TC1-18282

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC1-18282 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Date of decision March 31, 2022 Date de la décision Panel K. Qureshi Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Namunakulan Ponnambalam 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 (Appellant) is a citizen of India. He alleges that he fled India because he is fearful of the Indian authorities and landowners due to his political opinion and inter-caste relationship with a Dalit girl. He alleges that he joined the Communist party in 2009, inspired by his communist relatives Mr. S and MG. He says he was an active party member, including organizing protests and attending meetings. He says that in 2014 he chose a Dalit girl as his future wife in order to show his commitment to Communist party principles. He says his relationship and political activities led to physical attacks against him several times over the years, and in 2019 he was questioned by the local police regarding extremism. The Appellant went into hiding and learned that agents from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had attended his family home looking for him. With the assistance of an agent, he acquired a false passport and travelled to Canada in XXXX 2019. [2] The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (Minister) intervened in writing at the hearing before the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) on the basis of credibility. The RPD rejected the claim based on credibility. The Appellant appeals to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). DECISION [3] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. The determinative issue is credibility. NEW EVIDENCE The evidence presented by the Appellant is partially accepted [4] According to the Law,1 I can only accept evidence that: (i) arose after the RPD decision; or (ii) was not reasonably available at the time of the decision; or (iii) that the appellant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to bring to the RPD before the decision. (iv) If the evidence meets one or more of these requirements, I must decide if the evidence is new, credible and relevant before I can accept it.2 [5] The Appellant submits the following new evidence: a. Copy of Communist party membership card;3 b. Photograph of the monument of Mr. S;4 c. News article from "scroll.in", "Rajasthan judge suspected on charges of sexually assaulting 14-year-old boy" dated November 1, 2021;5 d. News article from www.thenews.com, "Khurram Parvez at risk of being charged with fake terrorism-related crimes," dated November 23, 2021;6 e. News article from The New Indian Express, "Inter-caste couples in Tiruchy allege ostracism, write to Collector" dated November 25, 2021;7 f. News article from "scroll.in", "Inter-caste couple hacked to death allegedly by woman's family members in Punjab" dated October 18, 2021;8 and g. News article from www.straight.com, "News flash, NDP MP Rathika Sitsabaiesan: Canada's population is much higher than 9 million"9 dated February 7, 2012. Item "a" is rejected as new evidence [6] Item "a" is a photo of the Appellant's alleged Communist Party membership card. I do not find that this document meets the requirements of s. 110 (4). First, the card is dated 2018 and therefore arose prior to the rejection of the claim. Second, at the hearing the Appellant testified that he had a copy of the card in his email inbox10 and therefore it appears the evidence was reasonably available beforehand. Third, he has not explained in this appeal why he could not have been reasonably expected to have provided it before the rejection of the claim. Rather, he simply vaguely submits he "could not have guessed the panel's inferences, arguments in the decision and so on." 11 I am not persuaded. The core allegation in the claim is the Appellant's alleged membership in the Communist Party and the lack of a membership card was directly raised at the resumption of the hearing.12 However, notwithstanding that the claim was not rejected until over a month later, the Appellant did not provide this card to the RPD or provide any evidence of what attempts he made, and also has not provided any explanation of how and when it came into his possession such that he was able to submit it in this appeal. The document is therefore rejected as new evidence for not meeting the requirements of s. 110 (4). Item "b" is accepted as new evidence [7] Item "b" is a photo of a monument for Mr. S which indicates that he died in 1972. I will accept that this new evidence meets the requirements of s. 110 (4) on the basis that the Appellant could not reasonably have known until the RPD decision was issued that the Panel would draw a negative credibility inference regarding his evidence concerning when Mr. S died. I will also accept that the photo meets the requirements of Singh and Raza. Specifically, it is new because it responds to a credibility finding made by the RPD and is relevant to the circumstances of the Appellant joining the Communist Party. I will also accept the photo is credible for the purposes of admissibility. A full assessment of its weight will be performed later in this decision. [8] The photo is accepted as new evidence. Items "c" through "f" are rejected as new evidence [9] Items "c" through "f" are news articles that were released after the rejection of the claim and therefore I will accept that they meet s. 110 (4). [10] However, item "c," an article pertaining to the sexual assault of a teen by a judge in Rajasthan, is rejected under Singh and Raza. The Appellant does not explain why this article is admissible despite his obligation do so. Nevertheless, based on my review, the article does not involve allegations of caste or Communist political principles or persecution on the basis of political opinion, and therefore I do not find it to be relevant. To the extent that the article was submitted to show that the judiciary in India is corrupt, then this article is not new as there is already information in that regard in the National Documentation Package (NDP).13 Therefore the article does not prove a state of affairs in India that only arose after the hearing or a fact that was unknown to the Appellant. [11] Item "d" pertains to a case of false accusations of terrorism against a particular Muslim person in India. This article is also rejected under Singh and Raza. The Appellant does not explain why this article is admissible as new evidence despite his obligation to do so. Based on my assessment, to the extent that it is submitted to show false terrorism cases can be initiated by the Indian authorities against Muslims or others, such as Dalit human rights defenders, such information is already before the Board.14 Therefore the article does not prove a state of affairs in India that only arose after the hearing or a fact that was unknown to the Appellant. The article also is not relevant as the Appellant is not Muslim and not a high-profile activist, such as the accused in the article who was barred from boarding a flight to a United Nations (UN) human rights forum in Geneva. [12] Items "e" and "f" are also rejected under Singh and Raza for not being new. The articles pertain to isolated cases of harm to specific inter-caste couples in India. Again, the Appellant does not explain why this article is admissible as new evidence despite his obligation to do so. However, I note that the Appellant already produced evidence on violence against inter-caste couples to the RPD15 and information on this subject is already contained in the NDP.16 Therefore the articles do not prove a state of affairs in India that only arose after the hearing or a fact that was unknown to the Appellant. I do not accept that the information in these articles add anything new to the appeal and they are rejected as new evidence. [13] Overall, items "c" through "f" are rejected as new evidence. Item "g" is rejected as new evidence [14] Article "g," is also rejected under Singh and Raza. The article arose in 2012, before the rejection of the claim, and pinpoints an erroneous statement made in 2012 by a Member of Parliament with respect to Canada's population. The Appellant does not explain why this article is being tendered as new evidence, why it was not reasonably available beforehand, or why he could not reasonably have been expected to have provided it earlier, and it is not for the RAD to establish the admissibility of new evidence on behalf of the Appellant. Therefore, I do not find the Appellant has established that this article meets the requirements of s. 110 (4). [15] Furthermore, I do not find the article is relevant to any issues in the Appellant's refugee claim. [16] Overall, item "g" is rejected as new evidence. No oral hearing [17] S. 110(6) of the IRPA gives the RAD the discretion to hold an oral hearing if new evidence has been accepted that raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the appellant, that is central to the decision with respect to the appellant's claim and that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the appellant's claim. [18] The Appellant does not request an oral hearing.17 Nevertheless, as the photograph of Mr. S' monument only pertains to one of the RPD's credibility finding out of many, I do not find it is central to the decision and does not justify accepting or rejecting the claim, and therefore the RAD exercises its discretion to not hold an oral hearing. ANALYSIS [19] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.18 Appellant's evidence was inconsistent regarding decision to flee India [20] The RPD noted19 that the Appellant applied for a visa to Canada in 2014, to the Netherlands in 2014 and to the United States (US) in 2016. The Minister provided evidence that the US and Canadian visa applications contained false information and supporting documentation. The Appellant explained that he used false information in his visa applications because he was trying to flee persecution in 2014. The RPD noted that the Appellant's Basis of Claim form (BOC) indicates that he decided to flee India in 2019 after a visit from the CBI, and concluded that the failure to mention that he had actually decided to flee in 2014 was a material omission. The RPD also found that the Appellant's testimony overall on this issue was inconsistent. The RPD concluded that the Appellant was not fleeing persecution in 2014 and therefore did not reasonably explain his use of false information in the visa applications, and that this significantly undermined his credibility. [21] The Appellant submits20 he was nervous, disorganized and confused, and that although he provided false information to secure visas previously, that does not mean he will always lie. Also, that the RPD Member was biased and therefore breached procedural fairness, was microscopic, and that he did mention the 2014 incident in this BOC. Based on my assessment, I do not find that the RPD erred. [22] First, nervousness is inherent in refugee proceedings and is not a cure-all for deficient evidence, nor is pointing to being disorganized and confused. Also, the Appellant has not alleged or provided any evidence that he has any medical or psychological issues that could explain his alleged nervousness, disorganization or confusion. [23] Second, while I acknowledge that the Appellant did mention the 2014 attack in his BOC, I agree with the RPD that the Appellant's failure to mention that he attempted to flee India in 2014 is not microscopic or overzealous, but rather a significant omission. Specifically, the allegation that he tried to flee India at that time by applying for various visas and even hired an agent is material because it denotes that he felt his situation was grave at that time and highlights the severity of the alleged 2014 attack. Notably, it is only when the Minister intervened and provided evidence of the false information in the visa applications that the Appellant saw fit to address this issue.21 Finally, as noted by the RPD, the BOC instructs claimants to include all important information, the Appellant speaks English and was represented by counsel. Therefore, I agree with the RPD that the omission from the BOC that he tried to flee India in 2014 is material and undermines the credibility of this allegation, and does not explain his use of false information in the 2014 and 2016 visa applications. [24] In addition, I find the Appellant's explanation that he used false information in the visa applications because he was trying to flee persecution in India in 2014 and 201622 lacks credibility because from 2014 to 2019, the Appellant did not flee India, or even his state, or even his village. Indeed, although the alleged attack occurred in XXXX 2014 and he retained agents in XXXX and XXXX 2014,23 he actually returned to live in his village in XXXX 2014 and remained there until 2019,24 notwithstanding that this is the locality where he was allegedly attacked and threatened. Notably, the Appellant even testified that he instructed his brother to relocate because of the issues he was having,25 yet he continued to live there himself. I find that the Appellant returning to his village to reside there on a long-term basis undermines the credibility of his testimony that he was in such fear in 2014 and 2016 that he needed to use false information to apply for visas to other countries. [25] I also agree with the RPD's reasons for finding the Appellant's testimony overall on this issue was convoluted and suggestive of being spontaneously created. For example, as the RPD noted, although he first stated he decided to leave India in 2014 and retained agents in XXXX and XXXX 2014 to apply for visas to Canada and the Netherlands,26 he then later also stated that he did not take the 2014 attack seriously and decided to stay and fight and "did not have the mind to leave the country."27 However, I do not find this is a reasonable explanation because the actual application for the Canadian visa was not submitted until XXXX 2014, which is around the time he returned to his village and his Netherlands visa application was not submitted until XXXX 2014,28 which is well after he had already returned to his village. I find the foregoing undermines any suggestion that he applied for the visas initially out of fear but then changed his mind about leaving India. [26] I acknowledge that the Appellant did mention his previous visa applications in his Schedule A. However, this does not reconcile the credibility concerns because the Schedule A does not mention that he was fleeing in order to evade persecution or that he used false information in the applications. As indicated, this information only arose after the Minister intervened. [27] Finally, the Appellant asserts that using false information in the past does not mean he will always lie and that the RPD displayed a reasonable apprehension of bias which constitutes a breach of procedural fairness. I am not persuaded. In Sun,29 the Federal Court did not express concerns regarding the RAD's negative credibility findings over the applicant's use of false information in previous visa applications. That the RPD's finding is unfavourable to the Appellant does not demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias. Furthermore, this submission does not actually explain the RPD's negative credibility findings over the visa application. [28] The Appellant confirmed at the hearing that he was aware that the visa applications he was submitting contained false information.30 Overall, I find that the Appellant has not reasonably explained his use of false information in previous visa applications, and I agree with the RPD that this seriously undermines the Appellant's credibility. Appellant did not provide a reasonable explanation for not producing his passport [29] The RPD found31 that the Appellant failed to reasonably explain his failure to produce to the Board his genuine passport or the passport he used to travel to Canada. The RPD noted that passports provide evidence of the route travelled, previous travel and a claimant's location during the alleged incidents giving rise to the claim. The RPD member did not accept the Appellant's explanation that his agent took away his passport because his testimony regarding the use of an agent was inconsistent, as will be described. The RPD also noted that the Appellant could not sufficiently speak to the contents of the false passport despite the risk of detention in the event he was asked questions at the airport and, as described earlier, his evidence regarding whether he decided to flee India in 2014 or 2019 was inconsistent and he applied for visas to various countries using false information. The RPD referenced the case of Elazi as standing for the proposition that it is too easy for a claimant to say a facilitator took their passport away. The RPD drew a negative credibility inference from the lack of a valid explanation for the failure to produce either his genuine passport or the fraudulent passport he used to travel to Canada. [30] The RPD also found the Appellant's testimony regarding the use of agents raised credibility concerns. For example, the Appellant also testified that his agent from 2014 had kept his passport in order to apply for other visas. However, he then contradictorily testified that he gave his passport to a different agent in 2019. Also, while the Appellant initially stated that he used only one agent for his visa applications, he later indicated that he had used two agents and, specifically, a different agent to apply for the Netherlands visa. The RPD noted that the Appellant did not mention in his BOC that he tried to flee India in XXXX 2014 by hiring an agent and rejected his explanation that it would have made his BOC too lengthy. Finally, his applications do not indicate the use of an agent at all. The RPD concluded that the Appellant's evidence and testimony overall regarding the whereabouts of his passport and use of agents was convoluted, inconsistent, contradictory and confusing and drew a negative credibility inference. [31] The Appellant submits32 that even though he relied on photocopies of his passport that were provided by the Minister, they are nevertheless pages of his genuine passport. Also, that the RPD erred by finding the failure to provide a valid passport is important where there are no identity issues and that it erred by drawing negative credibility inferences. Moreover, that the RPD erroneously referred to his Schedule A when the information the panel referenced was actually contained in his Schedule 12. Finally, that the failure to mention in his BOC that he used a false passport is a minor omission and was not put to him at the hearing. [32] Based on my assessment, I find the Appellant's failure to provide a reasonable explanation for not producing his genuine passport, including his inconsistent testimony on the role of agents, undermines his credibility. [33] First, while the Appellant submits the failure to provide his passports is not important where there are no identity issues, I find the Appellant misapprehended the RPD's finding. The RPD's negative credibility inference was not over his failure to produce his passports, but rather over his failure to provide reasonable explanations for not providing his passports. Notably, in the case of Li,33 where identity was not in issue, the Federal Court did not express concerns regarding the RAD's credibility findings over the applicant's failure to provide a reasonable explanation for their failure to produce their passport. I acknowledge the following cases cited by the Appellant however these can be differentiated because in X (Re) 2015 CanLII 83868 and X (Re) 2018 CanLii 64863 the applicants did provide reasonable explanation for the lack of passports, and Chen34 pertained to the RAD's findings about specific travel history that was microscopic in nature. [34] Second, I agree that the Appellant did not provide a reasonable explanation for not producing his genuine passport. For example, at the resumption of the hearing the Appellant testified that his agent from 2014 had kept his passport in order to apply for other visas.35 However, at the first hearing he had contrarily testified that he had given his passport to a different agent in 2019,36 which contradicts that the agent from 2014 kept his passport. I acknowledge that he testified at the hearing that the agent in 2019 did not return his passport for fear that it would be traced to him and the CBI was looking for him.37 However, I do not accept this explanation either as it is unclear how the Appellant having possession of his genuine passport could implicate the agent. Also, notably the Appellant did travel to Canada with his original National Identity Card or Aadhaar,38 which he asserts are genuine. Overall, I find the Appellant provided inconsistent evidence as to the whereabouts of his genuine passport and therefore did not provide a valid explanation for not producing it to the Board. [35] The Appellant's evidence regarding his use of agents was also inconsistent. At the resumption of the hearing he testified that he had only ever used one agent to apply for visas.39 However, as the RPD then raised to him at the first hearing, he had testified that he had used two agents. The Appellant's explanation that the agents were brothers does not reconcile the inconsistency because even if they are brothers, they are nevertheless two agents, not one. [36] Third, the fact that the Minister produced photocopies of pages of his passport does not resolve the foregoing credibility concern, and the Board has accepted the Appellant's identity. [37] Finally, I acknowledge that the Appellant raises that the RPD decision erroneously referenced that the Appellant's Schedule A contains information about the smuggler, however this information is actually contained in his Schedule 12 and given that the RPD can err, it is reasonable that he could also err in a formal setting such as the hearing room. Based on my review, nothing turns on the RPD's error, which is minor and insignificant and does not reconcile or resolve the foregoing credibility findings. [38] Overall, I find the Appellant's failure to provide a reasonable explanation as to the whereabouts of his genuine passport, including his inconsistent testimony on the role of agents, undermines his credibility. As noted by the RPD, passports provide evidence of the route travelled, previous travel and a claimant's location during the alleged incidents giving rise to the claim. [39] However, I do not draw a negative credibility inference with respect to the fraudulent passport he used to travel to Canada. I accept his explanation that he returned it to an agent upon arrival in Canada is reasonable. Also, I find his inability to sufficiently describe at the hearing the contents of the fake passport is not significant given that it would not have been in his possession for very long. Finally, the Appellant submits that his failure to specifically mention in his BOC that he used a false passport is a minor omission and was not put to him at the hearing. I agree that this would constitute a minor detail. Discrepancy regarding Mr. S's death undermines credibility [40] The RPD noted the Appellant's evidence that he was inspired to join the Communist Party in part by a relative, Mr. S, who was killed around 15 years ago. However, at the hearing the Appellant testified that Mr. S had died before he was born and could not explain the inconsistency. The Appellant submits40 that he never met Mr. S but has provided a photo of his monument in this appeal and that the Member was biased or overzealous. Also, the RPD erred by expecting evidence of Mr. S and that he did submit a letter from S.S. who confirmed the Appellant's relation to Mr. S, which the RPD ignored. [41] Regarding the Appellant's inconsistent testimony regarding Mr. S's death, I find this raises credibility concerns. Specifically, as noted by the RPD, the Appellant wrote in his BOC that Mr. S died 15 years earlier. However, he testified at the hearing that Mr. S died before he was born and explained that the information in the BOC was a mistake. He provided a photo in this appeal that confirms Mr. S died in 1972. Based on my assessment, I find the inconsistency regarding Mr. S's death raises credibility concerns. Specifically, the Appellant erred in Mr. S's death by 34 years. I do not find, based on common sense and rationality, that someone would err in the date of death of someone who is important to them by 34 years, which is a very lengthy period of time. The Appellant also did not provide an explanation for the inconsistency. The inconsistency is material because Mr. S's role in the Appellant's allegations is important, with him alleging that it was his relation to Mr. S that inspired him to join the Communist Party. Regarding a letter provided by S.S.,41 although it indicates the Appellant is related to Mr. S, the writer does not indicate how he is aware of this information, for example, whether he learned this information from the Appellant, with whom there are credibility concerns, or through other sources, and is therefore of limited probative value. [42] Therefore, I find the foregoing undermines that the Appellant is related to Mr. S and that he joined the Party because of Mr. S, and therefore also his allegations of being an activist or involved in the Party and being at risk from the police, CBI and upper-caste landowners as a result. Appellant lacked sufficient knowledge of the Communist Party [43] The RPD also found the Appellant provided vague testimony on how to join the Communist Party and that he lacked knowledge of the Party. The RPD did not accept the Appellant's explanation that he was more concerned with local issues given his own evidence that he was an active member of the Party for over ten years, and that his commitment to the Party even dictated his choice for a future spouse. The Appellant submits a refugee hearing is not a memory test and low-level party members in India have limited knowledge of their parties.42 I do not find that the RPD erred, as follows. [44] While I acknowledge the Appellant's submission that a refugee hearing is not a memory test, the RPD's questions regarding the Party were not obscure or pedantic. For example, the RPD asked the Appellant "how did you join it in 2009, what was the process."43 The Appellant vaguely testified that he participated in meetings and protests in his village. The RPD later repeated the question, what is the process for joining the Party.44 The Appellant began to talk about why he wanted to join the Party. The RPD repeated the question a third time and added "did you have to take an oath."45 The Appellant simply responded "yes." The RPD prodded, asking "what was the oath."46 The Appellant provided a generic response, "that we will not act against the ideas of communism."47 The RPD asked for the exact words and the Appellant generically replied that he was told "if we firmly believe in the principles of our movement, then we can join the party."48 I find the Appellant's answers were vague. [45] Furthermore, his answers were not in accordance with information in the NDP. For example, a Response to Information Request (RIR) suggests there is an involved and lengthy process for admitting new members, such as individual application upon recommendation of two party members and then various committee approvals.49 Also, that a pledge is required, as follows: Every person joining the Party shall sign the Party Pledge. This Pledge shall be: "I accept the aims and objectives of the Party and agree to abide by its Constitution and loyally to carry out decisions of the Party. "I shall strive to live up to the ideals of communism and shall selflessly serve the working class and the toiling masses and the country, always placing the interests of the Party and the people above personal interests."50 [46] Furthermore, the Appellant also testified that there are no membership dues, the RIR indicates there are.51 Therefore, based on my assessment, I find that even with prodding, the Appellant's testimony was vague and lacking in detail and not aligned with information in the NDP. [47] In addition, the Appellant was asked who the current leader of the Communist Party is.52 The Appellant named the leader of the Tamil Nadu Communist Party instead, but then could not answer when this person became leader, explaining that he was concerned with local issues. I do not accept this explanation. Specifically, the Appellant led evidence that he was actively involved in the Party, participating in meetings and organizing protests, and was a member of the Party for 12 years at the time of the hearing. He also has the profile of someone that is sophisticated, educated and having lived in a large city, Chennai, for several years. As noted by the RPD, it was also the Appellants' evidence that his Communist beliefs are so important to him that he chose a Dalit girl as his future wife. Finally, the national leaders of the Party is important information as the RIR indicates the Party's structure is centralized.53 [48] I acknowledge the Appellant's generalized submission that low-level party members in India have limited knowledge of their parties. I am not persuaded. The Appellant's submission is a generalization which he has not provided support for. Based on my assessment, I find the RPD's questions were appropriate and ought to have been in the Appellant's knowledge given his alleged extensive history and involvement with the Party, even if he did not hold any official position. I find the Appellant's lack of knowledge of the Communist Party undermines the credibility of his allegations of being an activist or involved in the Party and being at risk from the police, CBI and upper-caste landowners, as he asserts.54 Failure to produce a membership card before the RPD [49] The RPD also noted that the Appellant did not provide a membership card even though he testified that he did have one and that he even had a copy on his phone. The RPD noted that the Appellant had other documents sent to him from India for the purposes of his claim. The Appellant submits55 that the RPD did not request that he produce the card, that it is unreasonable to expect him to bring it from India, that a card has now been submitted in this appeal, and the Member ignored a letter from S.S. I do not find that the RPD erred, as follows. [50] First, although the RPD did not specifically request that the Appellant provide his membership card as post-hearing evidence, it is a claimant's responsibility to put forth their best case before the RPD and Rule 11 of the RPD references the requirement for corroboration. Furthermore, the Appellant's alleged Communist identity is a core allegation and therefore he could have reasonably expected to have provided this evidence without it being specifically requested by the RPD. In any event, the RPD did raise the issue of a membership card at the hearing, but still the Appellant did not provide it to the Board notwithstanding that he testified that he had it in his email.56 I find his failure to produce the digital version of his membership card to the Board notwithstanding undermines the credibility of his alleged involvement in the Party. [51] Second, the Appellant's testimony regarding his membership card was also evolving and raises credibility concerns. When asked about his membership card,57 the Appellant initially testified that he had submitted it. When his counsel clarified that it had not been submitted, the Appellant indicated he had it in his email. When asked why he did not submit it, he stated that maybe he missed it. Regarding the original card, the Appellant provided three replies, that he "must have that," "I don't know"58 and that he did not bring it from India. However, the Appellant confirmed that his family had sent him other documents from India. I therefore find his testimony regarding his failure to produce his membership card lacked credibility. [52] I acknowledge a letter from S.S. which purports to corroborate the Appellant's membership in the Party, however I find the letter is insufficient to outweigh foregoing credibility concerns. The Federal Court has held, Once a credibility finding was made, it was reasonable for the RAD to find that this corroborating evidence was not sufficient to outweigh the credibility concerns with the Applicant's direct evidence, or, to put it another way, the corroborating evidence was not sufficient to make the case for the Applicants.59 [53] Overall, I find the Appellant's failure to produce a membership card undermines the credibility of his allegations of being an activist or involved in the Party and being at risk from the police, CBI and upper-caste landowners, as he asserts.60 Inconsistent evidence regarding XXXX 2019 and XXXX 2017 incidents [54] The RPD found that the Appellant failed to mention in his BOC that he was involved in three protests or meetings in XXXX, XXXX and XXXX 2019 during which he was warned by police, and that he did not provide a reasonable explanation for the omission. The RPD also found his testimony that he was involved in these events contradicted information in his BOC that after he was attacked in 2017 by gangsters disapproving of his stance on caste, he took time off and worked "behind the scene."61 The Appellant submits that the RPD engaged in a microscopic analysis.62 [55] Based on my assessment, I note that the Appellant did mention in his BOC that in XXXX 2019 he organized a sit-down protest.63 Therefore, I find the RPD erred by concluding this protest was not mentioned in his BOC. Also, although the RPD found that the Appellant's participation in protests in 2019 contradicts information in his BOC that after an attack in XXXX 2017 he worked behind the scenes, I will accept that the RPD erred as I do not find it is necessary for the Appellant to have listed every single protest/meeting in his BOC as these could be considered details. However, I nevertheless find the Appellant's evidence regarding the protests of XXXX 2019 and the attack in 2017 raise credibility concerns. [56] First, while the Appellant testified that the attack in which he was injured occurred in XXXX 2017,64 his BOC contrarily indicates that this attack occurred in XXXX 2017. When the Appellant was asked for an explanation, he simply repeated that the injury and attack occurred in XXXX, which is not responsive to a request for an explanation. Based on my assessment, I find the Appellants inconsistent evidence in this regard undermines that the injury to his hand is related to an attack in 2017 based on his political opinion or an inter-caste relationship with a Dalit girl. I acknowledge he provided photographs of his injury, however the photographs do not establish the injury's cause. [57] Second, while the Appellant testified that he was not responsible for the protest that occurred in either XXXX or XXXX 2019,65 this contradicts the information in his BOC that he did organize this protest.66 [58] These are corollary credibility findings made on the same evidence and on the same credibility issue raised by the RPD, which is the Appellant's involvement in a protest in XXXX 2019 and an attack in 2017. The Federal Court has recognized that the RAD is permitted to make additional findings on a known issue without inviting additional submissions.67 [59] Overall, I find there are credibility concerns regarding the alleged attack in 2017 and protest in 2019, which undermines the credibility of his allegation being in an inter-caste relationship or an activist in the Communist Party who is being targeted by the police, CBI and upper-caste landowners, as he asserts.68 Omission of 2011 political problems [60] The Appellant testified that his problems began in 2011 when he was threatened and harassed by the chairman of his village. The RPD found that this information was a significant omission from the Appellant's narrative, for which he did not provide an adequate explanation. The Appellant submits69 that the incidents in 2011 are not central because he did not attempt to leave the country at that time. I do not find that the RPD erred. [61] I acknowledge that the BOC suggests that the allegations giving rise to this claim were precipitated by the Appellant's romantic involvement with a Dalit girl in 2014. On the other hand, the harassment in 2011 did not entail violence or harm and was unrelated to his relationship with a Dalit girl. Nevertheless, I do not find the 2011 events are merely details, the omission of which would not merit a negative inference. Specifically, the Appellant testified at the hearing that due to his of fear of the threats he allegedly faced in 2011, he had to leave his village and relocate to Chennai.70 This suggests that the alleged events of 2011 were serious. Furthermore, the BOC specifically asks at question 2 (a), "Did you move to another party of your country to seek safety."71 Finally, the allegation that his Appellant's problems started in 2011 is relevant to other issues such as delay and subjective fear. Therefore, I find the omission of the 2011 incidents from the BOC is material, and that the omission undermines the credibility of his allegation of being an activist or involved in the Party and being at risk from the police, CBI and upper-caste landowners. Inconsistent evidence regarding attack of XXXX 2014 [62] The RPD noted72 that in the Appellant's BOC, he wrote that in early 2014 he was attacked by a group of youths from his caste, and who warned him that his girlfriend would be attacked. However, as the RPD noted, at the hearing he testified that he was attacked by the "opposite party and president of our village ruling party."73 The RPD found the Appellant's testimony regarding the XXXX 2014 attack more closely resembled details in his BOC regarding an attack in 2017, and that the Appellant mixed up the incidents which raised credibility concerns. The Appellant submits he was nervous, disorganized and confused.74 [63] I agree with the RPD that the Appellant's evidence regarding who attacked him in XXXX 2014 and their motives was inconsistent. His explanation that he was nervous is inadequate because nervousness is inherent in refugee proceedings and is not a cure-all for deficient evidence, nor is pointing to being disorganized and confused. The Appellant also has not alleged or provided any evidence that he has any medical or psychological issues either that could explain his inconsistent testimony. I therefore find the foregoing undermines the credibility of his allegations of being an activist or involved in the Party and being at risk from the police, CBI and upper-caste landowners, as he asserts,75 or being in an inter-caste relationship. Detention in XXXX 2019 not established [64] The RPD noted76 that in the Appellant's BOC, he wrote that on XXXX XXXX, 2019 police detained and questioned him for an hour. However, at the hearing he testified that he was questioned for four to five hours. The RPD did not accept his explanation that he made an error and concluded that although the inconsistency on its own is not significant, when considered with other credibility concerns, that the Appellant had not established he had been detained by the police. The RPD also found that the Appellant's letters of support lacked sufficient details and were insufficient to overcome its credibility concerns. The Appellant again submits he was nervous, disorganized and confused.77 [65] I agree with the RPD that the Appellant's evidence regarding how long he was questioned by police was inconsistent. His explanation that he was nervous is inadequate because nervousness is inherent in refugee proceedings and is not a cure-all for deficient evidence, nor is pointing to being disorganized and confused. The Appellant also has not alleged or provided any evidence that he has any medical or psychological issues either that could explain his inconsistent testimony and therefore the negative credibility findings arising out of this issue. Finally, although the inconsistency on its own is not significant, the Federal Court has stated, I accept the Applicant's argument that a number of the inconsistencies highlighted by the RAD are minor and do not, on their own, justify a negative credibility finding. However, this is of little assistance to the Applicant. The RAD was under no obligation to consider the many inconsistencies and omissions in isolation. The RAD was entitled to consider and rely on the accumulation of inconsistencies, contradictions, and omissions in making its credibility finding (Lawani v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 924 at para 22 [Lawani]).78 [emphasis added] [66] That is, the foregoing is yet another finding which collectively undermines the Appellant's allegation that he was involved or an activist in the Communist Party and is at risk from the police, CBI or upper caste landowners, as he asserts.79 Appellant's supporting documents are insufficient [67] The Appellant submits the RPD erred by finding his supporting documents are insufficient to overcome its credibility concerns.80 I have reviewed these documents81 and agree with the RPD that they are insufficient to outweigh the plethora of foregoing credibility concerns. Also, I note that the Appellant has demonstrated his ability to procure false documents and his willingness to use them without establishing that it was necessary in order to flee persecution. Conclusion on Appellant's allegations [68] The RPD concluded that the Appellant was not credible, was not involved in the Communist Party in India and is not being targeted by the police or CBI.82 The Appellant submits the RPD's conclusions on his membership in the Party was erroneous and therefore that the Panel demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.83 I am not persuaded. The fact that the Member made findings and conclusions that are not supportive of the Appellant's claim, and most of which I have agreed with after performing my independent assessment, does not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias. [69] Furthermore, having conducted my own assessment, I agree with the RPD that the Appellant has not credibly established his allegations of being involved or active in the Communist Party and therefore being targeted by the police, CBI or upper-caste landowners, or his allegation of being in an inter-caste relationship. I find that the Appellant has not established he faces a serious possibility of persecution or risk to life or of cruel and unusual punishment or treatment or danger of torture. Appellant has not established he is in a relationship with a Dalit girl [70] The Appellant submits the RPD failed to address his fear of caste-based persecution based his relationship with a Dalit girl.84 As noted, I find the Appellant has failed to credibly establish his allegations of persecution, including that he is in a relationship with a Dalit girl. I acknowledge a letter allegedly from her, however as already discussed, I find it is insufficient to outweigh the numerous credibility concerns identified in this claim. Furthermore, the Appellant does not claim to be Dalit himself. Therefore, it is not necessary for the RAD to consider whether he is at risk of caste-based persecution. Not necessary to conduct separate s. 97 claim [71] The Appellant submits the RPD erred by failing to conduct a separate s. 97 analysis.85 I am not persuaded as the issue of credibility is determinative of both s. 96 and 97, and therefore there is no need to conduct a separate s. 97 analysis. CONCLUSION [72] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) K. Qureshi K. Qureshi March 31, 2022 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, subsection 110(4). 2 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96; Raza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385. 3 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at p. 56 of PDF. 4 Ibid., at p. 59 of PDF. 5 Ibid., at p. 61 of PDF. 6 Ibid., at p. 65 of PDF. 7 Ibid., at p. 67 of PDF. 8 Ibid., at p. 70 of PDF. 9 Ibid., at p. 74 of PDF. 10 Transcript of RPD hearing, September 3, 2021 at p. 11. 11 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at p. 55 of PDF, para. 31. 12 Transcript of RPD hearing, September 3, 2021 at pp. 10-11. 13 National Documentation Package (NDP) for India (June 30, 2021) item 1.5, Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, December 10, 2020 at 2.30. 14 Ibid., item 12.10, Minority Rights Group International; Center for Study of Society and Secularism, June 29, 2017 at p. 8; item 13.6, Swadhikar - National Dalit Movement for Justice, 2015 at p. 5. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6 at p. 221. 16 NDP for India (June 30, 2021) item 12.5, Response to Information Request (RIR), IND106276.E, Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), May 16, 2019. 17 Exhibit p-2, Appellant's record at p. 24 of PDF. 18 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons at p. 4- onwards, paras. 17-25. 20 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at pp. 28-36 of PDF, paras. 4-6. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 5 at p. 170. 22 Ibid., at p. 170, para. 5. 23 Transcript of RPD hearing, March 25, 2021 at pp. 25-31. 24 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record at p. 37. 25 Transcript of RPD hearing, March 25, 2021 p. 23 line 34 onwards. 26 Transcript of RPD hearing, March 25, 2021 at pp. 25-31. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD reasons at p. 8, para. 21. 28 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record at p. 35. 29 Sun v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 856. 30 Transcript of RPD hearing, March 25, 2021 at p. 34 line 16 onwards. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Reasons, at p. 9- onwards, paras. 26-42. 32 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at p. 37 of PDF, para. 7 to p. 42 of PDF, para. 11. 33 Li v. MCI, 2020 FC 446. 34 Chen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 678. 35 Transcript of RPD hearing, September 3, 2021 at p. 16. 36 Transcript of RPD hearing, March 25, 2021 at p. 35 line 29. 37 Transcript of RPD hearing, March 25, 2021 at p. 37 line 30 onwards and p. 38 line 10 onwards. 38 Transcript of RPD hearing, March 25, 2021 at p. 39 line 15 onwards. 39 Transcript of RPD hearing, September 3, 2021 at p. 16 line 39 onwards. 40 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at p. 44 of PDF, paras. 16-17 41 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 7 at p. 252. 42 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at p. 47 of PDF, para. 18 43 Transcript of RPD hearing, September 3, 2021 p. 4 line 32 44 Transcript of RPD hearing, September 3, 2021 p. 9 line 25 onwards. 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid., at p. 10. 49 NDP for India (June 30, 2021) item 4.7, RIR, IND105428.E, IRB, February 26, 2016 at p. 14, article IV. 50 Ibid., at p. 16. 51 Ibid., at p. 14, article IV, IX, X. 52 Transcript of RPD hearing, September 3, 2021at p. 18 line 20 53 NDP for India (June 30, 2021) item 4.7, RIR, IND105428.E, IRB, February 26, 2016, at p. 6. 54 Transcript of RPD hearing, September 3, 2021 at p. 38 line 10. 55 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at pp. 48-49 of PDF, paras. 19-20. 56 Transcript of RPD hearing, September 3, 2021 p. 10 line 14 onwards. 57 Transcript of RPD hearing, September 3, 2021 p. 10 line 14 onwards. 58 Ibid., at p. 11. 59 Raza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 299 (CanLII), at para. 43. 60 Transcript of RPD hearing, September 3, 2021 at p. 38 line 10. 61 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, RPD reasons at p. 16, para. 56. 62 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at p. 49 of PDF, para. 21. 63 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 2 at p. 26. 64 Transcript of RPD hearing, September 3, 2021 at p. 20. 65 Transcript of RPD hearing, September 3, 2021 at p. 21 line 38. 66 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 2 at p. 26 67 Jiang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1064 at paras. 15-17. 68 Transcript of RPD hearing, September 3, 2021 at p. 38 line 10. 69 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at p. 44 of PDF, para. 15. 70 Transcript of RPD hearing, March 25, 2021 at p. 7 line 21 onwards and p. 7, line 43 onwards. 71 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 2 at p. 24. 72 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD reasons at p. 17, paras. 58-59. 73 Ibid. 74 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at p. 28 of PDF, para. 4 and p. 50 of PDF, para. 23. 75 Transcript of RPD hearing, September 3, 2021 at p. 38 line 10. 76 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD reasons at p. 18. 77 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at p. 28 of PDF, para. 4 and p. 50 of PDF, para. 23. 78 Hirimuthugoda v. MCI, 2021 FC 784 at para. 11. 79 Transcript of RPD hearing, September 3, 2021 at p. 38 line 10. 80 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at p. 50 of PDF, para. 25. 81 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record at Exhibit 2, p. 24, Exhibit 7, p. 246, and p. 252. 82 RPD Record, RPD Reasons at p. 17 and 19, para. 57, 65-66. 83 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at p. 50 of PDF, para. 22 and para. 27. 84 Ibid., at p. 50 of PDF, para. 24. 85 Ibid., at p. 54 of PDF, para. 29 --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC1-18282 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 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 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français