VB9-05747

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VB9-05747 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered at Montreal, QC Appel instruit à Date of decision October 13, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Michel Colin Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Amado Alexis Garcia Claros Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant) is a citizen of Togo. [2] He fears his father as well as complicit politicians and security forces who attacked and threatened him because he publicly denounced voodoo practises and the government's corruption shortly after converting to Christianity in 2014 and refused to follow in his father's footsteps as a voodoo priest. [3] While the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) believed that the Appellant is today a Christian, that his father is a voodoo priest and that the latter has ties to members of government and security forces, it found these facts alone are insufficient to support an asylum claim as documentary evidence indicates that Christians represent 48% of the Togolese population and that Christianity and Voodoo easily mix in that country. [4] It found him not to be credible regarding central elements of his claim including his conversion to Christianity in 2014, principally because of omissions and contradictions with statements made in the asylum claim previously filed in the United States of America. These include the failure to mention in the American claim a friend who played a capital role in his introduction to Christianity, allegedly killed because the Appellant had revealed to him that his father practised human sacrifices to assist government members. The American claim made no mention of the Appellant ever being targeted by government authorities or his role as public predicator and, furthermore, placed him outside of Togo at the time of the alleged events. [5] The RPD found further inconsistencies concerning a knife attack by his father and actions that he took following his friend's death. The fact that the Appellant omitted from his Basis of Claim (BOC) form any mention that he was baptized on a beach in XXXX 2014, taking no precautions to ensure his safety, although he was allegedly hiding at that time, also impugned his credibility. [6] Finally, the RPD found that the Appellant's reliance on mental confusion and memory problems to address these questions was inadequately supported by documentary evidence. [7] In his memorandum the Appellant essentially submits that the RPD overemphasized the alleged omission of mentioning his friend in the American asylum claim and that his activities in the church have far more significant weight for him than the persecution of the persons who brought him to Christianity. The RPD failed to consider or give any weight to the declarations he made in the church about his father's and the members of the government's and police force's human sacrifice activities. He adds that he gave his testimony in the United States in French to a French-speaking cellmate to which he spoke about this friend's involvement, but for some unknown reason it was not included in his American asylum claim. As he does not speak English, he was unable to notice the omissions. He submits for consideration as new evidence a Psychological Evaluation Report which diagnoses him with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) with dissociative symptoms which were likely most acute during his hospitalization in Togo and during his period of incarceration in the United States. Finally, he submits that his lacerations, repeated rape in Brazil and amputation of his fingers due to frostbite in Canada are contributing factors to his trauma. He also submits that the RPD erred when stating that he went to be baptized on a public beach while in hiding, explaining that this beach is a private one, separated by a wall, explicitly used by churches for baptisms. [8] The determinative issue for the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) is credibility. [9] I find the Psychological Evaluation Report submitted to not be legally admissible as new evidence before the RAD. The RPD did not err by overemphasizing omissions and contradictions in the American asylum claim nor by failing to consider or give any weight to the declarations he made in the church about his father's and the members of the government's and police force's human sacrifice activities. It did not err by failing to consider that the beach where he was baptized was secluded. I do not find the Appellant to be credible because of omissions and contradictions between his allegations and those found in his American asylum claim, further contradictions between his testimony and his BOC form, others resulting from declarations that he made in his immigration documents, all of which impugn his credibility concerning his principal allegations and actions incompatible with his fear. In such circumstances, asylum cannot be granted. DECISION [10] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. NEW EVIDENCE The evidence presented by the Appellant is rejected [11] According to the law,1 I can only accept evidence that: i. arose after the RPD decision; or ii. was not reasonably available at the time of the decision; or iii. that the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to bring to the RPD before the decision. [12] If the evidence meets one or more of these requirements, I must decide if the evidence is new, credible, and relevant before I can accept it.2 [13] The Appellant submits for consideration as new evidence a Psychological Evaluation Report which diagnoses him with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (XXXX) with XXXX XXXX. Although this report is dated after the RPD decision, it nevertheless provides evidence of a condition which existed prior it. This evidence did not therefore arise after the RPD decision. [14] The Appellant does not explain why this report was not commissioned, prepared, and filed prior to his hearing, once the Minister intervened alleging the major inconsistencies with his American asylum claim. He does not explain why he did not petition the RPD to suspend its decision until such time as this report could be obtained. Hence, he has not explained why such evidence was not reasonably available at the time of the decision or why he could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to bring to the RPD before then, especially since the allegation of trauma was repeatedly referred to throughout the hearing. As none of the conditions of subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) are met, I cannot accept this document as new evidence. [15] This in no way precludes me from considering his testimony that he had suffered trauma as I will do later hereunder. ANALYSIS [16] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.3 [17] The Appellant submits that the RPD overemphasized the alleged omission of mentioning his friend in the American asylum claim. He explains that he gave his testimony in the United States in French to a French-speaking cellmate to which he spoke about this friend's involvement, but for some unknown reason was not included in his American asylum claim. As he does not speak English, he was unable to notice the omissions prior to signing the American asylum claim documents. [18] While the RPD accepted as do I that the Appellant is today a Christian, questions as to who introduced him, when and where, are important for several reasons. The first, in my opinion, is whether the Appellant was altogether in Togo in 2014 (but rather in Benin), when he converted to Christianity, spoke publicly and was threatened and harmed since he was not in that country at that time according to his American asylum claim. This reason already suffices to warrant a close examination of the circumstances under which the Appellant converted in 2014. [19] According to his testimony, no one other than this friend introduced him to Christianity which further contradicts his American asylum claim which says that he was introduced to Christianity when passing by a group of preachers. Also, according to his BOC form, it was because of this friend's death that he felt compelled to denounce satanic practices publicly at church and to officially convert on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2014. This presents a new contradiction which is totally independent of his American asylum claim since he testified that he converted prior to his friend's death. In essence, all questions pertaining to this friend raise credibility issues as to who introduced him to Christianity: this friend or a group passing by; where: in Togo or abroad; and when: before or after the friend's death. I do not agree that the RPD overemphasized this question. [20] As for the explanation provided that he signed the American asylum claim in English, a language that he does not understand, I find that, in all fairness, it needs to be considered along with his testimony that he was under significant stress resulting from various difficulties he suffered, despite the fact that the Psychological Evaluation Report is not admitted. I do not dispute the fact that the Appellant was raped in Brazil 4 almost one year prior to his arrival and detention in the United States, that he had problems while on the journey between Brazil and the United States, and that detention itself in that latter country were all likely sources of significant stress. [21] However, I find that both stress and the language barrier adequately explain the numerous omissions and contradictions which result from the American asylum claim. These are not solely limited to the failure to refer to this friend. They also include, as mentioned earlier, the allegation that he was not even in Togo in 2014 and that he was introduced to Christianity by a group, rather than one individual. They further include, the failure to mention that he suffered, feared, and was threatened with physical harm other than voodoo spells, the fact that he denounced satanic rituals in a church, that police tried to kidnap him, or that he fears police and government authorities altogether. Furthermore, the Appellant never modified his BOC form to explain the reasons for all of these inconsistencies once they were brought to light by the Minister's intervention. Finally, as correctly noted by the RPD, the American asylum claim is internally consistent. I might add that it is internally consistent with the allegation that he only fears voodoo spells. [22] All of this cannot be validly explained by the submission that the Appellant told his story to a cellmate and that "somehow" this did not make it into his American asylum claim. I find, as the RPD correctly did, that all these inconsistencies, seriously undermine the Appellant's credibility. [23] As part of my independent analysis, I will address further the question of contradictory evidence regarding whether the Appellant was in Togo at the time when the events allegedly occurred. I have already mentioned that according to the American asylum claim, he was in Benin in 2014. According to that claim, he was in that country for over one year from XXXX 2013 to XXXX 2014 and then for another XXXX months in Equatorial Guinea. However, there are other contradictions in declarations made by the Appellant in Canada. [24] Indeed, according to questions 8 and 12 of Annexe A (Schedule A) which he completed in French, the Appellant was in Togo until XXXX 2014, thus contradicting his testimony and the baptism certificate attesting that he was baptized on a beach in Lomé on XXXX XXXX, 2014, whether this beach was public or secluded. In Annexe 12 (Schedule 12), also filled in French, he states that he left by plane from Lomé, Togo to Brazil on XXXX XXXX, 2014. This contradicts his allegation that police tried to kidnap him from a taxi in XXXX 2014 and that he was baptized in XXXX 2014 in Lomé. It further contradicts the American asylum claim that he spent one year in Benin and then XXXX months in Equatorial Guinea prior to going to Brazil. [25] All of the inconsistencies stated thus far, lead me to conclude that the RPD did not err by failing to consider or give any weight to the declarations he made in the church about his father's and the members of the government's and police force's human sacrifice activities. [26] Regarding the level of seclusion of the beach at which the Appellant went to be baptized, I note that it was not extensively described as such in the Appellant's testimony. He actually testified that no precautions had been taken. In any case, no matter how private or secluded it may have been, the Appellant nevertheless had to leave his place of hiding to get there. Considering that police authorities were able to intercept him in a taxi just weeks prior to then, leaving that hiding place and travelling to that beach, be it on foot, by car, taxi or otherwise, without taking any precautions, exposed him to the possibility of being intercepted by police along the way, which I consider to be an action incompatible with the alleged fear. The RPD did not err in this regard. [27] The Appellant does not contest other conclusions of the RPD such as the fact that having converted to Christianity in of itself does not suffice to having a forward-looking fear or risk or that his baptism certificate has little probative value, all of which I find to be correct. [28] For all the reasons stated above, I find, as the RPD correctly did, that the Appellant is generally not credible. In such circumstances, asylum cannot be granted. CONCLUSION [29] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither Convention refugees nor a person in need of protection. (signed) Michel Colin Michel Colin October 13, 2020 Date MC/lp 1 Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. 2 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Raza FC 385 3 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145 4 According to the Memorandum of Appeal --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VB9-05747 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français 2 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français