MB7-02756

No de dossier de la SAR / RAD File No. : MB7-02756 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision - Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montréal, QC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision April 25, 2019 Date de la décision Panel Me Michel Jobin Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Anthony Karkar 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] The appellant, XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Morocco, alleges that he fears members of his family if he had to return to his country of nationality. He left his country in order to study in Montréal in XXXX 2014. He began dating a Christian woman. His parents, made aware of the situation and faced with his refusal to end the relationship, cut him off. He had to put an end to his studies as he no longer had the financial means to continue. On XXXX XXXX, 2016, he informed them that he was getting married. His father and his uncles told him that he would be a dead man if he returned to his country, because he had dishonoured them. [2] The Minister did not intervene in this case. [3] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected the appellant's claim owing to a lack of credibility and to an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Morocco. [4] The appellant is asking the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to [translation] "allow this appeal application, set aside the RPD decision and grant the appellant the status of a protected person, or set aside the RPD decision and refer the matter to the RPD for re-determination." [5] The appellant is not asking to submit new evidence under subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act1 (IRPA), but he does want a hearing to be held under subsection 110(6) of the IRPA. [6] The appellant submits the following arguments to the RAD: 1. The panel's reasoning was linear and erroneous; 2. The IFA is not viable with respect to him. DETERMINATION [7] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the RPD's determination, namely, that XXXX XXXX is not a "Convention refugee" or a "person in need of protection" within the meaning of sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA. [8] The appeal is dismissed. SCOPE OF THE APPEAL [9] For questions of fact, of law, and of mixed fact and law, the RAD must apply the standard of correctness in accordance with Huruglica.2 [10] After listening carefully to the hearing, I conducted an independent analysis of all the evidence on the record in order to form my own opinion about this refugee protection claim and determine whether the decision rendered by the RPD is correct. Hearing before the Refugee Appeal Division [11] The appellant requests that the RAD hold a hearing under subsection 110(6) of the IRPA. This subsection states that the RAD may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, there is new admissible evidence that meets the three conditions set out therein.3 In this case, I find that there is no cause to hold a hearing as no new evidence was received and found admissible pursuant to subsection 110(4) of the Act. [12] For this reason, the request to hold a hearing before the RAD is denied. ANALYSIS [13] After reviewing all the evidence on the record, both testimonial and documentary, including listening carefully to a recording of the hearing, the RAD makes a finding identical to that of the RPD, according to which the appellant is not credible and there is an IFA in Morocco. [14] The appellant believes that the RPD failed to properly assess his credibility, and that the impact on the decision is such that the appellant would not be persecuted in his country. [15] The very essence of this case lies in the appellant's credibility. [16] At the beginning of the analysis, the RAD would like to note that the appellant's testimony over the course of more than two hours of questioning was laborious, hesitant and contradictory on many occasions, which led the first-level member to confront the appellant by contrasting a sentence he had just uttered with another, given a few moments earlier; sometimes, the appellant gave a third version. The panel will give examples a little later. [17] The first argument in the memorandum states that the panel's reasoning is linear (rather than the misspelled linaire in the French original) and erroneous. [18] Asked about what he fears if he had to return to his country, the appellant answered that he fears his father, his uncles, his brother, and society. As society is a broad concept, he specified that he fears the people in his neighbourhood. The panel notes the addition of the brother who is after him. Right after confirming that his account is complete, accurate and to the best of his knowledge, he added that his older brother was after him. He explained this addition by stating that it was his mother who had told him his brother should be added to the list of people. Other than this explanation, which is not consistent with the account, he stated that he had had an exchange with his mother during a phone call on XXXX XXXX, 2016. It should be noted that the hearing was held on January 3, 2017. The call with his mother allegedly took place during Ramadan. He then wondered what the date was or whether it really was Ramadan. The next sentence was to the effect that the telephone conversation took place on XXXX XXXX, 2016. Everything got muddled because he stated that he had obtained this information from his sister XXXX. Confronted with all his contradictory statements, he explained that he was speaking with his mother, that his father had disconnected them, and that he finally learned from his sister that his brother XXXX had disagreed with him to the point of wanting to go after him. Asked why he had not mentioned the fact that he fears his brother as well as the other individuals he had named, he told the panel that he had indeed mentioned it when stating that he feared his family. [19] The RAD cannot accept all these contradictory answers, regarding both the individuals threatening him and the date of the incident. As stated in the introduction, the panel heard a laborious testimony that was contradictory on many topics. This greatly undermines his credibility and his case. [20] The RAD is of the opinion that the RPD did not err regarding the above-mentioned matter, namely, that the appellant testified in a laborious and contradictory manner. [21] A second factor reviewed in the analysis concerns the relationship with his future wife and the consequences and repercussions this had for the appellant. In early 2015, he began a relationship with a woman. His parents were made aware of this relationship in XXXX 2015. Faced with his refusal to end the relationship, his father cut him off, as a consequence of which he had to discontinue his program of study on XXXX XXXX or XXXX, 2015, when the educational institution told him that his student status had been terminated in XXXX 2015. [22] The panel will not discuss the fact that he arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2014, but did not begin his studies until XXXX of the following year. The appellant explained that, at the beginning, he came as part of a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, but that he had to do a preparatory year focused on studying XXXX at the XXXX XXXX XXXX, and that the course lasted XXXXyears. On the advice of his father, he signed up for an XXXX XXXX course as part of a XXXX studies diploma at a secondary school. His father agreed to pay for a period of approximately XXXX months, not for a XXXX-year bachelor's degree. He added that his student visa was issued on the basis of a university program in XXXX. The way he obtained his student visa and why he did so remain unclear. He obtained it to study XXXX at university, but his plans quickly changed to XXXX training. [23] His status expired in XXXX 2015, and faced with this situation, he filed an application for restoration of status, which was accepted. To do this, he had to provide bank statements from his father to demonstrate financial sponsorship. The panel has received a hodgepodge of information regarding this matter. He testified that he submitted to the authorities the same documents as he had for the initial application. He then stated that his application had been accepted in XXXX 2015, and then corrected himself to state that it was in XXXX of the same year. He mentioned that he had used his father's statements from XXXX 2015, even though it was XXXX and topped it off by stating [translation] "I updated them." [24] Asked to present the documents, the appellant offered an array of responses. First, he stated that he did not have them with him; then, he stated that he could not find them; he hesitated and stated that he had lost them; he had not brought them; did not know how he had received them, and then he confirmed that it was via email. The panel can only find that the appellant offered an array of responses on a pretty simple matter. The panel does not give these statements any weight. [25] Still regarding his living expenses, to be covered by a sponsor, the appellant indicated that, beginning in XXXX 2015, his father no longer sent him any money because he was dating a Christian woman. Confronted with the end of his status in Canada, he then claimed restoration of status. He stated that his father provided new bank statements to facilitate the processing of the file. Noting the statement he had just given to the panel, the appellant corrected himself and stated that he was not certain that his father had sent new statements. The fact that the authorities approved the restoration of status indicates that someone sponsored the appellant. Despite his father's alleged disapproval of his relationship with a woman in Canada, the panel is of the opinion that someone sponsored the appellant, and a fortiori, that person must have been his father. Although he has been described as an inhuman father who wants to kill his son because the latter does not respect the tenets of the Koran and the spirit of the family owing to his relationship with a Christian woman, the father is the one who enabled his son to remain in Canada. [26] This entire saga regarding his education in Montréal-his visa, how he obtained it, its expiry and its renewal, with explanations provided by the appellant, whether he studied for XXXX year or XXXX years, enrolled in university or in a XXXX course-raises serious doubts. The RAD has heard a medley of answers leading it to conclude that the appellant is not credible. The testimony was laborious and highly contradictory. [27] The argument in the memorandum to the effect that the RPD determination was linear and erroneous is not shared by the RAD. On the contrary, the panel has given examples of blatant contradictions that do not support the submitted account. This seriously undermines the appellant's credibility. The RAD is of the opinion that the RPD did not err in its analysis of this part of the testimony. [28] As far as the RAD is concerned, the number of discrepant elements heard during this hearing would have been sufficient to tell the appellant that he does not benefit from the protection of Canada. However, the RPD considered another matter, that of an IFA. [29] The second matter addressed in the memorandum is the IFA. It is alleged that the IFA is not viable and would not enable the appellant to relocate and rebuild a normal life without fear, together with his wife. This is what paragraph 38 of the memorandum states. [30] The RPD found that the appellant's father's behaviour was inconsistent to the effect that he would carry out his threats against him. Moreover, the RPD rejected the claim that other members of the family might go after him. He was asked to go to Rabat or Tangier. He testified that he would not be at peace owing to his marriage to a Christian, and that they would look for him. Asked to explain how they would find them, he merely answered that they would ask questions. He did not bring up any other problems. Describing his parents as strict practising Muslims, he merely stated that they pray several times a day, and did not elaborate further. He added that a Muslim cannot marry a non-Muslim. Asked to explain this statement, the appellant indicated that [translation] "this is based on day-to-day reality." According to his knowledge and his lived experience, one is no longer a Muslim afterwards. [31] The first-level member emphasized the fact that he did not renounce his religion; according to the evidence,4 those who have denied their religion can cause problems within the family. In this case, the appellant still claims that he is a Muslim. The law and the Koran permit the marriage of a Muslim man to a non-Muslim woman as long as the woman comes from a monotheistic religion. This may entail dishonour for the family, but the appellant chose to marry the woman he loves in XXXX 2016. [32] He does not see any other problems if he were to settle elsewhere. He demonstrated resourcefulness in Canada, he is educated, he has some work experience, and he is young. The RAD is of the opinion that it would be reasonable for him to go live in one of these cities without putting his life and safety in danger. [33] The RAD finds that the RPD did not err in this matter. [34] For the reasons set out in this decision, the RAD finds that the RPD rendered the correct decision. REMEDY [35] For these reasons, the RAD confirms the RPD's determination, namely, that XXXX XXXX is not a "Convention refugee" pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA or a "person in need of protection" within the meaning of section 97 of the IRPA. [36] The appeal is dismissed. (signed) Michel Jobin Michel Jobin April 25, 2019 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27). 2 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., No. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 3 M.C.I. v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96, paragraph 51. 4 Document 3, Tab 12.3: Response to Information Request MAR104932.FE, IRB, August 2014. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No Dossier de la SAR : MB7-02756 RAD.25.02 (04avril 2019) Disponible en français 4 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 (April 4, 2019) Disponible en français