TC3-10936

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC3-10936 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Date of decision July 11, 2023 Date de la décision Panel A. Doherty Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Jordan Duviner 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 (the Appellant) is a citizen of Tanzania. She is seeking refugee protection in Canada because of her Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics (SOGIESC). The Appellant alleges that she was in a same-sex relationship with a woman whom she lived with after she escaped a violent arranged marriage to a man more than twice her age. Neighbours found out about the same-sex relationship between the Appellant and her then-girlfriend, and reported her to the authorities. The police arrested the Appellant and her girlfriend and held them for XXXX or XXXX days, during which time the police beat and threatened the Appellant. The Appellant's mother bailed her out of the police station and thereafter the Appellant hid in a family member's house for a number of months until she left Tanzania for Canada in XXXX 2021. [2] The Refugee Protection Division denied the Appellant's claim in a decision dated February 16, 2023. The RPD found the determinative issue to be credibility. It drew negative credibility inferences from the Appellant's omission of a same-sex partner in Canada in her Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative, the absence of this same-sex partner as a witness at the hearing, the lack of supportive letter from the Appellant's former girlfriend in Tanzania, inconsistencies over her address history in Tanzania, the omission from her narrative of being summoned by the police for same-sex acts, the lack of any information about further actions taken by the police against her, the lack of a letter of support from her mother, the omission from her narrative of having lived in hiding for three months before she left Tanzania, and the Appellant's delay in leaving Tanzania. The RPD found that the Appellant had failed to establish the credibility of her profile as a lesbian woman. The RPD also found that the Appellant had failed to establish that she faces a forward-looking risk of persecution from her ex-husband if she returns to Tanzania. [3] The Appellant disagrees with the RPD's decision and has appealed its decision to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). She has provided new evidence to the RAD in her appeal, which includes letters from her mother and her former girlfriend in Tanzania. DECISION [4] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. NEW EVIDENCE [5] The Appellant has provided the following pieces of new evidence as part of her appeal: * Affidavit of the Appellant dated XXXX XXXX, 2023; * Letter from the Appellant's former girlfriend dated XXXX XXXX, 2023, with a translation stamped by a notary public in Dar es Salam; and * Letter from the Appellant's mother dated XXXX XXXX, 2023, with a translation stamped by a notary public in Dar es Salam. [6] According to the law,1 I can only accept evidence that: (i) arose after the RPD decision; or (ii) was not reasonably available at the time of the decision; or (iii) that the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to bring to the RPD before the decision. [7] If the evidence meets one or more of these requirements, I must decide if the evidence is new, credible, and relevant before I can accept it.2 The new evidence is rejected [8] For the following reasons, I reject the new evidence submitted on appeal. The Appellant's affidavit [9] The Appellant's affidavit does not provide new facts on appeal. Rather, it contains argument about why the letters of her mother and former girlfriend should be accepted as new evidence. I have therefore considered this affidavit as submissions and find it does not require a new evidence analysis. The letter from the Appellant's former girlfriend [10] In her letter, the Appellant's former girlfriend supports and reiterates the Appellant's allegations respecting the domestic violence she suffered at the hands of her ex-husband, and the allegations respecting being arrested and detained for XXXX or XXXX days3 by the police, and respecting the former girlfriend now living in hiding. I accept that the letter is dated after the rejection of the claim, but I find the evidence it contains arose prior to the rejection of the claim. In other words, the letter reiterates the allegations that the Appellant referred to in her BOC narrative and in her testimony at the hearing. [11] The Appellant states in the affidavit that she could not submit the letter from her former girlfriend to the RPD because her former girlfriend was in hiding and she did not think she could ask her for a letter of support. However, the Appellant stated at the RPD hearing that she remained in contact with her former girlfriend and that she had talked to her the week before the RPD hearing. She testified that the former girlfriend knows about her refugee claim and supports her efforts to seek refuge in Canada. When asked why she had not provided a letter from her former girlfriend, the Appellant stated that she did not know, and really did not know what to say. [12] I find the Appellant's testimony about the reasons for not providing a letter from her former girlfriend on appeal are different to those she provided to the RPD. As noted by the RPD, the Appellant was represented by counsel and the Appellant knew to submit other evidence in support of her claim. A letter from her former girlfriend, who is a central figure in her narrative, could therefore reasonably have been expected to be provided at the time of the RPD decision. [13] Additionally, the fact that the Appellant remained in contact with her former girlfriend but chose not to ask for a letter of support, even when speaking with her the week before her hearing, undermines the explanation that she could not ask for a letter because her former girlfriend was in hiding. I do not accept, as a result, that the letter was not reasonably available prior to the rejection of the Appellant's claim. Indeed, this explanation is further undermined by the fact that the translated letter, including colour photocopies of the former girlfriend's driving licence, is notarized by a notary public in Dar es Salam. I would expect, if the former girlfriend was in hiding in her mother's hometown of Kasulu, Kigoma, that she would not return to Dar es Salam to notarize a letter in which she admits to hiding from the authorities because she is facing a court case for homosexual conduct and because the police are actively looking for her. [14] For all of these reasons, I find the letter from the Appellant's former girlfriend does not meet the requirements of section 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and reject it as new evidence. The letter of the Appellant's mother [15] For similar reasons, I reject the letter of the Appellant's mother as new evidence before the RAD. The Appellant testified at the RPD hearing that her mother helped her gather documents for her refugee claim and that she keeps in contact with her mother. Yet, she did not ask her mother to write a letter of support because she felt it would bring her mother pain by reminding her of the situation and she felt like she had gathered sufficient evidence. [16] I acknowledge that some SOGIESC claimants may have difficulty in obtaining supporting documentation, particularly from family members. However, in this case, the Appellant's mother continues to support her despite the Appellant's alleged SOGIESC identity, even gathering documents on the Appellant's behalf for her refugee claim. The Appellant is alleging that she faces a life-or-death situation if she returns to Tanzania; I would expect, as a result, that the Appellant would put her best foot forward4 before the RPD by obtaining a letter from her mother to support her claim, despite the potential that it might upset her mother to write it and given that she had already asked her mother to help her gather other documents to support her claim. For these reasons, I reject the explanation of the Appellant and find that the letter from the Appellant's mother was reasonably available prior to the rejection of the claim. [17] Like the letter of the Appellant's former girlfriend, the letter of the Appellant's mother is dated after the rejection of the claim but the evidence it contains arose before the Appellant left Tanzania. It refers to events that took place between 2017 and 2019, as well as events that took place in 2021. This evidence did not, as a result, arise after the rejection of the claim. [18] Finally, the Appellant demonstrated her knowledge of needing to provide supporting evidence by asking her mother to gather documents on her behalf. Given that her mother was the one who helped her into hiding and arranged her travel, and is thus central to her narrative, I find that a letter from the Appellant's mother could reasonably have been expected to be provided to the RPD. [19] For these reasons, I find the letter from the Appellant's mother does not meet the criteria for acceptance under section 110(4) of the IRPA and I reject it as new evidence. ORAL HEARING [20] Given that no new evidence has been accepted on appeal, I find the circumstances for holding an oral hearing have not been met. ANALYSIS [21] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.5 The RPD erred in its application of the Gender and SOGIESC Guidelines [22] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in its application of Chairperson's Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Gender Guidelines), which aims to foster consistency and fairness in decision-making involving gender considerations. She also submits that the RPD erred in its application of Chairperson's Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics (the SOGIESC Guidelines), which aims to promote a greater understanding of cases involving SOGIESC, and addresses challenges that people with diverse SOGIESC might face in presenting their cases before the RPD and the RAD. [23] I agree with the Appellant that the RPD erred in its application of these guidelines. The Federal Court has been clear that it is not sufficient for the RPD or RAD to merely state that it has considered these guidelines without meaningfully engaging with them in its reasoning, and that such an approach is an error. I find that to be the case here because the RPD did not refer to any of the factors outlined in items 6, 7 or 8 of the Gender Guidelines, or any of those outlined in items 7 or 8 of the SOGIESC Guidelines, in making its credibility findings. I therefore agree with the Appellants that the RPD erred in its application of the relevant guidelines. [24] In spite of the above finding, however, I agree with and will confirm some of the RPD's findings below. The Appellant's alleged Canadian girlfriend The Appellant omitted from her BOC narrative that she has a Canadian girlfriend [25] The RPD found that the Appellant omitted from her BOC narrative that she has a Canadian girlfriend, which undermined the credibility of this allegation. I agree. [26] The Appellant signed her BOC narrative on November 10, 2021, less than XXXX XXXX after she left Tanzania. I therefore accept that she was not in a relationship with her alleged Canadian girlfriend at the time she completed her BOC narrative. [27] However, the Appellant submitted WhatsApp messages and photographs purporting to show a relationship with another woman. It is not clear to me from the photos or texts (or from the transcript of the hearing) who the other woman is, because the woman's contact information shows up only as "M" in the WhatsApp messages and the photos do not identify the women depicted. Additionally, the photos appear to have been taken at various points between 2020 (according to the timestamp on some of the photos), when the Appellant was in Tanzania, and an unspecified date. It is therefore not clear to me whether these photos relate to one alleged relationship, or two. [28] For this reason, I am unable to rely on the photos and WhatsApp messages as akin to an update of the Appellant's BOC narrative respecting her relationship status in Canada. I am also mindful of the guidance of the Federal Court that all the important facts and details of a claim must be included in the BOC narrative, and that failing to do so can affect the credibility of all or part of a claimant's testimony.6 I further agree with the RPD that the Appellant was represented by counsel at the RPD and would thus be expected to know to provide an update respecting such an integral part of her claim, given that she allegedly faces a serious possibility of persecution on account of her SOGIESC. I therefore do not accept the explanation that the Appellant was unaware that she needed to provide such an update to her BOC narrative, either before the hearing or at the outset of the hearing. [29] Similarly, I reject the submission of the Appellant that this is a microscopic omission akin to that referred to in Yener.7 Although not central to the incidents that occurred in Tanzania, a same-sex relationship in Canada is a significant development that is central to her alleged SOGIESC profile, which is the reason the Appellant is seeking protection in Canada. Such an omission is therefore not microscopic or peripheral to the claim, and I reject the arguments of the Appellant on these points. [30] Additionally, this is not an omission related to her alleged persecution in Tanzania; hence, I am unable to account for it using the guidance of item 7.5 of the Gender Guidelines. Similarly, I am unable to account for the omission using the factors outlined in item 7.7 (Material omissions) of the SOGIESC Guidelines. For this reason, I find the omission to be significant and central to her narrative. I find it undermines the credibility of the Appellant's allegation that she is in a genuine same-sex relationship in Canada. The Appellant's alleged Canadian girlfriend did not appear as a witness [31] The RPD found the credibility of the Appellant's allegations respecting her Canadian girlfriend were undermined by the absence of her girlfriend at the hearing. I confirm this finding. [32] As a starting point, I recognize that the Maldonado principle means that a claimant's sworn testimony is presumed to be true unless there is a reason to doubt its truthfulness. Likewise, it is an error to make an adverse credibility finding merely on the absence of corroboration. However, as noted in Luo,8 where there is a valid reason to doubt the claimant's credibility, the lack of corroborating evidence, where no reasonable explanation is provided, can be a valid consideration when assessing credibility. [33] In this case, I have already outlined a credibility concern with respect to the Appellant's allegation that she is in a same-sex relationship with a woman in Canada. Additionally, the Appellant testified that her alleged girlfriend was also from Tanzania, had also been in a same-sex relationship there, and had been accepted in Canada as a Convention refugee. I would expect, as a result, that the Appellant's alleged girlfriend would appreciate the gravity of the Appellant's hearing to the success of her claim, including the value of appearing as a witness. This is particularly so, given that the email statement from the alleged girlfriend states that "since i meet [the Appellant] my life is full of happiness"9 and that she truly loves the Appellant. [34] Despite this, the Appellant provided conflicting information as to whether she asked her girlfriend to attend the hearing as a witness. She initially stated that she did ask her girlfriend to be a witness at the RPD hearing and "she [the girlfriend] said if she is able to and if she has time, she has no problem."10 On further questioning, the Appellant then stated that she did not name her alleged Canadian girlfriend as a witness because she did not want to stress the girlfriend out. The Appellant's alleged girlfriend had her own schedule, and the Appellant did not want to mix up the schedule, and her alleged girlfriend would have told her she had the time to come and testify if that had been the case. [35] I am conscious that relationships vary greatly between individuals, couples, and those involving more than two people. It is therefore plausible that someone may not consider it necessary to attend the refugee hearing of their loved one. I am also conscious that item 7.2 (Corroborative Evidence) of the SOGIESC Guidelines states that corroborating evidence may not be available from family or friends in SOGIESC cases. However, in this case, the only reason the testimony of the Appellant's alleged girlfriend was not available was because the girlfriend might have been on her way back home or still in school, and the Appellant did not actively request that the girlfriend attend the hearing to help her establish her claim. I find this behaviour inconsistent with the testimony of the Appellant and the evidence of her alleged girlfriend that they are in a loving relationship. This is especially the case when the alleged girlfriend has lived experience as a bisexual woman in Tanzania and has therefore faced the danger that is inherent in such a situation. [36] I am unable to account for this inconsistency based on the factors outlined in item 7.4 (Inconsistencies) of the SOGIESC Guidelines. For these reasons, I find the explanation as to why the Appellant's alleged Canadian girlfriend was not present at the hearing not to be reasonable. I therefore agree with and confirm the RPD's finding that the lack of attendance on the part of the Appellant's alleged Canadian girlfriend significantly undermines the credibility of the Appellant's allegation that she is in a same-sex relationship with this individual, as well as the credibility of her SOGIESC profile. The Appellant's photos, WhatsApp messages and emailed letter of support do not establish that she is in a genuine same-sex relationship in Canada [37] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred by failing to consider the documentary evidence she provided to establish her claim. I agree and find that the RPD's failure to refer to this evidence in its decision was an error. [38] However, the WhatsApp messages do not identify the person in conversation and the cover letter supplying them to the RPD merely states "Text messages conversations."11 Neither the RPD nor counsel questioned the Appellant on these WhatsApp messages. Having regard to these factors, I am unable to place significant weight on them to establish the Appellant's Canadian relationship because I do not know to whom the Appellant is communicating. [39] Similarly, the photos do not identify the people contained therein, and neither the RPD nor counsel questioned the Appellant about these photos. They are simply referred to as "Claimant's photos"12 in the cover page sent by counsel. Given this lack of clarity about them, I find them insufficient to establish either the Canadian relationship, or the Tanzanian relationship, and place little weight on them. [40] I place some weight on the letter of support from the Appellant's alleged girlfriend in Canada; however, given my earlier credibility finding respecting the absence of this witness at the hearing, I place little weight on this letter. [41] Overall, based on the factors I have outlined respecting the Appellant's supportive documents regarding her alleged girlfriend in Canada, I find them insufficient, either alone or cumulatively with the Appellant's testimony, to establish the credibility of the Appellant's allegation that she is in a genuine same-sex relationship in Canada. I therefore confirm the RPD's finding that the Appellant has failed to establish the credibility of this allegation, albeit for different reasons. The Appellant's girlfriend in Tanzania The lack of corroboration from the Appellant's girlfriend in Tanzania and the Appellant's explanation undermine her credibility [42] The RPD found that the Appellant's testimony that she did not ask her former girlfriend in Tanzania for a letter of support, and her explanation that the Appellant did not know to do so, undermined the credibility of her allegations that she had a girlfriend in Tanzania, as well as the credibility of her SOGIESC profile. I agree. [43] At the hearing, the Appellant stated that she remains in contact with her former girlfriend and that she had been in contact with her the week before the hearing. Despite this, the Appellant had not asked her former girlfriend for a letter of support or other corroboration and, when asked why not, the Appellant stated "I did not know. I really do not know what to say."13 [44] The Appellant displayed her awareness of requiring supportive documentary evidence by having her mother send her copies of the municipal summons, police summons, and other pieces of documentary evidence from Tanzania. I do not accept, as a result, that the Appellant would not have known to ask her former girlfriend in Tanzania for a letter of support or other evidence to support her claim, given that her relationship with her former girlfriend, and the community response to their living together, is central to her claim, and given that she is represented by counsel. [45] This is also not a case where the evidence was impossible to obtain, which is a consideration in item 7.2 (Corroborative evidence) of the SOGIESC Guidelines, because the Appellant testified that she remains in contact with her former girlfriend and the girlfriend supports her in making a refugee claim. Similarly, neither the Appellant nor counsel referred to any personal, cultural, social, economic, or legal realities that might have prevented the Appellant from asking for such supporting evidence. I therefore find the Appellant's explanation for the lack of corroboration from her former girlfriend in Tanzania not to be reasonable. [46] Having considered the evidence and submissions before me, I find that the Appellant's inability to provide a reasonable explanation for why she did not seek to obtain a letter from her girlfriend undermines the credibility of her allegations respecting this relationship. The Appellant omitted being summoned by the police for alleged same-sex acts from her BOC narrative [47] The RPD found that the Appellant had failed to mention in her BOC narrative that she had been summoned by the police for alleged same-sex acts in XXXX 2021. It found that this omission undermined the credibility of these allegations. I agree. [48] The Appellant argues on appeal that the RPD erred because she mentioned being "called" in her BOC, which is akin to being summoned by the police. I reject this argument. It is clear from paragraph 8 of the Appellant's BOC narrative that she is referring to being called by the street council committee, and not the police: She starting teaching me homosexulity, I loved it and I started doing it too. After some time the neighbors noticed we are homosexuals and started talking about us. The neighbors reported us to street council committee we were called and they warned us to stop homosexuality and to end our relationship. I could not stop because I was already into it.14 [49] That the "call" in this paragraph relates to the street council committee is supported by the municipal summons submitted by the Appellant to the RPD.15 It is only in the subsequent paragraph of the Appellant's BOC narrative that she refers to being arrested by the police and taken to XXXX police station. Crucially, the Appellant does not refer to a police summons in her BOC narrative. [50] For these reasons, I reject the submission that the Appellant did refer to a police summons in her BOC narrative. I would expect the Appellant to have referred to the summons in her narrative, particularly when she was able to provide a copy of the summons16 in her supporting documentation and when her lack of attendance at the police station on XXXX XXXX, 2021 was the catalyst for the raid on her home and her subsequent arrest and detention for XXXX XXXX. In other words, the summons is central to the Appellant's narrative, and I reject the submission that this detail is peripheral or that the RPD's finding on it was microscopic. [51] The Appellant has not offered another explanation for the omission of the police summons from her narrative, which is the genesis of her allegation that she was arrested and held for XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX, 2021. I am unaware of any social, economic, or cultural factors that might account for this omission. [52] Being arrested and beaten for XXXX XXXX by police because of one's sexual orientation can reasonably be considered a traumatic experience; item 7.5 of the Gender Guidelines notes that trauma may impact memory, which can produce inconsistencies, omissions, and vagueness in the individual's testimony. However, this is not a case where the omission was from the Appellant's testimony - instead it was from the Appellant's BOC narrative, which was prepared with the assistance of counsel and read over to the Appellant at the time it was written. I find, as a result, that any potential trauma related to the XXXX 2021 police detention cannot account for the omission of receiving a police summons from the Appellant's narrative. I therefore find the omission significantly undermines the credibility of the Appellant's allegations that she was summoned and then arrested by the police for engaging in same-sex acts with her Tanzanian girlfriend. The Appellant omitted being charged and going into hiding at her aunt's house until she left Tanzania [53] The RPD found that the Appellant had omitted living in hiding in Tanzania between XXXX and XXXX 2021. I agree, and further find that the Appellant omitted having been charged with an offence in Tanzania, causing her to go into hiding in that time. [54] The Appellant testified that she was bailed out of the police station by her mother. She was charged by the police, which was "the only reason why [the Appellant] left and escaped from there."17 Her mother sent her to live with her aunt until she could leave Tanzania. [55] On appeal, the Appellant states that the Appellant spent a small period of time, approximately two months, in hiding and that it was not overly significant. I disagree. The Appellant testified that she was charged with an offence by police for engaging in same-sex conduct with her Tanzanian girlfriend. This was what prompted her to go into hiding and eventually leave Tanzania. [56] The RPD did not make a finding on the omission of having been charged with an offence in Tanzania, but I find this omission to go hand in hand with the Appellant's omission of having gone into hiding prior to leaving. I say this because being charged is what prompted her to go into hiding in the first place. I further find this omission to be obvious from the record, and that it came in response to a direct question from the RPD. It was something that could have been addressed by the Appellant's counsel in questioning but was not. I therefore find it appropriate to consider this omission in my analysis. [57] Based on the timing of the Appellant's arrest, she would have been in hiding from approximately mid-XXXX to mid-XXXX 2021, a period of approximately three months (and not two, as argued). I find the Appellant being charged with engaging in same-sex acts and facing prosecution, which resulted in her going into hiding, to be significant. I would expect the Appellant to have mentioned these facts in her narrative, particularly given that she had the assistance of counsel in completing it. I cannot identify any social, cultural, economic, psychological, or other factor that would account for these omissions. As a result, I find these omissions significantly undermine the credibility of the Appellant's allegations that she was charged for engaging in same-sex conduct with her Tanzanian girlfriend and went into hiding for approximately three months prior to leaving Tanzania. I also find that they undermine the Appellant's general credibility. The lack of corroboration from the Appellant's mother undermines the credibility of the Appellant's allegations [58] The RPD found it unreasonable that the Appellant did not ask her mother for a letter of support, given that her mother was aware of her refugee claim, supported her, and was in regular contact with her. I agree with the RPD and confirm that the lack of corroborative evidence from the Appellant's mother, and the Appellant's explanation, undermine the Appellant's credibility. [59] The Appellant testified that it was her mother who bailed her out of the police station in XXXX 2021, and who arranged for her to go into hiding in the Appellant's aunt's house before leaving Tanzania. She also testified that she remains in contact with her mother and that they had spoken the morning of the RPD hearing. Her mother also helped to send her documents for her refugee claim. Having regard to these factors, I differentiate the Appellant's case from the examples outlined in item 8.2 of the Gender Guidelines or item 7.2 of the SOGIESC Guidelines respecting corroboration. This is because the Appellant testified to her mother's ongoing support, including bailing her, arranging for her to go into hiding, and sending her documents for her refugee claim. [60] I would expect, in such circumstances, that the Appellant would ask her mother for a letter of support, particularly given that her mother is central to some of her allegations. I therefore reject the Appellant's explanation that she thought it would bring her mother pain to ask her for a letter of support, given its inconsistency with her mother providing other documentation for the claim. I also reject the explanation that she felt what she had collected was enough, given her representation by counsel, the centrality of her mother to her allegations, and her ability to ask for a letter of support from a neighbour who is unconnected to the events in her narrative. I conclude that the absence of corroboration from the Appellant's mother undermines the credibility of her allegations. Conclusions on credibility of the Appellant's allegations regarding her Tanzanian girlfriend [61] I have made several findings regarding the credibility of the Appellant's allegations that she was in a same-sex relationship with a girlfriend in Tanzania. I have also considered the documentary evidence in support of these allegations. I acknowledge the municipal and police summonses submitted in support of the Appellant's claim, as well as the photographs purporting to show the Appellant with a girlfriend in either Tanzania or Canada. I place some weight on these pieces of evidence cumulatively but find them insufficient to overcome the numerous negative credibility findings I have already made. Overall, on a balance of probabilities, I find the Appellant has failed to establish that she was in a same-sex relationship in Tanzania. The Appellant has failed to establish her SOGIESC identity [62] I have found that the Appellant failed to establish that she is in a genuine same-sex relationship in Canada, or that she was in a same-sex relationship in Tanzania. The Appellant stated that her SOGIESC manifested when she began a same-sex relationship with her alleged girlfriend in Tanzania; given that the Appellant has failed to establish this relationship and given the absence of other testimony on her SOGIESC identity, I find the Appellant has failed to establish her SOGIESC identity. [63] In coming to this conclusion, I acknowledge the letter from the XXXX, a community organization for SOGIESC individuals in Toronto. The letter states that the Appellant completed a needs intake assessment with a 519 settlement worker in XXXX 2022, six months after she filed her claim for refugee protection. The letter states that the Appellant self-identifies as a member of the LGBTQ2S community. Although the letter is a page and a half long, those are the only two facts specific to the Appellant contained therein. Although I place some weight on the letter, I find it insufficient, either alone or cumulatively with the other evidence before me, such as the WhatsApp messages and photos, to credibly establish the Appellant's SOGIESC identity. The Appellant has not established a forward-facing risk from her ex-husband [64] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its consideration of the risk she faces from her ex-husband. I disagree. [65] I accept as credible that the Appellant was in an abusive marriage that was extremely violent and ultimately ended in XXXX 2019. I accept that she suffered gender-based violence in this marriage. However, the Appellant testified that she has not seen her husband since the day she left him on XXXX XXXX, 2019. [66] I acknowledge the piece of paper18 in the Appellant's documentary evidence that states "THREATENING TO KILL" and is dated XXXX XXXX, 2019. The Appellant testified that this was a report she made to the police about rumours she heard that her ex-husband threatened to kill her if he finds her. [67] I find the rumours the Appellant testified she heard insufficient to establish that she faces a forward-looking risk from her ex-husband. Like the RPD, I place no weight on the piece of paper that the Appellant identified as a police report because it bears no names and so does not support that it is, in fact, a police report, or that it is related to the Appellant or her ex-husband. [68] I also agree that the Appellant was able to remain in Kinondoni, Dar es Salam, for a period of over two years after she left her husband, without any contact from him. I find this further evidences a lack of forward-facing risk from her ex-husband. [69] Although the Appellant argues that it is possible that he will try to find her, I find insufficient evidence to establish an objective basis to her subjective fear of persecution at the hands of her ex-husband. I find the Appellant has failed to establish that she faces a well-founded fear of persecution, or a risk to life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or of torture, at the hands of her ex-husband. The Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection [70] I have found that the Appellant has failed to establish her SOGIESC identity and that she does not face a forward-looking risk, under either section 96 or 97 of the IRPA, from her ex-husband. The effect of these findings is such that I find the Appellant has failed to establish that she faces a serious possibility of persecution, or a risk to life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or of torture, if she returns to Tanzania. I therefore find that she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, and dismiss her appeal. CONCLUSION [71] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) Adam Doherty Adam Doherty July 11, 2023 Date 1 Subsection 110(4), Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. 2 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96; Raza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385. 3 Although the letters of the Appellant's former girlfriend and her mother state XXXX days, the Appellant stated XXXX days in her BOC narrative. 4 Abdullahi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 260 at para. 14. 5 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 6 Zeferino v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 456, at para 31. 7 Yener v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 372, at para 51. 8 Luo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 823, at paras 18-22. 9 RPD Record, Exhibit 5.2, at p. 155. 10 RPD Hearing Transcript, 9 November 2022, at p. 21, line 36. 11 RPD Record, Exhibit 5.1, at p. 87. 12 Ibid. 13 RPD Hearing Transcript, 9 November 2022, at p. 18, line 18. 14 RPD Record, Exhibit 2.1, BOC narrative, at p. 24, para. 8. 15 RPD Record, Exhibit 5.1, at p. 105. 16 RPD Record, Exhibit 5.1, at p. 107. 17 RPD Hearing Transcript, 9 November 2022, at p. 14, line 11. 18 RPD Record, Exhibit 5.1, at pp. 108-109. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC3-10936 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) 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 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français