MB8-18362

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 No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB8-18362 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision - Motifs et décision Appellant(s) XXXX XXXX Appelant(e)(s) Appeal considered / heard at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of Decision July 26, 2019 Date de la décision Panel Normand Leduc Tribunal Counsel for the Appellant(s) Me Walid Ayadi Conseil(s) du (de la/des) Appelant(e)(s) Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du (de la) Ministre REASONS AND DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Haiti, is appealing against the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting her refugee protection claim. [2] She is not presenting any new evidence on appeal or asking that an oral hearing be held before the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL [3] Under paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD, namely, that XXXX XXXX is not a "Convention refugee" under section 96 of the IRPA or a "person in need of protection" within the meaning of section 97 of the IRPA. BACKGROUND [4] In her Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form), the appellant alleges that she fears members of the Lavalas political party who have allegedly been threatening her since XXXX XXXX, 2016, because of her XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX during the presidential election held the day before. [5] The appellant alleges that armed criminals robbed and threatened her while she was on a XXXX on XXXX XXXX, 2016. She alleges that her spouse received many threatening calls on his telephone. [6] The appellant left Haiti on January 24, 2017, for Canada, where she claimed refugee protection upon arrival. [7] The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (the Minister), through his representative, intervened before the RPD by filing a Notice of Intent to Intervene, submitting that the appellant was not credible, namely, for having failed to declare to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officer who questioned her when she arrived in Canada that she had been threatened because of her work as polling station supervisor. [8] The RPD rejected the refugee protection claim on the ground that the appellant's allegations were not credible. [9] Before the RAD, the appellant submitted that the RPD erred in its assessment of her credibility, for reasons that will be explained later in the Analysis section, if necessary. [10] For these reasons, the appellant is requesting that the RAD set aside the determination of the RPD and grant her refugee protection or, alternatively, refer the matter to the RPD for re-determination by a different panel. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION'S ROLE [11] The role of the RAD is to review RPD decisions by applying the correctness standard of review after conducting its own analysis of the record to determine whether the RPD erred, as submitted by the appellant. The exception to this rule concerns the RPD's findings in the assessment of the credibility or weight to be given to the oral evidence it hears, in cases where it enjoys a particular advantage. The RAD must then show deference to the RPD's findings (Canada v. Huruglica, F.C.A., No. A-470-14). Reasons will be provided in my analysis if I find that the RPD enjoyed a particular advantage. ANALYSIS [12] The issue in this appeal is whether the RPD erred in its assessment of the appellant's credibility. [13] In my opinion, after analyzing all of the evidence submitted, including listening to the recording of the hearing before the RPD, and taking into consideration its reasons and the appellant's submissions, the answer to this question is no for the following reasons. [14] The RPD's decision is based on a number of factors that, in my opinion, taken together, can only undermine the appellant's credibility. These factors are as follows: i. Since the appellant herself is unable to determine who the other XXXX at the polling station were during the election on November 20, 2016, it is implausible that the individuals she claims to fear are able to identify them and, as a result, go after her. [15] In her memorandum, the appellant submits that she was identifiable as a polling station XXXX because she was XXXX XXXX XXXX to that effect. [16] However, the problem is that the appellant's testimony regarding the XXXX who were working at the polling station is vague and inconsistent: she stated that she did not know how many XXXX were working there like her because [translation] "a number of people were working there and the XXXX were mixed in with the other employees." She could not even give an approximate number of XXXX who were working at the polling station. [17] In my opinion, this testimony results in a number of consequences. First, it is surprising that the Lavalas party's goons were able to identify her as a XXXX, when she herself is unable to identify her fellow XXXX. Second, it does not seem plausible that the appellant would not know her fellow XXXX, in particular, that the XXXX would not have met and spoken to each other before the vote to discuss their role during the election. Lastly, it is surprising, if not implausible, that the men from the Lavalas party would blame her alone for their electoral defeat. ii. There is a contradiction in the number of individuals who allegedly attacked and robbed her on XXXX XXXX, 2016: she wrote three in her BOC Form, testified that there were instead two, while the complaints filed indicate three and two. [18] When asked about this, the appellant answered that she may have made a mistake in her form out of stress and fear. [19] Like the RPD, I am of the opinion that these explanations are not reasonable in this case. The form was completed after the refugee protection claim, and I fail to see how stress and fear could justify such a mistake. In addition, there is no explanation for the contradictory statements regarding the number of attackers in the complaints filed. iii. There are omissions and contradictions in the statements she made upon arriving in Canada. [20] When she arrived in Canada on January 24, 2017, the appellant was not admitted as a visitor by the CBSA officer, namely, because she was pregnant and did not have enough money to pay the cost of giving birth in the country. [21] It was not until the officer asked her whether she wanted Canada's protection that the appellant finally claimed refugee protection. [22] When asked by the CBSA officer whether she feared Haiti, the appellant replied [translation] "a little," alleging that some neighbourhoods she had to go through to get to work were dangerous. She completely failed to mention the events of XXXX 2016, which she later alleged before the panel. [23] When asked about this by the RPD, the appellant explained that she had been with her sick father when she arrived in Canada and that she had not wanted to declare the problems encountered in front of him and upset him further. She also stated that she was pregnant and tired when she arrived and that she did not [translation] "know what to say." [24] Again, like the RPD, I am of the opinion that these explanations are not reasonable in this case. [25] The appellant had ample time to declare her problems to the CBSA officer. She remained at the airport for several hours after arriving and was questioned several times by the officer, and what is more, in the absence of her father, who was able to leave the airport after a while. [26] While it is understandable that the appellant, who was pregnant, was tired and nervous at the airport, the fact remains that it is implausible that she never mentioned to the officer the reasons she allegedly feared Haiti, and that she then alleged them specifically before the RPD. [27] I am of the opinion that this omission, or contradiction, is significant and can only undermine the appellant's credibility. iv. It is implausible that the appellant did not look into the possibility of claiming refugee protection in Canada before leaving Haiti. [28] The RPD is of the opinion that the appellant, an educated person, could have easily looked for information, particularly online, regarding the options available to her to regularize her status in Canada, including the possibility of claiming refugee protection there. [29] When asked about this, the appellant replied that it had not occurred to her and that she only wanted to flee Haiti and hide in Canada. [30] I arrive at the same conclusion as the RPD on this matter. It appears inconsistent to me that the appellant did not find out about the possibility of claiming refugee protection in Canada before leaving, if her goal was actually to [translation] "flee" and "hide" in Canada. The appellant and her spouse had ample time to look into this, since the appellant testified that she had decided to leave her country in November 2016 but left it two months later, in January 2017. [31] I am of the opinion that there are enough elements to find that the appellant's credibility is irreparably undermined, and it is not necessary to review any further the RPD'S finding with respect to the delay of the appellant's spouse in changing telephone numbers, which in any event, in my opinion, is not fatal to the refugee protection claim. [32] Lastly, like the RPD, I am also of the opinion that there is no cause to give credibility to the documents submitted by the appellant to corroborate her allegations, given the contradictions and omissions noted above, for the following reasons. [33] The copy of the excerpt from the minutes of the peace court registry (Exhibit C-3, page 93 of the RPD record) dated November 21, 2016, indicates, as mentioned above, two and then three attackers, instead of two as the appellant testified. It also states that the appellant reported that she had been attacked the day before, during the election, while her BOC Form and testimony made no mention of this. [34] The copy of the complaint to the peace court (Exhibit C-2, page 91 of the RPD record), dated November 25, 2016, also refers to an attack at the polling station that is, once again, contrary to the appellant's allegations. [35] Consequently, in light of the above, I conclude that the appellant failed to establish that the RPD committed errors warranting the RAD's intervention. REMEDY [36] For these reasons, I confirm the determination of the RPD, namely, that XXXX XXXX is not a "Convention refugee" under section 96 of the IRPA or a "person in need of protection" within the meaning of section 97 of the IRPA. [37] The appeal is dismissed. Normand Leduc Normand Leduc July 26, 2019 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 RAD.25.02 (April 9, 2013) Disponible en français RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB8-18362 7