VB9-08999

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VB9-08999 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision December 8, 2020 Date de la décision Panel N. Qadeer Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Amado Alexis Garcia Claros 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 XXXX, appeals the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. The Appellant asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to allow his appeal, finding the RPD erred in its credibility assessment, or remit his claim back to the RPD for redetermination. DETERMINATION [2] The appeal is dismissed. Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. Background [3] The RPD heard the Appellant's claim on September 30, 2019 and rendered an oral negative decision the same day. [4] The Appellant identifies as ethnically Oromo. He was a university student in the United States (US) in XXXX 2012. He returned to Ethiopia numerous times during his studies, in 2013 and 2014. [5] The Appellant alleges that his family faced numerous instances of discrimination based upon their ethnicity over many years. He alleges his mother was forced to resign from her job in 2008 based upon her ethnicity. He alleges that his father was pushed out of work in 2016 by the Ethiopian government. [6] The Appellant alleges that he was targeted by the Ethiopian authorities when he returned to Ethiopia for a visit in 2014. He was detained by the police and held for 24 hours. During that time, he was beaten and tortured. [7] The Appellant fears returning to Ethiopia as he will be perceived as being against the government and fears the government will persecute him. RPD's Findings [8] The RPD found the determinative issue to be credibility. The RPD accepted that the Appellant is Oromo but found that the allegations of past mistreatment to be lacking in credibility. The RPD specifically found the Appellant's testimony and documents submitted to corroborate his claim contained inconsistencies, contradictions, and omissions. Appellant's Arguments [9] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its credibility analysis. [10] The Appellant submits that there were several instances where the RPD relied upon speculation to make adverse credibility findings. For example, the RPD drew a negative credibility inference from his family continuing to live next to the police despite his claims of detention and surveillance. And, when the RPD found that the Appellant speculated on trumped-up allegations of bank fraud against his uncle. [11] The Appellant also submits that the RPD placed an undue burden on the Appellant for corroborative evidence; for example, when the RPD found there was a lack of evidence that he was detained by the police. Role of the RAD [12] When reviewing the RPD's decision, I am required to independently assess all of the evidence and determine whether the RPD erred in relation to each alleged error of law, fact or mixed fact and law. For this assessment, I have applied the standard of correctness, as per the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Huruglica.1 RAD Analysis of the Appeal [13] I have reviewed the RPD record, the Appellant's arguments, and the RPD's decision. I do not agree with the Appellant's arguments and assessment of the RPD decision. I find that the RPD's assessment of the Appellant's credibility was correct. While the Appellant raises concerns related to the RPD s findings, the concerns the Appellant raises are related to peripheral issues in his claim. The RPD found, as I have, that there were instances of inconsistencies, contradictions, and omissions that are not reasonably explained. These have to do with the central aspects of the claim, such as the Appellant's detention and allegation of surveillance by the Ethiopian authorities. The Appellant's documents and testimony were lacking in credibility on these central aspects. The Appellant's detention and mistreatment in 2014 [14] The Appellant described that when he returned to Ethiopia in 2014, he and his family complained several times about septic tanks from the neighbouring police station that overflowed near his family home. He explained that when he complained about sewage coming from the police station, he was forcibly detained and assaulted for a period of 24 hours. He was asked by the RPD to describe this incident and the environment he was held in. [15] While his description of his treatment was consistent between his Basis of Claim (BOC) form and oral testimony, it was when he described who he was held with that his testimony diverged from other corroborative evidence he had submitted. He stated that he was held with other prisoners and was asked how many were held with him, he said, "I'd say close to 60, 70". He was asked by the RPD if his family, who lived next door, had made enquiries about him during this period and he said "no, because what reason would there be? ....Instead of jeopardizing your life, you would just rather keep quiet, right?"2 [16] To corroborate this incident, the Appellant provided letters from both his parents. His father's letter indicates, "For the whole 24 hour no one in the family knew about his whereabouts, we even asked the station but they told me they never saw him and told me to go away we were too worried."3 His mother's letter also indicates that they made enquiries about him: "My son XXXX has also been detained for 24 hours for bringing up this situation. Those 24 hours were the most stressful and I thought lost my son. We didn't know about his destination. We asked the police to but told us they don't care I was sleepless for the whole night."4 [17] The Appellant's father letter also refers to 200 prisoners being held at the police station. When the RPD asked the Appellant about this5, he provided confusing testimony: Yeah, I mean she's been...she knows it better. Like, she's been there, so she knows it better than me. So in her evidence, I would say that would be the actual number because like I didn't get an actual site of them, because I was in the next room, I didn't lay eyes on them and she had better information about the place than I have, so yeah....6 [18] The RPD found that the Appellant changed his testimony regarding how many prisoners were there when he was detained based upon his mother's [father's] letter. [19] This explanation is unreasonable and lacking in credibility in my view. It was the Appellant who was detained and, according to this testimony, no enquiries were made about him. I find the Appellant's testimony regarding the environment he was kept in and the role his family played during this period confusing and contradictory. [20] The Appellant's evidence was also inconsistent between his BOC and his port of entry immigration forms and interview. The Appellant, when he first made his claim for refugee protection, answered questions on his immigration forms, and was subject to an in-person interview by a Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officer. These form part of the RPD record. 7 While I understand that the statements made at the port of entry do not hold the same weight as the Appellant's testimony or BOC narrative, I find he was repeatedly asked about any detentions, and he repeatedly made material omissions related to his central allegations. [21] The immigration forms completed by the Appellant ask in two places if he had ever been arrested or detained. On both forms, the Appellant did not indicate that he was ever detained by the Ethiopian authorities on these forms.8 Included in the port of entry forms is an interview with a CBSA officer. The officer specifically asks the Appellant, "Have you ever been put in jail or detained?" The Appellant answers, "No."9 [22] I find that the Appellant's allegation that he was detained and mistreated by Ethiopian authorities for 24 hours in 2014 is lacking in credibility based upon several contradictions and inconsistencies in his evidence. His explanations for the inconsistencies further confused the evidence as he relied on his father's evidence of his detention rather than his own. I agree with the RPD's findings of credibility on this incident. In my view, this is a central finding in the Appellant's allegations of fear against the Ethiopian authorities. The Appellant's allegation that he is under surveillance is lacking in credibility [23] The Appellant submitted a police document as part of his claim10. The document appears to be a letter written by one police office to another on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2015. The letter indicates that the police have ordered 24-hour surveillance on the Appellant's family, and specifically names the Appellant's brother and the Appellant. [24] The Appellant was asked questions about the content and the provenance of this letter. The Appellant testified that he learned of the letter when he was preparing his BOC narrative, which was signed on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018.11 Yet, the Appellant's BOC makes no mention of the letter or that he or his family were put under surveillance. [25] The Appellant was asked several questions by the RPD about the letter. He testified that his father obtained it for him as his father knows a person who works at the police station, who gave his father a copy. The Appellant was unable to say who the individual is, his name, his role, or how exactly his father knows him. When asked why he only learned of the document or that he and his brother were under surveillance years later, the Appellant provided a confusing answer. He stated that by the time the letter was written, he was in the US: like it wouldn't have made any point telling me or anything because I left pretty much around this time or even before this time, if I'm not wrong. But for my brother, they probably did because my brother always like...he's getting older, like he's in his 20s right now. So they always keep an eye on him.12 The Appellant provided no details on the impact of the letter on his family after he left in 2015. [26] In my review of the Appellant's testimony, and the content of the letter, I find the letter is lacking in credibility, and undermines the Appellant's overall credibility. The Appellant omitted this evidence from his narrative. He was unable to provide any details on who provided his father with the letter, despite being in contact with his family for his refugee claim in Canada. The Appellant's profile [27] While the RPD accepted that the Appellant is ethnically Oromo, there is no credible evidence that this alone would raise his risk profile should he return to Ethiopia. When asked about his activities in Canada, the Appellant testified that he has not been involved in the Oromo movement here. He has not participated in any activities that would raise his profile. [28] The Appellant's appeal arguments centre on the RPD's findings related to past incidents of discrimination his family faced- such as his mother's loss of her job and his uncle's trumped-up charges. In my view not only are these arguments peripheral to the appeal, they are not determinative. The RPD found, for example, that the Appellant's allegation that his mother lost her job based upon her ethnicity is not supported by his own evidence.13 [29] Even if I were to accept that the Appellant's family faced instances of discrimination in the past, I do not find, in a forward-looking analysis, that there is evidence that the Appellant will face a serious possibility of persecution if he were to return to Ethiopia. Appellant's Arguments are not determinative [30] While the Appellant argues that the RPD decision relied upon speculation, I do not find this to be the case. The central allegations made by the Appellant are lacking in credibility. I therefore do not find it necessary to address the arguments made by the Appellant regarding the RPD findings on corroborative documents and speculation. [31] The central allegations of the Appellant, that he was detained, and that he would come to the attention of the Ethiopian authorities, were lacking in credibility. The Appellant was not a credible witness and the presumption of truthfulness has been rebutted by his testimony and the documents he submitted to corroborate the incidents in Ethiopia. It is for these reasons the appeal is dismissed. CONCLUSION [32] The RAD confirms the determination of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, as per paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. The appeal is dismissed. (signed) Nadra Qadeer N. Qadeer December 8, 2020 Date 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 2 RPD Hearing Transcript, p. 32. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, at p. 113. 4 Ibid., p. 114. 5 The RPD stated that it was the Appellant's mother's letter, but it was his father's letter. 6 RPD Hearing Transcript, p. 33. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1. 8 Ibid., Schedule A, question 4, p. 63 and Schedule 12, question 8, p. 68. 9 Ibid., p. 82 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, p. 138. 11 Ibid., Exhibit 2, at p. 30. 12 RPD Hearing Transcript, p. 40. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, p. 136. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VB9-08999 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français 2 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, 2020) Disponible en français