TB6-05016

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 : TB6-05016 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision July 06, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Lesley Mason Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Solomon Orjiwuru Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause 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 Cameroon, is appealing the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his 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 submitted new evidence in support of his appeal and requested an oral hearing under section 110(6) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee nor is he a person in need of protection. The RAD dismisses the appeal. Background [3] The Appellant alleges that he is bisexual. [4] When the Appellant was seventeen years old he became aware that he was sexually attracted to people of the same sex. He became attracted to a classmate, XXXX XXXX, and about three months after they became friends they started dating. The relationship came to an end when XXXX left the country. [5] In 2006 the Appellant entered a homosexual relationship with a colleague named XXXX XXXX. The relationship continued until 2013 when the Appellant travelled to Cyprus to further his studies. [6] In Cyprus the Appellant had an off and on relationship with a fellow student named XXXX. [7] The Appellant arrived in Canada on July 29, 2015 to further his studies. In September 2015 the Appellant learned that XXXX had been found by the police having sex with another man. While XXXX was being interrogated by the police, he identified the Appellant as one of the men in photographs of his same-sex partners. Subsequently, the police attended the Appellant's family home in search of him. [8] The Appellant sought legal advice and then decided to seek protection in Canada. The Appellant made a sur place claim for refugee protection on December 11, 2015. [9] The Appellant had a refugee determination hearing on February 29, 2016. In a written decision issued on March 21, 2016 the RPD rejected the claim. The RPD found that the Appellant was not credible and had not established his sexual identity as a bisexual. [10] Appeal pleadings were received on May 12, 2016. In his appeal, the Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its credibility findings and in its assessment of documentary evidence provided by the Appellant. ADMISSIBILITY OF NEW EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON APPEAL [11] As provided for in s. 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. Subsection 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. [12] The Appellant states in his Memorandum that he submits the following two articles as new evidence: a) 'Linguistic Apartheid and the Quest for Freedom and Identity in Cameroon', dated December 16, 20141 and b) Evaluating the Degree of Individual Bilingualism in Yaoundé, from the Journal of Literature, Language and Linguistics, Vol. 2, 2013.2 [13] The Appellant submits that the proposed new evidence meets the test of s.110(4) of the IRPA because he could not provide the evidence at the hearing as he was not aware of the RPD's concerns beforehand and believed that his explanation at the hearing assuaged the RPD's concerns. [14] Section 110(4) of the IRPA provides that the Appellant may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of his claim or that was not reasonably available, or that he could not reasonably have been expected3 in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. [15] It is for the Appellant to make full and detailed submissions in his Memorandum about how any proposed new evidence meets the requirements of section 110(4) and how that evidence relates to the Appellant.4 Application of Section 110(4) [16] According to section 110(4) the RAD must first consider whether the proposed new evidence arose after the rejection of the refugee claim. If it did, the evidence meets the requirements of the section. If it did not, the RAD must consider whether the evidence was reasonably available for presentation to the RPD prior to the rejection of the claim. If it was not reasonably available at that time, it meets the requirements of section 110(4). If the evidence did not arise after the rejection, and it was reasonably available, the RAD must consider whether the Appellant could reasonably have been expected, in his circumstances, to have presented the evidence to the RPD prior to the rejection of his claim. If he could not have been expected to do so, the evidence meets the requirements of the section. [17] If the evidence did not arise after the rejection of the claim, was reasonably available, and could reasonably have been expected, in the circumstances, to be presented to the RPD prior to the rejection of the claim, the evidence does not meet the test in section 110(4). The RAD does not have discretion to admit such evidence.5 [18] In the case at hand, the RAD finds that the evidence did not arise after the rejection of the Appellant's claim. Document a) was published in 2014 and document b) was published in 2013, both long before the rejection of the claim in 2016. Document a) contains a website at the foot of each page and, thus, appears to have been downloaded from the internet. The journal in which document b) is found is "An Open Access International Journal". The RAD, therefore, infers that these two documents were reasonably available to the Appellant prior to his RPD hearing. According to documents provided to the RPD, the Appellant has nineteen years of formal education; he holds a Master's Degree from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and completed post-graduate work at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Ontario.6 The RAD, thus, believes that the Appellant is capable of obtaining such information without difficulty and in time to provide as post-hearing evidence. According to the recording of the hearing, the RPD voiced its concern to the Appellant about numerous grammatical and spelling errors on three summonses and a warrant of arrest. The Appellant testified that it was the first time he had seen the summonses and the warrant and he did not know anything about the errors on the face of the documents. The counsel for the Appellant submitted that such errors are common on official documents from Africa but provided no documentary evidence to support this submission. The Appellant provided no explanation in his Memorandum as to why he thought his explanation or his counsel's submissions regarding these errors assuaged the RPD's concerns. Therefore, the Appellant has not provided a satisfactory explanation as to why these documents were not provided post-hearing and before the RPD made its decision three weeks after the hearing. Therefore the evidence fails to meet the test in s 110(4). [19] Even if the RAD were to accept the documents, it would assign little probative value. The RAD's reasons follow. [20] The RAD understands that documents a) and b) have been submitted as evidence to explain the various grammatical and spelling errors found by the RPD on three summonses and one warrant provided by the Appellant at his hearing before the RPD. Document a) states that in Cameroon the English language plays "second fiddle status" to the French language and remains a mere afterthought in the minds of government officials. Apparently it is not uncommon to see the English version, translated from French, have spelling and grammar errors. Similarly, document b) indicates that official documents are drafted in French and if English versions exist they carry "horrible spelling errors". The RAD finds that there is no indication in either document that errors in the French language are found on official documents in Cameroon. The RPD found five errors of grammar, spelling or translation among the summonses and warrant. One was a translation problem: all three summonses had, in words, the year 2015 in French and the year 2014 in English. Four errors were either in spelling or grammar in the French language [RAD's emphasis]. The RAD concludes that documents a) and b) do not explain the errors in the French language found on the summonses and warrant. ROLE OF THE RAD [21] The RAD finds that the recent Federal Court of Appeal decision, in Huruglica7 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: [103] I conclude from my statutory analysis that with respect to findings of fact (and mixed fact and law) such as the one involved here, which raised no issue of credibility of oral evidence, the RAD is to review RPD decisions applying the correctness standard. Thus, after carefully considering the RPD decision, the RAD carries out its own analysis of the record to determine whether, as submitted by the appellant, the RPD erred. Having done this, the RAD is to provide a final determination, either by confirming the RPD decision or setting it aside and substituting its own determination of the merits of the refugee claim. It is only when the RAD is of the opinion that it cannot provide such a final determination without hearing the oral evidence presented to the RPD that the matter can be referred back to the RPD for redetermination. No other interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions is reasonable. [22] As the Appellant pointed out in his appeal, in Huruglica8 the RAD in conducting its assessment can recognize and respect the conclusion of the RPD on such issues as credibility and/or where the RPD enjoys the a particular advantage in reaching such a conclusion but it is not restricted, as an appellant court is, to intervening on facts only where there is a "palpable and overriding error". ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE [23] The RAD will focus on whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings. The Appellant's Oral Testimony The photographs [24] The RPD found that the Appellant could not explain why he let XXXX, his former partner, take pictures when engaging in sexual activities while the Appellant would not even send a text message to his former partners for fear of exposing his sexual orientation. The RPD, thus, drew a negative inference on the Appellant's credibility with regards to the existence of any sexually explicit pictures. The RPD could not find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant was in fact in a relationship with a man named XXXX because of its credibility concerns. [25] The Appellant pleads that he testified that he refrained from indulging in self-incriminating activities that would leave a paper trail that could be used against him. He argues that while photographs were taken by XXXX, he testified that he received assurances that the photographs would be destroyed and he made sure that those contained in the computer were destroyed before he left Cameroon. The Appellant argues further that unfortunately XXXX kept nude photographs without his knowledge or consent. [26] For the following reasons the RAD concurs with the RPD. [27] According to the recording of the hearing, the Appellant was asked if he had any evidence of the one year long-distance relationship he had with XXXX when he relocated to Cyprus. The Appellant was momentarily silent and then testified that he had no evidence. When asked to explain why he had no evidence the Appellant testified he communicated with XXXX via Skype and telephone. Upon being asked if he had no text-messages, the Appellant testified that there were several things he could not write, such as "I love you", so he preferred to talk where no one could hear him. The RPD then asked the Appellant to explain why if it was so dangerous to send text-messages, he took photographs of himself and another man naked. The RAD finds that the Appellant's testimony became equivocal in an attempt to provide an explanation. The RAD finds that while the Appellant attempted to explain how he tried to ensure that the photographs were destroyed when he left Cameroon he did not explain why, when he and XXXX were engaged in sexual intercourse, he allowed photographs to be taken. According to the recording of the hearing, after this testimony the RPD pointed out to the Appellant that he had not explained why he allowed sexually explicit photographs to be taken. The RAD finds that the Appellant again did not provide a satisfactory explanation. The RAD finds the Appellant's behaviour of allowing XXXX to take sexually explicit photographs while fearing using media to communicate with XXXX to be highly contradictory behaviour. The RAD finds that the Appellant's credibility is, thus, seriously undermined. The Appellant's other relationships XXXX XXXX [28] The RPD found the Appellant's testimony regarding his relationship with XXXX XXXX was evasive and not straightforward and was, at times, contradictory. The RPD also found a slight contradiction between the Appellant's oral testimony and his written narrative with regards to the number of months the Appellant knew Mr. XXXX before they became intimate. The RPD found that the Appellant could not provide spontaneous testimony and could not provide specific details as to how he had a two-year same-sex relationship with Mr. XXXX without getting caught. The RPD drew a negative inference on the Appellant's credibility with regards to his relationship with Mr. XXXX. [29] The Appellant pleads that the RPD found it implausible that he could share an intimate relationship with Mr. XXXX for two years in Cameroon without getting caught. The Appellant argues that the RPD was microscopic in its finding regarding the contradiction in his oral testimony and information in his written narrative with respect to the number of months the Appellant knew Mr. XXXX before they became intimate. [30] For the following reasons the RAD agrees with the RPD. [31] The RPD did not make an implausibility finding. The RPD found that the Appellant could not clearly explain how he and Mr. XXXX kept their relationship private. The RPD also acknowledged that the contradiction in information provided by the Appellant regarding the time between meeting Mr. XXXX and him becoming intimate was a slight contradiction. The RAD finds that the RPD provided many valid reasons for finding the Appellant's testimony regarding his relationship with XXXX XXXX not credible. [32] The RAD listened to the recording of the almost three hour hearing. The RAD found the Appellant's testimony about practical matters, such as his post-secondary education, was given in a straightforward and fluid manner without hesitation. However, when the Appellant was asked to provide information about events involving his various alleged same-sex partners, his testimony was given in an uncertain and hesitant manner. Many of his statements were repeated phrases and incomplete sentences. There were numerous times when the Appellant prevaricated and did not answer the question. [33] With regards to the Appellant's testimony about his relationship with Mr. XXXX, the RAD concurs with the RPD. The testimony was evasive and not given in a forthright manner. The RAD finds that at times the Appellant's story regarding his involvement with Mr. XXXX evolved as he testified. For example, the Appellant testified that he did so many things to make sure things were okay before he could decide if Mr. XXXX was gay. The RPD asked the Appellant to give him an example of something he did to decide on the sexuality of Mr. XXXX. The RAD finds that the Appellant's response was disjointed and vague. He testified that everything was changing, that he liked Mr. XXXX and they were together. He testified about reading something to Mr. XXXX. The Appellant eventually settled on testifying that he wanted to be alone with Mr. XXXX and have the opportunity to talk to him. [34] The RAD agrees with the RPD with regards to contradictions in the Appellant's testimony. According to the recording of the hearing, the Appellant testified that he avoided public places such as restaurants and cinemas in order to be alone with Mr. XXXX and to have intimacy. However, when asked where they went in order to be alone, the Appellant hesitated for a short while and then testified that he and Mr. XXXX went to the cinema most of the time. When given the opportunity, the Appellant could not explain the contradiction. The RAD, thus, draws a negative inference with regards to the alleged homosexual relationship between the Appellant and Mr. XXXX. XXXX [35] The RPD found the Appellant's oral testimony regarding his relationship with XXXX, a fellow student in Cypress, contradicted information contained in his Basis of Claim (BOC) form narrative. As a result, the RPD drew a strong negative inference regarding the Appellant's credibility with regards to his same-sex relationships. [36] The Appellant submits that the RPD misunderstood the Appellant's use of the word 'relationship' in regards to XXXX in his written narrative. The Appellant argues that to the RPD 'relationship' with XXXX could only have meant a romantic relationship and not a friendship devoid of sexual activities. [37] For the following reasons, discussed in the following two paragraphs, the RAD agrees with the RPD. [38] The RAD finds the Appellant to be disingenuous when he states that it is the RPD who incorrectly interpreted the word 'relationship' to be an intimate sexual relationship between the Appellant and XXXX. According to the Appellant's BOC form narrative9 he alleges he is a bisexual. The Appellant alleges that his "relationship with XXXX(XXXX) ended in 2002" and his "relationship with XXXX continued until [he] left Cameroon".10 He then alleges that he "entered into another relationship with a fellow student, XXXX".11 (RAD's emphasis) The Appellant's use of the word 'relationship' is such that it is reasonable to interpret the term to mean a homosexual relationship. [39] The RAD found the Appellant's testimony regarding his relationship with XXXX to be vague and contradictory and at times incomprehensible. For example, the Appellant was asked to provide some detail about his relationship with XXXX. He testified that in reality they were not truly in a relationship and that XXXX was more of a friend and nothing really serious happened between them. The RPD then asked the Appellant to explain what he meant in his BOC form when he stated that he had been in a relationship with XXXX. The Appellant testified that there was nothing they could do because they were in the same position, meaning the guy was gay, they were good friends, playing the same game being bisexual. The Appellant eventually testified that he and XXXX had not been in a relationship. When asked why he had stated in his written narrative that he was in a relationship with XXXX, the Appellant testified that he just liked XXXX. The RAD finds the Appellant's explanation unsatisfactory. An important indicator of credibility is whether a witness can consistently tell his particular story.12 The RAD finds that the Appellant could not consistently tell his story and, thus, finds the Appellant's credibility seriously undermined. The Minister's Intervention [40] The Minister intervened with documents that indicate that the Appellant created a profile on a dating site in Quebec, with his photograph and describing himself to be a heterosexual male looking for a heterosexual female.13 [41] The RPD gave the following reasons for finding that on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant had a dating profile in order to meet women in Quebec and is not truly looking to date men in Canada. The RPD did not accept the Appellant's explanation as to why he created the profile on a dating site. The RPD did not accept the Appellant testimony that now he is in Canada he prefers to date men. The RPD found that the Appellant did not disclose in his declaration that he resided in Longueil (Montreal) for three weeks. [42] The Appellant pleads that the RPD erred in its conclusions and failed to consider that the Appellant's evidence clearly shows that he has been trying to keep girlfriends as a way to hide his sexual orientation as a closeted gay man in Cameroon. The Appellant argues that the RPD was microscopic in its finding about his not disclosing his residence in Longueil. The Appellant submits that his accommodation in Longueil was temporary and he, therefore, did not include it because he did not see it as his primary residence. [43] The RAD concurs with the RPD for the following reasons. [44] The Appellant was asked why he had created the profile on a Quebec dating site. The RAD found the Appellant's testimony in this regard to be nonsensical. The Appellant testified in a roundabout and confusing manner that he went to stay with a friend, a Central African man, in Quebec. The Appellant testified that he created the site to disabuse his friend of any notion that he was gay. [45] The RAD appreciates that the Appellant spent three weeks in Longueil and it was a temporary residence. However, the same could be said for the month that the Appellant resided at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Ontario. The RAD notes that the Appellant provided the temporary residence in Kingston in his declaration form.14 On its own, the absence on the declaration form of the short term residence in Quebec might be microscopic. However, the RAD finds this not to be the case when combined with the Appellant's actions of creating a heterosexual profile on a website while in Longueil. The Appellant's actions of creating the heterosexual profile on a dating site contradicts his allegations that he is bisexual and his testimony that he prefers men and prefers to date men now that he is in Canada. The RAD, thus, draws a negative inference regarding the Appellant's allegation that he is bisexual. Delay in claim [46] According to the recording of the hearing, the RPD indicated at the outset of the hearing that delay in claim was an issue. The Appellant was questioned by the RPD and counsel for the Appellant on his reason for delaying his claim for protection. When counsel for the Appellant was preparing to given his oral submissions he clarified with the RPD that delay in claim remained an issue. Counsel for the Appellant provided oral submissions on delay in claim. The RPD did not address the issue of delay in claim in its decision. The RAD, therefore, provided counsel for the Appellant the opportunity to provide written submissions on the issue. [47] The RAD finds that the Appellant's action in delaying making a claim for refugee protection for more than three months does not coincide with the expected actions of an individual who has a subjective fear of returning to Cameroon. The RAD finds that the Appellant's credibility is further undermined. The RAD's reasons follow. [48] According to the recording of the hearing, the Appellant testified that when he received the telephone call from his mother in September 2015 he became fearful for his life in Cameroon. When asked at his hearing why he delayed making a claim in Canada, the Appellant testified that when everything happened he was disturbed and that talking to people was a bit difficult. He testified further that he spent his time researching and discovered it was possible to make a claim for protection. He also testified that he spent time at home thinking and looking into the possibility of obtaining a PhD scholarship. The Appellant also testified that it took him time to organize everything with a lawyer. In written submissions, counsel for the Appellant provided a similar argument. Counsel submits that the Appellant was confused after he received the call from Cameroon on September 7, 2015 and did not know how exactly to go about making a claim, but he immediately initiated the process of seeking refugee protection after he sought and received legal advice.15 The RAD finds these explanations and submissions unsatisfactory. [49] The Appellant is a well-educated man. According to documentary evidence provided by the Appellant, he attained nineteen years of formal education.16 He completed a Bachelor's Degree at the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in 2011, a Master's Degree at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in 2015, and post-graduate work at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in 2015.17 The Appellant has reasonable command of the English language. According to the port of entry (POE) notes the Appellant was interviewed in English and did not request an interpreter.18 He stated that he was able to communicate in English.19 According to the recording of the hearing, the Appellant testified throughout in the English language. The RAD reasonably assumes that while the Appellant was involved in post-graduate work at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Ontario, in the summer of 2015 he was conducting his studies in the English language. [50] In oral submissions, Appellant's counsel submitted that at the time the Appellant learned that his sexual orientation had been disclosed in Cameroon, he was staying with a friend in Quebec and did not wish to disclose his situation to his friend. In written submission, counsel for the Appellant provided a similar argument.20 The RAD respectfully does not accept these submissions. The RAD appreciates that the Appellant may not have wished to disclose his sexual orientation to his friend in Quebec. However, according to the Appellant he resided with his friend for only three weeks in September 2015 and then moved to Toronto. The Appellant did not make his claim for protection until December 2015 [51] Delay has been recognized by the Federal Court as an important factor in assessing a claimant's credibility and subjective fear. It is reasonable to assume a person with a well-founded fear of persecution will attempt to apply for refugee protection without unreasonable delay.21 The RAD finds the delay of more than three months to be substantial in the Appellant's circumstances and undermines his allegation that he faces serious harm in Cameroon if he were to return. While delay in making a refugee claim is not in itself decisive, it is a relevant factor to be considered when assessing the overall viability of the claim.22 [52] With respect to the issue of delay of claim, the RAD has considered further jurisprudence. In the case of Assadi, Nasser-Eddin v. M.C.I., the Court held: "Failure to immediately seek protection can impugn the claimant's credibility, including his or her testimony about events in his country of origin."23 [53] In written submission, counsel for the Appellant argues that when the Appellant made his claim he remained in status in Canada as a temporary residence permit holder and hence, he was not at any time during this period at risk of removal.24 [54] While the RAD appreciates that the Appellant had status in Canada as noted above, jurisprudence provides guidance regarding those with valid temporary status in Canada. In the Nijjer decision, Mr. Justice de Montigny declared: It is trite law that a delay in submitting a refugee protection claim, while not decisive, remains a relevant element that the tribunal may take into account in assessing both the statements and the actions and deeds of a claimant. The claimant knew upon his arrival that he was only authorized to stay in Canada for a specific and limited period of time. Under these circumstances it was reasonable to expect that he would regularize his status as soon as possible if he truly feared for his life and physical integrity in India.25 [55] As a result of the above analysis, the RAD concludes that the Appellant's credibility is seriously compromised. Documents Three Summonses and a Warrant [56] As has been described earlier in this decision, the RPD found a number of grammatical, spelling and translation errors on these official documents. The RPD found on a balance of probabilities, that the three summonses and the warrant to be fraudulent documents manufactured to support the Appellant's refugee claim. [57] The Appellant argues that the documents issued as new evidence reaffirms that it is not unusual to see spelling or grammatical errors appearing on official government documents. [58] For the following reasons the RAD concurs with the RPD. [59] The RAD has stated above that it does not accept the two articles submitted as new evidence and, even if it did, would assign little probative value. [60] The RAD notes that the independent documentary evidence discloses that fraudulent documentary evidence is readily available in Cameroon.26 The RAD finds that documents found to be counterfeit cast doubt on the Appellant's allegations with regards to his sexual orientation. Letters from organization that support sexual minorities [61] The RPD found that the letters from 519 Community Centre and the letter from Black Coalition for AIDS Prevention (Black CAP)27 contained no objective evidence with regards to the Appellant's sexual orientation and gave little weight to the letters. [62] The Appellant argues that the RPD's position is not in line with the evidence provided in the letters. The Appellant submits that the letters confirm his sexual orientation and his participation in LGBT activities. [63] For the following reasons the RAD agrees with the RPD. [64] The letter from 519 Community Centre confirms that the Appellant is a member of the centre and he has been attending weekly support group meetings and related workshops. The letter does not confirm the Appellant's sexual orientation. The RAD notes that this group is not restricted to LGBT individuals and the letter does not overtly identify the Appellant as bisexual or homosexual. The letter confirms only that the Appellant attends various activities at the 519 Community Centre. Therefore, the RAD agrees with the RPD assigning the letter little weight. [65] The letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Refugee Settlement Coordinator at Black Cap, dated February 19, 2016, indicates that the Appellant officially registered with the organization on January 12, 2016. Mr. XXXX states that the Appellant has attended two monthly meetings of the Foreign Integration support group and one Pepper Pot social group. Mr. XXXX states that there is nothing to indicate to him from his experience working with the Appellant that he is not being authentic about his sexuality or his fears of returning to Cameroon. Mr. XXXX also states that he thinks sending the Appellant back home would seriously put his safety and possibly his life at risk. The RAD finds that Mr. XXXX provides no indication as to how he assessed the Appellant's sexuality in the short time the Appellant has been attending Black CAP activities. The RAD reasonably assumes that the opinions of Mr. XXXX are based on self-reported information provided to him by the Appellant. Given that the Appellant lacks credibility on several pivotal elements of his claim, the RAD is unable to conclude that Mr. XXXX opinions hold much weight. Therefore, the RAD gives the letter from Black CAP little weight. In Summary [66] 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 Cameroon are neither credible nor trustworthy. [67] The RAD notes that the Federal Court held in Sheikh 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.28 [68] 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 his allegations lack veracity. When considering the facts and evidence of this case in totality, the RAD finds that the Appellant has failed to establish his sexual identity as a bisexual. The RAD, therefore, finds that there is not a serious possibility of persecution for the Appellant, nor would he be subjected personally, on a balance of probabilities, to a risk to life, a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture, should he return to Cameroon. Accordingly, the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. [69] The Appellant requested that the RAD hold an oral hearing. Since the new evidence submitted by the Appellant was not admitted, the RAD, under 110(6) of the IRPA, is not allowed to conduct an oral hearing. CONCLUSION [70] Based on the analysis above, the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee nor is he a person in need of protection, as per s. 111(1)(a) of IRPA. [71] The appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Lesley Mason" Lesley Mason July 06, 2016 Date 1 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pages 14-21. 2 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, pages 22-30. 3 In the French version of the IRPA, this phrase is instead the equivalent of "normally have been expected;" see Singh, Parminder v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6711-13), Gagné, October 28, 2014, 2014 FC 1022, para 51. 4 Refugee Appeal Division Rules, section 3(3)(g)(iii). 5 Deri, Samuel v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-7050-14), Strickland, September 2, 2015, 2015 FC 1042, para. 55; Singh, Parminder v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-512-14), Nadon, Gauthier, de Montigny, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 96, para. 63. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, page 35, question 7. 7 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 8 Ibid. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD-Record, pages 14-17. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Dan-Ash v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 93 N.R. 33 (F.C.A.). 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD-Record, pages 96-107. 14 Ibid., page 36, question 12. 15 Exhibit P-3, Written submissions. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD-Record, page 35, question 7. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid., at p. 28 19 Ibid., at p. 30. 20 Exhibit P-3. 21 Heer, Karnail Singh v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-474-87), Heald, Marceau, Lacombe, April 13, 1988; Huerta v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1993], 157 N.R. 225 (F.C.A.). 22 Huerta v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 157 N.R. 225 (F.C.A.). 23 Assadi, Nasser-Eddin v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2683-96), Teitelbaum, March 25, 1997. 24 Exhibit P-3 25 Nijjer, Yadwhinder Singh v. MCI (2009 FC 1259), de Montigny J, December 9, 2009, at para 24. 26 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 79-95, National Documentation Package (NDP) Cameroon, July 17, 2015, Item 3.1. 27 Ibid., pages 144-149. 28 Sheikh, Abdulhakim Ali v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-521-89), MacGuigan, Iacobucci, Desjardins, July 4, 1990. Reported: Sheikh v. M.E.I., [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 : TB6-05016