TB8-08461

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-08461 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision August 28, 2019 Date de la décision Panel Cynthia Pay Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Oluwakemi Oduwole Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] This decision is about XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant), a citizen of Antigua and Barbuda. She claims that she faces persecution in Antigua and Barbuda on the basis of domestic violence from her former spouse as well as her claimed sexual orientation as a bisexual woman. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected her claim on the basis of credibility. It found that there were a number of inconsistencies and omissions in her evidence, that she lacked corroboration that would reasonably be expected, and that her oral evidence was often evasive, vague or evolving, which led to a finding that the Appellant was not a credible witness regarding the central allegations of her claim. [2] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred because it was microscopic in its assessment of her credibility, and because it failed to consider all of the evidence before it made its overall credibility finding. She submits new evidence for consideration and requests an oral hearing. After considering her arguments and the evidence, I find that the RPD did not err in its determination, and I uphold its decision that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection. DECISION [3] I dismiss the Appellant's appeal and confirm the RPD's determination pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). BACKGROUND [4] The Appellant is a 34-year-old woman with three children who did not accompany her to Canada. She claims that she faces persecution in Antigua and Barbuda as a result of domestic violence and her sexual orientation as a bisexual woman. She claims that she was abused by her male common-law partner, XXXX, for a number of years. She was also involved in a relationship with a woman, XXXX, which XXXX discovered. She claims that after he discovered this, he beat her and threatened to burn down her home and to expose her sexual orientation. After this incident, the Appellant fled to Canada using a previously obtained visitor's visa. She made a refugee claim here on November 6, 2017, which was heard by the RPD on December 20, 2017 and January 26, 2018. In its reasons dated March 2, 2018, the RPD found that the Appellant was not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. It found that her evidence regarding her claim of domestic violence was inconsistent and evolving, and that her evidence about her claimed sexual orientation was vague, and that she lacked corroboration that would reasonably be expected. [5] The Appellant has now appealed to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). She argues that the RPD erred in its credibility findings by being microscopic; failing to accept her reasonable explanations for any inconsistencies and omissions; and in failing to consider her documentary evidence before making a global credibility finding. ANALYSIS Role of the RAD [6] As held by the Federal Court of Appeal in Huruglica,1 the RAD must review RPD decisions on a correctness standard with respect to questions of law and findings of fact (and mixed fact and law) which raise no issue of the credibility of oral evidence. Deference may be required when the RPD is in an advantageous position with respect to the assessment of evidence. In this appeal, the RPD's findings are based on the Appellant's testimony and the rest of the record, which I could clearly review and understand. I do not find that the RPD was in an advantageous position in assessing this evidence and as a result, I will apply a correctness standard. NEW EVIDENCE [7] Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA provides that the Appellant may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of the claim, that was not reasonably available, or that could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have been presented at the time of the rejection of the claim. If the new evidence meets one of the criteria set out in subsection 110(4), then the RAD may assess its admissibility further based on its credibility, relevance and newness.2 Police report [8] The Appellant has submitted a police report dated XXXX XXXX, 2018 as new evidence for consideration by the RAD.3 This document pre-dates the rejection of the Appellant's claim, but during her RPD hearing she testified that she had been attempting to obtain a police report but that she had not received it yet. During her RPD hearing she also provided an authorization dated XXXX XXXX, 2017 requesting that the police provide her mother with a copy of her police report.4 In the affidavit provided with her appeal, which I will consider with respect to her request that the RAD accept her new evidence, she states that "due to internal administrative issues in the police service, I did not receive the report." [9] Taking the Appellant's evidence regarding her attempts to obtain a police report at face value, it appears that the report was not reasonably available at the time of the rejection of her claim, although I note that it pre-dates the RPD's decision, and she has provided very little explanation for why she could not have submitted before that time, such as how and when she received the report. I also note that the original report has not been provided, as will be discussed further below. Nevertheless, I find that the report meets the criteria for acceptance of new evidence under subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. Letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [10] The Appellant has also submitted a letter from XXXX XXXX, VAW Counsellor at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX dated May 2, 2018.5 The letter confirms that she has attended counselling sessions there since XXXX 2017 and that she was referred to the centre by her lawyer. The letter outlines the Appellant's allegations of domestic violence and being targeted due to her sexual orientation, and states that she reported the abuse to the police, but it was not deemed serious enough to take action beyond mediation. The letter states that she showed signs of "emotional distress" during her counselling sessions. [11] The Appellant states in her affidavit that: Prior to my hearing, I had been attending series of counselling at the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in Toronto. I was supposed to attend six sessions, but I had not completed the sessions before my hearing, so my letter of support could not be issued at that time. I have now received the letter of support having completed the entire counselling session.6 [12] I find that she has not established that this letter meets the criteria for acceptance of new evidence. The letter itself does not mention that she had to attend six counselling sessions in order to obtain a report, or the number of sessions attended. During her hearing, the Appellant was asked by the RPD if she had attempted to obtain other supportive evidence, and she only listed the police report and a job letter. She did not mention her plan to obtain a report from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.7 Further, when asked during the sitting of her hearing on January 26, 2018 if she had sought counselling, she stated no.8 This is inconsistent with her explanation in her affidavit regarding why she did not present the report before the rejection of her claim. I therefore find that she has not established that this letter was not reasonably available to her before the rejection of her claim. I further note, however, that the content of the letter is not particularly probative, as it merely repeats her allegations, and does not provide a diagnosis of a mental health condition. Letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [13] The Appellant has also provided a letter dated XXXX XXXX, 2018 from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.9 This letter confirms that the Appellant is a member of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, including attending a Newcomer Orientation session in November 2017 and weekly group support meetings and workshops. [14] The Appellant states in her affidavit that she recently obtained her letter of support from XXXX XXXX, and I note that it post-dates the rejection of her claim. I find, however that the letter does not meet the criteria for acceptance of new evidence, as she has not established that it was not available to her before the rejection of her claim. As noted in the letter, she attended a Newcomer Orientation session in XXXX 2017 and attended meetings after that. She did not state that she was attempting to obtain this letter during her hearing,10 nor is there any explanation why this letter was unavailable before the rejection of her claim. I note, however, that confirmation of her attendance at XXXX XXXX Newcomer Orientation session was already before the RPD and forms part of the record, so the letter would not add much to the evidentiary record.11 Oral hearing [15] Section 110(6) of the IRPA provides that the RAD may hold an oral hearing if there is documentary evidence that raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the person who is the subject of the appeal; that is central to the decision with respect to the refugee protection claim; and that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. [16] I have admitted the police report submitted by the Appellant. As I will explain below, the report does contribute to my credibility findings, but these are not determinative of her claim on their own. The report might have been determinative if state protection was the deciding factor in her claim, but that is not the case, as credibility is the determinative issue in this appeal. As a result, I find that the documentary evidence accepted does not meet the criteria set out in subsection 110(6) of the IRPA for an oral hearing, as it would not justify allowing or rejecting her claim. As a result, I cannot hold an oral hearing. a) Did the RPD err in its credibility findings? [17] The RPD found that Appellant was not credible as there were inconsistencies and omissions in her evidence, there was a lack of expected corroboration, and that she was evasive and evolving when confronted with these issues. The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in being microscopic, failing to consider her reasonable explanations for the credibility issues, and in requiring corroboration. [18] Based on my review of the Appellant's arguments and the record, I find that there are numerous credibility concerns that arise from the Appellant's evidence which diminish the credibility of her claim of persecution. I agree with the RPD that there are many inconsistencies in her evidence and that her testimony was often evolving, and that these concerns cumulatively diminish the credibility of her allegations. [19] In making my credibility findings, I consider the provisions of Chairperson's Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression ("SOGIE Guideline").12 As provided in the Guideline, at para. 7.5, cases dealing with individuals with diverse SOGIE are no different from other cases, and decision-makers may draw a negative inference from material inconsistencies or contradictions in the evidence but should also consider if there are cultural, psychological or other facts that may reasonably explain them, or if there are reasons related to the stigma of their SOGIE identity that contributed to the inconsistency, or if they are based on stereotypes. In the Appellant's case, however, I find that the inconsistency findings are neutral inconsistencies stemming from the Appellant's evidence, such as significant inconsistencies in her timelines, and that these inconsistencies do not relate to issues of stigma and stereotypes. [20] Further, as the Appellant's claim also relates to gender-related persecution, I have considered Chairperson's Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution (Gender Guideline).13 Based on my review of the transcript of the hearing and the RPD reasons, I saw nothing in the way the hearing was conducted or the decision that indicates any error in relation to the Gender Guideline. The questions and findings do not appear to be based on any myths or stereotypes about violence against women. Inconsistencies regarding the Appellant's claims regarding domestic violence [21] The principal Appellant claims in her Basis of Claim (BOC) form that she met her ex-boyfriend, XXXX XXXX (XXXX), in 2006 at her job at XXXX XXXX XXXX. She claims that they moved in together shortly after, but that after a number of years, he began to abuse her. Later, she began a relationship with a female co-worker, XXXX. She claims that he discovered this relationship by seeing texts between her and XXXX on the Appellant's cell phone on XXXX XXXX, 2017. She alleges that he then beat her, cut her in the face with a knife, threatened to kill her, and to expose her sexual orientation. As a result she obtained medical treatment, and also reported this to the police who "as usual" did not take her seriously.14 She decided to flee Antigua and Barbuda to Canada as a result of his threats. [22] The RPD found a number of inconsistencies in her evidence about these allegations, and the Appellant argues that it erred in its findings, as it was microscopic in its analysis, and that some of the inconsistencies were based on misunderstandings or minor mistakes. [23] Based on my review of the Appellant's arguments and the evidence, I find that there are a number of inconsistencies in her evidence that, while in isolation might be relatively minor or possibly based on a mistake, cumulatively have the impact of significantly reducing the credibility of her allegations and overall credibility. Discrepancies in the timeline of domestic violence [24] As outlined above, the Appellant states in her BOC narrative that she became involved with XXXX in 2006 when she started work at XXXX XXXX XXXX, and he moved in with her shortly after. She states that the relationship was "perfect" at first, but "after a number of years" XXXX became abusive and violent. [25] The RPD found that the Appellant was inconsistent and evolving in her evidence regarding the timeline of the alleged domestic violence. When asked during her hearing when the abuse began, the Appellant initially testified that "as years go by, like couple years, he started to get like abusive." When asked if she could remember the first time he had assaulted her, the Appellant testified that it was in 2007, which was the year after she claimed that their relationship began. She testified that he injured her mouth, and that she had obtained treatment from her doctor, Dr. XXXX, for this injury. Dr. XXXX states in her report, however, that the Appellant had only been her patient for six years; i.e., starting in approximately 2011. When asked to clarify the inconsistencies in her evidence regarding when the abuse began, the Appellant stated that it was a misunderstanding. Regarding the inconsistency about the timeline between her claim that she had treatment in 2007 from Dr. XXXX XXXX, and the fact that Dr. XXXX XXXX stated that she only became a patient in 2011, four years later, the RPD found that the Appellant changed her evidence and stated that she did not get treatment in 2007. The RPD found that the Appellant was inconsistent and provided evolving testimony, and drew a negative inference as a result. [26] The Appellant argues that the RPD is being microscopic in this analysis, and that the inconsistency regarding the first time XXXX assaulted her was a misunderstanding between the first time she was assaulted and the first time she was seriously hurt and had to get treatment, which were different dates. [27] Based on my review of her testimony, I disagree with the Appellant's argument. She states very clearly in her BOC and in her testimony that the abuse started a few years after their relationship began in 2006. When asked about when the abuse began, she gave contradictory evidence as follows: PRESIDING MEMBER: When did, when did that change? CLAIMANT: As the years go by, like a couple of years he started to get like abusive. PRESIDING MEMBER: So do you remember the first time he hit you? CLAIMANT: The first time he hit me I was at home. PRESIDING MEMBER: Do you remember when that happened? CLAIMANT: In 2007. PRESIDING MEMBER: What happened on that occasion? CLAIMANT: Like how it happened? PRESIDING MEMBER: Mm-hmm. CLAIMANT: We had an argument and I talked a bad word to him and he hit me.15 [28] She then went on to testify that she had obtained treatment from Dr. XXXX XXXX after this incident. When asked about the inconsistency in when the abuse began she said it was a "misunderstanding," and changed her evidence to say that the assault did not take place in 2007, and it was "a few years after he beat me."16 Later, when asked about the discrepancy in dates regarding when she claimed she had treatment from Dr. XXXX XXXX, in 2007, and when she began to see her as a patient, in approximately 2011, she testified that XXXX did assault her in 2007, but that she did not go to the doctor.17 [29] I disagree with the Appellant's submission that these inconsistencies are minor or microscopic. The claim of domestic violence is a central allegation in the Appellant's claim, and evidence when the abuse began is central and significant. The discrepancies are not a matter of weeks or even months, but of years. I agree with the RPD that the Appellant was inconsistent regarding when the alleged domestic violence began, and that her evidence changed and evolved when confronted with these inconsistencies, and that this significantly reduces the credibility of her allegation of domestic violence. [30] There were other inconsistencies in the Appellant's evidence regarding the timelines and evidence of her relationship with XXXX which further diminish the credibility of her allegations. She states in her BOC and testimony that she started working at XXXX XXXX XXXX in 2006, but her Schedule A forms indicate that she began working there in 2007. She did not list the address where she allegedly lived with XXXX for 11 years on her Schedule A form. She claims in her BOC and testimony that XXXX discovered her text messages and assaulted her on XXXX XXXX, 2017, which precipitated her departure from Antigua and Barbuda, but XXXX states in her support letter that this took place in XXXX.18 [31] The Appellant argues that these inconsistencies are minor and explainable mistakes. She states that her mind was not functioning well at the airport when she provided information on her forms, and that she didn't know it was important to put all of her addresses on the form, and just put her recent address, and that it was an honest mistake. [32] I disagree with the Appellant's argument, and find that, although small mistakes in dates or filling in a form can be based on a mistake or misunderstanding, the number of inconsistencies are significant and detract from her credibility, especially given the fact that she made other amendments to her Schedule A form with the help of her legal representative. [33] Further, I make this finding in the context of additional inconsistencies in the Appellant's evidence regarding her claim of domestic violence. In her interview with immigration officials on October 28, 2017, she states that the first time her ex-boyfriend threatened her was in XXXX 2017,19 and later stated that he started beating her in the last three years,20 both of which are inconsistent with her claim in her BOC and testimony that it took place a few years after 2006, when they first got together. In making these findings, I consider the Gender Guideline, but I do not find that these inconsistencies relate to any gender stereotypes, or could be caused by the Appellant's fear or reticence in discussing gender-related violence, or because they were given at the port of entry. Her interview took place on October 28, 2017, almost two weeks after her arrival in Canada on October 15, 2017,21 and after she had the benefit of legal advice, as she reports that by the time she returned to the airport to make her claim on October 26, 2017, she had met with her lawyers, who she reports advised her "to take the papers and make the claim...they told me to come back to the airport and make the claim here."22 Even though she claimed during her hearing that this inconsistency was because she was nervous and emotional at the airport, I reject this explanation, because as noted above, she returned to the airport almost two weeks after her arrival and did the interview after the benefit of legal advice. Inconsistencies regarding the police response [34] I also note that there are inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the Appellant's interactions with the police in Antigua and Barbuda, and that this further damages the credibility of her allegations of domestic violence. In her BOC narrative, the Appellant states that she reported XXXX abuse to the police a number of times, "but they never really helped me."23 In her testimony, she says that she reported XXXX abuse to the police "a number of times" but that "they just said they were going to talk to him but they never did."24 The Appellant's sister Crystal and her alleged same-sex partner Kadian both state in their letters that the police did not help her. XXXX said that the police only warned XXXX after she reported the abuse to them,25 and XXXX says that nothing was done by the police.26 In contrast, however, the police report states that reports of abuse were investigated and that charges had been laid against him. It states that XXXX was warned by the police on XXXX XXXX, 2017, but in response to a second report on XXXX XXXX, 2017 he was arrested and charged. When the matter came up before the court, the report states that "the applicant requested not to proceed any further with the matter. Hence the case was withdrawn." The letter states that another report was made on XXXX XXXX, 2017 and that a search was made for the suspect but that he had not been found, and the matter is still under investigation. [35] I find that these accounts of the police involvement in the alleged abuse are inconsistent. I do not have the original copy of the police report, and as outlined above, the Appellant has provided no information regarding how she obtained the report from Antigua and Barbuda; for example, whether her mother obtained the report and if so, when she obtained it, and how it was sent to her and corroborating information about how it was received such as a courier envelope. I find that this makes it difficult to assess the authenticity of the report. I find that the significant inconsistencies in the accounts of the involvement of the police further reduce the credibility of the Appellant's allegations regarding domestic violence. [36] I find that all of these inconsistencies undermine the credibility of the Appellant's claim regarding domestic violence. Inconsistencies regarding the Appellant's claims regarding her sexual orientation [37] In addition to her claim regarding domestic violence, the Appellant claims that she is bisexual, and faces persecution in Antigua and Barbuda as a result of her sexual orientation. The RPD found that her evidence of her claimed same-sex relationships was vague, that she lacked corroboration of her allegations that would be reasonably expected, and that her evidence regarding why she lacked this corroborating evidence was evolving. The Appellant argues that the RPD erred, as she provided a reasonable explanation regarding the lack of corroborating evidence, and that the RPD ignored the letter from XXXX, which was corroborative of her alleged same-sex relationship and allegations. [38] Based on my review of the record and the Appellant's arguments, I find that the RPD did not err in finding that there were credibility issues regarding her claimed sexual orientation and allegations that she faces persecution as a result. [39] The RPD found that the Appellant was vague and evasive when testifying about her alleged same-sex relationships. She provided little detail about how her claimed relationships with XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX began, which the RPD found to reduce the credibility of her allegations. [40] The Appellant does not challenge this specific finding, despite a heading in her memorandum referring to her "alleged vague and evasive answers" regarding her allegations of domestic violence and sexual orientation. Based on my review of her testimony, I see no basis to find that the RPD erred in this finding, and agree with the RPD that her evidence regarding how the relationships began was vague and lacking in specific detail, which reduced the credibility of these accounts. When asked about how her relationship started with XXXX, for example, she appeared to have difficulty in explaining how the relationship became romantic, and I agree with the RPD that her answers were vague, and she appeared to be evading the question: PRESIDING MEMBER: Then at what point - how did the two of you decide? Did you decide to be in the relationship together? CLAIMANT: Well yes. PRESIDING MEMBER: How did you decide that? CLAIMANT: How did I decide to be in a relationship with her? PRESIDING MEMBER: How did the two of you decide? CLAIMANT: We started having feelings for one another. PRESIDING MEMBER: So who - how did you speak about that? CLAIMANT: We - how we spoke about our relationship or the feelings? I don't understand? PRESIDING MEMBER: Your feelings because you're - I'm just trying to understand. So the two of you are friends, you spent a lot of time together and then you have these feelings for each other. So how did that - how did you let each other know that you had feelings such that you wanted to have a relationship? CLAIMANT: We were just together. I don't understand. PRESIDING MEMBER: I guess I'm just trying to understand, so the two of you are friends one day and then after some time --- CLAIMANT: Yeah. So you want to know how we got together? PRESIDING MEMBER: Yeah, like how did it evolve other than - I understand that you have feelings for each other and that she started having sexual conversations but how do two people go from just being friends to being in a romantic relationship? There had to have been a conversation or something would have happened, you know, for that turning point? CLAIMANT: Okay. It was after school when we normally met up, we would talk, have a conversation and then we decided to be together. Then the relationship begins there. I told her I was in love with her and she accepted that. Then we started the relationship there.27 I am mindful of the provisions of the SOGIE Guideline, and the fact that claimants may feel stigma in discussing their sexual orientation, but in this case I agree with the RPD that the Appellant's answers appear to be vague and evasive. [41] The RPD also found that there was a lack of expected corroboration of her relationship with XXXX and its alleged discovery by XXXX, and that her testimony was evolving on this issue. The Appellant claims that she was texting with XXXX, which was discovered by XXXX on her phone on XXXX XXXX, 2017, which led him to beat and threaten her. This was a central event in her narrative, and the event that purportedly caused her to flee to Canada. The RPD asked the Appellant if she had copies of these texts, the Appellant testified that she didn't have that phone anymore. She was asked when she didn't have the phone anymore, and answered that it was "sometime in XXXX." When the RPD asked what happened to it, she said "the phone, I don't - it mashed up." The RPD asked how that happened and the Appellant first answered that "the screen broke and everything just started malfunctioning." When asked how that happened, the Appellant then said that XXXX flung the phone down after he saw the messages, and it started to malfunction.28 When asked why she didn't say this right at the beginning when the member asked what had happened to the phone, the Appellant answered "sorry about that."29 When asked if she had obtained copies of the text messages from XXXX phone, the Appellant said she had not because she had not thought of that and didn't know that the RPD would have needed it.30 As a result, the RPD found that the Appellant had omitted this significant allegation from her BOC, where it was not mentioned, as well as that her testimony evolved in response to its questions. Further, that she failed to make efforts to obtain reasonably available evidence as corroboration of these allegations, as she had been recently in touch with XXXX, and did not provide copies of the texts, even though this concern was raised at the first sitting in December 2017, and no copies were disclosed at the second sitting five weeks later on January 26, 2018. [42] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in this finding, as she did explain in detail what happened to the phone when asked, and she provided a letter of support from XXXX, so it was reasonable that she did not get a copy of the texts as well. [43] I disagree with the Appellant's arguments, and find that the RPD did not err in its findings. I agree with the RPD that the omission from her BOC and earlier testimony of the alleged destruction of her cell phone in the pivotal incident in her claim is significant and damaging to the credibility of her allegations regarding her sexual orientation, and that her evidence on this point was evolving, as set out above, and only provided when the RPD questioned the Appellant regarding why she had not provided copies of the text messages that led her to flee Antigua and Barbuda. Even if the Appellant provided a support letter from XXXX, she had been put on notice that the lack of corroborating copies of text messages was significant, but no copies were provided to the RPD at the second sitting of her hearing, or to the RAD in her appeal. [44] I find that the Appellant's vague testimony, and lack of effort to obtain reasonably available corroborating evidence, are both detrimental to the credibility of her claimed sexual orientation and allegation that it has been exposed. b) Did the RPD err in its consideration of the Appellant's documentary evidence? [45] The RPD made a general credibility finding that the Appellant was not credible based on the credibility concerns discussed above, which it found to be central to her claim. It stated that it had considered the Appellant's documentary evidence, but found that it was insufficient to establish her claim or to outweigh the cumulative credibility concerns it had already identified. [46] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its assessment of her documentary evidence, as it did not consider the totality of her evidence before it made a global credibility finding. She argues that her support letters confirm her allegations that she will face persecution on the basis of her sexual orientation, and that she was also a victim of domestic abuse at the hands of XXXX. [47] I agree that the RPD erred because, although it stated that it had considered the Appellant's documentary evidence, it failed to demonstrate this through providing specific reasons that this evidence did not overcome its other credibility concerns. Nevertheless, I am able to review the Appellant's documentary evidence, and based on my independent review, find that this evidence does not overcome the credibility concerns discussed above. Letter from the Appellant's sister, XXXX XXXX [48] The Appellant provided a letter of support from her sister, XXXX XXXX (XXXX). This letter is handwritten and includes the signature and stamp of a Notary Public, but does not include a jurat and is not a sworn statement. This letter alludes to a history of childhood sexual abuse by the Appellant's father and reports that this history stigmatized the Appellant. It states that she has been dating XXXX for five to six years and that the relationship became abusive after people began to tell him about her history. She reports that the police didn't handle the Appellant's report properly and only warned XXXX, and then he began to stalk her. She also states that the Appellant is gay and that her sexual orientation will cause scorn and stigma for her.31 [49] I find that there are a number of credibility concerns with XXXX letter that lead me to accord it limited weight. First, I note that there are a number of inconsistencies in XXXX account. She states that the Appellant was dating XXXX only for five or six years, but this is inconsistent with the Appellant's evidence that she was in a relationship with XXXX since 2006. Further, XXXX states that the police only warned XXXX, which is inconsistent with the police report provided by the Appellant, which states that he had been charged but that the Appellant requested that the charges be dropped. As noted by the RPD, the letter mentions stalking, which was not mentioned by the Appellant in her narrative or testimony. The Appellant argues that this omission is inconsequential, as she mentioned the more serious threats of such as a threat to kill her and burn down her house. I disagree with this argument, as the RPD specifically asked the Appellant during her hearing if there were other allegations and she said there were not. I do not accept the Appellant's explanation that she didn't know that she had to mention this, as she was clearly asked if XXXX did anything else to interfere with her life, and the Appellant answered no.32 For these reasons, I give XXXX letter limited weight. Letter from the Appellant's mother, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [50] The Appellant provided a letter from her mother, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(XXXX). This letter was hand-written by XXXX, as XXXX is unable to read and write. Similar to XXXX letter, it includes the signature and stamp of a Notary Public, but does not include a jurat and is not a sworn statement. XXXX letter largely focuses on the allegation that the Appellant was a survivor of childhood sexual abuse by her father and the impact of this abuse on the Appellant, which is not part of her claim. It mentions that the Appellant is trying "to get away from her ex-boyfriend because of the fear of abuse" but provides no further details about her allegations of domestic violence. Her claimed sexual orientation is not mentioned.33 [51] I accord this letter limited weight, as the sentence quoted above is the only mention of the Appellant's allegations, and it adds no other detail. It does not outline how the mother is aware of the Appellant's allegation of fear of abuse by XXXX; for example, did she witness the abuse, or was she told by the Appellant? Further, as noted above, the letter is not a sworn statement. Copy of email from XXXX XXXX [52] The Appellant provided an email from XXXX XXXX(XXXX), a friend and co-worker of the Appellant now living in Canada.34 This email states that XXXX was aware of the Appellant's claimed sexual orientation, her relationship with XXXX and domestic violence by XXXX. [53] I give this email limited weight. It consists of a print-out of an email that was sent from a gmail account and forwarded a number of times. It is not a sworn statement. Further, the email alleges that the Appellant is now being persecuted because her sexual orientation has been exposed, including being called nasty names and that most of her friends and ex-boyfriend's family members have nothing to do with her. I find that these allegations have not been mentioned by the Appellant in her narrative or during her over four-hour hearing, and find that this omission reduces the credibility of this statement. Letter from XXXX XXXX [54] The Appellant provided a letter dated November 13, 2017 from XXXX, her alleged same-sex partner. This letter states that they met in 2006 when they worked together at XXXX XXXX XXXX, where their relationship grew being more than just friends. It states that XXXX is aware that the XXXX became abusive and that he beat her badly after discovering their cell phone text conversations. [55] I give this letter limited weight. It is not sworn, and no evidence is provided regarding how the letter was obtained by the Appellant, or to support XXXX identity. There are a number of inconsistencies in the letter, including XXXX statement that the Appellant reported XXXX abuse to the police but that "nothing was done," which is inconsistent with the police report, which states that XXXX was arrested and charged. The letter also states that XXXX learned about their relationship in XXXX, which is inconsistent with the Appellant's evidence that this took place on XXXX XXXX, 2017. As XXXX letter was purportedly written on November 13, 2017, I find that the inconsistency in this date of such a significant and recent event to be detrimental to the credibility of this statement. Letter from XXXX XXXX [56] The Appellant provided a support letter from XXXX XXXX(XXXX), a woman from Antigua and Barbuda who is now in Canada.35 This letter is hand-written and unsworn. It states that she is a friend of the Appellant's from work and that she was aware of the Appellant's relationship with XXXX and that her boyfriend XXXX was abusive. She states that she encouraged her to apply for her visa to come to Canada to get away for a while, and that after the Appellant arrived in Canada, she told her about the refugee process. [57] I find that there are a number of inconsistencies between XXXX letter and the other evidence, and give it limited weight. XXXX states in her letter that rumours were circulating around the XXXX where they worked that the Appellant and XXXX were involved sexually. This was not mentioned by the Appellant in her evidence, and I find that this is a significant omission/contradiction. XXXX also states that she encouraged her to apply for a visa to come to Canada to get away from the abuse. The Appellant stated in her narrative that after the incident on XXXX XXXX, 2017 she contacted her friend XXXX, who said she was going to help her to come to Canada. The Appellant states that "I then went ahead, did my visa and got through."36 This contradicted XXXX letter, as well as the information in the record, which indicates that the Appellant applied for her visa to Canada before this date, as the invitation letter she used in support of her visa application is dated XXXX XXXX, 2017,37 and her visa was issued on XXXX XXXX, 2017. When confronted with this contradiction during the hearing, the Appellant stated that she was planning to come for a vacation when she initially applied for a visa.38 I find that this does not explain the contradictions in the various accounts of when and why she applied for a visa to travel to Canada, and that these contradictions diminish the credibility of her allegations. Letter from Dr. XXXX XXXX [58] The Appellant provided a letter from Dr. XXXX XXXX dated December 7, 2017.39 The letter states that she came to her office on XXXX XXXX, 2017 "alleged to have been beaten up by her significant other with superficial lacerations and bruises to the face," and that she had been to her office on other occasions for the same issue. [59] As discussed above, a number of inconsistencies arose from this letter, including an inconsistency regarding when the alleged abuse began and when the Appellant sought treatment for injuries resulting from the abuse. I find that these inconsistencies diminish the credibility of the Appellant's allegations. Further, the injuries listed in the letter from the alleged XXXX XXXX, 2017 incident are inconsistent with the Appellant's account in her narrative, where she states that XXXX "cut me in my face with a knife burst my mouth up."40 In her testimony, she stated that Dr. XXXX XXXX had given her approximately three stitches and medication as a result of this assault,41 which is inconsistent with the report, which lists "superficial lacerations and bruises." I find that these inconsistencies diminish the credibility of the Appellant's allegations regarding the alleged XXXX XXXX, 2017 incident. Evidence of attendance at XXXX XXXX Newcomer Orientation [60] The Appellant provided a copy of a form from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX confirming her attendance at a Newcomer Orientation session on XXXX XXXX, 2017 from 4 to 6 p.m.42 She argues that the RPD erred in failing to mention this document in its reasons. [61] I agree that the RPD did not mention this form, but I find that it did not significantly err in doing so. Based on my review of the form, I find that it is not particularly probative regarding the Appellant's allegations. It confirms that she attended a two-hour orientation session regarding programs for LGBTQ communities. While this document is somewhat relevant, it is of limited assistance in proving the Appellant's allegations. Summary of finding regarding the Appellant's documentary evidence [62] While I agree that the RPD should have provided reasons regarding its analysis of the Appellant's supportive documentation, based on my review of the documents, I find that they are of limited assistance in proving the Appellant's allegations regarding domestic violence and sexual orientation, and in some cases further diminish the credibility of these allegations because of inconsistencies and omissions as discussed above, and I find that they cannot overcome the other credibility issues previously outlined. CONCLUSION [63] On the basis of the findings outlined above, I dismiss the Appellant's appeal, and confirm the determination of the RPD pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. (signed) "Cynthia Pay" Cynthia Pay August 28, 2019 Date 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 2 Raza, Syed Masood v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-11-07), Linden, Sharlow, Ryer, December 6, 2007, 2007 FCA 385, cited in Singh, Parminder v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-512-14), Nadon, Gauthier, de Montigny, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 96, at para. 64. 3 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 46. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 5, p. 180. 5 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 48. 6 Ibid., p. 20. 7 Transcript of RPD Hearing, December 20, 2017, p. 6. 8 Transcript of RPD Hearing, January 26, 2018, p. 17. 9 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 50. 10 Transcript, December 20, 2017, p. 6. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 5, p. 167. 12 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), Chairperson's Guideline 9: Proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression, May 1, 2017. 13 Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Update, Guideline Issued by the Chairperson Pursuant to Subsection 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 25, 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. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 2, pp. 25 to 26. 15 Transcript of RPD Hearing, December 20, 2017, p. 27. 16 Transcript of RPD Hearing, December 20, 2017, p. 29. 17 Transcript of RPD Hearing, December 20, 2017, p. 30. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 5, p. 165. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 1, p. 54. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 1, p. 57. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 1, p. 93. 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 1, p. 89. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 2, p. 25. 24 Transcript of RPD Hearing, December 20, 2017, p. 43. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 6, p. 225. 26 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 5, p. 165. 27 Transcript of RPD Hearing, December 20, 2017, pp. 11 to 12. 28 Transcript of RPD Hearing, December 20, 2017, p. 22. 29 Ibid. 30 Transcript of RPD Hearing, December 20, 2017, p. 23. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 6, pp. 221 to 229. 32 Transcript of RPD Hearing, December 20, 2019, p. 42. 33 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 5, pp. 204 to 210. 34 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, pp. 212-213. 35 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, pp. 168-170. 36 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 2, p. 26. 37 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 1, p. 104. 38 Transcript of RPD Hearing, December 20, 2017, p. 44. 39 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, p. 166. 40 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 2, p. 26. 41 Transcript of RPD Hearing, December 20, 2019, p. 39. 42 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, p. 167. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-08461 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2018) Disponible en français 22 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 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français