on him.23 This description is also vague: the appellant said that he read some things, but does not specify which holy text or book, and that a ritual was organized, not specifying what that was. Baptism is a ritual that symbolizes a Christian's entry into their new religion. It is justified to expect that someone going through a baptism as an adult, who chose to adopt a different religion than the one they were raised in, would describe it in more specific terms. [37] The appellant testified that he would pray when he would go to church in Annaba. The RPD asked the appellant if he knew a prayer. He replied yes and then recited:24 [translation] "Jesus, Jesus, I am in your hands, I am asking you to forgive me, forgive my sins, you are the God, you are capable of letting me live, of taking me to heaven." The member explained that he stood up, raised his right arm and closed his eyes. The appellant recited a prayer in simple terms. Not having the expertise to judge its genuineness, I cannot draw any conclusions from this prayer. [38] However, when the RPD asked him which book Catholics use, the appellant was unable to name the Bible.25 He simply replied that he did not know and said that he had read about evangelism. He explained that when he was baptized in Annaba, there was a holy book, but it was in Spanish and he did not understand because he did not speak Spanish. He does not know the name of that book or whether there is a version in French. He explained that the people who went to this church were Arabs and Spaniards, but that he did not associate with the Arabs out of fear of what they would say. His explanation is not acceptable and does not justify how someone who has allegedly converted to Catholicism is unable to answer spontaneously that the Catholic book is the Bible, especially since, as will be discussed below, he went to mass almost every Sunday for 17 months while in Canada. [39] Later,26 the RPD asked him what the Bible verses say and he answered that Jesus forgives our sins and that we must live the life that we want, which is a plausible answer, but once again, rather vague. [40] When the RPD asked about major celebrations in the Catholic Church, he named Christmas and made a mistake regarding the meaning of this important religious ritual. He explained that the meaning of Christmas is [translation] "the end of the year," that he did not know other Catholic celebrations and that he just [translation] "attended the Christmas festivities."27 Only later did he explain that Christmas is also the birth of Jesus. At that time, he said that celebration was January 24.28 I consider it justified to expect that someone who has converted to Catholicism would be able to spontaneously explain the meaning of Christmas for Catholics, that it is not simply a year-end festivity. It is also acceptable to expect that someone would be able to name at least one other fundamental celebration in the Catholic Church, such as Easter or communion or even simply the mass. The fact that the appellant said that Christmas is January 24 is not indicative of a memory problem but rather a careless mistake. This mistake supports my conclusion that the appellant does not have solid knowledge of the ritual of Christmas. [41] The appellant did not provide any corroborating evidence of his conversion in Algeria. He does not remember the name of the person who baptized him and has no documentation related to his conversion in Algeria because he left everything behind. He testified that he did not try to find the Christians who knew him over there. This absence of corroborating evidence and the lack of reasonable measures to obtain any are not determinative with respect to the appellant's claim. However, they are relevant and can be taken into consideration in assessing the credibility of the appellant, who was unable to provide a reasonable explanation for them.29 [42] The appellant did not establish that he converted to Catholicism in Algeria. He contradicted himself with the dates of his conversion, then gave vague and imprecise testimony, even when describing his baptism. He was unable to explain his motivation or his journey or any of the research that led him to want to convert. He has limited knowledge of the fundamentals of Catholicism, particularly for someone who allegedly has gone to mass regularly on Sundays since arriving in Canada. Even though he recited a prayer before the RPD, the appellant was unable to spontaneously explain the meaning of Christmas as a religious holiday and was unable to spontaneously name the Bible as the book that Catholics use. The appellant did not establish his religious practice in Canada. Refugee Protection Division conclusions [43] The RPD finds that the appellant is not credible with respect to his attendance at churches in Canada for the following reasons: - Because of his lack of knowledge of key aspects of Catholicism and its major rituals, when he had been attending two Catholic churches in Montréal between March 2018 and August 2019; - Because of a failure to explain what drove him to attend an evangelical church in August 2019, when he had been attending Catholic churches prior to that; - His lack of knowledge about what differentiates the two currents of faith; - He could not explain why his evangelical church was called XXXX or provide the address; - The baptism certificate is not enough to offset the numerous credibility issues with the appellant's testimony because it is not the original copy and the document contains several typing and grammar mistakes; - The photographs of the appellant in a church do not demonstrate that the appellant was practising in good faith. Appellant's submissions [44] The appellant argues that it is reasonable to expect that he would be able to describe the masses he attended, testify about the contents of certain Bible verses, name important celebrations, and explain the name of the churches and give their address, but that he was unable to do so because of his neurological problem. He clarifies that he cannot provide the address because he is used to getting there on public transit and cannot really say what the address is. [45] The appellant argues that he chose the XXXX church because he felt very comfortable there, and that what interests him most is its Christian identity, assistance and solace, regardless of the parish. He explains that this is why he wanted to be baptized a second time. He explains that he chose a French church because he wanted to be in a French environment in which he could learn both the religion and the language at the same time, but because of his memory problem, it could take longer. [46] The appellant argues that the RPD erred in not accepting the baptism certificate and the attestation of conversion because of typing and grammar mistakes, and that this evidence was essential to the analysis of his credibility and the risk of persecution. He adds that not all clerics are necessarily French-language experts and that the quality of the language [translation] "should neither challenge the legality of the documents nor the appellant's conversion." For him, the certificate and the attestation confirm that he is of the Christian faith and, therefore, it is not necessary to establish that he belongs to this denomination or that he is a member in good faith of that community. The appellant did not establish that he was attending Catholic churches in Canada from March 2018 to August 2019 [47] At the hearing, the appellant testified that he arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, and that he first attended Catholic churches before switching to an evangelical church in August 2019. He was baptized at this church on December 31, 2019. [48] The RPD's conclusion is correct. The appellant did not establish that he was attending Catholic churches in Canada from March 2018 to August 2019. [49] The appellant testified at the hearing that he has been attending two churches for 17 months (March 2018-August 2019) since arriving in Canada. He goes regularly to the XXXX XXXX in the evenings (6:00 pm to 8:00 pm), sometimes for prayers in English or French, and every Sunday, with some exceptions.30 However, despite the deepening of his religious practice, when the RPD asked him to describe how things proceed on Sundays at one of these churches, the appellant replied that they sing, read and pray.31 He cannot say what they sang because he does not understand French, but added that he felt the message in his heart. He does not remember the name of the pastor at the XXXX XXXX he was attending. When the RPD asked him to explain what the Bible verses say, he responded [translation] "Jesus, forgive our sins." [50] The appellant attended the Catholic Church approximately once per week for more than a year and a half from the time he arrived in Canada. It is acceptable to expect that someone practising this much would be able to explain in a more precise, colourful or lively way, or at least other than in vague terms, how his faith is expressed when at church and explain what happens, without necessarily going into extensive details about the contents of songs or prayers. Even though the appellant does not speak or understand French or English, it is also logical to think that a Catholic practising for the last 17 months, baptized at least two years ago (2014 or 2016), would be able to explain the basics of the fundamental rituals of his religion. [51] These elements are in addition to the previously analyzed elements regarding the appellant's religious practice in Algeria. The appellant's lack of knowledge of the elements, and fundamental and basic rituals of Catholicism undermines the credibility of his allegations that he had been attending two Catholic churches between March 2018 and August 2019, in Montréal. The appellant did not establish that he was attending an evangelical church in Canada [52] The RPD's conclusion is correct. The appellant did not establish that he was attending an evangelical church in Canada. [53] Starting in August 2019, the appellant chose to attend another church, not Catholic either, but evangelical. He was baptized there on XXXX XXXX, 2019. [54] The RPD questioned the appellant about the way of becoming a member of this new church and the reasons why he chose to change. He explained that he changed because the pastor is a good person and has a beautiful soul.32 When the RPD asked him about the differences between Catholics and Evangelists, he answered that they are the same, but that Evangelists are more welcoming than Catholics, that he went to see and that their schedule was convenient and the pastor was nice, that the reason for the change is [translation] "the humanity." [55] The appellant converted to Catholicism in Algeria and then decided to change and become an evangelist after 17 months of being in Canada. It is logical to expect that he would be able to explain the reasons for changing denominations. However, the reasons given by the appellant are vague; he did not explain the differences between these denominations. He mentioned practical issues such as the schedule or the pastor's kindness or even that Protestants are more welcoming, which leads to doubts about the genuineness of his faith. Even though faith is a deeply personal issue, the appellant was unable to explain the differences between the two denominations, which is the minimum when an adult decides to change from Catholicism to Protestantism, especially if that person is alleging that he attended the Protestant Church every week after having attended Catholic churches every week as well. [56] The appellant's lack of knowledge about the basic differences between Catholicism and Protestantism and the fact that he was unable to explain why he converted again undermine the appellant's credibility regarding his faith and Protestant religious practice. The appellant did not establish that he was baptized in Canada [57] The RPD's conclusion is correct. The appellant did not establish that he was baptized at an evangelical church in Canada. [58] The appellant explained that to be part of the evangelical church, there are no [translation] "special formalities" and that during the baptism, he was immersed in water rather than splashed with it.33 He was baptized on XXXX XXXX, 2019. To explain the choice of date, he responded to his counsel that it was the end of the year and it would therefore remain a memory in his life.34 [59] Once again, baptism is a ritual of great significance for a person joining a denomination. The fact that, in his explanations, the appellant reduces it to being immersed in water does not indicate that he knows this important basic ritual for Protestants. Furthermore, his explanation that he chose December 31 as the date because it is the end of the year and he wanted it to stay a memory casts doubt on the sincerity of his faith. [60] The appellant filed a Christian attestation of conversion and a baptism certificate. Both documents are dated January 10, 2020. [61] When the RPD asked him to explain the duties to God indicated on the attestation provided as evidence, the appellant once again gave vague explanations. He explained that when you are baptized, your eyes are open, you can see the truth and that the duties are the right path that God dictates to you, being sincere, that you must work in life and other things, that you must love Jesus, keep him in your heart, be sincere, not attack others, work for life and that Jesus will come down to earth.35 The appellant's answer was rather general. However, as each person's religious practice is personal, I consider it possible that this is what the appellant has retained about his duties to God and I do not draw any negative inference as to his credibility. [62] The attestation states that the appellant is [translation] "a converted Christian who practises the precepts of Christianity." The certificate states that the appellant agreed to be baptized by immersion according to the Christian ritual, acknowledging his duties to God and promising to live according to his principles and practices. [63] The documents appear to be genuine. They are signed and written on church letterhead. However, it is not possible to verify whether the signature and logo are original since the appellant did not file the original documents with the RPD. [64] According to the RPD, the documents present a reliability issue due to the numerous spelling and French mistakes. The attestation contains two mistakes, "n'en Algérie" instead of "né en Algérie" [born in Algeria] and "résident" instead of "résidant." These mistakes on their own are not significant enough to undermine the document's credibility. [65] The certificate also contains a few French mistakes: XXXX XXXX XXXX e les membres de l'Église XXXX a l'effet d'accueillir les personnes désireuses de se baptiser par immersion au nom de Jésus, s'est présenté Monsieur XXXX XXXX, de nationalité Algérienne ne le XXXX XXXX 1987 en Algérie demeurant à Montréal lequel se trouvant en plain possession de toute ses facultés jouissant d'une santé normale et non soumis à aucune pression de nature à influer sa décision. [Pastor XXXX XXXX and the members of the XXXX Church, for the purpose of welcoming those wishing to be baptized by immersion in the name of Jesus, did present himself XXXX XXXX, an Algerian national born on XXXX XXXX XXXX 1987, in Algeria, living in Montréal and being in full possession of all his faculties and of normal health and not under any pressure so as to influence his decision.] Ayant cherché à rejoindre la maison de Dieu, en acceptant de se faire baptiser par immersion selon le rite du Christianisme, en reconnaissant ses devoirs envers Dieu et en promettant de vivre selon ses principes et ses pratiques, il a été baptisé per le Pasteur XXXX XXXX le XXXX XXXX 2019. [Seeking to join the house of God, agreeing to be baptized by immersion according to the Christian ritual, recognizing his duties to God and promising to live according to his principles and practices, he was baptized by Pastor XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX, 2019.] [66] The mistakes and poor quality of the French in the baptism certificate are hard to accept for an official church document that aims to certify that the holder of the certificate received the believer's baptism by immersion, one of the main rituals for evangelists. However, this is not enough to conclude that the documents are not reliable. [67] The attestation and the certificate are part of the same evidence since they came from the same person and are dated on the same day. This is the only corroborating evidence submitted by the appellant. He explained at the hearing that he had not had enough time to ask members of his congregation to come and testify. The evidence comprising the attestation and certificate is not enough on its own to offset the appellant's significant credibility issues regarding his conversion. [68] The appellant filed several photographs of himself in a church. When he is on the stage or in front of the seating, he is alone. In one photograph, a Christmas tree can be seen. In another, there are people who appear to be singing on the stage behind him. These photographs show him in a church, alone or with other people. They corroborate that the appellant did enter a room at Christmastime. If I look at the logo in one of the photographs, it does seem to be the XXXX church. However, these photographs do not corroborate that the appellant worships at this church or that he was baptized on XXXX XXXX, 2019. [69] The RPD's conclusion is correct. The appellant did not establish that he attended the XXXX Church in Canada. He did not explain his motivations for changing religions in August 2019 and he does not know the fundamental beliefs and practices of this religion, even though he alleges he went to mass every Sunday. The appellant failed to report his problems in Algeria upon entry [70] The appellant is not challenging the finding of the RPD, which is of the opinion that failing to mention his problems in Algeria at his interview with a Canada Border Services Agency officer, despite being found to be a [translation] "non-genuine visitor" and subject to possible removal, undermines the appellant's credibility. It does not accept the appellant's explanations that he did not understand the Arabic spoken by the interpreter. [71] I agree with the RPD. Failure to make a claim for refugee protection at the first opportunity is a factor indicating that he does not have a real subjective fear,36 even if this failure is not determinative. [72] The appellant arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018. Following an assessment of his application for admission, it was determined that he was a non-genuine visitor. He underwent further examination and a warrant was issued for his arrest on March 7, 2018. During his interview at the airport, he stated several times that he had no fears in his country. He did not claim refugee protection until May 10, 2018.37 [73] As for his explanations about not understanding the interpreter at the airport, I emphasize that the notes of the airport officer make no mention of a problem with interpretation.38 Moreover, she explains that the appellant responded that he always travelled with his diploma, explained that he always uses his suitcase to go to his job every day and he provided his monthly salary. These answers are not simple yes or no answers, which tells me that the appellant understood the questions. [74] Although not fatal on its own to the refugee protection claim, the appellant's delay in claiming refugee protection (two months) when he faced possible removal does affect the credibility of his allegations. The appellant did not establish that he is a Christian convert [75] Because of omissions, vague and imprecise testimony and his lack of knowledge of central elements of this religion, the appellant did not establish that he was baptized in Algeria or that he converted to Catholicism or the sincerity of his beliefs. Because of his lack of knowledge of the beliefs and central practices of that religion, he also failed to establish that he converted to the Evangelical Church in Canada. Analysis of the documentary evidence on apostasy [76] The appellant argues that the RPD erred in not considering the evidence on apostasy, that it did not take into account that he fled to Algiers, the danger he encountered there and the help he received from Christians in getting out of the country. He adds that the RPD did not consider the fact that he has no contact with his family because of his conversion. For the appellant, these events are very important and explain the degree of persecution he would face if he returned to Algeria. [77] The appellant did not establish that he converted. I therefore do not have to analyze the situation of Christians in Algeria, and of apostates specifically, since he did not establish that he is a Christian. The fact that he alleges that Christians helped him get out of the country or that he is no longer in contact with his family does not change the fact that he is not credible. Analysis of the refugee protection claim under paragraph 97(1)(a) [78] The appellant argues that the RPD erred in not examining his claim under section 97. He explains that an analysis under section 96 includes objective and subjective components that are not found in paragraph 97(1)(a) and that this error is sufficient to invalidate the decision. [79] The appellant's allegations are all related to his conversion. He did not provide any allegation of risk of harm that is not related to this conversion. The appellant did not establish that he converted. Consequently, his allegations about any harm are not credible either, considering that the alleged agents of harm have no other reason to go after him. [80] The RPD's decision is correct. The appellant would not face a serious possibility of persecution nor would he, on a balance of probabilities, be subjected to a risk to his life, to a danger of torture or to a risk of cruel and unusual punishment if he were to return to Algeria. CONCLUSION [81] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the determination of the RPD that XXXX XXXXXXXX is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) Agnès CONNAT Me Agnès Connat April 6, 2021 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c. 27, subs. 110(4). 2 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96; Raza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385. 3 P-2, Appellant's record, Appellant's memorandum, written statement, at paragraph 14, page 14. 4 IRPA, S.C. 2001, c. 27, subs. 110(1). 5 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 6 Recording of the hearing held before the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) on January 20, 2020, between 1:30 and 1:34:50. 7 SPR-1, RPD record, original Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form), page 37 et seq. 8 SPR-1, RPD record, BOC Form of May 28, 2018, page 26. 9 SPR-1, RPD record, amended BOC Form, page 16. 10 Recording of the hearing held before the RPD on January 20, 2020, minute 52:00 to 53:10. 11 Ibid., minute 56:39 to 59:06. 12 Ibid., minute 59:06 to 1:03:30. 13 Ibid., minute 59:06 to 1:03:30. 14 Ibid., minute 1:06:45 to 1:09:40. 15 Ibid., minute 1:10:15 to 1:13:20. 16 Ibid., minute 1:48:50 to 1:52:05. 17 Su v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 518, at para. 18. 18 Lin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 288, at para. 61. 19 Bouarif v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2020 FC 49, at para. 10. 20 Recording of the hearing held before the RPD on January 20, 2020, minute 53:10 to 54:51. 21 Ibid., minute 54:51 to 56:39. 22 Wu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 929, at para. 22. 23 Recording of the hearing held before the RPD on January 20, 2020, minute 1:03:30 to 1:06:45. 24 Ibid., minute 1:13:20 to 1:15:43. 25 Ibid., minute 1:15:43 to 1:18:42. 26 Ibid., minute 1:34:50 to 1:38:32. 27 Ibid., minute 1:18:42 to 1:22:32. 28 Ibid., minute 1:38:32 to 1:39:41. 29 Luo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 823. 30 Recording of the hearing held before the RPD on January 20, 2020, between 1:30 and 1:34:50. 31 Ibid., minute 1:25:36 to 1:30. 32 Ibid., minute 1:18:42 to 1:22:32. 33 Ibid., minute 1:25:36 to 1:30. 34 Ibid., minute 1:39:41 to 1:41:07. 35 Ibid., minute 1:41:07 and 1:45:11. 36 Amrane v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 12, paragraph 31; Pepaj v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 938, at paragraph 15. 37 SPR-1, RPD record, interview at 1010 St-Antoine Ouest, May 10, 2018, page 74. 38 SPR-1, RPD record, interview at 1010 St-Antoine Ouest, May 10, 2018, page 74. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-04796 RAD.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français 20 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