TB7-19461

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 File / Dossier de la SAR : TB7-19461 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered at Toronto, ON Appel instruit à Date of decision June 1, 2018 Date de la décision Panel G. Erauw Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal John W. Grice Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) (de la/des) personne(s) 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 Azerbaijan and is appealing a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its credibility and subjective fear assessment, and failed to conduct a full analysis under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). After careful review of the evidence in the record, the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) finds that the Appellant is not credible, he lacks subjective fear, and has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that he would be harmed or threatened with harm by Azerbaijani authorities if he returned to Azerbaijan. It is on this basis, as explained in the reasons below, the appeal is dismissed. DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL [2] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.1 BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant alleges that he joined the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in December 2013. As a member, the Appellant states that he recruited new members and participated in demonstrations. In February 2015, the Appellant claims that he lost his job as an XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX because of a XXXX crisis, and that he was unable to keep his job because he did not have the political connections. [4] In April 2016, the Appellant alleges that he attended to the home of the XXXXs leader, XXXX XXXX, to support him during protests outside his home. Following his visit to XXXX home, the Appellant claims that he started receiving phone calls from the police and anonymous phone numbers asking him to report to the police station. To avoid the calls, the Appellant states that he took time off work and went to Turkey through Georgia for a couple of weeks, returning to Azerbaijan on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Upon his return to Azerbaijan, the Appellant alleges that he increased his criticism of the government on Facebook by sharing posts in advance of a Presidential referendum on September 26, 2016. On September 11, 2016, the Appellant alleges that he participated in an opposition demonstration at XXXX XXXX. Following the demonstration, the Appellant states that he was arrested at his home and taken to the police station where he was beaten. He was allegedly released on September 13, 2016, after signing a document that he disturbed the peace, and he subsequently received medical treatment for injuries sustained during the alleged beating. As a result of this encounter, the Appellant applied for a U.S. visa, which was granted and he left for the U.S. on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX He resided in the U.S. for more than four months, where he alleges he shared additional Facebook posts about the government. [5] On XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, he states that he returned home due to his uncle dying. While in Azerbaijan, the Appellant alleges that he was picked-up off of the street and charged for disturbing the peace, even though he believes they targeted him for anti-government Facebook posts. He claims that he was beaten, the police had his Facebook account deleted and he was detained for 15 days. After he was released, he fled to the U.S., making his way to Canada six days later to make an in-land refugee claim. Further details are provided in his Basis of Claim (BOC) Form, and his testimony at the RPD hearing.2 The RPD's Decision [6] The Appellant had a refugee determination hearing on May 26 and July 18, 2017. In a written decision issued on September 6, 2017, the RPD rejected the claim. The RPD panel found the Appellant lacking in credibility and subjective fear. Therefore, the RPD concluded that the Appellant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground, or that he would not personally be subjected to a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or a danger of torture upon return to Azerbaijan. [7] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its credibility assessment, its subjective fear assessment and did not conduct a full section 97 analysis. He submits no new evidence and does not request an oral hearing. ROLE OF THE RAD [8] For questions of fact, mixed fact and law, and law, the RAD applies the standard of correctness in accordance with the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Huruglica.3 In assessing findings involving the credibility of oral testimony, the RAD may apply the modified standard of reasonableness in situations where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage.4 Unless otherwise stated in the reasons, the RAD uses the correctness standard on all findings and will consider the overall refugee determination on a standard of correctness, even where the RAD has deferred on some or all findings. ISSUES IN APPEAL [9] The Appellant argues the following issues in his appeal: 1) The RPD erred in its credibility assessment;5 2) The RPD erred in its subjective fear assessment;6 and, 3) The RPD failed to conduct a full section 97 analysis.7 ANALYSIS Credibility & Subjective Fear The Appellant's Arguments Membership in the XXXX [10] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred by drawing a negative inference from the fact that his APFP membership card, issued in 2013, was in "pristine" condition. The Appellant submits that he provided a reasonable explanation for its condition, which was that he did not carry the card around with him and that it was only used to vote. With respect to the RPD's comment that it was unclear why XXXX XXXX signature was on the card, when he was not present at the headquarters on the day the Appellant became a member, the Appellant submits that it is obvious that an XXXX membership card would have his signature reproduced. Such a signature would not indicate that the party leader was actually there and signed each membership. Furthermore, the Appellant argues that the RPD erred by not having the document independently verified. In addition, the Appellant argues that the RPD erred by giving the XXXX membership card "little weight", since the document is either genuine or fraudulent. It was inverted reasoning for the RPD to give the membership card "little weight", on the basis that his viva voce evidence about his membership, his activities and his relationship to the party leader were not credible. Rather, the RPD should have first assessed all pieces of evidence and testimony, then make a finding on credibility, as a general negative credibility finding cannot be used to justify rejecting a piece of evidence.8 [11] Moreover, the Appellant argues that the RPD erred by finding he was not a member of the XXXX because he and his friend, XXXX, who allegedly introduced him to the XXXX and was already a member, both obtained their membership cards on December 2013. The Appellant submits this is a misrepresentation of his evidence and is not inconsistent. He argues that he testified that XXXX was already a member, but did not state that they both went to obtain their own membership cards in December 2013, but that XXXX accompanied him to the headquarters when the Appellant obtained his card.9 [12] The Appellant also argues that it was an error for the RPD to find he was not credible because he stated that they held party meetings at cafes, not members' homes, and that he omitted from his BOC that part of his activities was to go door-to-door to publicize the party's activities. The Appellant submits that this was an erroneous plausibility finding because there is no objective evidence showing they could not meet in cafes, and that he stated in his BOC that he recruited new members and was active in demonstrations. On the latter point, he claims the RPD did not refer to his BOC and that this was not an omission of a significant detail or indicative of embellishing his testimony. Furthermore, the Appellant argues that the RPD erred by expecting he provide corroborating evidence from XXXX and XXXX, when he already provided an XXXX membership card and a letter from the leader of the XXXX. If such information was required, the RPD should have told him to get such evidence.10 [13] The Appellant also argues that the RPD erred in finding that he was not physically present in XXXX XXXXs apartment in April 2016 on the basis that this was omitted from his BOC. However, the Appellant notes that it is unclear whether the RPD finds that he omitted that he was in his XXXX apartment or if he omitted what he did in the apartment. The Appellant submits that the former is mentioned in his BOC, and the latter is immaterial to his claim. More importantly, he indicates that the RPD erred in finding that he did not meet XXXX in-person, which is clearly mentioned in his BOC.11 Arrest and Detention of September 2016 [14] With regard to its finding that the Appellant was confusing and contradictory in his testimony about this detention, the Appellant submits that the RPD does not identify what was confusing and contradictory about it. Instead, the RPD only indicates that a police officer told him he was a good guy and would release him if he paid money, even though he was beaten badly and suffered a concussion. The RPD fails to give clear reasons why it is making this finding.12 Arrest and Detention of February 2017 [15] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in drawing a negative inference from the perceived differences in his testimony regarding his Facebook account. He claims the inconsistencies are trumped up and the RPD was microscopic, as his testimony about whether he deleted it or the police deleted Facebook, could mean the same thing. What is significant, is that he was forced by the police to delete his Facebook account while in police custody. It is not a valid basis to find him not credible due to the differences in terminology such as "deactivated", "logged off", and "froze" his account. In addition, the Appellant submits that the RPD made an erroneous implausibility finding when it found that it was confusing, incomprehensible, and illogical that the police would force him to delete his account and then give him back his phone, as the RPD cannot be in the mind of the persecutor. Furthermore, he argues that the National Documentation Package (NDP) supports that Azerbaijani authorities detain persons for social media posts and force them to delete them.13 Subjective Fear [16] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in concluding that he was "asylum shopping" and that his returns to Azerbaijan from Turkey and the U.S., as well as his failure to claim in the U.S. was indicative of a lack of subjective fear. The Appellant submits that his persecution was not based on one incident, but on cumulating incidents. Therefore, he claims that his perceived delay in leaving Azerbaijan should have no negative impact on the RPD's determination.14 Documents [17] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in giving his court document, which corroborates his alleged arrest and detention, little weight, on the basis that it does not possess what the RPD believes should be an authentic document. The Appellant submits the RPD cites no evidence to indicate that all Azerbaijani court documents should have features that it indicates. Furthermore, if the RPD was concerned about the authenticity of the document, it should have had the document specifically examined. The RPD further erred by concluding that he provided fraudulent documents to bolster his claim, when it had assigned "little weight", not "no weight" to the documents corroborating his arrest, conviction and sentencing. The Appellant argues that the court document is either authentic and proves his arrest, or it does not because it is inauthentic. In order to entirely discount the document as fraudulent, it should have clearly said so. The Appellant argues that the RPD committed a similar error by giving little weight to the letter from the XXXX, signed by XXXX XXXX, and not getting the document independently verified.15 The RAD's Assessment [18] I agree with the Appellant that the RPD's reasoning is erroneous in several respects. However, after reviewing the whole record, including the audio record,16 I find the RPD did not err in its conclusion that the Appellant is not credible about his XXXX membership. My reasons for finding the Appellant lacking in credibility about his XXXX membership are as follows. Membership in the XXXX [19] First, I note that the Appellant was inconsistent in his testimony about when he joined the XXXX. In his BOC, he states that he became a member of the XXXX in December 2013. However, during questioning, the Appellant first stated that he joined in December 5, 2017. Moments later, the Appellant stated that he joined on December 5, 2015.17 At the second sitting, when questioned by his counsel about how he received the XXXX card, the Appellant's testimony reverted to the information in his BOC, which was that he joined in December 2013.18 I draw a negative credibility inference with respect to the Appellant's membership in the XXXX due to his inconsistent evidence about when he joined the XXXX. [20] Second, I reject the Appellant's argument that the RPD misrepresented the evidence by finding that XXXX signed up to be a member of the XXXX at the same time as the Appellant, even though the Appellant testified that XXXX was already a member at the time he signed up. Based on my review of the evidence, the Appellant was inconsistent about whether XXXX was already a member. The Appellant testified during the first and second sitting that his friend XXXX was a member of the XXXX when he joined and that XXXX accompanied him to the office to get his membership. However, when questioned by counsel at the second sitting about what the procedure was to join the XXXX and obtaining the membership card, the Appellant stated that he and XXXX entered the building, they took "our" photographs and they gave "us" a membership number.19 I find the Appellant's latter testimony is inconsistent with his testimony that XXXX was already a member, as his testimony indicates that they both received a membership number the same day. The Appellant's explanation that there is no inconsistency, is not accepted. This inconsistency is significant, because the Appellant alleges that XXXX introduced him to the XXXX. I draw a further negative credibility inference with respect to the Appellant being a member of the XXXX due to his inconsistent evidence about when XXXX joined the XXXX. [21] Third, I agree with the Appellant that the RPD was microscopic and ignored the information in his BOC that he "recruited new members", when it made a negative credibility finding due to his testimony that he went door-to-door to inform people about the XXXX activities. I find that this evidence at the hearing is a mere elaboration of the information in his BOC that he recruited new members by going door-to-door. However, with respect to the Appellant's argument that there is no objective evidence to support the RPD's plausibility finding that the Appellant would attend meetings in public places, such as cafes, I reject the Appellant's argument. The NDP for Azerbaijan indicates that the XXXX have had great difficulty gathering because of: government restrictions on freedom of assembly; closure of XXXX offices and the demolition of party headquarters by an explosion in 2014; party members being detained for social media posts; and, difficulty finding venues to hold meetings because of government control and business owners afraid of being seen as supporting the XXXX.20 As a result of this objective evidence about the difficulties faced by members of the XXXX and its ability to hold meetings, I find the RPD did not err in finding it not credible that the Appellant attended party meetings twice a month in public venues, such as cafes. [22] Furthermore, I note that the Appellant does not contest the RPD's finding that the Appellant omitted from his BOC that he was one of the organizers of the September 11, 2016 demonstration. Even though he mentions in his BOC that he was "involved in demonstrations", his omission that he organized this demonstration is a significant omission that undermines his credibility. Such involvement would suggest a heightened profile of the Appellant in the XXXX, and the Appellant provides no explanation for this significant omission, nor does he contest this finding. Based on the above findings about the Appellant attending meetings in public places and his BOC omission that he organized the September 11, 2016 demonstration, I find the Appellant lacking in credibility about his membership and involvement in the XXXX. [23] Fourth, I note that the RPD found that the Appellant did not know the motto of the XXXX, and the Appellant does not contest this finding. The RPD asked the Appellant what the motto of the party was and he testified that it was "No to the dictatorship, end to the monarchy and end the violation of human rights."21 However, the slogan of the party, which is printed on the back of the XXXX membership card he provided to the RPD, states the motto is "the flag once raised will never fall". Considering the Appellant does not contest this finding, I see no reason to interfere with it, as it is correct and based on the evidence in the record. I draw a negative inference as to the Appellant's credibility due to his inability to know the motto of the XXXX, which was printed on an XXXX membership card he provided. [24] Due to the above credibility concerns about when he joined the XXXX, XXXX membership in the XXXX, his activities and involvement in the XXXX, and his lack of knowledge about the XXXX motto, I find the Appellant is not credible on a balance of probabilities that he is a member of the XXXX, or that he was involved in the XXXX. Membership Card [25] I give the membership card of the XXXX little weight to establishing the Appellant's allegations that he was a member of the XXXX. First, the date on the card is December 5, 2013, which is inconsistent with the Appellant's testimony about when he joined the XXXX. Second, the Appellant was lacking in credibility about when he went to get the card, as he testified inconsistently about whether XXXX joined the same day he did. Third, the Appellant lacked knowledge about the card, in particular the motto of the XXXX party on the card. For these reasons, I give the membership card little weight and find that it does not overcome the litany of credibility concerns with the Appellant's testimony about his membership and involvement in the XXXX. Arrest and Detention of September 2016 [26] I agree with the Appellant that the RPD failed to indicate what portions of his testimony was confusing and contradictory about is alleged arrest and detention in September 2016 in order to find that he was not detained. However, I find the Appellant lacking in credibility that he was arrested and detained on September 11, 2016 due to his failure to claim protection in the U.S. and his re-availment to Azerbaijan in February 2017. [27] The Appellant testified that it was because of his arrest on September 11, 2016 that he decided to apply for a U.S. visa, and that he was afraid of the police when he left for the U.S. on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. His father's letter further states that the Appellant's life was in danger and that is why he applied for a U.S. visa after this incident. However, despite this, the Appellant did not claim refugee protection while residing in the U.S. for more than four months. When the RPD asked why he did not claim asylum, he stated his intention was to visit and learn English, but because his uncle died, he had to return to Azerbaijan later.22 While the Appellant argues in his memorandum that his delay and re-availment is explained because the incidents of harm were cumulative, I reject this. This was not the Appellant's evidence at the RPD, in fact the Appellant indicated that he was afraid of the police when he left Azerbaijan on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Considering the Appellant testified that he obtained the U.S. visa because of his arrest and detention, and that he was fearful of the police when he left on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, I find the Appellant's failure to claim in the U.S. for four and a half months, undermines his allegation that he was arrested, detained and beaten by Azerbaijani authorities in September 2016 as alleged. [28] With respect to the Appellant's re-availment due the purported death of his uncle, this further undermines the credibility of his allegations that he was arrested, detained and beaten in September 2016. I note that the Appellant does not contest the RPD's actual finding on this matter. Specifically, the RPD found that the reason for his re-availment lacked credibility because the death certificate provided by the Appellant did not corroborate that the individual who died was his mother's brother (uncle). In addition, the RPD found that the certificate shows that the purported uncle's death was more than a month prior to when he returned to Azerbaijan due to the uncle's death. Considering the Appellant does not contest this particular finding by the RPD, I see no reason to interfere with it. It is correct and based on the evidence in the record. The reasons for the Appellant's return to Azerbaijan were likely fabricated and his explanation for re-availment lacks credibility. The Appellant's behaviour is not what one would expect from a person fleeing Azerbaijan for the reasons provided. His failure to claim asylum in the U.S., and his incredible reason for re-availment are demonstrative of a lack of credibility about why he fled Azerbaijan, as well as establishing that he lacks subjective fear. [29] Given the Appellant's evidence about his reasons for failing to claim protection in the U.S. in September 2016, and his re-availment to Azerbaijan in February 2017, I find the Appellant was not arrested, detained and beaten in September 2016 as alleged. Medical Certificate [30] I note that the Appellant provides a medical certificate, indicating that he suffered a concussion, traumatic closed head injury, and hematoma to chest and back.23 However, I find this medical certificate warrants very little weight to establishing that he was arrested, detained and beaten in September 2016. This is because the document on its own simply indicates that the Appellant suffered some injuries and does not corroborate the alleged persecution.24 In addition, although the Appellant stated that he obtained this letter for a subsequent doctor's appointment, this note does not indicate what treatment he obtained due to these alleged injuries, which was the purported purpose of obtaining the report. It is for these reasons that I give the medical document very little weight to establishing he was arrested, detained and beaten as alleged on September 11, 2016. Father's Letter [31] Finally, with respect to his father's letter, which was provided to corroborate his allegations including the September 11 arrest and detention, I find this document deserves no weight to establishing any of his allegations. In particular, for an out-of-court statement that could be drawn up by anyone, authentication of the document as being the sworn testimony from the person identified as its author is a first prerequisite for its admissibility, and certainly a sufficient ground to diminish the document's weight.25 In this case, the letter from his father is scanned, handwritten and without any identification attached. Furthermore, the provenance of this letter is also in doubt given the Appellant's testimony that it was sent to him by his father by email, but he could not provide the email it was attached to. The Appellant states this is because he forgot his email password and his phone was broken. The RPD did not accept this response as it lacked common sense and logic and he could have changed his email address or registered a new email address. Since the Appellant does not contest this finding, I see no reason to interfere with it. Moreover, I find that the Appellant made no efforts to simply reset his password, as he indicated he did have an email account, just that he forgot the password. Therefore, I give the purported letter from his father no weight, as the source of the document cannot be confirmed. Arrest and Detention of February 2017 [32] I reject the Appellant's argument and find the RPD did not err in its assessment of his alleged arrest and detention on February 26, 2017, due to his inconsistent and confusing testimony about his Facebook posts and account being deleted. The Appellant wrote in his BOC that the police arrested and detained him for 15 days because of his Facebook posts, and that "the police also had my Facebook account deleted." When questioned about this incident at the hearing, the Appellant testified at the first sitting that he was a member of Facebook since 2009, but when he was arrested, all information related to his account was removed from social media by the police officer. The RPD asked if the Appellant's evidence was that the police can close down a Facebook account, to which the Appellant stated that the police deleted the posts he made online and they ordered him to delete his account. The RPD clarified whether he deleted his account, and not the police, and the Appellant stated they ordered him to. The RPD put to him that his BOC states that the police deleted his account, which is not possible as they cannot just delete a Facebook account no matter where they are. In response, the Appellant stated that they removed his posts on Facebook and that they insulted and ordered him to delete the account. The RPD asked how that happened, and the Appellant explained that when he was at the police station they checked his Facebook and went through his WhatsApp account and showed him a post he made and beat him, and they removed the posts and ordered him not to use Facebook anymore and not to make posts against the government. The RPD asked again how they technically deleted his account. The Appellant responded that they cleared all Facebook posts. The RPD put to him that this was not the same as deleting an account, and the Appellant stated that he did not know how, but they somehow managed to block his account and they shut it down. Later in the hearing, the RPD asked whether his friend XXXX had a Facebook account, and the Appellant believed that he did. The RPD asked if XXXX was also asked to delete his account because he testified that he was still being monitored and controlled by police, to which the Appellant stated that his Facebook posts were deleted, but they cannot force him to delete the account.26 [33] At the second sitting, the RPD sought further clarification about his Facebook account. The RPD asked again how he got rid of his Facebook account, and the Appellant stated that he cancelled his account. The RPD noted that his BOC states that the police deleted his account, to which the Appellant testified that when he was in police custody they made him erase it, so he did. The RPD noted that this was different than what his BOC indicates, and the Appellant indicated that when he was detained, they confiscated his phone and erased his Facebook posts and told him not to use Facebook and made him erase it. The RPD later asked what the difference is between deleting his Facebook account and deactivating his account. The Appellant stated there is an account log-off and he logged off and since then, did not open his account at all. When asked if he just logged off Facebook and that is how he deleted or deactivated his account, the Appellant said his friends told him he is no longer on Facebook. The RPD confirmed that the button that says "log off Facebook" deleted or deactivated his account, and he responded that he blocked his account and did not exit. The RPD asked how long it took him to do this, in response he said, it was in the settings and that you can exit or freeze your account, and he stated that he froze it and left Facebook since then. Upon questioning from counsel, the Appellant stated that he deleted it on his phone and that he blocked his account using his phone. When asked by counsel how he used the settings on his phone, the Appellant stated that he used the Facebook exit.27 [34] I find the Appellant's testimony about whether the police deleted his Facebook posts or his account, or whether he himself logged off, blocked, deleted, exited or froze his Facebook account to be confusing, evolving and contradictory. Contrary to the Appellant's submissions, these are significant distinctions between these terms, which are not microscopic. The distinctions between these terms can mean the difference between the Appellant continuing to have full access to his Facebook account and its content, being able to retrieve or reactivate his account and its content once he leaves the police station, or whether his data has been completely lost forever. Due to the Appellant's inconsistent and evolving testimony on this matter, I find the Appellant lacking in credibility that he was arrested and detained for making anti-government Facebook posts as alleged. [35] Furthermore, the RPD found that it was unlikely that his father was able to find out about the Appellant's arrest and detention on February 26, 2017, in order to appear in court the next day. The RPD found it lacked common sense that it was a grocery worker that saw him get arrested, and that this person ran and told his father about the arrest, considering the Appellant was a kilometre away from his home and on a different street. The Appellant does not contest this particular finding, and I see no reason to interfere with it. It is correct and based on the evidence in the record. It is unlikely that the Appellant's father found out about his arrest, detention and court appearance in this manner. In light of this uncontested finding, as well as the credibility concerns with his testimony about his Facebook account above, I find the Appellant is not credible on a balance of probabilities that he was arrested for the reasons alleged on February 26, 2017. Court Document [36] With respect to the Appellant's court document,28 I find this warrants little weight to establish that he was arrested and detained due to anti-government Facebook posts. The content of the document simply mentions that the Appellant was to serve 15 days in jail due to being charged with the breach of public peace, which is an administrative offence. I recognize that the Appellant alleges this was a trumped up charge, but the content of the document alone is insufficient evidence to overcome the above credibility concerns and establish on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant was arrested and detained for the reasons alleged. Letter from XXXX [37] I find the letter from XXXX warrants little weight to establishing his allegations that he is a party member or that he was arrested and detained as alleged. First, the letter from XXXX is generic and vague about when and why the Appellant was arrested and detained, such as attending the September 11, 2016 demonstration in Baku or the other incidents he was allegedly fleeing from Azerbaijan. It is also impersonal, considering the Appellant alleges to have met XXXX XXXX on three occasions. One would expect the Appellant's supporting documents to include such important information.29 In regards to the Appellant's submission that the RPD should have sent this document for verification, this is rejected. In part, the RPD is considered to have the expertise to assess documents and need not seek an expert assessment of the document. In addition, I note that there is no contact information on the letter provided by the XXXX in order to assist in verifying the authenticity of this letter, or to confirm it is from the XXXX. Further to the issue of the document's provenance, the RPD noted that there is no corroboration for how the document came to Canada. Specifically, the Appellant testified that his friend XXXX got the letter and gave it to his father, who then gave it to another friend who brought it directly to the Appellant in Canada. In light of the credibility concerns with the Appellant's testimony, he provides no supporting documents from these friends to corroborate how these documents arrived in Canada. Finally, the content of the letter includes information that was found not credible based on his testimony about when he joined the XXXX. The letter states it was December 5, 2013, but he testified that he joined on December 5, 2015 and December 5, 2017. Considering the foregoing, I give the letter from the XXXX very little weight to corroborating his allegations. [38] After reviewing the whole record, including the audio recording, I find on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant's allegations that he is a member of the XXXX, and that he was arrested, detained and beaten on September 11, 2016 and February 26, 2017, are not credible. The supporting documents provided by the Appellant warrant either no, little, or very little weight and they do not overcome the litany of credibility concerns identified above. The Appellant also lacks subjective fear for failing to claim refugee protection in the U.S. while residing there for more than four months, and for re-availing to Azerbaijan in February 2017. Therefore, I find the RPD did not err in its credibility or subjective fear conclusions. Section 97 The Appellant's Argument [39] The Appellant argues that the RPD's general negative credibility finding is not dispositive of a section 97 analysis. He submits that even though there are doubts as to his credibility, this does not relieve the RPD of the responsibility of determining on all of the evidence whether he is a refugee. In this respect, the RPD failed to consider what facts are established by evidence to which some weight can be given. In this case, there was significant and credible country condition documentary evidence and personal documentary evidence that he faces a serious risk on return to Azerbaijan.30 The RAD's Assessment [40] The RAD rejects the Appellant's argument and finds the RPD did not err. First, I am unable to see where in the RPD's reasons it made a general negative credibility finding, as a result, this argument is rejected. Second, the Appellant's submissions on section 97 suggests there is credible country conditions evidence and personal documentary evidence that he faces a risk. However, he fails to specify on what evidence his section 97 claim is based. The Appellant bears the onus of demonstrating what evidence supports a successful section 97 claim.31 Furthermore, in the RAD context, the Appellant cannot just raise an issue or a concern and expect the RAD to find evidence that supports their argument. The RAD has no obligation to do the Appellant's work of looking for such evidence for them.32 [41] In this case, the Appellant points to no such evidence to ground a section 97 claim. He has not raised arguments about general criminality or violence or a non-nexus basis for his fear. In my view, the Appellant's allegations are based on a link to a nexus ground of political opinion, which the RPD assessed under its section 96 analysis and found not credible. There is no section 97 claim articulated, as this Appellant's fears are directly linked to his purported political opinion, which has a nexus. Therefore, the RPD did not err. CONCLUSION [42] After conducting its own analysis of the entire record, the RAD finds that the RPD did not err in its credibility findings. While the RAD has concerns over a couple of the RPD's findings, they are not fatal to its final determination that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. The RAD was able to identify additional credibility concerns based on the record before it, as well with uncontested credibility findings. Furthermore, the RPD did not err in its subjective fear assessment, nor did it fail to analyze the claim under section 97. Based on my review of the record, including the audio recording, I also conclude that the Appellant lacks credibility and subjective fear. Therefore, he is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection. Disposition [43] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. This appeal is dismissed. (signed) "G. Erauw" G. Erauw June 1, 2018 Date 1 Paragraph 111(1)(a), Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27. [IRPA]. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Appellant's Basis of Claim (BOC) form, at pp. 19-33; and Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Audio Recording. 3 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 4 X (Re), 2017 CanLII 33034 (CA IRB). 5 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at pp. 89-105, at paras. 14-43. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at pp. 105-107, at paras. 44-47. 7 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at pp. 107-109, at paras. 48-52. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at pp. 89-92, at paras. 14-20. 9 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at p. 92, at para. 21. 10 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at pp. 92-96, at paras. 21-28. 11 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at pp. 96-97, at paras. 29-31. 12 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at pp. 102-103, at paras. 35-37. 13 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at pp. 98-101, at paras. 32-34. 14 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at pp. 105-107, at paras. 44-47. 15 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at pp. 103-105, at paras. 38-43. 16 Al-Albayechi v. M.C.I., 2018 FC 360, at para. 35; Adeoye v. M.C.I., 2018 FC 246, at paras. 13-15; and Caleb v. M.C.I., 2018 FC 384, at paras. 20-23. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Audio Recording (1st Sitting), at 40:00-44:00. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Audio Recording (2nd Sitting), at 2:09:45. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Audio Recording (2nd Sitting), at 2:09:45. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Azerbaijan, 31 March 2017, at item 2.1 and 4.4. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Audio Recording (1st Sitting). 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Audio Recording (1st Sitting). 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Medical Certificate, at pp. 199-200. 24 Kivalo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 728, at para. 50, and the cases cited therein. 25 Al-Albayechi, v. M.C.I., 2018 360, at para. 34. 26 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Audio Recording (1st Sitting). 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Audio Recording (2nd Sitting). 28 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Case of Administrative Offence, at pp. 209-210. 29 Adu v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration), [1995] F.C.J. No. 114 (FCA). 30 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at pp. 107-109, at paras. 48-52. 31 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Sellan, 2008 FCA 381, at paras. 3-4. 32 Huang v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2460-17), Phelan, December 1, 2017, 2017 FC 1090, at para. 7. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 18 RAD.25.02 (September 11, 2014) Disponible en français RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB7-19461