MB6-07226

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 : MB6-07226 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision - Motifs et décision Appellant(s) XXXX XXXX XXXX Appelant(e)(s) Appeal considered at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of Decision May 31, 2018 Date de la décision Panel Me Michel Jobin Tribunal Counsel for the Appellant(s) Me Stéphanie Valois 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] This is an appeal filed by XXXX XXXX XXXX, against a decision rendered by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) on November 9, 2016, rejecting her claim for refugee protection. [2] The appellant is asking the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to set aside the panel's decision and grant her refugee status. [3] The appellant did not submit any new evidence and stated that she is available to attend a hearing to answer any questions that might arise. [4] The Minister's representative did not intervene in the appeal. DETERMINATION [5] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the RPD's determination, namely that XXXX 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. [6] The appeal is dismissed. ALLEGED FACTS [7] According to the Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form), the appellant is a citizen of Chad and was born on XXXX XXXX, 1975. [8] She is requesting Canada's protection on the grounds of mistreatment, isolation and bullying by the other wives. [9] On March 15, 2012, she was wed to XXXX XXXX, a wealthy XXXX. Her family arranged this forced marriage because she had reached a certain age and a husband needed be found. She was his third wife. The other wives were jealous of her and beat her. In addition, her husband's brothers and cousins wanted to have sexual intercourse with her when her husband was not there. [10] On June 3, 2015, the other wives beat her when she was six months pregnant. She had to undergo a Caesarean section to remove the dead fetus. [11] The appellant added that her husband beat her and she became the laughingstock of the neighbourhood. Finally, she stated that she was being watched by family members. [12] Using a five-year passport issued on XXXX XXXX, 2015, and Schengen visas from France issued on XXXX XXXX, 2016, as well as an American visa issued on XXXX XXXX, 2016, she left her country for France on XXXX XXXX, 2106, and stayed with a friend in Paris before flying to the United States on XXXX XXXX. On XXXX XXXX, 2016, she made an irregular border crossing into Canada at the Saint-Bernard de Lacolle port of entry, where she stated that she intended to claim refugee protection in Canada. IMPUGNED DECISION [13] The RPD rejected the appellant's claim for refugee protection for lack of credibility. [14] The RPD noted numerous contradictions. The first-level panel also noted an absence of subjective fear given her failure to claim protection in two safe countries. APPELLANT'S ARGUMENTS [15] The appellant argues that the RPD erred in its assessment of the evidence and that its decision is flawed on a number of levels. SCOPE OF THE APPEAL [16] For questions of fact, law, and mixed fact and law, the RAD has applied the standard of correctness, as per Huruglica.1 In assessing issues involving the credibility of oral testimony, the RAD may apply the standard of reasonableness, modified to apply to the RAD's context, when it states that the RPD enjoyed a meaningful advantage in making a particular credibility finding and explains why, in accordance with the decision in X (Re).2 [17] I conducted an independent analysis of the evidence on the record so that I could form my own opinion on this claim for refugee protection and determine whether the RPD's decision is correct. [18] I conducted an independent analysis of the evidence on the record so that I could form my own opinion on this claim for refugee protection and determine whether the RPD's decision is correct. EVIDENCE AND HEARING [19] The appellant is requesting that the RAD hold a hearing pursuant to subsection 110(6) of the IRPA only if the RAD uses a new documentation package, and she states that she is prepared to answer questions as needed. In this case, I am of the opinion that there is no cause to hold a hearing since no new evidence has been submitted pursuant to subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. [20] Consequently, the request to hold a hearing before the RAD if needed is refused. ANALYSIS [21] Having reviewed all the testimonial and documentary evidence on the record, the RAD has arrived at the same conclusion as the RPD, namely that the appellant is not credible. [22] The RAD must note that the appellant's testimony was laboured; she did not directly answer the questions that were put to her, instead answering them in a roundabout way. [23] Regarding her first arranged marriage with XXXX XXXX from 2003 to April 18, 2010, which was uncovered as a result of the documents submitted by the Minister, the RPD concluded that this omission from the record undermined the appellant's credibility. The appellant's memorandum indicates that, since this was a traditional marriage, it was ended with the consent of both families. [24] The appellant's memorandum states that her husband is a powerful man and that she did not want to put his name on the record. It should be noted that there is no mention of this first marriage in any of the documents filed by the appellant since arriving in Canada. When asked to explain the omission, the appellant stated that she did not want to include his name because it was not a civil marriage. She was also worried that it could cause problems for this man if he had to leave and come here. In addition, she stated in her account that her family considered that, at her age, as a spinster, she had to marry. This information turned out to be false, since she had been married for a number of years. Attempting to conceal information-despite affirming on her honour at the start of the hearing that the information contained in her form was complete and correct-greatly undermines her credibility and her claim as a result. [25] In addition, the appellant testified that, [translation] "just to muddy the trail," she did not give American authorities the correct date for her first marriage. Had it not been for the appellant's visa application, which she filed with American authorities and submitted as evidence, we would never have learned of this first marriage. She did not list her new husband's name in her application for an American visa because he is powerful and has contacts everywhere and she was therefore worried that someone at the embassy might know her husband and inform him about it. Her explanations do not hold water. Such behaviour points to a lack of probity and to a desire to conceal important information from the authorities from whom she is seeking protection. This undermines the appellant's credibility. The RPD's analysis is correct. [26] Another area of concern in this file is the mistreatment inflicted by her husband. The appellant testified that her husband had called her fearful and a liar. In the narrative submitted, she alleged that he was violent and that he beat her. According to her testimony, it was the other wives who were violent toward her. At that point, she stated that her husband spoke to the other two wives and did not back her up. This was a difficult exchange, as the panel had to question the appellant repeatedly in order to obtain answers. That is when she stated that her husband became violent. He beat her. When asked to explain this addition, the appellant stated that she had not understood the questions correctly. The appellant, who speaks French well, even had the option of having these questions translated into her native language. She restated that she had not understood the questions correctly and added that [translation] "she wanted to say it in person." The RAD cannot accept such explanations considering that this important addition, which did not arise spontaneously, greatly undermines her credibility and raises doubts about the narrative she submitted. [27] The incident of the miscarriage arose indirectly. The appellant mentioned that she went for medical treatment on three occasions. The RPD decision mentions a lack of information as well as contradictions on this subject. The memorandum states that this information is contained in a medical certificate and a health booklet. However, according to her testimony, she went for medical treatment on June 3, 6 and 7, 2015. It appears that the medical follow-up for her pregnancy is well documented in her health booklet, but there are no visits listed for June 3 and 6. She apparently went to see someone because of fever and vomiting. They allegedly gave her a perfusion and an ultrasound on her second visit. When confronted with the fact that her health booklet does not list visits on June 3 and 6, the appellant stated that it is written in the documents. However, it is indicated that she went in on June 7 because of bleeding. The appellant never provided this information, even though she had an opportunity to give the reasons for these medical visits; instead, she chose to mention that she had fever and nausea. This once again undermines her credibility. [28] The final factor to be discussed is the appellant's travel to France and the United States and the fact that she neglected to claim asylum in either of these countries. The RPD noted that the appellant was unable to provide credible and consistent explanations regarding how she obtained these visas and her stays in the two countries. The appellant stated that she went to France to visit a friend and that she did not want to claim asylum there because her husband often travels to France. With respect to the United States, she stated that she had no one to help her submit a claim for protection and that, furthermore, she does not speak English. [29] The appellant stated that she did not have any difficulty obtaining the visas. Although she realized that her husband and his family could come and get her in France and that, according to her, it was not a safe place, she nevertheless stayed with a friend in Paris for ten days. She had her American visa in hand before leaving the country, but she still chose to go to France. This behaviour is not consistent with that of someone who fears for their safety. [30] When asked to explain why she did not claim asylum in the United States, the appellant stated that she had no one to help her, even though she stayed with the brother of someone she met on the flight to the United States. She stayed there for three months. He gave her a place to stay during that entire time, but could not help her find a lawyer or some other source of immigration help. He did, however, put her in touch with a smuggler who took her to the Canadian border in Saint-Bernard de Lacolle, via the Roxham road, so that she could claim protection in Canada. These explanations do not make sense. If she feared being discovered in France, why did she go there? She made no attempt to regularize her status while she was in the United States. This behaviour implies an absence of fear. Consequently, the RPD's assessment that the appellant is not credible is correct. [31] For the foregoing reasons, the RAD is of the opinion that the RPD rendered the correct decision. REMEDY [32] For these reasons, the RAD confirms the RPD's determination that XXXX 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. [33] The appeal is dismissed. Michel Jobin Me Michel Jobin May 31, 2018 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, Bujar (FCA, No. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 2 X (Re), 2017 CanLII 33034 (CA IRB). --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 1 RAD.25.02 (April 9, 2013) Disponible en français RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB6-07226 8