MB9-28675

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB9-28675 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 Montréal, QC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision March 26, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Guerlain Guerrier Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Odette Desjardins 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 XXXX is a citizen of Guinea and an XXXX. He fears for his life because he was aware of a corruption ring that his supervisor at the ministry of XXXX took part in. A group of high-ranking individuals were helping themselves to XXXXandXXXX XXXX meant for the public. The appellant was against these acts, but was forced to sign documents authorizing them. He was allegedly detained and threatened. [2] The appellant, who is also an XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, came to Canada in XXXX 2017 for a professional development course. He stayed in the country after the course and claimed refugee protection in XXXX 2017. [3] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found the appellant to be a generally credible witness. It considered his allegations about what he experienced in Guinea to be true. With regard to the allegations concerning his prospective risk, the RPD found them to be speculative and not very credible. The RPD concluded that the appellant failed to establish a prospective risk pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The RPD based this conclusion on factors including the time that had passed since the events, the lack of interest shown by the agents of persecution and the fact that the appellant no longer works in a strategic position related to grain distribution. [4] The determinative issue in this case is the prospective risk. DETERMINATION [5] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the determination of the RPD that the appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. [6] The appellant left Guinea four years ago. He left his job with the XXXX XXXX XXXX. His profile is no longer the same as the one on which he based his refugee protection claim. ANALYSIS [7] The role of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) is not to carry out a de novo consideration of refugee protection claims, but to determine whether the RPD erred as alleged.1 I conducted an independent analysis of the record in order to reach my own conclusions.2 This included listening to the RPD hearing recording and reading the RPD record and the appellant's record. I concluded that the correctness standard of review should be applied.3 The contradiction in what the commander stated is real, but it is not determinative [8] The RPD found that the appellant was not credible with regard to the alleged prospective risk. [9] The RPD asked the appellant why he feared returning to his country when the incidents he mentioned occurred several years ago. The appellant answered that the agent of persecution went to see his wife three times between XXXXand XXXX 2017 and that that person was looking for him. However, the RPD noted a contradiction between the appellant's testimony and the written account about the encounters between his wife and his agent of persecution in his Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form). The BOC Form states that the squadron commander threatened the appellant's family with retaliation if he did not come back to Guinea before his next visit, because his defection [translation] "made the country look bad." However, during his testimony, the appellant stated that the commander declared that his behaviour made their [translation] "organization" look bad. When the RPD confronted him with this contradiction, the appellant explained that the commander's statements came back to him during his testimony. [10] Furthermore, the appellant failed to include the encounter between his brother and his agent of persecution in his BOC Form. Consequently, based on this contradiction and omission, the RPD found the appellant's allegation that the agent of persecution was still looking for him to not be credible. [11] In his memorandum, the appellant explains that the commander used making the country look bad as a cover story; his real motivation was to find the appellant and punish him for refusing to participate in their corruption ring and fleeing the country. According to the appellant, it is plain to anyone who reads the BOC Form carefully that the commander was looking for him because he opposed the corruption. [12] In my opinion, there is a contradiction between the appellant's BOC Form and his testimony with regard to exactly what the commander stated when he went to see the appellant's wife. The appellant's explanation-that the commander talked about the [translation] "country" but that his real concern was "the organization"-is not satisfactory, because the appellant, who heard the conversation second-hand, could not know what the commander meant, felt or thought. The appellant's interpretation of the commander's statements is speculative. However, I find that, on its own, this contradiction is not significant enough to undermine the appellant's credibility. What matters is that someone was looking for him. I am not prepared to conclude that the meeting between the commander and the appellant's wife did not occur. However, the last time this happened was in XXXX 2017. The appellant's wife lives with her family [13] The appellant alleges in his memorandum that his wife has not had any problems because she lives in hiding in Conakry. [14] I disagree. First, I note that the appellant's family lived in the same place for several months after his planned return date in XXXX 2017. It was only at the end of XXXX XXXX after his wife told him about the commander's visits, that the appellant suggested that she move. At the hearing, the appellant confirmed that his wife and children lived in Conakry with his wife's brother. Moving to the capital is not the same thing as living in hiding. Furthermore, the threats against the appellant's family never amounted to anything. The appellant's wife and children have not suffered any retaliation since the appellant left more than four years ago. In fact, their move to Conakry seems to demonstrate that the agents of persecution do not have the means or interest to find the appellant's family throughout Guinea. In my opinion, the appellant's family's quiet life is a factor that supports the lack of prospective risk, or, at the very least, it indicates that the risk is only in the region where the appellant worked. Regardless, the appellant's family's situation does not establish a prospective risk. The meeting between the appellant's brother and the squadron commander is a significant omission [15] The RPD raised what it considered a significant omission in the appellant's BOC Form. Apparently, there was an encounter between the appellant's brother and the commander during which the latter asked where the appellant was. [16] The appellant alleges that the meeting between his brother and the squadron commander was random. The commander was not looking for the appellant, he did not threaten him and he did not want to take revenge on the appellant. Furthermore, this encounter is a peripheral detail in the refugee protection claim and the fact that he did not include it in his BOC Form does not constitute an omission. [17] I disagree. It is significant that the commander asked about the appellant. This demonstrates an ongoing interest. Furthermore, the appellant spoke of the incident when the RPD asked him if the agents of persecution were still looking for him. The appellant's answer tried to show that he was still being sought in his country, which contradicts the argument in his memorandum, according to which it was an unimportant encounter. What is more, when the RPD asked the appellant why this encounter does not appear in his BOC Form, the appellant did not spontaneously answer that it was an unimportant encounter. Instead, he stated that he did not include it because he was depressed when he wrote his account in XXXX 2017. When confronted with the fact that he submitted an amended BOC Form a few days before the hearing, on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, the appellant stated once again that the incident came to mind as he testified. I do not believe, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant forgot several key aspects of his refugee protection claim since arriving in Canada, but remembered them in the middle of his testimony; what is more, that was the second time in his testimony that he claimed to remember something missing from his BOC Form. Instead, I am of the view that the appellant changed his testimony when he was confronted with his omissions. I find that this is a significant omission that undermines the appellant's credibility. I also conclude that the encounter between his brother and the commander never occurred. The evidence establishes that the job at the ministry is a key factor in the prospective risk [18] Should he return to Guinea, the appellant submits that the agents of persecution would be notified, as he is considered to be a defector. Furthermore, the fact that he is no longer employed is of little importance, because he has information about that corrupt organization. [19] I disagree. [20] The evidence on the record does not establish that the appellant is being sought in his country. [21] Moreover, the appellant failed to establish that the Guinean authorities consider him to be a defector, or that such a status exists in his country. The local government employees who went after him were unable to prevent him from leaving the country and had to visit his family in order to find out when he would be back. Clearly, they do not have any information about or control over entries and exits to and from the country. [22] Furthermore, in his memorandum, the appellant alleges that the commander accused him of being a defector tarnishing the country's reputation during the conversation with his wife in order to disguise his real motives. [23] Lastly, the argument that the appellant represents a threat to his agents of persecution four years after the incidents because he could expose them is speculative. I note that this is a new allegation; the appellant did not mention in his BOC Form that he was at risk because his agents of persecution feared that he would expose them. According to his written account, after the events in XXXX 2017, the appellant was able to return to his job with the ministry of XXXX without his agents of persecution worrying about any potential whistle-blowing. Furthermore, at the hearing, the appellant admitted that he did not know if his agents of persecution were still in their positions or if they were still involved in corruption. [24] It bears repeating that the appellant has the burden of establishing the prospective risk. However, he failed to establish that his agents of persecution have the means to control who leaves and comes into Guinea. He was able to leave his country without any difficulty in XXXX 2017. The appellant also failed to establish that his agents of persecution fear that he would expose them. During the events in XXXX 2017, his agents of persecution tried to gain his cooperation, but there is no evidence that they tried to silence him. [25] The RPD's conclusion is correct. The appellant failed to establish that, now that he no longer holds his position, he would be subjected to a risk pursuant to sections 96 or 97 of the IRPA. CONCLUSION [26] The appellant's family did not suffer any retaliation. The appellant no longer works in a strategic position with the ministry of XXXX that would allow him to halt the corruption. Several years have gone by since the events described by the appellant. Nothing establishes that the agents of persecution are still there or still looking for the appellant. It was not established that the appellant would be in danger throughout the country. [27] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the determination of the RPD that the appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. (signed) Guerlain Guerrier Guerlain Guerrier March 26, 2021 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Dahal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-330-17, Crampton, December 4, 2017; 2017 FC 1102, paragraphs 30 and 31. Kanawati v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-6486-18, Norris, January 3, 2020; 2020 FC 12, paragraphs 23 and 24. 2 Gomes v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-2283-19, Pamel, April 9, 2020; 2020 FC 506, paragraphs 48 to 52. 3 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, No. A-470-14, Gauthier, Webb and Near, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 93. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB9-28675 RAD.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français 7 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