TB6-06588

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 : TB6-06588 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision September 20, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Lesley Mason Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Teklemichael Ab Sahlemariam Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Barrister and Solicitor Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the "Appellant"), a citizen of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (Ethiopia), is appealing the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying her claim for refugee protection. The Appellant is requesting that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside and substitute the negative determination with a positive determination or in the alternative, that the matter be referred back to a different member of the RPD for re-determination. The Appellant submits new evidence in support of her appeal. She did not request an oral hearing under section 110(6) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee nor is she a person in need of protection. The RAD dismisses the appeal. Background [3] The Appellant alleges that in 2004, her father was dismissed from his position at the Addis Ababa water resource office because of his political activities. Her father was imprisoned and died shortly after his release. [4] The Appellant was discriminated against in her athletic career because of her Amharic ethnicity and because of her support of the Semayawi ("Blue") Party. [5] On April 22, 2015 the Appellant returned to Addis Ababa from having participated in a running competition in Germany. Her husband met her at the airport. The Appellant and her husband chose to walk home from the airport because taxis were not available as the result of a citywide strike against the killing of 30 Ethiopians by ISIS. The Appellant and her husband were stopped by the police. The police slapped the Appellant when she told them that she and her husband were not involved in the strike. The police apprehended the Appellant's husband and drove him to the police station where he was detained. The following day the Appellant's husband was released when the Appellant paid bail and provided information to the police regarding her travels to Germany. [6] The Appellant arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2015 and made a claim for refugee protection on XXXX XXXX, 2015. [7] The Appellant had a refugee determination hearing on March 8, 2016. In a written decision issued on April 26, 2016, the RPD rejected the claim. The RPD found that the Appellant was not credible. [8] Appeal pleadings were received on June 13, 2016. In her appeal, the Appellant pleads that the RPD erred in its credibility findings. The Appellant submits that she was denied the right to procedural fairness due to inadequate interpreting services at her hearing. ADMISSIBILITY OF NEW EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON APPEAL [9] As provided for in section 110(3) of the IRPA, with certain exceptions, the RAD must proceed without a hearing, on the basis of the record of the proceedings of the RPD, and may accept documentary evidence and written submissions from the Minister and refugee claimant. Section 110(4) of the IRPA provides that the person who is the subject of the appeal may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or that was not reasonably available, or that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. [10] The Appellant submits the following new evidence with her original Appellant's Record: a) An Amharic interpreter's information regarding errors in the interpretation during the Appellant's hearing.1 b) A flyer regarding a political event in Toronto, dated May 7, 2016, photographs from the event and an internet article, dated July 13, 2012, about the event's guest speaker, Obang Metho.2 [11] The RAD is following the guidance in the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) decision of Singh, 2016 FCA 96, on March 29, 2016, in determining the admissibility of new evidence under section 110(4) of the IRPA. The RAD's analysis of the admissibility of the proposed new evidence must begin first with the test set out in section 110(4). [12] If the proposed new evidence meets the tests set out in the statutory requirements, the RAD will then go on to assess the FCA's considerations in Raza3 with the exception of materiality, which is to be considered only in relation to section 110(6) of the IRPA. [13] In the case at hand, the Appellant submits that her new counsel determined that poor interpreting at the hearing was a major problem and, thus, she is submitting document a), 12 examples of problematic interpretation. For the following reasons, the RAD accepts document a). The RAD infers that it was not until after the Appellant received the written decision of the RPD that errors in interpretation were considered to be problematic and may have resulted in errors in the RPD's decision. The RAD will consider the document within its analysis below. [14] The Appellant submits that document b) is evidence of her attendance at a political event on May 7, 2016, about one month after the RPD rendered its decision. The RAD accepts the flyer and photographs because the information contained in these documents postdate the RPD's decision. While the internet article was published almost four years prior to the Appellant's hearing, the RAD accepts that portion of the article which provides information regarding Obang Metho, the speaker featured at the event which the Appellant attended after the RPD rendered its decision. The RAD will assess what weight to assign document b) within its analysis below. ROLE OF THE RAD: [15] The RAD finds that the recent Federal Court of Appeal decision, in Huruglica,4 provides the RAD with guidance in relation to the appropriate standard that must be applied by a specialized tribunal, such as the RAD, to decisions of a first-level administrative tribunal. [16] The RAD concludes from its statutory analysis that, with respect to findings of fact (and mixed fact and law), the RAD is to review RPD decisions applying the correctness standard. Thus, after carefully considering the RPD's decision, the RAD is to carry out its own analysis of the record to determine whether, as submitted by the Appellant, the RPD erred. The RAD will defer on credibility findings made in relation to oral testimony if the RAD determines that the RPD had an advantage having heard the testimony. ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE Gender Guidelines [17] The Appellant submits that the RPD failed to refer to the Chairperson's Guidelines for Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution 5(Gender Guidelines). The Appellant argues that the Gender Guidelines indicate that female refugee claimants may face special problems in demonstrating that their claims are credible and trustworthy and that in her case the RPD failed to factor in the Gender Guidelines in its credibility assessment. [18] The RAD agrees that the RPD made no mention of the Gender Guidelines in its written decision. Nevertheless, for the following reasons, the RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument. [19] The Appellant alleges that she fears persecution based upon her Amharic ethnicity and her political activities in Ethiopia as a supporter of the Blue Party and her political activities in Canada as a member of the Amhara National Democratic Movement (ANDM). The RAD finds that the Appellant's ethnicity and political opinions are not gender related. [20] With regard to gender related issues, the RAD wishes to note that in its written decision the RPD referred to the Appellant's oral testimony regarding the discrimination exhibited against her by the head of the Ethiopian Athletics Association, Mr. XXXX XXXX, due to her ethnicity. The RPD also referred to the Appellant's testimony regarding her refusal of Mr. XXXX requests for sexual favours. The RAD believes requests for sexual favours may be considered often unique to women. The RAD notes that the Appellant made no mention in her Basis of Claim (BOC) form that Mr. XXXX requested sexual favours. Nevertheless, according to the recording of the hearing, the RPD did not question the Appellant about this discrepancy and in its written decision, the RPD accepted the Appellant's testimony in this regard. The RAD finds that the RPD's acceptance of the Appellant's testimony in this instance is an indication that the Gender Guidelines were considered. [21] The credibility findings made by the RPD, such as the Appellant's embellishments regarding alleged police visits to her home, are not gender-related issues. According to the Appellant's allegations, she and her husband were of interest to the police because of their political activities. The RAD discusses the RPD's specific findings below. Interpretation during the hearing [22] As stated above, the Appellant submitted document a) as new evidence; an Amharic interpreter's information regarding errors in the interpretation during the Appellant's hearing.6 [23] The Appellant submits that her right to procedural fairness was breached as a result of the inadequate interpreting service provided at her hearing. The Appellant argues that as a result of violation of the rules by the interpreter, the Appellant was prevented from fully presenting her case and the RPD was, therefore, prevented from properly understanding the case. [24] While the RAD agrees that according to information contained in document a) errors were made by the interpreter, the RAD finds that the errors cannot overcome the totality of the adverse credibility findings of the RPD. The RAD finds that most of the interpretation errors were not significant and the errors did not influence the RPD's decision. The RAD's reasons follow. [25] Example 1 indicates an "omission and addition" on the part of the interpreter at the hearing, referring to the Appellant's testimony regarding assistance she received in completing her visa application. The RAD does not find the apparent errors to be significant. The RAD notes that the RPD made no finding in its written decision regarding this testimony. [26] Examples 2 and 3 deal with the Appellant's testimony regarding a rally in Addis Ababa and the alleged incident during that time of the interaction of the Appellant and her husband with authorities. The RAD finds that in Example 2 the interpreter at the hearing did not provide all the details the Appellant gave in her testimony of the protest. The RPD in its decision did not make a finding regarding a rally on April 22, 2015 or the Appellant's testimony in this regard. Indeed, the Appellant provided evidence of a government organized rally on April 22, 2015 which led to a clash between the police and members of the Blue Party.7 Example 3 provides information regarding the errors the interpreter at the hearing made regarding the Appellant's testimony about what happened to her and her husband during the time of the rally. According to Example 3, the interpreter at the hearing did not indicate that the Appellant testified that she was ill at that time nor did the interpreter indicate that the Appellant provided testimony about the rifles police used when they attacked people. The RAD does not find these omissions significant. As discussed below, the RPD found on a balance of probabilities that the alleged incident in which the Appellant and her husband were attacked by police and her husband subsequently detained, described here by the Appellant, did not occur. The RPD's findings were not dependent upon the testimony discussed in Example 3. Rather, the RPD's reasons were based upon omissions in the Appellant's BOC form when compared to the Appellant's oral testimony about alleged significant events after her husband was released from detention. [27] Example 4 refers to an omission. The Appellant testified "Kazanchis (a prison)...most of the time they take people for questioning to Kazanchis" while the interpreter provided the following: "they took him to a particular place called Kazanchis". According to the recording of the hearing, in this particular instance the Appellant was asked where her husband was taken by the police. While the translation omitted some of the Appellant's testimony, the RAD believes that the RPD received the information required and that the interpreter's omission did not change the Appellant's information significantly. [28] Example 5 refers to omissions made by the interpreter of one of the RPD's questions. In particular, the RPD said "You put under your personal history that you were a member of that Garad from January 2009 until October 31st of 2013" whereas the interpreter said "But in your application it says from 2009 to October 2013". The RAD finds this omission is not overly important. According to the recording of the hearing, the topic of the Appellant's involvement with the athletic organization Garad was under discussion and, in this instance, the RAD believes the interpreter's words convey the RPD's concern with contradictory dates provided in the Appellant's testimony. In any event, the RPD made no findings with regards to discrepancies in the dates when the Appellant was an athlete with Garad. [29] Example 7 refers to the Appellant's testimony regarding her political activity. Having listened to the recording of the hearing, the RAD agrees that the interpreter could not produce the word "supporter" when the Appellant was providing testimony regarding her political activities in Canada. The RAD notes that in its decision the RPD referred to the Appellant's political activities in Canada as "low level or supporter". The RAD, therefore, finds that the interpreter's inability to provide the word 'supporter' did not affect the RPD's understanding of the Appellant's testimony in this regard. [30] The Appellant submits in Example 9 that she testified "Since 2014, since he was arrested, they would come to my house to threaten me", whereas this statement was interpreted at the hearing as "All the time starting from they held or jailed my husband, they used to intimidate us by coming to our house, calling our phone...different things". The Appellant argues that the interpreter added what she did not say that is "calling our phone...different things". The RAD agrees that the interpreter added information. The RAD notes that when the RPD found the Appellant embellished her claim with this testimony, the RPD referred to the interpreted information of phone calls. Nevertheless, the RAD finds that if it ignores this part of the interpreted testimony, it does not significantly alter the RPD's finding which the RAD discusses below. [31] The Appellant submits in Example 10 that the fact she was seeking a solution here in Canada when she testified "I think about him (her husband) but since people there are suffering, I thought I might be able to find solutions" did not get translated because the interpreter provided the following interpretation "I think that way but you know the problem is not only on my husband. The whole population is facing a problem in our country." The RAD agrees that the Appellant's intent of seeking a solution in Canada was not translated. However, according to the recording of the hearing, the Appellant was responding to a question from the RPD asking her if she was not concerned that she was putting her husband at risk with her political activities in Canada. In its decision, the RAD found that the Appellant's political profile was such that, on a balance of probabilities, her activities in Canada would not come to the attention of Ethiopian authorities. The RAD finds that the omission of the Appellant's wish to find a solution in Canada would not have affected the RPD's finding, indicated above, that the Appellant has a low profile. [32] In Example 11, the Appellant submits that she testified "The dates confuse me because I don't know much" whereas the interpreter stated "The dates usually scrambled in my mind now". According to the recording of the hearing, the Appellant's counsel was questioning her about contradictions between dates found in her visa application and the Port of Entry (POE) notes with regards to the years she was an athlete with the Garad organization. The RAD finds the difference in interpretation is not significant in that the RPD made no findings with regards to these discrepancies. [33] The Appellant submits with Example 12 that the interpreter's error is tied to the decision of the RPD. In particular the Appellant submits that she testified "They came here...they called a meeting in the name of ANDM (Amhara National Democratic Movement)...in the name of Amhara", while the interpretation provided during the hearing was "They were here to agitate in the name of the Amhara ethnicity". The Appellant refers to the RPD's decision in which the RPD found that the Appellant did not appear to fully understand the event she attended. The Appellant submits that the RPD's finding is a result of a misunderstanding created by incorrect interpretation including the improper name of the organization against which the Appellant protested. [34] For the following reasons the RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's arguments regarding Example 12. According to the recording of the hearing when the Appellant was providing testimony about the protest referred to in the previous paragraph, she testified that she was there to protest against an event organized by the ruling party. The RPD then referred the Appellant to information found in a psychological report8 provided by the Appellant. The psychologist indicates that the Appellant "reported participating at an event she initially believed was organized by supporters of the opposition...she (the Appellant) conveyed that later she found out that the organizers falsely represented themselves and they were from the ruling party."9 The Appellant was then asked to explain the contradiction between her oral testimony and information she provided to the psychologist. The recording of the hearing indicates that the Appellant did not explain the contradiction but provided similar testimony about attending a protest. The RPD repeated its question a number of times but the Appellant failed to provide an explanation for the contradiction. The RAD, therefore, concurs with the RPD's finding that the Appellant did not appear to fully understand the event when questioned on it. [35] The Appellant submits with Example 8 that she testified "Here (in Canada) I am a member of Unity for Human Rights and Democracy (UHRD)" whereas the interpreter at her hearing provided the following interpretation: "Here I am a member of Unity for Democracy Party...UDJ". The RAD accepts this submission. The Appellant then argues that because of this erroneous interpretation the RPD concluded that the Appellant appeared to be confused about the UHRD, a non-governmental organization, and the Blue Party. The Appellant argues further that she could participate in the UHRD with the Blue Party badge. [36] For the following reasons the RAD does not accept the Appellant's arguments. The RPD made no reference in its decision about the Appellant's involvement in the UDJ party as mistakenly interpreted at her hearing. In its reasons, the RPD acknowledged that the Appellant provided documentary evidence that she was involved with the UHRD. In its reasons, the RPD referred to the Appellant's testimony when the Appellant was asked why she refers to her activities in Canada as being part of the Blue Party when her evidence is that she is involved in UHRD, a Toronto based organization. The Appellant responded by testifying that she is just a runner who is not good with details. She testified further that she participates in human rights activities in Canada. While a member of the Blue Party is not restricted from involvement with the UHRD, the Appellant appears to have misunderstood that her activities with the UHRD are part of the Blue Party. The RPD's findings were in the context of finding that the Appellant's political activities in Canada were "low level". [37] The RAD finds that even though errors and omissions were made by the interpreter at the hearing, they did not significantly influence the RPD's overall credibility findings. Inconsistencies and Embellishments [38] The Appellant submits that even if the RPD found she had embellished her story, that in itself does not warrant the rejection of her claim without considering the unembellished part which supported her claim. The Appellant referred to the jurisprudence in Chong10 where the Court held that the panel appeared to have rejected the claim solely because it disbelieved the embellishment that it found concocted, without addressing the primary issue, the claimant's religious affiliation. The Appellant provided no specific examples in her submissions. [39] The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's submission in this regard. The case at hand distinguishes itself from that of Chong.11 The RAD finds that the RPD's findings address the primary issues of the Appellant's claim, that is, her political activities, her ethnicity and her delay in leaving Ethiopia. The RAD's reasons are outlined below. Blue Party The Appellant's involvement in the Party [40] The RPD found that the Appellant embellished her level of political involvement in the Blue Party in her BOC narrative, in which she alleges that she joined the Party in 2014 and participated in different meetings and demonstrations. The RPD noted that in her oral testimony, the Appellant testified that she gave money to the Party and sometimes went to meetings. When the RPD pressed the Appellant on her involvement with the Party, the Appellant then testified that she attended one meeting in 2015. The RPD found the inconsistency between information contained in the Appellant's BOC narrative and her oral testimony regarding her involvement in the Party was not reasonable. Having considered all of the evidence including the recording of the hearing, the RAD agrees with the RPD's finding. The RAD finds that this contradiction of a critical issue of the Appellant's claim undermines the Appellant's credibility. Incidents after the release from detention of the Appellant's husband [41] In its decision, the RPD found that the Appellant embellished her claim through her oral testimony about incidents that occurred after her husband's release from detention because these incidents were not mentioned in the Appellant's BOC form. The RPD noted in its decision that the Appellant testified that government agents continued to intimidate her and her husband and accused them of being with terrorist groups. When asked if she or her husband were ever arrested after her husband was released, the Appellant responded in the negative and then testified that the police came to their home each day from April 24 to April 28. The Appellant testified further that the police threatened to kill her. The RPD referred in its decision to the Appellant's testimony regarding telephone calls made to her home by the police which, as discussed above, was an error on the part of the interpreter. The Appellant also testified that there is on-going monitoring of her husband by the authorities. The RPD noted in its decision that the Appellant testified that she could not remember when the police threatened to kill her and the Appellant was unable to explain what the police wanted from her and her husband. The RPD did not find reasonable the Appellant's explanation for not including this information in her BOC and that she thought she could explain at her oral hearing. [42] The RAD concurs with the RPD. As the RPD stated in its decision, the instructions in the BOC indicate to "INCLUDE EVERTHING THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR YOUR CLAIM". [emphasis in original] The RAD believes that intimidation by the authorities is a significant aspect of the Appellant's claim. The RPD found that the incident of the arrest of the Appellant's husband and the subsequent treatment of the Appellant and her husband by the authorities which led to her fleeing Ethiopia to be not credible on a balance of probabilities. The RAD concurs and finds that the omission of critical information from the Appellant's BOC form undermines the credibility of her testimony in this regard. As a result of listening to the recording of the hearing, the RAD also finds the Appellant's testimony regarding the actions of the police to be vague and lacking in detail. The RAD thus finds that the Appellant's credibility is further undermined. Delay in Claim [43] According to the recording of the hearing, the Appellant testified that she did not leave Ethiopia until November 2015 because she had no chance to apply for a visa before October 2015. The RPD found the Appellant's explanation for her seven month delay in leaving Ethiopia to be unreasonable. [44] The Appellant made no submissions on this finding. [45] The RAD agrees with the RPD. The RAD finds the Appellant's behaviour in remaining in Ethiopia for seven months after an alleged incident in April 2015 is not consistent with someone who fears persecution. The RAD, therefore, finds the Appellant's credibility compromised. The psychological report12 [46] The RPD states in its decision that it considered the psychological report provide by the Appellant as evidence for her claim. The RPD accepted the diagnosis of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety but found that the diagnosis did not overcome the credibility concerns raised in the claim. [47] The Appellant submits that the diagnosis of PTSD is significant because some of the omissions and exaggerations or embellishments referred to by the RPD in its negative credibility findings could be explained by her psychological state. [48] For the following reasons the RAD does not accept the Appellant's argument. [49] The psychologist states that the Appellant informed her that she remembers everything that occurred in Ethiopia. The psychologist describes the Appellant as "a fair historian" who clearly stated details of each traumatic incident she experienced.13 While the symptoms of PTSD include distressing recollections of experiences and trying to avoid talking and thinking about one's trauma, this does not explain the omission of significant information in the Appellant's BOC form, such as the alleged intimidation, including death threats, on the part of the authorities towards the Appellant. The Appellant's explanation for these omissions was that she thought she could provide the information at her hearing, not that she avoided thinking about it when she completed her BOC form. In any event, the instructions for completing the BOC, as previously mentioned in these reasons, ask the Appellant to include everything important for the claim. Sur Place claim [50] The RPD found that the Appellant's political activities in Canada were such that they will, on a balance of probabilities, not come to the attention of the Ethiopian authorities. The RPD noted that the Appellant is not a high profile opponent and her participation in and knowledge of any opposition activities is limited. The RPD found that the Appellant did not make out a sur place claim, on a balance of probabilities. [51] The Appellant submits that the RPD's findings regarding her sur place claim are wrong because they are not supported by the independent documentary evidence. The Appellant argues that the National Documentation Package (NDP) indicates that expatriates of Ethiopia, with or without a high profile, can be victims of government surveillance and mistreatment. [52] For the following reasons the RAD concurs with the RPD. [53] For her hearing, the Appellant provided evidence of her political activities in Toronto.14 The RAD finds that these documents provide evidence that the Appellant has participated in various political activities in Canada which oppose the present Ethiopian regime. The RPD found that the Appellant's political activities in Canada can best be described as low level or a supporter. The Appellant did not dispute this finding. The RAD agrees with the RPD's finding. [54] As referred to by the RPD in its decision, a Response to Information Request (RIR) indicates that there is "strong evidence to suggest that anyone who is actively involved in Ethiopia[n] politics while in [the] Diaspora is subject to scrutiny and probably harassment when he or she travels to Ethiopia".15 As submitted by the Appellant, the same RIR indicates that some people suspected of having political objectives or being anti-government can be detained at the airport and sent to jail or threatened with charges of terrorism. As well, an Ethiopian-Canadian member of Andinet Toronto was interrogated by security agents when he travelled to Ethiopia in 2011. [55] The RAD has considered the new evidence, document b), of an event on May 7, 2016, which included a less than 2 kilometre walk in the east end of Toronto, followed by a panel discussion.16 The event was presented by UHRD in Toronto with guest speaker Obang Metho, a human rights activist sentenced in absentia in Ethiopia on politically motivated charges. The evidence includes a flyer advertising the event, an on-line posting with includes the same flyer and three small photographs, and two individual photographs. The Appellant has not, in her appeal, identified herself in any of the photographs. The RAD, in attempt to identify the Appellant in any of the photographs, has compared the Appellant's passport photograph found in the POE notes,17 with females in the various photographs. The RAD was unable to do so with any certainty. The Appellant does not indicate in her appeal whether she attended both the walk and the panel discussion. The Appellant did not allege in her appeal that, other than attend the event, she participated in any other way. The RAD gives little evidentiary weight to document b) for the following reasons. [56] The Appellant does not have a high profile in any opposition party or organization in Canada. While she has attended some meetings and protests, the RAD finds her political activities outlined in the documentary evidence and new evidence she provided and her understanding of the issues, as indicated by her oral testimony, to be limited. Thus, the RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant has not or will not come to the attention of the Ethiopian authorities nor would she if she were to return to Ethiopia. Totality of the Evidence [57] The Appellant submits that the RPD separated her claim into three distinct and unrelated parts, namely discrimination at her work place, her political activities in Ethiopia and her sur place claim. The Appellant argues that when the incidents of discrimination at work are coupled with sexual harassment and the mistreatment of her father and husband, this amounts to persecution. [58] The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's arguments in this regard. The RAD's reasons follow. [59] The RAD has supported the RPD's finding that it did not believe that the Appellant's husband was mistreated by Ethiopian authorities. [60] According to information contained in the psychological report, the Appellant informed the psychologist that her father died in 2004 from a virus he contracted while he was imprisoned for two months.18 The Appellant was seventeen years of age at that time. The RAD appreciates that the loss of a parent at a young age, especially under such difficult circumstances, to be a misfortune that could be extremely unsettling and tragic. Nevertheless, the RAD does not find that this amounts to persecution. The father's imprisonment and subsequent death does not establish a personal nexus to persecution. The RAD depends upon the jurisprudence. In the case of Kanagalingam,19 the claimant's father, brother and fiancé were killed during a civil war which the claimant argued was indirect persecution. In that case the Court stated the following: [T]he Federal Court of Appeal in the case of Pour-Shariati overruled the case of Bhatti which recognized the concept of indirect persecution as a principle of our refugee law. MacGuigan J. wrote: In the words of Nadon, J. in Casetellanos v. Canada (Solicitor General) (1994), 89 F.T.R. 1 (Fed. T.D.), 11, "since indirect persecution does not constitute persecution within the meaning of Convention refugee, a claim based on it should not be allowed." It seems to us that the concept of indirect persecution goes directly against the decision of this Court in Rizkallah v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration ), A-606-90, decided 6 May 1992, where it was held that there had to be a personal nexus between the claimant and the alleged persecution on one of the Convention grounds. One of these grounds is, of course, a "membership in a particular social group," a ground which allows for family concerns in an appropriate case.20 [61] Regarding sexual harassment and discrimination at work, the RAD notes that the Appellant testified that she rebuffed the request for sexual favours. Although the Appellant's participation in international competitions was curtailed as a result of discrimination against her due to her ethnicity, according to information the Appellant provided at the POE, she was continuously engaged as a runner.21 According to information contained in the Appellant's visa application,22 she travelled internationally eight times between 2009 and 2015 to compete in races before travelling to Canada. The RAD, thus, infers that the Appellant was able to work in Ethiopia as a competitive athlete. The RAD, thus, finds that the sexual harassment and discrimination at the Appellant's workplace do not cumulatively amount to persecution. The RAD again depends upon the jurisprudence in the case of Kanagalingam23 where the claimant's allegations of sexual harassment in the form of having been videotaped naked by authorities and inappropriately touched by authorities did not amount to persecution. Summary [62] When considering in totality the cumulative adverse credibility findings noted above, the RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant's evidence with regard to central allegations in Ethiopia are neither credible nor trustworthy. [63] The RAD notes that the Federal Court held in Sheikh24 that: ... even without disbelieving every word [a claimant] has uttered, a ... panel may reasonably find him so lacking in credibility that it concludes there is no credible evidence relevant to his claim... In other words, a general finding of a lack of credibility on the part of the [claimant] may conceivably extend to all relevant evidence emanating from his testimony. [64] The RAD agrees with the RPD and finds that, in light of the cumulative adverse credibility findings, the Appellant is not credible and that overall her allegations lack veracity. The RAD also concurs with the RPD that the Appellant's sur place claim fails. CONCLUSION [65] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD and dismisses the appeal. (signed) "Lesley Mason" Lesley Mason September 20, 2016 Date 1 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 11-13. 2 Ibid., pp. 16-20. 3 Raza, Syed Masood v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-11-07), Linden, Sharlow, Ryer, December 6, 2007, 2007 FCA 385. 4 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 5 Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Update, Guidelines Issued by the Chairperson Pursuant to Section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 13, 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002, under the authority found in section 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 11-13. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pp. 322-325. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pp. 351-356. 9 Ibid. 10 Chong, Lim Man v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 1998, CanLii 8191 (FC). 11 Ibid. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pp. 351-356. 13 Ibid. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pp. 186-198. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pp. 76-101, NDP for Ethiopia, January 29, 2016, Item 4.4, RIR ETH104127.E. 16 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 14-20. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pp. 27-74 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pp. 351-356. 19 Kanagalingam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-566-98, Blais, February 10, 1999. 20 Ibid. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, p. 37, question 8. 22 Ibid., p. 114. 23 Kanagalingam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-566-98, Blais, February 10, 1999. 24 Sheikh v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 3 F.C. 238 (C.A.); 11 Imm. L.R. (2d) 81 (F.C.A.). --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-06588