MC0-09334

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-09334 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ?Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montréal Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision March 30, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Me Martine Durocher Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Jamal Addine Fraygui 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, you are from Morocco and you are appealing the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rendered on February 17, 2020, rejecting your refugee protection claim. [2] You allege that you fear for your life should you return to Morocco after attacks perpetrated by unknown individuals that were motivated by revenge against XXXX your father made as a XXXX before he died in 2001. You state that your brother also received threats in 2008 and was assaulted in 2011. Nothing came of the complaints filed with the police. You were assaulted by persecutors while you were in school from 2012 to 2014, and you were harassed by teachers, which led you to change schools. You filed a complaint with the association des droits de l'Homme [human rights association] and the ministry of justice, but nothing changed. You arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2015, with your mother. You had a visitor's visa. You made a refugee protection claim on March 7, 2019. [3] The RPD rejected your refugee protection claim on the basis that your allegations lacked credibility. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) is of the view that the determinative issues include credibility and the prospective risk. DETERMINATION [4] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD correctly determined that you are not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. ROLE OF THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION [5] I will review the RPD's decision on a standard of correctness after conducting an independent assessment of all of the evidence before me, including the hearing recording.1 ANALYSIS [6] First, I am of the view that the RPD was correct in establishing that section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) applies to the facts in this case. The allegations you made specify that the risks you face are related to crimes that occurred because your father was a member of the XXXX; this cannot be considered a Convention ground. Connections between the alleged events [7] The RPD acknowledged the violence against you and your family members, but concluded that there was not enough evidence to establish a connection between these assaults and your father's work as a XXXX. [8] First, you stated that your brother's assault by unknown individuals was orchestrated by agents of persecution who were protected by a corrupt XXXX by the name of XXXX. The RPD did not accept your explanations that your mother failed to mention this XXXX name during the investigation conducted by the Centre marocain des droits de l'homme [Moroccan human rights centre] in Rabat. [9] I note that when your counsel questioned you, you first explained that the XXXX name was not in the investigation report because at the time the complaint was made, you were unaware of the corrupt XXXX involvement in the affair, but that his name was in the other complaints filed afterwards.2 Then, after your counsel asked you leading questions, you testified instead that the public officials did not dare include the XXXX name; they lacked the courage.3 Your counsel then mentioned that, without any concrete evidence, the Moroccan authorities did not want to write his name in the report, so as to not wrongly damage his reputation. [10] I agree with the RPD's analysis and conclusion that you failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that this incident was connected to his father. The discrepancies between the different explanations undermine your credibility. Furthermore, I note that the information about these incidents being connected to a supposed settling of scores by individuals who XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX father comes from assumptions and speculation from relatives in your father's family, who also do not know the assailants' identities.4 As stated by your counsel, you do not have any concrete evidence upon which you can base your beliefs. The panel is not bound by the inferences of fact you made. I am therefore of the view that the RPD correctly concluded that a connection between that event and your father was not established on a balance of probabilities. [11] You testified that during the 2014 attack, the assailants mentioned that you were [translation] "as bad as your father." I agree with the RPD in concluding that this alone is not enough to establish a connection with XXXX XXXX XXXX his father made 12 years earlier. The fact that you are the son of a XXXX could have led to teasing and jealousy, but nothing indicates that these individuals are the same people or members of the same group of people who attacked your brother a few years earlier. In my opinion, this conclusion stems from speculation or a possibility, but not a probability, according to the evidence on the record. This analysis also applies to your teachers' disrespectful behaviour toward you. Nothing indicates any connections between these teachers and the assailants. Identification of the agents of persecution [12] You were unable to identify the group of assailants, beyond the fact that the group was allegedly connected to the world of drugs and is protected by a corrupt XXXX. The RPD found that your failure to inquire about the identity of these individuals who might have a grudge against your father undermines your credibility. The RPD was also of the opinion that because you were very young when your father died, you did not find out about these events directly; therefore, your testimony is not very reliable. [13] You submit that this analysis and conclusion are unreasonable. You answered that your mother could not have known about your father's business, because she is uneducated and lived in her husband's shadow. You note that your brother was also very young when the events occurred. You admit that you and your immediate family members were unaware of the details of the judgment your father rendered at least 20 years ago. [14] As mentioned above, the supposed connection between the incidents and your father's XXXX appears to have been formulated by family members on the father's side, with whom you grew up, as you lived in the same building complex. I note that the panel has no information about why your family might believe there is some connection there. I am of the view that the RPD was correct in expecting that, in the context of a refugee protection claim, you could have inquired with other family members to learn the details of the XXXX at the root of your troubles and your exile from your country of birth. The burden of proof is on you. Given how few details there were surrounding the alleged connection between the events and your father's XXXX XXXX I agree with the RPD that your evidence is unreliable. Delay in claiming refugee protection [15] You claimed refugee protection four years after arriving in Canada, which led the RPD to conclude that your behaviour did not correspond to that of someone who fears for their life. You allege that it was only when you got back in touch with his brother in Quebec that you became aware that you could claim refugee protection based on your fear of returning to Morocco. [16] In your appeal memorandum, you repeat the same arguments you made before the RPD. [17] First, I agree with you that the RPD erred at paragraph 21 of its decision and that your record contains no information about you travelling to the United States. [18] I understand that you were only 18 years old when you came to Canada in 2015. However, you filed your refugee protection claim in 2019, at which point you were almost 22 years old. According to your testimony, you were afraid of the consequences of claiming refugee protection after living in Canada for so many years without status. You state that you were advised to avoid contact with police authorities. I understand that you feared the consequences of living illegally for several years. I also note that you are not very educated. You state that you were afraid that the Canadian authorities would send you back to Morocco. You felt like you had to choose between staying in Canada illegally and being subjected to danger in Morocco. I do not agree with the RPD that the time it took you to claim refugee protection supports the conclusion that you were not guided by a subjective fear. However, I note that the connection between the incidents and your father's XXXX is still based on speculation. [19] I am of the opinion that the RPD erred in concluding that the documents submitted in evidence could not be given probative value because of credibility issues. The RPD should have conducted an independent assessment of the credibility and reliability of those documents. [20] I assessed the medico-legal certificate and your father's death and profession certificate. I find that they are credible and support your allegations about being the son of a XXXX. I also am prepared to conclude that the investigation report supports the allegations that your brother was assaulted in 2011. [21] However, these documents are insufficient to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that there is a connection between the assaults in 2011, 2012 and 2014. Vague allusions to the fact that your father was a XXXX when those events occurred does not make it probable that those incidents were carried out by the same group of people and driven by revenge against your father. [22] Furthermore, with regard to prospective risk, I note that the alleged agents of persecution have never contacted your mother, who stayed in Morocco.5 You explained that your mother is an [translation] "elderly" person, to justify why the assailants did not go after her. However, she is only about 50 years old, and when the alleged events occurred, she was in her forties. I am not persuaded by your explanation and this further supports the RPD's conclusion that you failed to establish a connection between the incidents. [23] As a result, I am of the opinion that the RPD correctly concluded that you failed to establish that you would be subjected to a serious risk of persecution on a Convention ground, or that, on a balance of probabilities, you would be personally subjected to torture, a risk to your life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment should you return to Morocco. [24] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the determination of the RPD that you are not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. (signed) Me Martine Durocher Me Martine Durocher March 30, 2021 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93. 2 Hearing, at 1:35. 3 Hearing, at 1:42. 4 Hearing, at 30-32 minutes. 5 Hearing, at 1:25. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-09334 RAD.25.02 (January 14, 2020) Disponible en français 3 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (January 14, 2020) Disponible en français