TB7-06798

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 : TB7-06798 TB7-06799 / TB7-06800 / TB7-06801 TB7-06802 / TB7-06803 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a.k.aXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a.k.aXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered at Toronto, ON Appel instruit à Date of decision January 4, 2018 Date de la décision Panel M. Pettinella Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal Helen S Kim 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 [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX ("the Principal Appellant") and her children, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX, collectively referred to as "the Appellants", appeal a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying their claims for refugee protection. The Appellants ask the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to set aside the decision of the RPD and find them to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection. In the alternative, the Appellants ask the RAD to remit the matter to a different RPD panel in accordance with the reasons and directions of the RAD. [2] It is important to note that the correct spelling of the Appellants' names as per their Ethiopian passports is as follows: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX.1 DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL [3] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), I confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. This appeal is dismissed. Background [4] The Principal Appellant, her husband, XXXX XXXX XXXX ("Mr. XXXX"), and their children alleged the following before the RPD. Mr. XXXX was born in Eritrea into a Jeberti family. In 1978 he went to Saudi Arabia to work. In 1994 he married the Principal Appellant in XXXX XXXX, Ethiopia and he brought her to Saudi Arabia. The couple had five children; all were born in Saudi Arabia. In 2016, Mr. XXXX was informed that his work contract would not be renewed. Fearing that he would be deported to Eritrea and his wife and children would be sent to Ethiopia, in XXXX 2016 he and his family travelled to the United States of America. They entered Canada in January 2017 and declared their intention to seek refugee protection. The family alleged a fear of returning to Eritrea where they would face mistreatment as Jebertis and the children would be forced into unending national service. They alleged they cannot live in Ethiopia because the authorities view Eritreans with hostility and suspicion. [5] The RPD found that Mr. XXXX established his identity as a national of Eritrea and would face persecution in that country. It determined that Mr. XXXX was a Convention refugee. [6] With respect to the Appellants, the RPD found that they are Ethiopian nationals and would not face a risk of persecution or harm upon return to Ethiopia. [7] On appeal, the Appellants submit that the RPD erred when it rejected the Principal Appellant's Eritrean national identity card as evidence of nationality. They also submit that the RPD erred when it ignored the fact that the Principal Appellant testified in the Tigrinya language, an official language spoken in Eritrea. ANALYSIS Findings of the RPD Eritrean national identity cards [8] The RPD noted that the Eritrean national identity card for the Principal Appellant did not bear the hallmark of its age; it appeared brand new when it was purportedly approximately 24 years old. It also noted that the card appeared to have been scanned rather than printed; and the background print on the document was barely visible. The RPD noted that PGE (Provisional Government of Eritrea) does not appear on the card's laminate border. It noted the high prevalence of (fraudulent) identity documents in Eritrea and the fact that they are easily alterable. [9] The RPD found the Eritrean national identity card for Mr. XXXX to be genuine. It noted that it bore the hallmarks of its age; the background print was very clear and visible to the naked eye; PGE appeared on the border; and the card appeared to be printed rather than scanned. [10] The RPD found it more likely than not that the Principal Appellant's Eritrean national identity card was not a legitimate document and her presentation of this document undermined her credibility. [11] The Appellants argue that while an organic object may bear hallmarks of its age, it is curious how an inorganic plastic card would bear hallmarks of its age. They note that the RPD did not use a visual aid to evaluate the identity cards. They point out that there is nothing in the objective evidence that indicates that certain information on the identity cards should be printed rather than scanned. They maintain that there is no mention of security features that appear on Eritrean national identity cards in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Eritrea. The Appellants submit that the RPD did not undertake to verify the authenticity or legitimacy of the Principal Appellant's identity card and then rejected the document based on irrelevant observations on the physical condition of the card. [12] In my view, the Appellants' argument fails for the following reasons. There was good reason for the RPD to call into question the authenticity of the Principal Appellant's Eritrean identity card because of irregularities on its face. A comparison of the Eritrean identity cards for the Principal Appellant and Mr. XXXX reveals an aged laminated card for Mr. XXXX and a freshly laminated card for the Principal Appellant. The card for Mr. XXXX shows signs of wear, discolouration, and fading while the card for the Principal Appellant is smooth with no fading. One would not expect to see such a variation between cards purported to have been issued at approximately the same time, some 24 years ago. [13] Further, the background print on the cards is visible to the naked eye on Mr. XXXX card but not on the card for the Principal Appellant. "Eritrea" is depicted in clear lettering in the background print on Mr. XXXX Eritrean identification card, while it is difficult to make out the lettering of the background print on the Principal Appellant's identification card. Moreover, the portions of the identification card for the Principal Appellant that are not handwritten, including a stamp on the back of the card, do not appear to be in original ink. They are faded or blurry; revealing that it is a copy. Copies of documents are easily manipulated and therefore unreliable. [14] It is important to note that the RPD observed that the letters PGE appeared on the border of Mr. XXXX card and not on the border of the Principal Appellant's card. However, after I requested and received the original cards from the Appellants, I noticed that the border had been cut from Mr. XXXX card. I defer to the RPD's observation of Mr. XXXX card since it had the advantage of viewing Mr. XXXX card before the border was removed. With respect to the appearance and security features of Eritrean national identity cards, documentary evidence indicates that at the bottom of the border of the laminate, there is the acronym "PGE" which appears five times (PGE stands for Provisional Government of Eritrea).2 The RPD observed that "PGE" appeared on the border of the laminate for Mr. XXXX card and not on the identity card for the Principal Appellant. This is further evidence that the Principal Appellant's Eritrean identity card is not legitimate. [15] Documentary evidence also indicates that fraudulent identity cards are common in Eritrea.3 All of the above undermine the authenticity of the Principal Appellant's Eritrean identity card. I find on a balance of probabilities that the Principal Appellant's Eritrean identity card is fraudulent. Her presentation of a fraudulent Eritrean identity card undermines her credibility, including the credibility of her alleged identity as an Eritrean national. [16] I also draw a negative inference with respect to the Appellants' general credibility from the fact that Mr. XXXX card was altered between the time of their RPD hearing and the presentation of the card to the RAD. Other identity evidence for the Principal Appellant [17] The RPD noted that the Principal Appellant acquired an Ethiopian passport from the Ethiopian government in 1994; it was renewed multiple times; and it was not acquired improperly. It noted that the passport was used to obtain various visas. Based on this document, the RPD found it more likely than not that the Principal Appellant is who she said she was and a national of Ethiopia. [18] The RPD noted that all of the children's immigration records reference the Principal Appellant as Ethiopian. It noted that the resident identity card for the Principal Appellant issued by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia indicates that her nationality is Ethiopian. It noted that the Principal Appellant's father is Ethiopian. The RPD noted that the Principal Appellant was born in XXXX XXXX in 1968, prior to the civil war and the creation of Eritrea. It noted no evidence indicating that the Principal Appellant had renounced her Ethiopian nationality. The RPD found the Principal Appellant to be a national of Ethiopia. [19] The Appellants submit that the RPD erred when it ignored the fact that the Principal Appellant testified in the Tigrinya language, an official language spoken in Eritrea. [20] The RPD was not wrong to find the Principal Appellant to be a national of Ethiopia. The preponderance of credible evidence, including official documents, indicate that she is Ethiopian. The fact that she testified in the Tigrinya language does not make her Eritrean. While Tigrinya is one of the languages spoken in Eritrea,4 is also one of the languages spoken in Ethiopia. It is the official working language of the State of Tigray, Ethiopia.5 The RAD finds on a balance of probabilities that the Principal Appellant is a national and citizen of Ethiopia. Further identity evidence for the Principal Appellant and children [21] The RPD noted that the Principal Appellant indicated in her Basis of Claim Form (BoC) that her children are Ethiopian nationals. It noted that they each have Ethiopian passports issued by the government of Ethiopia. It noted that their birth certificates issued in Saudi Arabia indicate their nationalities as Ethiopian. It noted that their immigration documents indicate that they are Ethiopian. It noted that the children could also acquire their Ethiopian nationality through the Principal Appellant, who is Ethiopian. It found it not credible that the passports for the children were obtained through fraudulent means since there was no prior mention of this in the BoC or immigration forms. The RPD indicated that it could not rely on letters from an Eritrean association to resolve its credibility concerns. [22] In my view, the evidence is overwhelming that the Principal Appellant and her children are Ethiopian nationals. The fact that each of them has a passport issued by the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia indicating that their nationality is Ethiopian,6 and a visa issued by the United States of America indicating that their nationality is Ethiopian,7 is a strong indicator of their Ethiopian nationality. It would be reasonable to conclude that the Ethiopian government vetted each of the Appellants to determine their nationality before issuing them passports. It would also be reasonable to conclude that the United States of America assessed each of the Appellants to confirm that they were who they said they were and nationals of Ethiopia. Based on the totality of credible evidence, I find on a balance of probabilities that the Appellants are Ethiopian nationals who are recognized citizens of Ethiopia. Risk of persecution or harm in Ethiopia [23] The RPD acknowledged the objective evidence indicating that there are difficulties and problems between Ethiopia and Eritrea. While it also acknowledged that the children may face discrimination in Ethiopia, there was insufficient evidence to find that they would face persecution on account of having a father who is of Eritrean nationality. The RPD found that the Appellants would not face a risk of persecution pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA upon return to Ethiopia. [24] It bears noting that the Appellants make no argument with respect to the risk of persecution or harm they face in Ethiopia. Nonetheless, I note that according to their BoC, the Appellants allege that the authorities in Ethiopia treat Eritreans with hostility and suspicion. As I have found that the Appellants are Ethiopian nationals who are recognized citizens of Ethiopia, and their documents reflect this, they would not be viewed as Eritrean. Therefore they will not be treated with hostility and suspicion by the authorities due to being viewed as Eritrean. Further, the Appellants alleged that XXXX XXXX XXXX, while inquiring about registration at an Ethiopian university, was accused of being Eritrean because she did not have an Ethiopian identity card. The Appellants have already satisfied the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia that they are Ethiopian nationals as evidenced through the issuance of their passports from that country. No credible evidence was presented to indicate that they could not obtain their Ethiopian identity cards as well should they request them. [25] For these reasons I therefore conclude that the Appellants have failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution under section 96 of the IRPA, and the Appellants are not persons in need of protection or at a risk to life, or at risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or in danger of torture as set out in section 97 of the IRPA. CONCLUSION [26] Pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, I confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. This appeal is dismissed. (signed) "M. Pettinella" M. Pettinella January 4, 2018 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 104, 129, 141, 203, 212, 221. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 229-260, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Eritrea, 30 June 2016, item 3.8, at p. 2. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 229-260, NDP for Eritrea, 30 June 2016, item 3.3, at p. 1. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 229-260, NDP for Eritrea, 30 June 2016, item 1.2, at p. 2. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 355-386, NDP for Ethiopia, 31 January 2017, item 1.3, at p. 2. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 104, 129, 141, 203, 212, 221. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 106, 133, 145, 207, 216, 224. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 8 RAD.25.02 (September 11, 2014) Disponible en français RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB7-06798 TB7-06799 / TB7-06800 / TB7-06801 TB7-06802 / TB7-06803